A CGI Response to the
Bill Watson Article
By
Lonnie C. Hendrix
“I believe you misunderstand the reasons CGI is known for being ‘relatively moderate.’ The CGI differs from some (but not all) of the other groups in that it emphasizes servant leadership rather than some hierarchical form of polity, does not believe it is ‘above’ the other groups spiritually (it's members do not claim to be the ‘Philadelphia church’ or the ‘spearhead’ of the Work of God), does not have leaders claiming to be apostles or prophets, and doesn't use near-date-setting or claims about being in the ‘gun lap’ of the ‘final phase of God's Work’ to get people to send more money.” - See more here
So the CGI’s
claim to moderation rests on its emphasis of the servant leadership model? So
there is no one in the CGI telling everyone what to believe or controlling what
everyone says and does? Then how do you explain another quote from the same
response to my article?
“When someone from another organization is invited to speak in Tyler, if that person has views that differ in some way from the CGI's doctrinal positions or are considered controversial within CGI circles, he is asked not to bring them up. If he does bring them up, he will not be invited to come back to speak again. Further, the degree and nature of other CoG groups' differences with the CGI is an important factor in determining whether and how the CGI will participate in joint-activities with them. If you think CGI folks will "accept any belief that comes down the pike," just ask Lonnie about that. After he went public with his views on sexual issues, the CGI stopped using his material in its publications.” - See more here
Sure sounds
like more of the same to me: Unity
imposed from above – We MUST all speak the same thing! No room for different
views here. If you disagree, hit the road! And, if you don’t claim to be
superior to the other groups, why should anyone want to choose you over one of
them?
“But the CGI's theological positions are spelled out in no-uncertain terms in its Systematic Theology Project. Its official position on homosexual behavior is in agreement with the official position of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as well as a very large number of Evangelical churches and theologians: homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity and are intrinsically disordered.” - See more here
Funny, in
addition to being in agreement with the teachings of the Catholic, Orthodox and
most Evangelical churches, the CGI finds itself in complete agreement with
Herbert Armstrong’s God Speaks Out on the
New Morality. Since they claim to regard all of those other groups as
heretics, isn’t it funny that they would agree with them on this point? I guess
Satan hasn’t succeeded in deceiving those folks on this one?
By the way,
am I the only one who noticed that nothing was said in this response about the
doctrine of British Israelism? If a dubious claim to an attachment to servant
leadership is your only claim to independence from Armstrongism, then you may
wish to rethink your responses to the thesis of my article?
15 comments:
"By the way, am I the only one who noticed that nothing was said in this response about the doctrine of British Israelism?"
what is there to be said?...you don't believe it, and will never believe it, so why bother trying to discuss it with you?..(personally I don't care what you believe)...it sounds like you are simply trying to find someone to argue with.
your position on homosexuality will not hold water, even Rome and the protestants can see that, so apparently you're looking for something a little less clear to contend over.
so if you are looking for someone to argue with, I suggest you stand in front of a mirror ;-)
I do hope you find peace.
Rom 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
The CGI lost me at the Hebrew Calendar. Sure, OK, leave your eternal salvation in the hands of those who do not have the Holy Spirit and admit themselves that their calendar is wrong.
About 20,000 years or so from now, you'll be keeping the Feast of Tabernacles during Christmas / New Year week. Well, no you won't because the CGI won't exist by then, but whatever.
"response about the doctrine of British Israelism?"
"what is there to be said?...you don't believe it, and will never believe it, so why bother trying to discuss it with you?.."
Why bother?
Well, because as the "key to prophecy" as described by Bill Watson in his long winded sermons at Biblical Origins of United States and British Commonwealth, British Israelism is guaranteed to make its proponents false prophets, which, you should know by now, will result in death -- since a death sentence is pronounced by God upon false prophets. You'd better believe that it's important to discuss with us because it is a life or death issue.
If you believe the Bible.
Do you?
What I see of the CGI teachings, you don't.
Why don't you just admit that the Bible is irrelevant and that you are just hanging on to a social group based in Tyler, Texas.
Pathetic.
Liars will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Why continue to endorse lies when it will keep you out of the Kingdom -- total disregard for the 'Word of God'.
It should be noted that the CGI website motif is in a lighter shade of ucg.org brown.
Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
All that Kevin McMillen said is true, but the above verses, earlier context, indicate that evil spirit beings may be at the real heart of the problems.
For example, verse 19 indicates that which may be known of God was "manifest in them." Them who? Not human beings. God "showed it to them." Them who? Not human beings, but did manifest and make things known to the spirit beings long before human beings were in existence.
