The gist of Smith's argument as I understood it when I listened to it was that Sarah was right to go along with Abram's lie to Pharaoh about their relationship because God's will in the home is for the wife to be submissive to her husband and that if she doesn't support him even if he is wrong, it won't work well because she is not submitting to how God designed His government to work in the home. In The case of Sarah it was argued that God worked it out anyway, and that it is up to God to make the husband realize it if he is wrong. He then launched into the argument for binding and loosing, and equated Weston and the LCG "Council of Elders" with the "Council of Elders" that met in the book of Acts, implying that the LCG council is the one God is working through in the twenty first century.
I have numerous issues with this approach. First of all Smith is cherry picking examples that he thinks fit his argument and ignoring others. As I mentioned in the other comment I made, Abigail did not go along with Nabal and did exactly what Smith says a wife should not do. In fact she went out without his knowledge and took provisions to David and his men, while Nabal got drunk and partied at home. She didn't inform him of what she had done until the next morning. As a result Abigail and her household were spared from being slaughtered in David's wrath, Nabal fell over dead within ten days, and Abigail then became one of David's wives. So my question is, was Abigail correct in this instance to circumvent her husband's wishes, or should she have just meekly submitted to him even when the servants came and warned her that there was going to be trouble as a result of Nabal's arrogance and foolishness?
Another issue is the idea that LCG's leadership and council are equivalent to the "council" who met in Acts, and they have a right to bind and loose decisions on how to apply God's law for the rest of the church. If the "church" consists of the entire assembly of believers, and these believers are scattered among numerous groups with different councils and different shepherds, what makes Smith think the decisions of his council carry the same gravity as the group of people who met in Acts? The Apostle Paul didn't even give the meeting in Acts as much weight as Smith gives his council. A reading of Galatians 2:1-10
demonstrates this point. I could also add that reading the rest of the chapter would demonstrate that Paul did not view Cephas or Peter as some pope figure who was above criticism or reproach with the power to bind and loose, even if he was wrong. Galatians 2:11-14 demonstrate this point.
If we cherry pick scriptures that only fit the scenario we want to promote, this is not gleaning the whole truth of God's word, and can be misleading, because we have left out part of the story. It also isn't honest, which goes to Smith's argument about Sarah. Is it okay to go along with a lie if your husband tells you to, and if so, will God always work things out in your favor, or will you suffer the consequences along with your husband? The story of Ananias and Sapphira might be instructive here. Acts 5:1-11
Concerned Sister
23 comments:
One hilarious thing about Wally's new turn to situation ethics is that his sermonette completely undermined Rod Meredith's legitimacy in rejecting Global Church of God discipline and founding the Living Church of God.
Unless LCG repents of Wally's sermonette and admits he was in error, they have admitted that the very foundation of their church was against Godly principles and was not legitimate in God's eyes.
This should be fun to watch. Will Weston throw Wally Smith under the bus and admit that error was taught? Or will Weston clam up and double down on "We can teach error and you peons have to accept it" and "Do as we say, not as we do"?
Elijah lied at Mt. Carmel about being all alone against the Baal-worshipers - because he had hidden dozens of God-fearing ministers earlier in I Kings 18.
The first part of that chapter is a section COG ministers never seem to preach. Shouldn't God have "stood up" Elijah because of that lie? Yet He didn't.
So maybe God is a bit more complex than all of us realize.
7.31 PM
Actually it was Obadiah who hid the prophets of God, rather than Elijah.
So maybe R.L. is a bit more ignorance than he realizes.
I stopped listening to WallASS Smith years ago. He thinks he is God's gift to the church. Arrogant and self-serving. If you think Bob Thiel is off the charts, Smith is too.
I agree with 9:08 - Smith has a huge, off-putting ego - his arrogance goes far beyond that of the typical COG minister. His loyalty to RCM and what he believes to be God's government over the church is fierce. He gets extremely enraged, red-eyed and spit-seething, if you ask how the line of government transferred from HWA to RCM. He won't answer directly - just angrily obfuscates.
I wonder how they would spin the story of Ananias and Sapphira? Wasn't Sapphira just obeying her husband? She even lied for him.
