Wednesday, April 14, 2021

COG Groups Love To Dish It Out But Scream Like Hell When The Tables Are Turned




The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Herbert Armstrong and his successors have decried the "persecution" which they have suffered at the hands of critics. In fact, critics within and without the ACOGs have been characterized as tools of Satan deployed by him to attack/destroy "God's Church." They say that former members have allowed a root of bitterness to well up within them and make them disgruntled and vengeful. Critics outside of the Church have been characterized as deceived and/or wicked proponents of lies and distortions. In short, anyone who makes negative comments relative to the ACOGs or challenges their work, teachings or behavior is said to be attacking and persecuting the Church (and are, consequently, enemies of God).

However, if criticizing the doctrines and teachings of an organization constitutes persecuting God's Church, then Armstrong and his successors were/are master persecutors. They have always been fond of pointing out what they considered to be the erroneous teachings of Mainstream or Traditional Christianity. Armstrong said that the vast majority of Christians worshipped on the wrong day (Sunday), had adopted pagan notions and practices, preached a false gospel and were drunk with the blood of the real saints (the folks who believed as they did). Armstrong and his followers have ridiculed Mainstream/Traditional Christian teachings about the trinity, afterlife, Christmas and Easter observances, grace, religious music, symbols, and prophecy (among other things).

Now, as far as the New Testament is concerned, the modus operandi of Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and the other saints was to call out false teachings. Indeed, throughout those writings, Christians are constantly encouraged to ignore or dismiss teachings that contradict or twist what the founders of the religion have taught. Christ warned his followers that false messiahs and prophets would arise and attempt to deceive people. Paul warned the saints of Corinth about false apostles and deceitful workmen. He also chided the saints of Galatia for abandoning the Gospel of Christ and embracing a false gospel. John told his followers not to believe everything they heard and warned them that "many false prophets have gone out into the world." Peter warned the saints that there would be false prophets and teachers among them who would introduce "destructive heresies."

Hence, if we are following the example of Scripture, it would be reasonable for us to conclude that calling out false teachers and false teachings is the appropriate way to deal with this problem. Moreover, if it was appropriate for Herbie and his successors to call out the "false" teachings/doctrines of Mainstream/Traditional Christianity, how can they claim that anyone who does the same thing to them is persecuting them? My grandmother used to say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander!" And, when an ACOG member alleges that my criticisms of their leadership and teachings amounts to persecution, I'm thinking of another grand old axiom: That sounds an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle black!

Miller Jones

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is exactly why I find it hilarious when Bob Thiel gets all pissy when people criticize him. Every single day he smears people and their faith because they believe differently than he does. When he gets called out its persecution but when he does it to others it's ok.

DennisCDiehl said...

Well I hate to point this out, but the early apostles used this very approach to attack their own critics. Don't get to thinking they could because they were the founding fathers of the religion. They were the disagreeing with each other founding fathers from the start and thus all the NT phrases used to day to ward off genuine criticism for views held.

Paul said in Galatians 1:6-9 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you (Jerusalem Church "Judaisers" such as Peter, James and John) and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

This kind of language has been copied by every church leader who found himself being opposed by others. Today's pastors, when the issue comes up, quotes all the NT charges and accusations listed. No one believes they are in the wrong or false church so pick your insult towards others who oppose them. It's all in the NT.

A mature understanding of the NT politics is that Peter, James and John did not appreciate Paul and Paul upped the ante by insulting them as those who are preaching a different Gospel than the one He, not "we" preach etc. Long story but these boys were not on the same team.

I get your point, but every phrase used for the last 2000 years to insult, warn, denigrate or accuse others for not believing what the church of one's choice says gets these charges thrown at them. They get it from the NT apostles and writers who also may not have been on track as much as they are made out to be. Even a cursory reading of Galatians 1 and 2 will show the absolute rancor between the Jerusalem Apostles and Johnny Come Lately Paul.

