A so-called "Ms Anderson" has replied to a post from this past April when COGWA was ripping apart the United Church of God through deceit, subterfuge and back-stabbing. She was not happy with my description of COGWA and its "new focus" on ministry.
I wrote::
The 7th Day Sabbath Churches of God are reporting that COGWA has come up with a new internet domain that will be their "gospel" proclamation tool. The name of it is really, really wrong! All three of their chosen words depict everything they are not!
Clyde Kilough has announced “a website that will be devoted exclusively to delivering the gospel to the world …. we have settled on this as the domain name for our public proclamation website: www.lifehopeandtruth.com.”
Life? Hope?? Truth???
Are they serious? Some of the most conniving men in the ministry of the COG today are part of this group where some of them have helped bring into being three different COG's while in previous church organization employ. That shows an incredible amount of life, hope and truth! NOT!
Life? There is a sickening trail of destruction in the Churches of God in the lives of the membership. We have all seen Church of God "love" put into action over the decades we were all a part of it. Forced divorces, rapes, stalkings, murders, suicides, child abuse, mental and spiritual abuse, and the list could go on and on. In Armstrongism "love" tends to be a profanity. A four letter word.
Hope? How can there be hope in an organization that gives minimal lip services to the one person that offers them that hope? Where is the"hope" in a message that we were never good enough. We were at fault for everything. That were were vile filthy sinners. That God delays Jesus coming because COG members were/are too stupid to get it.
Truth??? Truth? Really? That god of Armstrongism apparently was so incredibly impotent that he lost His own message for 1,900 years only to have it found in an outdated library in America? That He needs apostles and evangelists today? That talking about "a strong hand from someplace" is a hidden truth?
And they all wonder why there is no Church of God today making an impact.
Ignoring the above questions and observations about the REAL life in Armstrongism "she" writes:
Ms. Anderson said...
-
Dear author,
I don't know if you believe in God, but if you do, you need to understand that the intense bitterness that you hold for not only individuals, but entire church groups, is something that will put you in danger of the judgement.
Anger, bitterness, and hatred are of Satan, NOT God.
Do you want your hatred towards church groups to prevent you from entering the Kingdom of God?
Jesus said "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do to one of the least of these, you did not do to Me.".
If He said that about things which these people didn't do to others, then what would He say about you and your hateful words?
Do you hate God? Do you hate Jesus?
I'm going to read between the lines a bit here, but it seems to me that "inasmuch as you [hated] one of the least of these, you [hated] Me."
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
You're calling us worse than fools, I'll tell you that.
I will pray for you, sir, because I think you are in danger of the judgement.
Sincerely,
A second-generation "Armstrongian" and COGWA member.
23 comments:
Poor thing. We should pray for her.
And by the way, you nailed it on the head with your post. I spent 40 years in the COG saga (2nd gen.) and witnessed the UCG/COGWA split up close. If hating others and speaking evil of others puts one at risk, she should be circulating her warning among her own so-called minsters.
Life Hope and Truth...Um sure, she is spreading some life and hope while promising judgment for pointing out the truth. If it weren't so sad I would LOL. But the pathology of the COG indoctrination takes the right environment and time to overcome. She's definitly not in the right environment. Sigh.
I seriously doubt others care about your eternal future. Usually when someone says they will pray for you, it is code for "We wish you would stop doing what your doing and leave us alone. You are a bad bad person but I will ask the Deity to be kind to you."
M.T.Petitions
I had this great response last week on Match.com
A woman I didn't know, wouldn't care to know and never contacted wrote me the following.
"I read your profile and it is very very interesting. I see you USED to be a minister. You must be a real JERK."
sigh.....gotta take line out of the profile. lol
M.T.Arms
Not happy?
But, but but!
I thought joy was a fruit of the Holy Spirit!
No logic. No rationale. No science. No real history. No truth.
Just emotional garbage packaged up into a useless belief system.
