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?
43 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.
Considering how Israel came out of Egypt a "mixed multitude" and how people have continued to mix and mingle through the ages I doubt that DNA evidence is the best tool to refute BI. A lot of folks are going to be very upset if they find out BI is true after all. Just like a lot of folks, which includes all of popular Christianity and more than a few COGers, an will be terribly upset when Jesus returns and they find out what He really stands for.
doubt Jesus gave instructions to observe sabbath and holydays.
There is no problem if believing apostles observed days we ought likewise.
But observance of days can lead to manipulations by the unscrupulous
The Apostle Paul knew what the false apostles were teaching the Galatians: The observance of days, and months, and times, and years. The Jews had been obliged to keep holy the Sabbath Day, the new moons, the feast of the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and other feasts. The false apostles constrained the Galatians to observe these Jewish feasts under threat of damnation.
Paul tells the Galatians that they were exchanging their Christian liberty for the weak and beggarly elements of the world.
Suspect many require observances because if you get a believer seeing days and foods as being really important but hardly any more steps to drain bank accounts.
Lonnie, the Holy Spirit on occasion communicates to a person by speaking words directly into their mind with a corresponding unique emotional feel, or by placing this same emotional feel into the person's mind to confirm something they have just heard from another person. This feeling is like no other in nature, so a misunderstanding is improbable.
Anonymous 10:45 wrote, "Being a Snr Tkachite you lack a understanding of how CGI branch operates."
The term Tkachite does not fit me well, although I appreciate the fact that Tkachism is a rendition of Christianity and Armstrongism is not. I believe I have been influenced by the writing of Peter Enns and David Bentley Hart more than Barth or Torrance. That pushes me to the periphery of Tkachism.
But that is a minor point. The more interesting point concerns CGI. What is it about their operations that is so arcane? Why would an outsider like me not understand what is going on? I have read about other Armstrongist denominations and none of it seems mysterious - just plain ol' flawed human behavior.
Scout
So what would you have a guy like me do, Lonnie? If I were HWA, Gerald Flurry, or Dave Pack, I know what I’d do. But I’m not one of those. So what are the options? Well, I could quit CGI and start the perfect church, but I realize my perfect church would pick up its first flaw the moment I joined it. So that’s not much of an option, is it? Or, I could “boldly” speak out on certain matters that some regard as doctrinal or traditional, which means I would be going against the CGI’s good, sensible policies on addressing doctrinal differences. Such a bullying tactic would backfire, so that’s not a good option, either.
But there is a third way—and it’s spelled out right there in the CGI’s own Ministerial Manual. I could present a study paper to the Ministerial Council. The Council would review it and would give me a chance to present my case in person. The discussion could eventually involve input from the entire ministry. So what do you think? Should I pursue that course of action?
Oh, wait! I’ve already done that. I did it back in 2003. I presented a brief paper on BI along with a brief study of the Book of Ezekiel, showing that the prophet did in fact get his message to representatives of both the House of Israel and the House of Judah. I also, in that same meeting, briefly presented three other topics. These related to the second-goat-represents-Satan teaching, the gap theory versus other theories of creation, and the “third resurrection” teaching. I was not attempting to overturn any of these; I was simply trying to show that certain of our traditional views do not have the kind of scriptural support needed for including them in the category of doctrine or dogma. I was asking the MC to recognize all these traditional views as theories and not as doctrines or dogmas. Most of the MC members seemed to be okay with what I was proposing. On BI, however, one member of the MC did argue against my view, and stated, “It’s more than a theory to me.” But even that member didn’t appear to be overly concerned with the fact that my view differed from his. We all agreed that it wasn’t a salvation issue.
