When I worked in Church Administration just prior to graduation, all local churches had to send in a picture to HQ of their choirs. They were gone over and if a picture showed a handicapped person of any kind, they were sent a "Snowflake From Heaven", my term for HQ Memo, telling the Choir Director to remove that person from the Choir. In context, it is referring to the priesthood but I don't think ministers with disabilities were disqualified or removed from a local church.
This was the OT Scripture used to justify such a request.
"For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is broken footed, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:18-21)
I also had an experience or two with fellow Pastor types who struggled as to what to do with both children born out of wedlock and the girls, usually teens, that gave birth to them. One member called me and said her daughter was dead. A shocker as I had just buried a teen hit by a car recently. (Oh not again!) But he meant she got pregnant and she was now dead to him. We had a long talk about "love never fails". I
""A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)
A bitched is someone who was born outside of wedlock, which means you were born before your parents were married. Being born out of wedlock makes you filthy, apparently; so filthy in fact that it takes ten genetic steps down the line to wash how filthy it makes you.
So even if your family's 100% awesome you can't come to church in like a century or two if you're a bitched, which I guess is only fair. After all, "God is love".
I always found a heavy dose of compassion, kindness, and understanding went much further in the long run of life with teens in trying times than banishment and scorn. I have had many a teen, now adult, who had such experiences call me to update me on their very beautiful children's success in life.
Four separate then teens now adults have called me to tell me they were gay. Interesting. "Does that surprise you?" they all asked me. I said, "No, it seemed rather apparent from the start when I knew you." I asked why they called to tell me and each said, "Because I knew you'd understand.". That's a much better answer than "Because you ruined my life."
One mother called me in a rage and panic as her daughter was pregnant, by her father. What to do? I told her, for her long term mental health of her daughter and the dangers this situation posed, to go to the ER, explain it all, and do what they suggest. It was already what she wanted to do but felt she needed "permission". No permission needed. You can speculate on the conclusion all you wish.
It got crazy out there as a pastor at times. (not even counting bi-annual corporate church scandals and drama) I don't recall any classes on the reality of ministry. By nature, I probably would have disagreed anyway as my "send the pastor a note telling the Choir Director to remove the handicapped person" experience was something I was not about to do back then either. (My older and only brother is blind, deaf and cannot speak from birth trauma as a "premie" so I was a bit sensitive to the concept in the OT. Fortunately, he can't sing and was never called into the one True Church.
Lots of pastor experience tales I suppose. They ran the gamut from interesting to insane. and often endeavoring to explain the concept of "CONTEXT" seemed to escape most in the Churches of God ministry and member.
26 comments:
The version you used for Deu 23:2 is just bitching …
Let's stick with the subject matter - Context …
Deu 23:2 (KJV), A bastard (Hebrew mamzer, Strong's H4464) shall not enter into the congregation of YHVH; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of YHVH.
NIV has 'born of forbidden marriage'; others have 'one of illegitimate birth'.
Mamzer is used only in one other verse:
Zech 9:6 (NKJV), A mixed race (Heb mamzer) shall settle in Ashdod, And I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.
KJV has 'bastard'. Others have 'foreigners'.
KJV's version is problematic. Is the verse saying there's an army of bastards or illegitimate children who are going to conquer Ashdod from the Philistines?
Because of this, some of the Jewish commentators in the Middle Ages believe mamzer doesn't mean bastard.
According to Nehemia Gordon, "What mamzer actually means, it’s a compound word - ‘Mum-zar’, which means a foreign blemish.” And this may have actually been the name of one of the tribes that lived in the Negev desert. They then came out of the desert, burst out of the desert, and conquered Ashdod."
Here's the link to the discussion. You can expand the Transcript and look for Deu 23:2.
