Does The Feast Of Tabernacles Describe The Millennium As The COG Teaches?

The Feast of Tabernacles Does NOT Picture the Millennium!

In Pagan Holidays – or God’s Holy Days – Which? Herbert Armstrong wrote about the symbolism of the Feast of Tabernacles: “This festival is the picture of the Millennium!” Unfortunately, when Armstrong decided that Christians were obligated to observe the festivals outlined in the Pentateuch for the Israelites, he was not careful to follow scriptural hints regarding the deeper spiritual implications/meanings of the days. Since his death, a great many folks have challenged his understandings about the symbolism involved in some of the other holy days. Even so, Armstrong’s teachings about the meaning of the FOT still enjoy widespread acceptance within the Armstrong Churches of God culture.

The problem with Mr. Armstrong’s understanding of this feast was his slavish devotion to the notion that they pictured a progression of events within God’s plans for humankind. Hence, although he recognized the significance of the spring and fall harvests relative to these festivals, he failed to integrate that understanding with other scriptures related to both the symbolic meanings of certain rituals and the events themselves. “How can that be?” his devoted followers will demand.

In the booklet referenced at the beginning of this post, Armstrong wrote: “To portray His plan, God took the yearly material harvest seasons in ancient Israel as the picture of the spiritual harvest of souls. In the Holy Land there are two annual harvests. The first is the spring grain harvest. Second comes the main harvest. Notice that the Festival of Tabernacles is to be held ‘at the year's end’ (Ex. 34:22). In this verse the Festival of Tabernacles or Booths is specifically called the ‘feast of ingathering.’ The harvest year ended at the beginning of autumn. Just as Pentecost pictures the early harvest — this church age, so the Festival of Ingatherings or Tabernacles pictures the fall harvest — the great harvest of souls in the Millennium!”

The problem with this teaching is that it doesn’t agree with what is revealed about the timing of this great harvest of souls which is elaborated on in the book of Revelation! In the twentieth chapter of that book, we read: “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” – Revelation 20:4-5 Notice here that the first resurrection is clearly associated with the millennium. Continuing, we read: “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison…And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” – Revelation 20:7-13 Hence, we can clearly see that this great harvest of souls takes place AFTER the millennium, and AFTER Satan and his minions have been dealt with once and for all!

Moreover, Herbert Armstrong completely ignored the profound symbolism surrounding this festival which is recorded in the oft quoted twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, and which is further elaborated on quite extensively in the New Testament! I know that these arguments will have zero impact on the folks who have willingly swallowed the Armstrong Kool-Aid, but it is my hope that serious students of the Bible who are willing to take a second look might be persuaded by what is clearly revealed in Scripture regarding the symbolism of this festival.

In the book of Leviticus, we read: “Remember that this seven-day festival to the Lord – the Festival of Shelters – begins on the fifteenth day of the month, after you have harvested all the produce of the land…On the first day gather branches from magnificent trees – palm fronds, boughs from leafy trees, and willows that grow by the streams…For seven days you must live outside in little shelters. All native-born Israelites must live in shelters. This will remind each new generation of Israelites that I made their ancestors live in shelters when I rescued them from the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.’” (Leviticus 23:39-43, New Living Translation –here and throughout the rest of this article, unless otherwise noted)

Scripture indicates that the Israelites were told to live in temporary shelters each year for eight days so that they would not forget that they had lived in tents after leaving Egypt and before reaching the Promised Land. In the book of Hebrews, we read: “It was by faith that Abraham obeyed when God called him to LEAVE HOME (emphasis mine here and throughout) and go to another land that God would give him as his inheritance. He went without knowing where he was going. And even when he reached the land God promised him, HE LIVED THERE BY FAITH – for he was like a foreigner living in tents. And so did Isaac and Jacob, who inherited the same promise. Abraham was confidently looking forward to a city with eternal foundations, a city designed and built by God.” (Hebrews 11:8-10) In short, Abraham and his descendants were looking forward to a better and more permanent home.

A little further, we read: “All these people died still believing what God had promised them. They did not receive what was promised, but they saw it all from a distance and welcomed it. THEY AGREED THAT THEY WERE FOREIGNERS AND NOMADS HERE ON EARTH. Obviously, people who say such things are looking forward to a country they can call their own. If they had longed for the country they came from, they could have gone back. But they were looking for a better place, a heavenly homeland. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.” (Hebrews 11:13-16) Do we begin to see the connection to our own circumstances as Christians?

Like the Israelites of old, God has called us out of Egypt (this sinful society) and has led us out into the wilderness. (John 6:44) We are different and peculiar compared to the people around us. (I Peter 2:9) Like the Israelites, we are heirs of the promises made to Abraham. (Galatians 3:29) Finally, we are also like the Israelites in the sense that we too are looking for a Promised Land (the Kingdom of God). Like the patriarchs of old, we are truly strangers and pilgrims on the earth as it now exists – the one deceived and influenced by Satan the devil.

There is, however, another meaning to this symbolism that is less general and more personal. Although it is unpleasant to contemplate, each one of us has an appointment with death. (Hebrews 9:27) Somewhere in the back of our minds, all of us understand that this life that we are currently enjoying is temporary – it will not last forever (we are subject to time and chance). Paul once told the saints at Corinth, “that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.” (I Corinthians 15:50) He went on to tell them that “our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies.” (I Corinthians 15:53)

Sometime later, Paul wrote another letter to the Corinthians. He told them that the light of Christ was shining in their hearts, but he described that treasure as residing in fragile clay jars. (II Corinthians 4:7) He talked about how Christians must face many trials and perils because of their association with Jesus Christ, but that this had resulted in them having the hope of eternal life. (II Corinthians 4:8-15) He continued: “That is why we never give up. Though our bodies are dying, our spirits are being renewed every day. For our present troubles are small AND WON’T LAST VERY LONG. Yet they produce for us a glory that vastly outweighs them and will last forever! So we don’t look at the troubles we can see now; rather, we fix our gaze on things that cannot be seen. For the things we see now will soon be gone, but the things we cannot see will last forever.” (II Corinthians 4:16-18)

In other words, Paul understood that Christians are currently living in temporary shelters (human bodies), and that they are looking forward to the time when they will be living in a permanent home (spiritual bodies). In his second letter to the saints at Corinth, we read: “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.” (II Corinthians 5:1-4, KJV)

Peter also understood this concept. In addressing the saints toward the close of his ministry, he wanted to remind them about the truths which he had previously conveyed to them. He wrote: “Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.” (II Peter 1:13-14, KJV) Peter understood that this life is not permanent, and that he was going to die. He also knew that his present body could not inherit the Kingdom of God, and that he would have to shed that body and receive a new one in the resurrection.

