There is one thing that Church of God leaders and ministers dislike and that is to be questioned about their utterances. Nothing infuriates lofty leaders more than having one of the lowly sheeple find what they say to be wrong. Seriously! How dare they not think like the leader! They are God's mouthpiece here on earth and you must obey them even when they are a shill for NewsMax.
We have watched over the last couple of years the interaction between Bill Watson and Lonnie Hendrix's (and others) and almost every time it is a knee-jerk reaction from Watson getting all pissy. Gone are the days when Ian Boyne participated here. Of any COG leader, he was the only one with real integrity and saw through the crap that occupies the minds of so many of the American CGI leadership. Boyne thankfully led the Jamaican church away from the legalist crap of the American side of the church and had the largest CGI congregation anywhere that were active and RESPECTED in the community, took care of each other, and actually enjoyed worship services with lively music and singing.
Here is Watson's knee-jerk reaction to Hendrix's latest questioning. The condescension drips.
COG "christianity" at its finest!
Lonnie,
I'm really sorry you have fallen prey to the Devil's work of "accusing the brethren" because this is exactly what you're doing (Rev. 12:10). Your dissonance is nauseous already and sadly, should be recognizable to you. But, your (sic) blinded by your own "projections" that you continue to "spin" to justify your meaningless accomplishments and to appease your own insecurities--so sad! You're only embarrassing yourself by these misappropriated ramblings and rants, for years now. It's unfortunate you don't see yourself because what you're doing is such a waste of time and so self-destructive.
Frankly, with all the education you have, you'd think you would be more productive in your life, but you continue to mindlessly, ridicule and criticize a work of God. Let me suggest you go back to working at a fast food restaurant and at least do something more worthwhile. Because you obviously have too much time on your hands. Watching you waste your life in this self-deprecating behavior is pathetic––you really are showing serious signs of obsessive mental and emotional trauma. Perhaps, you should get some therapy? It may be you're suffering from some PTS syndrome and don't realize it. But, your "obsession" with dogging us (CGI) and me in particular, choosing to "rag" on anything and everything is really sick and unstable. Get some professional help Lonnie.
So, please stop sending me these accusation and false narratives––you're just wasting your time because from here on out I won't be responding, lest I stoop to your level. I'll follow my Lord's advice and not waste my time (Matt. 7:6). And all the reason since an individual of your mind-set is not ready to receive truth about yourself. You are very confused Lonnie––such a wandering spirit (Jude :12-13).
I'll continue to pray you will see the accusers of the brethren (which you are participating in) is from the devil and you need, for your own sake and peace of mind, let it go––whatever "it " is that is triggering you to act with such offensive hostility––you really are filled with a lot of animosity. It "oozes" out in your writing, like pus from a spiritually infected spirit. As a matter of fact, you are hurting your health and this tension you carry, over the long run, can hurt you physically.Stop the "wandering" Lonnie and focus on something more positive and be a force for God that you can be, "if" you will forgive and let your past go!I pray God will recover you from the hostility you harbor (2 Tim 2:24-26).In Christ's Service,...Bill
"So, please stop sending me these accusation and false narratives––you're just wasting your time because from here on out I won't be responding, lest I stoop to your level. I'll follow my Lord's advice and not waste my time"
ReplyDeleteThat quote deserves a great video...
https://youtu.be/QPsrbsadqgM
Bill Watson used to be a really good person, but the devil must have taken over his life.
ReplyDelete"Lonnie, I'm really sorry you have fallen prey to the Devil's work of "accusing the brethren" because this is exactly what you're doing"
ReplyDeleteGod'll get you for that!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpSw5tREOxQ
I'm glad I'm not in the same room as Bill Watson, because his condescending attitude would make me want to punch his lights out! What made me angry was his talk about Lonnie having an "emotional trauma" that was causing him to react to him in such a negative way. This jackwagon surely must be aware of the emotional traumas inflicted by the WCG and its spin-offs, right? Yet, he chooses to continue this evil tradition of gaslighting people who dare disagree or question them. I hope he doesn't drive someone into yhe very things he said Lonnie had by his unkind words. BTW Lonnie, him cutting off communication with you is a blessing!
ReplyDeleteWell Lonnie,
ReplyDeletethe comments by Bill Watson are a classic showcase of what one does when one’s position is indefensible and untenable.
Attack.
It sums up all that is wrong with Armstrongism which is deeply and theologically wanting and flawed and can not, will not stand up under the spotlight of critical thought and scholarship.
We all have nothing to fear from this individual who by taking the approach he has, has underscored his own vulnerability.
....."In Christ's service"????????????????????????????
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear about your diagnosis Miller, I guess the pill pusher "Doc Watson" doesn't appreciate you not taking all of his medicines.
ReplyDeleteI somehow don't picture you residing in a deep pit having made some deal with the Devil. Moving mountains is a hard task. Digging large holes isn't much easier.