It’s not merely about pleasing people, and it certainly has nothing to do with “fear” of losing income. It’s simply a matter of recognizing—and living with—the fact that everyone is not going to agree on everything, and that’s not necessarily unhealthy! The Baptists understand this. They have a core of fundamentals they all adhere to, but there is room for all kinds of views on eschatology, creation, and even soteriology. Under the SBC’s one roof you’ll find Calvinists, Arminians, and Provisionists; pre-, mid-, and posttribulationists; pre-, post-, and amillennialists; and young-earth, day-age, and gap creation theorists. A model along similar lines is, in my view, much healthier and more conductive to genuine unity than the model that requires absolute conformity in a long list of complex doctrinal tenets.
Even those you label “reactionaries” (your label, not mine) spend more time preaching about Christ and His Kingdom, spiritual growth and development, and Christian living principles than they spend preaching about the matters you object to. Just go through the many hundreds of recorded messages on our website and you’ll find that the messages that may in some way spill over into national politics are, by comparison, few and far between.
Perhaps nothing I've said here will make a difference to you, Lonnie. But maybe I’ll succeed in helping some folks who might be reading this to realize that there are some very good and legitimate reasons for a policy that allows for a wider range of approaches and views, particularly in areas that do not pertain to salvation.
Vance Stinson
Anonymous 5:57 wrote, "...I doubt that DNA evidence is the best tool to refute BI."
I believe your contention is that there has been so much racial intermixing that the concept of being an Israelite has passed away or nearly so. I disagree with this. Intermixing has not obliterated the idea of race. Most Northwest Europeans are haplogroup R1b and most Jews are haplogroup J. While this tells us a lot, we also have autosomal DNA analysis that is based on shared genetic sequences. That is how genetic genealogy services can determine what regions of the world contributed to your genome. Geneticists can also use the concept of shared genetic sequences to compute genetic distance. That is how we know that the people most closely related to the Middle Eastern Jews are the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank. And the people most closely related to the Ashkenazim are the Southern Europeans, in particular, the Italians. It also tells us that the British are very distant, so as to be unrelated, to the Jews.
The Northwest European population, of course, contains traces of other peoples. People moved around and mixed from ancient times until now. But this is at the trace level. BI fans in the past have tried to make the “tail wag the dog.” Because there is a trace of R1b among Jews, then this was really the default haplogroup of Jews, they contended, and matched Northwest Europeans. Population genetics doesn’t work that way. BI will never be true "after all." You get a primer on genetics, read it and tell my if you have discovered a way this can be true.
Scout
The difference is that the people you label as "popular Christians" will actually accept the correction to their beliefs and be happy when they meet the real Jesus. Armstrongites will reject Jesus just as the Jews did! They'll stand there and argue with the presiding spirit beings with their lame cliche (But, Mr. Armstrong says............!")
BB
Vance,
As always, I appreciate your willingness to engage on these topics, and I agree with you that starting yet another organization is NOT a good option. As you know, CGI is NOT the ekklesia. Indeed, NO extant denomination represents the ekklesia. Yes, there is a great diversity of belief and opinion among the saints - those who have received/accepted Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Even so, blatantly heretical teachings must be called out and rejected by the leaders of the ekklesia. You are one of those individuals.
Clearly, the examples provided by the Worldwide Church and the Roman Catholic Church should have taught all of us that unity cannot be imposed by one person on the entire body. Nevertheless, the situation which you describe within CGI in 2003 sure sounds like one individual imposed his will on the whole! You wrote: "Most of the MC members seemed to be okay with what I was proposing. On BI, however, one member of the MC did argue against my view, and stated, 'It’s more than a theory to me.' As a consequence, you have a small number of ministers who are still pushing BI and C.E. Headline Theology.
Moreover, your generosity toward these members is NOT reciprocated by them. Their messaging constantly reflects the fact that they think of the other side as apostates who are standing in the way of the Church's mission. They see you as cowards who are unwilling to resist the world and its Jesus-centered brand of Christianity! They see themselves as standing up for the "truth" - for the faith once delivered by Herbie. Indeed, this all sounds a great deal like history repeating itself! Those wicked "liberals" trying to undermine the apostles' authority with their pernicious Systematic Theology Project!
