Monday, March 28, 2016

LCG Preaches That Godly Love Is The Most Important Quality


Love...the four letter word in COG when it comes to abusive ministers like PCG's Cal Culpepper and LCG's Rod McNair.

From an LCG source:

Doug Winnail exhorts the loveless legalists in LCG that Godly love in his most recent Weekly Update (which is read during the announcements portion of church services each week). Another example of the profound disparity between what LCG preaches and what LCG practices.  
Winnail writes, "In 1 Corinthians 13, the Apostle Paul states that Godly Love does not seeks the  its own way; it is calm and not easily provoked, it does not jump to conclusions or assign motives or sit in judgment of others. Instead, Godly Love is gracious and forgiving. It is positive and focuses on what is right and true. It never fails or falters. Godly Love is the most important fruit of God’s Spirit that we must nourish and cultivate if we hope to be like our Father and our Elder Brother Jesus Christ. God is love (1 John 4:8, 16)".  
Unfortunately,  the hypocritical LCG leadership ALWAYS seeks their own way, is NEVER calm, is very FREQUENTLY easily provoked, CONSTATNLY jumps to conclusions and assigns motives, and they SPECIALIZE in sitting in judgment of others. There are a lot of adjectives that one can use to describe Rod Meredith's character but gracious and forgiving are NOT amongst them. 
I wonder how many LCG members read this and wanted to puke.  
One thing is for sure, Godly love IS the most important quality and the fact that the highest ranking ministers in the Living Church of God are complete and utterly lacking it is further evidence that LCG is not the Church of God.


The Most Important Quality: God’s people understand the importance of keeping the commandments, the Sabbath, the Holy Days and the laws of health. Yet, sometimes in our zeal to obey the laws of God, we can overlook something even more important—the need to develop and exercise Godly Love. We are told in the Scriptures that without Godly love, all these other things will amount to nothing (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). Here the biblical word for love (agape) refers to an unselfish outgoing concern for others. In 1 Corinthians 13, the Apostle Paul states that Godly Love does not seek its own way; it is calm and not easily provoked, it does not jump to conclusions or assign motives or sit in judgment of others. Instead, Godly Love is gracious and forgiving. It is positive and focuses on what is right and true. It never fails or falters. Godly Love is the most important fruit of God’s Spirit that we must nourish and cultivate if we hope to be like our Father and our Elder Brother Jesus Christ. God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). We have been created to become like Him (1 John 3:1-3). Let’s ask God to help us learn to love Him and to love others as He does, so we can develop this most important quality—Godly Love. 
          Have a profitable Sabbath, 
          Douglas S. Winnail

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

What did they do to the Scarboroughs again? Oh yeah, godly love.

Anonymous said...

This is a load of hypocrisy coming from Douglas. He had his henchmen kicked me out last year for disagreeing with them on doctrine and because they couldn't refute what I had shared with them. They didn't kick me out out of love for me or the congregation. They did it because I exposed their beliefs as erroneous, I exposed that they were twisting Scripture and because I exposed them as false teachers and false prophets who are preaching another Jesus, a different spirit, and a different gospel. Also because they showed themselves to be incompetent, lying, manipulative tyrants. Thank God for getting me out of Armstrongism! I rejoice and thank God for the unjust manner in which they treated me and my family.LCG = Lying Corporation of Garbage

Black Ops Mikey said...

Humility is good too.

Anonymous said...

Doug Winnail,if allowed after Meredith goes, will have a major positive impact on LCG and will engineer a revolution in attitudes I had the pleasure of spending time with him in 1977 at the Feast , and even did an article on him for my local paper Then he was head of Biological Sciences at Ambassador He will be a major positive force for the future That organizations cannot change is a myth Movements change all the time Perhaps you guys need to read more sociology and comparative religious material Just do some research on American sects and new religious movements J Gordon Melton is a good source. Armstrongism changed significantly under GTA in the 1970s Professor Joseph Martin Hopkins chronicled these changes in articles in Christianity Today magazine as well as in his book ,The Armstrong Empire We in Arnstribgism have done it already We can do it again Ian Boyne

DennisCDiehl said...

