One would hope that a church that claims to be Christian would have as its hallmark Jesus Christ and proclaim that unabashedly.
Then there is the Living Church of God. Guess what its hallmark is?
Its hallmark is church government!
This was sent to be by an LCG contact and is part of the training that ministers go through:
A hallmark of God’s true Church is government conducted with an attitude of servant leadership. From God the Father, to Christ the head of the Church, to human beings positioned by Christ on the earth, this chain of government and, ultimately leadership, is essential to the function of the Church.
Did you catch the "attitude servant of leadership"? Imagine having "servant leaders" in the LCG! Shocking, I know!
Question(Pose to group if you like): What causes a breakdown or malfunction in Church government?Answer:When people usurp authority not given to them or when they do things that are someone else’sresponsibility, or when they fail to communicate effectively.
LCG just cannot stand anyone daring to do anything on their own without getting a minister's permission.
We need to understand how to recognize, follow, and submit to God’s government in faith. This is a subject that has been preached about, talked about, and studied, yet few really understand the importance of this action. If we are to serve in God’s Church, we must understand, respect, and follow God’s government in order to serve God and His people properly and set a right example.
Here we go again. Members are too stupid to follow church government. Its all their fault. Its never the fault of ineffective leaders.
Most worldly churches, although frequently well meaning, practice an unbiblical form of church government. The Presbyterian or democratic form of government places the “board” or deacons in positions where they direct the minister. The minister is expected to pastor the sheep, but only as far as the deacons or board sees fit. And when there is dissention among the board or deacons, the pastor does not have the ability to make decisions or solve the problems. Additionally, the pastor’s position becomes a political one, as he must avoid teaching forcefully and addressing personal sins, lest he be terminated by board members or deacons who might be offended. Churches that practice a non-biblical, democratic form of government, wind up with the same political issues that face most nations of the world today.“Because, in our modern "democracies" (whether pure democracies or representative republics), the politicians campaigning for public office must be very selective about which facts to tell the voters. Generally, they must tell the public only what the people want to hear—whether it is true or not. If the politicians confront the public with too much reality, it is equivalent to committing political suicide!”CLASS OVERVIEW
In this class we will:•Review God’s form of “top down” but merciful government.•Highlight the needs for godly Church government.•Highlight the consequences of ungodly forms of Church government.•Highlight why we must “look to the pastor” and “look to Headquarters” as the earthly authority in spiritual matters.
“And although it is terribly neglected by most professing ministers of Jesus Christ, one of the primary emphases of Jesus’ message was the coming Government of God.” Meredith, R.C. (March-April 2005). The Future of Democracy. Tomorrow’s World(p.7).
Although Mr. Meredith’s quote directly described governmental politics, the same can be said about church politics in democratic church governments. Today, in many churches run by boards, a minister can also commit professional suicide if he tells his congregations what they do not want to hear. Can God really use this type of government to inspire and direct His ministry to exhort and correct the brethren when necessary, and to provide “meat in due season?” No – in fact, it inhibits open, honest, God-inspired exhortation and admonition.
When has there ever been open, honest, and God-inspired exhortations and admonitions from LCG leaders???? The better question to ask is when has LCG leadership ever acted in a loving and merciful manner to its members? When, has it ever been grace-filled? When has it ever placed Christ above government and the law?
Is it any wonder why LCG is in such a mess when this is where their admitted hallmark lies?
All ACOG groups are formed on the Catholic inspired church government chart. From authoritarian ACOG to lilly white liberal ACOG groups. ALL of them. LCG are more open about it, that's all.
ReplyDeleteChurch Government is the biggest lie and false doctrine ever shoveled out. It is an outright lie and false doctrine. They minimize Christ and look to the leaders of this world such as Stalin & Ceaucescu as their role models as leaders. Church gov't, Church Eras, 3rd tithes were all phony doctrines implemented by HWA, himself a false apostle. Real apostles don't commit incest, or try to destroy their son like HWA did with Ted. Flurry, Pack and RCM all have embraced the horrible Primacy of Peter doctrine in their quest for power.
