I hope that what follows will serve as a cautionary tale for anyone who might be interested in joining one of the many splinter groups that formed as a consequence of the disintegration of Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God (or any other group which claims to have THE TRUTH). It is also my hope that what follows will serve those who are currently involved in one of those splinter groups and be a comfort to others who have left the movement.
I was introduced to the Worldwide Church as a small child in the mid-1960's by my father. He listened to HWA and his son, Garner Ted, on a small transistor radio that rested on the headboard of his bed. My younger brother and I would lie across the bed beside him and listen along to the "World Tomorrow" broadcast. Nevertheless, as my father was a divorced man with two small children and still living with his parents, he felt that he was unworthy and/or unable to make the necessary commitment to God and "His Church."
My father, however, never lost his conviction that HWA had rediscovered "TRUE" Christianity, and that he and his son were the only folks preaching the "TRUE" Gospel message. Among the more important elements of their message were their teachings that Christians should observe the Jewish Sabbath, eschew the observance of "pagan" holidays (e.g. Christmas, Easter, etc.), follow the dietary rules of the Old Testament, interpret the Bible literally and reject anything that wasn't specifically stated in Scripture, understand that God was "reproducing" Himself, and that the English speaking peoples of the earth represented the modern descendants of Israel. And, despite his reluctance to formally join the group, my father believed and taught these "TRUTHS" to me and my brother.
As a teen, I began to study my father's belief system independently of him and in greater detail. I studied Armstrong's booklets and "Bible Correspondence Course" and eventually became convinced that my father had been right about Armstrong and his "TRUTHS." I began attending the Worldwide Church on Saturdays and refused to eat any "unclean" meats (pork, shellfish, etc.). I also stopped celebrating Christmas (which had been a very important family celebration prior to that). Thus, within a relatively short span of time, I had convinced Armstrong's ministry that I had swallowed their teachings hook, line and sinker and was consequently baptized at the tender age of seventeen.
Looking back on those events, I am amazed at how selfish, self-centered and bigoted I was. My poor grandparents adjusted to my new religion without protest. My grandmother stopped cooking with pork. My grandfather left the Christmas decorations in the attic and pretended not to mind the sudden disappearance of his favorite holiday. They also quickly accepted and adjusted to the fact that I would no longer do my chores on God's Sabbath (we were commanded to rest on that day) - though my grandfather was still working full-time and my grandmother had severe rheumatoid arthritis and numerous other health problems). My younger brother ceased to get Christmas gifts.
All of this was further complicated by the fact that I was a closeted homosexual desperately trying to deny the reality of who I was and to whom I was attracted. In Armstrongism, homosexuality was a wicked perversion - a willful choice to live a sinful life. Homosexuals were referred to from the pulpit as queers and sissies. Indeed, my own father had parroted this kind of language!
Needless to say, I certainly didn't want to disappoint God, break His commands or shame my father and grandparents with such behavior! Add to all of this the fact that HWA expected his followers to date within the church, and I was pretty much destined to be a very frustrated, unhappy and lonely young man.
Fate, however, intervened. After actively considering attending the church's private college (Ambassador College at their Pasadena, California headquarters), I made the decision to attend two public colleges. And, while attending one of them, I met a beautiful and intelligent young lady who was actually willing to talk to me and appeared to be interested in me! We began dating, and I began to imagine that I might be able to overcome the wickedness inside of me and have a "normal" life.
It wasn't long, however, until my conscience got the better of me. I was being a hypocrite. I was attending church and dating someone who wasn't a member! I confessed my sin to the ministry and was promptly disfellowshipped (a kind of excommunication).
I was terrified. The gates of hell yawned before me! I was on the outside of God's "ONE TRUE CHURCH." How could I survive being cut off from God and His people? I broke up with the young lady. She was bewildered, and I was a hot mess!
In the meantime, however, my father had remarried and joined the Church of God International (founded by Garner Ted after he was himself kicked out of his father's church). He wrote me and assured me that God had not abandoned me and told me that I should not lose hope. To make a long story short, I eventually reconciled with the girl and began attending my father's church.
Even so, my suppressed homosexuality did not magically disappear over the years that followed. Though I prayed about it constantly, averted my eyes and remained physically faithful to the splendid lady that I had married, my sexual orientation did not change. Hence, although we had two beautiful daughters together, the marriage eventually collapsed under the weight of my self-denial and awful secret.
To make matters worse, when I finally came out of the closet, my father revealed to me that he had always suspected that I was gay. Moreover, although I had been writing for church publications and speaking to their congregations for years, I was suddenly persona non grata, My father, who had by this time been a licensed minister of CGI for many years, not only supported the anti-gay sermons of his associates and friends, he also gave sermons along the same lines.