By the time Paul got to this point in his own pride in his own version and Gospel ownership and says this about those held in actual high esteem, meaning Peter, James and John...

Galatians 2:6 "As for those who were held in high esteem-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism-they added nothing to my message."

...every real or imagined Apostle, Pastor, Church leader and True Church has all the ammo it will ever need to shoot down anyone who disagrees with them, because it's in the Bible to do so when needed to hold the membership in their seats and not check out why some are "troubling you".

It's why the author of Peter (not Peter the fisherman) never understood that "scoffers" are merely observing what is evidently so. That would be an admission that they are right and he was mistaken, which he was. Church leaders of any style have a hell of a time admitting they were or are mistaken. We only have HWA, Dave Pack, Ron Weinland, Gerald Flurry etc in our times and experience to see their answer to criticism is to quote the phrases they get from the NT dueling Apostles and Gospels.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Peter and Paul did make amends - 2 Peter 3:15.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Dennis,

Like it or not, for most Christians, the words of Jesus and his apostles do carry more weight than any of the folks (popes, bishops, pastors or laymen) who came after them. The point of this post was that Jesus and his apostles were not bashful about calling out folks who were teaching things which they considered to be false/contrary to their teachings. Hence, it's a bit disingenuous to characterize criticism as persecution or unchristian.

And, yes, there were disagreements between the apostles, pastors and lay people of the First Century - you cited Paul's problem with the Jerusalem apostles. Nevertheless, for most Christians, rather than discredit these men and their writings, these disagreements underscore the fact that these were real people who were grappling with trying to understand Christ's teachings and help others to understand them. In fact, many of us would be very suspicious of an account that presented this period as one of complete harmony and unanimity (subsequent events would make less sense).

You no longer claim to be a Christian. From your perspective, these disagreements discredit the people and writings involved. From your perspective, Scripture can be used to support or argue ANY position. However, even for Christians who acknowledge the disagreements and reject Biblical inerrancy, Scripture is still regarded as valuable/useful relative to things spiritual and should NOT be used to support ANY position. Like it or not, the weight of the Scriptural evidence argues against the whining of these ACOG leaders about "persecution." In other words, the meaning of persecution remains what it was in the First Century - an attempt to prevent Christians from worshipping as they see fit and/or murdering and imprisoning them for their beliefs. Criticism wasn't persecution then, and it ain't persecution now!

Anonymous said...

Who's alleging your persecuting them Miller Jones ?

Anonymous said...

That Peter, James and John were in one corner, and Paul in the other corner, and were dualing and insulting one another is only true if one tortures the bible.
These differences only exist in Dennis Diehls imagination and in the minds of his apostate book authors.

Anonymous said...

I remember Flurry's meltdown when the local Fox station ran a story about the PCOG & he started slinging accusations. Maybe he needs to buy another jet.

DennisCDiehl said...

I get that Miller. My point is all Christian churches, over the past 2000 years all believe they are the true one, of course, and variants of their beliefs are not. Thus they all use the NT phrases for such occasions to warn their members or subjects why they need to avoid all others. I am sure the neither Gospel Jesus nor the early Apostles and Paul never thought anything would go beyond their lifetime with everything they thought would come did come. Of course it did not. Once it was all written down, every church to follow could use or misuse their words to perpetuate their particular view and denigrate others who did not and warn their members to not listen to them, even if the criticism was well deserved etc.

Anonymous said...

Paul came first: a radical movement that dumped the Torah/Sabbaths (Colossians 2:16)
~~ Galatians probably first Christian writing ~~
Even the Gospel writers draw his texts to 'flesh-out' an 'historical' Messiah.

Anonymous said...

