You can't censor my/God's message!
CGI Pastors Bill Watson, Adrian Davis, and their allies have been sorely vexed by Tyler's attempts to rein in their messaging. In fact, they have not been very subtle in suggesting that church leadership is trying to censor their sermons and articles. For those who are unaware of what's been happening in the Church of God International for the last several months, we should note that the leadership of that organization has attempted to forbid any further commentary by its ministry on the subject of public health mandates relative to Covid-19 (and has withdrawn three offending sermons from its platforms as a consequence of this action). Of course, completely absent from these cries of censorship is any acknowledgment that their own extreme and controversial statements provoked this action by church leadership!
Moreover, the charge of censorship appears rather hollow and self-serving when compared to the record provided by the New Testament of what transpired within the early church on the subject of messaging. After all, the Apostle Paul pronounced a double curse on anyone who would preach a gospel that diverged from the message which he was preaching (see Galatians 1:6-9). In the very same epistle, we learn that Paul had to defend his ministry among the Gentiles (see Galatians 2:1-10), and that he had to confront Peter for the hypocritical mixed-messaging which his personal example presented for the consumption of the saints (see Galatians 2:11-21). Likewise, it is recorded in the book of Acts that Priscilla and Aquila felt compelled to take Apollos aside and correct his messaging (see Acts 18:24-26). Are we to label these efforts of the leadership of the early church to control its messaging as censorship? In other words, should ministers be allowed to preach whatever they feel compelled to present to the saints within their care?
Finally, there are also ethical issues to consider relative to the subject of the messaging of individual ministers. If one is using the credentials and platform of some church/group/organization, doesn't one have some obligation to adhere to their teachings and standards? If one purports to represent some church/group/organization, doesn't he/she have some responsibility to reflect their values and messaging? If a church/group/organization is paying someone a salary, doesn't that person have an obligation to do what they are paying him/her to do? If someone strongly disagrees with the mission or doctrines of some church/group/organization, shouldn't that person at the very least be obligated to make leadership aware of their dissent? And, if a person experiencing such dissonance can't resolve that difference or submit with a clear conscience, aren't they obligated to make a clean break with that church/group/organization? In fact, if the church/group/organization doesn't represent your views, why would you even choose to be associated with them in the first place?
These folks like to say that they must obey God over men. Implicit in this assertion is the notion that they represent God's message, while those who oppose them do NOT! In other words, for them, this justifies defiance of whatever authority stands in their way. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that this principle of obeying God over men was clearly intended to apply to conflicts between secular authority and spiritual authority (In other words, not within the ekklesia). Within the Church, Paul wrote to the saints in Rome that they shouldn't argue with or condemn each other, and that they shouldn't be doing anything to cause each other to stumble (see Romans 14). In other words, if you feel compelled to challenge church leadership because you feel obligated to obey God, it's probably time to be looking for another church! And we all know what God has to say about those who sow discord among brethren (see Proverbs 6 and Romans 16:17).
Hence, if the leadership of your church decides that discoursing on masking and vaccine mandates is divisive and counterproductive, then you are obligated as an ethical person to either salute or leave! If your church leadership states that it is the mission and doctrine of the church to preach about Christ and his teachings, that does NOT mean that you have permission to deliver a warning message to Israel or discourse on how current events relate to ancient prophecies! So, instead of screaming about censorship, maybe these folks should engage in a little Bible study, self-reflection, and humility - and quietly resolve to do the right thing! What do you think?
Lonnie Hendrix
18 comments:
HWA would have loved this article. A totalitarian "my way or the hy-way" approach.
This articles' claim that 'obey God rather than man' doesn't apply in the Ekklesia is non sense. Or does the author believe that church leadership is infallible, or incapable of sin, or of falling away themselves? The reality is that all churches give themselves some perks or exemptions to some of God's way.
The assertion that a minister should move on if he disagrees with some church teaching is not so simple. The perfect church does not exist. Again all churches compromise.
This article is another endorsement of top down government with the little people told to shut up and believe what ever the big people tell them to believe.
Little wonder that stay-at-home "independent Christians" are sneered at by these church leaders and their brainwashed members. It's the un-brain washed independents who see through all their garbage.
