From Facebook, with permission:
We were talking about all the divisiveness in the world today and how if you ask questions publicly, you get shamed, attacked, or berated...
She said... Yeah, that's how it was in the church during the big split. If you asked any questions, they were on you. They would send a deacon over every week to talk to me. He would ask me all kinds of things to gauge where I stood on the split. I knew to keep my mouth shut.
And then she finally told me why they left the church. They had a concern (my mom can't remember the specific concern) My father went to our minister and said.... I gave up everything to be a part of this church. Everything. My parents, my siblings, my past life, everything that I had... And now, you and the other ministers aren't willing to give up everything for us?
And they left.
So interesting how people of power don't like questions. Makes you wonder why...This is something that many here have pointed out over the last 9 years. Those in power in all of the splinter groups are in power because they did not want to sacrifice anything and that they do not like to be questioned. We have seen this recently with Gerald Weston.
When the church was imploding, ministers started plotting behind the scenes to form new groups that they could step right into and still be paid. There was never any idea of sacrifice involved with any of them. This would have been the prime opportunity for the church to start fresh. It was fertile ground for growth. But, not one of these men now in charge, in any splinter group, or the ministers that followed them have ever made a sacrifice, especially not like regular church members have made over the decades.
Church members lived in the real world and had to contend with church doctrine interfering in their lives, with school, and work. Family relationships were broken up with "unconverted" relatives. Children had to deal with schooling as they had to leave right after school started up for the Feast. Members lost jobs due to all the inane sabbath and festival restrictions forced upon them.
Ministers never had to face that issue. They were in their own world. employed by a church that paid them to never have to worry about sacrifice.
When has Dave Pack ever made a sacrifice? When has Gerald Weston? When has Gerald and Stephen Flurry? When has Vic Kubik, Don Ward, or Robin Webber? When has David Hulme? When has Jim Franks or Clyde Kilough? Where was the sacrifice of the Tkach's? Where has Mark Armstrong or Bill Watson sacrificed?
Positions of power ruled the day and still do in the Churches of God. Men that are servant leaders are not something that Church of God members are familiar with. Men who are church leaders and who also allow questions are unheard of in the church. It is better to keep members living in fear and under control than having them asking questions and thinking on their own. After all, salvation is only available through the explicit permission of your minister or church leader. Think about that one for a moment!
26 comments:
And not only this, but during splits, the ministers, trying to keep their business going and their client base together, out of desperation will start saying the quiet parts out loud and displaying their true character out in the open for all to see.
I got my first taste of seeing "my" ministers unvarnished behavior in planning meetings for the Rose Parade. It was then I realized that ministers fight, and treat each other abysmally, but only in private. Publicly, they put on an outward show of piety while telling us to trust in god to resolve our problems for us. But they don't follow this advice themselves, which is why they are so busy stabbing each other in the back. They stoop to whatever moral depth is necessary to resolve their problems on their own.
But during a split, you see them come out of the closet. No longer do they do their dirty deeds only in private. That's the time to watch your ministers, to see if they practice what they preach. Once I saw the true character of Joe Tkach and the other men leading WCG I knew I couldn't stay there, but didn't know where to go. Eventually I went with UCG, but when they split too, and I saw those men were just as bad, I realized the problem was bigger than I had originally imagined. Men who I knew personally, and had trusted, I saw were not to be trusted either. That was when I began to question things on an even deeper level.
I totally agree that ministers were plotting behind the scenes. Some of this came out in Dixon Cartwright's "Journal". There is an unbelievable amount of corruption in the world. Almost every company I ever worked for was either dirty dirty dirty or abusive and controlling. What the hell is the matter with people? Everything is dirty and deceitful. Government, journalism, industry, churches, you name it.
Most of the Armstrong Church of God ministry like to speak, enjoy the respect and admiration that their positions evoke, love being the center of attention and relish the control they exert over other peoples' lives. Unfortunately, things like the love and care of the flock, empathy/sympathy, kindness and leading by example are usually absent in the way that they conduct themselves. As with any general statement, there are/were exceptions to the rule (but they were few and far between and really stood out in this culture). It is likewise unfortunate that most of these men have played the game of politics within their various organizations with a skill and ruthlessness that Machiavelli would have been proud of! The Armstrong COG model of servant leadership meant that the members served the leaders - In other words, bass ackwards! So much hurt and offense have been generated over the last eighty years within this culture - I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of some of these folks when they face their Maker!