The restoration of all things is more easily accomplished. "Repent and believe the gospel" has everything to do about restoration. Ironic that the Galilean started off his ministry with those words.
The true Church awaits that restoration. Until then, many of us are looked upon as Lonnie Hendrix is and those doing the looking believe they are trees immune to an axe.
It can be quite a spectacle in the COG or out of the COG.
Was "Being a Sanctimonious A-Hole" a freshman course at Ambassador or something?
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting Lonnie. What a stupid fuck Watson is. All he had to do was say nothing at all yet he couldn't help himself. One of the marks of a true Armstrongite.
ReplyDeleteI almost choked when I saw that Bill signed that poison-pen letter "In Christ's Service". As if he were giving Lonnie a message from Jesus.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if his parents had had any sort of sixth sense about his future behavior and attitudes, they would have named him Richard instead of William.
So far, based on behavioral patterns we've seen, if I were considering going back into Armstrongism (I'm not) we'd need to use a time machine to get back to Ian Boyne's group in Jamaica. All the other ACOGs are just garbage!
I hate the way COG leaders are so condescending and mean.
ReplyDeleteEven though these are fairly common human traits the COG leaders and former leaders, past and present, make it a finely honed art; yet, they lack all introspection to see their master-craft in themselves.
However, there is some truth in Watson's words about not letting the fight against them hurt you emotionally, physically, or spiritually.
I realize that it's very difficult to go easy on them when these COGstars continue to con and abuse your loved ones.
I'm not suggesting that anyone give up on exposing or resisting these evil-doers; just offering encouragement (mainly to me) to not loose perspective, get as mean as they are, or loose sight of the good in the world, despite their efforts to produce darkness.
What a disgusting minister Watson is! If Watson talked like that to my husband he would sucker punch him. I am so glad we left CGI last year. It was this kind of vile behavior that finally turned us off. In all of my dealings with Watson, he was always condescending, especially if you were a woman. Men fared better, but only if you slapped him on the back and let him run your life. Never again will our feet cross the door of a COG.
ReplyDeleteAlways attack the questioner and ignore his questions. Always say you are praying for the questioner and end the note with "In Christ's Service" or some other sanctimonious expression. These letters are as predictable as HWA's co-worker letters to get more money
ReplyDeleteGlad this was posted.
ReplyDeleteThis will spread like wildfire and be a witness against Bill Watson.
And another mark against Armstrongism and all it represents.
Is this how low COG leadership has sunk? This makes me so grateful to be out of Armstrongism.
ReplyDelete6.37 PM
DeleteHow low they've sunk? No, they've always been this way. In they past they typically did their dirty deeds when there were no witnesses.
"Glad this was posted.
ReplyDeleteThis will spread like wildfire and be a witness against Bill Watson.
And another mark against Armstrongism and all it represents."
It's already spreading! I heard about it at church today. Not a good picture of the leadership in my church.
Wow! Some things never change in Armstrongims. This 1970/80's all over again. Did they not learn their lesson when Garner Ted was treated like dirt by Rader and his Dad? Why would any minister of "god" ever act like this? Watson needs to publicly apologize!
ReplyDeleteThanks to everyone for the words of encouragement and support - I appreciate them very much. I continue to hope and pray that Bill will return to the gospel and leave politics, culture wars and public health measures out of his messaging. We are all entitled to our opinions about current events, but pulpits and church platforms are NOT appropriate forums for their expression!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWell put Lonnie,
The comments by Bill Watson stand in complete opposition to what the One he claims to serve stands for.
And are in stark contrast to the Gospel of Jesus.
It is clear that Bill Watson is acting in Donald Trump's valence. Not too much difference between the Donald and an authoritarian Armstrongite minister! I'm surprised that he didn't accuse Lonnie of being a Chrino.
ReplyDeleteMiller 7:24
ReplyDelete“Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven..."
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Fake personas lording it on here and Facebook. None who know will accept your fake names.
DeleteTime is marching on.
The irony of that coming from an anon...
DeleteBill needs to lighten up and watch him some Jack Vale videos on you tube.
ReplyDeleteI've complained previously on this blog about ministers playing psychiatrist in so called "counseling sessions." I know, I've experienced it.
ReplyDeleteIt takes 8 years of study, which includes a degree in medicine, to be accredited.
ACOG leaders whose qualifications are attending a religious indoctrination course at AC, are not qualified psychologists or psychiatrists.
It reminds me of the old Beverly Hillbillies TV show gag about Jeffro becoming a brain surgeon with his tenth grade education.
I'm not a big fan of Bill, but if all you know of the situation is what's in this letter you will naturally side with Lonnie. But then again, this site will side with Lonnie anyway.
