We MUST all speak the SAME thing! (and why that's insane)

How much mental, emotional and spiritual energy is spend by the various splinters of WCG , and back in the day, WCG itself, trying through whatever means possible to get everyone "on track", "on board", "of the same mind," "unified," and "all one army we, one in hope and doctrine, one in charity"?

(I hate that song)

Way too much...

I Corinthians 1

¹⁰ Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

This is just not the way life works when two or three are gathered together.  All speaking the same thing with no differences of opinion, view, experience, perspective or personal needs as their own life story unfolded is simply not possible nor desirable.  Differences or "divisions" is the stuff of life.  Like walking, which is merely a controlled crash, differences of thought are what makes progress and increases knowledge. Differences get us where we are going. In all my life I NEVER knew of a group of humans beings all "perfectly jointed together in the same mind and same judgment."  That is by definition a cult and a form of insanity. 

Every week as a pastor, I was suppose to be the glue that held the differences together. If I failed, it was said the church or "the people" were divided.  I was expecting everyone to all believe the same one thing and do it perfectly because, after all, that's what the scripture said. The above scripture is not a formula for unity, harmony and coherent belief.  It the formula for emotional, intellectual and spiritual disaster in the lives of those who believe that is the goal.  It may be a group goal but rest assured, it is the singular goal of the man in charge who wants everyone else to see, hear, touch, taste and smell the world as he does.  How you do is wrong, inappropriate , divisive  and why "disfellowshipping" or "dis-membering" was invented by clergy in the day.

What the Apostle Paul meant was..."

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, (and mine because Christ won't be correcting me on this one) that ye all speak the same thing, (which I believe and teach you) and that there be no divisions among you; (because that won't achieve my goals for you and church growth)but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (as defined and approved of by me so I can be right and get what I need and want from you.)

I know I pick on Paul a lot, but the boy deserves it at times.  It was Paul who threw a hissy fit and tantrum when people didn't all believe or speak the same things he came up with...

Galatians 1:

⁶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (That other Gospel was the Jewish Christian view held by Peter, James and John). 

⁷ Which is not another; (ok, it's not all that different but it's twisted from mine) but there be some that trouble you, (Jewish Christians like you know who) and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

⁸ But though we, (I) or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we (I) have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Even though I am also known for saying, when cursed we bless-I Cor. 4:12)

⁹ As we (I) said before, so say I (See I told you it was me telling you),  now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

¹⁰ For do I  now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Umm..yes you do and didn't you say somewhere...

I Corinthians 9:

¹⁹ Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. ²⁰ To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. ²¹ To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.²² To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. ²³ I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

I recall somewhere it warns us that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.  The above is a lot of double minded thinking and one can NEVER know what a man actually believes personally with this kind of behavior as a way to "win others to Christ."

So truth for Paul depended when trying to get followers..  When talking to the church he demanded compliance of thought and sameness of belief.  When to those not of the church he was more swoozy, duplicitous and double minded in his approach.  We see that in Acts where Paul was told to apply the Acts 15 judgments to the Church , and he didn't really and to show he wasn't really making light of the law of Moses , when he did.  The reality of James, Peter and John concerning Jesus was not the same reality as that of Paul.  

We saw that in Herbert Armstrong.  HWA could get livid with the church and quote Paul's "all speak the same thing," very loud.  He meant, as did Paul, my same thing.  Outside the Church, HWA was swoozy with the public and he played the "all things to all men" game , which accomplished precisely nothing.  The "strong hand from someplace" approach was silly and cowardly, if you really believed your own in church rhetoric.  Quest magazine no more preached the Gospel of whoever than the Farmer's Almanac and "going to all the world as a witness before the end would come," in the form of short talks, paid for with nothing less than bribes and Steuben gifts was asinine and the source of much in Church resentment.  It was however HWA's reality and he wanted everyone else to share it with him.  It was the beginning of his undoing.  Dave Pack will accomplish exactly the same thing in time with exactly the same results and final judgment on his ministry, falsely so called. 

