Are We Accusers OR Critics?

 

Are We Accusers OR Critics?

Lonnie Hendrix

NO2HWA posted a perceptive article (We Would Rather Be Offended By A Picture of Jesus Than Ever Actually Following Him) about the hypocritical nature of Armstrongist attitudes toward artistic depictions of Jesus Christ. In the comment thread which followed that post, one of the anonymous commentators observed that Armstrongists have always had a jolly time making fun of the beliefs and practices of other “Christians.” The comment grabbed my attention because I had recently posted an article on my blog (The Things That Armstrongists Can Say, BUT Others Cannot) which made much the same point.

One thing, however, that the commentator said really made me stop and think. He/She wrote: “People who come here to this blog from the ACOGs wonder why we have to bash HWA and his church and the ministers. The truth is, we are just turning the bashing they taught us around, and throwing it back at them. We are doing unto them what they have done to others.” Now, while I understand and support the contention that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” I don’t believe that we should accept the Armstrongist notion that we are “attacking” them, or that we have made ourselves “Accusers of the brethren.”

When we accuse someone of wrongdoing, it is generally understood that we are charging them with the wrongdoing – support for the accusation may or may not necessarily follow. Likewise, an attack usually denotes taking some kind of aggressive or violent action against someone, and it is understood that it can be further characterized as having been provoked or unprovoked, justified or unwarranted, etc.. Hence, we see that charging or accusing someone is NOT synonymous with “attacking” someone (an accusation or charge can be leveled against someone with great solemnity and process – we do it all the time in courtrooms across the world).

As far as Scripture is concerned, the passage which Armstrongists like to wield like a club is found in Revelation where “the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, <the one> who accuses them day and night before our God.” (Revelation 12:10) We should have known that this one wouldn’t escape their notice because it immediately follows their favorite passage about Satan deceiving the whole world (which, of course, excludes them). Likewise, in the book of Job, Satan is portrayed as accusing Job before God and urging God to remove his blessings and protection from poor Job. Interestingly, Scripture also portrays Jesus Christ as our Advocate with God – defending us against all accusations (I John 2:1-2). Hence, we see that Scripture sets up this contrast between Satan (Accuser) trying to hurt/destroy, and Jesus Christ (Advocate) working to help/save.

Nevertheless, the Gospels also portray someone who was highly critical of the Jewish religious leaders of his day. Indeed, he is portrayed in all four of those accounts as someone who was NOT bashful about criticizing both hypocritical behavior and teachings. In this connection, it should also be noted that Christ’s criticism often appears blunt and harsh (as in the episode with the money changers at the Temple). Even so, Christ’s criticisms were always directed at correcting error, eliciting compassion and empathy for others, and effecting reconciliation and forgiveness. In other words, the criticism always had a positive purpose behind it – it was never meant to tear down or destroy.

Finally, we should also note that Christ taught his disciples to “turn the other cheek” when they were unfairly attacked by their enemies (Matthew 5:39), and to be quick to forgive offenses in each other (Matthew 18:15-22 and Luke 17:3). He also warned anyone who would offend one of his “little ones.” (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2) However, the clear implication in both of these instances is that the offense is real, not imagined. In this context, we should also note that the first epistle of Peter informs us that we should “not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. For ‘Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.” (I Peter 3:9-11)

Hence, we begin to see the difference between the accusations and criticisms which Mr. Armstrong and his followers have hurled at traditional Christians, and the ones leveled here against Armstrongism and its proponents. The criticism of Armstrong and his disciples that one finds here on Banned by HWA is focused on heretical teachings (those which depart from or contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles), and the harmful policies and behaviors of the Apostle(s) and his/their ministers and followers. Moreover, most of the criticism which appears here is motivated by a desire to improve teachings and behaviors, NOT to destroy faith or assassinate character. Yes, the criticism here is often biting and pointed (as was the case with Christ’s criticism of the behavior and teachings of the Scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees), but it is intended to initiate reflection and bring about repentance/change.

So, rather than screaming “ATTACK” and “PERSECUTION,” it might be more constructive to review the evidence provided in the post for the criticism and evaluate whether it might have some merit. Unfortunately, we have only had a few of the leaders of the ACOGs over the years who have acknowledged the legitimacy of some of the criticisms here and/or asked for forgiveness for past offenses – that has been very rare and precious. Moreover, currently, in the wider culture, we see that the trend is NEVER to acknowledge wrongdoing or ask for forgiveness. Indeed, those things are now anathema in some quarters! Nevertheless, when it is received in the right spirit, criticism can be a very constructive/positive thing.