Doesn’t Everyone Want to Be A Big Shot?
By
LonnieHendrix
Within the culture of Armstrongism, all of the men were/are expected to aspire to give a sermonette or attend Ambassador College. After all, the pastors and the leadership in Pasadena were held up to be the epitome of Godly manhood. All of the lesser men within the congregation were encouraged to emulate them or “to covet earnestly the best gifts.”
In the splinter groups, these notions about aspiring to participate in church leadership have taken on even more significance. In short, asking a man to give a sermonette or sermon is seen as a means of keeping people involved/interested/invested in the particular group. By stroking egos and flattering someone with an invitation to speak, it is hoped that they will not wander off or consider joining one of the other splinters.
Of course, these notions and practices are not peculiar to Armstrongism. Flattery and other enticements have been used from time immemorial to keep people engaged. After all, it is heady stuff to be placed in a leadership role – even if it’s only for 30-45 minutes on a Sabbath!
But what about the men in the church who never got wrapped up in this kind of thinking? What about the folks who don’t want to be in charge or speak? What about the men who had absolutely no desire to emulate Herbert or Garner Ted Armstrong? What about the guys who think that church leaders should serve members and exude humility?
“That man is dangerous!” the other men declare. “Everyone wants to be Garner Ted – he must have some kind of agenda!” “If he doesn’t want to deliver a sermonette, he must secretly want to run the whole show!” OR “He must be planning to start his own group or cultivate a following for himself!” They simply cannot understand anyone who is not motivated by the same kinds of things that motivate them.
Throughout my association with Armstrongism, I have never desired to be an apostle, minister or deacon. I have never desired to start a new church or accumulate a following. I have been asked numerous times by others to speak or write. “I will do anything I can to help you, but I have no burning need to speak or put myself forward,” I would always answer.
Sometimes that would evoke a knowing smile, but I remember one time when the pastor who had asked me to speak understood what I meant. He acknowledged what I was saying and then quoted Plato. “Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.”
Unfortunately, many of the folks within the Armstrong Churches of God want to say something. They like the prestige and respect associated with standing in front of a congregation or being the one that folks turn to for advice. For them it’s not about serving and helping others, it’s more about being the big shot – the top dog. It would almost be funny if it weren’t so very sad/pathetic!
ReplyDeleteSooner of later, glorying in position or attention will lead to conflict.
But suppose it seems to be succeeding for you? You have all the money in the world--well, more than enough, a nice car, family perhaps, and a successful business, maybe you have a "title" at church, like elder or deacon. Perhaps you get to speak and blowhard at everyone--still, something's wrong, isn't it?
Something is wrong, and you sense it. And you try harder to make it right. You go to church and you put on the best front possible. Still you don't feel right about being (seeming to be?) right, and you compensate. You become successful in the eyes of the community, or at church--a great engineer, a great doctor, a "good COG member". you do good, and everybody sees you doing good. They say "What a wonderful person Tonto is!"
But you don't feel wonderful, no matter how wonderful others think you are. You even get suspicious of the way they think of you. You don't believe that they believe because somehow the more wonderful everyone thinks you are, the less wonderful you become. It's a mystery. You don't even feel right about being religious. You don't really believe your own belief in God.
Isn't that right? I don't mean to say that there is no such thing as a true belief, but there's a problem connected with it. The deeds that evoke opinions on which an image of ourselves rests separate us from the core of our being and have no substance in reality whatsoever. The difference lies in the direction of the flow.
The sense of who you are that is coming from the world, supported by the world, the love of the world (as the scripture says) makes you an enemy of God and your conscience. you are only serving your ego, you see, when you are puffing up and looking great in the image of yourself that you have collected from the environment. You are trying to be right in a wrong way, and it will never work.
True spiritual actualization occurs alone with God, away from all the noise of other humans , and their judgements, praises, accolades, status, and criticisms.
