Sunday, July 7, 2013

Still Arguing Over Make-up

They can't talk about Jesus or anything the guy accomplished, did or said, but they sure can talk about painted faces, vanity and sin....and Herbert Armstrong.
The early apostles are respected today by most true and professing Christians. However, Mr. Armstrong, the end-time apostle and leader of the 6th era of God's Church is not respected as an apostle by many of former members of the WCG.

Truth is put into God's Church through the apostles according to what Mr. Armstrong taught us and I see men injecting their "truths" into or removing Mr. Armstrong the end-time apostle's doctrines from their organizations.

The doctrine that Mr. Armstrong is the third Elijah or end-time Elijah is, I believe, an era difference: Philadelphia vs Laodicea. I believe that in general, the Philadelphians believe Mr. Armstrong is the end-time Elijah and the Laodiceans do not.

The makeup doctrine is different in that according to Mr. Armstrong wearing
makeup is a sin.


It is put on the face for one or both of two general reasons: 1) to be like the world around you -- to be CONFORMED TO THIS WORLD, in direct DISOBEDIENCE to God's command; or else, 2) "to look nice," as women express it, which means simply, to CHANGE the appearance so as to make the face prettier than it naturally is -- WHICH IS VANITY! Either is a violation of God's Law, and A SIN! Actually, the only reason a woman wishes to conform to the world is VANITY -- fearing what the world will think, more than fearing GOD -- CARING more for the world and what it thinks than for GOD and what looks right IN HIS SIGHT!
A woman may try to REASON and ARGUE around it, but every woman knows in her heart this is THE TRUTH. Every woman who has been CONQUERED by the Eternal God -- who is yielded to HIM -- who has repented and is converted who HAS AND IS LED BY GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT -- will admit this, and TURN FROM THIS SIN!  from "Truth About Makeup" by Herbert W. Armstrong, 1964, 1968 edition

Now, this is not an "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" type of difference of administration or difference of personality. This is a Satan vs God difference of administration. If you are sinning you are of Satan and not of Christ and are not truly a part of God's True Church unless you repent.

Mr. Armstrong invoked a higher office when he rendered that final decision on makeup, and he did make it plain that it was final.
That eye shadow on your face will keep you out of Armstrong's kingdom.  Imagine a god so picky that makeup is a salvation changer.  What idiots!
And this doctrine may also be an era difference defining doctrine that separates the Philadelphians from the Laodiceans but this is a doctrine that one is eventually going to have to repent of to be in God's Kingdom. Otherwise, it is a True Church vs Apostates defining doctrine, like Mr. Armstrong's administration vs Joseph Tkach administration and not a Philadelphian vs Laodicean difference.

As Mr. Armstrong at least once related that when he left someone else in charge of a congregation, in his early ministry, and left for a while and soon the members would be scattered. A parallel today is after his death, the sheep are again scattered. Each leader with a sales pitch to the sheep to choose which subset of doctrines they would like to adhere to be a part of his group (thankfully a few of the faithful ministers are still holding fast to all the doctrines we were taught).

Laodicea: "I'll have a weekly Sabbath and all the annual Holy Days. Hold the anti-makeup, anti-birthdays and 3rd tithe doctrines, please."

Isn't that what this type of picking and choosing is all about for Laodicea--the people decide.

God's apostle and end-time Elijah restored the truths that we should all be holding fast to. There is no picking or choosing.


Anonymous said...

Didn't HWA change his mind a time or two on the subject of make up? I believe he allowed it when he married Ramona, but then reinstituted the ban to anger her so that she would walk out on him once his marriage went to hell.

Unknown said...

I remember at the feast in Big Sandy around 1980 or so. Herbie was sitting down at a table on the stage in the large metal building, and just out of the blue(as he saw Ramona with make-up walking by in front of him at the bottom of the stage: "And you women, get rid of that make-up!...Women are for one thing only!" He changed the ruling again and you could go to any trash can in the camp ground and see loads of make-up thrown into them that night. It was hilarious!

Byker Bob said...

Without a doubt, Jan Crouch overdoes the cosmetics thing, as did Tammy Faye Bakker. And, it is distracting.

But, HWA himself wavered on this doctrine. He had a kind of an axiom which was applied to many of the doctrinal decisions which he made, but somehow it never got around to being applied to subjects like makeup, birthdays, or other similar issues. This axiom was: "It's not the thing, but the use of the thing which makes it sinful, or not sinful".

