Actually leaving your Church of Choice Church of God is difficult no matter what you actually feel inside. And, in reality, only you know exactly how you feel though even admitting that to yourself can take a long time.
When it comes to church and belief, we stay far longer than than when first we suspected or admitted, "This no longer serves me." We are programed to stay put. There are consequences real and imagined to stepping out on one's own. The Church has scriptural ammunition to shoot at you with. Leaving the group feels unnatural and in the past, to do so would threaten one's very survival in the real world alone. To even use the "Me" word, feels awkward, selfish and against all programing of "We" and "Us" the church provided you with over the years.
It was never "I am not divided. All one person ME". It is always "WE" and we sing those hymns, in part, to keep the program running and tuned weekly.
(Note: Church of God hymns weren't exactly designed to make us feel good about ourselves or confident that it was ok to do so. Even growing up Dutch Reformed were programed to "Trust and Obey. For there's NO OTHER WAY, to be happy in Jesus, but to Trust and Obey" Disturbing to say the least. )
Church was never designed to accommodate unbelief of its views. It is not designed to even recognize views of itself that might be less than true. It's certainly not designed for you to point them out. It is not designed for you to think about your own authenticity and feelings. It is not designed for the critical thinker nor the one given to introspection as to what seems right and what does not. Your church is designed to make you feel guilty and badly for hearing what you hear, seeing what you see and feeling how you feel about it all.
We learn to ignore the craziness we might hear from a pastor or the self appointed and remember, Ignore-ance is not just what we don't know, it's what we won't know.
"If your head tells you one thing and your stomach something else, your head is most likely lying to you."
The price for recognizing and finally admitting to yourself outwardly what you have known inwardly for a time is very high. It is not, might be high. It IS high and few there be that actually go there.
To many, if not most, going along to get along is the safer and less costly path. I know of those in the COG's who find this the best they are willing to do. I did it myself for a time. You'd not be alone in that either.
Going along to get along might have it's short term value as you think through how you REALLY feel about the drama, burden, beliefs and politic of your church and its leadership. But it is only of short term value. If it becomes "just how I am" and be untrue to what you really feel, it will gnaw until you go numb to it all.
It will feel like your feet are stuck in the mud and you can't really move, but, most of you can, as long as staying put is ok with you. That will feel good enough. That will be "OK", and you can hold the fear of change and self awareness at bay, maybe for just a little longer or maybe for the rest of your life. And if you do decide to actually move and get your feet out of the mud, as you see and feel it, you may have to step out of your expensive shoes and leave them behind in the mud.
You have invested so much. To walk away from what no longer inspires or serves you seems the ultimate defeat. We feel dis-illusioned like that's a bad thing. Who wants illusions? Well some do of course because it's easier and safer. But this is about you not them. What will everyone think of me? Will I retain my friends? Can I handle being alone in it all?
That's a decision only those stuck, and they know they are stuck, can make. Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them becomes the issue and one only the player can make.
A bit of encouragement here on the process of letting go, the price of doing so and learning not to care, when struggling with walking away from that which no longer serves you and you finally know it.
53 comments:
Walk away? Easier said than done. What if it is the truth? Better to be save than sorry. There is no second chance. The uncalled (the world) will have their calling in the Millennium or Last Great Day. Not us called now.
But a high percentage of the one's that walk away Dennis C Dhiel are not the ones who should. That's the tragedy of it all.
The ones who stay are the ones who should walk away and be true to themselves. But they dig their heels in and bully anyone onto them out, out, OUT!
But worry not for Jesus reigns.
There is a difference between leaving a church and leaving the faith.
Life is lived 166 hours a week. Church 2 hours a week. Be sure that the 166 hours a week are worthy.
@anon 7:43 AM
The COG’s are NOT churches. They’re not even ‘of God’. And all of these COG’s are lead by men that are only interested in two things: power and money (or money and power).
Therefore no COG will ever bring you closer to God. And following their rules (and these rules are NOT what the scripture tells us) will never bring you salvation.. And leaving a COG will never lead to losing your salvation..
Look up the BITE-model (Google it). That will tell you exactly what these COG’s are: abusive cults
Tonto
Thats the Christian/catholic lay perspective. Not Islam or Judaism and therefore by default Armstrongism.
Nck
I agree with you Tonto. Leaving a church, even the so-called ‘churches of God’, doesn’t make you a heretic. I dare say that most of us here are still Christians, living our lives by Christian values.
Having a bad experience with Bible based cults like the COG’s doesn’t mean we have to leave our faith behind as well.