While the issue of context was the object of sarcasm in the little video, there is a real point of debate here. The flow of scriptures included statements from both the OT and NT. The objectionable ones were from the OT and usually involved violence. The little stick man frowned at the OT scriptures and smiled at the NT scriptures - not really a bad position. The concern with God-directed violence is an important one but does not seem to be the real focus of the video. It seems to be more concerned with why the same God could come up with two totally different religious dispensations - one to operate a national theocracy and the other to operate a church. That is a large an controversial topic.
A high relief flaw in Armstrongism is its willful immersion in OT rules and regulations in support of a particular political predisposition. Readers who were at one time Armstrongists will know exactly what I am talking about and for the others it takes too long to explain. Let me just cite an example. Armstrongists may pay fastidious attention to Leviticus 18:21 (rejection of the blemished) but pointedly ignore Deuteronomy 13:1-3 (the condemnation of false prophets). This is because Armstrongism rests at a certain locus on the political spectrum, then and now.
If anything this post with its video makes me happy to be under the New Covenant and makes me wonder, once again, why Armstrongists want to cleave with such self-immolating intimacy to the Old Covenant.
And, Dennis, I am glad you had the ethical commitment to leave the Armstrongist ministry.
Anonymous (11:30)
You are involving yourself in something that has been heavily conflated in Armstrongism and is carried along on the currents of Herman Hoeh's idiosyncratic definitions. Armstrongists define "race" and "mixed race" differently to the point of being unintelligible. I am just saying that it is very difficult to write about this topic and have Armstrongists understand what you are talking about.
The people of the Middle East during the bronze age and residing in the area of Palestine were all haplogroup J - the same race. The tribes of Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7:1 were all haplogroup J and virtually indistinguishable from Jews. So the "forbidden marriage" commands did not map to mixed race marriages.
Herman Hoeh would have regarded at one time the marriage between and Italian person and a Norwegian person to be mixed race. Italians are Japhetic and Norwegians are Semitic by Hoeh's unusual view. Actually, Italians and Norwegians have some of the same haplogroups - R1a in particular.
I doubt that these laws were of much import to anyone outside the priestly faction and, later, modern day Armstrongists. Deut 23:3 says:
"An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:"
Yet, David, the great king of Israel, was a second generation Moabite.
NEO It was a messy transition. They got to me before I could make my own choice though it was coming on strong. The Tkach fiasco took my last congregation down from 450 to 95 when they called and said I was no longer needed to pastor and the local elder could handle it. That was fine with me and a relief. I have always found it difficult to take the obvious first steps. I would not have lasted much longer under any circumstances. I had a weird and unrealistic loyalty to the local congregation though later found out it was not mutual. Did I mention naive? lol.
Somewhere it was decided, aside from the "Honey I shrunk the Church" aspect of not needing me , that "Dennis, we think you know a lot about Jesus, but you don't know Jesus." This news was delivered to me via regional coordinator over coffee at Barnes and Noble.
I suppose the honor in it all was that I turned down taking the local church for myself and was not interested in the least to jump to another split or splinter in either WCG tradition or the New and Improved version that reinvented my own wheel taking me back to my Dutch Reformed roots. By then I had so many questions about what actually was the Bible, where did it really come from. Who really wrote what and not what and why so many contradictions abounded in the texts. I have made my case over the years here too that the NT clearly shows what is called "The Problem of Paul" in the circles of higher criticism as well as the problems with the Gospels. In dealing with them, I simply lost faith in faith as is obvious .
Add to all that the scourge of clinical depression and anxiety because of it all, and I don't consider it near as noble and ethical as life saving. I stayed too long for lots of reasons. Some made sense to me and others not so much looking back. Looking back clarifies that which cannot be redone better now.
Dennis, I commend you for not remaining in the GCI cult!
NEO,
What am I involving myself with????? Do you know me? Did you read it carefully? From where did 'mixed race' come from? The mixed race came from the NKJV!!!!!!
I've been using NKJV for quotes because that's what most ACOGs use. I had to put it in bold letters because that's how NKJV translated mamzer! Otherwise, readers may think mamzer means just race.
