I wonder if we will ever hear a COG minister ever just quote the teachings of Jesus without having to rely upon Old Covenant "heroes" to scare members into submission?
A question though...Winnail states: "we must seek God’s guidance in the decisions that we make". The problem with this statement, when it comes to LCG, is that "guidance" only comes from the ministry that supposedly can help people make the "right" decisions - (i.e. those decisions that we deem acceptable). We have all seen how well THAT has turned out! COG leaders have been doing their own thing for over 25 years now. There is nothing new under the sun.
Seek God’s Guidance: In the world today, the message is “do your own thing.” However, the Bible records the tragic results of this approach (Judges 21:25; Jeremiah 9:12–16). In the Scriptures, we are admonished, “Seek the LORD while He may be found” (Isaiah 55:6). We are also told that God looks on those who are humble and teachable and “[tremble] at My word” (Isaiah 66:2). King David, a man after God’s own heart, modeled the attitude that God is looking for when he wrote, “Teach me, O LORD, the way of Your statutes.... Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:33, 105). Jesus emphasized the same theme when He told His disciples to “live by... every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Jesus also taught, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6). One important lesson in life is that if we desire to succeed in any endeavor, we must seek God’s guidance in the decisions that we make—because that leads to lasting rewards.
Have a profitable Sabbath,
Douglas S. Winnail
35 comments:
“In the world today, the message is “do your own thing.”“
Of course, in the Armstrongist churches, it’s “do it the way Herbert W Armstrong taught.”
Ok, then, who taught it properly, truthfully, HWA or Christ?
Matthew 19:
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
If keeping the Sabbath and Feasts are required to enter the kingdom, to attain eternal life, that was a pretty devious answer Christ gave to the young man, condemning him to hell, so clearly — if the precepts of Armstrong and his daughter churches are in force.
But, clearly, they are not. Christ spoke, instructed the truth, then, and for now.
"One important lesson in life is that if we desire to succeed in any endeavor, we must seek God’s guidance in the decisions that we make..."
Why would that be the case? If you have a ministry that can loose and bind everything and anything you effectively sidestep God's guidance. God becomes superfluous - he's just around to back up the ministry. Just the ministry has substance.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Doug concludes with writing: "...One important lesson in life is that if we desire to succeed in any endeavor, we must seek God’s guidance in the decisions that we make—because that leads to lasting rewards..."
******
What rewards does Doug have in mind for us? Is it something besides eternal life? Does Doug want something more than that?
"Seek God's guidance," Doug says, but when is Doug going to yield and begin doing that?
If God were to come to earth today, and judge Doug and all of the leaders of the ex-cog splinter hirelings, of the former WCG, what would He do?
With doug, and Weston, and the ex-cog leaders, all trying to get us to strive to magically qualify to earn our way into God's Kingdom, and if God with the judge these leaders by the same criteria that these leaders put on us, they would all end up in the lake of fire (by their own words), and if their theories for their requirements and prerequisites were true, we'd be joining hands with them, b/c none of us can do, I'll come by ourselves, what Doug and his leaders are asking. They ain't even doing it! Why be a hypocrite, like those Pharisees and scribes were, but they were driven by another generation of spirit (Matt 23:33-36) spirits?
They are driven by another spirit, to preach another Jesus about another gospel that is a counterfeit of what the Bible tells us.
Doug admonishers us to pay attention to God's words. Take one exemple, where Doug says this: "...Jesus emphasized the same theme when He told His disciples to “live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4)..."
But Jesus gave us His Father's words! Like what?
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
Of course, a lot of these groups think that the few members within the little organizations are going to be saved, and the rest of the world is going to go to hell! They don't even believe the words of 1 John 2;2 or 2 Cor 519, and they cannot teach those words, b/c scripture bucks their theories, their counterfeit doctrines!
John 3:16-17? Done deal, of course, only by God's Spirit through Christ our Passover sacrificed for us! Oh, but grace is needed, isn't it?
Done deal!
Question for doug, and the ex-cog careless hirelings, of the former wcg, is: what are you going to do to qualify for that eternal life if God hasn't already accomplished what He said by His Son?
Those (e.g. John 3) are all part of God's words, are they not?
How does Doug, and Weston, and the x-cog hirelings think they are going to qualify for the opportunity to rule in some supposed millennium, the Mickey mouse Millennium, where Jesus christ, another Jesus, is going to rule on Earth very soon?