743 said Anonymous said...
Walk away? Easier said than done. What if it is the truth? Better to be save than sorry. There is no second chance"
Sad isn't it, that there is a concept of "no second chance". What kind of parent raises their children with that view? It is not better to be safe in this than sorry. If it doesn't feel like truth, if the leader or leaders are delusional, a bit scary, demanding, money smitten or just plain ego centric, it's not the truth anyway. Every Christian in every denomination could argue for "better safe than sorry" and stay put. So could Muslims, Hindus and Scientologists.
745 noted: "The ones who stay are the ones who should walk away and be true to themselves. But they dig their heels in and bully anyone onto them out, out, OUT!"
That's what this video is about and to whom it is addressed. The bullying response is also addressed here as what one can expect from former friends and family who are made uncomfy by the departure. As the video notes, when one leaves and seeks personal authenticity where once group think was the norm, the group responds out of fear that they may influence others or even themselves. Thus the push back. Nothing a church hates more than friends leaving friends behind over church issues and the influence the friends who left their friends behind have on those friends who stayed.
Anyone who feels their personal authenticity and need to be true to themselves is being thwarted, and who has an ongoing problem with what the church teaches, demands or who is doing it, should walk away for their own sake anyway.
The "no second chance" teaching or belief is designed, like many other fear tactics in scripture, to keep you in place, no matter what is taught. Every hierarchy uses it to advantage.
Tonto noted: " Tonto
There is a difference between leaving a church and leaving the faith."
Of course. One would not leave a church if they thought it also was "The faith". In my experience, "I have only left the church, not the faith" simply means that person is happy and feels safe in their inner world of belief. An organization has nothing to do with that. It's also an easy out because no one believes they attend the wrong church until they personally do and then it changes to "but I personally believe the right things", which may not be so either.
Dennis: Your post was perceptive and useful. A couple of comments:
1. This is really about leaving a cult rather than leaving a church - even though the Armstrongist splinter groups most all have the word "church" in their monikers. I attended the local Church of Christ for a few weeks several years ago and decided to leave. I was treated like an outsider and one of the elders talked some smack to me. It was a big "members only" social club. I had not a moment's reflection on walking away from it. But I was not functioning under the "one and only true church - all other churches are pagan," cultic model that exiting Armstrongists must contend with. This is a powerful cultic hook that is in place to protect the tithe base. All cults are structured in this way - even those that pay no lip service to God or the Bible.
2. Many Armstrongists are highly idealistic. They believe with their hearts in the Armstrongist eschatology - "the wonderful world tomorrow" - with HWA and the Armstrongist ministry all occupying the best seats in the theater. They don't seem to understand that
Christian Churches also have a beautiful eschatology and without the political overburden. This idealism, which is also egocentric, causes them to believe that even though Armstrongism has its flaws they can generate the zeal in such a way as to lead the pack in the eyes of God. This leads to the Elijah Complex. This idealism is like a bungee that keeps them stuck in place.
I must admit, I have never had to make the difficult decision to leave a cult.
Been there, done that, in February 1992.
Kevin Mc
"Sad isn't it, that there is a concept of "no second chance"
Yes it is sad! I believe in a God who will forgive 7 times 70 times plus!
km
So NEO, you were never in the WCG or any other cog? Figures!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Sad isn't it, that there is a concept of "no second chance"
Yes it is sad! I believe in a God who will forgive 7 times 70 times plus!
km"
That teaching of Gospel Jesus forgiving 70 x7 came to mind as well in response to "no second chance" beliefs. I would think the 70x7 simply means forgive often. However what's good or wrong for the Goose does not seem good or wrong for the Gander God. We aren't to kill but God kills 2.5 million plus in the OT. Satan only 10 with God's permission (Job's children).
I never understood Moses coming down from Sinai tale with "thou shalt not kill" and especially with apologetic of it meaning "each other," as opposed to the bad pagans around them. Then, getting quite pissed at the Golden Calf incident has "every man slay his neighbor and in that day about 3000 perished." Huh? Goose and Gander again. It never happened good thing :)
We have to forgive the 70.7 but there does seem not to be a second chance with God forgiving. The tale of Lazarus and the Rich man comes to mind when he wanted to go back and tell his children etc about "this place". Nope...sorry, let them hear Moses, was the answer. It never happened of course and was written by someone who wanted to elevate listening to Moses in their community of believers.
There seems a double standard here. In every story in the OT where someone mucks up, there is no forgiveness spoken of. Just punishment for the crime. Even in the NT, no talk about why someone did or didn't do something or why they left Paul except in vague terms that may not be how the offender would tell the story or why this or that seemed so. I guess it's "the winner writes the history".
