A Commentator on my recent post on dreams has attempted to interpret a recent dream I shared on this blog.
The Commentator, a disfellowshipped long-time member, stated:
Your dream might be interpreted as follows: The tall man is the angel of the Lord who accompanies you into the church. Pack is the foolish minister who gets distracted by the broken dishes, meaning he isn't focussed on the gospel. The gullible members represent those members who always side with the minister even when he is wrong. Meanwhile your attempt to leave the church on your own doesn't leave you guiltless because you failed to solve the angel's puzzle at the exit, that is you didn't leave over a point of truth but over a triviality for which you must answer to Jesus Christ, the "appointed Judge of the church", as you wrote. Disagreeing with Him proves your disobedience to the law. Thus your attempt to run from judgment for your sins will dog you the rest of your life until you repent, along with the rest of your rebellious unbelieving, blaspheming, double-minded, mocking and malicious posters and filthy communicators. That is why your dream ends with you still running. As for those who were trying to stop you, those are the witnesses (friends, relatives, members, angels) who will testify against you forleaving the truth. (Emphasis mine.)
Wow. What an unbelievably judgemental post here. Let me state here first, and foremost, something resolutely simple here: The Worldwide Church of God - And Armstrongism - was NOT the truth. Period. That very fact invalidates the well thought out attempt of proving one's "prophet-hood" by attempting to interpret a dream.
What about the Worldwide Church of God and Armstrongism is not the truth? Well, a few examples:
1. Jesus ALONE is the Way, the Truth, and the life. Nothing and no one else. Claiming I have left the truth is claiming I have left Jesus Christ. This is absolutely and unequivocally false. A Corporation cannot be all truth, but can have some truth. In reality, "The truth" is cult-speak for agreement to one's preconceived ideas and notions about a particular denominational dogma. You - whoever you are - have judged a judgment that only God himself can determine - whether or not I am of the Lord or am not. This is not for any human to decide, and never has been.
2. Prophecy and speculation. Herbert Armstrong and many other ministers were lying - over decades - and multiple times - over predictions and speculations about the future. Over 200 times, using the authority of Jesus Christ to back up their prophecies (which is exactly what they were, since Jesus' name was invoked.) No matter how many times one attempts to backtrack or whitewash what happened - what was uttered were lies and fear tactics. Nothing holy or "truthful" was in any of these.
3. Biblical Knowledge. None of this was the truth either. Herbert Armstrong discarded everything remotely learned by anyone else, then studied himself to mix up his own personal potpourri of religious knowledge. In doing so, he failed to grasp even the most fundamental and even basic basics of fundamental Christianity in favor of his own self-inspired interpretations. In doing so, he (and others) have rejected core realities in favor of man-made traditions.
4. Herbert's Claim of Christ's Return. This, too, was not the truth, because it did not happen when Herbert said it would happen. We should be well within the millennium right now. We are not.
5. Herbert's tithing policy. This was error at it's finest and was never intended to be a taxation system for a mini-government. This was simply a way to fund his real-estate projects and college, which brought many to an even worse financial situation then they started with. None of this was the truth.
6. The History of the Church - even this was not the truth, as we were only given a partial, biased interpretation as to our history, and the history of other churches as well.
7. Other Churches - Herbert claimed multiple times that other churches "were not doing" what "we were doing", such as with youth programs, and other such things. This was a lie, there was no truth in these statements. Even a precursory examination of 20th Century churches and their projects will prove that Herbert's claims were lies all around.
And much more.
The poster claimed I was "running from judgment" from my sins. The poster fails to realize that the core of the Gospel, the very center of the Gospel, is the fact that Jesus Christ has died and paid for my sins, and his, 100 percent. I do not need to run, the penalty has been paid, and my sins have been paid for and forgiven already. This is a gift from God and the heart of the Gospel. I am not under judgment. There is, therefore, now no condemnation, for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1).
The poster claims I was running because I failed to repent. On the contrary. I know exactly why I was running in my dream. I was running because I had to get away from the evil and the wickedness that was happening around me in that environment. The person who dropped the dishes was being unjustly and unmercifully chastised from the pulpit (in the dream). There was no grace, there was no mercy for that individual. The person was not given an ounce of forgiveness and/or compassion, just unjust persecution for a mistake. It disgusted me to no end.
The poster, however, revealed exactly what his or her heart believes - that everyone on this blog is an unbelieving, blasphemous, double-minded, mocking and malicious poster.