Being an introvert I always thought I was spiritually inferior to those men in the church that had positions of authority, who gave sermonetes and where officers in spokesmen club ect. As hard it was for me a square peg trying to fit myself into a round hole I always was fearful of leaving the WCG because I was afraid of loosing my salvation. So I felt trapped and ever so ashamed that I didn't measure up to the out-going person that HWA always talked about. Finally in 1995 me and my wife finally left the WCG. It was something in retrospect I wish I would have done years earlier. However even after leaving the false assumption that because I wasn't an extrovert I was spiritually weak lingered in my mind. It wasn't until about 10 years ago after reading a book about different personality types did I realize that there was nothing wrong with the personality I was born with and I had no reason to feel bad about not being socially talented. But the scars remain despite a general improvement in my life. This all wouldn't have happened if I would still be in one of the splinter Churches of God.
ReplyDeleteOne preacher in UCG resisted giving messages for a long time - and eventually was convicted when a man told him that he was being selfish for NOT preaching. Self-centered, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteThese days, simply "serving members" in UCG might get you ordained as a Deacon, anyway. Pastors in some congregations ask the members in surveys about who should be ordained. Quite a change from years gone by.
Lies all lies.
ReplyDeleteHey Tonto - thanks for making a brilliant point:
ReplyDelete"True spiritual actualization occurs alone with God, away from all the noise of other humans, and their judgements, praises, accolades, status, and criticisms."
True spiritual actualization comes with a prize too. When God is your greatest desire and treasure, you have more joy, peace, and satisfaction than you could attain from money, possessions, status, accomplishments, and praise of men.
Christianity/Millerism/Armstrongism is doomed to fragmentation because it lacks an historical bedrock: Take, for example, its first document, Galatians: the author admits he received the revelation in visions* -- Oh my, we're not off to a good start here. It gets worse from there: The later Bios of this messiah are synthetic**
ReplyDeletereferences
* The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross by John Allegro
** The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis MacDonald
Shortly after the Cogwa/UCG split I was talking to a minister in COGWa and the topic of a newly ordained younger elder in UCG came up. The minister stated that they probably ordained him so he wouldn't leave their group. To state the obvious...speaking in church, deaconhood, elderhood are viewed as collateral.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know what happened to Michael D. Maynard? Did he pass away?
ReplyDeleteEd:
ReplyDeleteI understand your perspective. At its core, the problem was that among many Armstrongists GTA became, instead of Jesus, the archetype of leadership and probity. He was the Apollo of Armstrongism until he had a falling out with his father and his popularity was diminished. So Armstrongist men back then had to emulate him. They had to be handsome, have a pompadour of curly hair, sing and play the guitar reasonably well, be athletic, be charming to women and, well, you know the deal. GTA was like David, supposedly. The many WCG members who were enthralled with the GTA model would be profoundly disillusioned if they met the "Real Jesus" - small, slender but strong, about 110 pounds, about five feet tall, brown skin, curly of frizzy brown hair and brown eyes and aquiline features - like a person from the Middle East of that time. Christ was not the center of attention and was a servant leader. For some Armstrongists, their faith would utterly collapse because they counted on Christ looking like a Northwest European.
In Armstrongism back then, the degree to which you departed from the GTA archetype was the degree to which you lacked conversion. So someone who is an introvert is way out of alignment by this odd cultic standard. And this bias against introversion went further than that. I heard a pompadoured preaching elder state in sabbath services in Wichita, Kansas that introverts would not receive salvation. Introverts had no personality, he attested, and God needs a personality to work with in order to save someone. No extraversion, no salvation. So introversion became the unpardonable sin. Jesus was not mentioned much among Armstrongists back then because he had been replaced by the pseudo-Davidic GTA in appearance and example.
Be glad that you are no longer a part of a "church" that counts buffoonery for leadership and a rude, dismissive personality for character.
Continuing to split, for what ever reasons, is part of the undoing of the COGs. I was thinking of Ben Franklin's pun "hang together" contrasted with "hang separately". What may be more suitable was the theme of the flag showing a chopped up snake, "unite or die". COGs will never unite, they will all hang out and die...
ReplyDeleteWhich reminds me of a Dave Pack story - apparently a move was made by COG 21st Century to unite with RCG, until Dave clarified the situation: COG 21 would not be merging with RCG, it would be subordinating to it. Then the idea of uniting fell apart. Well, that's Dave's side of it...
