Wednesday, June 29, 2022

PCG's Dwight Falk Warns Members If They Do Not Support The Work Then God Will Not Rebuke The "Devourer" Against Them

The Philadelphia Church of God never exhausts its threats against members for not supporting the "work".  Apparently, Dwight Falk believes that when you financially give to the cult then PCG's god will be so impressed it will restrict Satan and his demons from making your life a miserable hell. PCG's god will supply all of the needs of loyal PCG members as they struggle to survive with high food and gas prices. Will their cars automatically get more miles to the gallon? Will food in the refrigerators mysteriously double overnight? Considering the magical god of Armstrongism, this could certainly happen!

Dwight Falk Tries to Intimidate Members Into Supporting “the Work”:
June 24, 2022 
A PCG source sent the following notes. It was a short, but twisted, taken out of context, sermonette given by Dwight Falk, who knows absolutely nothing about exegesis of the Scriptures. 
Falk started off talking about rising gas prices and then went on to quote Malachi 3:11: “And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts.” This is God talking to the “sons of Jacob” (See: British Israelism-True or False?) not to the N. T. church that Jesus founded, and reading the passage in context shows it is talking about pests such as the locust or caterpillar eating their crops, not about gaining financial blessings. The PCG ministers know they can control members much better if they use the O. T. especially that which is applying to the House of Israel. 
He said if we “support the Work,” God will rebuke the devourer. [Note: For a definition of the words “the Work” see Buzzwords (or loading the language).] 
He rattled off several blessings they (PCG) have; i.e., Armstrong College, etc., etc..
“As long as we are supporting His Work, God will rebuke the devourer (i.e., take care of us)” he asserted. 
In other words, the blessings we receive are contingent upon doing certain acts–especially supporting, giving money to, “the Work”–then God will follow through. Is the New Testament church today living in O. T. times? 
He took examples from the O.T.; i. e., the Israelite’s clothing and shoes not wearing out in the wilderness; the blessings and curses in Deuteronomy. 
“God will rebuke the devourer,” he said, “as long as we stay close to Him and support the Work.”
Notice how God helping us is all centered around supporting the Work. 
Does Philippians 4:19: “But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus” say anything about God taking care of us, or blessing us, “as long as” we “support the Work”? 
No, it does not. 
Sorry, Dwight, you failed Bible exegesis big time. –sermonette critiqued by PCG source

From Exit and Support Network 


Anonymous said...

Dwight who?
Oh, Dwight Falk.

After 3 or 4 beers I reckon I would mispronounce his last name,lol.
Reminds me of Austin Powers, that international man of mystery and his Asian girlfriends, Fook u and Fook mi.

That pervasive smell of fear must surely permeate their congregations.
In an age when we so desperately need hope and a kind word in pcog they get burdened.
Which is quite the opposite of the hope all have in the gospel.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Dwight! You savage!

Tonto said...

Selling of an indulgences is what led to Martin Luther and his revolt against the Catholic Church. How is this any different at PCG?

Phinnpoy said...

The only thing that's devouring is the LCG ministry!

DW said...

Comparatively speaking, this sermon pales to words that have tripped off the tongue of Burger King Flurry. He has not once, but twice said, that he is a co-savior along with Jesus. He said HWA said and taught the same.

Words fail me to respond to such disgusting blasphemy. Were you beaten beyond recognition and had nails driven through your flesh too, Gerry? Ironically, he also wrote in one of his pathetic booklets that Christ suffered, and I quote verbatim, "Jesus suffered a bit". A bit?? This is the face of true evil IMHO.

While Falk's words are disgraceful and thoroughly unbiblical, they barely scratch the surface of Flurry's filth. I can provide the references for the above statements if anyone doubts, but it will take me a few hours to find them.

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

Be not deceived. This is a profound question. In the broadest sense it is the question, "What are the limits of ministerial authority?" Many denominations besides Splinterdom line up behind the idea that ministers are authorized "to act and speak in the name of God."

What if a minister tells you that you must provide potato salad for the next church potluck or God will lift his protection from you? Does he or does he not have the Godly authority to impose that requirement? If he does then the preacher in this post may licitly require that you participate in "the Work." Can a minister require that you say twelve Hail Marys for absolution? If he is authorized by God, why not?

Taking this to an extreme, "Is it wrong for the church leader to be an blatant autocrat?" So you can see how important the question I started with actually is. Signing up to join a denomination is a serious matter. Some denominations seek to define, in writing or tradition, what a minister can and cannot do. Armstrongism placed constraints on the authority of the field ministry.