The point being that it seems Christians have to be and do that which God is not held to the same standard. It is just a story, but the defects in it show and raise more questions than they answer on such observations.
The splintered church has become a cess pit anon 7.43.
You don't have to walk away from God to avoid the cess pit.
The cold harsh fact that a world pandemic has hit during our lifetime, 75 years after the end of WW2, shows to me God has well and truly had enough of the entire cess pit.
What is holy about the splintered church, it's all political in-fighting.
Dennis wrote:
"When it comes to church and belief, we stay far longer than than when first we suspected or admitted, "This no longer serves me."
It is fine for an ex-minister of Armstrongism like Dennis to say that "this no longer serves me" and then leave to do whatever he pleases.
However, just like ministers of Armstrongism always are, in a violent way, out of sync with the needs of their parishioners, Dennis has a huge disconnect with what the vast majority of exiters feel.
Contrary to Dennis and the rest of the ministry, the lay believers were not in the church for "what serves them", rather, they were there to serve the church with their very lives. They were totally invested with their whole heart, their entire being.
The majority of exiters did not merely wake up one day, yawn, and say this is not hitting the spot, so I'm out.
No, when they finally awoke from a horrific nightmare, they realized that they were abused - financially, emotionally, and spiritually violated. They arose to the understanding that they in turn executed that violation upon their loved ones.
Ministers of Armstrongism will never apologize for the violence they perpetrated.
Dennis will continue to write little blurbs on this blog in an attempt to justify his actions and conscience - as well as to get some of that praise ministers of Armstrong are addicted to.
And when people point out this atrocity, Dennis, like a minister of Armstrong, will insult them, most likely by calling them an asshole. And then in a few days, Denis will post another piece to justify his actions and get his ego stroke, in the manner ministers of Armstrongism demand.
Dennis - didn't you think the treatment of Eli vs Samuel to be inconsistent?
Both dads had bad sons in positions of power.
Only Eli was condemned.
Dennis
God's character is on display in everything that he created around us. So there is no excuse for smearing God in your 2.14 PM post. Christ stated that the sin of imputing evil to the holy spirit will not be forgiven.
And you complain of the mild label of Dennis the spiritual menace. Should we perhaps put up a statue in your honor instead?
I am Anonymous 7.43
It is comments by Dennis and Anonymous 6.31 that cause me a dilemma. It is like damned if you do and damned if you don't. It is between a rock and a hard place. Sigh. Back to square one!
In reading the many comments posted and contributed on this blog site I wonder what the end results are. I personally spent many years in WWCOG and had an entirety different view of the value it contributed to my life. It appears that the blame is placed on God and people in such a way that people would be mentally damaged if they spent their whole life in these church originations. In the years I spent attending local congregations there was a unity of fellowship that was enjoyed, I can not judge the many local congregations that have been formed in the splits that have been created in the last 25 years or so, but if the members are enjoying fellowship that a congregation should have I would not condemn them at all. The members of any congregation need to be bonded by God’s love as revealed by a faith in Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. If there is no faith there is no church. The rest of the bonding principals are a matter of working together to build lives that contributes to a spiritual growth capable of living in a world that appears to be heading for destruction. We do not need warn people in the world and we do not need advertise how bad the world people are nor do we need to define the badness in the many ways it exists. Every local church congregation should be building people and families that are living a genuine way of life that God desires and people enjoy.
I am not saying a person should start a local congregation nor am I saying that one or a few persons should be people forming a church. My point is that those churches that exist should have members that are bonded that way.
7.50 PM
No, it's not damned if you do and damned if you don't. Rather it's damned if you don't use your mind to discern who is telling the truth.
'Prove all things,' remember?
@anon 7:50 PM/7:43
How can an organization that is NOT of God, lead by people that are NOT of God, preaching/teaching things that are NOT of God bring you salvation?
Telling you that leaving that ‘church’ would earn you the lake of fire is fear mongering. They want to keep you onboard for only one reason: money.
Anon 7:54, are you AB? While reading your post it crossed my mind that I have not seen anything posted from AB in awhile. If so, I'm glad to know you are still out there and maintaining your positive attitude.
Anon 403,631 and 743, Give a call anytime and we can talk if you wish. DennisCDiehl@aol.com for the number.
Anonymous TLA said...
Dennis - didn't you think the treatment of Eli vs Samuel to be inconsistent?
Both dads had bad sons in positions of power.
Only Eli was condemned.