Miller:

I would add to your analysis that the idea of persecution as leveraged by the Splinterists is both politicized and weaponized. It is politicized because they selectively recognize it to achieve specific purposes. It is a form of policy. An example is Donald Trump. The Donald said the following on the campaign trail in 2015 about Ben Carson who is a Seventh Day Adventist:

"UPDATE: Donald Trump, during a campaign appearance Saturday in Florida, sought to make an issue of Ben Carson's Seventh-day Adventist faith. "I'm Presbyterian," Trump said. "Boy, that's down the middle of the road folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about." (From The Washington Post)

If The Donald felt that way about mild and mostly mainstream Seventh Day Adventism think what his reaction would have been to the extremely Millerite Splinter groups. If Trump had ever ascended to the kind of power he would like to have had, the Splinterists would all be in prison or worse. Yet nobody in Splinterdom is bewailing about what Trump said. Nobody cried out about a persecutorial storm arising on the horizon generated by the US President. This is because they politically stood with The Donald (mostly) and would have naively done so until the Government began to march them off to Federal prison. Remember what happened to that famous apocalyptic Millerite group down in Waco. They had a really bad engagement with the Government.

Splinterists weaponize persecution by using it as a force directed against their enemies. We have seen examples of this especially in internecine wars within Splinterdom. They are quick to characterize others as enemies of God because they have been legitimately critical of Splinterdom. Labelling such criticism as persecution and using that to strike back is a way of rapidly diverting Splinterist congregants from thinking about the content of the critical message and generating an angry but uniting chauvinism. Weaponization supports an us-them mentality that is beneficial to the Splinterdom in maintaining cohesion.

I do believe Splinterists get persecuted. I remember what it was like when I was in the WCG. Yet much of the persecution was up close and personal at the level of congregants. I don't recall ever hearing that anyone on the Pasadena payroll was being persecuted by outsiders. I think for the WCG administrators persecution at the organizational level was a kind of useful abstraction - it preached well. Think how much they leveraged off of the State of California's action way back then.

******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

Dennis, you wrote "Long story but these boys were not on the same team."

There is nothing in the NT to support this statement. The coach and the quarterback may differ on how to execute the play but they are still on the same team. I will admit that Paul had harsh words for Peter. Peter deserved it an did not retort. I will admit that James wrote an epistle that has to be understood in the context of Paul's writing (emphasizing indicatives of the faith) but in isolation seems legalistic (emphasizing imperatives of the faith). James was probably soft on the beliefs of the Circumcision Party and Paul aggressively opposed these same beliefs. All of this Midrashic development happened within the same arc of faith.

We do not see war among these very early Christians. There is no Epistle written by Peter titled "Contra Paul." Nor did Paul write anything titled "Contra James." James did not write a pro-Circumcision epistle. If there were vehement division, we would have seen this kind of polemical writing. There was no Schism in the early church. Instead, we see a Jerusalem Council that consolidated understanding and formed common policy.

As an outsider to Christianity, you see this progressive development as fatal factionalism. I take exception to that but also stand against those who believe that the message to the church was given once and perfectly. The NT indicates that emergent issues had to be resolved under the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Yet, in the last analysis, "these boys" were all on the same team.

******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

I remember Flurry's meltdown when the local Fox station ran a story about the PCOG

And Stan Rader after Mike Wallace revealed he had something on him. There's a copy of the 60 Minutes interview over at Painful Truth, and it's worth a listen.

Yes, Bob Thiel getting butt hurt from comments here in Banned while his African pastors were reportedly thrown in jail. He seemed to be more concerned with a little criticism than welfare of his followers.

Even local Protestant ministers here scream persecution over insignificant problems.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Dennis,

Historically, Christians have tended to isolate or exclude the folks who do not agree with them - this is an unfortunate part of our story that many Christians refuse to acknowledge or confront (and is a legitimate separate issue which I have addressed elsewhere). Nevertheless, the writings of the New Testament do NOT indicate that Paul ever regarded Peter and the Jerusalem apostles as not being Christians and vice versa. Yes, for any objective observer, they had some serious disagreements; but it is also clear that they continued to regard each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. The impulse to excommunicate/disfellowship each other over doctrinal differences was a later development (perhaps even a natural outgrowth of the evolution of a more elaborate and complicated theology).

