Doug Winnail has the following up about "agape love".
What the World Needs Now: Bible prophecy reveals that “in the last days perilous times will come” because people will be selfish, materialistic, proud, unthankful, unloving, and brutal (2 Timothy 3:1–5). Our world today is angry and increasingly violent, which only engenders more strife and hurt. What the world needs now—as a song title goes—is love! Real love—agape—is an unselfish, outgoing concern for others. This kind of love does not envy or hate, but is patient, forgiving, kind, and caring (see 1 Corinthians 13). Godly love is one of the fruits of God’s Holy Spirit, and it promotes peace of mind and peace between human beings (Galatians 5:22–23). The Scriptures remind us that “the whole creation” is anxiously awaiting the arrival of the sons and daughters of God, “who have the firstfruits of the Spirit” (Romans 8:19–24; 2 Corinthians 6:18). These loving and caring leaders will rule with Jesus Christ in the coming Kingdom of God. Let’s prepare to be there.
Have a profitable Sabbath,
Douglas S. Winnail
Given the task record of Rod Meredith while in the Worldwide Church of God and his heavyhanded mistreatment of members and ministers, is it possible to look towards the Living Church of God or even any Church of God as standard bearers of agape love?
Does Gerald Weston practice it? Does Gerald Flurry? What about Dave Pack? What about Bob Thiel? All of these guys seem to be in a constant state of anger, lashing out at everyone and everything every time they open their mouths.
From Herbert Armstrong and on down through the ministry to today's splinter leaders, none exemplified agape love. United Church of God is no better than Flurry, Pack, or Thiel.
How can we ever trust these guys to be 'loving and caring rulers' with Christ in some mythical kingdom to come when they are so abusive in this age?
10 comments:
All of these so-called 'ministers' n̈eed to read I Corinthians 13 until a light bulb turns on over their heads.
Let's face it. If any of these groups truly had agape, an ancient Greek word describing the highest form of love, the Godly level of love, such an incredible level of love would automatically bring into their lives a much more spiritually advanced system of faith, worship, governance, and behavior than Armstrongism. It would have transformed and corrected all of the problems and abuses of Armstrongism which we chronicle and discuss here.
They believe that the only things which are missing that Jesus and the Apostles had in abundance were the supernatural, miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. Some of these, they have attempted to fake over the years, such as healing, multiplication of food, and the gift of understanding prophecy. They mock others, such as the Pentecostals for substituting gibberish as a fake version of the gift of tongues. The truth is that agape is just as much a miraculous gift as the other more dramatic gifts. All of these other gifts are functions of, or automatic byproducts of agape. You cannot fake it by using will power to adhere to strict rituals, nor can you claim validation for the whole system because outsiders mock you for the sheer weirdness your church culture brings to your behavior.
The remnants in the ACOGs of today are people who failed to pick up on various checkpoints of their beliefs, the largest and most obvious of which was the disappointment of 1972-75. Many of the ministers and members mocked William Miller, and the Seventh Day Adventists, yet did worse than the followers of old William, who at least had the common sense to realize after gathering once more the following year that the date that had been set was neither accurate, nor imminent. It's just a shame, but in many ways, surrounding culture in the greater system in which we live has caught up with the same sorts of cultic belief and behavior as we witnessed as members of Armstrongism, many of us all those years ago when common sense was much more common.
BB
I cannot say that I am an expert on the topic of the practice of agape. But I have been an observer, up close, of the WCG and AC. I stewed in the AC environment for a while. I have held this view for years and feel it is still valid. Armstrongists do not relate to each other through love. They relate to each other through hierarchy. There may be the odd event involving love but the trend is interrelationship through hierarchy. In this regard, I believe that Armstrongist organizations closely resemble the Roman Catholic Church. Governance and lines of authority are preponderant. For this kind of an organization, love is not a pattern of behavior but an intrusion.
Woody Allen said that any form of government will work if it is based on love. I agree with that. But I also believe in the corollary that every form of government that is not based on love eventually becomes burdensome and oppressive as people become better at capitalizing on its self-serving features, which they will naturally do. Hierarchy is probably the right way to run the kitchen at AC for efficiency, but over-emphasis on organization counterworks love and eventually displaces it. When I was at AC it was a very cold organization with only a thin gloss of empathy for show.
The place where church hierarchy becomes the dread enemy of Christianity is in the relationship between the lay membership and God (1 Timothy 2:5). If those in the pulpit see themselves as the inviolable gate-keepers of that relationship, trouble ensues. If the lay member must go through the ministry to approach God or the ministry believes they can interdict that relationship at will, the ministry soon becomes god. And the priesthood of all believers, a doctrine from the Reformation, becomes the priesthood of the ministry and the separation of believers from God.
