This is from a blog posting by James McGrath which precisely sums up how certain Church of God leaders act, and many members, for that matter. Most have no real theological education, have never examined other points of view on theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, or even read anything other than something Herbert Armstrong wrote or said. That in its self adds another dimension to how COG leaders and members think. If Herbert said it, explained it and said it was true, therefore I believe it is true. End of subject.
You can see from what it says the contemporary issue that sparked the statement. But it has a much broader application, which is what made it seem particularly memeworthy. It certainly seems true to my own experience. Even while claiming “it isn’t me, it’s God,” I did precisely what Lars Cade says in practice, although it is only with hindsight and after significant introspection and self-examination that I recognize these things.
Is this your experience of what is at work in fundamentalism – that the reason for being concerned to defend the authority of the Bible is ultimately to defend the rightness of one’s own views and those of one’s community? To be sure, the claim is always that it is one’s own beliefs that are being conformed to the Bible rather than vice versa. But that only works because, despite all the praise heaped on the Bible and its importance, the average conservative Christian does not know the Bible well enough to appreciate its diversity, reads it in a translation that hides discrepancies and differences from them, and knows only (or at least knows best) those parts that can be interpreted as supporting their stance.
“The Bible is True. I believe the Bible. Therefore, everything I believe is true.” Does that sum this viewpoint up well?
33 comments:
Rod Meredith, Bob League, Rod McNair, and many other LCG pastors have told LCG members that even if a minister is wrong about something, members must believe whatever the minister tells them to believe, or else lose their salvation. This is easy enough to enforce in local congregations, where there is only one ministerial bigwig treating his opinions as commands. At Charlotte HQ, however, it creates awkward situations in which one minister disagrees with another minister, yet a member must somehow agree with both ministers.
Or as also defined.. "pious conviction based on marginal information"
Doug Winnail of LCG isn't infallible, but he must think of his writing as such, the way he repeats himself so often. Notice how this week's "Comments" are almost identical to what he submitted for September 7, 2017 and July 9, 2015.
“Most have no real theological education”
Neither did the first century church or Apostles
McGrath wrote “The average conservative Christian does not know the Bible well enough”
The stupefying arrogance, condescension and superficial oversimplification of this comment beggars disbelief.
How do he know what people believe or understand?
Has he conducted surveys, or is his comment merely founded on anecdotal experience?
I always thought that Paul was very well educated. The original apostles were mentored by Jesus. Why would people believe that these people were not no real theological education?
I just attended a new member workshop with a non COG group. My biggest adjustment is getting used to NOT the different ideas, but their viewpoint that they are NOT the sole arbiters of the truth or the only true church.
When they explained their viewpoint of what Paul was trying to accomplish in his letters, it occurred to me - how do we know what was in somebody's mind almost 2000 years ago when we disagree about what somebody is thinking today.
For example, I have seen various motives ascribed to Dennis (mainly negative, but a few positive). If we cannot agree on what Dennis is thinking and trying to accomplish, how can we be so conceited to think we know the mind of Paul or any other other Bible writers from 2000 to 3500 years ago?
The motto of the COGs seems to be:
NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, BUT NEVER in DOUBT.
Anonymous said...
“Most have no real theological education”
Neither did the first century church or Apostles
Correct, that's why they made stuff up with using the writing style of Midrash, which is making up NT stories they had no real clue about from OT scriptures. Then there is astro-theology where stories were based on the night sky (Revelation). Paul got his theology in visions and hallucinations so there's that too. Same way Bob Thiel got his plus the double portion thing of course.
Societies throughout history have always regarded as 'truth' that which is taught by the high status leaders in that society. Even in today's 'enlightened' era, this still holds true. One example is passive smoking. According to the book 'Against the gods, the remarkable story of risk' by Peter Bernstein, the body of evidence of half a dozen studies over twenty years, shows that the dangers of passive smoking is inconclusive. A relationship (ie, passive smoke is harmful) cannot be scientifically proven. But then the Surgeon General in a congressional committee, claimed that 400,000 people per year were harmed by passive smoking. So it became the gospel truth in the eyes of the public.