ReplyDeleteLonnie got his boxers in a bunch when CGI pulled his speaking credentials. He was slowly working toward a softening of the Church's stance on homosexuality. Well, to their credit they nipped that in the bud.
CGI has a number of other issues they need to address, but that's between them and God.
Anonymous 12:53 wrote, "ACOG leaders whose qualifications are attending a religious indoctrination course at AC, are not qualified psychologists or psychiatrists."
ReplyDeleteI believe that the great majority of people would agree with you on this. In my view, the best option for a Christian is a trained and credentialed counselor who is a Christian. And always, in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom.
But in Splinterdom there is likely another belief that militates against what I just advised. And I am not certain how prevalent this belief is in Post-Classical Armstrongism. It depends on how faithful the spin-off denominations are to original Classical Armstrongism. The belief is in an interpretation of "loosing and binding" that transforms whatever an ordained minister says into truth. No credentials required. When I was in the WCG last century, it took the form colloquially of "God backs up his ministers."
How would you like to counsel with someone where whatever they decided to say was immediately going to become the truth? You might get "wished into the cornfield" (a reference to an episode of Twilight Zone). The resolution of your real problems would become irrelevant. The "new truth" would be an ad hoc decision based on who knows what. That is a scary proposition. I would not want to live in that world although I believe that some people who have capitulated their sense of personhood might like such a world. This is what some Armstrongists may be up against.
Outsiders, of course, would recognize that what the congregant was counseled would not become truth in the real world, but it would certainly become the truth in the congregant's relevant Armstrongist community. Maybe the congregant should try to dodge that bullet.
So, you see, that the people who might benefit from your words live in a different culture with a different set of values from you. They can't hear what you are saying. To make a point, I have characterized the extreme. I think most Armstrongist couselors would seek a path of rationalism instead of arbitrariness, as much as they are capable of with their level of education and experience. But the congregant seeking counsel must understand the theological context and consider caveat emptor.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
ad ho·mi·nem
ReplyDelete/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
adjective: ad hominem
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
adverb
adverb: ad hominem
1.
in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2.
in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
Origin
Latin, literally ‘to the person’.
Translate ad hominem to
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Anonymous 12:53
ReplyDeleteRe: Binding and Loosing
I should add that the idea that the truth is fluid and can become whatever a minister says it is at any given moment and that God will make it so through retrospective conversion is a radically liberal idea. If some are not alarmed by it, it must be because it is a principle afoot in our land in the political domain and some are insensitive to it. A conservative view would assert that the truth is truth, and we must discover it a posteriori. The radically liberal view is that truth is a manufactured product that may be shaped and formed to purpose.
Without a doubt, HWA condemned liberalism. But he did so within his relevant context. He was referring to people who wanted to change his established theology. He was the Defender of the Faith as he saw it. Yet, some of the dogmatic features of his established theology when considered in a larger national context were radically liberal. And other people sought to connect his special form of anti-liberalism with the general liberalism on the American political scene. It is an uncomfortable fit.
Just a Sunday morning thought ...
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Good one, 12:53! The fact is that Embarrassing College was "Jethro Central". Some of the more perceptive teachers even called students "Cream of the Crud". For most of its history, most of the degrees conferred on graduates were actually bogus, which is probably why Bob Thiel has no problem with the nature of his degrees.
ReplyDeleteGood news is that some were actually able to escape that mentality. It was hard work, because the brain washing and intimidation were very intense. It's so easy for people not to confont it and to just lapse into a comfortable life pattern. Even so, the history is encouraging in that so many ultimately do end up escaping.
I've missed out on what led up to this. But I cant say there are many circumstances that will make me feel sorry for a ministurd. So yeah, whatever you're sending him, keep doing it.
ReplyDelete(Side note: Isnt it funny how if you call out a COGlodyte's bad behavior, he'll try to tell you that you're "accusing the brethren" or "being anti-God", in hopes of getting tbe attention off of their individual behavior being cited?)
I’m not “sure” Bill knows how to “use” parentheses “properly.” I “wonder” what it’s like to “talk” to him in person and how “much” he uses “air quotes.”
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 6:24:00 AM PST,
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you're getting your information from, but the context you provided is completely wrong. I had been asked to deliver an occasional message to two CGI congregations in Arkansas by the minister of record there - no speaking credentials were ever issued to me by that organization (although an Alabama congregation of the Seventh Day Baptist Church had issued such credentials to me several years before I began attending in Arkansas). Moreover, I NEVER delivered a sermon to a CGI congregation or contributed an article to their quarterly newspaper that contradicted CGI's teachings/doctrinal positions on ANY subject - not once!
Now, I did pen a series of articles on human sexuality for Dixon Cartwright's "The Journal" which were not well-received within some circles within CGI. Unfortunately, at the time that those articles were published, I had not been speaking for several months due to some thyroid and acid-reflux issues that I was experiencing at the time. So, while I'm confident that my speaking and writing would have been unwelcome going forward, at the time, it wasn't an issue for me. At any rate, I had looked on it as a favor and a service - I had never had any burning desire to speak or ambition to become part of the ministry.