Anon 10:15;32 PM PST
'the holy spirit has confirmed to me that BI is true'....so there we are.
Nothing else matters, debate is pointless, the scholarship pointing out the obvious flaws in BI meaningless, historical and archeological facts are discarded, I have sidelined one and all, and all opinion against BI. Are we allowed to ask therefore, what is the evidence that the Holy Spirit did speak to you and can you provide us with the scholarship in support of BI that we may review it and critique it in the name of fairness and love.
Symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy??? How would you even know the difference?
BB
2:18 pm. Yours is a straw man argument. I only expressed my experience at 10:15. I did not offer it as unassailable scientific proof about BI. Proof is for others to ask God in prayer for confirmation or otherwise for the expressed opinion. The alternative is that we live in a echo chamber of ideas. Just like in ACOG-land.
Churches of God are good enough at stirring up their own trouble, beginning with lies and heresies invented by the great copyist himself.
I agree. Armstrong learned early on that getting believers conditioned to accept dress codes, food codes, the observance of days, and so forth he could easily extract lots of money for the Pullman life.
This comment I agree is using the Holy Spirit falsely and using the person of the Holy Spirit to be an originator of a teaching which can easily be shown to be false. The master copyist merely found this theory to his liking and purpose so he appended it to his many other theories, including law keeping as the way to salvation, and his gospel of prophetical warning which are false as well.
Well then why do you ask? has "Lonnie" not told you? How bizarre. Your writings always excuse and protect Joe Tkach Snr and co perhaps you have forgotten previous articles, written a long long time ago.
I can well understand that Armstrongists would not want to drop BI. It is the backbone of their stance on end-time prophecy. To pull the plug on BI is to revolutionize their entire belief system which, in keeping with Millerism, rests on a foundation of prophecy. But beyond that, it would have a destructive impact on the economics of their denomination. They fund raise on hyping the fear of the Tribulation that is directed towards the US and BC. Armstrongism without BI is not Armstrongism.
There are a number of pragmatic ways in which the renunciation of BI would adversely affect COG operations. But I think the salient issues are issues of interpreting reality. BI to the Armstrongist denominations is the bulwark protecting what Armstrongist see as “truth”. BI defines the state of the world. It permits the “understanding” of geopolitics. It defines the relationship between Armstrongism and science. It is the hermeneutic for interpreting life. The world and its history must be seen through the lens of the two volumes of Hoeh’s Compendium – a work whose principal purpose is to establish the comprehensive influence of the British/Israelite people on world history.
Hoeh’s Compendia constitute a BI manifesto that reveals to us such facts as Solomon’s influence extending into South America. While this seems wacky and unimportant, it bolsters the view that a certain collection of White people is more important than anybody else in the world. Some BI followers will assert that this is not really true and that the British/Israelite people are prophesied to be punished. But that is disingenuous. Ultimately, the British/Israelites are to be the greatest people throughout eternity, ruling perpetually over lesser nations, as Dean Blackwell once widely messaged – a kind of salvation by race instead of grace.
For these reasons, I would not expect a group of people who are not led by the Holy Spirit to ever renounce a doctrine that has the great utility that BI has. BI has too much practical value for the Armstrongist agenda whether it has any historicity or not. Those people who do not tow the line on BI will, in fact, have to start a new non-Armstrongist organization. BI is a watershed.
Scout
BI is Armstrongism, and it is not Christianity. Christ brought the gospel of His Kingdom. BI is basically the same as the people in Roman Empire thinking they were living in the Kingdom of God. It starts in đź’© and it will end in đź’© .
One of the messages of Armstrong , made when he claimed to be a messenger sent by God , is that one third of USA, UK, Canada and so forth die in attack from the beast in Europe; one third die of famine; one third taken away as captives.
Just why the 'beast' wants captives held in the revived empire one hasn't got a clue. But it's a really scary story that suited the fake messenger's purpose.
Post a Comment