As the United Church of God steps away from the world and leaves it behind, Rick Shabi is learning that people in third-world impoverished countries exist and life is pretty tough for most of them. Who knew?
There are experiences in life that cause us to look at the world in a different way and to understand our absolute need for Christ and God’s Spirit. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul tells us that Satan is the “god of this age.” The world is quickly becoming more and more like him. As God’s people, we are called to become more and more like God. We must make choices to leave the world and its ways and attitudes behind and choose to follow God, and to live the way of life to which He has called us.
We see the evidence of a quickly changing system and set of values in Western culture that is headed in the direction of totalitarianism—attempting to dominate our lives in every aspect. God has graciously and kindly given us time now to be turning ever more closely to Him and away from the world, and to wake up to what is going on around us so that we are not caught “sleeping” when the “time” comes.
Life in the West is much different than life in other parts of the world, I continue to learn. The pressures we feel in the United States are literally “nothing” compared to what our brethren around the world face every day.
Well, no shit Sherlock! The Church of God has always paid lip service to those in other nations, particularly third-world countries.
Never forget how the pressure was so great upon the top leadership of the United Church of God when they chose to apostatize from the Worldwide Church of God and start a new church. They spent an entire year ensuring the money flow was intact before they all jumped off the fence they had been sitting upon for the previous year, never once concerned about those living a "different life" in other parts of the world. The church leadership has always had priorities and it was always the top down. Third-world countries and members were at the bottom of the pyramid.
23 comments:
Yeah. Wait just a danged minute! Why would an authority figure in an extremely authoritarian religion be concerned about emerging authoritarianism in modern society? Seems like it would be right up their alley! Consistent with their comfort level. Rick and his people should be very happy, since it is people of somewhat like minds to their own that are the authors of these authoritarian trends.
It would be poetic justice for ACOG splinter leaders and their enforcers to experience having their own lives dominated in every respect. My heart will swell with joy if it happens.
The hypocrisy is through the roof every time you attack UCG.
UCG execs would be pulling $500k per year now and its ministers $100k!
I calculate
"The hypocrisy is through the roof every time you attack UCG."
Care to elaborate on your accusation, and to substantiate, or is that all you've got?
Why can these people never, ever say "Jesus" and instead just Christ? Why do they call the Holy Spirit "God's spirit"? It makes me angry, but only proves beyond doubt they are not in Jesus nor do they have the Holy Spirit indwelling them. If they did, they would never use the terminology they do. Disrespectful and disgraceful.
The salary ranges are published every year at their ministerial conference. No one, including the president, earns a six figure salary.
ANON at 8:02
It would be enlightening to see these salary ranges published. Are they a secret or something?
Additionally, besides salary, ministers receive health coverage , 401k retirement, phone, auto reimbursement, and in some cases housing subsidy. These can be substantial costs as well.
In looking at their public financial disclosure, about 33% of revenue is spent on the paid ministry (en toto), around @ $8 million a year.
What does the President "earn"?
"salary ranges"
What is the real truth regarding UCG Executive/Ministerial salaries??
Doesn't one of the Armstrongist cults have an (anachronistic) magazine called REAL-Truth??
That's what we really want to know:
The Real-Truth about Executive-Pay in these Armstrongist'-cults!
“ We must make choices to leave the world and its ways and attitudes behind and choose to follow God, and to live the way of life to which He has called us.”
Wait, I thought we are to follow Jesus and to join the work of the Father, which was to believe in His son. And what did Jesus do? He came to save the world, not condemn it. He also didn’t pray for us to leave the world but that we would be kept from the evil one.
Perhaps if COGs opened their boards to ministers from developing countries (especially Africa and Latin America), they'd have a more regular reminder of how spoiled people in Western countries are.
One "international" representative on the boards doesn't seem to be doing it - especially if that person is from Canada or Australia.
