Disfellowshipment and Marking: The Tools Of Oppression and Fear in the Church of God

 

Disfellowshipment and marking are practices rooted in biblical teachings, particularly in the Church of God and similar denominations, aimed at maintaining the spiritual purity and unity of the congregation. These practices, however, have been perceived by some as tools of oppression due to their social and emotional impact. Below, I explore why these practices were sometimes viewed as fearful within the Church of God, drawing on biblical principles, historical context, and social dynamics.

Biblical Basis and Purpose

Disfellowshipment and marking stem from New Testament directives to address unrepentant sin or divisive behavior within the church. Key scriptures include: 

 

Matthew 18:15-17: Jesus outlines a process for addressing a brother's sin, culminating in treating an unrepentant person "as a Gentile and a tax collector" if they refuse correction.

1 Corinthians 5:5, 11: Paul instructs the Corinthian church to "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" and to avoid associating with a brother who persists in sins like sexual immorality, greed, or idolatry. 

 

Romans 16:17: Paul urges the church to "mark" those who cause divisions or offenses contrary to doctrine and to avoid them. 

 

2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15: Believers are commanded to withdraw from those who walk disorderly but to admonish them as brothers, not enemies. 

 

In the Church of God, these practices were seen as protective measures to:

Encourage repentance (1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 2:6-8). 

 

Protect the congregation from the spread of sin or false teaching (1 Corinthians 5:6-7). 

 

Preserve the church’s reputation before the world (1 Timothy 6:1). 

 

The intent was to foster holiness and accountability, not to punish for punishment’s sake. Though in many cases that is exactly what it was done for, particularly in the Philadelphia Church of God and the Restored Church of God

Why These Practices Were Feared

Despite their biblical grounding, disfellowshipment and marking evoked fear and be perceived as a tool of oppression for several reasons:

 

Social Isolation 

 

Loss of Community: In tight-knit Church of God congregations, fellowship was a core aspect of spiritual and social life (Philippians 1:27). Disfellowshipment often meant a complete or near-complete cutoff from social interactions with church members, including family and friends. Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 5:11 to “not even eat” with such a person emphasized this separation, which could be emotionally devastating. 

 

Public Marking: Marking, as described in Romans 16:17, involved publicly identifying someone as a threat to the church’s unity or doctrine. This could lead to public shame and ostracism, amplifying the sense of rejection. For example, announcements like “Mr. John Doe has been marked for cause” were sometimes made during services, making the individual’s status known to the congregation. 

 

Impact on Family and Friends: The obligation to avoid social contact extended to close relationships, creating tension and emotional pain. Members were taught to prioritize spiritual purity over personal ties, which could feel like betrayal or abandonment (2 Thessalonians 3:15). 

 

Spiritual Consequences

Perceived Loss of Salvation: In some Church of God teachings, disfellowshipment was framed as being “delivered to Satan” (1 Corinthians 5:5), implying a temporary removal from God’s protection. For believers who viewed the church as the “called-out body of Christ,” this could feel like a direct threat to their spiritual standing or salvation, even if the intent was to prompt repentance. 

 

Restricted Participation: Disfellowshipped members often faced restrictions on participating in sacred practices, such as taking Passover or attending certain church events. In the Church of God, where these rituals are central to spiritual identity, exclusion could feel like a profound spiritual punishment. 

 

Lack of Transparency and Consistency

Subjective Application: The decision to disfellowship or mark was often at the discretion of church leaders, such as ministers or elders. Without clear, universal guidelines, these decisions could appear arbitrary or biased, leading to perceptions of unfairness. For example, some members felt disciplined for minor infractions or doctrinal disagreements, while others were overlooked. 

 

Confidentiality vs. Public Shame: While some disfellowshipments were kept confidential, others were announced publicly, especially for widely known transgressions or to warn the congregation of a perceived threat. This inconsistency could heighten fear, as members might not know whether their discipline would remain private or become a public spectacle. 

 

Potential for Abuse: Critics, including former members, have noted that disfellowshipment could be used to silence dissent or enforce strict compliance. For instance, disagreements over doctrine or church practices could lead to marking or disfellowshipment, as seen in cases where members questioned leadership or explored different interpretations of scripture.