As strangers and pilgrims in this world, Christians are looking to exchange a temporary home for a more permanent one (one that God has provided for us). Hence, for us, this is an important component of the symbolism of this Old Testament Festival.

And, finally, perhaps the most important component of this symbolism has to do with our relationship with Christ and Almighty God – the fact that Christ tabernacled with us in the past and will do so again someday with the Father! We read in the Gospel According to John that the “Word was made flesh and dwelt <tabernacled> among us.” – John 1:14, KJV Then, at the conclusion of all things, we are told in the book of Revelation: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.” - Revelation 21:1-3 I don’t know about you, but I think that this symbolism beats Armstrong’s teachings on the subject by a mile!

By Lonnie Hendrix

Church of God International Internal War Over COVID Continues

Delta Isolation

Facebook comment:

"This is what a luke warm church sounds like...sad to see a Church of God promoting the end time pharmakiea that deceives the nation's and makes the merchants of the world rich. 

Revelation is being fulfilled befor your eyes and you praise the beast that is rising. 

GOD help you when the False prophet and Lawless one arise."

CGI’s Civil War Continues!

The Church of God International recently posted another article by Jeff Reed about his personal experiences with Covid-19 on their website and on their Facebook homepage. In the article, Mr. Reed wrote: “I’ve been in isolation since testing positive for Covid last week. I am blessed to be vaccinated, so my symptoms were very mild. My God-given immune system had a blueprint for defeating this pathogen quickly. It felt like a head cold except less of an inconvenience. Head colds usually stay with me for up to two weeks, and this infection was gone in a day and a half. I continually praise God for His guidance and protection in my life. Understanding His Word can help us avoid and mitigate a lot of problems we face in life.”

He went on to share his reasoning for self-isolating: “I’m in isolation because it has been confirmed that a small percentage of vaccinated individuals can get mildly infected with the Delta variant and be contagious to others. I am one of those individuals, and I want to do all I can to protect those vulnerable to sickness and death. In the past few weeks, Covid has hit many hard in the Church of God. Many CGI congregations have also been affected.”

Readers will recall that Pastor Bill Watson’s Medina, Ohio congregation was hit particularly hard by the virus and has been at the center of the storm over Covid-19 within the church. In fact, the reaction to Mr. Reed’s last article was so negative from that direction (Ohio) that the elder decided to take a much softer and more humorous stance in this post.

He continued: “As an elder in the Church, I have no expertise or business giving anyone medical advice. We believe the choice to receive medical care or vaccination is solely left up to the individual. I did speak to a Church elder who is a medical professional, and his warning to the Church of God is to take this Delta variant seriously. It is very contagious and is spreading quickly among the unvaccinated population of our country.” This comment was followed by a retelling of the joke about the man in the house in the midst of a flood who refused the help of a jeep, boat and helicopter that God had sent to rescue him (all the time professing his faith that God would save him).

However, even with this softer voice and a touch of humor, the rancor from the other side was not restrained. The most virulent comments appeared on Facebook. One commentator wrote: “I am out, I have been following the Church of God International for over 25 years … God I pray for the Christ followers all over the world, to See what is happening. God bless” Another wrote: “Amen, I am not taking their shot!! I am almost 65 years old, praise God, If more would trust in god and put their faith and trust in him and his hands!! There would be no sicknesses or diseases!! Praise the Lord, he is the only truth, way and light in this dark world! He is the true life, unto man!! We are only passing through. With his blood covering us!! I praise you JESUS!! And I thank you for your protection!! Amen!!”

And, if those comments weren’t bad enough, there were many more in the thread that were even more egregious! One man wrote: “This is what a lukewarm church sounds like...sad to see a Church of God promoting the end time pharmakiea that deceives the nation's and makes the merchants of the world rich. Revelation is being fulfilled before your eyes and you praise the beast that is rising. GOD help you when the False prophet and Lawless one arise.” Another lady observed: “Read Psalm 91. God is our healer. One has no idea how they would have dealt with covid without the vaccine. Doctors have told me all my life there is nothing you can do for a virus but let it run its course. The vaccine is NOT stopping people from getting covid any more than mask wearing is.” And this one was priceless: “I THOUGHT THE SABBATH KEEPING CHURCHS OF GOD WERE INSTRUCTING BREATHEREN NOT TO TAKE MURDERED, WEE ABORTED BABYS TISSUES, /// VACINES INTO THERE BODYS.......” (Many of the spelling and grammatical errors were retained to demonstrate the level of the discourse on the topic).

Poor Jeff! My own thoughts and comments were a little different from the ones quoted above. The comments which I posted on CGI’s website were as follows:

“May God speed your complete recovery from the infection, and may He bless you for your care and concern for those around you. I very much enjoyed that joke you related - it has been around in various forms for many years, and the spiritual lesson is sound. Our faith must allow for whatever means God chooses to address our needs, and we must be willing to admit that God's help may not always arrive in the way that we expected it to appear. God's thinking is superior to ours, and we must not fall into the trap of trying to make/imagine Him in our own image (we are a reflection of Him, not vice versa).

Opinions are great - everybody has them, but truth is supreme! God expects Christians to be humble and care for each other. Moreover, as long as the laws and demands of human government do not contradict God's laws and will, the New Testament makes plain (Christ and Paul) that God expects His people to respect and follow those dictates. God also makes clear in Scripture that He expects His people to take care of themselves and exhibit proper care and concern for those around them.

Public health measures (vaccines, masks, distancing, cleaning) are designed to mitigate the impact of disease - not to curtail rights or freedoms. Moreover, our failure to follow that guidance may be symptomatic of attitudes that are inappropriate in a Christian (willfulness, rebellion, haughtiness). There are numerous things that governments do to protect their citizens from harm (like requiring them to stop, yield or wear seat belts when riding in a car). We can refuse to follow those directives, but a number of very negative consequences may follow (like citations, crashes, injury, or death).