ReplyDelete"look to the pastor" and " look to headquarters" as the earthly authority in spiritual matters."
ReplyDeleteErr, no. My bible tells me to live by every word of God. My reference point is my bible, rather than some pastor or headquarters. Members following Joe Tkach is one example of members following their pastor rather than their bible.
"Gods form of "top down" but merciful government."
Merciful government implies that ministers have a right to verbally bash or tear down members, They do not. My first minister was a "punisher" and a favourite expression of his was "I've been very merciful with you."
Note the vagueness and ambiguouity in expressions such as "top down government." "authority in spiritual matters," "submit to Gods government," "merciful government," etc. Vagueness works for the benefit of evil while precision works for the benefit of the good. Which is why dictatorships have a multitude of vague laws, and it's against America's federal law to legislate vague laws.
Try debating any of the above vague expressions with church leaders and their minions, and they will change definitions half way through a sentence. It's a giveaway that they are playing games with both man and God.
Luke 22:
ReplyDelete24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
'nuff said.....
When people usurp authority not given to them or when they do things that are someone else’s responsibility, or when they fail to communicate effectively.
ReplyDeleteMinisters are not given the authority to meddle in members' marriages, but they do so anyway. Ministers are not given the authority to usurp their deacons' decisions on delegated matters, but they do so anyway. Ministers consider it rebellion if members seek more clear or consistent communication from ministers who think they do not need to explain their plans and perspectives to members.
LCG got this point right. Too bad they don't know how to put it into practice!
Where are the lines straight from the people to Jesus Christ? I'm part of a church (NOT a COG) and my line is directly to Jesus Christ, thankfully. That takes precedence over any other line. He and the Father lead me by the Spirit. The pastor is there to expound the Word in love and TRUTH. Won't find that in a COG. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and left to find grace and truth, joy and love, and peace in Jesus Christ. Come ot of prison and join me and live for and grow in the Lord, not someone lording it over you and keeping subdued and crushed in spirit.
ReplyDeleteThe elephant in the room:
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious from scripture that God's actual government in the spirit dimension is "top down" and perfect. But how does that government extend downward to churches on earth? No temporal church government has a perfect leadership or perfect policies or perfect goals. The idea of imitating the real government of God is just a self-important charade. The fact that someone would even suggest that they are operating within the pale of God's actual government is an appalling presumption.
I see no incontrovertible bridge between the actual government of God and the operations of the local church congregation. Human imperfection is the adamantine barrier. There are some practical approaches based on human experience that might be implemented in all humility. They can be single leader or democratic approaches. Anarchy is of no benefit. But the policies and actions of human governments should never be attributed to God. Think of all the misery that has come about because of men pretending to be God-like.
Viola and Barna ("Pagan Christianity," Tyndale House, 2008) describe the structure of the early church, page 110:
"Among the flock were elders (shepherds and overseers). These men all had equal standing. There was no hierarchy among them."
And where did the single personal point of control originate, p. 110 and 111:
"Ignatius of Antioch (35-107) . . . was the first figure in church history to take a step down the slippery slope toward a single leader in the church . . . According to Ignatius the Bishop had ultimate power and should be obeyed absolutely."
I am not saying that the single leader approach is categorically wrong. For some denominations, a single leader approach may be the most efficient, business-like way to manage operations. This is a secular decision rooted in organizational management. But there should be no fanciful delusions about this governmental form. It is a human government with human policies for human purposes.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 2:28 AM said...“Real apostles don't commit incest, or try to destroy their son like HWA did with Ted.”
You sound like one of those rebellious stooges who supported GTA's playboy lifestyle.
Herbert W. Armstrong never tried to destroy his son Garner Ted Armstrong. HWA hired his son GTA, promoted GTA, paid GTA very well, repeatedly covered up GTA's sins, and tried to set up GTA as his successor to rule the Worldwide Church of God after his own death.