Thus, although my dad has assured me that he still loves me, he remains firmly convinced that the major components of Armstrong's teachings (including those against homosexuality) are THE TRUTH. As a consequence, my relationship with my father (once very close) has suffered tremendously.
And, even though I left the Worldwide Church in 1985, and Herbert Armstrong died less than a year later, the damage which he inflicted on me and my family is still being felt in February of 2019. Yes, it's funny how one insect can damage so much grain!
By Miller Jones
Blog: God cannot be contained! Commentary on the endless possibilities of God
34 comments:
Here Is PART 2 of the "DAVE PACK PEDIGREE RA RA BS" Please share and continue to
expose this fraud. Thank You
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dJTcSxYrkU
Miller:
Celibacy is expected in Christianity. Single Heterosexual men and women are not free to fornicate outside of marriage within nearly all forms of fundamental Christianity.
Although being unmarried, and celibate indeed can be a lonely place, it surely can be accomplished, and I know many who have done so. One may have homosexual desires, as a Christian, but it certainly does not provide for a pass to act on it.
Whatever ones "orientation" is, there is not license to be acting on it. I have known homosexuals in the church who have lived celibate lives, and have even been deacons and speakers at church. Are you proposing that homosexuals should have more liberty to act out than their heterosexual single brethren?
I can't identify with your homosexual leanings since I've never had them, but since it's a part of the natural world and affects many species, I no longer regard it as a horrible thing. Once you get over the illusion of the Bible being some great authority instead of the hodge podge of myth, tall tales, etc. it really is, you'll be on your way to a sane life without all the emotional conflicts. The last thing that concerns me today is what the Bible supposedly says about anything. I can get more sense and sound principles by reading Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain.
Tonto, Where in the Bible does it say that celibacy is expected of Christians? The Bible does say that it's not good for a man to be alone. At any rate, I have lived a celibate life for many many years now in order to have the moral authority to discourse on the subject with those of a Fundamentalist persuasion. If you're interested in my views on the subject, you're welcome to check out my blog mentioned above (there are several posts on human sexuality and homosexuality in particular).
Al Dexter, Thank you for your comments. I no longer regard the Bible as the only source that reveals God's will to us. Indeed, the book itself refutes such assertions. Moreover, I reject the Fundamentalist notion that the human authors of Scripture were simply taking Divine dictation. Just like the men who wrote it, the book is flawed (the inspiration of the Holy Spirit doesn't make us infallible). Finally, I don't believe that God ever intended for the book to be used as a science or history textbook. Hence, I am no longer emotionally conflicted about what I believe God expects of me. I too like Franklin and Twain!
Homosexuality is simply an error. Moralists with their moral poison always tend to cause more suffering than in alleviating it. To me, the fact that you produced two children shows that you know how it works. We all do. But this begs the question, is sexual gratification without sexual reproduction wrong? IMHO, no. A rapist can cause great suffering by raping and impregnating a woman. The fact that it was a heterosexual act does not alleviate the suffering. I believe that evil is simply suffering or the thing that causes it.
DBP
I will not make comments regarding the posting, but will ask questions.
1, Does the poster believe there is holiness and righteousness?
2. Does the poster believe there is sinful and unrighteousness?
3. Does the poster believe that Jesus Christ lived a human life that yielded to human lust?
4. Does the poster believe that God's grace allows a human being to continue human lusts?
5. Does the poster believe that love yields to lusts?
6. Does the poster believe that God justifies human flaws and failings?
7. Does the poster believe God accepts believers in Jesus Christ without transformation in old life?
Of course those who do not believe in God can accept whatever they believe brings them joy and happiness.
ASB
Homosexuality in humans is not a sin but a psychological problem. Animals can have psychological problems too.
Miller Jones, if you are fully reconciled to celibacy and content with your life, I rejoice for you.
If circumstances should change, and you could find a clear path to physical expression of your desires without undue stress on your other relationships, I would likewise rejoice.
To my mind, if two people share affection and sexual gratification without harming each other or betraying anyone else, they are not doing anything immoral. Many theists consider such acts a dishonor to their god, and for that reason immoral. They wish to punish the perpetrators. They are so committed to the taboos of their own belief system that they try to impose those taboos on people who do not share their beliefs.
This is the thing that is immoral.
Anon. said : Homosexuality in humans is not a sin but a psychological problem. Animals can have psychological problems too.