You are to be commended for the good example which you have set in this matter - an example that is consistent with sound Christian theology and teachings. Likewise, Mr. Vance Stinson is to be commended for giving voice to your perspective. I hope and pray that ALL of our brothers and sisters in Christ will take note of these examples and follow them. May God continue to bless us and help us through this current scourge.”

At any rate, let’s hope that the common sense and Christian love exhibited by Mr. Reed and Mr. Stinson prevails in CGI. The physical and spiritual lives of their membership may depend on it!

Lonnie Hendrix

A Company Of Nations?

 

A Company of Nations

One of the linchpins of Herbert Armstrong's identification of the United States and Great Britain as the modern manifestations of Israel is found in the thirty-fifth chapter of the book of Genesis. The "prooftext" reads as follows: "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins..." (Genesis 35:11, KJV) For Armstrong, "a nation" implied the single greatest nation in the history of the earth (the United States), and "a company of nations" suggested a great commonwealth of nations led by Great Britain. For him and his followers, those promises could never have been fulfilled by any other nations in the history of the world!

Indeed, this verse continues to be the foundational "prooftext" for the Armstrong Churches of God up to the present day. In their article Does the United States Appear in Bible Prophecy?, the United Church of God underscores the fact that: "God specifically told Jacob that through him would come 'a nation and a company of nations' (Genesis 35:11)." They go on to point out that "The promise of national expansion beyond Canaan into a great nation and company of nations was never fulfilled in biblical times by the Israelites." According to the article, this promise devolved onto the two sons of Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh; and they go on to reference the forty-eighth chapter of Genesis (verse 19) to prove it. They conclude: "Descended from Ephraim was the group of nations that formed out of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, the British Empire...Out of this power came the British-descended countries of the Commonwealth of Nations—Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand." What of Manasseh? They conclude: "From Manasseh came the great single nation. Its people dwelt with the Ephraimites in Great Britain until it was time for their separation through westward colonization and a war for independence—the American Revolution, by which came the formation of the United States."

For the sake of this argument, we will overlook the license which they employ in their interpretation of greatness, and their complete dismissal of the fact that God's promises to the patriarchs were clearly tied to a particular piece of real estate in the Middle East (see Genesis 15). Instead, we will focus on those all important phrases in United's principal prooftexts (Genesis 35:11 and 48:19): "a company of nations" and "a multitude of nations" respectively.

First, it should be noted that these promises are directly/purposefully associated in Scripture with God's promises to make Abraham "fruitful" and to "multiply" him. In other words, whatever these promises entail, they are intimately connected to God's promise to make Abraham's descendants like the stars in the sky or the sands on the seashore in numbers.

Now, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew word translated into English as "company" is "qahel" - meaning "assembly, company, congregation, convocation" (especially in a religious context). In similar fashion, the same source informs us that the Hebrew word translated into English as "multitude" is "melo" - meaning "fulness, handful, mass, multitude." In both cases, the English word "nations" is a translation of a Hebrew word that means nations or peoples (especially Gentile ones). Hence, to suggest that the original Hebrew predicts a "commonwealth of nations" frankly stretches linguistic credibility to the breaking point!

In fact, the sense of the original Hebrew wording suggests an assembly of folks from all of the kindreds of the earth. In other words, the language used in these passages once again points to these promises finding their ultimate fulfillment in and through the Messiah (tying it back into the promise that all of the nations of the earth would be blessed through Abraham). Indeed, the English word "commonwealth" suggests a republic or a collection of republics - a much more narrowly defined connotation than that implied by the original Hebrew in these verses.

Is it possible then that these verses refer to Israel and all of the other peoples of the earth who will be saved through Jesus Christ? In fact, isn't that interpretation much more plausible than suggesting that the United States and British Commonwealth are the modern manifestations of Manasseh and Ephraim (especially in light of all of the historical, linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence which refutes such a conclusion)? Don't we really have to stretch the language in these verses (and their context) to make them identify the U.S. and Britain as Israel?

Lonnie Hendrix

The Irreconcilable Breach Between Sabbatarian Christians and Sunday Christians

 

Sabbatarian Christians vs Sunday Christians

In my last post, we established that there were two varieties of Christianity extant in the First Century - one which adhered to Jewish laws, rituals, and traditions and another which did not. We observed how Christ's original apostles and his brother James came to lead and represent the Jewish branch of the faith, and how Paul came to represent and lead the Gentile branch of the faith. We also looked at a great deal of evidence which suggested the presence of tensions (and even open hostility) between the two branches at various times. Nevertheless, although the question of whether an irreconcilable breach developed between the two camps was discussed in some of the commentary which followed that post's publishing on Banned by HWA, I felt that it would be instructive for many of the former and current Armstrongites who make up my audience to directly address that topic in another post.

For, while it may be clear that the arguments between Torah Christians and Sunday Christians began in the First Century, it may not be as clear to us exactly when the two perspectives diverged enough that they began to regard each other as not representing a legitimate variety of their shared faith in Christ. Today, of course, we take it for granted that Sunday Christians regard Sabbatarian Christians as heretical and vice versa; but our examination of the evidence in the previous post implies that that was not always the case. Moreover, tracing the historical origins of this breach has a much more practical application than merely satisfying our intellectual curiosity about it, we intuitively comprehend that a better understanding of those events will help us to clarify our own thinking on the subject and make us more tolerant of each other going forward.

For starters, it is critical that we understand that these two branches of the Christian faith arose as a natural consequence of its expansion - NOT as some grand Satanic conspiracy of the Roman emperor and church! It is indisputable that Christ, his apostles (including Paul) and the earliest Christians were Jewish (encompassing all that that designation suggests like circumcision, Sabbath and Holy Day observances, the Temple at Jerusalem, synagogues, clean and unclean meats, etc.). After the previous post in this series, it should also be apparent that Gentile Christians did not have this background, and that the overwhelming majority of them NEVER adopted those Jewish laws, rituals and traditions.