GTA continually, literally “fucked up,” and in the end tried to destroy his own father HWA. HWA had always previously covered up GTA's sins, but in the end GTA went to the media to try to cause trouble for his own father HWA. That is why in the end GTA's problems became known. In the past, GTA had pretended to repent. This last time, GTA would not even pretend to repent. That is why GTA's rebellion against his own father HWA became permanent. HWA then -- finally! -- put the good of the WCG ahead of his own desire to keep GTA and his own plan to set up GTA as his successor. Even then, HWA did not clearly reveal what GTA's sins were, and asked WCG members to pray for GTA's willingness to repent.
GTA destroyed himself.
Anon 9:00 AM = wannabe heir of HWA. Damm that GTA.
ReplyDeleteAny system or human organization without the consumer having a deliberate and meaningful "feedback mechanism" is doomed to failure. Successful endeavors have the ability to reinvent themselves and to pivot when needed.
ReplyDeleteThe COGs on whole , are stuck in the 1960s, and are not innovating or improving. They are going the same route as Sears, Kmart, and Radio Shack.
RE: Annon at 9:00 AM
ReplyDeleteThe Armstrongs BOTH destroyed each other. Because of each of them having their own narcissism and sense of privilege , and indulgences of lifestyle and heinous personal sins on both of their behalf, their organizations were met with demise, whether it was WCG, or Ted in 1995.
You can only defy the "law of gravity" for so long. Eventually reality always makes itself apparent.
GTA is the problem the Church of God International is such a mess. They still promote his lies and add on their own political agenda that makes them a spiritual wasteland.
ReplyDeleteGTA had a gay boyfriend just before he was kicked out of HWAs church. He was very morally challenged.
ReplyDeleteGerald Waterhouse?
ReplyDeleteTed had bisexual tendencies before he went into the military.
ReplyDeleteA major reason the ACOGs are stuck in the 1960s is that have circled their wagons. After all, there's a sinful world out there, and Satan is plotting against them. But the problem here is that a circled wagon train does not move forward. It's not the narrow gate. The Psalm of "though I walk through the valley of death, God is with me," means forward movement.
ReplyDeleteThere's something wrong if an organisation is always in survival mode.
I see the HWA fan club are out in full force today. Like father like son. Ted had sexual problems like his dad. They expressed them differently but both visited prostitutes allegedly.
ReplyDelete"Most worldly churches, although frequently well meaning, practice an unbiblical form of church government. The Presbyterian or democratic form of government places the “board” or deacons in positions where they direct the minister."
ReplyDeleteThe English words "minister" and "deacon" are translated or transliterated from the Greek word diakonos, which means servant, minister. We find the gist of the true meaning of this word expounded by Jesus in Matthew 20:25-27
"But Jesus called them aside and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”
The word servant in the above passage is the word diakonos, so we see that it is intended to carry with it the idea of service and care, rather than rank or superiority, which would be how Jesus describes the rulers of the Gentiles, who katakurieuo, meaning to "bend down", or to "exercise decisive control over, as an owner with full jursdiction" to overpower, or master.
Diakonos or some form of it, is rendered in most English translations of the Bible as minister, deacon, or servant. For instance the word diakonon is found twice in the book of Romans, once referring to Jesus Christ and the other in reference to Phoebe. This word links directly to diakonos and carries the same meaning. Depending on the translation you will find this word rendered as "minister" or "servant" in Romans 15:8 when speaking of Jesus Christ. Most translations however, render the word as "servant" in Romans 16:1, when speaking of Phoebe, with the exception of a couple here or there rendering the word as "deacon."
In 1Timothy 3:8 we see "diakonous" rendered as deacons, but again it carries the same meaning as diakonos, servant. The same word is found in 2Corinthians 3:6 and is rendered as either "ministers" or "servants" depending on the translation. We could also point out that in the KJV version of 1Timothy 3:10 the phrase "use the office of a deacon" is taken from one word, diakoneitÅsan, which links to diakoneo, simply meaning to serve or minister. The Greek word taxis (Strong's 5010) which would denote a rank, position, or order is not found in the above verse, or in 1Timothy 3:13, which contains a similar phrase as verse 10 in the KJV.