Tonto said, "True spiritual actualization occurs alone with God, away from all the noise of other humans, and their judgements, praises, accolades, status, and criticisms."
ReplyDeleteMY COMMENT - That is why I love my ACOG splinter Church. Lake of Fire Church of God meets in my car as I do my driving. It is a church of only one person (me). I am Pastor General, Evangelist, Pastor, Preaching Elder, Local Elder, Deacon and lay member all wrapped into one. No noise of other humans, and their judgements, praises, accolades, status, and criticisms.
Richard
Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteChristianity/Millerism/Armstrongism is doomed to fragmentation because it lacks an historical bedrock: Take, for example, its first document, Galatians: the author admits he received the revelation in visions* -- Oh my, we're not off to a good start here. It gets worse from there: The later Bios of this messiah are synthetic**
Refreshing honesty. Paul is the author of Gentile Christianity. Jewish Christianity did not agree with Paul and considered him an antichrist. Peter, James and John meant nothing to him and he notes, in Galatians, that he learned nothing from them. Paul put God's curse on those who did not believe the Gospel "we", meaning he, came up with. Paul was no team player and you are correct. The Gospel "bios" are not eyewitness accounts, do not agree and came long after Paul was dead. This is why he never quotes the teachings of his hallucinatory Christ. He never read the down to earth copies or teachings."
Thanks for the backup. :)
There goes Dennis again, stating opinions as if they are facts. He'd have made a great journalist!
ReplyDelete8:57 am. That’s all you ever do here. Spout opinions. Sad grumpy old man.
ReplyDeleteRomans 12:28-30 makes it clear that not everyone is given the same gifts and capabilities. Unfortunately, in the COG culture, it is thought that ordained elders (and let's be honest, employed elders and not local elders/deacons) somehow have all of these gifts at once. Clearly that is not the case.
ReplyDeleteSome men are good speakers but are horrible at administration and leadership. Some men are very compassionate and caring but lack strong speaking skills. Some men are good at doctrine but can't teach it. The only one who embodies all is Jesus Christ.
But the key verse is 31, which transitions us to the best gift possible starting in Romans 13:1. That transition is many times lacking from church leadership.
Anonymous 8/19 @ 5:21 and Dennis,
ReplyDeleteWe don't know for certain which New Testament documents were written first. The truth is that no one knows for sure (and Biblical scholars are divided in their opinions) as to which document is the earliest. Galatians, James and I Thessalonians all have their proponents. Moreover, most scholars believe that there were collections of Christ's sayings and biographical fragments in existence and circulation before the gospels which are a part of our canon were composed.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the epistle to the Galatians was the earliest Christian document. Like Paul's other epistles, the focus of the document is Jesus Christ and salvation through him. Moreover, Paul's discussion of his ministerial credentials is based on the premise that his message about Christ is the only correct interpretation of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Paul's thesis is that he is a servant and representative of Jesus Christ. Hence, from Paul's perspective, Jesus Christ is the "bedrock" or foundation.
As for rejecting visions as a credible basis for anything, you are dismissing thousands of years of human experience. Throughout our history as a species, we have experienced visions, dreams, hallucinations and various kinds of inspirations. And, yes, sometimes those experiences have even been helped or enhanced by chemicals - natural and manmade. And, don't you think it's a bit premature to dismiss these experiences that medical/psychological science is still studying - here in the present day?
Paul's experiences may not have any meaning for you (and that's fine), but some of us do find meaning and purpose in his visions/hallucinations (however you choose to characterize them). Are those experiences less persuasive or valuable than Peter's and James' experiences of having known the actual person? Seems to me that could be considered a very subjective judgement/conclusion.
Finally, while most of us would agree that there were profound differences between the way that Gentile and Jewish Christians interpreted Christ and his ministry, it does not follow that those differences discredit or undermine the religion. If differences and confusion discredit human endeavors, then most human activities (including science) are rendered futile and meaningless.
Dennis:
ReplyDeleteJust curious. Where did you get the following idea:
"Jewish Christianity did not agree with Paul and considered him an antichrist."