 

However, just as the accounts which we have in the Christian canon demonstrate the genesis of the two branches of the Christian faith and give us a window into some of the tensions and hostilities which developed between the two camps, they also demonstrate that most of these early Christians tried very hard to tolerate and accommodate each other. Hence, the question arises: When did the breach between these two branches of the Christian faith become irreconcilable?

In attempting to answer that question, most biblical scholars and students try very hard not to project our own experiences, views, and prejudices onto the people and events of the past. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we are often not successful in this regard.

At the end of my last post, I referenced a number of biblical scholars whom I believe have made significant contributions to our understanding of First Century Christianity. One of those scholars, a professor by the name of James Tabor (who was formerly associated with Armstrong's Ambassador College), was particularly helpful in summarizing many of the findings which some of our finest modern scholars have contributed to our understanding of this period of Christian history. Even so, in reviewing the same evidence, I also find myself in disagreement with some of Professor Tabor's answers to our question about the timing of the irreconcilable breach.

In his book Paul and Jesus, Tabor contended that the irreconcilable breach happened in the lifetime of the apostles (Paul, Peter, James and John). Tabor sets up his final chapter (The "Battle of the Apostles") with some remarks about Paul's views of the Torah. He concluded that "it should not surprise us that Paul ended up in a bitter struggle with Peter, James, and the original apostles, who claimed to faithfully carry on the message of Jesus." Tabor continued: "We have only Paul's side of that conflict, and his decisive break with Jerusalem is glossed over in Acts, but there is enough evidence still to piece together the story."

Is that true? Did Peter, James, and Paul end their lives as "bitter rivals" - as suggested by Tabor?

While my previous post suggests my broad agreement with the scholarly narrative about the differences which existed between the Jewish and Gentile varieties of early Christianity (and the eventual triumph of the Pauline Gentile variety), I do NOT believe that the evidence points to an irreconcilable break in the time of the apostles. Once again, both accounts of the Jerusalem Council (Acts and Galatians) reflect the fact that some kind of accommodation was reached between the two branches of the faith. Moreover, I don't buy Tabor's contention that Paul's theology was so radically different (in conjunction with the evidence provided by Paul's second epistle to the saints of Corinth and James more general epistle) that it eventually proved to be the death knell for that "understanding" reached at Jerusalem. In other words, while I believe that the evidence demonstrates tensions (which on occasion bubbled to the surface as open hostility) existed between Paul and the original apostles, I don't believe the evidence supports the proposition that those differences ever provoked a clean break between the apostles.

 

In terms of Tabor's assertions about just how radically different Paul's theology was from the Jerusalem apostles, an example will demonstrate my departure from Tabor's narrative. Tabor asserted that Paul's understanding of the Eucharist was very different from that of the Jewish apostles. According to him, the three earliest gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) derived their accounts of the Last Supper from Paul. He reasoned that, because Paul's account of the Last Supper in his first epistle to the saints at Corinth (see I Corinthians 10:16-21 and 11:23-20) predated the finished gospel accounts by ten to twenty years. it is clear that they derived their narratives from him.

For the sake of argument, we will set aside the fact that Tabor himself admits that those three gospel accounts were derived in part from earlier sources and focus instead on his "evidence" for an alternative narrative regarding the Last Supper. He pointed out that John's gospel didn't mention the bread and the wine in its narrative about that event, and that The Didache seems to present a different understanding of the symbolism surrounding those elements. Hence, in fairness to Tabor and the integrity of our search for the truth, we must examine both of these documents to ascertain whether or not they support his narrative about Paul's Last Supper.

First, while it is true that the gospel attributed to John does not include the elements of the bread and the wine in its account of the Last Supper (see John 13), we must not forget that "Paul's elements" are an integral part of this gospel's narrative. In fact, as part of the account of Christ's message to his disciples that evening, Jesus is said to have referred to himself as "the true grapevine" (see John 15:1-8, NLT). According to this account, he went on to tell them that "apart from me you can do nothing" (the clear implication being that Christ is the vine that makes their salvation possible). Moreover, we should also remember that using grapevines and their fruit in such a symbolic manner was not foreign to either Jews or Jewish Christians as Tabor seems to imply (see Genesis 49:11 and Revelation 14). But what about the bread?

Earlier in that same Gospel, we read that Christ declared: "I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:48-51, KJV) And, lest there be any doubt that John's gospel is placing the exact same language which Paul and the other gospels employed in Christ's mouth, the account continues: "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." (John 6:52-58, KJV)

 

What about The Didache? In the section of that document dealing with the Eucharist, we read: "Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." So, we clearly have the elements of the bread and wine included in this early "Jewish Christian" account of the teachings of the apostles.

 

Moreover, lest there be any doubt about the symbolism being tied to Jesus Christ, these instructions were followed by a Eucharist prayer to be used in Christian worship services. We read: "But after you are filled, give thanks this way: We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen." Hence, we can see that both John's gospel and The Didache employed the same kind of language and symbolism with regard to the Eucharist/Last Supper which Paul and the other gospels used in their accounts of those events.

 

Well, maybe they weren't as far apart in their theology as Tabor suggested, but what about the evidence he cited from Paul's second letter to the Corinthians and James' general epistle? Let's begin our evaluation of Professor Tabor's evidence by addressing Paul's second epistle to the saints of Corinth.

 

However, before we address the actual language of this second epistle to the Corinthians, I would like to remind my readers that Paul was not bashful about naming names in either his first epistle to the Corinthians (see I Corinthians 1:11-12) or his letter to the saints of Galatia. In fact, while expressing his anger over a similar situation (Jewish Christians trying to require his converts to observe the tenets of the Torah) at Galatia, Paul says that he had to confront Peter over his behavior. (see Galatians 2:11-14)Hence, as almost all biblical scholars acknowledge this second epistle to the saints of Corinth as one of the undisputed writings of the apostle, it seems odd that Paul never mentioned Peter, James and John in connection with his angry rant about "false" and "super" apostles. (see II Corinthians 11 and 12) Thus, while it is clear that the false apostles which he was referring to in this passage were Jewish Christians (see II Corinthians 11:22), it is also clear that Paul was employing hyperbolic language to defend his own apostolic office and authority. In other words, he was only interested in their claims in so far as they related to his own claims vis-à-vis the Corinthians. And, finally, if this is the evidence of a final split between the leading figures of the two branches of the Christian Church, we must insist that some explanation be forthcoming in relation to the fact that Paul was soliciting an offering on behalf of those Jewish Christians in the passages immediately preceding these. (see II Corinthians 9, NLT)