Because this person dared to attempt to interpret my dream publicly, I respond publicly. And I state: Judge not. You are speaking generally to situations that cannot be dealt with generally. You are interpreting what you know not where you speak. You may think you are witnessing for "the truth", but you are making a mockery of yourself. The core center of the Gospel is one of reconciliation, mercy, forgiveness, love, faith, mercy, and kindness - everything that was not in the dream that I shared. This is why I was running in my dream. Because in Armstrongism, the very fruits that Christianity is supposed to bear are barren and deserted in favor of ritual and tradition over substance and real truth. I pray your eyes are opened and your heart is softened. Again: Judge not.
Just one more thing: On the basis of everything the Gospel stands for, and because you claim "the truth" when your truth is lies and deceptions, I hereby solidly reject your interpretation. You do not know of where you speak.
What or Who is the COG?
ReplyDeleteThe people who are the Church of God are the people who have accepted Jesus the Christ as their Lord and Savior. When this done and they have receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit they become the body of Jesus Christ that is a spiritual organization no matter where they are here on planet earth. If we cannot point to any organization and say it is the only body of Christ. If we are truly a member of the body of Christ we will be living a life that reflects the life of Christ in us. There is lot to be learned and put in practice if we expect people to see Christ in us. We may think about how our body works to determine what part of Christ's body we reflect. If we try to be the voice of Christ and are one of the toes there may be a problem.
I am not saying I am the voice of Christ, but will admit that the toe can be hurt if the voice makes a mistake.ASB
Some always seem to like to boil things down, distilling many factors into one usually oversimplified rationale for leaving the church. This is then made into a "strawman" concept, and is attacked and ridiculed, often from the pulpit as an individual is marked.
ReplyDeleteThere never was just one reason for leaving Armstrongism for any of us. It requires more than just one event to sink the proverbial ocean-going vessel. Generally, people can accept and adjust to one factor, or a sequence of factors. Unfortunately the series eventually becomes overwhelming, and one realizes that the church has been devalued by its own leaders to the point of no longer being the commodity which we originally purchased. It is instead a defective product sold to us by very effective conmen.
It is disrespectful to proclaim that a member has left for one silly reason, lacking the intelligence to perform any sort of due diligence. Just about anyone with whom I ever discussed the fact that they left had agoinzed over their decision, and had multiple reasons for leaving. It ended up being a matter of conscience, the only possible resolution for much internal conflict.
BB
BB noted:
ReplyDelete"It is disrespectful to proclaim that a member has left for one silly reason, lacking the intelligence to perform any sort of due diligence."
A concept lost on some here on Banned who decide they alone know the thoughts and intents of the mind and heart better than the person who actually has thoughts and intents of their own heart and mind.
"You'll think differently when you are thrown into the Lake of Fire" usually makes a fine final judgment when they get done straightening out your life for you, in Him, which of course closely resembles the path they find themselves on.
As I composed that, Dennis, I was recalling an example cited by Frank Brown in the early ‘70s. He told the story of a man who was at one of the pot-luck feasts, saw one of the deacons carrying a tray of fruit designated for the ministers. The man asked, “May I have a banana?”
DeleteThe deacon responded, “No, you may not!” The man allegedly left, and never returned to church, citing this exchange in a post-exit counselling session as his reason for leaving the church.
There were many other examples over the years of puerile reasons given for leaving “God’s Church”. I would submit that most of these were probably last straw in nature, the final in a litany of reasons.
If we examine the concept of “enlightenment” as it is commonly defined, being part of Armstrongism never really flowed as such. The daily experience of the individual member was largely based on will-power and ritual, without the deep spiritual awareness and expansion of consciousness inherent in true enlightenment. Had there been any flicker of such enlightenment, it would have been co-opted and dominated out of existence by the administrators of the church authority structure. The meaning of the phrase “spiritual guide” was woefully misunderstood by these ham-fisted cretins who redefined “love” as slavish obedience to a poor imitation of picked and chosen rituals. They ridiculed Pharisees, failing to grasp that in essence, that is what they themselves had actually become! What a bogus and totally useless experience.
BB
and I'm sure the OT prophets were accused of being judgemental....anyone that adheres to God's standard will be called "judgemental" by those that resist said standard.
ReplyDeleteControl is always based on Need.
ReplyDeleteByker Bob said:
ReplyDeleteThere never was just one reason for leaving Armstrongism for any of us. It requires more than just one event to sink the proverbial ocean-going vessel. Generally, people can accept and adjust to one factor, or a sequence of factors. Unfortunately the series eventually becomes overwhelming, and one realizes that the church has been devalued by its own leaders to the point of no longer being the commodity which we originally purchased. It is instead a defective product sold to us by very effective conmen.
