Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Darris McNeely and Days of Unleavened Bread


There is another excellent article on As Bereans Did concerning the Easter/Unleavened Bread teachings of the Church of God.  In the article is a section on the baseless claims if Darris McNeely about what Easter supposedly does not teach to Christians and what keep9ng Days of Unleavened Bread supposedly do.

I think it's safe to say that things haven't changed much since I left the COGs. I recently read the March-April edition of the United Church of God's “Beyond Today” magazine and, predictably, saw these regurgitated claims and more in Darris McNeely's article, “What Easter Doesn't Tell You.”
Here are the downright absurd things McNeely claims Easter fails to teach:
1. “Only God coming in the flesh could open the door of salvation for the human creation.”
2. “What's missing is understanding the way to eternal life through Jesus Christ, the Son of God!”
3. “Jesus Christ tasted death for every man so that God might give eternal life to those who call on His name.”
4. “You are missing out on the wonderful meaning of Passover and the death and reconciliation of Jesus Christ. Jesus suffered, died and was resurrected once for all time so that men might have the opportunity to enter into eternal life. Easter obscures the truth about that.”
Some other things mentioned that are worth conversation are:



2. Physical acts don't factor into your salvation.
Try as the modern COGs might, it's hard to get around the fact that the Days of Unleavened Bread focus on the physical. For days, weeks, and sometimes months, you focus on getting physical leaven out of your home. You pause to celebrate the Passover, and then the Night to be Much Observed – a lavish celebration not observed by Jesus' disciplines and AT LEAST as extra-biblical as Easter – then continue avoid leavening for the next seven days. Do you do it because you WANT to, because it's time to clean out the house, or because you want to try a low-carb diet? NO!!! You do it because you believe that not doing can keep you out of God's Kingdom. Yes, it was commanded – for Israel – and we have record of a few New Testament congregations like Corinth keeping it. It's likely that Christians like Peter and Paul observed it, although they certainly knew that doing so neither secured nor disqualified them. I get the distinct feeling that's not the impression members of UCG, COGWA, LCG or PCG get.



3. You will never be good enough – and that isn't the point, anyway.
You must put leavening out of your house, your minister tells you, because it symbolizes sin. In fact, those that don't put out leaven are sinning. But don't go overboard, because it's not possible and your focus should be primarily spiritual anyway. Also, laugh it off when you find a sandwich crust wedged in the bowels of your recliner next week, because God knows how hard you tried and will give you a pass. That one wasn't really sin because, you didn't know it was there. Or you forgot. Or whatever.
Huh? NOW who doesn't understand the gravity of sin?

Read the rest of the article here:  What the Days of Unleavened Bread Don't Tell You



28 comments:

Connie Schmidt said...

SING ALONG TIME! SING ALONG TO THE CLASSIC BEATLES TUNE - "ALL MY LOVING"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9YReSDvjqk

Close your mind and I'll diss you

Its Matzos, or I'll hiss at you...

Remember to always be true...

And while I just post away, ...

I'll write here every day...

And I'll send all my LEAVEN to you!

All my LEAVEN I will send to you

All my LEAVEN , buddy get a clue!

Feastgoer said...

The main speaker at UCG Home Office on UB-1 admitted he'd found leaven in his home that very morning.

For some reason, he was NOT ushered off the platform and kicked out of the camp. Isn't that what the Old Testament law says to do? The law UCG "loves," as it sings in a hymn?

Anonymous said...

Connie, how about explaining how you a COG 7th Day keep the Sabbath but consider the annual Holy Days sermonical?

Anonymous said...

Comment stated was:

******
Here are the downright absurd things McNeely claims Easter fails to teach:

1. “Only God coming in the flesh could open the door of salvation for the human creation.”
******

Well, if that is true, then Easter teaches something that is right!

How would McNeely prove anything about some "...God coming in the flesh..."

Why would God do that? How many Gods does McNeely worship?

We know that: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14

The Word was made flesh! But God, The God, the Father, made flesh? No way!

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

McNeely is a deceiver and an antichrist if he does not admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Teaching that "...God coming in the flesh..." is an error.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

McNeely is teaching/preaching "that spirit of antichrist!"