Anytime you expose an Armstrongist group, and tell the truth, they always call you bitter(not just bitter, but INTENSE bitterness), and "don't know if you believe in THEIR god". Then, you, Ms. Anderson, go one step beyond by practically grabbing hold of him to throw him into the "lake of fire". Then, going an extra step, you say that he is angry and hate-filled. Then, you're going to pray for him after lambasting him with false accusations? Isn't that being a little "second-generation" hypocritical?
Sincerely,
A first generation ex-Armstrongist
See, it was all the love, joy and peace that made them split.
OMG! So much judgment and condemnation.
Why does that word "bitterness" keep popping up. Oh, yes, because it's bible churchspeak. It's code for "If anyone doesn't like me or the corporation I worship, I can just tell them they're 'bitter' and then I don't have to listen to their criticism or take it to heart, and can simply keep doing everything I've always done with the same smug satisfaction feeling I am 100% justified."
Then there's the lovely word, "hate." Where did that come from? Who said anything about hate? I'm not satisfied that the modern meaning of "fool" is really comparable to either the old English meaning or the original Greek or Aramaic meaning there. What makes that the worst possible thing to call someone? Sometimes people really are foolish. Is it really the unpardonable sin to help them out by letting them know? I admit that I think COG people are foolish. That post from April is certainly calling COG people foolish, but it isn't calling them anything worse than that. Welcome to Armstrongism, where telling the truth is the unpardonable sin.
I only speak for myself and not NO2HWA or anyone else, but for me it's certainly not personal. I don't hate god, or the COG people either. Frankly it's not worth the investment. But I have the right (at leat in the USA) to call 'em as I see 'em, even if not everyone agrees with me (or is prepared to be as honest as I am). You can psychoanalyze and slap labels all over your mental images of others if that's what you have to do to make yourself feel comfortable, but it doesn't change the facts.
Finally there's the words "judgment" and "satan," which are in the same categories as Dante's Inferno and Smurfs, respectively. Cute, but not real. Just because COG people are motivated by imaginary hobgoblins, why do they always seem to think non-COG people will be motivated by them? Odd.
I've been reading comments like these on the web for many years now. They all have one thing in common: extreme bitterness toward those of us who had the good sense to leave the nonsense of Armstrongism behind. They bitterly blame us for the implosion of their paradise. The bitterness is all theirs and it fairly drips from this woman's words.
I've been reading comments like these on the web for many years now. They all have one thing in common: extreme bitterness toward those of us who had the good sense to leave the nonsense of Armstrongism behind. They bitterly blame us for the implosion of their paradise. The bitterness is all theirs and it fairly drips from this woman's words.
It is only our opinions that something is so or a belief that something is so that makes it so to the person. It may not actually be so.
People have authority because we believe they do. If we did not believe somone had authority, they would have none.
Dave Pack and Ron Weinland believe they are Apostles only because a few others feed the belief. If I alone believed I was and Apostle or special and no one else cared what I believed, I'd be neither unless I just wanted to toy with mental illness. Mental illness can be better hidden if many believe the one who dillusional is real.
Dear Ms Anderson means well. Her beliefs would not support someone who believed outside her box of beliefs and yet bringing one into the box is considered a great victory. I guess we call that Evangelism or "Go ye therefore into all the world..." stuff.
On the other hand, the out of the box nature of a site like this and a free expression of the various size boxes, all bigger than the box Dear Ms Anderson finds herself in, can be intimidating .
Organizations by nature are formed to keep lots of individuals in the same box not necessarily of their personal choosing but fits well enough. There is NO COG where "we all speak the same thing." No such place on earth exists. Every struggle, split, splinter and sliver is born out of this reality. ALL SPEAKING THE SAME THING IS AN ILLUSION. I have seen it many times when ministers and member alike admit to me that they agree but they'd get fired, or lose thier position or get kicked out etc... It's what humans do when they get stuck in the double blind of wanting to be in an Organization or "one true Church" (There is none) and yet be an individual.