Didn't Jesus Christ say that He would be at the Father's right hand until all the enemies are put down?
Isn't Satan an enemy still hanging around after a thousand years, when he comes out of the pit and again deceives this entire world, again, and the supposed "another Jesus" is not there to stop him!
I guess the question boils down to asking: when will Doug, Weston, and all of the hireling leaders yield to God, and finally HEAR and BELIEVE the Father's words, through His Son Jesus Christ?
TIME WILL TELL...
John
An exiting Christian would reply "Jesus Christ" instead of "me".
Doug Winnail failed to seek or follow God's guidance when LCG leaders advised him not to violate the OT statute about remarrying a woman who had divorced him to marry another man, then divorced that other man before seeking to remarry Doug.
If Doug refuses to follow God's guidance when it is as unambiguous as a plain-as-day OT statute, why should any LCG member feel obliged to do differently?
12:51 "An exiting Christian would reply "Jesus Christ" instead of "me".
Jesus already led them out the door and gave them a brain to use. No church member is accountable to any minister, deacon or some shithead power hungry fool like Rod McNair.
Dr Doug says "One important lesson in life is that if we desire to succeed in any endeavor, we must seek God’s guidance in the decisions that we make—because that leads to lasting rewards."
========================
One can seek God's guidance until they are blue in the face and the guidance comes from those who makes the rules anyhow and if your seeking does not match their finding, well...you lose.
All of Dougs scriptural references, while nice, are scriptural platitudes which have no actual application and don't work as advertised. IMHO
Seek God's guidance is great advice from Doug.
It's also wonderful that Doug is instructing that his people that they should live by every word of God.
The people of the LCG should seek God's guidance - seek God's guidance by going to the Bible - because you can't go to the LCG ministry.
No one wants graceless guidance and grace is one of those "every word of the God" that the ministry doesn't understand.
Yes, seek God's guidance by going to the Bible.
In doing so, measure Doug and the rest of the LCG ministry - are they really original Christianity and holy men following in the steps of the Apostles?
If you are letting every word of the God guide you, you will notice that the LCG crowd does not speak about grace, justification, and redemption nearly as much as St. Paul did.
Therefore, you should reject Doug and his ministers as being false ministers, or at the very least - not very biblically-sound ministers.
If you are really seeking God's guidance, you'll leave Doug and crew in the dust.
When LCG mentions Judges 21:25 "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" they always fail to mention the fact that there was no king in Israel because THAT'S THE WAY GOD WANTED IT. Their implication is that if there is not a single leader, the people will go astray, thereby justifying LCG's one-man-rule style of government. God, however, did not want one-man rule; He wanted everyone to do what is right in GOD's eyes, free of coercion. What good is it if a man obeys God because men coerce him into doing so? No, it is up to leaders to teach them and encourage them to do what is right in God's eyes, something apparently LCG is unable to do, else they would not have needed to resort to controlling the people. It's not enough to just teach them. After all, they could make wrong decisions and the LCG leaders know better what decisions people should make.
Dennis
Since ministers under HWAs rule universally lorded over their members, ministers must have been instructed to do this. I assume code words were used in order to avoid legal liability and bad press.
Can you give us your experience, or shine any light on this?
One would hope that most of the recipients of Winnail's drivel live in states where recreational Marijuana is available as an alternative or antidote.
Brief, encapsulated statements like this from the apocalyptic Millerite pulpuit suffer from sound-biteism. The scriptures are fine and worthy of contemplation. Most Christians reading these words would agree with them. Then why all the negative comments from blog readers?
The negative comments are there because the commenters know the context in which the statement is given. And that context is a complex topic unto itself. An authoritarian, law based religious organization can blithely appropriate these scriptures just as easily as a solid Christian church. The same collection of words will mean something different in each case.
A mistake that is made by many who oppose apocalyptic Millerism is to believe that their words or criticism are in the same ethical world where the apocalyptic Millerite ministry resides. This is not true. This ministry believes that it has unbounded power and authority through the principle of loosing and binding. I admit that though this principle exists in their assembly it does not seem to be handled in an imperious way for the most part. This ministry could really go on a tear but they have not. But mere existence of the principle of loosing/binding does impart an ever present cachet of power whether exercised or not. And critics using normative ethics do not recognize that apocalyptic Millerites can use what they believe is a God-endowed power to call their own shots. Men who are backed up by God in all that they do can never really make mistakes.