Is God unable to change a persons life? If God is calling a person to a transformed life a sexual lust of any type would be possible. There can be love but sexual desires are generally lustful when not natural. ASB
MILLER JONES; My comments were in regards to those that are not married. Virginity is an extolled Christian virtue. Fornication is a sin according to scripture. Thus, loneliness and celibacy is expected by both heterosexual and homosexuals . For some reason, it seems that society scoffs at the idea that abstinence is an impossibility, regardless of orientation. Christianity expects abstinence outside of traditional marriage.
Look, if there is no God, and the Bible is not true, then any behavior can be rationalized. However, the Bible is quite clear about sexual restraint by everyone if that is going to be your belief system. I find it difficult for any that somehow there are those that disregard this self evidence and try to reconcile those two universes. Total Sexual freedom and Biblical Christianity do not mix.
well Lonnie, you are celibate, I applaud you for that.
you commit a grievous error, however, by trying to portray homosexuality as some innocent loving behavior that God approves of...it shows a lack of repentance on your part, and that's sad.
The Church did not ruin your life, you did by trying to force unbiblical ideas into The Church....as if you want to be in The Church, but on your own terms.
to borrow from the gif on an earlier post, "That's not how this works, That's not how any of this works"
Couldn't agree more Tonto. In the genetic pool, there's all manner of human weaknesses. If it's not one weakness, it's something else. Yet God expects people to say no to these weakness, and live by the ten commandments. The reward for doing so is eternal life.
The authors claim that his father morally rejecting homosexuality somehow inherently hurt the relationship, is disappointing. It smells of extortion. Rather he should respect his father for sticking to his convictions.
Tonto
Interesting take.
I have discussed my take extensively on Millers blog.
Behavior can perhaps be rationalized. What a person is or how one is genetically wired is just a fact I have observed in my journey toward knowledge. And some people's sexual orientation seems to be wired differently from the majority in my observation.
In my discussion with Miller I have even cited research that seems to suggest that while on the individual level some wiring might not make sense at all, on the level of human groupings or societies they might. Taking a short cut. So glad not all men are like Arnie Schwarzenegger Terminator, but some are minstrels, poets, comedians or at least have another take on life through genetic orientation different and perhaps more sensitive from the big belly beer drinking raucous warring type.
Of course Miller cautioned me on generalisations when I exposed this theorizing.
It seems the bible offers guidelines on sexual behavior. I'm not sure if these guidelines serve as "constraints" (puritan interpretation) or guidelines on how to effectively procreate and ensure the survival of the MOST VULNERABLE OF MAMALS.
Also human society is a construct that is an effective and efficient way to ensure the survival of this intelligent species.
This entire "family thing" is a necessary construct since human infants DIE if not cared for a longer period, or at least develop in less than satisfactory way because of their brainpower. Neglected children develop many deficiencies even if they survive, while other mamals just go on and kill the antilope.
Female specimens know they need to attract a testosteron laden male who can be PERSUADED to remain for at least a longer while while they care for the young human specimens and not roam around an divert their energy in producing more offspring with other energy takers. This persuasion does not come naturally for the testosteron laden man. Religion, rules of morality or societal norms might ensure a change in crazy testosteron laden man to at least feed the smaller weaker specimens.
The bible is a valuable tool in describing what works best........until modern technology, means of transport, the pill and working women making a buck spoiled the entire premiss and basis of 6000 years of civilisation.
nck
DBP, I believe that God is holy and righteous, and that any of us who claim to fully comprehend what that means is being just a tad presumptuous/arrogant. I also believe that the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ makes it possible for holiness and righteousness to be imputed to us (again, I don't claim to fully understand what that means). Conversely, I believe that sin exists, and that there is a great deal of unrighteous behavior extant in the world. I believe that sin is a violation of God's Law - the law that Christ summarized as loving God with our whole heart and soul and loving our fellow human beings as much or more than we love ourselves. I believe that God equipped us with sexual desire, and that it is consequently a normal, natural, healthy and good thing (sexual desire becomes lust only when it becomes completely self-centered and hurts others). Hence, I believe that Jesus experienced normal sexual desire. By the way, he said that sexual desire turns into lust when it is directed toward someone other than your spouse (In other words, AFTER you have married someone - which is consistent with the commandment against infidelity). I believe that my definition of lust is inconsistent with love and is therefore a sin. Sexual desire, however, is an integral component of erotic love and is NOT sinful. We are the ones who attach shame to our bodies and their natural functions, NOT God. Finally, I believe that we are justified before God through Jesus Christ. The acceptance of that fact is transformative, but we will never be perfect in this life (and we cannot do anything to justify ourselves).