Disfellowship, Marking and shaming those who outgrow the organizational box are the tools used to keep the smaller box of people intact. This is the whole of what we have seen over the past 50 years of COG problems.
IMHO
PS I noticed big time yesterday how Ron Weinland thinks of "truth".
It is all his truth. When he speaks of falling away or needing to talk to someone about their attitude or rebellion, it is ALWAYS from the perspective that the person is wrong and Ron Weinland, who is "God's way of life," is true. He sets his views as God's views and when you're views don't match his views, they don't match God's views either.
It would never occur to Ron that he is just a man full of the same kinds of opinions he faults others for having. He is the truth others must come to see he represents.
Of course, this is all malarkey andn not how life or learning really works.
"You can't be anyone but yourself..." But you can hide it until or repress it in oranization. The only way you will become more authentic is to either rise so high in the organization that you can do what you want to do and be who you want to be and get away with it, or repudiate organizations and just be yourself with less drama, but perhaps a bit more loneliness.
When you leave the box, as i have said before, you go alone mostly.
I do somewhat resent that Larry Grieder of the CoGWA lied to us on Pentecost 2011 to imply the Waldensians were Sabbath keeping Armstrongist type Chrisians.
I am not happy.
Ms. Anderson should explain why CoGWA leaders and ministers should lie to us all.
Within the past five years, I've been healed of my bitterness, and have been blessed with the gift of forgiveness. However, that carries no weight with people in the ACOGs simply because I still disagree vehemently with most of their theology. So, in many of their minds, all of the cliches which they have been taught still somehow apply.
I don't know of many Christians who would disagree with the quotations which Ms. Anderson has cited. The problem is that they are applied as if her group were specially led by God, and therefore was the sole arbiter of truth. Therefore, they become misapplied cliches and come off as being very judgmental. It's kind of similar to the ways in which ACOGs quote "let the dead bury the dead" and use it as an excuse not to take advantage of some opportunities to do good.
I'd like to suggest to Ms. Anderson that she dig deeper, read Christian authors outside of her group, and shed some of the self imposed limitations that are so institutionalized within the Armstrong movement.
It'd also be a good thing if she took time to learn more about Gary, the post-Armstrong training he has undergone, and the things which he regularly does but never makes a big thing over. Sadly, that's something people of opposing viewpoints rarely do. Someone challenges, then that someone automatically becomes "the enemy".
BB
" There is NO COG where "we all speak the same thing." No such place on earth exists. Every struggle, split, splinter and sliver is born out of this reality. ALL SPEAKING THE SAME THING IS AN ILLUSION."
Agreed.
The illusion is perpetrated by an environment in which only two or three people are allowed to address the congregation and no one is allowed to question anything publicly. If you question the "minister" privately and are truly honest, he will tell you that you have a bad attitude for asking such questions and that you need to go pray to god for forgiveness and so that he will give you a better attitude. (Translation: "It is god's will that you turn off your brain and stop causing trouble for me!") For those who will allow it, this is how people are turned from functional human beings into weak, brain-dead zombies. The illusion of "all speaking the same thing" is something which is enforced in totalitarian fashion. Sort of like how the virtue of "harmony" has been used as a hammer in Communist China.
HWA should have been embarrassed to have any of Basil Wolverton's freaky pictures in any WCG literature.
After HWA died and JWT took over, Basil's brat Monte Wolverton wrote an article on the Characteristics of Spiritual Weirdos for the WCG's Youth magazine. All the listed characteristics were clearly characteristics of HWA.
"After HWA died and JWT took over, Basil's brat Monte Wolverton wrote an article on the Characteristics of Spiritual Weirdos for the WCG's Youth magazine. All the listed characteristics were clearly characteristics of HWA."
That sounds like an interesting read- do you know if it's archived anywhere?