Anonymous 3/30 @ 5 PM,
I am definitely NOT advocating a "my way or the highway" approach. I do NOT believe that Church leadership is infallible. I believe that both Scripture and experience demonstrate that humans are very capable of sin, absorbing heretical ideas, and shipwrecking their faith - whether they find themselves in the pulpit or the pews! I believe that Scripture teaches leadership in the guise of a servant, NOT the top-down model which many churches employ.
Even so, as the passages cited in this post clearly demonstrate, even the early church exercised some control over its messaging. While there appears to have been a high degree of tolerance for a wide diversity of understanding and opinion, it is also apparent that there were some things that Peter, Paul, James and John would NOT tolerate. Moreover, it is just plain old common sense that it would be both impractical and counterproductive to have different ministers preaching different gospels and doctrines. Think about the differences extant in the messaging and doctrines of just the major churches and denominations - can you imagine the anarchy/chaos/strife that would ensue within each organization if the same thing was permitted?
People congregate and form groups to pursue common interests and goals. ALL groups, secular or religious, have rules/standards/agendas/missions which define them and govern the behavior of their members. Moreover, whether written or spoken, employment ALWAYS involves some type of contract or understanding between the employer and the employed. Employers ALWAYS have certain expectations relative to the performance of the duties they have assigned to their employees, and they ALWAYS have been understood to have the right to discipline and/or terminate employees who fail to meet those expectations. Hence, this post is NOT advocating anything out of the ordinary or unreasonable.
Finally, let's take a closer look at the fifth chapter of Acts. We read there: "26 The captain went with his Temple guards and arrested the apostles, but without violence, for they were afraid the people would stone them. 27 Then they brought the apostles before the high council, where the high priest confronted them. 28 “We gave you strict orders never again to teach in this man’s name!” he said. “Instead, you have filled all Jerusalem with your teaching about him, and you want to make us responsible for his death!”
29 But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than any human authority. 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead after you killed him by hanging him on a cross. 31 Then God put him in the place of honor at his right hand as Prince and Savior. He did this so the people of Israel would repent of their sins and be forgiven. 32 We are witnesses of these things and so is the Holy Spirit, who is given by God to those who obey him.” Christ's apostles clearly felt that they should NOT accede to any human authority which contradicted anything which God had specifically commanded them to do. Moreover, in this instance, a human authority outside of the Church was commanding them not to do the very thing which Christ had commanded them to do before ascending into heaven. What do you think the other apostles would have done if Peter had decided to abandon the gospel and begin preaching a warning message to the Romans? My post does NOT say that people within the church aren't obligated to obey God over men - I did say that conflicts within the Church are NOT supposed to be handled as a conflict between Divine and human authority (there is a difference, even if some of us can't see it).
"If your church leadership states that it is the mission and doctrine of the church to preach about Christ and his teachings, that does NOT mean that you have permission to deliver a warning message to Israel or discourse on how current events relate to ancient prophecies!" =================
Wut??? .....which is Christ in you....Whom we preach, warning every man...Col 1:28
And: .....the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev 19:10.
Anonymous 3/30 @ 6:50,
The quote from my post which you referenced in your comment refers to the practice of many ACOGs of abandoning the Great Commission (Matthew 28) and substituting a warning message to the English-Speaking peoples of the Earth (whom they wrongly label as modern Israel). This is a message which focuses on interpreting current events through the lens of Old Testament prophecies addressed to ancient Israel. It has NOTHING to do with warning folks to repent of their individual sins and advising them to accept Christ as their Savior and be baptized into his Church (referenced in Paul's letter to the saints of Colossae). In other words, a warning message about impending punishment for collective or national sins is NOT the equivalent of the good news about salvation through Jesus Christ in God's Kingdom!
6.43 PM
I definitely can't see it. My last minister in the WWCG phoned me up and demanded I come to his house. He just gave one message to me. That message was "forget about cause and effect."
This is an example of why obeying God over man only on the outside of a church is utter crap. And there was no mechanism in the church to deal with such a situation. Not with their ol boys network and pathological lying.
Btw. the reason we are instructed to seek wisdom is because things aren't black and white as your point of view implies.