But, of course, as we all know, the true power resides with the congregants, though they may not recognize it. No congregation, nothing to loose or bind. No congregation, no human resources to direct. No congregation, no money. I sometimes wonder if the apocalyptic Millerite ministry is not a little afraid of their congregations - hence the draconian governance.
And, then, Dennis says that it is all platitude. Here again context is important. What else would someone who seems to be an atheistic materialist say?
On nomenclature: I prefer to use "apocalyptic Millerism" rather than Armstrongism sometimes. This is because I believe that many of these little denominations with a lineal descent from Armstrongism no longer follow the teachings of HWA and the term "Armstrongism" gives them a credential that is misleading. Actually, there is no good encompassing term for these litte Millerism-based denominations that I have discovered. I recently saw an unusual use of terminology in an Seventh Day Adventist online journal. The author was writing about Herman Hoeh's viewpoint on theological topic and he referred to Hoeh as a member of the Church of God, Seventh Day. I wonder if that is common usage within the SDA church.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
How does this blog always get the scoop before members see this?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dennis
Since ministers under HWAs rule universally lorded over their members, ministers must have been instructed to do this. I assume code words were used in order to avoid legal liability and bad press.
Can you give us your experience, or shine any light on this?
==================================
Thanks for asking. The phenomenon of men I knew as teens before being pastors "lording it over their members" has always puzzled me. Contrary to the ever present accusations that "Minister were taught to....." , I never found that to be so. There were NO classes on how to even minister to people much less how to do it badly or with one's deviant personality which only came out when they were in a position of alleged "power" There also were no classes on "he that is 'greatest' among you, let him be your servant". Nothing. One got selected to go into the ministry based on who knows what behind closed doors and off you went. In hindsight, about as toxic and risky an approach as could be imagined.
The ministry was simply designed to uphold the Armstrongs and Tkaches views. An AC education in theology was not just deficient but also naïve. I found no training or lack of it to be deliberate. It was negligent , shallow, unprofessional and never allowed much for all that other denominations learned about ministry an pastoring.
I once, after years of observing the antics of ministers in churches around me and many members calling me from those areas for "help", suggest to Joe Tkach Jr that ministers be given personality tests so they can see themselves more realistically etc or perhaps even weed out those given to narcissism, psycho and socio pathic behaviors. NO! That was it.
The malignant narcissists, psycho and sociopaths went on to start their own split, splinter or sliver. These types rise to the "top" because they don't care how they get there and those who people would love as a pastor don't have that kind of perspective, drive to achieve or need to. They are truly helpers of one's theological joy. The problem is that after years of seeing what they see and being ignored.."Fuck it" takes over long before "Gee..maybe I can be a Mini-HWA"
Dave Albert told me early in my ministry, which I thought I was called to for lots of reasons, "I never thought you belonged in the ministry of WCG" That both puzzled me and hurt my feelings. I had the "perhaps I have come to the ministry 'for such a time as these'" perspective having only gone to a WCG service or knowing a WCG minister before for a very short time before going to AC. It was the 60's after all. It was obvious time was short! lol.
Now I agree with Dave Albert and wish I had never heard of the Armstrongs or gone to the very deficient, Armstrong Clone College. There were good things and times of course, but the core experience cut me off, and I did it to myself, from my real love for the sciences, cosmology, paleontology and geology.
I research the issues of Biblical origins and problems only because I want to know what I was not told, and should have been, so I could have made a better life path decision. I am satisfied with my perspectives on these things and ever learning more and more.
The biggest problem with AC and the Armstrongs and Tkaches is that they didn't know anything it about it all either and passing such things on if they did know would have been pooping in their own comfy nests.
Live and burn...
The Armstrongs, The TKaches and the many/most?, in the Ministry never knew enough or were taught enough to actually be who they claimed to be, complete with all the special knowing they claimed to have and , of course, didn't and still don't.
I understand all the biblical platitudes that Doug repeats here. I did that too. I just didn't see any results from the bold assertions made about what any God would do for ya.
The "we should...", "we must...", "we better..." of scripture is repeated with sincere belief I would imagine for most, but few seem to look back and find any proof that the product delivered as advertised. To me it never did. Is that my fault or am I simply applying "By their fruits, (i.e. the Deity and His promises and admonitions) , you shall know them"?