If you read carefully what I wrote (I attempted to summarize what my source, Nehemia, told in the link I gave) is that the mamzer is a possible name of a tribe based on how it's used in Zech 9:6, and doesn't mean a bastard.
NEO,
Deu 23:3 Commentaries:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
"An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter". According to Rashi, “shall not marry an Israelitish woman.” It must be remembered that the children, according to Jewish law, follow the father, not the mother. The case of Ruth would not, therefore, be touched by this precept.
Benson Commentary
An Ammonite or a Moabite — The Jews will have it, that the women of these two nations were not concerned in this law. And that though an Israelitish woman might not marry an Ammonite or Moabite, yet a man of Israel might marry one of their women, after she professed the Jewish religion.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
even to the their tenth generation shall they not enter—Many eminent writers think that this law of exclusion was applicable only to males; at all events that a definite is used for an indefinite number (Ne 13:1; Ru 4:10; 2Ki 10:2).
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord,.... Or marry an Israelitish woman, as Jarchi, and so the Targum of Jonathan,"the male Ammonites and Moabites are not fit to take a wife of the congregation of the Lord;''for the Jews restrain this to men, because it is, as Aben Ezra observes, an Ammonite, not an Ammonitess, a Moabite, not a Moabitess; they allow that females of those nations might be married to Israelites, that is, provided they were proselytesses, as Ruth was (m):
NEO wrote,
"Herman Hoeh would have regarded at one time the marriage between and Italian person and a Norwegian person to be mixed race. Italians are Japhetic and Norwegians are Semitic by Hoeh's unusual view."
It's true that Hermon Hoeh would have viewed the marriage of an Italian and a Norwegian to be mixed, or between Israelite and Gentile, but that marriage under WCG rules would have been permitted, because both parties shared the same skin color, and were viewed as being a part of the pure white race, that HWA claimed was carried down from Adam through Noah, and on through the descendants of Shem as well as some of Japheth's descendants, which demonstrates that segregation by skin color was the true motivation for some of WCG's rules and regulations concerning mixed marriages. Their goal was to keep whites from mixing primarily with blacks or Latinos, not to strictly preserve what they thought to be Israelite bloodlines. This was not only just plain wrong, but also a double standard, giving preference to some "Gentiles" and not others simply because of skin color.
Also, if the choir policy was a universal policy, one wonders if some of these people had ever read the New Testament at all. If they had, they would have eventually run into these verses... "Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Luke 14:12-14 or this... "The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'... so that my house will be full." Luke 14:21-23
Concerned Sister
Anonymous (2:32)
"What am I involving myself with?????"
A mélange of terminology inside Armstrongism that is way different from what is generally understood in common parlance.
"Do you know me?"
Err, how am I supposed to know if I know someone with the moniker of "Anonymous?" And what does knowing you have to do with what you wrote?
"Did you read it carefully?"
As carefully as I cared to.
"mamzer is a possible name of a tribe"
I get it. Interesting.
Dennis:
The fact is, you took the high road. You are not hanging around a splinter group because they're paying you a salary. You could be doing that - I am sure others are. Your integrity is intact and your are doing something constructive to help people. At the end, you can say that. An infinitely better outcome than saying that you were a cult minister that taught heresy and fleeced the flock.
NEO,
That's the point. You don't know me to accuse me of something. I never mentioned ACOG or anything related to Armstrong. You read 'mixed race' and it triggered you.
I'm glad you finally 'get it'.
Anonymous (4:46)
I don't recall accusing you of anything. I read a number of terms in your post that I knew from experience would be misunderstood by most Armstrongists. That's all. That was advice, not an accusation. Clearly, you don't get it.