ReplyDelete"Some men are good speakers but are horrible at administration and leadership. Some men are very compassionate and caring but lack strong speaking skills. Some men are good at doctrine but can't teach it. The only one who embodies all is Jesus Christ."
I have to admit, the vast majority of them have NONE of those attributes, and should not even be in the office. The speaker I truly admire is Jentzen Franklin.
Miller:
ReplyDeleteYour arguments are well reasoned for someone like me who is also a Christian. But I can understand that they would not do anything for a materialistic atheist like Dennis who believes the Bible in its totality is malarkey.
we, as Christians, can understand that Paul had mystical experiences. To Dennis the answer is materialistic - Paul ingested a hallucinogenic chemical which disrupted his normal brain chemistry - molecules jousting with molecules. I think a good case can be made for the view that people who take hallucinogens don't sit down and write complex theology. They are liable to write something grossly unintelligible. So the likely recourse for atheists, I would guess, is to just assert that Paul was lying. And, essentially, that is also the atheistic view of the Bible - one big lie. In the last analysis, atheistic materialism is, too, one big lie and St. Dawkins, St. Dennett and St. Hitchens have no gospel to preach.
But it is good to read the atheist viewpoint - it exposes lines of reasoning that are both exotic and challenging.
Anonymous 9:55 AM...
ReplyDeleteSince Romans 12 does not go past verse 21, I am going to guess that you meant 1Corinthians 12:28-30, and then verse 31 leading into 1Cornithians 13, which speaks of love being the greatest of gifts. To understand the full meaning of what Paul is actually getting at, I think it is beneficial to read the entire chapter of 1Corinthians 12, as well as Romans 12:3-16 which also covers much of the same material.
The COGs as well as some other churches isolate 1Corinthians 12:28 from the context of the rest of the chapter, and use it to justify a hierarchy of offices, rather than seeing these things as functions and gifts given to different members of the congregation or body in order to benefit and mutually build up the rest of the body. God designed His system so that all members of His body receive and even grow in spiritual gifts and work together using those respective gifts so that all learn to function and help each other grow into the head, which is Jesus Christ. Ephesians 4:16
This concept is further demonstrated when 1Corinthians 14:1 where Paul tells the Corinthian congregation to "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy."
It would never occur to these people that God might give one person a gift of healing, while another person receives the gift of prophecy, and yet another the gift of wisdom. Instead all gifts are assumed to be given first of all only to men, because it is the men who claim that they alone are allowed a place in the hierarchy, and beyond that only to the few men who actually rank within that hierarchy, which leaves the rest of the men sharing a place with the women in the congregation, receiving no gifts, or not being allowed to use those gifts to benefit others within the body unless it is controlled and permitted by those in the hierarchy.
This arrangement has led to competition, corruption, power plays, elevated egos, division, and dissension within the body, which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus Christ wanted. We are told that we will know who His servants are or are not, by their fruits. Matthew 7:15-20 Those who embrace this strictly hierarchical interpretation can't even agree on who exactly is "in charge" but with each new split, splinter, or fraction, the newly split person declares themselves the new head of the hierarchy, and all others to be illegitimate, or at least less deserving of your loyalty than he is. It smacks of Henry the VIII separating himself from the Catholic Pope, because he didn't like the ruling the pope made on the validity of his marriage, and declaring himself the religious authority and head of the church in England. He in essence didn't evaluate or alter the system, he just declared himself the more valid leader within that system.
Concerned Sister
Concerned Sister,
DeleteThank you for pointing out the correct passage. Yes, I meant 1 Corinthians. Too much going on upstairs sometimes and things get crisscrossed.
You are correct in your assessment, and you bring up another issue, and that is the role of women in the church. I have heard that at ministerial conferences the break out sessions for the women are significantly weaker than what is covered with the men, many times focusing on emotional topics rather than deeper, Biblical ones.
This doesn’t surprise me. I’ve had more than one minister say that in Acts 18:26, when it says “So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately”, that Priscilla did none of the teaching. She was only mentioned there because she would have been standing (silently) next to her husband.
"But it is good to read the atheistic viewpoint."