Back to Galatians and Paul's reality.

¹¹ But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

¹² For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Paul was no team player for sure. Paul was for Paul and it is obvious in the texts. Paul's reality was that everyone believe as he did and that included Peter, James and John. You can't read Galatians 1 and 2 and think that all the Apostles all believed, thought and taught the same things.  They did not.  The Book of James is a rebuttal to Paul's views in Romans.  Paul made it very very clear how he felt about Peter, James and John and it wasn't much.  All Paul wanted was their approval to give him credibility amongst those that did count Peter, James and John as more than reputed pillars or men who "seemed to be somewhat."  The Paul of the Damascus Road story in Acts is NOT the Paul of his own writings in Galatians.  In Galatians Paul was called from his mothers womb and never went to Jerusalem when blinded to get healed and see things their way as in Acts.  Acts said he went right to the leaders and Paul says he did not. He says he went to Arabia for whatever reason immediately and only to the boys in Jerusalem later when he had no choice. 

Galatians 2

⁶ But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 

Mr. All Speak the same thing, is not interested in what Peter, James and John in Jerusalem have to say on anything.  He made that clear in the differences between what he said he'd do in Acts 15 and what he actually taught and did in I Corinthians when he got back home.  How many times have I seen that kind of all speak the same thing!  "Added NOTHING to me"?  Sounds like a Dave Pack who never listened to anyone that didn't already agree with him and if you don't like it, get out. 

⁷ But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

⁸ (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

⁹ And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, (seemed?) perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Aside:  but shortly after this and later in Galatians, Paul withstood Peter and declared his views invalid and weaker than his.  Paul come lately confronted Peter of Disciple fame and declared himself the winner.  Personally I think what Peter found at Paul's table was not unclean foods but rather meat offered to idols which Paul had agreed not to do in Acts 15 but clearly scoffed at the judgment in I Corinthians 8-10.  Peter caught Paul not all speaking the same thing and being in harmony with the Jerusalem Apostles. 

It is impossible to all believe, speak and think the same thing.  It isn't even healthy but groups tend to demand sameness of thought, purpose and intent. I do not dislike Dave Pack because of what he teaches about baptism, the Kingdom of God, life, death, resurrections and the world to come.  I contest the methods and the ego centric presentation along with the bullying of others to do everything from "pull big triggers" to "and woman, you have no say."   People should resent his tone and personality along demanding everyone believe, view, perceive and explain the world through his eyes and filters only.  I resent the control and compliance but that's probably been my nature since I was a kid.  It leads to very bad endings when talking about religious compliance and sameness of thought.  The same is so for the Gerald Flurrys and Ron Weinlands of ministry.  I have far less an issue with a Rod Meredith of LCG or those in the United Church of God.  They aren't so inclined and at least seem to be able to tolerate more than the one man show of a Dave Pack.  

On bigger topics such as that of evolution, cosmology and wonder of it all, it doesn't matter what one believes because that is directly related to how much one has even bothered to consider such things.  If one is held in place, such as by church or a literalist view of the Bible, then so be it.  The mind will only allow so much information in before it panics and has to defend the wall.  That's ok. I do understand that very well.  We all care and don't care about what others think , say or do.  We ultimately only care about what we think, say and do.  And that's ok too.  

But the idea that one man can scream compliance of thought, sameness of heart, belief all the same and the goals and methods of the one, who thinks he knows the mind of God perfectly, is unrealistic and insane.  Getting disfellowshipped, as I said, is all the church could come up with in the New Testament and turned over to Satan for destruction of the flesh..blah blah, which shows just how unrealistic church thinking can be. 

As I noted, I always disliked this hymn, even as a child, because of it's attitude towards truth and others.  It always sounded like "kill em all and let God sort them out if they get in our way," to me.   It became even worse a hymn when sung throughout most of my time with WCG. Written originally for children to sing as they marched in support between each others villages and towns on Whit-Monday (as opposed to "Black Friday" I suppose), it certainly is not a formula for allowing others to think for themselves. There were times at the feast I sang it with tears in my eyes,but I'm an emotional kind of guy depending. Some particularly embarassing verses when sung in the COGs are...