 

Now, we come at last to the epistle of James. First, it should be noted that most biblical scholars either attribute this writing to the brother of Jesus by that name, or some anonymous person writing in his name (and I concur with this conclusion). Hence, I would not dispute Tabor's assertion that this letter is connected to that leader of the Jewish Christians mentioned in the account of the Jerusalem Council recorded in the book of Acts. However, when the professor goes on to imply that the epistle's references to faith without works and controlling one's tongue was really directed at the apostle Paul, we are forced to ask where's the evidence for supposing this? After all, the author of the epistle states that he is addressing "the twelve tribes - Jewish believers scattered abroad." (see James 1:1, NLT)

In fact, it is here that Tabor's narrative about the breach demands the greatest leap of faith. He implies that James and Paul are being very careful to cover up their breach, and that other writers of the period have conspired to conceal the breach. I will simply state what others before me have observed: The claim of such an extraordinary conspiracy requires extraordinary proof! Following this line of reasoning, we are led to believe that the statement in the second epistle attributed to Peter was written to further this conspiracy. (see II Peter 3:15-16)

Finally, although the New Testament is devoid of any mention of the fate of these men, tradition informs us that Peter, James and Paul all suffered martyrdom as a consequence of their faith in Jesus Christ. Hence, while I accept much of Tabor's narrative about the differences between Paul's brand of Christianity and the one practiced by Peter and James, I simply do not believe that the evidence supports an irreconcilable breach between the men. While I see ample evidence of the tensions (and sometimes open hostility) between these men, I do not see the proof that they died enemies.

On the contrary, both from the perspective of the New Testament and the writings of the generations which followed them, it appears that the irreconcilable breach between the two branches of Christianity happened sometime after the deaths of these men. And, while I am confident that the Roman suppressions of the Jewish rebellions and subsequent persecution of them exacerbated the tensions and animosities which were already apparent between the two groups, it is clear to me that the thing most responsible for that final breach was a hardening of attitudes within the groups themselves. Over time, many of the folks within both camps simply decided that the folks in the other camp had strayed too far from the principles of their faith to continue to be regarded as brothers in Christ!

 

In this respect, Herbert Armstrong and his followers have been very much like the Jewish Christians still extant at the close of the First Century and the beginning of the Second Century. They have decided that they are keeping the flame of the "original" Christian Church alive, and that Protestants and Catholics are all apostates - not really Christians at all! Likewise, many Catholic and Protestant Christians see their Sabbatarian brethren in exactly the same light - heretics that cannot really be considered Christians!

However, after a careful examination of the evidence available to us, I am hopeful that modern Christians will take a page out of the playbook of those First Century Christians. I'm hopeful that the Christians of our day will remember a time when Jewish and Gentile Christians not only tolerated each other, but also sought to accommodate each other's practice of their shared faith in Jesus Christ. What do you think?


***I know that this is a long treatise, but James Tabor did write an entire book on the subject! Moreover, I don't think that anyone who is truly interested in the subject will mind the longer post (and I am willing to discuss the thesis presented here in even more detail for those who may be interested in doing so). Thank you for your time and attention!***  

By Lonnie Hendrix

Quietly Dismissing Herbert Armstrong

 

ARMSTRONGISM 2021

 

Although folks like Gerald Flurry and David Pack have embraced Herbert Armstrong, many of the descendants of the Worldwide Church of God NEVER mention his name. They like to pretend that Herbert Armstrong and/or Garner Ted Armstrong have/had absolutely NOTHING to do with them. They continue to adhere to and preach many of their doctrines, but they act as if they have derived their teachings directly from the pages of the Bible. In effect, they have chosen to deal with the sordid history of their movement by pretending that it all never happened, or that they have somehow moved beyond those men and their failures.

It’s like saying that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had/have NOTHING to do with the United States of America! It’s like saying that Karl Marx had/has NOTHING to do with Communism in the Twenty-First Century, or that Colonel Sanders had/has NOTHING to do with Kentucky Fried Chicken! To be fair, Armstrongism isn’t the first religious movement to attempt to put some distance between themselves and their founder (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Charles Russell or Anglicans and King Henry VIII).

For groups like the United Church of God and Church of God International who claim to have moved beyond their founder’s failures, when pressed, they will almost always identify issues of government, administration and/or character as the principal failures of the founders of the movement (and the things which they have “corrected”). Unfortunately, even in these “liberal” organizations, the “core teachings” of Armstrongism are defended and preserved. And, while most of the critics of the movement would acknowledge problems in all of those areas, the elephant in the room is the flawed THEOLOGY of Herbert Armstrong. In other words, to pretend as if there is absolutely nothing amiss with those teachings is ABSURD!

Sure, we all understand how hard it is to invest so much of one’s life and energy in something that turns out to be a major mistake. The potential damage to our ego/psyche/sense of self-worth is frightening, and we are not without other examples of this very real phenomenon that all longtime Armstrongites have faced (or avoided facing). On the secular side, a great many Americans continue to support Donald Trump because the prospect of dealing with the consequences of admitting that they made such a major error in judgement are simply too horrific to entertain – let alone admit! Hence, it is much easier to live in a fantasy world that denies or ignores where the REAL problems lie. Sorry folks, whether or not you’re willing to confront them, the ghosts of Herbie and Ted continue to haunt everything you do!

Lonnie Hendrix

 

Letter to Bill Watson: "Can’t Say He Didn’t Try!"

BANNED COMMENT: The above picture is by us snarky jerks here at Banned, not Lonnie. That being said, what you will read below in the comments by Bill Watson is the most appalling mess of lofty elitist points of view which are filled with a condescending demeanor that drips with self-righteousness. This is exactly why so many church members refuse to counsel with ministers in the church. Never once does Watson exemplify a Christlike attitude or even mention the guy. It's all about himself and his lofty words. No COG minister is preaching with as much gusto and truth than Watson is doing. CGI wonders why they loose members, this is why! The Jamaica CGI should count their blessings they are so far away from Watson! Ian Boyne would be appalled at what is happening!

