Dennis on Dave Pack's - "Should Accusers Be Accused?"

Should Answerers Be Accused?

I have endeavored to read through "Should Accusers be Answered?"  by DCP.   What he seems not to realize is that Billy Graham, TBN, Benny Hinn and the Pope could all write the very same thing using all the very same scriptures. 

The Bible goes to great lengths to admonish defending the faith, but then gives way too much leeway to everyone to struggle with just what that faith is.  It's a document demanding compliance but  short on explaining compliance to what?  "Keeping the Commandments," always leads to which ones?

DCP goes on to impute the only acceptable motives to those who observe and listen to the words of those who claim to know the mind of God personally. 

"Obviously, these “journalists” are not dirtmongers in their own eyes. They see themselves as merely performing an “information service.” But they function much like the National Enquirer, The Star or other supermarket tabloids, so popular today. The difference is that they do this on behalf of the many splinters, assuring themselves that God is pleased with their efforts. Actually, these “journalists” directly serve the “god of this world,” who loves gossip, talebearing, slander, bad news, discord, division and every other form of human disagreement. While God hates these things, the devil and human nature feast on them. But try to tell them God hates what they are doing."

No,  you hate what they doing. Could we not also say,  "Obviously, these ministers are not Biblically inaccurate in their own eyes.  They see themselves as called by God Almighty specifically and obviously.  But they function much like the Trinity Broadcasting Network.  The difference is that they do this on behalf of themselves assuring themselves that God is pleased with their efforts.  Actually , these "ministers" directly serve their own beautiful minds,   who love to preach to the exclusion of others, connect scriptures that aren't connectable and give them meanings they never meant, Good News that is not good, demand for loyalty and compliance to 'that man" and every other form of human reasoning using as many scriptures as can be assembled to weave their tale.  While they think God hates the noticer and ministerial specialness and seeing themselves specifically spoken of in the Bible, they can't comprehend they are not really educated enough on Bible origins and history to take so much time and life energy from those they dazzle."

DCP goes on to speculate "what if"  there was the Internet during the days of the early Church?

For example, "

"The apostle Paul reported in II Timothy 4:14 that he was attacked by Alexander the coppersmith “who did him much evil.” (We will look at this reference later in the book in another context.) Of course, Paul offers no details beyond this statement about the specifics of what happened. But let’s ask: What if Alexander had been able to post his side of the story on the Internet at the time? How many brethren then would have felt they needed to read “Alexander’s side” of the matter before they could support an apostle? More important for us, how many among God’s people today would resist the tendency to study this evil man’s mind because it was still “archived on the net”?"

Using this example of every person in the NT who questioned the Apostle Paul, resisted him, left him  or simply did not like the man, DCP simply cannot understand why Church members would want to know what's up with that?  This approach certainly gives those who expect to be taken as true in all they say a pretty free reign over the lives of others without accountability.  DCP is right that Paul is long telling us WHO gave him a hard time and did not take everything he said as true but very short on telling us WHAT the disagreement was.  The Apostle Paul laments that "all in Asia have forsaken me," but can't seem to come up with explaining just why they ALL did that.  ALL is a lot of people!  In the Ephesian letter to the Church in Revelation, the Jesus figure praises them for challenging those who "say they are Apostles and are not.'  Personally I believe at this point that Apostle was Paul who the Ephesians rejected and is the "All those in Asia" he was referring to.

Paul tells us he knew a man 14 years ago who went into the Third Heaven (It was him obviously) but could not report on what he saw.  DCP likes this approach at times.  "I have amazing information, but can't tell you right now."  The need is to say one has secret or amazing info to impress or lead along, but not telling what it is keeps the suspense up for a bit.  If the Apostle Paul had an out of body or mind experience, how about he just share it and let us decide if maybe he needed meds and not a following?  Paul even bragged how he withstood Peter to his face, but once again, does not quite tell us what Peter's problem with him was.  I suspect Peter realized Paul was not about to go along with what he said he'd go along with in Acts 15 and the food on the table was not so much unclean as obviously offered to idols.  Paul goes to great lengths in I Corinthians to tell the Church that "WE know the idol is nothing, but in all men (Peter, James and John) is not that knowledge..."  Typically the duplistic and "just what do you really believe?" when around various people Paul.  (Being all things to all men must make one wonder sometimes just what do you believe?)