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

Refrain

(Everything was always a battle and confrontation.  Sadly and of course, we in the Living Church of God or whatever the new one is, don't believe in crosses.)

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine, one in charity.

Refrain

Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
But the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.

Refrain

Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud and honor unto Christ the King,
This through countless ages men and angels sing

So we go full circle. This admonition and demand directed towards the church never was so in history.  There never was "The One True Church."  From inception, the Church was divided because it consited of human beings, too many of which were not willing to all speak the same thing.  They only wanted  others to all speak their same thing and be perfectly joined to their mindset and views .  This was a Paul in the New Testament, who never met any living breathing Jesus and those splinter guys today who also never did. 

I Corinthians 1
¹⁰ Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

                                                                   Join our happy throng!

The goal is to get everyone to join our happy throng!  That "happy"thing is a dead giveaway that something is wrong or about to go wrong. It is impossible to all speak the same thing and have no divisions of thought.  That's creepy.  Growing in grace and knowledge, as encouraged elsewhere, is IMPOSSIBLE in the same mind, same judgment , same views, same opinion and same belief environment.  It's creepy, dangerous and an explosion waiting to go off.   And it's intellectually dishonest to say the least. 

Mr. E.W.King Clears Up The Misunderstanding of Earth ‘Eras’ and Paleolithic Man

God's greatest gift to the church, after Bob Thiel, of course, is Eric King.  King knows everything about everything.

Mr. E.W.King clears up the misunderstanding of earth ‘eras’ and humans. COGSR ministries is dedicated to bringing you the whole truth and nothing but the Truth. Please read and share:

What is “Paleolithic Man”? This phrase for man comes from what is known as the Paleolithic Age, Era, or Period. It is referred to as an age of prehistoric human history. It tells of a time when the human mind was in its earliest development. Actually this period starts from prehuman existence with certain ape-like creatures that God created who began to learn how to use their hands or limbs by making tools. We see other animals doing this today such as the raccoons and the ocean seals. We find animals learning how to do this as early as 2.6 million years ago. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not claiming that these creatures were human beings, they were not. They were animal species which have now gone extinct.-

About 7,000,000 years ago God decided to create some very interesting beings. He created Sahelanthropus Ttchadensis. We have given this species the nickname “Toumai”. These creatures were the first to look like modern man in many ways but still fell short. These creatures exited for some time and developed a form of communication amongst them selves. God was taking pleasure in all of His great acts of creation. God loves to create!-

When we get to about 4,400,000 years ago (before modern man) we find the creatures known as Australopithecus Afarensis. These were some of the first human-like creatures to spend more time on the ground and outside of sheltered areas. One from this species is popularly known as “Lucy”. She walked upright and began to use her hands to do other things than just walk. After her came Homo Habilis and some others.-

COGSR has discovered that our universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. We learned that our galaxy is called the Milky Way Galaxy and was formed roughly 13.2 billion years ago. We learned that our solar system (4.6 billion years old) and our planet was formed and created by our Almighty God and that it was originally created to be inhabited around 6 billion years ago. We learned that God created IB’s [angelic beings] to inhabit and take care of our planet as “care-takers”. We learned that these angels failed and rebelled against God during what we call the Permian Period and the angelic war ended with what we call the KT extinction event at 65 million years ago. The angels had traveled to heaven and tried to war against God [Jude 6]. As a result they were cast back to our planet which caused great devastation and the destruction of the dinosaurs. When the IB’s hit the Earth they caused four great craters.-

We learned that after this event God continued to create through additional periods. At the end of the KT extinction event God proceeded to create again. We can start this new phase of creation with strength around 47,000,000 years ago. This brings us up to the last ice age which ended roughly 10,000 years ago. We understand that the first 4000 years of this time helped melt the ice and prepare the way for the Garden of Eden and the creation of the most recent and last human couple, Adam and Eve.-

When we reach what is known as the Pleistocene era around 10,000 BP we begin to see the groups of the first humans [who come from one of the Nine first Mothers], before the creation of Adam and Eve starting to make homes and use dwelling places such as caves to hide from the changing weather and wild animals. We find cave art painted on the walls of some of these caves. These early humans were beginning to learn how to live in a “fallen world” [Corrupted by the angelic Rebellion]. This era of development is what some call the Paleolithic era.