And so is anyone that teaches that Jesus was 50% flesh + 50% God, or 100% flesh = 100 % God, or that Jesus was flesh + any fraction of God.

McNeely is teaching/preaching "another Jesus:" something different from what the Bible teaches.

McNeely teaching about "God coming in the flesh" is teaching a "downright absurd thing," to us McNeely's own words.

Time will tell...

John

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:50 PM, you clearly don't understand the difference between old covenant & new covenant!

Connie Schmidt said...

Anonymous said...
Connie, how about explaining how you a COG 7th Day keep the Sabbath but consider the annual Holy Days sermonical?


ANSWER:
There are many of us in the COG 7th Day who keep and believe in the annual Sabbath Days. It is not a requirement of the denomination , although the Lords Supper on the 14th of Nissan is observed officially by the church.

John Kiesz, a long time minister and leader of the church, who lived into the 1990s , observed the Holy Days, this before HWA came along. There is a congregation of the COG 7th Day in Harrisburg Pennsylvania that observes the days and even keeps a Feast of Tabernacles event.

From there website: Pleasant Hills Christian Church is an affiliate congregation of the General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day). Our celebration of the biblical festivals does not reflect the historic view of the church. We appreciate the freedom extended to us by our parent organization to retain fellowship while we continue to embrace different views.

Anonymous said...

This is damage control by Mc Neely after his unforgettable Unleavened bread Beyond Today video that made him a laughing stock throughout the church.
They've let time pass 18 months or so and now he's rebuilding his damaged reputation. Mc Neelys laughing stock UB video is one of the most watched Beyond Today videos ever.

Anonymous said...


McNeely is not known to be the brightest bulb in the pack. UCG scraped the bottom of the barrel with this guy when they promoted him

Anonymous said...

1:34 -

Please provide a link to this video, and explain why this video was a "laughing stock". I'm sorry, but when I think "Laughing Stock" my mind immediately goes to "Let's Make a Thiel" videos where behind door #1 is crooked bookcases, door #2 is old curtains, and door #3 is a tiny little storefront. What was it that was unforgettable about this video?

And I'm not saying Thiel is even close to Wayne Brady - Wayne's far more charismatic and quick-witted then Thiel could ever be in a million years. I don't even see Thiel hosting Jeopardy!





True Bread said...

Apostle John said:

"The Word was made flesh! But God, The God, the Father, made flesh? No way!"


So, John....are you stating that the Messiah was a created being...???




Curious minds want to know...



TK

Near_Earth_Object said...

"Connie, how about explaining how you a COG 7th Day keep the Sabbath but consider the annual Holy Days sermonical?"

There is an imprecision in language here that really needs to be addressed. Terms like "keeping" and "sermonical" just blur the issue. The concern is whether or not some practice is a requirement for salvation. You can "observe" or "keep" the Sabbath but not regard it as a requirement for salvation. This is the direct meaning of the Jerusalem Conference whose conclusions are recorded in the Book of Acts (although Armstrongists claim in contravention to Paul that the Sabbath was already a requirement for salvation and did not need to be addressed in the Jerusalem Conference.)

You can observe for cultural enrichment anything out of the Old Testament. The moment that you make an OT practice a requirement for Christian salvation, you have departed into heresy and have abandoned the faith and despised the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice.

HWA and Hoeh overloaded salvation gratuitously with all kinds of OT prescriptions effectively establishing a Jesus Plus Cult "theology". Hoeh figured out what parts of the OT were still binding and published an article on it for the WCG. I used to have a copy of the article. Hoeh entirely missed the point that Paul made that if someone wanted to select something from the OT to make a condition for salvation, like circumcision, he has failed to observe the whole law.

An interesting question for research is "How did Herman Hoeh acquire the authority to abrogate the clear language of the NT and decide what OT prescriptions must be carried forward?" This is the fulcrum on which the Armstrongist rendition of Millerism rests.

The Branch Davidians observe the holy days, including the FOT, but I am not sure if they make them a condition for salvation.