Can’t Say He Didn’t Try!

As an outgrowth of the recent skirmish in CGI over what constitutes an appropriate Christian response to Covid-19, I decided to reach out to Bill Watson in an attempt to reach some kind of understanding or accommodation regarding some of his more extreme messaging of the last few years. And, while that effort was sincere and intended to be private, the response which I received has prompted me to share part of that correspondence with a wider audience. I do so to graphically demonstrate what appears to be a common reaction of Armstrong Church of God leaders to anyone who disagrees with them or has the audacity to challenge them on some point. In the interest of full disclosure, the quotations which follow are accurate and complete representations of everything in that correspondence; but I have reserved the right to keep private anything which specifically referenced or involved my own family.

My letter to Pastor Watson opened with this paragraph:

“For several years now, I have chosen to confront your messaging from a distance. Recent events, however, have compelled me to reach out to you personally. I have a number of fond memories of my acquaintance with you and <wife> from thirty-five years ago, but I have watched with some dismay now for a number of years as you have drifted into what I consider to be some very extreme views. In particular, I'm referring to your very vocal stances on political and cultural issues. I remember a time when you preached the gospel and liked to discuss spiritual topics, but it seems that for these past ten years or so you have become increasingly focused on political and cultural themes.”

Likewise, the final paragraph from my letter to him reads as follows:

“In short, I'm asking you directly to be more cognizant of the fact that not everyone will agree with you. Moreover, that disagreement does not automatically make them bad or evil. My support for masks and vaccines does not make me a socialist … I am hoping that we will be able to reach some kind of understanding and equilibrium going forward. Contrary to what you may think, I derive no joy from publicly opposing you ... I'm not suggesting that you change your opinions or beliefs - I'm wondering, however, if you would be willing to acknowledge that the pulpit may not be the best forum for all of them? If so, you would never have to worry about another public challenge from me.”

What follows are some excerpts from Pastor Watson’s reply to my outreach to him:

“I too, have some "fond" memories of you out at Gargus Hall with Greg Sargent and Robly Evans and so many others. You were quite the ‘ideal teen example’ back then––a lot of people had high hopes for you. But, to my dismay as well, over the years the ‘unfortunate truth’ of your dysfunction, struggles, and confusion caused you to drift into some dysphoria that sadly, messed with your sexual orientation. The disappointment of those that mentored you when you were young––would today, be devastating to them if they only knew how far you have drifted and abandoned the God you once knew so well.

I'm not sure as to just what recent events compelled you to reach out to me as you claim, but I'm stunned as to how ‘myopic’ you perceive my subject material to be. I'm…probably one of the more prolific topical presenters, comparably speaking within the C. of G. culture…and if you can lay your bias down about things you're at odds with me, you will see the variety of subject materials I cover are just exactly what you said I use to preach on, which you said was about the gospel and spiritual subjects––and I submit to you, I haven't Changed a bit on the varieties of topics I address! This is why it is hard to reason with you because you are in such a ‘closed minded, mind set’––a very stubborn man––and you're not honest with me, yourself, or your family…

Lonnie you speak from a lofty elitist point of view with a condescending demeanor that drips with self-righteousness. I am stunned that regardless of whether you accept the God of the Bible anymore or not…”

In most of the next two paragraphs, Pastor Watson tells me that I should be “happy” that my family members are still involved in Armstrongism,

Continuing with Mr. Watson’s reply:

“But sadly, those that don't see the hand of God in the lives of their loved ones are still entangled in the aberrant dysfunction of the generational curses of the family they're in––and Lonnie that is clearly and sadly pointing right at you!” 

More of the same

“So, getting back to your ‘conversation’ about your apprehensions and concerns––and the bias described in your second-last paragraph and the appeal outlined in your last paragraph–– all I can say Lonnie is shame on you for using me to deflect from your own ‘personal intimacy issues and ‘emotional dysfunctions’ in your own life. My positions on the ‘policies’ of the day within the geopolitical realm we operate in means nothing in this grand scheme of the Hendrix family curse. And Lonnie, it's up to you––that's right––you are accountable to determine what your going to do about your family issues…not to mention your own family challenges that continue, due to patterns that repeat so cycles ‘stay in play.’

Lonnie, stop the foolishness. Chasing me and attempting to undermine my ministry will only serve to embarrass and insult yourself and reveal who you really are. You have no moral ground to stand on predicated on the Bible (Rom. 1:24-25 & 26-32). My positions within the political arena, though they deal with ‘policy,’ not party politics––never-the-less, remains only a distraction between us. It helps you to cope with the Hendrix family curses by obfuscation. The real issues you need to face are the confused and aberrant intimacy dysfunctions within your own tabernacle Lonnie––that is where the demons lie––deep in those insecurities. The question is do you have the courage to face them in all their rotten, smelly, and perverted forms, taking them on to break the family curses these demons have plague your families for centuries––do you have the courage to change the patterns and break into new cycles?” 

 

After some more familial advice, he concluded his letter by telling me to

“get on with your life and do some good, as opposed to being an accuser of the brethren and your family, which you are doing every time you make an effort to spin me in some Satanic way that makes you feel good. Lonnie, you'll only continue to play into the hands of the devil and that is a dangerous game to play! I pray for you Lonnie. But, you really need to stop deflecting and grow up and face the dysfunction, anger, and disappointment in your life; only then will you be set free from the bonds you refuse to let go of.”

Other than affirming my continued belief in the God of the Bible and my undiminished love for my family, I will not offer any assessments of my own with respect to the relative merits of my original outreach or Mr. Watson’s reply. I am content to let our readers evaluate our messages and reach their own conclusions about them. However, whatever conclusions you reach about this correspondence, I think that this is a classic example of how Armstrongites have responded to their critics for the last eighty years. What do you think?

--Miller Jones or Lonnie Hendrix

Church of God International's Civil War Over Covid-19

 

CGI’s Civil War Over Covid-19

Heretofore, the loudest voices in the Church of God International have minimized the pandemic, disputed the numbers and the science, hinted at hoaxes and conspiracy theories and ridiculed public health measures instituted by local, state and federal governments across the United States. In The International News (Summer 2020 edition), Mike James wrote an article entitled “No Need to Panic Over This Pandemic.” And, after going through the numbers from other historical plagues, he declared “this present virus is not as significant.” Another article by James in the same paper decried the fact that humans themselves are causing these pandemics and warned that bigger plagues are on the way.