Retired Prof, Thank you for your thoughtful and compassionate comments. I like your definition of immorality, and I believe it is infinitely more spiritual than some of the views expressed by our Fundamentalist friends!
Tonto, I believe in God and the Bible, and I am a homosexual. I am a Christian, and I am gay. I'm sorry that this presents a paradox for you - It obviously doesn't for me. Once again, if you are truly interested in understanding my views, you are welcome to luck at my blog (referenced above).
Anonymous 2/17 @ 11:24, I never said that the church or HWA ruined my life (although they were the source of a great deal of unnecessary turmoil and pain). The CHURCH (not any of the human organizations which claim to be it) was intended by God and Jesus Christ to NURTURE Christians through this life. Likewise, the family unit was intended to nurture children. It seems to me that abandoning or shunning someone makes it extremely difficult to nurture/love/protect them.
nck, As always, I appreciate your comments. I think we would all do well to think more about how the natural world works and contemplate why it does work that way. If God truly designed all of this and sustains it, then many of our notions about "Him" and what is "right" and "wrong" must be flawed.
I apologize for the confusion. The comment I addressed to DBP was obviously my response to ASB's questions. I was looking at the wrong set of initials!
“And, even though I left the Worldwide Church in 1985, and Herbert Armstrong died less than a year later, the damage which he inflicted on me and my family is still being felt in February of 2019.”--Miller Jones
You need to accept responsibility for your own bad behavior, rather than trying to blame HWA for it. The damage inflicted on your own family was entirely your own fault for wanting to bugger around with other guys rather than being faithful to your own wife. It is your own endless, perverse lust that you have not been able to contain.
Miller Jones
There is no conflict between what God designed and what is right and wrong. Morality is not divorced from reality. Rather it flows from the nature of reality. Such confusion is understandable since modern day Christianity, which includes Herbs splinters, is a hotchpotch mixture of truth and Pharisaic error. If one scratches the surface, they are basically Marxist in 'theology.' Today's Christianity is a royal moral mess.
Miller Jones, we can all learn from Jesus Christ's message of Love. But, Love can't exist without freewill. You wrote, "In Armstrongism, homosexuality was a wicked perversion - a willful choice to live a sinful life." It must have been frustrating for you to decide to start a family, and then have the so-called church denounce it. That didn't stop you though, because you and your wife produced two daughters. Let me make it clear, we all know that reproduction is only possible through a heterosexual act. So, when I said that homosexuality is an error, it wasn't because the bible told me so, it is becuase it doesn't work. That is, you can't produce offspring. It's been said before that Mother Nature doesn't have morals, just laws.
DBP
I always enjoyed the fact that Herbert Armstrong employed a gay man as his interior decorator and used him at all three campuses to decorate homes, offices, planes and public reception areas for the colleges. Even when the closet queen Spanky Meredith tried to fire the guy, HWA kept him. He was at HWA's funeral with his partner along with several other gay employees.
DBP
In my careful post I extended your posting a bit. The producing of offspring may require a heterosexual act but the teaching or raising of thousands or 2 does not. Miller is example that gays can produce offspring and perhaps provide better individual care than manly man genghis khan or even Ronald Reagan the communist slayer.
Anyway. Pesrsonally I ve come to the conclusion that man is part of life and not some differing species from other organisms on this planet. Moreso God defines himself as life.
If life has a purpose, why then is it such a stupid construct. For instance the blind spot in the eye can only be designed by a fool. The octupus retina is flawless in comparison.
God would not pass for design at some universities.
Coincidence, natural selection are fundamental principles to accept the human condition.
The human brain is conditioned ny impatience or fear to fill gaps in knowledge and raise them to absolutes.
Only few people can allow themselves to admit and say: "I don't know."
We are animal that believe, because our understanding is limited.
Nck
Miller Jones said; Finally, I believe that we are justified before God through Jesus Christ. The acceptance of that fact is transformative, but we will never be perfect in this life (and we cannot do anything to justify ourselves).
Does this mean you believe we can continue to live a life that experiences erotic love as a natural function even if that love is not the normal defined in the scriptures we use in building a life in our relationship with the Son of God defined as Jesus Christ? ASB
"Homosexuality in humans is not a sin but a psychological problem. Animals can have psychological problems too."
Nonsense! I have a gay cousin. His mother suspected it from day 1 because he liked to play with dolls instead of trucks. He was born that way, and of course, it affects him psychologically.
"I always enjoyed the fact that Herbert Armstrong employed a gay man as his interior decorator and used him at all three campuses to decorate homes, offices, planes and public reception areas for the colleges. Even when the closet queen Spanky Meredith tried to fire the guy, HWA kept him. He was at HWA's funeral with his partner along with several other gay employees."
