In Ron Weinland's latest book he has the following comment which describes the ultimate hope of every single Church of God leader out there today.
How many decades have we all heard this exact same thing. "The church is small since its inception"...not true at all! The church grew and millions have been touched by the words of Jesus and who, in massive numbers, are better Christians than ANY of the Church of God leaders we have today.That Church has been small from its inception. It has been hated, maligned, persecuted, and a vast number of its leaders have been imprisoned and/or even put to death. It has been so small that most in the world have never even known of its existence. But that is all about to be changed, as it is now God’s purpose to make it a powerful Church, and the only Church on earth.
According to the false prophets of the Church of God, their god was too impotent to preserve his word for future generations. Little itsy-bistys groups of men (always men) held on to "the truth" and kept it hidden till Herbert Armstrong listened to his wife and started his own church. Then, in only six months, he found it all hidden in the Eugene, Oregon library. God was a crafty dude to hide it there!
Yes, for centuries good men and women were been killed for their faith and continue to be to this very day. From martyrs in Iraq to those killed in Syria and Egypt, they stood up for their faith, secure in their beliefs. Not so in the Churches of God today.
The men leading the Churches of God today have never stood up for anything. They have never been persecuted. All any of them have done is create groups to secure their financial success and standing. In spite of their grandiose dreams and boasting, 99.99% of the world has never heard of any of the COG's. That much in Ron Weinland's statement is true.
I can state emphatically that Jesus will NOT return on Wednesday, June 9, 2019. Nothing will change on that date and God certainly is NOT going to make Ron Weinland's personality cult a powerful church any more than he will ever make any of the Churches of God powerful and the ONLY church on earth. Why would anyone alive today want to live in a kingdom ruled by spiritual despots like Dave Pack, Ron Weinland, Gerald Flurry, James Malm, or Bob Thiel? Who would want to be ruled over by any of their nasty and vindictive members?
The hope and desire of real Christians is something greater than any of the pipedreams of current COG leaders. That hope and desire is rest and release from the burdens of life as their burden are lifted and carried by one greater than them. There will be no ruling with rod's of iron or police states that so many in the church think they will be able to set up when they are made rulers of their worlds.
12 comments:
There is a strong possibility that Ron might have passed away by that time.
BB
Malm and Thiel are probably jealous that Weinland's actually been to jail.
If you give the early COG HWA some context, he shows up brand new at age 34, a young whipper snapper, and within just a couple of years he is a minister, and then just a couple of years after that he is off forming his own church!
No wonder the COG 7th Day leaders had difficulty with him! He was full of himself and unteachable from nearly the start!
I'm convinced that these sliver leaders are trying to define Christ's one thousand year rule. Hence they preach and practise tyranny, in the expectation that it will become part of the millennium.
Connie, I think that might be an unfair comment. He was enthusiastic and not always tactful and circumspect, and he stepped on a lot of toes. But to say that he was unteachable doesn't seem appropriate. Somebody taught him about the Sabbath, somebody taught him British israelism, somebody taught him about the feasts, and I think a lot of other things. I don't say that all these things are correct. For example I'm not a subscriber to British israelism, but I am saying that he was willing to learn from other people.
Gordon,
If you read up on criminals, they too are 'teachable' and the learning curve applies to their 'profession' as well. Being teachable on technicality issues is not the same as being morally teachable. Even Adolf Hitler was technical teachable. In the majority of cases, he followed his generals advice.
Yes Gordon,
One of HWA strenghts was to rely on the best of the best or "Ambassador Quality" as he described it.
He never made a Steuben or a GIII, himself but relied on the best of American enterprise and sculptors.
On a more serious note on the establishment of AC for a long time he relied on the best of educators (brother in law etc) from the inception phase until later. He only worked with the brightest. (Stan)
When he spoke about economics he quoted the best of American enterprise.
People are mixing the person with the message. And perhaps mistake loyalty for knowledge.
Thinking of it, why, like you, don't I buy into anything anymore?
I guess you take here a little and there a little and carve your own path.
nck
What do we mean when we say "not teachable"?
Apparently, what COG-7 meant was that HWA did not accept them or their authority as the primary resource for his education and guidance. He was conducting his own research which went beyond their established doctrines, their curriculum, and their authority. So, to a large extent, HWA was self-taught. And, isn't that what so many of us claim to have learned in the aftermath of Armstrongism that we ourselves should have done?
The problem is that so far as we, his "dumb sheep" are concerned, HWA expected us to accept and apply his teaching in a way that he had not been willing to do himself while he was part of COG-7. We were restricted from doing our own research or reading our own outside materials except to the extent that they led to the guided conclusions which supported total acceptance of everything the man wished us to believe. This is why decades later, so many of us have realized that we had been taken in. We did not properly question authority, did not apply critical thinking, and allowed HWA to lead us not so much to truth, but to a set of guided conclusions.
It's a classic example of "do as I say, not as I do". And, when COG-7 states that HWA was not teachable, they are being quite kind and restrained as compared to what HWA said of the self-teachers whom he found would not accept his church and the doctrines by which not even he could live as the total solution for their lives.
BB
Bob, I think that's a good summary. I do not think I've ever noticed anyone in COG7 say that HWA was unteachable. People there are usually cautious about saying anything derogatory about others.
HWA didn't claim that he was tutored, but rather that GOD HIMSELF opened his mind to these "truths that had been lost for 1900 years".
He never gave credit to JH Allen for BI, or to GG Ruppert for the Holy Days, or even the COG 7th Day which formed the buik of his theological understanding.
Well Connie he did give credit to God and technically it is true God opened his mind as God does do. Or do you not believe in conversion anymore ?
Re: "HWA didn't claim that he was tutored, but rather that GOD HIMSELF opened his mind to these "truths that had been lost for 1900 years".
He never gave credit to JH Allen for BI, or to GG Ruppert for the Holy Days, or even the COG 7th Day which formed the buik of his theological understanding."
Connie what happened to your great investigative journalism. Is winter depression setting in?
To give credit to men for days that can be found in the bible???? Whether they are valid or not, I don't care much about that.
I can't remember if HWA was ever tutored besides by his uncle or some chicago businessmen.
I recall him seeking professional advice by high quality professionals in matters like education and finance but not those being professionals in the religious field. Except of course those tent meetings in Oregon that were huge crowddrawers for the talking men of the age.
People make a lot of fuss about HWA not speaking about Allen. But HWA never made a secret of the fact that this "esoteric body of knowledge" existed in the British and Scottish realm of philosophy before 1928.
nck
Post a Comment