When Bob Thiel was still in LCG, he wrote in his COGWriter blog that third tithe should also be used to pay for ministers retirement. The reason he gave was that social security was "broken" and the HWA had forbidden his ministers to save for retirement. Now how can any employer dictate how their employees spend their pay? These ministers exercised greater (illegitimate) power over their members than kings of old. They were treated like royalty, lived to the limits of their income, and now resort to plundering third tithe for their retirement. And Rod Meredith helped them out by asking members to send in the "excess" wealth to help pay for his buddies retirement.
To these ministers, members are just chattel to be heartlessly exploited. Members are viewed as wish granting machines.
Why should anyone give pearls to swine ?
I very much doubt members are viewed as "wish granting machines" as that would devote appreciation and love.
DW writes:
“Why do they call the Holy Spirit "God's spirit"?”
1Co 3:16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? (NIV).
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (AV).
Because it is God’s spirit.
Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood
"The description of God the Father, which resembles the divine name made know to Moses in Exodus 3:14, shows the oddity of some of John's language... the Greek equivalent of ‘Grace and peace from he who is ...' surely it should be ‘from him'? PERHAPS JOHN WAS SEEING GOD AS ONE WHO IS ALWAYS ‘HE', THE SUBJECT OF EVERY SENTENCE, WHO GOVERNS EVERY OTHER PART OF SPEECH AND IS HIMSELF GOVERNED BY NONE" (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Revelation, BST, p.34).
The upper case highlight of Michael Wilcock’s quote highlights God as “first cause”.
Rom 8:9a if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
"God becomes "our Father" THROUGH the gift of THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHOM PAUL EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIES IN GAL 4:6 AS "THE SPIRIT OF THE SON," whom God sent "into out hearts" and who is thus responsible for crying out to God the Father in the language of the Son ("Abba")" (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.37-39).
So while it is Christ’s spirit that dwells “in you”, it is God’s spirit from the “first cause” perspective - Jesus being “second cause”.
or put alternatively:
Jn 3:34a For he whom God hath sent [apostello] speaketh the words of God:
Zec 2:9b and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent [shalach; LXX, eksapostello] me
"At significant length, Jesus is shown to be the Father's commissioned "agent" one "sent" by him (e.g. Jn 3:17, 34; 5:23-24, 30, 36-38). Scholars often compare the Jewish institution of the saliah (an "agent"); beyond this comparison, the agency principle that the saliah embodies was pervasive in the ancient Mediterranean world..." (C. S. Keener, "The Gospel of John," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p.429).
That is from the "Principal" perspective it is God's spirit; and from the Agency perspective it is Christ's spirit.
Stanley Rader once said that it wasn't how much you made that was important, but how much you control. Salaries may be modest, but the perks that go with it might be very generous. There are some benefits of not owning something but having the use of it: maintenance expenses were on the shoulder of the organization, not the individual benefiting from it. Of course, the downside of not owning is that the organization (HWA) can take everything away from you in a second. Just think of the homes on Waverly Drive in Pasadena that were owned by the church but lived in by HWA current favorite people. They lived like kings but owned very little. HWA controlled it all, status, titles, office location, house, cars, expense accounts, etc. All these perks were used to control people. If they crossed HWA, he would be transferred to Bricket Wood, away from the power center.
To Anon @ 3:07. I just read your comments and appreciate the points brought up, respectfully. However, I disagree and here is why. The Holy Spirit, to a Trinitarian, which I am, is not a power that emanated from God and Jesus. He is His own personage and referred to as God twice in the Book of Acts alone. Additionally, why did Jesus tell His Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if the spirit was merely an agency of the other two? I would think Jesus would have instead told them to baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. You would not give an "it" a proper name. There a dozens of references in the Old Testament that clearly delineate between the personalities of the One God, in three distinct functions. We also read of the literal presence of all three Personages at the same time in the account of the dove(Holy Spirit) resting upon Jesus while God spoke from Heaven, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him." I am driving in my car, away from my Bible so please forgive me for my lack of citations!