The bible writers were aware of this, hence the 'prove all things' command. This should never be sub-contracted out to a power hungry minister, or any third party. Rather, it is a personal responsibility, such as combing ones hair, or brushing ones teeth. Ignore this at ones peril.
Posted Statement: the average conservative Christian does not know the Bible well enough to appreciate its diversity, reads it in a translation that hides discrepancies and differences from them, and knows only (or at least knows best) those parts that can be interpreted as supporting their stance.
ASB comment: this statement may be true, but the diversities do not make the bible a flawed guideline for building a faith that makes a life that is worth living. If it is properly applied to a persons life they will recognize the difference in righteous Godly living and a life of corruptive destructive selfishness. There are many books that point out how the bible speaks to the people living today as it did when it was speaking to the people at the time it was first put in writing. If we seek the God's holiness and shun things that destroy a belief in God we will find a contentment and peace the bible can give.
The majority of the bible is easy to understand. It is written at the level of a young teenager in todays society. Even in the 'difficult parts,' a glance at the way the world works, clarifies most of these verses. So no, we don't need a "real theological education" from the likes of Dennis Diehl and his apostate writers. We don't need a mental seeing eye dog to understand the bible. It seems Dennis hankers for the 'good old days' when only the Catholic priest had access to a bible, and the commoners were told what to believe. God gave these people their hour in the sun, and they blew it. It's called the Dark Ages for good reason.
Bob has a double portion. But two times nothing is still nothing.
Paul and Peter are not the problem here, it is present day COG leaders who have no real theological background other than regurgitating Herbie.
There's always been a battle bubbling below the surface, as this is perhaps one of those fundamental questions. Are God, Jesus and salvation simple enough for the average person to understand from reading the Bible, or do we require the tutelage of highly educated ones who have parsed all of the minutiae, every legalistic detail? Do we have any freewill/control in the process we are undergoing ourselves, or is control intended to be surrendered to those who profess, or appear, or actually do know more than we do?
Phil. 2:12 places the onus on the individual, as guided by God. Unity amongst believers came from the guidance of each individual by God. The church or ekklesia was there so that the like-minded could fellowship, but was never intended to be the police department. If this intent were practiced, it would eliminate so much of the damage perpetrated by the ACOGs. They equate themselves with God, and presumptuously take on the duties and privileges He reserves for Himself.
BB
Hahahahahahahaha. Man you're so right! Everything you say has convinced me that this man who runs a blog on the internet REALLY instead wants to return us to Catholic tyrannny. Please give me your contact details so I can take lessons from you in rhetoric and persuasive argumentation.
The link:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2019/02/the-doctrine-of-personal-infallibility.html
"Don't believe me, believe your Bible."
OK - now that I believe the Bible and have a better understanding of it, tell me again, why I should believe you.
The problem is, most of us stopped with the scriptures presented, and did not study all the others.
We have to keep on reading and studying the different translations. Accept questions about it.
We can see the ridiculousness of not being allowed to turn a light switch on or off during the Sabbath, but can we see our own?
This post has brought out the crazies. It must have hit a nerve.
Anon 7:16 PM wrote:
The majority of the bible is easy to understand. It is written at the level of a young teenager in todays society. Even in the 'difficult parts,' a glance at the way the world works, clarifies most of these verses.
If Anon thinks that "the way the world works" in 2019 is identical to the way it worked 2500 years ago, I fear for his loved ones. Yes, human nature remains fundamentally unchanged since the Bible was written. But the world in which that human nature works is very, very different. Here are some examples for anon 7:16 PM to consider:
When the Bible was written, there were no "time zones." Noon was when the sun was overhead, wherever you were. Today, with time zones and Daylight Saving Time, "noon" can occur at 1:30 PM in some places at some times. When the Bible was written, even a long day's journey of a few dozen miles would not create intractable Sabbath-keeping mysteries. Today, within one day you can fly from the Arctic Circle down to each side of the International Date Line, even finding that because the line is uneven you can encounter a "Friday" and "Saturday" and a "Sunday" while traveling due south.