Near_Earth_Object said...

“Only God coming in the flesh could open the door of salvation for the human creation.”

Rather than writing "Jesus" came in the flesh. This seems to be an issue. There was a great controversy in the Christian Church as to what Jesus actually was. It was an attempt to lay to rest a number of heresies. Hence, the Council of Chalcedon. I will not go into it.

But centuries later that Roman Catholics claim that the Protestants still do not recognize the Divine nature of Christ appropriately. Hence:

Roman Catholics say Mary the Mother of God
Protestants say Mary the Mother of Christ

It is an interesting study and I came away from it convinced that words are more important the we usually think and also that we know less than we think we do.

Martha said...

Just to be clear, I wasn't intending to pick on Darris McNeely, specifically or personally. He was just the messenger - any of the Beyond Today writers could have drawn the short straw to write on this rewarmed, rehashed, tired topic and probably written something similar.

I haven't seen the video you are referencing, so perhaps the criticism is fair, but I think any time anyone speaks from an uninformed, dogmatic point of view, they risk appearing foolish. This topic happens to be one where COG ministers easily back themselves into a corner because it illustrates the problem with mixing the wineskins in a way few others do, at least as clearly.

And NEO, you are absolutely correct about the cultural enrichment/salvation aspect. My bible study leader and I have this discussion constantly. Due to my many years in the COGs, I have a knee-jerk "allergy" to anything that even APPEARS to mix the wineskins, but in application, I think you are absolutely correct.

Anonymous said...

If only Darris McNeely's oratorical skills matched his ego, he might be good at the job he's been given. Why UCG puts Darris McNeely on TV at all is a mystery to me. He is incoherent and not at all personable.

Not just bashing UCG by any means. Gary Petty is everything Darris McNeely is not.

nck said...

I remember the distinction that was made between ceremonial fire burning requirements and other priestly things being made obsolete and the observance of certain times and dates as being set apart.

I cant remember what it was called, little covenant or ceremonial laws or something, like slaughtering of animals being under a different contract and different from the holy days.

I guess I should tell the Krampus people that that is done away with. We have Santa now.

Nck

Anonymous said...

NEO
A few years, when I was at a shopping mall, I got a tap on the shoulder from the holy spirit reminding me that the Sabbath was approaching (less than half an hour to go).

So you can intellectualize all you want, but Gods lead trumps everything. A persons salvation is in jeopardy if they ignore the Sabbath.

This has nothing to do with Herman Hoeh or any other human, past or present. God makes the rules, so that's that.

Anonymous said...

TB 9:33 pm asked: "....are you stating that the Messiah was a created being...??? ..."

Yes!

John

Anonymous said...

"An interesting question for research is "How did Herman Hoeh acquire the authority to abrogate the clear language of the NT and decide what OT prescriptions must be carried forward?" This is the fulcrum on which the Armstrongist rendition of Millerism rests."

Ambassador Watch back in 2007 published a little bit on Hoeh:

http://ambassadorwatch.blogspot.com/2007/03/enigma-of-herman-hoeh.html

Hoeh was very influential in the Church because, if my understanding of it all is correct, Hoeh was the one who "forced the puzzle piece in the hole to make it fit".

What the church already had worked out in the early days was their positions. What they needed was the ability to convince people that their positions were biblical. The thing about scripture is - you can literally take the Bible, and rework it without much effort to virtually support any position you consider truth - IF you cherry pick it and rework it - which is why you needed several stacks of booklets in the WCG to "explain" all of the unique doctrines that WCG asserted as "the truth". You can do the same thing with virtually anything and everything else to support your own agenda.

For instance: Virtually everything in ages and millennial years past can be traced back to paganism, including wedding rings and many accepted traditions the COG's have no problems with. Simple searches on paganism will confirm this. However, Armstrongism was selective on which "pagan" practices get a pass and which ones do not. Christmas, for instance, was a huge money-hogger, and the "work" wanted the money. (NOT needed, that's another story.) So, latch on to the pagan origins of Christmas, and that's one problem out of the way. Same with birthdays - money spent on birthday presents could go to "the work" - so, in my opinion, despite the reasons they claimed, birthdays were out because it was an expense that should have gone to Pasadena. You could also make the same arguments about any other holiday out there - and the argument that the root of the issue wasn't so much the paganism but the money. If paganism was truly and honestly the real concern, edicts concerning wedding bands and other pagan originated practices would have been banned too - but, they weren't.

