Is It Tolerance or Cowardice?
Lonnie Hendrix
As someone who formerly associated with the Church of God International and continues to have family and friends within that organization, most of you will understand the focus of my posts on that particular Armstrong Church of God. More particularly, for many years now, I have concentrated on the dissonant messaging coming from that group.
For those of you who may not be familiar with the situation within that organization, there is a substantial group of ministers who have rejected the heresies of British Israelism and Current Events Headline Theology. In short, this group is focused on the good news about salvation through Jesus Christ and eternal life in God’s Kingdom. However, there is another prominent group of ministers who embrace both and are insistent that those things be the focus of that organization’s messaging. Unfortunately, the more enlightened group has decided to be very tolerant of, and accommodating toward, the Armstrongist reactionaries in their midst.
Why tolerate messaging which they clearly think is inappropriate and/or wrong? When presented with that question, those ministers often cite the need to keep the peace, preserve the unity of the organization, and/or tolerate diverse perspectives within their membership. On the surface, it sounds reasonable and noble, but it doesn’t hold up very well under the scrutiny of Scripture.
First, we know that Jesus of Nazareth delivered very clear instructions to his disciples about messaging before he ascended into heaven. In the Gospel of Matthew, we read: “Jesus came and told his disciples, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-20, NLT) Did you notice the glaring absence of anything regarding currents events or Anglo-Israelism? In other words, NOTHING about warning Israel!
“We’re preaching the right message!” the enlightened protest. “Nevertheless, the reactionaries have their fans, and they’d be upset if we didn’t post their messages!” they claim. The thinking seems to go something like this: “Sure, they’re wrong, but what’s wrong with keeping them happy?” Of course, they would recoil in horror if that same line of reasoning was employed with regards to homosexuality, Sabbath-keeping, or Festival observance! “I don’t personally believe in British Israelism, but what harm can it do to indulge their delusion?” “It’s an unfortunate part of our culture and history.” In the meantime, the other side is shouting: “At least we have the courage to speak the ‘truth’ and confront Israel’s sins!”
All of this reminds me of a story in the Hebrew Bible and another one in the Greek New Testament. In the time of the judges, we read that Eli was faithful to the Lord and didn’t follow the wicked behaviors of his sons; but he did tolerate their behavior (I Samuel 2:12-16, 22-25). How did God react to Eli’s tolerance of his sons’ behavior? We read that he sent a prophet to confront ELI! He demanded: “why do you scorn my sacrifices and offerings? Why do you give your sons more honor than you give me—for you and they have become fat from the best offerings of my people Israel!” (Verse 29, NLT) As a consequence, Eli was told that God would remove his family from the priesthood, and that his sons would die (I Samuel 2:30-36)!
Likewise, in Paul’s first epistle to the saints at Corinth, we read: “I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you—something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother. You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship. Even though I am not with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit. And as though I were there, I have already passed judgment on this man in the name of the Lord Jesus. You must call a meeting of the church. I will be present with you in spirit, and so will the power of our Lord Jesus. Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved on the day the Lord returns. Your boasting about this is terrible. Don’t you realize that this sin is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old “yeast” by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us. So let us celebrate the festival, not with the old bread of wickedness and evil, but with the new bread of sincerity and truth.” (I Corinthians 5:1-8, NLT)
In both of these instances, the tolerance of someone else’s wrongdoing tainted the “righteous” with sin. Eli and the Christians of Corinth weren’t personally participating in the evil behaviors which were displeasing to God, but they were tolerating or overlooking those behaviors in others!
Finally, Paul told the saints of Galatia: “I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ. You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ. Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you. I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, let that person be cursed. Obviously, I’m not trying to win the approval of people, but of God. If pleasing people were my goal, I would not be Christ’s servant.” (Galatians 1:6-10, NLT) Clearly, Paul thought that messaging was important. What about you?
25 comments:
Thank you Lonnie for this post. Very thought provoking. And very sad.