When the Bible was written, slavery was accepted, yet America's version of chattel slavery would have even then been considered an abomination. If you don't accept slavery you are in effect calling a couple of the Apostles barbarians, but how do you reconcile a pro-slavery stance with the way the world works today?
The Book of Revelation, by the way, is only written at the level of a young teenager if that teenager is ingesting copious quantities of psychotropic or hallucinogenic rugs.
For that matter, if the Bible is so easy to understand, why are there so many different understandings of it? When there was only one church, the Church of Rome, that one church could teach one understanding. Since they're the church that canonized the texts, it makes sense that the church would be able to interpret the texts that it chose. Oh, but maybe you don't agree that the Roman Church should be the church to canonize your scriptures? Fine. But, then, which of the dozens of other epistles and gospels will you accept as valid? Accepting Rome's canon isn't much different from accepting Rome's Sabbath, is it?
2 Peter 3:16
" Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. 16 He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. "
The author of Peter, not really Peter but a later author writing imagining himself to be writing what Peter would say in later Church years, admits that Paul was hard to understand. Obviously the author was admitting that the division caused at the time was in part because of the ability to either not understand Paul or to come to various and conflicting views of what he meant or did not mean.
True to form however, just as noticers that Jesus did not return as promised decades ago were called scoffers by this "Peter", those who don't understand Paul, who admittedly is hard to understand at times, are called ignorant with motives other than just not understanding Paul who was hard to understand. And so it is to this day which is why an honest education in Church history, politics, writing styles, context, Christology and Gospel Origins, along with Old Testament issues makes a man or woman a better and more credible pastor than someone who thinks they are not only a pastor but a Prophet or Apostle because they just think they are. Or as I learned in Kentucky, the reason every third male in the South will tell you he's a "preacher" is not because of education but because he quit smokin', drankin' and cussin' and the Lord called him to preach, and teach tithing.
If the man is an ass, narcissist, dictator, fool or generally weird or obnoxious in the church setting, that's what the Church Board is for.
This author loves to blame the messenger instead of face the facts.
And too..
Bit nature, religion, which is what others pour into the mind, is designed to "organized" while spirituality is an inside job. Those who cultivate a personal spirituality drive those given to religion and conformity (that we all speak the same thing) nuts.
Byker Bob asks:
Are God, Jesus and salvation simple enough for the average person to understand from reading the Bible
For most of human history, most human beings have not been able to read. Surely, then, salvation is not something only for the modern or the literate. This means, of course, that most people hear the gospel from others who have been taught. Most people haven't had the luxury of reading for themselves; the best they can do is hear different perspectives and decide for themselves. That is, if there are any differing perspectives allowed. For most people, for most of Christian history, Christianity is something they have heard taught by the authorities, whether those were Protestant authorities or Catholic/Orthodox authorities.
For that matter, if "knowing the Bible" is a requirement for salvation, how much "knowing" is required? Most Christians have only "known" the Bible as spoken in their vernacular language, unless they are Catholic/Orthodox who have heard Latin or Greek.
Have you noticed, thus, that where there is widespread Bible reading, there are usually not just one or two forms of Christianity, but rather there are dozens and hundreds? If the Bible is simple enough for the average person to understand, there shouldn't be so many denominations.
8.31 AM
The ten commandments are easy to understand, no? God has always held nations responsible for non compliance. As for the multitude of denominations, God makes some allowance for this confusion, but holds individual Christians accountable when correction is bought to their attention. He also expects loyalty to Him and His word to be placed above loyalty to a denomination, as stated in the ten commandments
The degree of confusion would not be as great if Christians exercised the personal responsibility of studying their own bibles. Moral confusion will always exist when people subcontract the responsibility of proving all things to the Daddy's of the world.
I've met many people from different denomination who told me that their prayers were answered. I believed them. In every case, they lived by the ten commandments and treated human life as precious.
So how come God gets to break commandments we have to keep and are held accountable for 12:53? Think about it and where in the Bible he does just that.
3.47 PM
God does not put Himself above the ten commandments. God does not sin. As God however, He has responsibilities that you and I don't have. For instance, He has destroyed individuals and nations that were guilty of great sins. All motivated by the long term benefit of all involved.
8.31 AM
Have you heard of the inquisition? This is why they were few if any denominations in the past.