Pedrito Cara is PCG's Associate Pastor in the Philippines. He consistently encourages members to give all and sacrifice for the work. Yet he owns a sizable farmland that he's not willing to sell to give to the "Church". what a hypocrite.
Is the "The Greatest Untold Story" still going on?
Bass ackwards.
ouch, sounds painful.
How do you tell whether your WCG minister was one of the good ones? Conscience. He realized what was going on, and left!
BB
The label "minister" is a sick joke. They deliberately feed their members spiritual milk, behave like banana republic dictators, are partial to church crazies, and are social justice warriors by rigging the rules to create a Nirvana for the irresponsible.
And how dare members read sites like Banned that validate the obvious!
They're anti ministers.
The Great Packster’s never ending story with a cliffhanger about Christ’s return in every episode you mean? That show.. erm bible study.. were Davy tells the poor RCG sheep his latest lies.. erm.. revealing what God told him and what he has learned?
Yep, that show.. erm bible study.. is still running. Close to 300 episodes now I would think. The Greatest Show on Earth!
And Davy doesn’t like to take shortcuts either. Every episode.. erm ... bible study.. is usually longer than two hours. Sometimes Dave feels really inspired and tells lies.. erm repeats what God told him.. for almost three hours.
‘Come and see! Come and see! The Greatest Show on Earth!’
What’s even worse is that most of the time these ministers cover things up for each other: ‘How dare you complain about that other minister! You are the one with an attitude problem! Go and repent!’
I’ve seen people emotionally and spiritually getting crushed between ministers in the RCG and LCG because they started to question a minister’s attitude or because they questioned a minister’s behavior. And it is only in cases like that, that brethren start to see and finally begin to understand what the COG’s are really all about: money and power. And then more money.
Many ministers have only been trained for and are comfortable with communicating by monologue. Monologue allows the speaker complete control of the platform, subject matter and presentation, with no answer-ability for what might be said. If the speaker happens to be the leader of a particular cooperate church group it also allows him to maintain more influence and control over those who are listening to him. When that leader, whomever he may be, discourages questions and open discussion among the congregation he is not only missing an opportunity for teaching in a more relaxed and natural way, but also an opportunity to perhaps learn something himself along the way. He is also effectively sending the message to the congregation, who are supposed to be viewed as his brothers and sisters, that his is the only voice that matters or opinion that counts, and he alone is allowed to determine what everyone else is supposed to believe. Some leaders will even proclaim that "we" believe this or "we" believe that, presuming to speak for everyone else, when theirs is the only perspective that is allowed to be voiced.
This approach however is flawed and really doesn't reflect how we see Jesus or the apostles approaching people when they preached the gospel. While there are instances of what we might call speeches in the biblical narrative, these instances are liberally interspersed with conversations, people asking questions, and lessons being shared through examples, or parables to make a point. The parables were then discussed between Jesus and the disciples and the lesson explained to them in greater detail. Jesus often did this by posing a question and eliciting an answer from whomever He was interacting with. Any good teacher knows students will absorb the lesson better if you involve them in the process and don't just lecture them all the time. This takes more work though, and has to accommodate a certain amount of flexibility and thinking on one's feet. It is much easier to maintain complete control if interaction with others is limited and questions are discouraged. Sooner or later though, those who are truly curious and actually want to think, will become dissatisfied with that amount of control and will either leave or become frustrated. After all why study or take any initiative if you are never allowed to share what you have learned and if you happen to disagree with the prescribed opinion you are automatically labeled a heretic?
It is interesting to look at an example in Acts that describes how Paul interacted with others. "As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,..." Acts 17:2 The word translated "reasoned" here is dialégomai from which we get the English word dialogue. It implies getting a point across by "exchanging thoughts" or what we might call today, a discussion. It is used several times in the New Testament and translated as discussed, reasoned, disputed, preached, etc. but the word itself implies that these instances weren't simply monologues which would imply a speech made by one person, but dialogues which implies a give and take exchange between two or more people.