ReplyDeleteYou are too kind NEO. Dennis has on occasion hijacked this blog to push his doctrine of atheism. Yet he complains of being called Dennis the spiritual menace. So objective truth is whatever some former/minister, authority figure says it is. Just like in Big Brothers Ministry of Truth. Hence the ridiculous spectacle of ACOG dictators insisting that they be called and viewed as ministers.
August 19, 2020 at 12:27 PM - you mentioned you liked Jentzen Franklin. I've heard a couple of tremendous sermons by him but tend not to look for him on tv because he preaches some stuff I'm not into. I guess I should give him more of a chance.
ReplyDeleteMy wife is not good with the English language but she loves to listen to Joseph Prince sermons. I can't stand to watch him because I have trouble understanding his English. We're amazed that my wife gets every word.
I do get daily devotionals emailed from Joseph Prince - those are well written and I enjoy most of them but some are whack. I also get daily readings from Wild at Heart (formerly
Ransomed Heart) by John
I'm a Christian but most of my friends are atheists.
ReplyDeleteI like how they refer to me and religious people as "God haunted".
That's a good descriptive term to explain why some of us are into God and some are not.
Reading the Bible, especially some of St. Paul's "hallucinations", is fascinating to me.
My personal interpretation of the term "Living Word" is that you can read the same passages repeatedly and pick up different but compatible meanings or messages.
Sometimes, reading a passage of Scripture will have a profound impact - feels like I got hit hard in the heart - but in a very good way.
So, maybe we Christians kind of share in the mass hallucinations that started with St. Paul and/or maybe we're God haunted - whatever it is - it's what I want for me.
I have struggled tremendously with faith and doubt, at times.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is well-worn cliché, I always tell my atheist friends that I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
As much as I can doubt God and the Bible, I have zero ability to believe all the complexities and beauty of human life and the entire universe could just happen by random accidents.
Music, sex, family, flowers, the human brain, Jupiter - it all must have been created by Intelligent Design.
6:08 wrote: "I like how they refer to me and religious people as "God haunted"."
ReplyDeleteI have always liked that phrase. It describes me. One would think after all the crap of Armstrongism I would be turned off by God and religion, but something keeps me attached to it all. That's one reason I have been working with a 4-year Bible and church history class for the last 19 years.
Don't they all do this ?
ReplyDeleteIf we're looking for elucidation on the genesis of Christianity, its first document, Galatians, becomes more interesting: Emphasis is on Paul and less on the "Jerusalem Pillars": https://vridar.org/2008/06/26/jesus-supplants-isaac-the-contribution-of-paul/
ReplyDelete6:17pm There's nothing wrong with being an Agnostic Theist. Google it! I'm a sabbath and feast keeping agnostic theist.
ReplyDeleteWhat?!? I don't understand. Is this a joke?
DeleteNo Anon 1:14. Not a joke at all. It is a very real problem within the Church of God.
DeleteAnon 4:53 is highly likely to also be a preacher in the Church too.
It happens.
“Earth's crammed with heaven,
ReplyDeleteAnd every common bush afire with God,
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round and pluck blackberries.”
-- Elizabeth Barrett Browning
We are treading around that unbridgeable divide between atheist and Christian. Two people are standing in the desert and one sees a burning bush and the other doesn't. Naturally, there will be all manner of conflict between the two people. My Ambassador College educated wife is now an agnostic. We pointedly do not discuss Christianity.
How atheists think is fascinating and, in my mind, it is good to be reminded about this alternate perception of reality once in a while. Discussion with an atheist is like, sadly, talking through a knot hole to someone who is confined inside a small lightless packing crate. Atheists, on the other hand, must believe that not only Paul but all the God-haunted are hallucinating.
I don't have a metaphor for cult members - but they are in a yet different condition that does not yield easily to any kind of reason - a third puzzling category. No doubt atheists do not see a distinction between Christians and cult members - all the same hallucinogen. On the other hand, I do not see the difference between atheists and primitive animists, bodies painted and dancing around a fire in the dark, who are fascinated by nature but have no credible explanation for it.
Whoooooo NEO.
ReplyDeleteI find the explanation that life and matter comes from the cosmos, earth, wind, fire, very credible, rather than something speaking and it happens.