I continued to attend with that congregation for a couple of months after the articles were written and remain (to this day) on good terms with the pastor and some of the members of those congregations. I stopped attending with CGI when Bill Watson saw fit to begin attacking homosexuality from the pulpit and through a number of articles in their church paper. And, sometime after I stopped attending that church, I began rebutting some of his messages on human sexuality and political topics (I no longer felt compelled to keep my mouth shut about Bill's drift into radical right-wing politics). The tirade that you see published above was in response to the last three posts on my blog dealing with CGI's messaging about public health issues (there was no personal message to Bill that provoked it).
Ok Lonnie, you deny what I said, then confirmed it.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that I confirmed the context which you provided, then it appears that we both agree that the readers here have the proper context for Bill's remarks. Does this context change anyone's mind about what Bill said? Another question, what context would have made Bill's remarks acceptable?
ReplyDeleteIf a Jewish neighbor kept kosher, he wouldn't expect you to do the same if you were a gentile. But, if you converted to Judaism, then he would expect you to live by that standard.
ReplyDeleteWhen Paul told the Corinthian church to expel the sinful brother, he then said, "I don't judge the world." By that, I think, he meant that he didn't expect non- Christians to act like Christians. It wasn't role to discipline them for not abiding by Christian standards. What do you think?
Shouldn't pastors preach to the church what is expected of Christians and not condemn those who are not in the church for not behaving like Christians? Did Paul spend most of his evangelizing proclaiming the Gospel rather than condemning their private behavior?
Sound familiar in th? Not much was overlooked in the unconverted here. No delicate words or overlooking of sin.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now look, I have two daughters who have not had relations with any man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do not do anything to these men, because they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Get out of the way!” They also said, “This one came in as a foreigner, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them!” So they pressed hard against Lot and moved forward to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, from the small to the great, so that they became weary of trying to find the doorway.
I'm sure that the people who wrote the comments of 2/7 @ 9:45 and @ 11:55 thought that they were relevant to this conversation, but you may want to elaborate for the rest of us. Nevertheless, in reaction to 9:45, I will say that God's opinion of the folks that he calls into his Church is really ALL that matters. Isn't God the one who gets to decide whether or not that person will be admitted to his Kingdom? Didn't Christ warn his followers NOT to be judging each other? Moreover, Paul was addressing an egregious situation within the congregation at Corinth as an apostle of Jesus Christ. For him, it wasn't so much the sin of the individual (although, adultery and dishonoring one's father are certainly horrendous sins) - it was the congregation's tolerance and acceptance of the behavior. Christ used fairly harsh language when calling out the religious leaders of his day, but his language was always mild and forgiving toward the folks on the street (e.g., the woman taken in adultery).
ReplyDeleteAs for 11:55, the people of Sodom were certainly NOT considered to be a part of God's faithful. Scripture informs us that they were guilty of a host of sins (being inhospitable to strangers and prideful, not helping the disadvantaged, etc.). Moreover, we should all be able to acknowledge that a gang rape is NOT something that ANY moral person would ever entertain participating in! If, on the other hand, this comment regarding Sodom was meant to be some kind of blanket condemnation of homosexuals or their behavior, Scripture does NOT support such an interpretation. In the annals of history, there has NEVER been a city which was entirely homosexual (man, woman and child)- NEVER! If this comment was intended as some kind of backhanded commentary on my views regarding human sexuality, then you're going to have to be more transparent and clearly demonstrate how this applies to me/my understanding. And, just for the record, I am a celibate man who has lived with the mother of his children (and former wife) for the last twenty odd years! I believe in God, the Bible, and salvation through Jesus Christ and do my best to follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit. And, if there is no personal moral failing, are we back to suggesting that disagreeing with a particular teaching is sinful?
No one ever seems to mention that the exact same scenario and language plays out in Gibeah in the Book of Judges. Which starts a civil war that ends with the losers being "blessed" with the opportunity to kidnap and rape women. Its such an odd story.
ReplyDeleteCGI's booklet, "The Assurance of Salvation", really helped me to break out of the WCG mindset by showing me a loving Father who's rooting for us to succeed and to be in His Kingdom, as opposed to WCG's unfeeling Authoritarian who cared more about how closely you hew to the Law than about your learning love, compassion and caring... and, for that, I'm grateful.
ReplyDeleteBut there are so many things that those at the top of CGI have done that just put me off. "...from here on out I won't be responding, lest I stoop to your level..." Mr. Watson, your insulting, ridiculing, dismissive diatribe already has you to where you'd have to reach UP to get to that level.
Me thinks Bill should answer not the fool according to his folly.
ReplyDelete