In the next edition of their paper (Fall 2020), Pastor Bill Watson wrote: “thousands of convicted felons are being released from prison under the guise of ‘jeopardy to their health,’ due to the Chinese Communist Party’s virus (CCP virus). And California Governor Gavin Newsome has recently reversed his opening of the state and began to close down bars, gyms, restaurants, and churches across California again! All of this is an effort to continue keeping the state and, by extension, the nation, from restarting its economies.” And, in open defiance of the folks in Tyler, Mr. Watson hosted his own Feast of Tabernacles in Medina (mask-wearing was optional).

In a May 2020 “Coronavirus Special Report,” Mr. Watson attributed the virus to a decision by the Obama Administration to give a grant to a virology lab in Wuhan China (the clear implication being that the virus originated in that lab). Indeed, a large part of Mr. Watson’s presentation was concerned with blaming the virus on China (what that contributed to our fight against the virus was never explained). As usual, Mr. Watson’s sources were the standard right-wing outlets like Fox News and Breitbart. Like James, Watson went on to compare the current pandemic to the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. He even questioned whether or not Covid-19 was responsible for all of the deaths attributed to it, and then said that the chances of dying from the virus were minimal and did not justify the measures taken to fight its spread. He went on to suggest that the impact of the virus was being exaggerated to hurt Donald Trump’s chances for reelection. In other remarks on the pandemic, Mr. Watson openly ridiculed mask-wearing and fumed about how it was infringing upon his freedom.

Finally, however, someone in CGI had the intestinal fortitude to push back against Mr. Watson’s war on the science related to the pandemic. In a May 25, 2021 post entitled “Pandemic Lies,” Mr. Jeff Reed wrote: “In the past year, we have seen many new lies originate and spread regarding the coronavirus pandemic. In my life, I have never witnessed this amount of widespread deception spread so quickly. The pandemic was a unique situation in that none of us were prepared for it, and many became so easily deceived. The danger in believing these new lies is that they could lead to your immediate death or the death of someone close to you. For many thousands, they unfortunately have. Satan is a deceiver, and he loves death.”

Mr. Reed went on to cite the horrible statistics associated with the virus and pushed back on the narrative that those death tolls had been “overly inflated.” In fact, he went on to make a compelling case that the death toll from Covid-19 has actually been underreported. And, on a note of optimism about the future, Mr. Reed remarked: 

“As I write this, there is hope that things will soon return to normal. God allowed one of the most outstanding scientific achievements in modern history. Humanity developed several highly effective coronavirus vaccines in the last year using new technologies. Two prominent mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna distributed in the United States have proven safe after hundreds of millions of doses.” 

 

Even so, there was immediate push back from the Bill Watson camp within the church. One commentator even pushed the now thoroughly discredited hydroxychloroquine as a potentially effective treatment for the virus. Indeed, my own nephew (who attends Bill’s congregation) suggested that the Pfizer vaccine had caused his father-in-law’s recent stroke! This, despite the fact that his father (my brother) and his fiancée (who also attend with Bill Watson’s congregation) are currently battling Covid-19! He went on to write: “Jeff, this article is only going to serve to divide the church even more. I received no edification from it but had what I know to my core attacked by it. I disagree with what you have said whole heartedly. Do you think Satan can’t influence information put on a government website? He can, he does, and he will. As your brother, I am offended completely by what you’ve said.”

Unfortunately, if past remarks and the present commentary on Mr. Reed’s post are any indication of what’s to come, my nephew is probably right about the division within the church. It appears that members of CGI currently have two options relative to the pandemic: Support Bill Watson’s narrative or keep your mouth shut! Hope springs eternal though, someone in Tyler did have the intestinal fortitude to post Mr. Reed’s remarks on their website!

For those who are interested in viewing Mr. Reed’s post in its entirety, you may do so here: Pandemic Lies

Miller Jones

 

Dave Pack, the Church of God and Willful Ignorance

 

Banned by HWA recently posted some commentary on a video produced by Dave Pack which purports to definitively answer the question: Does God Exist? In fact, Mr. Pack's video is only one of many offerings from the ACOG's on this topic - The founder of the movement, Herbert W Armstrong was the first of this tribe to discourse on the subject.

The problem with these offerings is that they almost always rely on false science - bits and pieces of real science which ignore anything that might contradict the point they are trying to make. This is often called confirmation bias in the real world. What is confirmation bias? According to Psychology Today, "Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it. Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t perceive circumstances objectively. We pick out those bits of data that make us feel good because they confirm our prejudices. Thus, we may become prisoners of our assumptions."

This phenomenon is closely related to the concept of willful ignorance. In defining the term, Urban Dictionary tells us: "The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs. This practice is most commonly found in the political or religious ideologies of 'conservative' Americans. Many times it is practiced due to laziness--people not wanting to have to do the work to rethink their opinions, the fear of the unknown, the fear of being wrong, or sometimes simply close-mindedness." In this connection, it is interesting to note that the author of the Second Epistle of Peter denigrated those who are "willingly" ignorant (see II Peter 3:5).

However, this kind of ignorance is not the exclusive property of Armstrongites or Christians in general. Unfortunately, it also very often afflicts the atheists and intellectuals who are fond of pointing out the cognitive dissonance and outright hypocrisy of their religious counterparts! Very often, these folks ridicule or dismiss the concept of FAITH (which should be the real basis of the true Christian's belief in things Divine).