God wanted Abraham and Sarah to trust him to protect them. Abraham and Sarah sinned against God by lying. Abraham and Sarah got themselves into a dangerous and embarrassing predicament. God did not condone this sin but rather demonstrated mercy by working the situation out for them. The reason this story is in the Bible is to instruct all to trust God. Contrary to Wallace Smith, the point of this story is not approving of lying when it is in support of Government. Smith is not immune to condemnation for contorting scripture and condoning sin because he is part of the presumed government of God. On the contrary - the people of LCG should require him to publicly repent of his rebellion or leave.
This is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Within the broad scope of heretical Armstrongism, Concerned Sister seems to be trying to achieve some ethical refinement on this narrow aperture issue within the topic of husband-wife relationships. Perhaps, in this way, Armstrongism will have a better tomorrow.
The real issue is why should we believe this kind of Armstrongist hip pocket exegesis at all? At its core it is the Waterhousean approach of looking at the KJV scripture and announcing with Apocalyptic Millerite aplomb what it means. As Gerald once said, he didn't need to discuss it, it's right there for him to see. You just have to read it. While this is a rabble-rousing slam against higher Biblical criticism, it avails itself of an unsound retreat into dowsing rod theology.
Why should we believe that the LCG Council of Elders is even remotely like the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15? Because someone in the LCG asserts that it is equivalent? That assertion is as dubious as it is breath-taking. It is like a guppy claiming to be Leviathan.
This all cruises along on the glassy-eyed energy of the belief that this tiny splinter group is the one and only true church and its ministers speak with inspired infallibility. So, you see, there are much larger fish to fry.
Isn't everyone accountable for themselves? Isn't that what the NT teaches? So why would one want to go along with another person's lie if you know they lied? That's bullshit.
He also stated once in Spokeman's Club that men should not be helping with the housework, that was the woman's job. This was in reference to DOUB cleaning. However, it does show how he thinks government should be in the home, thus the woman should be kneeling to her husband. Since where does it show that a man is not to help in the home? and where does it show a woman should not work outside the home. When we went to LCG, we were so disgusted by the treatment of women. LCG thinks a girl should marry at 18, and have a whole bushel of kids by the time she is 25. A woman is not to go along with her husband's actions if it goes against God's laws. We are all held accountable for each of our own actions. At the Feast, we heard a sermon by a McNair stating clearly that girls should not be attending college at a university level, yet alone aspire to have a career where she may have to have men under her. LCG looks at the government issue as a military approach, in the Church and the home. With an utter ungodly approach to women.
The Big Boys of LCG feel threatened and disrespected- so they trotted out the Walrus to tell the peeps that Government (their rule) trumps everything- so don’t mess with Government (them)!
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin writes on Jewish Ethics and addresses lying. Jesus was asked, what is the greatest commandment. Not all commandments are of equal importance. Not killing is a lot more important than not eating a piece of pork. Jesus answered, love God (meaning be loyal to God, no idol worship) and love your neighbor. This means doing the loving thing, regardless of feelings towards someone. Love was viewed as a verb, an action, not a noun, an emotion of affection. Telushkin shows that Rahab lied, the midwives who delivered Moses lied. Even God withheld information from Abraham to spare his feelings concerning a comment that Sarah made about him. You are not obligated to tell the truth if someone is going to use the truth to do evil. If you tell the truth in this case, you are partially guilty of the evil they commit. Some things are more important than telling the truth. Saving a life, sparing someone's feelings, etc. When in doubt: do the loving thing. HWA lied to cover up evil. In his mind, he may have rationalized that he did it to protect the Work of God, to protect the income flow, etc.