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul was at pains to demonstrate that his ministry was not derivative - that he didn't receive his message from "those who were apostles before I was" (NLT). As you know, Paul used this epistle to call out those who were seeking to impose their legalistic views on Gentiles which he regarded (with some justification) as part of the fruits of his ministry. In refuting these folks and their views, he referred to the Jerusalem Council which is discussed in more detail in the book of Acts. Yes, Paul was not averse to criticizing Peter or opposing him when he felt that he was in the wrong, but there is no indication that he ever regarded Peter as anything but a fellow Christian. In fact, Paul warned the saints of Corinth against associating themselves with one apostle or camp in opposition to another apostle or group of believers. For all of these "pillars" of the Church, Jesus Christ remained the object of their beliefs and teachings - their differences and disagreements were subordinated to that (unlike later generations who would allow those same factors to sunder their ties to each other and tarnish their commitment to that greater objective).

And, yes, I agree with you that many folks have used and misused the words of these men to perpetuate their own views and denigrate those of others. Nevertheless, it is a bit disingenuous and unfair to lay those abuses at the feet of the apostles - that's like blaming Marx for the exploits of Lenin and Stalin. Finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that criticism is NOT synonymous with persecution. Those First Century leaders criticized each other (and folks who disagreed with them), but they never damned, imprisoned or murdered their opponents (though that would come in abundance over the two thousand years which followed their ministries).

Tonto said...

Whether a group or individual be right or wrong, there is truth in the old saying that "The Tall Trees Catch the Wind". This is very true, and when it happens, just realize that this is all part of the game.

Throw pitches at peoples head in baseball, and you bet, the other team is going to retaliate and do the same thing back. It is the nature of things.

Earl said...

"If Trump had ever ascended to the kind of power he would like to have had, the Splinterists would all be in prison or worse."

NEO that is an inane comment. Just when I was enjoying and smiling at your term "splinterist", you again go to your continued Trump Derangement Syndrome. With such a ridiculous comment I believe most, with the exception of one or two (still think you are great, Miller), would agree.

Anonymous said...

Earl:

You should explain what is inane about the comment. You know Trump speaks from the heart. That was what was in his heart. If you are an Armstrongist you are pretty far removed from a Presbyterian. Much more so than an SDA. You know Trump likes Presbyterians. He doesn't like you. You better hope he does not get re-elected. One day you may get carted of to Federal prison for not working on the Sabbath like a patriot to the chants of "Lock him up! Lock him up!"

******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

NEO
All of Trumps policies (except the growing national debt) gave the economy more freedom, not less freedom. Trump was pro freedom in his national and international policies. Accusing him of wanting to persecute Christians is pure paranoia on your part. It's like some people I know who are constantly raging against those around them, while claiming to be the victim.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Anonymous 4/16 @ 12:14,

Pardon me for expressing some skepticism about your pro-freedom characterization of Trump. That doesn't square with his stances on voting rights, a free press and rule of law issues. Moreover, I'm always amazed when folks of a religious persuasion voice their support for one of the most cut-throat, amoral and immoral men to have ever occupied the Oval Office. As for Trump's capacity to persecute those who disagree with him, I think that the verdict was in on that one a long time ago. He is clearly not tolerant of opposing views, is vengeful and is without question one of the biggest bullies in the public arena. Sure, he loves to champion the rights of those who support him, but not so much other folks!

Earl said...

NEO,
Trump's much loved and respected daughter and husband practice Judaism which is further from Presbyterianism than SDA or the COGs (well, some are insane).

It is a paranoia and bias that you would do well to overcome. It is the left/media that talks censorship, deplorables, re-education camps, outrageous lies intended to deceive and sway public opinion, etc. Not claiming the Right doesn't lie, but theirs are different in that they are often hyperbole and Trump's braggadocio more often than the heavy fundamental lies of the Left that are buttressed with media focusing on one thing and disregarding another, editing video to better fit their narrative, biased reporting, historical incidents of racism, only revealing the race of a perpetrator when he is white, etc.