We'll see if Doug n Gerald can get along

Anonymous said...

The response of Anonymous 12:23 is a perfect example of my thesis that the elephant in the room is the Bible---at least if one is applying a conservative hermeneutic to it. The Bible clearly gives the ministry the right to excommunicate for doctrinal reasons.Does Anonymous disagree with that? Even liberal scholars would admit that ,while saying one might choose to ignore those passages in favor of a higher principle To say that Winnail was unloving simply he applied a tool which we all knew upon becoming members was a part of the church's toolbox is,respectfully, nonsense. All organizations have rules of association and dissociation.I don't know the particular case It might well have been an abusive disfellowshipment But to suggest the act itself is contrary to Doug Winnail's pronouncement of love is a non-sequitur.

I personally as a minister choose not to dusfellowship for doctrinal disagreement I consider most of the doctrinal disagreements my congregants have to be inconsequential and even those which might be significant I don't dusfellowship for because I have the pulpit to counter them I don't doubt my ability to do so. In my congregation I have a group of fellows who routinely on the sabbath discuss all kinds of doctrinal ideas and freely disagree with what is taught from the pulpit They pose no threat and they are going nowhere for they can find no better alternative and fully see the bankruptcy of orthodox
Christianity. This another
Jesus , another Gospel that Anonymous refers to seems to be coming from that foolish, reactionary view that any emphasis on Christ is Protestantism through the back door. The same obscurantist nonsense that caused Charles Bryce to leave Living. Some of the fanatics will leave Living to go elsewhere because of the small reforms taking place there which Chief Pharisee Malm deplores.But the ministry has the right to withdraw the hand of fellowship Look at the harsh,strident words Paul had for those teaching a different doctrine. While Armstrongism continues to accept the Bible as its rule book, you can continue to expect disfellowshipment In my view it ,is used far too frequently and carelessly and often is a mask for the theological incompetence of ministers Here in Jamaica I offer a platform for those who disagree and I use the pulpit to proclaim the tenets of Armstrongism so that the membership is firmly grounded in Biblical truth Yes, in my view Arnstrongism represents Biblical truth I hold that provisionally and tentatively ,fully aware that I could well be proven wrong. I keep reading widely so if I am wrong,I will, hopefully, find out and then renounce Armstrongism. If there is any book anyone wants to recommend or any scholarly material which might prove useful in opening my eyes ,please recommend it And yes I have already read all the scandal-revealing books like Tangled Web, as well as those by Marion McNair,John Tuit,William Hinson --every single one written by every ex-member And ,yes ,every issue of Ambassador Report .Give me some intellectual arguments now.

But ,please ,let's not talk foolishness about disfellowshipment automatically and necessarily indicating a lack of love Ian Boyne

Anonymous said...

I hope, Dennis, that this sober and warm letter from Gerald, so fairly quoted by Gary (who is doing a wonderful journalistic job without pay or pleas for material assistance) ,signals a new beginning for him We can only hope Incidentally, good to have you back, Dennis. Ian Boyne

Anonymous said...

The response of Anonymous 12:23 is a perfect example of my thesis that the elephant in the room is the Bible---at least if one is applying a conservative hermeneutic to it. The Bible clearly gives the ministry the right to excommunicate for doctrinal reasons.Does Anonymous disagree with that? Even liberal scholars would admit that ,while saying one might choose to ignore those passages in favor of a higher principle To say that Winnail was unloving simply he applied a tool which we all knew upon becoming members was a part of the church's toolbox is,respectfully, nonsense. All organizations have rules of association and dissociation.I don't know the particular case It might well have been an abusive disfellowshipment But to suggest the act itself is contrary to Doug Winnail's pronouncement of love is a non-sequitur.