Unfortunately BI is the foundation stone on which much of the Armstrong empire stands. A foundation of sand as many commentators here on Banned have so well articulated. There can be no justification for support of BI. I hope those who have abandoned this folly within Armstrongism depart from this movement. Our hope of salvation surely is in Christ not in an idea or theology that is patently erroneous. And demonstratedly so. Abandonment of BI is not abandonment of salvation but should I hope bring us all closer to our Saviour.
BI.....endless genealogies which present questions..........
You are nothing but a bully fake name Lonnie. A bully who desires great trouble amongst all the Churches of God, who stirs up trouble with a huge wooden spoon.
Jesus Christ and all the angels in heaven see what you do and what you proclaim you are, but neither are the same.
Yes CGI is tolerant to a fault. You will find a wide range of beliefs in a CGI congregation. They don't challenge anyone out of fear that they will leave. I can somewhat understand their position, hoping that their gentleness will keep them around long enough for them to change their false ideas. The result, however, tends to be quite different with the false ideas poisoning the rest of the congregation.
Ministers have a very difficult job. They don't want to "chase anyone away" yet they must guard the flock. It took far too long for them to send Lonnie packing.
If one would take a census of all the splinter groups, CGI would probably finish last in headcount and income. They are a small and well aged flock. 90% of the membership consists of the old WCG guard, ranging in age of 75-90. My parents ( in their 90s) still attend a very small and aged congregation and BI is just fine with them. The church could divide over this issue but what would be left? They could not survive the split and they know it.
Concerning the Great Commission. I have my own ideas on what it is and isn't, as some do. Even on this site we argue over messaging, what Christ actually meant by "teaching them to OBSERVE all things I have commanded you". Does that include proper sabbath observance or a warning against deception?
How did the apostles understand this?
It has been admitted here that , after the GC was given, the apostles continued to OBSERVE the sabbath, the clean and the unclean, and the law . This, along with the existence of 41,000 Christian denominations, tells us that in the Christian world, all is not clear, cut, and dry. Call that good or bad, but the reality is DIVERSITY is king!
I believe that the worst comes first for Armstrongites. Once the human mind becomes twisted to accept the truly bizarre aspects of the religion, the damage is done. It is then conditioned to accept all manner of weirdness.
Members of the ministry no longer have HWA's extreme anger to keep them in line. At least the old man had some
semblance of control and order to keep his lieutenants in line. We've seen the splinter leaders introduce all manner of idiocy and insanity into their own little personality cults, and nobody is there to clean it up. But then again, Eric Berne did explain the symbiosis amongst game players and their victims. Apparently they need one another!
As long as people insist on hanging on to a dead Covenant ((II Cor 3:6-18), the Judaizing nonsense will continue. The folks in the ACOG's need to do some in depth reading in ancient Christian history, that isn't distorted by ACOG bigotry and biases. They also need to read about the actual history of British-Israelism from Non- ACOG sources. I highly recommend william-branham.org as a reliable source. This site, dedicated to research about the life and teachings of a famous Pentecostal faith healer, has a lot of articles and videos about BI. BI was very popular among the early Pentecostals. And BTW, our boy HWA is mentioned in one of those articles. Besides his own COG work, Herbert was a player in the British-Israel movement, which was very popular in the Pacific Northwest during that time in history.
Standard fare amongst the Armstrong Churches of God: Anyone who has the audacity to challenge them and/or point out wrongdoing has a bad attitude and/or is stirring up dissension! Sad, so sad!!
"This, along with the existence of 41,000 Christian denominations..."
This is why we don't identify as "Christian". We are followers of the way, or followers of Christ. The term "christian" applies to a totally different set of beliefs.
If this is true 8:42, then Armstrongism is no more Christian than the Christians you denigrate. Armstrongism has hundreds of splinter groups, with every single group having different beliefs and standards they follow. After decades of claiming to be the one true church, it sure is a hell of a mess! Considering the fruits of Armstrongism, the term "christian" attached to it is a misnomer.
Lonnie Hendrix, once a churchly star,
Now writes his rants from near and far.
They asked him kindly to take a leave—
For stirring up chaos none could believe.