And most students of the Bible know that the best definition of faith is found in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. As with many things biblical, however, the flowery old King James English sometimes gets in the way of comprehending the real import of what is being said. Please allow me to paraphrase those critical first three verses of the chapter: "Faith demonstrates the reality which underscores our hope - it is our EVIDENCE for the things that we cannot perceive or evaluate by the exercising of our human senses. Our forbearers shined through the expression of their faith (and we should not devalue their contributions to our understanding of these things). Faith is our tool for understanding that God created everything out of things which are also not readily perceived through our five human senses - it allows us to conclude that God is the source of all things without having all of the physical evidence at our disposal to reach that conclusion based entirely on our own observations." (see Hebrews 11:1-3)

It makes me sad when folks attempt to negate or dismiss things which they don't understand (and don't demonstrate any inclination/desire/willingness to understand). Unfortunately, most of us reach conclusions about things based on varying degrees of research and consideration (often little to none), and then we are finished with it. We have proven our belief(s) to our satisfaction, and everyone else be damned! The problem with this should be obvious to everyone. When we are no longer willing to explore and learn, when we close ourselves off to the possibility that others may be right (and we may be wrong), we have taken the path of willful ignorance. Is it really so terrifying to admit that we don't know something? Is God finite or infinite? Is God contained? Is God finished? What is the origin of our ability to learn? Can God learn? Can God grow? Is ignorance bliss? What do you think?

Lonnie Hendrix/Miller Jones

CGI Is Competing With Pack, Flurry & Theil For Most Crazy!

CGI IS COMPETING WITH PACK, FLURRY & THIEL FOR MOST CRAZY!


The obsession of two of the leading pastors of the Church of God International with right-wing politics and conspiracy theories is clearly pushing that group into the “Bat Shit Crazy” category (Gary may soon be forced to add them to his poll). Recent sermons by Adrian Davis and Bill Watson have been literally chocked-full of warnings about folks on the left as socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals, Jewish elites, Black Lives Matter supporters and pedophiles. In fact, listening to some of their most recent sermons one might conclude that the fall of the United States is imminent if Joe Biden and the Democrats are swept into power in the rapidly approaching U.S. election!

In his most recent sermon, Pastor Davis declared that no matter who wins the election “America is gone…It’s just a matter of time – It’s just how quickly America will collapse.” He went on to say that America is already gone as an idea, and that the communist takeover is almost complete! He goes on to suggest that anyone who supports those wicked globalists and communists is in reality worshipping Satan! Pastor Davis proceeds to decry the “beautiful rhetoric” of the Left about coming together to solve problems and helping the disadvantaged. He then goes on to attack those who have advocated for a more serious and sober approach to handling the Covid19 pandemic. Pastor Davis believes that those who are advocating for global cooperation in instituting scientific health measures to protect folks are pushing fear. He says the coronavirus is contagious, but not very lethal. He points to Donald Trump’s quick recovery from the virus as proof of his point. Davis then proceeds to denigrate anyone who would deign to find fault with what happened to George Floyd. After that rant, the good pastor returns to his attack on those nasty advocates of social distancing and mask wearing – even injecting a right-wing video to buttress his attack! And, if you think I’m making up stuff about poor Pastor Davis, then just listen to the sermon for yourself (if you have the stomach)...Mask and You Shall Receive

In his most recent sermon, Pastor Watson calls out those “self-proclaimed” socialist Democrats: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Like his preferred president (Trump), the fact that none of these individuals is the current standard bearer of the Democratic Party makes no difference to him! He proceeds to decry just how much America has changed in his lifetime – things like two homosexuals being able to marry each other! Pastor Watson also spends a great deal of time defending his obsession with politics - often pointing to the moral implications of issues like abortion and transgender rights. He says that folks on the left want to replace the U.S. Constitution with a socialist platform. Watson proceeds to decry professional athletes taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem at sporting events. And, if that isn’t bad enough, Mr. Watson is outraged by the fact that Ohio has recently instituted a mask wearing mandate because of Covid19. The gall of these folks to interfere with his rights! For Pastor Watson, masks don’t make sense, and he glories in the fact that the mandate exempts him as a pastor. “America!” he declares, “Freedom to travel…freedom to breathe fresh air!” Mr. Watson is paranoid about the collection of data. He sees dark conspiracies at work everywhere. He decries the fact that we are “quarantining the healthy.” Watson says he has no problem with folks wearing masks, just don’t force him to wear one! Later, he launches into a diatribe about a socialist platform and suggests that these folks are coming for your guns and are going to take away your right to vote. Once again, you don’t have to take my word for it – If you can stomach the message, you can view it in its entirety here:  The Black Robe Regiment

Now, while I’m confident that these rants will appeal to a great many of the supporters of Donald Trump, I do not think that they have much to with proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, if one is truly trying to reach the broadest possible audience with that message, how do you think an extremely partisan message will accomplish that? I have no idea how much of the leadership and membership of the Church of God International actually subscribes to these extreme views – hopefully not many of them. However, by providing a platform for these views, we are forced to conclude that that organization has clearly gone off the rails!


Miller Jones / Lonnie Hendrix

The Living Dead

 

The Living Dead

By

Lonnie Hendrix/Miller Jones

 

Those who leave the Armstrong Churches of God (or are disfellowshipped) are often regarded by those who remain as the living dead. It is like the two hunters who shoot a deer and watch it continue to run for a few more feet. “He’s already dead,” one hunter comments. “Yep, he just doesn’t know it yet,” the other agrees.

A person who was formerly regarded as a friend and brother suddenly becomes persona non grata. Last Sabbath, he was one of God’s saints; and, today, he is the servant of Satan. Oh sure, some of the saints have convinced themselves that it is an act of love to reject the person. They tell themselves that they have rejected this person for their own good, so that they will repent and come back into the fold. Never mind, that that almost never happens.

“I still believe in Jesus Christ,” is not accepted. “I haven’t left God’s Church,” doesn’t work either. “No man has the authority to remove me from God’s Church or rescind my salvation,” falls on deaf ears.

It’s like the farmer who happens up on an overturned car full of used car salesmen and proceeds to dig a hole and bury vehicle and all. “Were any of them still alive?” an incredulous bystander asks him. “Well,” the farmer replies, “a couple of them said they were still alive, but you know you can’t believe a word those people say!”

And it’s especially wrenching when one leaves behind family members – when the person doing the shunning is a parent, spouse, child or sibling. To say that it is hurtful or soul-destroying to come to the realization that you aren’t as important to your loved one as the Church, doesn’t seem to do justice to the emotion that the one who has been abandoned is feeling. On the other side, the thinking is something like this: “I might as well get used to doing without them – After all, they’re NOT going to be in God’s Kingdom!”

If it wasn’t so heartbreaking, one would be tempted to laugh at the twisted reasoning, and the perversion of love. But it is sad - extremely sad. And too many people have experienced this pain.