I personally as a minister choose not to dusfellowship for doctrinal disagreement I consider most of the doctrinal disagreements my congregants have to be inconsequential and even those which might be significant I don't dusfellowship for because I have the pulpit to counter them I don't doubt my ability to do so. In my congregation I have a group of fellows who routinely on the sabbath discuss all kinds of doctrinal ideas and freely disagree with what is taught from the pulpit They pose no threat and they are going nowhere for they can find no better alternative and fully see the bankruptcy of orthodox
Christianity. This another
Jesus , another Gospel that Anonymous refers to seems to be coming from that foolish, reactionary view that any emphasis on Christ is Protestantism through the back door. The same obscurantist nonsense that caused Charles Bryce to leave Living. Some of the fanatics will leave Living to go elsewhere because of the small reforms taking place there which Chief Pharisee Malm deplores.But the ministry has the right to withdraw the hand of fellowship Look at the harsh,strident words Paul had for those teaching a different doctrine. While Armstrongism continues to accept the Bible as its rule book, you can continue to expect disfellowshipment In my view it ,is used far too frequently and carelessly and often is a mask for the theological incompetence of ministers Here in Jamaica I offer a platform for those who disagree and I use the pulpit to proclaim the tenets of Armstrongism so that the membership is firmly grounded in Biblical truth Yes, in my view Arnstrongism represents Biblical truth I hold that provisionally and tentatively ,fully aware that I could well be proven wrong. I keep reading widely so if I am wrong,I will, hopefully, find out and then renounce Armstrongism. If there is any book anyone wants to recommend or any scholarly material which might prove useful in opening my eyes ,please recommend it And yes I have already read all the scandal-revealing books like Tangled Web, as well as those by Marion McNair,John Tuit,William Hinson --every single one written by every ex-member And ,yes ,every issue of Ambassador Report .Give me some intellectual arguments now.

But ,please ,let's not talk foolishness about disfellowshipment automatically and necessarily indicating a lack of love Ian Boyne

Black Ops Mikey said...

If the churches were to apply Scriptures, the leadership would be out -- beyond disfellowshipped.

Unfortunately, society won't let churches actually obey Deuteronomy 18, so the next best thing is to kick out the false prophets and insure that they will never return. No second chances. No probation. No faux mercy. Just out. After all, didn't God Himself say that the false prophet would be put to death. You sort of do that by making him 'dead' to the congregation in question. This would preserve the people in the congregation instead of messing up their minds with all the nonsensical conjecture to which they are subjected to confuse them. They should never be allowed back under any circumstances because they are disruptive and create division (which we have seen some 700+ times).

Of course, of a sudden, it will be pretty quiet at the top, but the peace might well give the members a venue to think and ponder.

It's unfortunate that the Armstrongists ignore God and treat Him with such contempt.

Oh... and -- reading between the lines here -- if women in the church are praying and fasting that the minister can see what's wrong with him -- it's a really bad sign and things are off to a very bad start. Perhaps the congregation should rethink the whole thing and seek godly leaders. If they can find them.

These so-called leaders are an insult to the Almighty God.

Anonymous said...

It was my experience as a church member, that 1Cor 13 was the most favorite scripture of abusive ministers. It's the wolf talking to the sheep. This scripture is hijacked to convince members to be passive doormats to these gangster ministers.

Anonymous said...

Ian, talking about intellectual arguments, do you teach your congregation Gods way of trade. That is, mutual consent for mutual profit, with both parties motivated by self interest rather than sacrifice? Or do you teach Herbies commie 'give way,' with the winners doing the giving, and the losers doing the getting?

Cheers TradingGuy

Anonymous said...

Ian, do you want God to "disfellowship" you if you make a mistake? Of course not! Praise God for His grace. None of us are perfect. There is no excuse you can give me that validates LCG disfellowshipping and marking people like they do. It is in no way Biblical. Shunning is also not Biblical. Christ sat with sinners. How can you be a light and help those who are floundering if you cut yourself off from them? Can you imagine Jesus Christ doing what Meredith and McNair do? It would never happen because this kind of behavior is the exact opposite of "godly love".

Anonymous said...