As far as the question on the authority? I think the answer of that one is in belief. In COG-Think, at that time, Armstrong was #3 under God and Christ. Hoeh had a task assigned to him, and the belief was that God was behind it. I believe they simply were convinced God was using Hoeh for a specific purpose and the knowledge was "Divinely imparted" to him, because HWA confirmed it, and you just knew HWA was led by God - so if HWA confirmed it, then it was so. So let it be written, so shall it be done, so to speak.

What's interesting about Hoeh, who was so influential in the church, was that he had ties to Buddhists. How that role played in WCG dogmas, I have no clue, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was no influence.

http://www.thejournal.org/memorial/names/herman-hoeh.html

I wonder how much of this compendium of his is truly accurate and has been peer-reviewed.

http://www.cgca.net/coglinks/wcglit/hoehcompendium/hhc1toc.htm




Anonymous said...

John
It's the JWs position that Christ is a created being. One 'benefit' is that it exalts their 7 man governing body. Goes to show that some here are not exactly former WCG members.

nck said...

12:16

Now I understand it was all about money. So the day of atonement actually saved a 100.000 lunches per 10 dollar that is a million dollars. Ca......shing....whoop whoop.

I get it.

nck

Anonymous said...

12.16 PM
The church rejects birthday parties because it's anti self esteem.
You see, only ministers have worth. Everyone else is dog crap. You're dirt and deserve to be treated like dirt.
It's the bully position.

Anonymous said...

"nck" -

Using this not-so-vague sarcasm concerning Atonement does not invalidate the realities that Armstrong was constantly and thoroughly looking for income from every nook and cranny of every person that read a Co-Worker letter or had membership in the church. It does not take a Th.D to go through both autobiographies, the history of the church, past letters and PGR's, and every other communication and threat from Pasadena about income. One pothole in the road doesn't change the course of a car. Take a few moments, if you so choose, find the older communications from HQ on the 'net, and put the puzzle pieces together. As I seem to recall, Bernard Schnippert once famously said, "Of course it's all about the money!"

The entire construct of the framework of Armstrongism was built on establishing control on their members' mindset, finances, and submission, based on empty and false promises. Remember - even on Atonement, there was a worldwide Offertory that was one of the big money-boosters of the church, which you did on Day 1 and 7 of UB, Pentecost, Trumpets, Atonement, 1st Day of FOT, and the LGD. So I am befuddled as to what your example is trying to say. We didn't get those little yellow envelopes in the Spring and the Fall for nothing. The entire construct of 30% growth was fueled by fear and income-by-threats propaganda.

Now if I am misreading your intent of the Atonement analogy - I'll apologize to you. But I won't budge on the notion that it was all about the money. That's, in my view, as solid as a rock and as strong as steel. And if rock and steel were money, the Armstrong,s would take those too.

Anonymous said...

"A few years, when I was at a shopping mall, I got a tap on the shoulder from the holy spirit reminding me that the Sabbath was approaching (less than half an hour to go).

So you can intellectualize all you want, but Gods lead trumps everything. A persons salvation is in jeopardy if they ignore the Sabbath."


Wow. I am certainly glad you weren't there when Jesus himself dared to pick heads of grain on the Sabbath. Because your claim what put the salvation of our very savior in jeopardy for ignoring the Sabbath - the very thing that the Pharisees were charging him with.

In Mark 2:24, the Pharisees charged Jesus with "what they are doing is unlawful on the Sabbath". Which is basically the same thing you're saying against nearly all of humanity.

Jesus simply and, I presume calmly, stated that the Sabbath is not a "black and white" regulation. He stated how in 1 Samuel 21, that David and his friends entered the house of God and ate the bread that was consecrated and was legally there only for the priests to eat. BUT. He ate the bread, and did not get in trouble for eating the bread, even though it was not legal to do so. But because they were hungry and in need, it was deemed as okay.