"I was too righteous," he now decrees,
"As if truth could bow to their heresies!"
But still he blogs with fervent rage,
Each post a cry from his bitter cage.
He types with venom, sharp as a knife,
Rewriting his version of church life.
"How dare they! How could they!" he whines,
While clutching his grudge through endless lines.
He can’t move on, not for a minute,
His rage burns bright—oh, how he’s in it!
The CGI may survive, but he’ll never see—
His bitterness is his legacy.
So here's to Lonnie, on his crusade,
Fighting shadows the church has made.
He’ll blog till dawn, with no retreat,
And forever be his own defeat.
"I have concentrated on the dissonant messaging coming from that group."
The roots of the problem are: 1) human deceitfulness, 2) ignorance, 3) overconfidence, and 4) the dissonant messaging coming out of the Bible.
Anyone who has the audacity to disagree with some writer or the "mainstream" opinion on some site is a "troll."
Apparently you assume that all of the splinters are actually part of The Church. Or, that everyone in the old WCG was actually in The Church.
The ability to adapt to a dysfunctional organization is not a sign of morality. The ability to adapt to a sick society is not a sign of progress or mental health.
Well done!
Talks about BI are not as bad as dishonoring God or sexual perversion unless they are presented as gospel truth.
Tonto,
Your poetic talents are obvious, but I'm a bit disappointed in your assessment of me. Haven't you been a vocal critic of the ACOGs for years? Now you're sitting in judgement of my criticisms?
I was never a rising star in any of the ACOGs. And there is only one who is truly righteous. I'm a sinner, just like you, who has been forgiven because of what Jesus did for us.
Finally, no rage or bitterness here. I wouldn't be where I'm at today without my ACOG experiences. Nevertheless, I do tend to be the guy who jumps up on the table and loudly proclaims, "LOOK, everybody, there's a turd in the punch bowl." So, yeah, I'm not easily intimidated or subdued and will probably continue to blog and comment until I draw my last breath (which will probably disappoint a few folks).
It's human nature to attack people when they become effective.
BB
Miller
You have presented and interesting issue. My initial reaction is that the ministers in this small denomination are egaged in risky brinkmanship. They are trying to hold together a denomination riven by crosscurrents. But the conclusion is foregone. Jesus said that a house divided would not stand. It seems like this denomination is at the point, maybe past it, where most Armstrongist denominations would undergo schism. Each side would then proclaim victory and that ejecting the other side was long overdue. And the "true church" becomes smaller and smaller in numbers and any effectiveness and ultimately forgettable.
Messaging is crucially important. The Gospel is made out of words. Its mediator is the Logos - the Word of God in action. Jesus said to us, "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
Paul wrote, "For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?"
I would be surprised if this process is not happening in every Armstrongist denomination. Once in a while, people emerge from Armstrongism and gravitate towards Christianity.
A good issue-based article that goes beyond this particular denomination.
Scout
I don't appreciate Lonnie labeling those who disagree with him "reactionaries." It's a cheap commie smear word. There's nothing wrong with current affairs theology. Christ mentioned in Luke 13:4 the tower of Siloam falling and killing many innocent people in order to make a point. If current affairs is motivating members, why is Lonnie complaining? The impending fall of the Anglo-Saxon world order is motivating members, so again, why is he complaining?
Btw, the holy spirit has confirmed to me that BI is true.
Lonnie & Tonto = same woman fooling none.
Being a Snr Tkachite you lack a understanding of how CGI branch operates.
Within the context of the subject matter of this post, a reactionary is anyone who opposes the liberalization or reform of Herbert Armstrong's teachings about BI or Current Events Headline theology. It is interesting that you turn right around and characterize it as a "commie smear word."
Equating current events with specific prophecies is a risky prospect at best (as the track record of HWA demonstrated in spades). The gospel isn't enough to motivate members? Finally, I would be very careful about attributing things to the Holy Spirit for which the Holy Spirit is NOT responsible - there's that whole unpardonable sin thingy, after all.
Post a Comment