 Emotional and Psychological Impact

Shame and Stigma: The public nature of marking or announcements about disfellowshipment could lead to feelings of shame, particularly in small, close communities. Members feared being labeled as “disorderly” or “divisive,” which could damage their reputation and relationships.

Fear of Judgment: The process often involved confrontations with church leaders, which could feel intimidating. The requirement to confess sins or face a disciplinary council added pressure, especially for younger members or those already struggling with guilt.

Loss of Identity: For many in the Church of God, membership was a core part of their identity. Being disfellowshipped or marked could feel like losing one’s place in the “household of God” (Ephesians 2:19), leading to existential fear and alienation. 

 

Historical and Cultural Context in the Church of God

The Church of God, placed a strong emphasis on doctrinal purity and obedience to biblical commands. This was partly due to their Restorationist roots, which sought to return to New Testament practices. The fear associated with disfellowshipment and marking was amplified by: 

 

Hierarchical Structure: The Church of God often operated with strong ministerial authority, where leaders were seen as “judges in Israel”. This gave significant power to ministers, whose decisions could profoundly affect members’ lives. 

 

End-Time Beliefs: Many Church of God groups emphasized the imminent return of Christ and the need for holiness to be part of the “elect.” The threat of being excluded from the church could feel like being excluded from God’s kingdom, heightening fear. 

 

Community-Centric Culture: The church was often the center of members’ social and spiritual lives, especially in smaller congregations. Losing fellowship meant losing a support system, which could be particularly traumatic in isolated or rural settings. 

 

Critiques and Perceptions of Oppression

Former members and critics have described disfellowshipment and marking as oppressive due to:

Perceived Cruelty: Some felt the practices were applied harshly, without sufficient regard for individual circumstances. For example, a teenage girl disfellowshipped at 14 for a moral infraction reported feeling shamed and worthless, with long-lasting emotional scars. 

 

Silencing Dissent: In some cases, disfellowshipment was used to address not just moral sins but also doctrinal disagreements or questioning of church authority. This led to accusations that the practices were tools to enforce conformity rather than foster repentance. 

 

Lack of Restoration: While the biblical goal was restoration (2 Corinthians 2:7-8), some members felt that the path back to fellowship was unclear or overly punitive, leaving them permanently alienated. 

 

Counterperspective: Protective and Redemptive

Church leaders and defenders of the practice argue that disfellowshipment and marking were not meant to oppress but to protect and redeem:

Repentance as the Goal: The ultimate aim was to encourage the individual to repent and return to fellowship, as seen in Paul’s instructions to forgive and restore a repentant sinner (2 Corinthians 2:7-8).

Protection of the Church: By removing unrepentant sinners or divisive individuals, the church sought to maintain its holiness and prevent the spread of sin or false teaching (1 Corinthians 5:6-7). 

 

Love and Discipline: Discipline was framed as an act of love, akin to a parent correcting a child (Hebrews 12:6). Leaders were encouraged to act with humility and care, not pride or anger. 

 

Disfellowshipment and marking were fearful tools in the Church of God because they leveraged the power of social and spiritual exclusion in a community where fellowship was central to identity and salvation. The threat of isolation, shame, and perceived spiritual jeopardy created significant emotional and psychological pressure. While rooted in biblical principles aimed at repentance and church purity, the application of these practices sometimes lacked consistency, transparency, or compassion, leading to oppression. For some, the fear stemmed not from the practices themselves but from their potential for misuse or overly harsh implementation, particularly when they disrupted personal relationships or silenced honest inquiry.

David D

Crackpot prophet tries using Ai to scare you. Fails miserably, as usual.