Simply put, judasiscariot.com, Jannesjambres.com, allofasia.com, alexanderthecoppersmith.com and demas.com would be strictly taboo.   Actually, great humor Dave!  If we don't need their dotcom observations and views, why RCG.com?  I prefer dotcalm myself. But in the world of "True Religion" and "True Churches"  that just doesn't work well. 

DCP continues...

"Many are simply no longer willing to let Christ rule His Church, stating about themselves that “I am not into ‘control’ anymore.” Each person wants to be his own lord—“his own man”—with a “nobody’s telling ME what to do” attitude. When things go wrong, most (ministers and laymembers) lash out because they will not any longer be ruled. They come to their own decisions—their own judgments—on almost everything to do with the Church and Work. As a result, the “hatred, betrayal and offense” (Matt. 24:10) that Christ prophesied would appear in the Church prior to His Return arrived, and in the worst way. It has allowed most to easily justify the “every man for himself” approach to governing the Church. Now, the tail largely wags the dog."

And this true.  It's how clear thinking and critical thinkers think!  We all know the phrase "let Christ rule his Church," really means "Let ME make the decisions."  We're not stupid.  "Each person wants to be his own man," really means "Leave that to me..."  I want to be my own man.  Being persuaded in one's own mind is evidently off the table.  Coming to one's own decisions, judgements and such is ok.  Kinda of a prove all things from what I tell. And we all know that once you say, "Now the tail largely wags the dog,' means you are the tail and stay on your end while I am the brains of the dog. Again, we're not unaware of what these statements really mean. 

Every dig in the NT by the Apostle Paul was a human reaction to the reality he created with his views and personal way of presenting it. One might claim it is the same way God reacts, but that is simply not true. That is an apologetic for human behaviors.   We're simply quoting as if from God, the ever used concepts that keep the powers that be , the powers that will remain to be.

Of course there has to be organization in organizations but voting with one's suggestions for a better way to think, act or be or voting with one's feet is not one of the Devil's greatest tools.  It's what humans who respect their own views and ability to think things through do.

More..

"Did Matthew 18:15 require an apostle of Christ to sit throughout his ministry—for 55 years—hoping not to offend what would be several people in Denver, Dallas, Dubuque, or Detroit, because this “lynch mob” might have removed him if he had? When thought of this way, it makes even considering the idea ludicrous.

The passage instructs, “Go to your brother,” not “Go to your minister.” This is not because ministers are above the law, nor does it mean that you could not talk to your minister if you did not understand one of his actions or decisions. It is because a true minister cannot be removed by any except God Himself, usually through His faithful senior ministers. Even then, of course, they must have right reasons for doing this! (This becomes its own great reason why God’s people must go in search of the government of God and not stop their pursuit until they find it.)"

This is truly false reasoning and actually not the example we see in the NT.  Evidently the Ephesian Church in Revelation outed and ousted false Apostles.  Someone said,  "I am an Apostle."  The Ephesians said, "No you are not."  and Jesus said, "Well done."  Whoever this was probably went out and wrote something like, "Should Accusers Be Answered?" to the Ephesus in Asia Minor but to no avail.

"The passage instructs "go to your brother, not Go to your minister."  Oi. I can see why one of the titles in RCG is not "Brother" for the ministry.   That's kinda like saying , the passage says "Prove all things, not prove all the things I say."   Of course the idea that only God can remove such a one is pure theatre.  Saying it is "usually" through "faithful senior ministers, " is just plain silly as Dave knows he decides who is both senior and faithful.  That tail wagging the Dog thing. Does RCG have any senior  ministers?  Do they ever give sermons?  Could we see a portfolio of RCG ministers so we can pray for them as Mr. Armstrong provided? Maybe that comes after one purchases a Gulfstream II  because travel with the common folk is just too difficult. Ok, we can wait on that a bit longer.

Again...

"However, RCG is not for everyone. We exist for those who believe and understand that God has one government ruling His undivided Church. Those who want to criticize, evaluate, accuse, “have a say in how things should be run” or to withhold God’s tithes until things go “more to their liking” will be happier elsewhere. While God’s way is never a dictatorship, neither is it confusion."