Concerned Sister
Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.
Humans have an infinite capacity to believe what they want to believe. We call that confirmation bias.
rigging the rules to create a Nirvana for the irresponsible.
Smells Like Ambassador Spirit!
If the ministers "don't like questions," why did that one ask so many?
The etiology of this phenomenon is simple. The reason why the Armstrongist ministry is an aloof, self-serving elite is because that was what was taught by example at Ambassador College. An AC education was way more about the Faculty Locker Room on the Big Sandy campus than it was about the principles that Christ taught; way more about the operation of a rigid Caste System than about Christian charity. End of story.
The real paradox is why do people continue to be walked on by this ministry? I think the answer is to be found in something called "Belief." When the WCG began to go into dissolution back in the mid-Nineties, I spoke about events with a Armstrongist friend of mine (now deceased) and cited a noted theologian about some issue. Her response was "I don't care what men say. I care only about what the Bible says." That response was both false and absurd. She only cared about what one man named Herbert Armstrong said. In her years of being an Armstrongist she came to equate HWA's words with the words of the Bible as a matter of core belief. And she lost her ability to evaluate Armstrong's words critically just like the Branch Davidians lost their ability to evaluate David Koresh's words.
David Koresh proclaimed that he had full access to all of the women among his followers - including married women and very young women. This somehow was thought to be based on scripture. Malcom Gladwell wrote in New Yorker magazine: "A value-rational person (a person who bases their rationality on values rather than goals) would accept his fourteen-year-old daughter's polygamous marriage, if he was convinced it was in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy." The statement enclosed in parentheses is my addition.
The formation, operation and nurturing of organization conserving beliefs are what we see at work in the various Armstrongist paradoxes. As Gladwell brilliantly observes:
"Countless religious innovators over the years have played the game of establishing an identity for themselves by accentuating their otherness. Koresh faced the same problem, and he, too, made his claims, at least in the eyes of the world, 'in the most obnoxious way possible.'" Obnoxiousness seems to have high utility for many of these Apocalyptic Millerite communities.
Answer is simple. No minister or elder should be paid , and should work real jobs in the real world. Share the work of the ministry to the entire congregation to do.
Second, subjugate the title/privilege thing. Hold deacon and elder elections with voting by the laity every two years, and stop this "ordained for life" thing.
"You don't question the Power. You OBEY it!", says the sheeple.
DBP
From what I've been hearing, it seems that scholars now agree that the earliest "genuine" new testament books are those written by Paul. (Half of the books attributed to him are considered forgeries so they don't count.) Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. He simply had visions of Jesus. His Jesus was the cosmic Jesus. It was either a series of hallucinations (to be kind) or a series of lies. Later fake gospels were written to make the cosmic Jesus seem real.
Paul was a Pharisee! His "conversion" to Christianity was fake. Very few Jews were ever converted. Clearly the NT was written by the Jewish establishment as a religion for the Romans. It was never meant for Jews. The Jews would never accept a crucified Messiah (and many other things in the NT). The whole thing was a ruse.
Anonymous (12:48)
"From what I've been hearing … it seems … scholars now agree … are considered … simply had … Clearly … the whole thing …"
I think you see the problem.
Anonymous 5/18 @12:48,
Finally, someone has figured this all out! Instead of a Satanic/Roman Catholic conspiracy, there was a fake Jesus/Pauline conspiracy to hoodwink the Romans. Sorry, your offering makes about as much sense as Herbie's interpretation of history. Like him, you dismiss all of the early Christian writings that weren't included in the canon. You also seem to dismiss the consensus opinion among biblical scholars that Matthew and Luke used Mark and some lost document(s) to write their gospels (Mark being the first "complete" gospel). And, more than the harmony which is often emphasized, the differences and discrepancies among the four accounts lead many of us to give greater credence to the stories (after all, almost all scholars believe these are attempts to preserve oral traditions). Moreover, it is difficult to make definitive pronouncements on Pauline forgeries as the man often used someone else to write for him (which could account for different writing styles and grammar usage). Also, our notions about plagiarism and forgeries would have been foreign to folks in the First Century - they saw nothing wrong with attributing something to someone that had told them something once upon a time. Finally, it doesn't seem very likely to many of us that individuals would suffer and die for something they knew to be a hoax or hallucination.