I Sam 8:1-6 doesn't give much detail on Samuel's son's sins. The story of Eli's is more specific in the preceding chapters. I don't know save perhaps Samuel was more popular or more important than Eli and thus others were not willing to condemn him.
As is often the case then and now. When spiritual leaders appoint their sons to replace them in time, it often does not go well. Or as seems to be, "The first generation founds it. The second generation maintains it. The third generation loses it." This is true in business, politics and religion very often.
I think any group goes easier on the higher ups for a time than on the average person in that group. It seems a function of importance to the group. The Jerry Falwell Jr familiar to us all debacle is a repeat of this problem of founders promoting sons when they pass. Making religion a family business is risky to say the least. The story of both Eli and Samuel seem to be the same warning of their times.
The story of Samuel's story or observations about his sons seems to be to provide a Segway into the people wanting a King rather than prophets and all that would follow if they had one. They got them forever more anyway. Perhaps the two stories so close together are meant convey this theme of having a King and that being the whole point. The problems of the prophet's sons is merely the reason the people wanted a change in governance.
That's all I got :)
What do you mean by square one Anon 11:21.
I hope not preaching from the pulpit, that won't help.
An illusion that rarely exists.
Eli's sons performed priestly duties in the temple while Samuels sons were secular judges. So Eli's sons sins were greater in God's eyes, plus Samuels sons were penalized by losing their jobs when Saul was made king.
Dennis
You keep asking those who disagree with you to contact you. You're living in the past.
People outgrow the need for a daddy minister telling them what the real "Plain Truth"
is. People have mentally moved on, and so should you.
Dennis
You keep asking those who disagree with you to contact you. You're living in the past.
People outgrow the need for a daddy minister telling them what the real "Plain Truth"
is. People have mentally moved on, and so should you."
When I offer to chat on the phone it is purely out of the desire to hear the voice, actually get to know someone, ask and talk in real time and have a real exchange if it is helpful or to clarify anything that one or the other misunderstand or just wants to say. Several rancorous types have called and we ended up having great conversations with a little more understanding of each. You not need not "should" on me. I also have never had the craving and certainly not the reputation of being the "Daddy minister'. You're view is a projection of experiences you have had with actual others in your church experience I imagine. You "should stop" that. :)
The posting is meant to be a positive encouragement to those who might never speak up but are struggling with what they feel on the inside and where they are on the outside. Good mental health is when both match. With all the ongoing turmoil in the COG's I recognize the conflict between the push to stay put and the pull to be done with all the drama of the problems that can arise when two or three are gathered together....
PS 549. I'm thinking that when you hear "call me", you associate that with as you're own experience with your "Daddy Minister" struck you. When the daddy minister called to ask you to call him it was never good. It was minister calling member. Something was amiss. You're in trouble.
When I say "call me if you wish", there is none of that baggage attached. I simply like sharing the experience we both have had in the sameness and in the differences. I go for understanding in both directions if that's helpful. Helpful is the key word. On equal ground, if that helps you, as well. I have long ago moved on (23 years) and have not been associated with WCG, ministers or members but in a very few and limited ways and mostly accidently so.
I, as many, had invested lots of years so the memories of the experience do run in the background. I can't see how they wouldn't. Some do feel the need to use me for their punching bag, but that's been good for me as well to accept. I understand and it usually tied to my being available to say things to where the actual minister type of one's experience in WCG may not be.
But I personally am not and never have been the kind of pastor, and would not have been for any denomination of choice, that gets projected on me. Being the only openly former WCG pastor type here on banned, by name and number, is kinda asking for it. So I get that too.
I did have a never part of WCG but has children stuck in one of the more whacko splinters call after keeping my number in their phone for years. They are a lawyer and has more knowledge of WCG than most members from what we chatted about. It was a great experience and we both appreciated the chance to talk. They follow banned closely is how they knew I was available to ask questions about it all to. So it seems a helpful gesture to those given to actually take me up on it.
Hang in there...
PPS I have also found that making a good faith effort to respond to some comments, just makes it worse. I get that too. But thanks for the input. No really, thanks.
Anonymous (1:20)
I was in the WCG for 30 years until 1995. Then the church was transformed into GCI - from a cult to an orthodox Christian church. I never actually left anything.
Dennis,
I am 743 and have sent an email to you.
NEO You actually think GCI isn't a cult. Hilarious!
5:49am Why not give Dennis a call instead of bitching? I did quite a while ago. Dennis is a fine person.
km
Nice to hear from you 743. I got it and returned the favor. I look forward to "meeting"
km said - ... Dennis is a fine person.