Concerned Sister:
The field of Genetics now reveals that the Ashkenazi Jews are a mix of Jewish an Gentile. They are roughly 30 percent to 60 percent Gentile. Most of this Gentile ancestry is derived from their sojourn on the Italian Peninsula. They also have some admixture with Eastern Europeans. This means that they, by Hoeh's definition, a bastardized race that should be expelled from the congregation of Israel.
I would recommend (tongue-in-cheek) that the splinter groups issue an open letter to the Ashkenazi explaining that they are not really acceptable to the congregation of Israel. They can also claim that the real Chosen People, if they want to see a sample, are the rural people living around Delta, Mississippi.
NEO said, "You are involving yourself in something that has been heavily conflated in Armstrongism'
You are accusing me of getting involve ... For quoting NKJV verse which happen to use the term 'mixed race'?
Dennis at 1.40PM,
You left WCG or forced to leave due to church administrative orders and inner doubts, I always wonder about those who leave WCG one way or another or those who quit religion or whatever associated with Armstrongism which is equivalent to God's end time representative or at least that is what you once believed to be true.
My question is you have " tasted the once heavenly gift ... enlightened... part of the Holy Spirit.." (Heb 6:4), so does this apply to you and other now unbelievers or only God knows?
My understanding is some of the prohibitions in the Law of Moses, such as not trimming your beard, getting tattoos, etc. is because these things were associated with pagan worship rituals. Tattoos, trimming the beard, etc. are not wrong in and of themselves. So these prohibitions are irrelevant for us today. Besides, Mosaic Covenant has expired and was only between one group, Israel, and God. That is how I understand this. Historical context is important and oftentimes we don't know very much about that.
September 10, 2020 at 11:38 PM
"... tasted the once heavenly gift ... enlightened... part of the Holy Spirit."
If management of the wcg had a spirit, it was of Satan. The organization had nothing to do with any god. It was all about the money as the shyster lawyer says.
Anonymous RB said...
Dennis at 1.40PM,
You left WCG or forced to leave due to church administrative orders and inner doubts, I always wonder about those who leave WCG one way or another or those who quit religion or whatever associated with Armstrongism which is equivalent to God's end time representative or at least that is what you once believed to be true.
My question is you have " tasted the once heavenly gift ... enlightened... part of the Holy Spirit.." (Heb 6:4), so does this apply to you and other now unbelievers or only God knows?"
Reply: Every sincere Christian no matter the denomination, sect or cult believes they have tasted the once heavenly gift, been called and enlightened on all things God and Jesus, partaken of the Holy Spirit because they all read the same Biblical descriptions of them as they perceive it. I am an atheist. An agnostic is atheist light leaving some wiggle room as to possibilities. and I get that too. As Carl Sagan noted, "I'd like to believe in a God and that I would see my parents again... I just find no evidence for that.
I have always been evidence based in my way of being. I am not faith based which is merely what one hopes is true based on no actual evidence that it is true.
I am not concerned about my future after death. Lakes of Fire, as if a human could know, are designed to instill fear and keep one on the straight and narrow. The warnings of scripture about falling away etc are meant to do the same and are used by every kind of Christian ministry to remind their specific followers to stay put.
I never felt one bit different after baptism and "full of the Holy Spirit" than I did the day before or ever after. Some out there is going to say "But you are full of it". LOL, So yes, I get that too and will say it before you do! lol
Life is what one gets now. We can muse and philosophize all we want about it,but life is now. Spending one's time speculating about the future, which cannot be known or the past which cannot be undone is a futile and wasteful endeavor of the present life one actually has. If I am mistaken about a God or Jesus, then I will trust that these gods are actually the love they claim to be. They will understand doubt, disappointment and skepticism and be kind. And too, real Gods will understand the actual origins of the Universe, our Solar system and all life on all the planets and how it actually came to be.
"POOF!" and magic will not be their answer to the questions.