You can read the rest of his bullshit here:   Paleolithic Man and your Bible

Something Just to Think About...

I can't say I ever heard much in WCG, nor did I ever speak much if at all on the Birth Narratives of Jesus when pastoring.  I think it was subconsciously avoided due to the over reaction the church had to all things Christmas.  I gave one sermon on both accounts twice in two different places towards the end of my ministerial career explaining why the Birth Narratives were added to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and how they simply cannot be harmonized and that was not the point anyway.  The conflicts over why there would be genealogies of Jesus in both books giving rather human roots to Jesus but then the birth stories which made genealogies moot as God was Jesus father are endless.  Apologetics goes into overdrive when discussing the Birth Narratives of Jesus.  My view, as you should know by now, is that the Narratives are not harmonious and it obvious that neither writer read the other's story before writing their own.  They were added to the Gospels accounts and are not eyewitness accounts of anything.  While not trying to sound too harsh or pointed, there were never really any Wise men, shepherds watching flocks, angelic choirs, roaming stars, flights to Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents or quiet trips back to Nazareth after 40 days.  These stories are mined totally from the Old Testament Scriptures, as was the writing style of the times, to give Jesus a spectacular birth fit for the Son of God.  The Caesars had them so why not Jesus...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Birth-Messiah-Commentary-Narratives/dp/0300140088/ref=sr_1_1/182-5872804-7772346?ie=UTF8&qid=1385570235&sr=8-1&keywords=birth+of+the+messiah+brown

If one is genuinely interested in the background of the Birth Narratives, one of the definitive works on the topic is by Raymond Brown in his classic, The Birth of the Messiah.  It is a heavy hitter and he admits to having to his own caution not to offend the Magesterium of the Church and get himself bounced.  Father Brown removes any doubt as to the intent and mistakes made my the authors of the Birth Narratives that would not be tolerated today.  He even takes Ernest Martin, of WCG fame , to task for his unfortunate literalism which lead Ernest Martin to all sorts of calculations about the Star of Bethlehem etc.

The Birth Narratives of Jesus as found in Matthew and Luke are fascinating.  I would like to point out one aspect of the genealogies which lead from Abraham to Mary.  I would like to point out that in this genealogy are four WOMEN, which of itself is rather unheard of in genealogies of this type.  But what is more interesting is that the four are not the women one would expect.  There are no Sarahs, Leahs or Rachels.  No Deborahs or even Eves, though she might make the cut on this one.  The four women included are all fallen women with questionable backgrounds.  They were as included in the text....

Matthew 1:

"The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Aram, and Aram the father of Aminadab, and Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

To refamiarize yourself...

Tamar -Daughter-in-Law of Judah

Tamar-  Tamar was accused of prostitution on account of her pregnancy. Upon hearing this news, Judah ordered that she be burned to death. Tamar sent the staff, seal, and cord to Judah with a message declaring that the owner of these items was the man who had made her pregnant. Upon recognizing his security deposit, Judah released Tamar from her sentence and accordingly she was able to give birth to twins, Perez and Zerah. Perez is said to be the ancestor of King David. The Genesis narrative also makes a note that Judah did not have further sexual relations with Tamar. (Genesis 38:24-30)

Rahab, the Harlot who helped the boys out 

Rahab, (/ˈreɪ.hæb/;^[1] Hebrew: רָחָב, Modern Raẖav Tiberian Rāḥāḇ ; "broad," "large"; Greek: Ῥαάβ) was, according to theBook of Joshua, a woman who lived in Jericho in the Promised Land and assisted the Israelites in capturing the city. Nearly all English translations of Joshua describe her as a harlot or prostitute.^[2]

Ruth the pretty relative of incestuous ancestors

Ruth the Moabitess,  (a Gentile through whom no heir to the Messiah could come.) the great-grandmother of David, and, according to the Gospel of Matthew, an ancestress of Jesus.  The Moabites were descended from the incestuous relations between Abraham's nephew Lot and his oldest daughter after the destruction of Sodom (Gen. 19:33-38)

Bath-Sheba because she was taking a bath.  If she was taking a shower, she'd be "Shower-Sheba."  (Radio Preacher truth I heard here in town.  I added the shower part.)