Spirit beings saw the physical creation, so in verse 20 invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen and understood by those of the spirit world. What humans understood from the creation God's "eternal power and Godhead?"
In other words, we have been told this:
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12
One more example:
Verse 26 said: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"
Who is them? The evil spirit beings. When it says "their women," who is the "their" referring to? The evil spirit beings.
But how is it that the evil spirit beings can use human beings (Eph 2:2; Acts 5:3; Acts 13:10; John 8:44, etc.) to do evil? But for the grace of God, it is very easily accomplished.
"Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" James 4:5
Jesus Christ understood how the hypocritical scribes ad Pharisees were being manipulated like pawns by the evil spirit beings:
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." Matthew 23:35
Jesus Christ could see through the scribes and Pharisees to what was driving them. In this verse, it is obvious that the scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus addressed did not exist during the days of the shed blood of both Abel and Zacharias, but evil spirit beings were there...and it was just as real as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah...
John
"So the CGI’s claim to moderation rests on its emphasis of the servant leadership model?" Nope! Not what I said! Funny how you take one item out of the list of things I mentioned and ignore everything else. I could expand the list to include many other items, such as the notion that HWA was the prophesied Elijah, HWA's "primacy of Peter" doctrine, his "place of safety" doctrine, his "church eras" teaching, his closed-door policy, and his claim that God always works through one man at a time. These are the things, along with the items I mentioned previously, that distinguish the CGI from SOME (certainly not all) of the other CoG groups.
"Then how do you explain another quote from the same response to my article? ... Sure sounds like more of the same to me: Unity imposed from above – We MUST all speak the same thing! No room for different views here. If you disagree, hit the road!" This only shows you don't have a clue as to what servant leadership is. We have people expressing different views all the time, and nobody has a problem with that. This, however, does not mean anyone can preach anything. Leaders would certainly not be servants if they permitted guest speakers to pour out offensive garbage on the congregation. Your dad is a servant. He loves the people he serves. And because of that, he would not permit you to vomit your poison on those people. If he did allow it, he would not be a servant leader.
"And, if you don’t claim to be superior to the other groups, why should anyone want to choose you over one of them?" Some have chosen other groups for one reason or another, and we think that is just fine. If we best serve a person's needs, then we hope we can do that effectively. If another group can do it more effectively, then I hope the person will go there so he can get what's best for him.
"Funny, in addition to being in agreement with the teachings of the Catholic, Orthodox and most Evangelical churches, the CGI finds itself in complete agreement with Herbert Armstrong’s God Speaks Out on the New Morality." Really? I don't recall mentioning HWA's "New Morality" book. In any case, if it teaches the same thing about homosexual acts the Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical churches teach, then yes, we agree with the book on that point. There may be points of disagreement, but I have never read that book all the way through, so I can't say for sure.
(to be continued)
"Since they claim to regard all of those other groups as heretics, isn’t it funny that they would agree with them on this point? I guess Satan hasn’t succeeded in deceiving those folks on this one?" We agree with these groups on MANY points, not just on what they teach about homosexual acts. We agree with the Evangelicals, for instance, on the authority of Scripture. We sharply disagree with Calvinists on important salvation issues, but strongly agree with most of what their historic confessions say about the moral law, the deity of Christ, the nature of the Church, and numerous other issues. To what extent Satan is involved with religious deception I do not know. I would say, though, that we see today much greater deception in the mainstream churches than we saw in the past, as they embrace the homosexual agenda and adopt an approach to Scripture completely foreign to their forebears.
"By the way, am I the only one who noticed that nothing was said in this response about the doctrine of British Israelism?" That was not my main concern, but in my other response I mentioned the STP (which affirms the teaching on Israel) and stated that Bill Watson's teachings are consistent with the STP. But I think most would agree that the moral issues surrounding marriage and sexuality are much more important than who our ancestors were. I couldn't care less about the identity of my ancestors. We believe the true "Israel of God" is the Church, which is made up of all in whom the Spirit of God dwells. I'm not sure that items such as the identity of the Beast or of the "lost ten tribes" even belongs to a list of "doctrinal tenets of the faith." A person on a desert island and without any knowledge of the existence of the US or BC or the whereabouts of modern Israelites could accept and live the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. But he could NOT do that if he were involved in a same-sex sexual relationship! He would have to realize followers of Jesus are called on to crucify the flesh and lay down their lives, so he would have to repent and leave that relationship!