Watson and Davis are not too original in this. They are unwittingly part of a much bigger plan. The "hard right" has deceived and fooled the so-called Christian right and has them inexorably intertwined with an authoritarian movement acting for the time being as if they are the ones fighting for freedom. Of course anyone who trashes the news media, the medical profession, and science is going to instantly gain traction with Armstrongites who have been engrained with the same suspicions for decades.
Unfortunately, we don't have to wait long for the truth to come out. Midterm elections are right around the corner and the deck has already been stacked by the losers of the 2020 election.
This is all due to the acceptance of the top-down approach that is advocated and taught within the COGs. The ones at the top ignore that Yahweh's people have His Holy Spirit and that Spirit does reveal to them the truth.
I believe that the right reaction from the 'church' was to state that the teachings of those that don't believe the same way on a given topic, is their opinion. Leave the door open for the situation to unfold. By their actions, the leadership shows its fear that they don't quite believe that their thinking is solid, therefore, they use hard tactics to suppress other opinions.
HWA used the example of the rebels against Moses to make his followers fear making their opinions known. This example is totally bogus. The people that rebelled did NOT have the Holy Spirit, and giving another opinion is NOT being rebellious, for oftentimes the teachers have ceased to increase in knowledge and faith.
3/30 @ 9:04,
Following the formula laid out in this post, if a minister informed me to "forget about cause and effect," I would be reporting him to church leadership and/or looking for another Church. You seem to think that I am advocating for members to swallow whatever leadership shovels. On the contrary, my post is a direct challenge to the messaging of these ministers (Watson, Davis, and company).
This blog censors also, so what's the big deal?
Anon 10:26
That's a perfect description of the modern right/religious right. And it's a powder keg waiting to blow.
"If one purports to represent some church/group/organization, doesn't he/she have some responsibility to reflect their values and messaging?"
Oh man Lonnie! That's rich, coming from you.
3/31 @ 6:29,
When have I ever claimed to represent ANY organization? I've written extensively about CGI's reaction to my views on human sexuality (which were NEVER expressed on any of their platforms), and how I didn't have a problem with them distancing themselves from my views. Also, to be clear, I haven't worshiped with CGI for almost seven years now.
I listen to a wide variety of people, all of whom seem well intentioned, and salt of the earth types. I hear a great number of people who honestly believe that they are looking for truth, that truth is being hidden from them. The problem is, the logic ends there as they begin to tell me that they find this truth from sources that are known for being hellabiased for one side or the other. Both sides have their particular conspiracy theories to which they give great credence, while ridiculing those espoused by the other side. And, this is their truth! The major political parties are flip sides of the same coin. Their talking heads use the same expressions to describe one anothers' policies or beliefs, they just flip flop the identical verbiage and shoot it back like a mirror.
This is why if is best for members of the clergy to stick to the core of the gospel, and not add their considerable weight to either side of man-made, highly partisan issues. They should rise above it all, and not attribute their personal views to God and Jesus.
Personally, I have no problem with "Headline theology" as you put it for I believe it has its place. It's obvious that along with grace and love, Christ and his apostles also warned against deception and the evils of this corrupt world system (John 7:7, 1John 4:1-6, Matthew 24:4) etc. Darkness is defined as the absence of light and light is not fully appreciated without understanding its counterpart!
It's a complex subject and a balanced message is KEY. . .NOT putting God, the Gospel or Great Commission in your own personal "box"!
Jesus showed us how to imply the law of God to New Covenant believers not as a matter of justification before the Father but as a qualifier of true and living faith. We are saved by Grace unto good works!
“Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.”
-Romans 7:24-25 NASB2020
It's a battle for the MIND! Be strong and steadfast in the LORD!
I’ve gotten to the point if Watson or Davis are speaking I will skip that service. I certainly no longer read thier articles.
Are they wearing their MAGA hats to church, or Lauren Boebert T-shirts?
The real problem with men like Watson and Davis is fanaticism. Both of them are blindly devoted to system of theology that feeds their innermost cravings and needs. Those cravings and needs maybe utterly irrational, but the beliefs of the system gives them reassurance and meaning to their lives. To understand this mindset, read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, the classic book on the fanatical mindset. This book was a tremendous aid in helping me to leave the WCG.
Post a Comment