Matthew 5: In verse 19, Jesus says, “Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Aside from the fact that this verse , according to the author of Matthew upholds the Jewish Christian view of the Law/Church, as opposed to the Pauline Gentile view, (you can't hold both views) those who set any of it aside are called "least in the kingdom of God." I can deal with being the "least". I really have no need to be "greatest" as some evidently do. But being the least at least means I made it so no big deal. I made it! :) I'd be really happy to live for all eternity in a log home, in nature by a river and not any Mansion being prepared for me. I'm not a mansion kinda guy. Nor do I have any desire to rule over cities much less nations. What is that all about? Sociopaths for Jesus?
NEO, you write like you know what Jacob's haplogroup was. Hilarious! What ever happened to science? Jacob's haplogroup might be theorized to be J but no one knows for sure. Not even you!
RB, do you actually believe that WCG was "the heavenly gift"? What a hoot!
1.40 PM
Dennis, I also found out the hard way that loyalty is a one way rather than a two way street in Herbs church. Among other good deeds, I drove members in my car dozens of times, and when I asked them for a lift to services because my car was in an accident, people were offended that I even asked.
I believe that ministers know that relationship's are two way, but hide this because they themselves are crooks.
Anonymous (9:50) "Mr. Hilarious" again
I have provided in the past how these haplogroups can be deduced if certain Biblical genealogies are assumed to be accurate. Armstrongists accept these genealogies at face value so my assertions for them tend not to be an issue. They just believe that HWA trumps genetics. If you do not acknowledge the Biblical genealogies, then my deductions are meaningless. I am not going to parse through all the material again. (See "Abraham's Chromosomes," https://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48944786.html for some relevant material)
So whatever it is for you. I am sure you have strong and prevailing counter arguments.
NEO,
If Abraham is not the father of the 'Arabs,' how would it impact your argument?
"Ishmael is Not the Father of the Arabs":
https://www.meforum.org/57936/ishmael-father-arabs
Here's my observations...
Re Leviticus 21:17-21 the physical requirements were for the male descendants of Aaron who would be eligible for the High Priesthood of Israel. All of these physical qualifications pointed to Christ who was both physically and spiritually without defect or sin and is the Great High Priest of the Israel of God.
Re Deuteronomy 23:1-3 I remember learning as a teen the Hebrew word translated in the AKJV as "bastard" actually didn't mean an illegitimate child or a child born out of wedlock at all, but possibly a mongrel. From this knowledge I have never personally looked down on any heterosexual monogamous couple who have chosen to have children without formally tying the knot themselves. One reason for this is the lack of any formal outline in Scripture to a formal marriage ceremony. In fact, from creation with Adam and Eve and other examples in Scripture it's as if sex is the consummating act that seals a marriage in the eyes of God irrespective of any formal ceremony. But, that's just speculation on my part. Also, I've never understood how a wealthy and influential figure like a royal member or tycoon can coldly and callously dismiss his own flesh and blood child and deny the child an inheritance just because he wasn't married to the woman he had sex with and conceived the child with. It's unfair on the innocent child. Even Judah's twin sons who were born out of wedlock with his daughter-in-law were given inheritance in Israel and from one of them the royal line and Messiah sprung.
On the other hand I just looked up the Greek Septuagint and interestingly it uses the Greek word "porne" (G4204) meaning "harlot" or "whore" so it's possible that the original Hebrew manuscripts BCE was more clear in prohibiting an illegitimate child from the community of Israel. Or perhaps it meant not an illegitimate child of a loving unmarried couple, but a child born of a professional prostitute? Again I don't know, but it's all very interesting to me and highlights for me again that I shouldn't be self-righteous and judgmental of others.
NEO is deducing and assuming again but he thinks it's all proof.
HILARIOUS!!!!!
Who the hell said anything about Armstrong?
NEO, you really are quite funny. One might even say hilarious. Your link assumes that the Cohen Modal Haplotype are Levites. There is absolutely no proof of this. For all we know the Cohen are the descendants of Baal priests.
We don't know. YOU don't know!
Post a Comment