" It implies getting a point across by "exchanging thoughts" or what we might call today, a discussion."
from what I've read, the custom of the single, uninterrupted speaker up front comes from the Roman Catholic tradition....because the priest was the only one in town that could read...which made it very easy for them to spread their heresy since no one could hold them accountable because no one knew what was written in the bible.
I suppose that keeping it in Latin was an additional safeguard.
As usual, Concerned Sister has made a worthwhile and thought-provoking comment. The central point: dialogue is a better teaching method than monolog. She has given biblical support for the principlez; I will put in my secular two cents' worth.
The longer I taught, the more I saw how much better discussion worked for deepening and broadening students' understanding. I kept coming up with different ways to get students to ask and answer questions for each other, and the approach that finally worked best was made possible by e-mail. I would assign students to read the story or poem or chapter we were studying and send me at least one question about the reading. It was supposed to be something they truly did not understand. I would then make edited lists of those questions, with students' names attached. On some issues, several might ask similar questions, and I would use one version and attach all their names. I would e-mail the list back to them in time for study before class discussion.
At that time I would invite anyone who could answer a question to do so. Usually there would be two or three volunteers. Often they would disagree. I never declared there was only one right answer. Instead I nudged them to defend their answers with evidence from the text. Sometimes the class would realize that an answer was wrong because the evidence did not fit. Sometimes students would divide into two camps, each perceiving the situation in a different way. Sometimes they would come to a consensus that the situation could be seen in two equally valid ways. In any case everyone got a more thorough examination of the question than any could have achieved alone. I am sure these discussions broadened and deepened students' understanding, since my own understanding improved. Several times over the years someone came up with an interpretation of a passage better than any I had thought of myself.
Even though I have never led a Bible study, it seems to me this kind of dialog should have a similar effect. From my secular perspective it would certainly be better than the way Bible study was run in Pasadena when I was a student at Ambassador. Participants would submit a question on a slip of paper. The minister running the show would read each one and give an answer. It was always the right answer. If members disagreed, they needed to keep their opinion to themselves.
Thank you concerned sister and retired prof for sharing your accumulated wisdom.
I came in contact with "The Socratic Method" whilst enrolling in law school (philosophy of law course). At the same time I heared GTA blasting the Greek philosophers as perverts over the radio. So the Socratic Method and internal discussion and questioning has been an intrinsic part of my personal journey.
Indeed.
The bible shows the Hellenistic temple priests to have been impressed by the young lad from the Hellenistic Hasmonean capital of Sepphoris (next to this mountain village where his mother lived). The apreciaton was shown not because of his oratory talents that the dominating Romans (Cicero) would have praised, but because of his Questions that a (cultural) Greek unto the Greeks would have appreciated.
Retired Prof refers to Pasadena. A city and campus that mirrored and reflected so much of the Renaissance apreciation of the antic world. A shame that this reflection seems to have been degenerated into totalitarian antics instead of a real apreciation of the ideas of Eckbo and Mendenhall and perhaps the founder who hired these artists to inspire "Aspiration" (theme of egret sculpture). The original idea for Ambassador College was to have it situated along the shores of Lake Como where the Artes could be studied in a setting that should have inspired dialogue and thought instead of monologue.
"The Modern Romans".....it did show the Capitol on its cover. The Greek are under apreciated. When I visited the Areopagus as a student I thought about Paul, revealing the scolars about the unknown God the Greek anticipated to exist through rational deduction.
I'm sure they had questions though!
nck
Ain't that the truth. Anon 12:52 AM
The church ran down Aristotle as well. In fact his view of concepts was close to the Bibles "you shall know them by their fruits," ie, evidence plus reason. While the WWCG gave lip service to "you shall know them by their fruits" and "prove all things," in substance the church culture was that of the elite doing the "proving all things," then demanding that its members blindly believe what the big people hand down.
This approach results in a house built on sand, as the church falling apart on HWAs death shows. Some defend the lording system by using Joe T as the scapegoat. But Joe Tkach was the effect, not the course. Just like Rome being over run by the barbarians was the effect, not the cause of Romes fall. After all, the barbarians were always present from the start.
Post a Comment