These are the kind of lies Solzhenitsyn meant when he said, "Live not by lies."

Earl said...

Quick thing Miller, how in the world can someone such as yourself not distinguish between bombast and actions, and sadly, the deception of Biden in hiding his real views (or having them determined by others) and in such immorality as the Ukraine/China Hunter Biden self enrichment schemes?

In what world does one identified person, one identified vote not equate to voting rights? You know what doesn't support voting rights? Not taking a reasonable effort such as picture ID to verify a legit voter. And no, I don't think it matters whether the election results would have been different for it to be wise to require voter ID.

The Dems want to court pack-- you must see the cut-throat political and immoral nature of this. Biden lied about his stance up until the election.
Are you kidding me...who has gone after whom they dislike? The Dems prosecuted and prosecuted and indicted and indicted throughout Trump's tenure, person after person associated with Trump. They continue to. Show me the line of people Trump did this to.

Free Press? When did Trump prevent the media??? Are you kidding me? The Media is left wing; this has been shown repeatedly-- look it up if you are brazen enough to doubt this. Yet, that is not enough as they continue deplatforming opinions they don't like. And, the government has done nothing against this monopoly (which I am fine with if evenhanded), but if Foxnews said they would not carry any stories about BLM (which I would disagree with) I guarantee Biden would be on them in no time flat.

There is no question which party supports government's heavy hand. I suppose you would throw out law and order, but that is one of 5 specific functions as found in the Constitution and listed in the Preamble.

I know this was a sloppy response, but it's more accurate than not.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Earl,

Those currently and formerly affiliated with the ACOGs have a tendency to be fans of Trump. As you can tell, I am not. And, although this is not really an appropriate forum for such discussions, the preoccupation of so many of these folks with the subject makes it necessary to address things related to the Great Orange One from time to time. Out of respect for the blog owner and the other commentators here, however, I will not respond point by point here. If you're interested in my response, you can check it out here:

https://milleronpolitics.blogspot.com/2021/04/a-response-to-earls-commentary-on-my.html

Anonymous said...

Miller Jones accusations against Trump is the usual left wing projection of their own evil attitudes and behaviors.
When I attended services, I had some members follow me around like a dog, projecting their mental problems onto me. Using other people as a mental rubbish bin for their problems, especially on the Sabbath, is despicable. And these people were protected by the ministers. Some friggin church!

Anonymous said...

Miller Jones is NOT Anerican. Wake Up. Do not be fooled by the deception.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

For the record, Anonymous 4/17 @ 12:04 and 4:07 are the ones attempting to deceive folks. No, I am NOT Anerican - I am an American though! Indeed, my roots on this continent extend to 1620, 1607 and beyond those years into antiquity. I have lived my entire life as a citizen of the United States and honorably served this republic as an infantryman in the U.S. Army. I'm a Christian who, unfortunately, has NEVER been protected by any of the shepherds of the ACOG flocks of which I was a part (though I did regard two of them as friends). I'm also a former Republican who is still fiscally and militarily conservative. And, I have never desired to convert anyone to my religious or political philosophies, but I have always encouraged people to be more open-minded and think for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Lies ALL lies.

Anonymous said...

11:43 It it is all lies, then prove it or shut up with all of this crap.

Anonymous said...

Miller Jones you prove who you are.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Anon 4/17 @ 2:05,

That's a fool's errand - I've provided links and proofs a couple of times over the years, and I still get these anonymous hits - so no thanks. If you're really interested in knowing, the truth is out there (I've heard that before, oh yeah, X-Files). Anyway, you made the accusation so the burden of proof is yours - bring it on, I have NOTHING to hide!

Anonymous said...

I have made no accusation. I am merely telling the truth Miller Jones. The truth is NOT in you Miller Jones. You weave a Web of LIES.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Jesus Christ is THE truth, and you and I only experience any part of it through him.