I agree. But, please protect your identity. I hope it doesn't happen again.
I’d rather be forced to speak with Doug Winnail than Dennis Diehl. At least with Winnail, you can be guaranteed to be treated to a few goofy giggles.
I am free at last; I will no longer acquiesce to an Armstrongite Minister's demand to do as he says and call him.
Dennis' concern is his ego. He has a huge need to convince people he's not bad - if you think so, you're just deceived - just like Armstrong ministers do.
What Dennis wrote is grossly inappropriate - he needs to deal with that.
I would not waste my time speaking with him until he openly deals with the carnage he has perpetrated in the forum in which he dispensed the destruction.
As I wrote yesterday, ministers of Armstrongism will never apologize for their abuse.
Dennis would like to think he has evolved beyond Armstrongism; but, as you can take the minister out of Armstrongism, you cannot take the Armstrong minister personality out of Dennis.
Anonymous (9:29) wrote: "NEO You actually think GCI isn't a cult. Hilarious!"
I do not believe that GCI is a cult. If you think it is, you will need to tell me why. I doubt that you can give a credible definition of a cult that we can examine. I would expect that you believe all religions are cults and that atheism is science and other such malarkey.
Send me your response so I can have a laugh, too.
NEO, nope, I'm a christian. GCI is still hierarchical whether you want to admit it or not. The RCC is a cult and so is GCI and any church that has a clergy/laity system!
How is Mike Horchak and Steve Schantz doing? Are you one of them?
4:57pm You really need to get past that hatred. Please don't tell me that you have no hate because it's glaring!
No I'm not Dennis.
NEO and anon 9:29
There’s a simple little test to determine if an organization is a cult or not:
https://cult-escape.com/cult%20test/
Try it! It’s anonymous and will only take you 5 minutes.
If you want to know more about cults and how they operate I suggest you look up the BITE model:
https://freedomofmind.com/?s=Bite
All useful tools and easy to understand.
As I said, the Roman Catholic Church is a cult by that sites very definition. GCI too!
9:59am That site would place the 1st century church in the cult category.
Anonymous (9:51)
Apparently you believe that being hierarchical is a sufficient condition for an organization to be classified as a cult.
Tell me what denomination you belong to and I will tell you why it is a cult.
Honestly NEO, why did you join the WCG in 1965? Or were you born into it?
NEO I'm anti-denominational. Have been for 25 years.
I was in the WCG for 25 years until Feb. 1992, attended the CGI for 4 years until Fall of 1995, and now I will never belong to another organization ever again. I'm free to fellowship where "I" choose. Whether it be a sabbath keeping group or a protestant group (I've done both).
Tell me, why do you think I'm in a cult?
call Dennis if you want just be careful. I called him once, wasnt horrible, just kinda weird.
Thought he was trying to figure where he knew me which church area. Maybe I was wrong. Got the idea he was going to out me tell my mother on me. I wasnt into that.
Anonymous (3:35)
You mentioned earlier that a characteristic of a cult is a hierarchical structure. You may not belong to a single denomination but you bounce around to different denominations, perhaps. Each of those denominations will have some kind of a hierarchical structure. So you are not avoiding cult membership - you're just spreading yourself around among various cults (as defined by your criterion). Your cultism is simply de-centralized.
Bill Hohmann, I mean NEO, yet I'm not a member of any of them! Therefore I'm not, nor ever will be a member of a cult! If you are still a member of GCI you're still have n a cult.
Could you please answer my question? Why did you join the WCG in the first place? That is if you weren't born into it. If born into it why did you stay?
NEO, also I "bounce" around because I'm free. Try it you might like it!
People are loosely throwing around the word hierarchial. All organizations have some degree of hierarchy. For instance, a telephone company and a car company both have a hierarchial structure. Hierarchy of responsibilities and lording it over others is not one and the same.
Bouncing around is cheating. When attending a church, one has entered into an informal contract, and the terms and conditions should be abided by. A contract is a contract.
And it's a two way street. Sneaking in hidden conditions after a member has invested in the church, is dishonest as well.
I assume 3:43pm and 3:54pm are the same person since they both present similar ignorance. God's church is not a business like a phone company or car company so your point is moot. Man has turned it into a business "but from the beginning it was not so"!
As far as cheating, you're so full of shit it's hilarious. Obviously you're a hireling in a hierarchical group.I
I've never lied about never joining a group when I attend!
Try it you might like it. Of course you'll have to pass on that paycheck that you obviously get!
Post a Comment