LCG: When Ministers Have Opinions, They're Doctrine. When Members Do, It's Satanic Rebellion!

Our Opinions vs. Christ's Mind: Apparently, God Has an Opinion Department, and Doug Winnail Runs It!

Douglas Winnail of the Living Church of God has apparently decided that one of Christianity's greatest problems is people expressing their opinions. In his recent "Have A Happy Sabbath" missive titled "Our Opinions vs. Christ's Mind," Winnail warns readers against saying things like "Here's how I see it" or "Here's what I think." According to his reasoning, expressing disagreement with church leadership can be spiritually dangerous, and he helpfully reminds everyone that Satan may be lurking behind those who dare to question the decisions of the ministry.

Well, isn't that convenient! Apparently, the devil has found a particularly effective way to attack Armstrongism: allowing members to develop independent thoughts.

Winnail invokes Moses, Peter, Isaiah, Solomon, and Paul to make his case that Christians should be careful about expressing their opinions. He reminds readers that God's thoughts are not our thoughts and that Christians should develop the mind of Christ rather than promote their own opinions. That sounds wonderfully spiritual until one asks a rather inconvenient question: Whose interpretation of Scripture is Douglas Winnail presenting?

His own, of course!

Every sentence in his article represents an interpretation of Scripture, a personal theological conclusion, and an opinion about how Christians should behave. He has selected particular passages, connected them to his preferred understanding of church authority, and presented that interpretation as a spiritual lesson for everyone else. Yet somehow he never pauses to ask whether his own conclusions might simply be another man's opinion.

Apparently, the ministry gets a special exemption from the very warning it issues to everyone else. Members must suppress their opinions, but evangelists are free to publish theirs in church literature and call them the mind of Christ. What a marvelous arrangement!

This is hardly a new problem in Armstrongism. Herbert W. Armstrong established a religious culture in which the ministry was expected to teach the official line, members were expected to accept it, and independent examination could quickly become evidence of a rebellious attitude. Ambassador College was supposed to train ministers, but its institutional culture emphasized loyalty to Armstrong's teachings and the approved doctrinal system. Whatever theological education individual ministers possessed, the larger environment left little room for openly challenging the established interpretations coming from headquarters.

Ministers learned to speak with enormous confidence, even when discussing subjects on which Christians and biblical scholars have disagreed for centuries. They were supplied with sermons, articles, outlines, and approved explanations. The congregation was expected to listen, take notes, and understand that the ministry had already done the thinking for them. Critical examination was not exactly encouraged when it threatened the established hierarchy.

And look where that system has led!

Armstrongism has fractured into a collection of competing organizations, each claiming to preserve, restore, or correctly understand the teachings of Herbert Armstrong. The Living Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, the improperly named "Continuing" Church of God, Intercontinental Church of God, and numerous smaller groups all emerged from the same theological family tree. Their leaders have frequently disagreed over doctrine, prophecy, church government, biblical interpretation, and who supposedly possesses the authority to speak for God.

One would think that after producing so many competing interpretations, Armstrongist ministers might develop a little humility about the limitations of their own understanding. Instead, they continue to lecture everyone else about the dangers of having opinions!

The irony is blatant. The very splintering Winnail's warning about independent opinions should remind him of the movement's own history. These organizations did not appear because everyone agreed with everyone else. They emerged because ministers disagreed, developed competing interpretations, and became convinced that their particular understanding was the correct one. Each leader apparently discovered that the other fellow's opinions were dangerous while his own were divinely inspired.

Herbert Armstrong had his opinions. Garner Ted Armstrong had his. Gerald Flurry has his. Bob Thiel certainly has his. Mark Armstrong has his. And Douglas Winnail has his. The difference is that each man's opinions are packaged as authoritative biblical understanding when they happen to serve his particular organization.

But let a church member express a different interpretation, question a minister's decision, or point out a contradiction, and suddenly we are warned about divisiveness, rebellion, and Satan's influence.

There is another serious problem with Winnail's use of Scripture. The examples he selects do not establish that questioning religious leadership is inherently wrong. Numbers 16 describes a particular rebellion against Moses, while Matthew 16 records Peter misunderstanding Jesus' mission. Neither passage gives modern church ministers unlimited authority or establishes that disagreement with them is evidence of satanic influence. In fact, Peter's rebuke of Jesus demonstrates the danger of human misunderstanding, not a blanket prohibition against questioning religious authorities.

The New Testament repeatedly encourages believers to examine what they are taught. The Bereans were commended for examining the Scriptures to determine whether Paul's message was true (Acts 17:11). Paul instructed Christians to test everything and hold fast to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He even warned believers not to accept a different gospel simply because someone presented it with impressive religious credentials (Galatians 1:8).

Imagine that! The apostles actually encouraged independent examination rather than demanding unquestioning loyalty to an ecclesiastical hierarchy.

And perhaps that is precisely what makes Winnail's little article so revealing. He quotes Scripture about developing the mind of Christ but seems far less interested in the New Testament's insistence that Christians examine teachings for themselves. The mind of Christ is apparently something best obtained by agreeing with the ministry.

There is a fundamental difference between humility before God and unquestioning submission to religious officials. Christians should certainly be humble, careful, and willing to correct their own mistakes. But humility does not mean surrendering one's conscience to a minister, and spiritual maturity does not mean turning off one's ability to think critically.

If Douglas Winnail genuinely wants people to stop promoting human opinions, perhaps he should begin by examining the enormous collection of human opinions that constitutes Armstrongism itself. Perhaps the ministry could start acknowledging that its interpretations are not automatically God's thoughts simply because they appear in a Living Church of God publication.

Until then, his warning sounds less like an appeal to develop the mind of Christ and more like another familiar Armstrongist reminder that the ministry does the interpreting while everyone else does the listening.

The real question isn't whether Christians should promote their own opinions. It is why Armstrongist ministers seem to believe that their opinions are somehow exempt from the very criticism they so eagerly direct at everyone else.

Apparently, when a church member says, "Here's what I think," it may be Satan talking. When Douglas Winnail says it, it becomes a church publication.

What a wonderful arrangement. One might almost think the whole thing was designed to protect the ministry from having to answer uncomfortable questions!

------------

Our Opinions vs. Christ’s Mind

How many times have you heard or made comments like “Here’s how I see it” or “Here’s what I think”? All too often, these comments are made about people in leadership and the decisions they make—even in the Church. Moses was criticized by men who held different opinions (Numbers 16:1–11), and Peter differed with Jesus and even rebuked Him (Matthew 16:21–23). In both cases, the critics failed to recognize Satan as the real source of their negative and divisive attitudes.

         Before we share our opinions, we need to remember that God warns, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways” (Isaiah 55:8). As Christians, our focus should be on developing godly perspectives that reflect the mind of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:5). Long ago, Solomon wrote, “A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back” (Proverbs 29:11). Before we make a comment, it is good to ask ourselves, Am I promoting my own opinion or does my comment reflect the mind of Christ? —Douglas S. Winnail