"If a dubious claim to an attachment to servant leadership is your only claim to independence from Armstrongism, then you may wish to rethink your responses to the thesis of my article?" Labels are less than a dime a dozen. You can label our beliefs "Armstrongism" if you want to, but you're misrepresenting what I actually said. We most certainly DO emphasize servant leadership, but, as I have shown, we differ from HWA's approach in many other ways. It's funny that we have been criticized (by the more extreme elements within the CoG movement) for our "liberal" approach--i.e., the open-door policy, rejection of HWA's claim to be "God's Apostle" or the prophesied "Elijah," rejection of one-man rule and the top-down hierarchy, etc.--yet you come along and stick a label on us that says just the opposite!
It seems to me that you're still smarting over the fact that we removed you from our pulpits and stopped using your articles after you went pubic with your views on human sexuality. No one got any pleasure out of that; your messages (both in the pulpit and in our publications) were quite good. But if our ministers truly practice servant leadership, then they simply cannot allow the offense to the brethren that your continued involvement would bring. You knew you that when you chose to go pubic with your views; you knew we would see them as perverse and completely unacceptable. But, apparently, in your mind, if we don't change our approach to Scripture to suit you, and if we don't agree with your views on homosexual behavior, it must be because we're abusive, authoritarian, self-serving bigots who bow before the image of HWA.
I have loved and prayed for many people (family and friends) in my life who were/are racists and homophobes. Many of them were/are fine folks most of the time and in most areas of their lives. In following Christ's example, I did/have not rejected or dismissed them because of their flaws. Reciprocity would be nice.
For instance, I never accused Bill Watson of vomiting poison; but racism, prejudice, hatred and intolerance must be confronted.
"...were/are racists and homophobes."
I've never come in contact with anyone in The Church that believed in the inherent superiority of one race, or was in fear of homosexuals.
your choice of words shows you to be a confused young man.
you seem to accuse Bill Watson of being a racist, prejudiced, emitting hatred & intolerance toward others.
what has he said that makes you think that he believes in an inherently superior race? or pre-judges others? or has hatred in his heart?
do you see how some might view you as an "accuser of the brethern"?
Bill Watson doesn't have an ounce of racism in him. His views on the identity of America are based on inherited culture. The CGI is very racially diverse with the majority of members not even Caucasian.
He has never expressed any fear of homosexuality. Only love for those suffering from that sin.
Suffering????? I have never suffered being gay. Been gay all my life. No amount of praying, fasting, or being prayed over by sick ministurds in the COG to cast out the "gay" demon ever "cured" me of being gay. God never expected such a thing nor made it happen. Now have a very normal life that is spiritually rich and am secure in my standing with God. Both my partner and myself serve in many capacities in the church.
"No amount of praying, fasting, or being prayed over by sick ministurds in the COG to cast out the "gay" demon ever "cured" me of being gay. God never expected such a thing nor made it happen."
sounds like the missing ingredient is repentance.
"Now have a very normal life that is spiritually rich and am secure in my standing with God."
clearly a false sense of security.
"Both my partner and myself serve in many capacities in the church."
can works save?
Practicing homosexuals should not be allowed to fellowship in the church. Repentant homosexuals who may stumble occasionally, yes, practicing, no!
Check 1 Cor. 5 for the Paul the apostles view on similar sin.
BTW, I'm not racist nor am I "afraid"/phobia of any homosexual, not that I have to defend myself. Also Lennie, tell your dad that I said hello.
Kevin McMillen
This is Anonymous 12:49 and 12:50. When you insinuate that certain CoG ministers are racists because they believe in the Anglo-Israel teaching or "homophobes" because they believe homosexual acts are sinful and legalizing gay marriage will prove detrimental to society, you are spewing poison. You are judging the hearts (intents) of those persons and possibly giving them a reputation they do not deserve. Homosexual activists are constantly judging conservative Christians, calling them homophobes, bigots, and haters. Yet, *they* accuse *us* of setting ourselves up as judges.
Anonymous 5/15 @ 12:56 - I will attempt to get my point across one more time: I don't know what's in anyone else's heart - that's why Christ instructed his followers not to judge each other. I do, however, recognize hatred, intolerance and prejudice when I see it in print or hear it in speech. The teaching/doctrine is reprehensible, but that does not necessarily mean that the person espousing it is reprehensible! Good people do bad things sometimes. I'd like to think that the folks who believe and espouse these teachings are motivated by religious conviction, but that doesn't make the teaching itself more palatable or noble.
Post a Comment