Honestly and based on my personal experience with thousands over decades in religion, I have yet be amazed at one's mustard seed faith telling a mountain to cast itself into the sea...,
Hebrews 11:6
King James Version
"6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." and "blessed are those who have not seen yet believe" is simply a formula for blind obedience to the deviant personalities that come along in the name of Jesus.
But I do understand the Geralds, Daves and Bobs of the WCG experience and the loop they are stuck in.
I want to comment on the post by Dennis at 7:46
I totally agree with the comments about ministerial training at AC. To Dennis’s credit, he is /was more analytical than myself. I was a pastor/minister for more than 20 years. I was a couple of years ahead of Dennis at AC. There was no training on how to be a minister. There was no training on how to council. I was sent into “the field” at age 23. I got married at age 24 and had my first child at 25. My first year Bible class was Harmony of the Gospels. Rod Meredith was the “instructor.” His method of teaching was to preach a sermon usually from a “plain Truth” article. He assured his students there was perfect harmony between the gospels. Every word in the Bible was inspired by God. He did not allow any questions about who wrote the gospels or when the manuscripts were written. He never mentioned that the Bible was canonized years after Christ lived. He never mentioned that Matthew didn’t write the Gospel book of Matthew. The gospel book of Matthew was “according” to Matthew.
Every Bible class at AC was presented to support what Herbert taught. There was no critical thinking.
If you repeated back what you had been taught then as a male you were considered ministerial material. If a female, then you were considered ministerial wife material.
The doctrines of the WCG were formed by HWA from books he had read. Herbert was a high p-school drop out. He sold advertising in his early days. He spent 6 months reading books at the Portland library. Unemployed, leaving his family penny less, while he read books at the library. He started a radio program in the 30’s. He had a persuasive delivery. People were weary from WWII. He predicted a soon coming Savior. It would happen in the next few years.
Nothing has changed. Splinter groups of ACOGs are still preaching a version of Herberts message. Herbert also learned there was big money in preaching his message. Money is the name of the game.
They also did not mention that the OT was not canonized until years after Jesus' death.
I finally started reading Josephus which I had bought, but never read back in my AC days.
Only one part of it is a rehash of the OT - the rest is history.
The Jews were fighting each other in addition to fighting the Romans. Each side was slaughtering Jews.
There is only one brief mention of Jesus which is speculated to be a later editorial addition, and no mention of John the Baptist.
Josephus wrote that the Jews gave everyone (until this time of wholesale slaughter) a decent burial, even the crucified. So, it is likely Jesus was buried properly.
However, the claim that the Jews could not put someone to death, is blown a couple of months later, when they put Stephen to death.
From Dennis and Jim, it seems that the ministerial training came not from AC curriculum, but via "on the job training" or internship with the leader to whom one was assigned following graduation. There are problems inherent in this on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start. What if one had been assigned to a Dave Pack type? Or to a practicing alcoholic? A wife beater? Or any number of similarly nuanced situations. It is a known fact that young impressionable people, before they come into their own, act in the valence of their higher ups. They literally, in many cases, see themselves as being that person as they go through their daily responsibilities. Clones end up being created as consciences are overwritten. This is potentially bad because all humans are flawed, and defects are perpetuated. Acting in the valence of Jesus Christ can get one into trouble, because some attempt to appropriate Jesus' authority for themselves. (The system allows this type of anthropomorphism, if not actively encouraging this, so long as it does not clash with the established hierarchy in the church!)
I once knew some young ministers, men of conscience, who realized after some time the field, that they had no experience in counselling. They recognized the deficiency, and did not wish to hurt their flocks. Secretly, they obtained this training from professionals, paying for it from their own pocket. Wouldn't it have been nice if this had developed into a major trend?
Military style authority "Do as I tell you without question because I (your superior) told you to do it!" was very popular in the Armstrong religion. It was even said that there would be blessings for doing so even if the minister was wrong, because when a minister spoke it was just as if Jesus Christ Himself had spoken to you. That, of course, was fantasy. People suffered when ministers commanded them foolishly in areas outside their expertise. Farms were lost. Health was ruined. Poverty was created.