Saying God makes the rules and that's that makes the Sabbath completely black and white with no room for wiggles - and Jesus was clear that that's not the case. If someone is at the mall, or anywhere else for that matter, and does something in love for someone else in need, or hungry, to say that their salvation is in jeopardy for being at the mall on the Sabbath, because God makes the rules and that's that - violates the spirit of the Law that Jesus consistently taught.

If you feel that you should leave the mall on a Friday night because of your promptings, that's all well and good for you. No one should condemn you for wishing to honor God. But to turn around and condemn others for ignoring a Sabbath as in jeopardy of losing their salvation?? Because "God makes the rules and that's that?" I'd take a moment or two to think about the position you hold, and rethink that black and white letter of the law way of thinking and contemplate it a little more. Because that's quite a charge you've declared against so many people. Jesus seems to me to be quite a bit more merciful than that way of thinking you have presented.



nck said...

3:40

Your points are valid.
It was stated raison d etre of the church to do "the" work.

It is good to recognize your view.

Yet the envelopes you mention were incognito if properly used. No one could trace it to you personally like Jesus who could see the widows pennies. At one time I was flabbergasted that the Feast site we visited gave half of our local Feast for offertory on average. Lots of children I guess.

Nck

Anonymous said...

4.20 PM
When Christ was criticized for healing on the Sabbath, He pointed out that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. That is, a moral code is subordinate to 'choose life.' Hence David ate the show bread when fleeing from a murderous Saul, and a hungry Christ picked corn on the Sabbath. The meaning of Christ being Lord of the Sabbath is that He can dictate the rules of Sabbath keeping. So Christ allows Christians to eat out on the Sabbath and holy days, even though James Malm disagrees.
God many times states that Sabbath keeping is a important sign of a Christian commitment. Again He makes the rules.

Anyone who violates the Sabbath is playing Russian roulette with their salvation.

Byker Bob said...

There are severe problems from an Old Covenant or ACOG perspective with eating out, period. Not just on the sabbath. The grill and utensils are all used to prepare and cook pigslop. They don’t even get cleaned between applications! The so-called “churches of God” always pretended not to know about this violation, even the Sabbath-Pharisees won’t discuss it.

BB

Are there any masculine men left in the COG leadership? said...

Why is it that McNeely and the other "men" who preach on UCG's and other COG video casts seem so feminized? Does the church have any masculine leaders any more who are dynamic preachers? I have a gay neighbour who is more masculine than these guys have ever been!

LCG Expositor said...

Anonymous said: "Hence David ate the show bread when fleeing from a murderous Saul, and a hungry Christ picked corn on the Sabbath. The meaning of Christ being Lord of the Sabbath is that He can dictate the rules of Sabbath keeping. So Christ allows Christians to eat out on the Sabbath and holy days, even though James Malm disagrees. "

True, Malm is often wrong, but not on this one. First, David was held blameless for eating the show bread, but it was a relatively minor transgression, and Christ's lesson in Matthew 12 was that mercy should be extended, which only applies if something wrong has been done. This did not give David permission to eat the show bread anytime he wanted. Note that mercy also is to be applied to the disciples, indicating that they, too, made a minor transgression. It is important to note that Jesus did NOT eat of the corn, so he did not commit a transgression at all. Again, mercy does not apply unless someone did something for which they deserved punishment. Exercising mercy does not give permission from that point on, lest one turns grace into license. So, Matthew 12 does not give permission to eat out on the Sabbath anymore than it gave David freedom to eat the show bread whenever he felt like it, or the disciples to eat lunch at the cornfield every Sabbath. If you want permission to eat out on the Sabbath, you either have to get it from Rod Meredith's faulty reasoning or make a biased interpretation of Matthew 12. Exodus 23:12 indicates it is important for the stranger to rest on the Sabbath. Deut 5:14 indicates that those who serve you are to rest on the Sabbath. Buying and selling is also prohibited on the Sabbath.