Herbert was the same brand of narcissistic pretend Christian and criminal as Trump is. He condemned masturbation, yet kept a log of his own practice of it. He pretended to value marriage and sexual morality, even instituting a no necking rule for Ambassador students but raped his own daughter serially for years. It boils down to what he told his daughter (the same one he raped) when he took her dancing on a Sabbath evening: "Those dummies will believe anything I tell them." We were his dummies. He was the narcissistic conman. Like a mafia don, it was just "business."
I understand some of the damage The COGs did to somepeople( being a past member myself) but blaming the Church for not accepting your homosexaul lifestyle is a little ridiculous.
I understand some of the damage The COGs did to somepeople( being a past member myself) but blaming the Church for not accepting your homosexaul lifestyle is a little ridiculous.
ASB, Tonto, DBP and Anonymous; May I suggest this post: https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-few-questions-about-god-and.html
Anonymous 2/18 @ 8:48 & 11:15 - I apologize for not making it clear that there was NO homosexual "lifestyle" for the church to accept (I was & am celibate). They rejected a gay man, not a lifestyle! I have accepted responsibility for my own sins and have repented of them, and I am confident that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ has removed them from "His" presence and mine (and you don't count in that equation). I do continue to blame HWA and the churches he inspired for the pain that they have needlessly inflicted on me and others (and I detect an unrepentant attitude in your defense of their behavior - I hope I'm wrong about that).
The ideal is that in coitus, a married couple's energy and desire to please one another rises to a crescendo and when they begin to hear the effects they are having upon one another, they reach orgasm together, and feel well attuned to each other as they lie in bed cuddling thereafter, right?
What about fetishes? Apparently, fetishes are a fairly common phenomenon. Fetishes, discovered naturally and normally usually at an early age, are things which hyper-excite an individual when thought of. They can last over the course of a lifetime. While these are often secret, couples sometimes accidentally discover them about one another, and play off of them.
Fetishes are not generally classified as being an orientation or lifestyle choice. Acted upon or not, they tend to fall under the category of fantasy. Is it possible that LGBT people are simply individuals with one of several different fetishes?
BB
Miller Jones, I am in full agreement with what Retired Professor wrote:
"...if you are fully reconciled to celibacy and content with your life, I rejoice for you.
If circumstances should change, and you could find a clear path to physical expression of your desires without undue stress on your other relationships, I would likewise rejoice.
To my mind, if two people share affection and sexual gratification without harming each other or betraying anyone else, they are not doing anything immoral. Many theists consider such acts a dishonor to their god, and for that reason immoral. They wish to punish the perpetrators. They are so committed to the taboos of their own belief system that they try to impose those taboos on people who do not share their beliefs.
This is the thing that is immoral."
DBP
To Retired Prof who said: "...if two people share affection and sexual gratification without harming each other or betraying anyone else, they are not doing anything immoral."
So what if the consensual coitus involved incest (eg father and daughter, or mother and son, or siblings)?
To Miller Jones:
I empathize with you! I am a Christian who’s struggled with homosexual thoughts since very young myself. I believe we don’t choose to be born homosexual anymore than we choose to be born liars, murderers, robbers, etc. However, the Bible reveals we are naturally all born sinners and, as such, we are born with the propensity for sinful thoughts, are destined to struggle with our sinful nature all our lives and inevitably deal with the outward sinful words and deeds that will naturally result as a consequence. Where we do have the power or freedom is in choosing to act upon those sinful thoughts, feelings or desires in the first place. This is where, in my view, what personal moral code or standard you hold to comes into play. Hence, as a Christian I choose to observe the standard outlined in the Bible and exemplified by the Lord Jesus Christ. Accordingly, I believe any thought or act that falls short of that Divine standard is wrong or immoral (eg murder, abortion, lying, idolatry, robbery, homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia, etc). So, even though in our society homosexuality might be deemed “normal” it is in so far as it is “normal” for any sinner in a given set of circumstances to have sinful thoughts, feelings or desires for whatever perceived gain and to act upon or yield to those sinful desires. Thus, it’s “normal” for a murderer to think about murder, a liar to think about lying, a robber to think about robbing, an adulterer to think about adultery, etc. But, it doesn’t make it morally right, especially in light of the Word of God that reveals what is right and wrong, moral and immoral to Him. And, in the end, we all ultimately must choose to be defined by said actions (ie words and deeds) whether they originate from moral or immoral thoughts.
Post a Comment