Boy, that's the truth!  "While God's way is never a dictatorship, neither is it confusion."  Translation:  "God's way is plainly a dictatorship and to keep it from being confusing, only I run the show."  If DCP can imply that people leave because of Satan, being unconverted and evil sinners and not because they are thinking critically, asking questions and expecting to have a bit of say in what can easily get out of control when decided by just one man, I can offer translations of his concepts. It's too bad so many COG's are lead by demand and not by cooperation. I guess UCG has proven that doesn't work either.  I have learned where two or three are gathered together, one runs the show, one listens and one cleans up and brings the watermelon to the church picnic.

However...

"Again, the official position of The Restored Church of God is to not answer accusers! I have learned—and this is its own interesting point—that those who love the truth do not require or even want me to explain myself. Remember, those always demanding the “inside story” are rarely satisfied with answers anyway, because their focus is all wrong. They ignore that we teach the full truth of God and are doing His Work with real force and power.

So, we let God answer our accusers while we “turn the other cheek.” Although I would love to occasionally write an answer of explanation, I have learned to withhold myself. As explained, and I repeat this for emphasis, when I did this in the past, I could never see what good was accomplished. While I may have felt better personally, it rarely changed anyone’s mind."

Evidently this has not really been learned or it's going to be unlearned. God must not have been clear on this concept in all cases.  However if not answering has now become a grand announcement that answers were about to come big time, then why can't we see that God's inspiration is not exactly set in stone?  Just sayin'. And if I was one who suggested that someone does answer their accusers and got put down for it using the scripture and the non-dictatorial nature of God but now seems to have been right after all...what's with that?  The dog decided to take the advice of the tail after all.  I'm not such a bad just the tail after all, it would seem.

Personally, the "turn the other cheek," "if made to walk one mile, walk two," and "If someone takes your coat," were short term teachings of a man and then expectant church knowing "it won't be long now."  Many such sayings are not life courses but short term admonitions that have long since expired and should be taken off the shelf.  Jesus never expected time to go on after him or the Romans to win.

And finally, the point being made...

"Keep it simple, brethren: The real reason a person leaves the Church—lay member or minister—is that he simply does not love the full truth (II Thes. 2:10). It is no more complicated than that! However, the one who leaves will never admit this, so he must create an “exit theology” in order to (1) soothe his own conscience and (2) portray himself instead as a “grassroots crusader” for God.

If such men cared so much about doctrine, then why did they speak up in this manner, with false accusations and scathing attacks? Why did they not “quit themselves like men” and talk to a Headquarters minister face-to-face when they had the opportunity? Why do they lack the courage to openly state they disagree with Mr. Armstrong, both in doctrine and in approach to doing the Work? This fits well with the tactics of their new “Presiding Evangelist.”

I personally get weary of being told what my motives are for ever learning and never being able to settle on one grand follow me truth. Seekers don't have "tactics," they have a desire to know truth and not be conned into anything less than truth.  I lost my faith in the story, the naive history, the inerrancy, the motives and the clarity of the Book.  The grand leadership, including Herbert Armstrong as present in form and actions of those that followed him simply destroyed my naivete' on things religious and run buy guys.  Now DCP is saying why did you not speak up like a man?  Ummmmm....Dave....it never worked that way.  People were speaking up in all the ways you hate and because humans like you don't listen to the input of others, we have to go away. Herbert Armstrong was not a man given to advice or observations that didn't coincide with his own habit of getting used to having his own ways.  Such are many of the COG lone gunmen.  Everything in me wants to offer a quote or two up from someone close and deep within the experience of RCG to make this point, but I won't do it.  I promised I would not do it ever.  People are screaming at you to join the real human race and the real need for people to have positive hopes and dreams and kind loving leadership if that is what some want you to be to them. The day of the dictator and one man show anywhere on this planet is passing quickly.  I expect it will not go easily.

I will always be personally fascinated with the Bible, it's origins and the impact it has had on the lives of people. I , like many, no longer can abide being told by others what I can examine for myself and examine much more accurately than ever before because good old knowledge has indeed increased since I went to school.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

So, please don't accuse me or everyone else when we simply wish to have better answers to really important issues that really effect the quality of life now, much less in the future. When a man sets himself anywhere on this planet as only responsible and accountable to an invisible and actually non-present deity and not the observations of those one actually affect by their beliefs about themselves , that is troubling and very dangerous. Divining the will of this deity without accountability is insane.  History has already taught those with eyes to see that lesson.

Amen

Dennis
DenniscDiehl@aol.com