So, considering the above information, where did we get the idea that a "minister" somehow outranks a "deacon", or depending on your denominational teaching, vise versa? Jesus Christ was a King who came to be a diakonos or diakonon, setting an example for all others. Paul referred to himself and others as diakonos, diakonoi, diakonon, etc. meaning servants, ministers. People who served other people in some form or fashion according to the gifting God gave them, which is what all Christians should be doing, regardless of whether someone else gives you a fancy title, or decides you can "exercise authority" over others.
Concerned Sister
Concerned Sister I have some difficulty following your argument. It appears that you maybe confusing two issues?
ReplyDelete1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
“The word was dignified enough for Paul to have used it of himself and his associates as those who were servants (diakonoi) of the gospel (1 Cor 3:5; Eph 3:7) and of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6). Nevertheless, there were separate groups called elders or overseas, and so the present passage [1 Tim 3:8-13) goes on to give instruction for the latter” (Walter L. Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, NIVAC, pp.132-133).
You ask “So, considering the above information, where did we get the idea that a "minister" somehow outranks a "deacon"...?
Leaving aside the choice of words, perhaps misunderstanding your argument, may I suggest the Bible.
1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. (KJV).
1 Tim 3:1 Faithful is the word: If anyone overseership aspires to a good work (lit., Greek IHGEB).
“It is noteworthy that here in 1 Timothy 3:1 Paul defines being an overseer in terms of function (“a noble task”), not of status or office. He is not encouraging people to seek status but responsibility. Whether this responsibility is also an “office” depends partly on the meaning we assign to the word. We should observe that no word corresponding to “office” accompanies episkope in the Greek text here. But whatever way that issue is decided, episkope does describe a position of special responsibility and leadership, as the accompanying qualifications imply” (Walter L. Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, NIVAC, pp.116-17).
“The KJV employs the word “office” in several contexts where it does not occur in the Greek text (Luke 1:8-9); Rom 12:4; 1 Tim 3:1; Heb 7:5). The influence of that version over the centuries has led generations of readers to suppose that a formal office existed in each of these cases. That circumstance makes it unfortunately easy to think primarily in terms of office rather that of function in the present passage” (ibid.,).
Ac 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders [presbuteros] of the church.
Ac 20:28 ... the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [episkopos], to feed the church of God
Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou ... ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Tit 1:7 For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...
“In the New Testament the same people who are called elders are also called bishops (episkopos). The two names are used interchangeably in Acts 20:17, 28 and Titus 1:5,7. While the name elder points to the seniority of the person, bishop (meaning overseer) points to the role...
“The plural is alway used in connection with the appointment of leaders. While it is true that one person must emerge as key leader in a group, biblical leadership operates in the context of a team. Paul uses the word used for the Jewish council of elders, prebyterion (Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5), for the gathering of elders (1 Tim 4:14)...” (Ajith Fernando, Acts, NIVAC, p.404).
“With the dispersal of the Hellenistic almoners of 6:5 in the persecution that followed Stephen’s death, the charge of financial affairs in the church seems to have devolved to the elders. The elders (among whom James the Just emerges as primus inter pares) constituted a kind of Nazarene Sandhedrin. In Acts 15 they share the leadership of the church with the apostles; from then on the apostles disappear from the Jerusalem scene and the elders exercise the whole corporate leadership (cf. 21:18)” (F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised, NICNT, p.231).