I am well aware that Armstrongism believers will call me a pagan and a heathen for my devout and unshakable belief in the One, triune God. I will gladly take any heat to defend what I believe and why. Again, if you read this, thank you for being respectful. I wish you the best!
Power Centre ? I recall Pasedena being described as hell on earth, how it was full of political wars.
Part 1.
Thanks DW for your reply.
I am aware of the proof-texts arguing for the Trinity but there are more proof-texts against the Trinity.
It is curious to me that if there are three “Personages,” and one is baptized into them, that the Holy Spirit, an unusual name for a personage, is missing in so many Scriptures that one may reasonable expect ‘him’ to be included. For example:
Jn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Rev 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
Note especially Rev 7. In the prospective part of the retro-prospective prophecy of Rev 7, there is a scene of the Melchisedec priesthood in heaven during the Messianic Age. God, the Lamb, the angels, the elders, the four beast, and a multitude of saints are mentioned, but no mention of the Holy Spirit.
Ac 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Ac 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
In regard to Matt 28:19 there are number of questions that can be asked? For example, How can you be baptized into Jesus but not into the Holy Ghost at the same time? Do you need to receive the Holy Ghost to be formally ‘baptized’ into his name? If so, does ‘baptism’ mean more than water baptism?
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
How does one receive the Holy Ghost? Both God and Christ have their own spirit. God has sent his Son’s spirit into the hearts of the Saints. Does God also send the Holy Spirit’s spirit into the hearts of the Saints? If the Holy Spirit sends his spirit into believers is this his power?
You write:
"The Holy Spirit, to a Trinitarian, which I am, is not a power that emanated from God and Jesus."
The angel answered,
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35, NIV).
I cannot accept your observation. The synonymous parallelism equates the Holy Spirit with the "power of the Most High".
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
It is not all that cut and dry when reading ancient literature informed by the thoughtforms of the day. So one of the reasons for me that supports a non-Trinitarian view follows on from Rom 1:20.
It is no coincidence, that when males and females mature they form relationships - boyfriends and girlfriends and husbands and wives. It is rare that they form a ménage à trois.
"However disappointing the fact may be to a devoted father, there is something unique in the relationship between a mother and a baby" (Anne Moir and David Jessel, BrainSex, p.141).
Part 2
Ro 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all...
"God the Father is always the "first cause" of everything and thus always appears in the primary position as the "prime mover"; nonetheless, the focus of Paul's life is on Christ himself..." (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp. 1, 8-9).
It is also no coincidence that the husband-wife relationship precedes the parent-child relationship and that mothers have a special relationship with their children that fathers do not.
Jn 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne,
The human relationship is an ‘antitype' (vertical typology) of the God relationship. The mother-child relationship pictures the relationship between Christ and the Church. See below.
Before a ‘midrash,’ in its broad sense, on the creation of ‘man’, an observation:
"At times prophets like Hosea and Jeremiah made use of the metaphor of the husband-wife relationship to describe the covenant. The father-son relationship was also used (Hos 11). But the most significant metaphor was finally that of the suzerain and vassal or of the Lord and servant" (J. Arthur Thompson, "Covenant (OT)," ISBE, Vol.1, p.793).
The three relationship metaphors between God and the kingdom of Israel are God and Servant, Father and Son, and Husband and Wife.
As the Word/Jesus is the antitypical Israelite these ‘relationships’ are also metaphors that describe God and Jesus’ relationship.
Jn 20:17b I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Just as God is the God of the nation of Israel, one would expect God to the God of THE representative Israelite; and Christ confirms it.
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:3a All things were made by him;
Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
“The singular man ('adam) is created as a plurality, "male and female"... in a similar way the one God ... created man through an expression of his plurality (..."let us make man in our image"). Following this clue the divine plurality expressed in v.26 is seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of the man and woman..." (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, EBC., Vol.2, p.38).