Bathsheba (Hebrew: בת שבע‎, Bat Sheva, "daughter of the oath") (Arabic: بثشبع‎, "ابنة القسم") was the wife of Uriah the Hittite and later of David, king of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah. She is most known for the Bible story in which King David took her to sleep with him.  (But they were not really sleeping:)

Why fallen women?  Because it was not uncommon for the early Church to have to defend Jesus birth as not illegitimate and Jesus a bastard is why.  In John 8 we have an argument that goes wildly out of control between Jesus and the Pharisees over who really can claim God as their Father.  It ends up Jesus telling them their father is the Devil and they are all liars.  The Pharisees respond with stones. So much for turn the other cheek.  Just before this knockdown, we have the story inserted many years later and not in any originals showing that texts were indeed edited along the way to fit agendas, of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery.  Jesus basically reminds the men they all have done it too in one way or the other and they slink away.  All is forgiven.  Was the author responding to his misunderstanding of the charge in John 8:41 that unlike Jesus, the Pharisees were not born of Fornication?  Maybe....   The spin off doctrines of trying to keep Mary a Virgin and thus herself clean and Jesus perfect have been many.  One embellishment of a story leads to the need for many more to explain how the last one could be. 

Including the four fallen women in the genealogy was some one's attempt  to send the message that no matter, even if Jesus had a questionable birth and circumstances were dicey at best (no one really knows anything about Jesus actual birth date or circumstances), God can work through fallen women to accomplish his goals so get off Mary and Jesus back!  The inclusion of the women was an admission that few would buy the "Dad, Joseph...I have something to tell you.  I am pregnant but not to worry.  It is by the Holy Spirit and the baby will be the Messiah because God begot him in me.  I am really still a virgin."   "Oh ok...great!" was probably not going to be any real response by the men in Mary's life.  Joseph is a bit player in the play and comes and goes from the scene quickly.  

I recall a several brilliant questions from a teen to me once which left me only with, "Wow..great questions!"  I was asked how old Mary was when she had Jesus.  Tradition says below the age of 16 and maybe as young as 12.  He asked if that wasn't a crime?  Prolly!    He then asked me who was Mary's husband when she had Jesus?  Well we might say Joseph but he was not the father of Jesus .  It was God according to the story.  He then asked me why that would not be considered fornication on God's part since God may have been the father but not the husband...  See what I mean about one story leading to another to explain the last one!  He finally asked me a third question about the text that says Mary was with child "by the Holy Spirit."  Ummm...Mr. Diehl, who's child was this?  God's or the Holy Spirit's?  The problem gets bigger if you imagine the HS as a third person of the one mysterious thing.  Another topic where one answer produces the need for more stories.  I liked that kid!  He's probably an Episcopal Priest somewhere now!  He would probably understand this...and be ok with it too.

...but that's another story  :)

At any rate, tis the season to hear the story over and over and I know if you were in WCG or are in the Splinters, you not only won't hear much of the story but you certainly won't hear the why and how of them and the fascinating politics going on behind the scenes which required them to be inserted in the text.  Let's face it, if the geneologies lead from God or Abraham or Adam and Eve back to Jesus, without miraculous stories, then why do we need them?  The fact is that the geneologies were probably much older in the text than the come later Birth Narratives suited for another time.  Rather than remove them, because they were already so popular, they just let it be complete with all the conflict doing so would bring theologians and thinking Christians for the next 2000 years.