If Doug Winnail really feels this way he needs to find another church. He is CAD of a horrible organization filled with abusive ministers who do not embody the fruits of the Spirit, who prey on brethren, who demand to be served and seldom serve others, who wouldn't understand mercy and forgiveness if it bit them on the arse.

Doug if you are reading this.... save yourself. Be of courage. Make a move. Stand for God's way, not Rod's way.

It might be rough at first but God will reward you for it in the end :)

Miller Jones said...

Ian, I am absolutely dumbfounded that someone as well versed in Scripture as yourself could say that it sanctions disfellowshipping. The practice is a man-made device used to intimidate and punish those who dare to disagree or fail to meet group standards. Just as you cannot place someone in God's Church, you cannot remove someone from God's Church - that is God's prerogative! And please explain how throwing a lamb to the roaring lion who is circling the sheepfold is an act of love. And please don't bother to recite to us the story of what Paul did within the Corinthian congregation - you're not Paul, and you're not an apostle.

Anonymous said...

No ,no,no Black Ops Mikey , you must not resort to old Armstronite habits of misquoting and distortion. I did not say the ladies called the fast specifically to implore God to deal with their weakness-laden pastor .Stop inserting things "between the lines" Because they have a pastor who is also a sinner and because I teach justification by faith and make them know they should not deify any man,even if he is a pastor, they know instinctively and through practical experience that I have weaknesses and need the grace of God and His will to deal with the normal tendency of humans to rationalize sins .
You seem to hold to some perfectionistic view of human leaders.I inveigh against
that idolatry and poor anthropology in my preaching. .So members in a fasting service know their pastor is on no pedestal and is in need of prayer just as much any member. I thank God I have these Godly Saints to hold me up in prayer and petition God to straighten me out(please now don't "read between the lines" that I am gay!) Your Utopian quest for perfect church leaders leaders is precisely what has created leaders such as the Armstrongs .Perhaps followers really do get the leaders they deserve ,after all,Black Ops Mikey Ian Boyne

Anonymous said...

@Miller Jones Its not just that Corinthian text The pastoral epistles unmistakably,unequivocally also give the power to the eldeship to censor false teachings as determined by those elders (Thessalonians also addresses that issue) It was NOT just an Apostolic prerogative. You are dead wrong ,Miller. Follow me:We can throw out these passages and simply dismiss them as "proof-texting". But don't pretend HWA or Doug Winnail made them up .Have the courage to say Paul was wrong,misguided and hot-headed in those passages You have already rejected inerrancy,Miller,so it should not be hard to say Paul was wrong in the authority he invested in the church to disfellowship But you can't eat your hermeneutic cake and still have it .On a conservative reading of Biblical authority,you can't throw out excommunication It does not have to involve shunning as practiced brutally in the old WCG and in Flurry's cult today .And Anonymous your questions amount to, straw man reasoning That there is unjustifiable,hasty dusfellowshipnent does not mean that disfellowshipment in itself is wrong.Your questions and conclusions exemplify non-sequitur reasoning ,to use that word liberally .Ian Boyne

Anonymous said...

Amen Miller Jones!!!

Anonymous said...

Ian, again, do you believe in the 'give way' or trade? It's a simple question.

Byker Bob said...

I remember growing up as a young WCG boy, and having my parents say to me, "Bob, do you know what would be happening to you if we lived in ancient Israel? We'd be taking you to the priests and telling them that we could not control you, and you would then be stoned to death!"

Years later, I had an opportunity to participate in a discussion with a Jewish scholar who shed some additional light on this subject. He said that in Jewish history, the stoning of teenagers was a relatively rare occurrence, because the rabbis had the wisdom to work with the rebellious children who had been brought to them, figuratively "buying them back". They would end up being returned to the parents, the problem having been corrected. But, the ACOG drama queens always had to go to the most extreme.

Disfellowshipment is treated just as extremely. If ministers were willing to work as spiritual guides, literally feeling that losing anyone was a huge failure for which they might be held accountable, most of the disfellowshipments and markings would go away.