Relying on nature and nature alone I can see man coming to the conclusion that they are a special animal, an animal as in 100 percent part of nature.
Nck
August 20, 6:49 PM...
ReplyDeleteYes, I have heard numerous excuses over the years to try and explain away the fact that at times females were used in the Bible, and engaged in activities or occupied roles that many in Christianity would consider to be exclusively male. One excuse I have heard quite a bit is that those women who were considered prophetesses etc. were only consulted in "private". In other words Deborah, Huldah, etc. did not judge, prophecy, or address Israel in any public manner, but only functioned as a judge, prophetess, etc. in private consultations. I find it difficult to see though how Deborah could help lead an army in "private" or how she could hold court as a judge of Israel only in "private". Judges 4:4-9 In the case of Huldah, she was consulted by Hilkiah the High Priest, as well as other representatives of King Josiah. 2Kings 22:8-20
As far as Priscilla is concerned, the scripture you quoted is interesting, because the translation you quoted which I assume is probably the KJV or NKJV lists Aquila's name first, but when you actually look up the interlinear for that particular verse, it is Priscilla's name that comes first in the order of the words. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/18-26.htm This might seem a small matter, but goes to show that even the translators at times sought to minimize Priscilla's role in this passage.
While I am not specifically familiar with the breakout sessions at ministerial conferences, it would not surprise me at all that the topics for women are lighter or less Biblical than the topics discussed by the men. Over all when women have been addressed by the church at all, or allowed in limited circumstances to contribute articles, etc. the focus is primarily on being a good wife, mother, etc. with little else being considered acceptable topics for women to engage on. Much of the time the heavier topics are considered appropriate only for the men to discuss. It's as if they still have the idea that a woman's brain is unable to handle deeper conversation.
Concerned Sister
Hey Non_Ecliptic_Orbit - I loved that quote from Elizabeth Barrett Browning and plan to use it!
ReplyDeleteCrazy Christians can see God in every part of nature while our atheist friends are enjoying the berries or fossils! We can enjoy the same, plus enjoy giving thanks to the Creator.
Concerned Sister,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I always enjoy your thoughtful contributions, this has to be one of the best. The Armstrong Church of God patriarchy is horrendous - it's the traditional Christian view on steroids. Scripture tells us that men AND women were created in the image of God. In other words, BOTH genders reflect God's persona. Hence, their attempts to justify the exclusion of half of humanity from Church leadership is pathetic.
The context of the eighteenth chapter of Acts makes plain that Priscilla was an important coworker in the Lord's work. Indeed, when Apollos needed further instruction in the baptism of Jesus, it was BOTH Priscilla and Aquila who instructed him. Moreover, in spite of his pronouncements on female participation in Church, Paul made plain that Timothy received his training in the Christian religion from his mother and grandmother!
After leaving CGI, I attended for a time with an independent congregation of the COG 7th Day. I was pleased when they asked a very well-educated and articulate lady to speak one Sabbath. She gave a sermon on child rearing and spoke against corporal punishment (explaining why it was psychologically harmful and unproductive). It was a great message, and I couldn't help thinking just how much talent the Church has wasted over the years. Like it or not, sometimes a Deborah or an Elizabeth I represents the best available leadership (religious or political).
Lonnie
9:32pm How do you know that 1:14pm's comment was to 4:53am? Unless of course you are 1:14pm and 9:32pm playing stupid games! Did you even look up the definition of an agnostic theist? All it means is someone who believes in God but honestly doesn't know if he exists. Unless one has seen God there's no way to absolutely know that there's a God. Believing and knowing are two different things.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment Lonnie. I'm glad someone enjoys reading some of the comments I make. I also agree with you about Priscilla and Aquila. They are mentioned several times in the New Testament, always together, which at least to me would indicate that they were a husband and wife team. In Romans 16:3 Paul refers to both of them as fellow workers, coworkers, or helpers depending in which translation you are reading. Another interesting tidbit is that while many have given the Apostle Paul credit for writing the book of Hebrews, some have speculated that it might have actually been Priscilla who wrote it. Maybe we'll find out for sure some day.
ReplyDeleteConcerned Sister