In the case of makeup, if a woman is painting herself up to go out to the clubs, and to pick up men, one set of conclusions might be drawn. However, if she is just attempting to look her best, another set would apply. Intent, plain and simple. Who doesn't want to put their best foot forward in certain situations?

In the 1955-75 era, most of the WCG ladies looked like American Gothic. These days, with all of the social changes, women who do not wear makeup are often taken for lesbians.

One of my wives didn't wear traditional cosmetics, but this was not for religious reasons. She just felt that long term, the cosmetics would accelerate the aging process. There are certain companies which specialize in lotions creams, and lip gloss that highlight a woman's natural beauty, and these were what she used. I can assure you all that she was never seen as being "less than" as compared to the ladies in my life who were into the bright red lipstick, rouge, eye shadow, mascara or false eyelashes, hair dye, and powders. Don't get me wrong, I do love flaming red lipstick, but a guy often finds himself needing to wipe that stuff off of himself.

Armstrong always claimed to be going for the trunk of the tree, but compared to the magnitude of salvation, use or non-use of cosmetics is a picky little point. It should be a personal matter, a matter of conscience.


Anonymous said...

Opinion raised to doctrines: Useless.

Anonymous said...

How many sermons did you hear on the fruit of the spirit of Gal 5 versus miniscule laws; majoring in the minors. Talk about getting away from the trunk of the tree. HWA did it all the time.

Painful Truth said...

That Darned Makeup Doctrine!

Anonymous said...

Taking a bath or shower is trying to make one prettier than you are in real life. Do not under any circumstance use deodorant or brush you teeth. Crest or Colgate did not exist during the time of the apostles. Infidels. Come to think of it deodorant soap did not exist during the times of the apostles.

mruscan said...

Is there any way to get a comment on any of these creeps sites? My comment is, a Christian woman who is solid in her conviction to the Lord is not trying to lure any man after her, she is just trying to present herself at her best. There is a line between hideous (Jan Baker) and good grooming, the rest of us. Get the hell out of our bathrooms you jerks. You have no right to tell us how to present ourselves looking our best. Stop wearing your stupid ugly suits and ties. Maybe you never heard the origin of the necktie did ya!!!

None of this has anything to do with salvation. I am so sick of this f'n church who think they can mediate our relationship to the Lord.

You are all in for so much grief when you meet the Lord, it isn't funny. He doesn't really care if I have a little moisturizer and mascara on. If I show LOVE to my neighbor that is fulfilling the LAW. All you dicks understand is legalism. You all put on false faces worse than any make up an honest woman uses. Do you want to burn us at the stake like the CATHOLIC CHURCH did ? You are all so much more catholic than you realize.

Byker Bob said...

Yeah, be like the Essenes, Wear your clothes and footwear until it is so worn out that it literally falls off your body, or until you've got an indecent exposure thing going on. To hell with any of the physical appearance issues!


Redfox712 said...

To say a common thing like makeup is wrong is simply a cheap way to assert spiritual superiority over those who do use makeup. How vain is that?

"Look at me," one of these men might say. "I am so holy and righteous I even hate makeup. If you want to be anywhere near as spiritual as me you need to hate makeup too."

How is that attitude not vain?

"It is put on the face for one or both of two general reasons" both of which HWA defines as sinful.

No. Makeup is not sinful. HWA is just using black-and-white-thinking to force people to conform to his rule.

Brainwashers like HWA love black- and-white-thinking because you can easily manipulate people using such rhetorical tricks. It is easy to force people to think a certain way if the follower takes that sort of attitude to life.

It is disgusting that some COG people are still hung up over this ridiculous makeup ban.

I heard Roderick Meredith himself, in one of sermons, say that HWA banned makeup because he saw his daughter Beverly wearing too much makeup one day in the 1950s and that is why he banned makeup.

Any one enforcing this makeup ban is not godly or righteous but a women-hating, anti-social brainwashed person. They look at HWA's words and let him do their thinking for them instead of understanding what really happened.

HWA was reasserting his rule upon WCG. Reimposing the makeup ban was a simple way to kick out anyone who dared to think for themselves and could be a threat to his tyrannical rule.

No doubt there are some women who also adhere to this doctrine. I do not think they are women-hating, but there is no good reason to adhere to this useless doctrine.

Anonymous said...

Dougie's right! Armstrongism is absolutely nothing more than HWA's OCD complex of opinions on every itty bitty issue elevated to doctrine.