Cont next post
Anonymous 12:07,
ReplyDeleteMy general point was that you cannot accuse another church group of adopting an unbiblical form of church government based solely on how they have chosen to interpret or manipulate two English words that in truth have the same root meaning and are interchangeable in the Bible. I am not trying to say that there were no overseers, or people who were responsible for leadership. But those "overseers" could be referred to as "deacons" just as easily as they could be referred to as "ministers." And so a "board of deacons" (diakonous) or people who would be given the task of evaluating a "minister" (diakonos) and his teachings is not any more unbiblical than the idea that there are two distinct "ranks" of people in the ekklesia, with one being called "minister" and the other being called "deacon." Both forms of hierarchy have manipulated the term diakonos and how it was rendered by the English translators to justify their own point of view, and I could argue based on other scriptures that the Presbyterian form of government might actually come closer to the Biblical narrative than a strictly hierarchical form of government where a single person is viewed to be God's vicar, and all others must cow to him. There is no "chief shepherd" other than Jesus Christ. 1Peter 5:4
Further, as you pointed out above, even Paul's words in 1Timothy 3 concerning overseers was more concerned with "function" rather than some sort of strict hierarchical ranked office, which was inserted into the scripture by the English translators. Shepherds and those who functioned as leaders were to work "among" the sheep, leading by example. Even when Peter was addressing other elders, he referred to himself as a "fellow elder" and took pains to use language that didn't appear to pull rank on them. 1Peter 5:1-3 The idea that these overseers, or elders could "exercise decisive control" (katakurieuo) over others is specifically prohibited in the scriptures, by Jesus Himself, as well as Peter in the above passage, and Paul. Matthew 20:25-26; 2Corinthians 1:24
It could also be pointed out that in appointing those who would be given some responsibility to "serve" (diakaneo) whether as an overseer or something else, we cannot just assume that the congregation as a whole had no part to play or was not consulted, if Acts 6:1-6 is taken into account. In Acts 6 the entire congregation of disciples was gathered, and tasked with choosing seven men who were needed to fulfill a responsibility of service,and given certain criteria to follow. The apostles then laid hands on those whom the congregation chose and turned over those responsibilities to them. The congregation chose them and the apostles appointed them to their task. If this is how the apostles "appointed" the seven, can we just assume this procedure wasn't followed in other areas? We also cannot discount the fact that in multiple scriptures we see a plurality of "elders" referenced. This could have been seen as a safeguard against one person being able to concentrate too much power or influence over the people as Diotrephes did. 3John 1:9-10
In looking at these issues, all examples of scripture should be taken into account. Cherry picking scriptures in order to bolster our own ideas on how a church should be governed and then equating that to "God's government" leads to deception and abuse.
I hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make.
Concerned Sister
As we know, the issue is not “government” per se, it is the people in leadership positions. When you appeal to “government” to hold things together, even if it is arguably the closest to what can be gleaned from the Bible, the battle is already lost.
ReplyDelete“There is nothing more powerful than inspirational leadership that unleashes principled behavior for a great cause,” said Dov Seidman, the C.E.O. of LRN, which helps companies build ethical cultures, and the author of the book “How.” What makes a company or a government “sustainable,” he added, is not when it adds more coercive rules and regulations to control behaviors. “It is when its employees or citizens are propelled by values and principles to do the right things, no matter how difficult the situation,” said Seidman. “Laws tell you what you can do. Values inspire in you what you should do. It’s a leader’s job to inspire in us those values”...” (Thomas L. Friedman, Are we home alone, nytimes.com, March 21, 2009).
Jos 24:31 And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders [presbuteros, LXX] that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel.
Ac 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders [presbuteros] of the church.
Ac 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Ac 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
If, for a while, there is good “government”, it has to be enjoyed, for it is guaranteed not to last. Any safeguard is only as good as the people implementing it. After HWA’s death the council of elders were no safeguard for the status quo.
All forms of human church governance are ultimately corrupt.
ReplyDelete10.32 PM
ReplyDeleteExcellent post except for the "after HWAs death" part. HWA instituted a lording church culture that he knew was contrary to biblical teachings. Tyranny robs it's victims of the ability to build the character to become the "good people" who safeguard the status quo. Herb knew this since he often wrote that character is the freely chosen. Murderous envy inspired his church's lording ways. It's the "dog ate my home work" people plotting against those who worked hard and finished high school.
I suggest you give a better example next time.
While I think it is a good modern example, it is not a support for the status quo. I don't believe in most of what HWA taught.
ReplyDelete