That is one of the most spot on, precise and effectual words of understanding that could be written unto this subject and should be at the forefront of everyone's eyes at all times for the rest of their lives.
Has the anonymous commenter correctly interpreted the sins and triviality of SHT as it relates to the truth? Has SHT gotten to the core of what is wrong with "Armstrongism" and thereby emasculating the basis from which the commenter writes from and thereby crashing any validity of his truth?
The clash of divergent views in the "Christian" realm in this day and age is not much different than what transpired in the 1st century when Jesus Christ walked the earth and interacted the people of Judea and beyond. If Christ was at that center of a way of life, the Pharisees and Sadducees or those early Jewish Christians of that mindset were at the far right and the academics were at the far left.
The far right thought they had it all right in every way possible. A strict observance of the Sabbath. Fast twice in the week. Tithe small seeds. Ornate garments. Linage by Abraham. Worship in the inner court of the temple. What was Jesus Christ's response to all of it? The problems from those in a academic thought process within the early Christian churches is recorded for all time in the bible.
When the woman caught in the very act of adultery was brought out to be stoned did she believe what she was doing was a sin? Probably only academically. Right here in this situation we have an encounter involving the three view points. The end result of the encounter was Jesus Christ rightly divided the word of truth in this situation. The woman encountered a "savior" because there was no condemnation but learned in an intense way that what she was doing was a sin and that maybe she shouldn't sin anymore. The accusers left not able to condemn a person for one sin because for a moment their shame was revealed.
The anonymous commenter's interpretation of SHT and SHT's response transposed unto this situation would reveal what? It is easily seen that all three ways of Christian thought are revealed from the both of them. They are both wrong and they are both right. But right in the middle of it all lays enough truth for those that see it.
There is a reason Jesus Christ told John to measure the temple and those that worship therein but not the outer court REV. 11:1-2. There is also a reason why Jesus Christ in talking to his Laodicea church who was rich increased with goods and had need of nothing Rev. 4:14-20 that He still loved them and stood at their door knocking. Two points for many of us to meditate upon.
I listened to Ron Dart's sermon "Frozen in Time" (referred to in a comment by KM on another blog post) over the weekend and found it still relevant today.
ReplyDeleteFrom what the judgmental poster asserted about SHT leaving "the truth" I just gotta ask exactly what "truth" is s/he referring to?
If we look at the history of HWA/WCG one will see how "The TRUTH" varied over time as "New TRUTH" was presented from the top down. Even Dart in his sermon asked if the WCG had "The TRUTH" then what is "New TRUTH?"
Everything HWA/WCG taught was always presented as "The TRUTH" despite all the "revisions" made over the decades when "The TRUTH" was to be succeeded by what HWA claimed was now "New TRUTH"—even when the latter was the complete opposite to the former OR had always been a teaching of historic Christianity. Sometimes the former was quietly discarded and ignored as if it never was a HWA/WCG teaching to begin with so you'd have to do a lot of homework in the vaults to find out what HWA originally taught as "The TRUTH!"
Like Dart asked in his sermon, "These people and groups are claiming they're carrying the mantle of HWA. But, which one? At which point? You can't just pick and choose one of HWA's doctrines from the '30s, one from the '40s, one from the '50s...HWA was never a static individual! He changed drastically over time!" Such proves he never really had the full package to begin with! He was a deeply flawed individual who taught his own eclectic mix of "The TRUTH," which, in truth, was nothing more than a mishmash of fact and fiction, truth and error, all throughout his "ministry" and so all the men, women and organizations that trace their doctrinal and practical roots from HWA/WCG are guilty of this today, especially since they typically fail to examine and compare "The TRUTH" as HWA/WCG offered us with what God actually reveals is "TRUTH" in His Bible!
Hence, as Dart even encourages in his sermon, it's incumbent upon everyone of us to study the Bible for ourselves with all the resources available to us (e.g. digital, print, etc.) and from all different sources (e.g. pro, con or neutral) to find out God's "TRUTH" about an issue in comparison to HWA's tainted version of it since we are exhorted to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3) not to HWA/WCG.
So again I'd have to ask that dogmatic and judgmental poster exactly whose "truth" is s/he referring to again?
11:04 I'm glad you enjoyed the sermon.
ReplyDelete