Armstrongism was a D.I.Y. religion, not rooted in any sort of training or collective experience. It was a house built on sand, heavily relying on conspiracy theories, fringe heresies long rejected by the established mainstream, and its own set of ethics largely manufactured after the personality of HWA himself. It is no surprise at all that there would be megalomaniacal ministers amongst the relatively good ones. Unfortunately, even some who had been raised with good humanitarian values did not retain those values. They allowed their consciences to become seared by the system, over writing the personalities with which they had arrived at AC for orientation and their first semester.
We know this now in retrospect. However, it was as impossible for us to recognize back in the day as it is in real time today for the people still ensnared.
You may have missed the reference to the Baptist. Same section as the "Testimonium" - book 18, chapter 5. Book 20 references Jesus again but in connection with James.
I have stated this many times before and I will not belabor it here. I was an observer at AC/BS for several years. I took only one course. It was enough to lead me to the conclusion that the education that AC/BS provided was not in the classroom. And I still believe this is valid no matter how inobvious. The education was in how to manipulate and benefit from the caste system. The education came through such parts of the organization as the local congregation, the business office, the kitchen, buildings & grounds and the student government. Maybe a little through the classroom. The great monument to this caste system, in the period before AC/BS imploded in the mid-Seventies, was The Faculty Locker Room at the handball courts.
The ministers who trained under this caste system consciously or unconsciously replicated it in local areas. You may think AC/BS was ineffectual in theological education. But this may cause you to overlook that fact that it was ferociously successful in the kind of non-academic education I have described.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Who Would You Call?
Let's say you are a person of faith. Let's say you are in the midst of a life or death situation, for two people, who would you call for help?
I've been there, and done that, have you?
Today, for me it would be different for there is no one to call. For example, I would not call anyone on this site. Yah doesn't answer atheists and the like, I would NOT call the C of G splinters, and certainly not the Christians. That doesn't leave much choice, does it?
So, what am I talking about?
Well, in 1966 my
wife gave birth to our first daughter, feet first. And, a home birth. Helping was an SDA doctor. He was getting desperate! We MUST get them to the hospital he kept saying. My wife and I said No.’
Then I made a phone call to Al Portune. He said he would call all the ministers on campus for prayer. Then I walked back into the kitchen where my wife was laying on the kitchen table. One could see a little foot hanging out! Ten minutes later- a beautiful little girl, and she still is today.
Oh, I forgot, the Father doesn't exist, nor answer prayers, right Dennis? And the rest of the Inquisitors?
Boy, do I have more answers to talk about. But, these things don’t actually happen, right And, oh, today is another blessing, both my wife and I are now in our 80’s. Neat, hey?
NEO wrote a ministry that can loose and bind everything and anything
Not sure what you were getting at with what a minister can do. Strictly speaking, the "loosen and bind" in Matthew was in the context of the "seat of Moses" and authority of the Pharisees. Ministers could claim that authority was passed to them, but the authority was in the matter of judgement and decisions of matters of the law.
By loosening, in Acts 15, the Apostles had the authority to say that ritual conversion (aka circumcision) and the 18 Measures (how Jews were to deal with Gentiles) were effectively annulled. But there was no authority to, say, change the Sabbath to Sunday, or to abolish circumcision on the 8th day (as Paul was wrongfully accuses of doing).
Petry wrote: “ Yah doesn't answer atheists and the like, “
That’s ok Bob, none of us here would call on a YAHooist like you. You no more represent Christ or God than David C Pack does!
3:22 wrote:
Anonymous said...
Petry wrote: “ Yah doesn't answer atheists and the like, “
That’s ok Bob, none of us here would call on a YAHooist like you. You no more represent Christ or God than David C Pack does!
_———————————————-
They say ignorance is bliss, you must be one big ball of it.
And, you are right. I do not represent God, which is an incorrect translation of Elohim.
Oh, it would be nice if you had something intelligent and kind to say, oops, I forgot, many verses say you are incapable of doing that. So, thanks again, seriously, for once again proving the bible. Reminds me of a saying I wrote, “Atheists aren’t the enemies of the bible, they ARE the proof.”
I feel your pain, 3:22, I would feel like you too if I never got answers to my prayers either. Oh, and don’t call me, I won’t answer you either.
As to Dave Pack, I already said I wouldn’t call the splinter groups either, can’t you read?
Can’t wait to see the reactions when you get to see the other answers YAH has given me, including home, utilities, and more for the rest of our lives. Hey, how about you telling all of us about your spectacular answers to prayer?