(Or, if Wolverton drew a caricature of the rodent-like Joey Tkach for it?
Norm
I jumped back on here after a year of cleansing my soul of Armstrongism and anti Armstrongism. God, this anger becomes blind bitterness. I cannot live like that bitter person I was becoming. Today i return to read some news on the cogs and this is the first article. Shit, the more time goes on the more you all become cliche.
I disagree with the cult of Armstrong.. But I must agree with Ms. Anderson. There are some on here that are so blind with rage they fail to see their ways.
The woman is simply telling some of you to be civil. But no, we have to flame her good. How dare she pray for you? And horror of horrors, she is praying for you. Stop her. Stop her prayers.
Why can't you say thanks and move on. Get your heads out your asses and show some maturity.
She's being nice. Show respect.
Sincerely Yours,
The guy that says sincerely yours
Speaking of heads up the asses, Anon, it's always safer to check where one's own might be rather than worrying about others'.
It's one thing for a person to disagree in a civil manner. And yes, often the discussions here exude bitterness.
But, just as often, they exhibit rousingly good humor.
So for this "Ms. Anderson" individual to utter such things as, "I will pray for you, sir, because I think you are in danger of the judgement" is most decidedly NOT "being nice," as you put it.
Likewise with "...you need to understand."
Or "...something that will put you in danger of the judgement."
Or NOT KNOWING HOW TO SPELL JUDGMENT.
I digress.
Or quoting Matt. 5:22, while conveniently ignoring the "without a cause" clause.
You claim to have successfully cleansed your soul of Armstrongism...and anti Armstrongism! That may be an historic first, so, you know, congratulations.
Others have not. Hence, this blog. For some, perhaps many, it has proven cathartic. My take on the publisher of the blog is that there is evidence of his anger, disgust, good humor, compassion, concern, and just plain exasperation.
How human.
Most of us here have heard the admonitions offered by "Ms. Anderson" -- and many times over, at that. Perhaps if they weren't framed by Armstrongist theology, they would give one pause. As it is, they only add fuel to the fire, rather than douse it.
Now, if you know where I can get some of that soul cleanser you've been using, do holler. Seems to be pretty powerful stuff. Is there a particular brand that is better than the others, or are they all about the same?
I read it and analyzed it. I stand by my comments.
More to the point, if this was reality, and not some cyber circle jerk, and someone treated Ms. Anderson disrespectfully in front of me, I would have stood up for her not you. I may agree with your views on cults but I disagree with how she is treated. I stand by that. Plenty of people say they will pray for my soul. Gods gotta listen to one of them someday. Who am I to tell them off when they mean no harm to me?
That's cool, but what, exactly, are you standing by? Your claim that people treated "Ms. Anderson" badly is an exaggeration. They disagreed with her -- and mostly in respectful, if firmly stated, terms. Even the blogger expressed a counter view, not a pejorative one, in his original post.
It's fine to think that people here need to move on from their Armstrongist past. But hey, "Ms. Anderson" chose to jump into the fray. If, as her words imply, she's the big girl she presumes to be, surely she can defend herself.
I have a rule not to give advice about English usage to anyone who is not paying me, but I am about to break it here. *Judgement* and *judgment* are both standard spellings. The spell-check I am using now, for example, does not flag either one. The first is more common in the U.K. (it is recommended in the OED) and the second in the U.S.
To me the former just looks better, so that's the one I use despite being an American unless writing for a publication in which the other is standard.
A *Reader's Digest* anecdote about the word: an editor thundered to an offending reporter, "No E!"
So the reporter changed it to *judgmnt*.
Humor. Meant as humor. To inject a touch of levity to an otherwise intensely serious discussion.
Similar to using "spell-check" as a noun, I presume.
Nah, not humorous. Inadvertent.
"Spell-check" as a noun is an example of the companion process to the verbing of America: the nominalize of America. Probably won't catch on, and that's no doubt for the best.
Post a Comment