Ge 2:20b but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
It is curious that at the creation of man, that God and the Word who had been in a relationship for ‘billions of years’ only created Adam at first; and that when God created Eve he did not create her from “the dust of the ground,” as he did with Adam, but created Eve from the ‘rib’ of Adam.
It is suggested that when God planned the creation of ‘man’ he anticipated that he would need a help meet/servant/agent to do so; and so he ‘took’ (cp. Ge 2:21) of himself and created the Word.
Gen 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The ‘husband-wife’ metaphor predominated up unto the incarnation when the ‘father-son’ came to dominate.
The relationships between God and the Word/Jesus Christ establish the foundation of the family. The ‘husband-wife’ relationship preceded the father-son relationship; with Christ being the first of many sons of God.
To cut along story short, the human family is not a ménage à trois, just as the God family is not a Trinity - the typology is all wrong.
Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
So while the Word/Jesus has a separate existence from God, there is a sense that Christ has always existed in God.
Good points, 3:12, to refute DW's position on the nature of the holy Spirit. This has been discussed before on this blog so need to rehash. Suffice it to say that faith in Christ and possession of the Spirit with fruits (showing progress) are enough even if one cannot define it accurately. Great are the mysteries of the divine Godhead and there is more to come. Re why Eve was created from Adam's rib, you make a good point but the essential reason was to show that she is under authority to the husband so that she can't say, "Well, God made me from dust too so we are EQUAL in God's eyes!", a philosophy that is still alive with us today among women who want more authority to do things apart from their husbands. And there is more to this mystery as you mentioned above in that the church (as the rib) came out of Christ (the 2nd Adam), just as Christ (the Word) came out of the Father.
Thanks 6:39 for your response.
While inferences may be drawn from the account of the ‘creation’ of woman in Gen 2:18-25, especially in light of 3:16, I would disagree with your essential reason.
While much can be said about these Scriptures, John Hartley, succinctly, captures the intent:
“In order that the helper might fully correspond to the man, God made her from a part of the man’s side rather than of the dust which he had created both the man and the animals. “Side” is a better translation for tsela’ (so NIV margin) than rib, for it conveys that God took both bone and flesh for building or constructing (banah). The use of “build” instead of “form” underscores that the woman was made of the same substance and according to the same model as the man. Furthermore, the fact that God made the woman establishes her as a person in her own right. These details teach that no other living creature could ever become woman’s rival in serving as man’s helper, counterpart, and intimate companion (1:26-27).
“On seeing the woman for the first time the man exclaimed ecstatically that she was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, meaning that she was the one with whom he desired to establish a bonding relationship. She truly was the helper, complement, and companion God perceived that the man needed (v.18). This phraselogy conveys that the two were on the same level. The man went on to say that she shall be called “woman” (’ishah) since he was man (’ish). The similarity in the sound of these two Hebrew words underscores that a man may find a true counterpart in a woman and vice versa. It is important to note that “called” (niqra’) is in the passive and lacks the term shem, “name.” The man was not naming her but was identifying their commonness in difference... This is confirmed by the general terms of identification, “man” and “woman”; these terms convey the respective sexuality of each of them. The close bond between them, enriched by their sexual differences, afforded them companionship that overcame loneliness. So together a couple finds fulfillment in life.
Ge 3:16b in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [teshuqah] shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Ge 4:7b But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires [teshuqah] to have you, but you must master it.
“Further more, God informed the woman that from now on stress would exist between her and her husband. The woman would have “a desire” for her husband, and he in turn would rule over her. The use of “rule” intimates that the covenant of marriage was altered from a reciprocal relationship to one in which a man exercises authority over a woman. In exercising that authority a husband too often inflicts pain of a woman. The woman’s “desire,” however, makes it hard for her to separate from a man when she suffers domination or abuse. Alternatively, this desire may be interpreted to mean that the woman has a desire to master, even dominate, her husband... Conflict arises between husband and wife as each party strives to dominate the other” (John E. Hartley, Genesis, NIBC, pp.62-63 & 69-70).
Post a Comment