Anon 12:53 PM wrote:
The ten commandments are easy to understand, no?
Actually, no. For starters, there is disagreement about what constitutes each commandment. The Sabbath commandment is the third commandment for some, and the fourth commandment for others. There is debate as to what "Thou shalt not kill" means — some think it forbids war, some think it forbids meat-eating, and some think it forbids the death penalty, while others think it allows some or all of those kinds of killing. There is disagreement about what constitutes a forbidden "graven image." And I could go on. It is manifestly untrue to suggest, as you do, that God "has always held nations responsible for non-compliance." In fact, God's requirements for non-Israelites can be summed up in the SEVEN precepts of the Noachide laws, which are not as strict as the Ten Commandments.
What you think is simple is simple only because you haven't been exposed to the complexity.
And with the trustworthiness of a young teenager as well.
"What you think is simple is simple only because you haven't been exposed to the complexity"
Best quote and concept nicely spoken of the month. Maybe ever
😊👍👍
5.47 PM
You seem to be intellectualizing away reality with your "complexity" thingy.
Dennis
The mans complexity thingy is nothing more the obfuscation and crazy making.
I'm not surprised that you think it 'best quote..of the month.'
He's your soul mate. One educated fool praising another educated fool.
There’s an old phrase, “deceptive in its simplicity” which does enjoy some validity. The problem is that complexity, whether imagined or real, removes theology from the realm of the common man, and opens the door for the blood sucking tyrants like a Herbert W. Armstrong, who profess to have special knowledge and truth, and to enforce it upon his followers.
Jesus’ ministry seems to have been all about the simplicity of boiling the intent down to love for God, and love for fellow man (His two great commandments), which contrasted directly with the Pharisees, who were the religious leaders of His day.
Making it complex is what causes people to throw up their hands, to decide it’s all too much of a hassle, and to not believe. There is a time and place for complexity, like the process involved in landing man on the moon. Making theology complex promotes exclusiveness, pride, and haughtiness. Haven’t we seen enough of this to realize that the fruits are always bad?
BB
Byker, I think you are coming at the problem from the wrong direction. Theology by its nature will always be complex. It's not that all the other -ologies are complex, but theology must for some reason be simple. The problem, of course, is that the Pharisees (like today's equivalents) wanted to be good theologians, while Jesus wanted to teach people to do good things. If your argument against another person is, "I have a better theology than you do," that's simply evidence that you are filled with pride. Jesus is with the humble folks who put their priority on doing good to others.
Bwana Bob has sent dozens of laptops and pounds of seeds to Africa. He has also taught Africans how to structure a worship service and what to think about Mayan end-time prophecies. Which of those do you think God values most highly?
This quote has brought me peace. I have been trying to figure out what the Bible really tells us to do and have found my new group not to be dogmatic enough.
Now I realize they are right. Stick to the important stuff, and let the individual members have fun talking about whatever interests them. Some have very firm ideas on young earth, some are prophecy buffs.
Peace.
Don't sweat the small stuff.
Jesus never criticized the Pharisees' knowledge of prophecy - just how they lived their lives.
I’ve just spent the last twenty years, 7:50, re-examining everything, reading the Bible cover to cover several times including all the footnotes in two completely different study Bibles, studying pertinent history, reading the complete works of Josephus, reading the works of the Antenicene Fathers, reading various papers prepared on assorted topics, and from both a theological standpoint and a secular one, participating in many discussions. In the end, I have realized that delving into all of the exhausting minutiae has not really resolved much of anything. It just bogs a person down. There are always greater questions, and more powerful arguments. Bottom line for me is the simplicity of living the Golden Rule, and knowing that Jesus saves.
I’m not on a missionary trip, and really don’t care what others believe, so long as they aren’t hurting others with their theology. Armstrongism by its very nature does hurt people. There are also other cults that are equally damaging, but that by no means gives Armstrongism any sort of pass.
As for Bob Thiel, I seriously doubt that God pays any sort of special attention to him, but anything thing anyone does to alleviate the suffering of the African people is a good thing. Most people around the world would just let that whole continent die.
BB
Post a Comment