If someone in a denomination spouts love, this is the hermeneutical tool, I believe, that should be used to assess the validity of that message.
Scout
"An unselfish, outgoing concern for others, forgiving, kind, and caring," is the wolf talking to lambs, the fox talking to chickens. This is the ministers wet dream reaction from the members that they victimize. This way they escape accountability and don't have to fear retribution.
Btw, in ACOG culture, "unselfish" means it's immoral to desire anything, and ""outgoing concern" is unbiblical, and a moral and mental abomination. Among other things, it means always being on other people's side. So if others are on "their side" and you are on "their side," who is on "your side?" Here I am, paraphrasing from some "worldly" book. Which is why members are told to shun wicked outside books, and only read church literature.
I love you.........as long as you send in your money - tithes, including a third tithe which is totally fictional, not Biblical (it's "third year", not third tithe, you Harmstwrongites).
My experience in LCG was one of the “leading” ministers had decided outgoing love just meant having a noisy, outgoing personality. Kiddie diddling, got a pass. Being a pervert that stalked a certain type of women got a pass. But oh boy, better not have a reserved personality, or be at all introverted (even though he is). Spewing as many words per minute to as many people as possible was true Christianity.
It's hard to try and use that "love talk" as a facade, when their main focus is on the prophecy gospel. It's hard to love when they play identity prophecy politics.
See like BB mentioned, Love is that first fruit of the spirit, and the other fruits are linked to that love part. Later things like gentleness, kindness, peace..... are all connected to that first thing love. In my time in LCG, there were ministers and others that lacked that kindness and gentleness from what flowed out of their mouths comes from the heart (love).
Also, how can you have peace if you are like 70 years old as some of them are, and you are worried about Germany, Israel (the nation state).... and what's going to happen to these people or those people. Worried about this young man dating that woman who are in your organization but happen to be ethnically different. Focus on yourself.
Tank
Empathy was blatantly not part of the church.
Those who worked in the Church Offices regularly talked about hearing ministers stand around and joke about members' problems right after they came in for counseling.
Mockery and ridicule of members were an ongoing problem in the church. This was all due, as you pointed out above, to hierarchy or, in COGspeak, church government. Members were at the bottom of the pile and needed to be kept there.
I was telling a minister that it wasn't a good idea to start services at 3:00 pm in the middle of a busy metropolitan city, getting out of service at 6:00 at night, when you have older members in their late 60's and 70's trying to get home after service on a saturday night in heavy traffic. This minister was raising his voice at me after service. I wasn't in that age group, but I could see there was a need for change. If you show any empathy for others, you are shunned.
Mt 6:24a No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love [agapesei] the other;
2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved [agapesas] this present world...
“The verb agapao in itself does not necessarily imply a loftier love; it does so when the context makes this clear (on the other hand in 2 Tim. 4:10 Demas’s regrettable love for ‘the present age’ is expressed by agapao)” (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John, p.405).
14:23 and my Father will love [agapao] him
16:27 For the Father himself loveth [phileo] you
3:35 The Father loveth [agapao] the Son
5:20 For the Father loveth [phileo] the Son
11:5 Now Jesus loved [agapao] ... Lazarus.
11:3 behold, he whom thou lovest [phileo] is sick.
14:23 If a man love me [agapeo], he will keep my words:
16:27 because ye have loved [phileo] me,
“Agapao ...is used of divine love and usually carries the connotation of will or purpose as well as that of affection. Phileo implies affinity, friendship, and fondness. Both words represent a high aspect of love” (Merrill C. Tenney, John, EBC, Vol.9, p.201).
Jn 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved [agapao].
Jn 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved [phileo], and saith unto them...
"Barrett reminds us that the Beloved Disciple is several times called hon egapa and once hon ephilei (20:2) and proceeds, "it is highly improbable that there were two ‘beloved disciples', one loved in a rather better way than the other" " (Footnote, Leon Morris, John, NIVAC, p.770).
(1) Feed (basko) my lambs (arnion)
(2) Tend (poimaino) my sheep (probaton)
(3) Feed (basko) my sheep (probaton)
(Jn 21:15-17)
“N. Turner refers to John's regular use of "needless" synonyms in order to bring variety to his narratives. John has used two words for love, send, heal, ask, speak, do, feed, sheep, and know, and in most cases these variations seem to merely avoid monotony” (Gary M. Burge, John, NIVAC, p.588).
Post a Comment