HWA took great exception to a staement made by GTA in which GTA said that local ministers are confronted with having to make many "loosing and binding" decisions in the course of their daily pastoring. HWA forcefully disagreed and said that only he as the apostle-level leader of the WCG could make such decisions. Does that mean that all the "potato salad" decisions had to go to HWA? In WCG practice it seems like little decisions did not. HWA placed a clear limit on the power of local ministers but nobody seems to have defined its scope. And given the vague nature of this approach, did WCG members have some right of appeal?

As a governor on ministerial authority under the NT we have not a tightly written policy but a tenor. The author of 1 Peter in chapter 5 wrote:

"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion (anagkastōs- by force or constraint), but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain (aischrokerdōs - sordid or filthy lucre), but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock."

First, the author by this statement admits that some legitimate ministers have fallen away from this ideal. Their legitimacy is not in question but their practice. Second, he condemns applying force to people. Third, he condemns brow-beating people for money. Fourth, he condemns a domineering attitude. Fifth, he advocates that ministers set an example.

This does not seem to accommodate any kind of authoritarian leadership or the imposition of arbitrary Deuteronomic conditions concerning what God will or will not do.

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

Anonymous said...

Jesus suffered a bit

Jesus knew that His Father would resurrect Him. The Father lost a son... for a weekend, for a predetermined good purpose, knowing He would resurrect Him, after creating a world in which millions of parents suffer for decades the loss of a child who hasn't yet been resurrected.

In fact, to say that the Father or Jesus "suffered" at all is to say that They felt it a burden or an imposition to save mankind, and that it was a painful duty rather than an act of love. We are taught that as human beings it is good and worthwhile when we endure pain to help those we love. Is this not equally or even more true of God?

Truly, if Jesus suffered at all, He was not a loving God. What Jesus did was feel pain in the extreme, more than a bit, but he was supposed to count it all as joy, not as suffering, wasn't He?

Anonymous said...

Dwight is apparently a graduate of the Cal Culpepper Seminars for ministry-member relationships.

DW said...

Neo..what a great question you posed. I have two thoughts. First, the Holy Spirit indwelling an authority figure in any given Christian denomination would never lead that person to violate the precepts of their role as laid out by the Lord in scripture. He (the H.S.) is the internal barometer for BOTH the authority figure AND the individual. It is a two way street though. It requires both the authority figure and the congregant know their bibles!

Secondly, a crucial factor in recognizing any over reach or abuse by the minister or pastor is being a well versed, knowledgeable, bible literate believer. That way both sides are protected from abuse. The individual has a tremendous responsibility as well. Unless you do your part by studying the Word for yourself, how would you know where the line of demarcation is?

That is why we need to read and understand the Word of God ourselves as a checks and balances approach for ALL members of a church. The Holy Spirit will guide and teach both the person in authority and the individual and will most definitely put a cinch in our spirit to tell us something just isn't right. We may not know what or why, but we will know something is wrong. Follow your instincts if that happens. The Holy Spirit is trying to get your attention! ANY feelings of discomfort or pain are His way of showing us to either ask questions or get out of that church. Any denial by a minister to even question him is a sure sign something is wrong. Run, don't walk! God does not want us to be in fear or doubt of our minister. What would be God's purpose for that?None..just the minister's.

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

Anonymous 9:56

The incarnation is a mystery. What happened when the Logos underwent Kenosis and became fully God and fully human? Who knows? I believe that I will be resurrected. In fact I believe that I will enter the Intermediate State after death. My time without consciousness may be only a few seconds. Death is still dreadful in my view. And if I had to die a violent death, it would be the hardest thing I could imagine. I believe Jesus faced the same feelings that I would face.

You state further, "In fact, to say that the Father or Jesus "suffered" at all is to say that They felt it a burden or an imposition to save mankind, and that it was a painful duty rather than an act of love."

This is an inversion of John 3:16. Just think, physical neurological pain is unknown in the realm of God. God created the capacity for pain in the Creation. Then the Logos subjected himself to this pain in the extreme, to abject disconsolation and to rejection in order to free us from slavery to Thrones, Principalities and Powers, a slavery immutable under natural conditions. And Jesus counted it a joy. God knew Jesus was not going to stay dead but the joyous outcome does not cancel the horrific process. When Lazarus died, Jesus wept even though he knew Lazarus was not going to stay dead.

You stated further, "...but he was supposed to count it all as joy, not as suffering, wasn't He?"

He was not "supposed" to count it a joy, he did count it a joy. This does not mean that he did not suffer. We can see from the account of his death that he did. To count something as something else does not mean that you change it's essential nature. It means that you view it with a different meaning. Jesus suffered and counted it as a joy. "By God's grace he might taste death for everyone." He earned excruciatingly the right to bring us back from death.

When a loved one dies, there is hardly any consolation in the natural. We are given the ability to transcend ourselves when we see its ultimate meaning. No human being can make that happen. It is by the grace of God.

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