Having more fun than you can imagine! This is a truly wonderful site to behold.
Hoss:
I have never heard of any restrictions exercised under Armstrongism on loosing and binding. I have heard a sermon or two on the topic but they are foggy in memory. I think it was Ron Dart who had a different take on these scriptures. He stated that what is bound on earth "should have been bound in heaven." I don't know if his exegesis was standard or not. Someone made the decision that you did not have to live in a brush arbor to keep the FoT. I know that I heard many times in the Armstrongist fold that God backs up his ministry. Which is an even more untethered than loosing and binding.
If Armstrongism had a documented theology we could flip to the page on loosing and binding and see what they believe. One day I may research it. Maybe I will happily find out that my impression is all wrong.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Neo Therm wrote:
If Armstrongism had a documented theology we could flip to the page on loosing and binding and see what they believe. One day I may research it. Maybe I will happily find out that my impression is all wrong.
———————————————
The bible, as mentioned, was considered to be the final authority on any subject, at least during the time I remember. So, the process was:
Start with the main verse/s on the topic. If the subject didn’t seem fully clear then the bible instructions on understanding the bible was followed. As the Bereans were instructed, search the scriptures to prove whether the understanding was SO, not disprove the bible subject. Next, search the scriptures as a workman, not as someone with only a cursory interest. Then search all related subjects for here a little, there a little, line upon line, etc. Along with other internal instructions. Then discuss with others as wisdom is with multiple counselors. Check the languages of preservation. Check reference works, then apply what was understood. And more.
Unlike that, it appears that tradition is considered higher than the bible.
Hope that helps a little.
2.34 PM
The laws of the universe are fixed, so the "loose and bind" thingy can only apply to technicalities such as temple issues or holy day dates. For instance, it's not practical to have people keeping the holy days over a spread of days based on their own research. Some authority, after exercising their responsibility of due care, needs to set such dates. And the dissidents of these dates need to spend their time more productively rather than endlessly harping on these "wrong" dates, as did the late James Malm.
I appreciate the interpretations but does anyone know of a document internal to the WCG that explains loosing an binding? My guess is that it might have been used on an ad hoc basis and its scope was defined in realtime. Within Splinterdom, I think it is a nuclear option just waiting to be used.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaier
Neo Therm wrote:
If Armstrongism had a documented theology we could flip to the page on loosing and binding and see what they believe. One day I may research it. Maybe I will happily find out that my impression is all wrong.
_———————————————————————
Neo, if you would just read the verses yourself you would understand exactly what the WCG taught and believed about binding and loosing. It seems you are actually asking a different question. That is, HOW was this belief applied by the church. The simple answer, they applied it as each different case was analyzed on a case by case basis. Thus, no single application would necessarily apply to all. And, in some cases it was not possible to make a final decision.
May I ask why it is so important to seemingly always look for the negative result vs the positive in these questions?
For instance, let’s say you are going to give a general sermon on the radio, would you quote from your church’s systematic theology work, or the Bible?
What if you were asked to explain to another church your understanding of the bible, would you stand there reading your ST tome, or the bible, and read the verses to them?
How would you handle it if you began a new church and it began to grow faster than you could handle? Would you stop and spend all your time composing that, or would you spend your time in the pulpit explaining right out of the bible while the audience wrote down book, chapter, verse and explanation, which they could take home and review any time? etc, etc.
As you know, I assume, a few decades ago, when enough help was available, a systematic theology project was begun. And, caused a controversy. Why? They will tell you here it was because HWA didn’t approve because it was changing his teachings. That is not totally true. The real reason was these new folks wanted to bring in their old unbiblical teachings. It’s like the complaint Tucsonans here have with newbies moving to Tucson. They say they want the health benefits of the area, and to get away from allergies, etc. Then import plants from where they came from that cause their health problems. That’s what was going on with the systematic theology program that was started in the WCG.
Oh, I know, they will say here that is not true. Let ‘em eat cake a famous queen once said.
If one were for once put themselves into the situation the RCG/WCG was in and operated from, how would you have handled these complaints we see post facto today, that weren’t evident in the actual time being complained about? While at the same time, atheists, protestants, catholics, masons, independents, etc. were all at the same time attacking because of scriptures they could not refute?