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin writes on Jewish Ethics and addresses lying. Jesus was asked, what is the greatest commandment. Not all commandments are of equal importance. Not killing is a lot more important than not eating a piece of pork. Jesus answered, love God (meaning be loyal to God, no idol worship) and love your neighbor. This means doing the loving thing, regardless of feelings towards someone. Love was viewed as a verb, an action, not a noun, an emotion of affection. Telushkin shows that Rahab lied, the midwives who delivered Moses lied. Even God withheld information from Abraham to spare his feelings concerning a comment that Sarah made about him. You are not obligated to tell the truth if someone is going to use the truth to do evil. If you tell the truth in this case, you are partially guilty of the evil they commit. Some things are more important than telling the truth. Saving a life, sparing someone's feelings, etc. When in doubt: do the loving thing. HWA lied to cover up evil. In his mind, he may have rationalized that he did it to protect the Work of God, to protect the income flow, etc.
James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Smith is guilty of breaking the whole law and teaching rebellion!
NEO stated...
"This all cruises along on the glassy-eyed energy of the belief that this tiny splinter group is the one and only true church and its ministers speak with inspired infallibility. So, you see, there are much larger fish to fry."
Yes NEO, the overarching theme of Wally Smith's message was to equate faith in God with faith in those He has placed in His "government" which of course comes down to Weston and his council. The story of Abraham and Sarah was just one example he used to try to justify this line of reasoning and to send the message that even if you think Weston and his council are wrong, you should not question or go against their decisions and submit to them anyway, because if you don't you are in defiance of "God's government" and are not exercising faith in God to work through His true leaders.
He wasn't just saying that Sarah went along with Abraham because they felt his life might be in danger, but went beyond that by implying that Sarah did it because she understood how God's government is supposed to work in the home, so therefore you should support and submit to your husband even when you know he is wrong, because in doing so, you are showing "faith" in God to work through His chain of command, or leadership in the home. My purpose in giving the examples I did, was to demonstrate that things are not always as cut and dried as Smith would like them to seem, and to show that he was cherry picking scripture to try and support his own agenda, rather than truly seeking truth or balance.
I also agree that there are examples in the Bible where people withhold information or give false information in order to protect others etc. Rahab would be an example of this when she hid Joshua's spies and told the messengers of the King of Jericho that the men had already left her house. Rahab was rewarded for this, and her family was spared when Joshua and his men took the city of Jericho. You could make the argument that she went against her particular "government" by withholding information and misleading the King's men. So this isn't just about "government" or going along with whom one thinks is in charge, but weighing the situation at hand and using judgement to guide one's actions accordingly. Abigail did the same thing when she circumvented her husband and took provisions to David and his men. Smith and those who promote his way of thinking seem to completely miss this nuance of scripture in trying to further their own agenda.
Concerned Sister
Withholding the truth does not necessarily break a commandment. Nor does lying, in certain circumstances. The commandment does not say, "Never lie." Instead, it very specifically states that you must not "bear false witness." You are not a "witness" for a murderer who asks you where he can find his potential victim.
Where exactly did Smith say this? What is the reference for his supposed comments?
This was presented by Smith in the contents of the sermonette given last weekend in a stream to LCG congregations. They left the message up for a while after, but it has now been removed.
Concerned Sister
I have always been confounded by the ease with which COGers will lie. Particularly regarding lies against another. Yet if you confront them with their lying they become highly offended. A COG minister once told me, I have forgotten his exact words, that if you lie for God it is okay. That certainly opens the door for whatever needs to be lied about! It is still going on today. Thank you for this article.
The ACOGs view on government is as usual, plain bully morally. School yard bully morality and minister morality are one and the same. Bully beliefs are that no one must resist my will, everyone must give me what I want, and every one must do what I want. The ACOG leaders just put a biblical veneer on these sociopathic attitudes.
Do these behaviors work? Esau got his bowl of stew, so ya, short term, they do. Long term, Herbs church is a splintered shadow of its former self.
Doesn’t Revelation say that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire though?
John 18:20-21, Jesus answered him, “I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them. Indeed they know what I said.”
Mark 4:11-12, And he said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.’ ”
Are all laws of equal importance? Jesus was asked, what is the greatest commandment. Jesus didn't say, "they are all of equal importance." He said, be loyal to God (no idols, please) and act lovingly towards your neighbor. Not murdering is more important than don't eat pork. Jesus recognized this. You can lie to prevent evil a greater evil. I would lie to prevent someone from being killed. Would you?
Post a Comment