BB

Anonymous said...

this is the second or third time that dr. winnail has brought up the subject of love since the time years ago he claimed love was secondary to preaching the Gospel...

years ago i wrote to the Church that preaching love is central, not secondary, so i am hopeful..but i fear this talk of love is not of lcg, but merely of winnail himself, and therein is potential for conflict...

nevertheless, i am glad that he is trying and hopeful the Spirit of Love becomes the cornerstone to the Work because it is desperately needed...

Steve D said...

It is my understanding that the death penalty was rarely carried out because in most cases the person could be redeemed, by paying a fine, such as in the case of a rebellious son (Deut 21:18-21)). But a murderer could not be redeemed. In Num 35:31 is says, "do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer . . he must surely be put to death." So why classify so many crimes as capital offenses? The reason was to impress upon the Israelites the seriousness of the crime.

Miller Jones said...

Ian, if you're interested in a Scriptural perspective on the subject, here is the link to the first post in a FOUR part series on the subject: http://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2014/04/does-god-approve-of-practice-of.html?m=1

Ralph said...

on March 29, 2016 at 12:38 AM
Byker Bob wrote:

" If ministers were willing to work as spiritual guides, literally feeling that losing anyone was a huge failure for which they might be held accountable, most of the disfellowshipments and markings would go away."

Having been through that kind of experience I can only agree.

cheers
ralph.f

Anonymous said...

Ian Boyne wrote:

Your Utopian quest for perfect church leaders leaders is precisely what has created leaders such as the Armstrongs .

There's a lot of wisdom in that statement.

But on the other hand, there are LCG members who come on this blog and admit that Rod and his henchmen are vile and despicable men but they stay in LCG because Rod has convinced them that it is "the True Church".

So I would expand Ian's statement to say that the Utopian quest for the perfect something (leaders, church, inerrant scriptures) is precisely what has created leaders such as the Armstrongs.

Anonymous said...

on March 29, 2016 at 12:38 AM
Byker Bob wrote:

" If ministers were willing to work as spiritual guides, literally feeling that losing anyone was a huge failure for which they might be held accountable, most of the disfellowshipments and markings would go away."

Truer words were never spoken. God says to leave the whole flock to go after that one sheep that's gone astray.

I'm not saying that there isn't a case where the minister was left with no other option but it should be the last resort after exhaustive counseling and loving support from the minister.

LCG's use of disfellowshipping and marking is arbitrary and punitive. Ministers like McNair are self righteous, lazy and use their power to bully and abuse members. It's pure evil.

Anonymous said...

To the 1st anon: it's not just the Scarborough's. Meredith has left a wake of abused members in his wake.

Anonymous said...

Was it "Godly love" that drove LCG leadership to allow a lawsuit to be brought against the church instead of just sitting down and talking to people like Christian adults before the situation elevated to that level?

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 11:46: I don't understand what exactly you are asking. I do teach mutually beneficial partnerships as well as the importance of giving and being self-sacrificial. I don't see the two as being contradictory. Perhaps there is something I am missing. Ian Boyne

Miller Jones said...

Ian, you didn't read my treatise on the subject. You're obviously not willing to be guided by Scripture on this one - that's cherry picking. Moreover, your argument relative to scriptural inerrancy is a great example of circular reasoning - makes one wonder who has erected a straw man in this discussion.

Anonymous said...

Ian, Your "mutually beneficial partnerships" exist between friends even in a communist society. Herbies 'give way' is not charitable, self-sacrificial giving, or sacrificing within a partnership. These are straw man definitions. The 'give way' (more commonly called altruism) rejects self love, self interest and self profit. Pursuing these is the 'get way' according to Herbie. The give way means slavery to others, it means the game of the unjust steward, it means robbing the givers.
As one site defines it:
"The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."

This is the attitude that permeates the churches. This is simply 'pass the wealth around' bully morality. The losers have a right to life, but the winners do not. Gods win-win way of trade, rests on everyone having a right to life.