What was Armstrong’s attitude about doctrinal changes? Why did he have that attitude? He explained many times, but nobody listened because the answers spoil the fun Inquisition.
So Neo, as a reverse question, how do you know your present systematic theology tome, if you use one, is accurate and really explains what the bible means. And, does it matter the Apostles did not write it?
There is a publication called the Home Bible Instructor, as I recall, that was used by the CoG7, and compiled by Dugger I believe, that covers the doctrines HWA got from them. It is a free download if you google it, and may help with your question.
Thank you Dennis and others for your experiences and comments about ministerial training. But I find it hard to believe that there wasn't some means of assuring the ministers that it was acceptable to lord it over their flock. Christ taught His disciples to not be like the gentiles and lord it over others. Plus many other similar scriptures. To over ride this moral hump, there must have been input to the contrary from the church's top leaders.
11:40 am wrote:
Christ taught His disciples to not be like the gentiles and lord it over others. Plus many other similar scriptures. To over ride this moral hump, there must have been input to the contrary from the church's top leaders
———————————————————
I think it is difficult to understand some things in context on this site. For instance, I remember when the new “visiting program” began to be talked about, and then implemented. Almost immediately complaints started. That is, quietly by the employees and some members. The reason for starting the program was to make it easier for members to get counseling, advice, or fellowship faster. However it didn’t turn out that way.
This is possibly one of the reasons some here think I’m promoting and/or defending HWA, etc. That is not the case. My responses are in fact to rebut the totally hostile, unfair, and angry overinflated accusations posted here with too often gutter mouth language.
Plus, I am more mindful of how it was before the outside invasion began.
As to the complaints, it was felt that much of the fault for that rested on Rod Meredith. And, I believe that to be so. And, he had other problems too, according to what Al Portune told me. Of course most of you have heard the accusation of him buying gay novels at an adult book store. He denied ever being in an adult book store. So what’s the truth? Both statements are true. He bought the books, a stack of a dozen or so, and it was not in an adult book store. How do I know?
Why do you think Al Portune told me what he did? Well, I’m the guy that saw the purchase. And, called Al Portune to tell him what I saw.
The store was a new regular book store that had just added a closed in section where they were starting to sell adult products.
Why tell you now? So you can understand I do know both sides of the story. And am trying to tell it more like things were, versus the hysterics spewed here. There was, if I might say, a “cultural change” within the college and church which finally became obvious in the early 60’s, and no one here seems informed enough to see it, much less understand it.
Some of that change began with the visiting program, which Arlene and I learned to counteract. But, no one here is interested, right?
Bob
All the ministers I had behaved as if it was their right to lord it over their members. Such behavior must have been bought to HWAs and other top leaders attention. Yet there is no indication that they did anything to correct the situation. This is similar to Eli not restraining his evil two sons who abused their temple responsibilities. God held Eli accountable for this sin of omission. I do not believe that this a case of behavior being "difficult to understand in context."
Btw, the body of evident tells me that you are in fact defending HWA and his minions. That's unless you expect everyone here to trust your words more than the evidence - a minister trait.
5:51 I have to disagree with you some.
The behavior you say is not difficult to understand is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the “CULTURAL CHANGE” which covers a much wider range than ministers “lording it over” members. This change is major compared to what you responded to, by comparison.
The evidence is clear, I left the worldwide, have no membership with any of them have told Bob T. he is not a prophet in personal email, etc.
The additional sad part here is people see what they want to see, no matter the facts. However, I do not believe in the derogatory language used here, like your minions remark. That’s what I tackle here, and some take it as you do.Why not let the facts do their work, for example, if what you believe is true you don’t have to call them minions, a denigrating word, which says more about one’s own attitude than the persons being called that.
As someone on the world stage once implied, bring them up short with finess so you don’t drag yourself down into the gutter with them.
Bob
You left the church physically but not mentally. Otherwise you would not be defending HWA. It's a common trait of former members.
A Christian is one who follows Christ and lives by every word of God. Since HWA ministers have chosen to follow Herb by lording it over others, they have rejected both of the above. They are following Herb rather than Christ. So this does make them minions. They are Herb's poodles. If these ministers were honest, they would call their church/s The Church of Herb.
Harassing those who perceive this truth with accusations of using derogatory or denigrating language is dishonesty on your part.
5:34 AM please feel free to continue dragging yourself down. A good mind is a shame to wasre.
Post a Comment