Anonymous said...

Anonymous, you seem to be an Ayn Randist and an extreme right-winger. Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, said famously that you don't have meat on your table because of the altruism of the butcher. But he showed in his book, "A Theory of Moral Sentiments", that "the virtue of selfishness" misguidedly taught by Ayn Rand would ultimately destabilize capitalism. The gross inequalities in America today demonstrate he was right. You reject Herbie's theology, but your ideology seems to be heavily influenced by his own right-wing proclivities. Ian Boyne

Black Ops Mikey said...

It is clear that anyone who sets up paper tigers are going to shed some blood from the paper cuts.

Anonymous said...

Ian, I suggest you look long and hard at what God created and what the bible says, rather than some philosopher. My quote isn't meant as a proof, but as a articulation of a position Trade is there in the parable of the talents. Most of proverbs deals with self interest. We are married to our self interest. Always putting others interests first is psychological adultery.
I spent dozens of hours driving church members around in my car. When I had a car accident, and asked for a lift to church, all l got was extortionistic demands. People were indignant that ?I asked. This is the churches 'give way' in practise. This is what it really means. When I complained to a minister, he just quoted scriptures dealing with sacrifice. I asked him, how can I survive if people take what I have to offer, and give nothing in return? How do I pay my rent, how do I pay for food and cloths? No answer was offered. I remind you that morality is not divorced from reality, as proverbs repeatedly shows. How do I survive Ian?
I've gleaned the 'A theory of moral sentiments,' but have not read the book. I'II get back to that. Have you read the book yourself?
You have critised me, but have not stated your own position.
Do you believe that you reap what you sow? Y/N
Do you believe that ownership is determined by production as in a 'workman is worthy of his wages.' Y/N.
Do you believe that our greatest responsibility is to ourselves? Y/N
They are simple questions Ian.

Steve D said...

For the LCG to be preaching about love is as bizarre as them teaching on the fruit of the Spirit. In my four years in the WCG with two at AC, I don't recall any preaching on James 1:27 or the Fruit of the Spirit. But, then again, I wasn't the best student or the most outgoing. Hence, I was not hired for "the Work." Thank God for unanswered prayer.

NJ said...

It was extremely hard to put anyone to death in OT times as all capital crime required the eye witness testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses who, 1. could not know one another or be in collusion and 2.saw the crime from different vantage points, ie, not standing as one unit.
Circumstantial evidence was not allowed.
A warning was given for all first offenders.
In the case of the Sota, or alleged adulterous woman she had to voluntarily submit herself to examination of drinking the dust and water. She was not compelled to do it since only her husband was accusing her. She had the option to refuse!
This is why the situation of the woman caught in adultery in the NT is significant. What they were doing was mob vengeance, not justice in any way.
Anyway, according to most hareidi orthodox rabbinical sources no child was put to death at all, ever. I have learned from Rabbi Avigdor Miller, a renown torah scholar that this was so.
So, in Israel they were never stoning and killing everyone who was accused at all.
It was extremely rare.

Anonymous said...

Ian, you should know better than to feed the pet-doctrine trolls. :)

Anonymous said...

Ian Boyne,

If you've disfellowshipped any members, please say exactly why you did so.
Please be VERY specific.

Did you ever disfellowship anyone for stating beliefs which you now profess to believe?

Anonymous said...

Did Ian Boyne never disfellowship anyone?
Is that's what's he's trying to say, or is he simply engaging in a whitewashing attempt?

Anonymous said...

I have NEVER disfellowshipped anyone for doctrinal reasons. I have disfellowshipped a few for sexual immorality, but never for just a single act. Ian Boyne

Anonymous said...

If I were HWA's pastor in his first ten years of ministry or GTA's, I would have disfellowshipped them. Ian Boyne

Anonymous said...

I have read that too, NJ, but I'm not fully sure that I buy it. The rabbis were writing well after the relevant point in time, and it sounds to me like they were glossing the brutality inherent in much of "god's law".