One of the many things the Church of God was adept at was taking certain books of the Bible and wielding them as tools of fear-mongering to scare members into submission. The longer members were kept living in fear, the more compliant they became to other absurdities passed off as "truths." Church leaders and ministers loved to thunder and pound podiums when discussing end-time prophecy, warning that if you did not submit, you were destined for the lake of fire. Their eyes would glaze over with giddy delight at the thought of so much violence. They never showed that same passion when it came to talking about Jesus and grace, but that’s another post.
We now turn to God’s most highly favored holy prophet to ever grace the Church of God movement. No one—and I repeat, NO ONE—in the entire history of the church has ever been filled with more truth, mind-boggling dreams, double blessings, and Mayan nonsense than our Great Bwana Bob Mzungu Thiel, the Joshua destined to come in the end times, the end-time Habakkuk, the end-time Elijah, and the only "double blessed" holy anointed representative of the Most High. Legion and his demons tremble at the mere mention of the Great Bwana Bob. World leaders stand in awe and tremble at his amazing words—that is, if they even know who he is.
This time, the holy anointed one is salivating over the Book of Daniel. He took a step further and used Grok’s AI program to design a scary picture of himself, apparently with the idea of scaring us into submitting to his amazing words.
Fortunately for all of us, salvation is now only available through the amazing, yet improperly named, "Continuing" Church of God. No other Church of God on the face of the earth knows when the proper time to flee will be. Only the true followers of the one true Man will know exactly when it is time to flee to Petra or some other God-forsaken stinkhole in the deserts of Jordan. No other group of people will be such an amazing witness to the world and to the church, especially the sad-sack, lazy Laodiceans who refused to join up with God’s most important man. You all know who you are!

Daniel 11:32-38: Philadelphian Persecution and Witness

This is the seventh part of a multi-sermon series intended to cover the Book of Daniel. This sermon covers each and every verse from chapter 11 verse 32 through verse 38. This sermon focuses on prophetic items related to the Philadelphian Christian remnant being persecuted, while also being a witness. 

Dr. Thiel explained how Christians can learn more so that God may use them to “instruct many,” as is prophesied in Daniel 11:33. 

He also mentioned how they can be used by God to give a witness to help with the fulfillment of Matthew 24:14 and that unless others make major prophetic changes they will not know when the Great Tribulation will begin until it is too late for most to flee for protection. 

He pointed out with scriptures, as well as quotes from other Church of God writers, why various persecution and witness scriptures are pointing to the end time Philadelphians. 

Dr. Thiel also cited Greco-Roman Catholic prophecies against Sabbath-keepers and those that point to the burning of ‘Judea-Christians.’ 

The relevance of church government, literature, and allowing God to work with His people –and His oracles — were discussed. 

He discussed the scriptural timing in Daniel 11 regarding when the faithful will flee. 

Dr. Thiel quoted passages from 2 Thessalonians 2, Daniel 11, and Revelation 13 to prove that the ‘man of sin’ is the King of the North and not the ‘false prophet’ two-horned beast, despite other COGs not accepting that. 

After quoting Daniel 11:38, Dr. Thiel brought out historical information about the impact of Emperor Constantine pushing the Greco-Roman Catholics to become militaristic, and cited followers of Martin Luther who later condemned the faithful for not engaging in military warfare. 

He asserted that Philadelphian Christians will be a witness related to the kingdom of God, 

a witness when instructing many, 

a witness when being persecuted, 

a witness when fleeing, 

a witness by not being militaristic, and 

a witness by being in the place of protection in the wilderness (Revelation 12:14-16).

Proof-texting and Cherry-picking in Armstrongism

 

Proof-texting and Cherry-picking in Armstrongism

 

If there was anything the Church of God was good at, it was proof-texting and cherry-picking.

 

Proof-texting refers to the practice of using isolated Bible verses to support a specific doctrine or belief, often without considering the broader context, original intent, or related scriptures. In Armstrongism, the teachings and doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), proof-texting has been noted as a significant method of biblical interpretation, particularly in establishing distinctive doctrines that diverge from mainstream Christianity.

 

Herbert W. Armstrong emphasized a literal interpretation of the Bible, claiming his teachings were divinely revealed and represented the "restored true Gospel." Critics argue that Armstrong's approach often involved proof-texting, where specific verses were selectively cited to support doctrines such as British Israelism, Sabbath observance, dietary laws, and the rejection of the Trinity, without fully engaging with the broader biblical context or historical-critical methods. This approach is seen as contributing to the controversial nature of Armstrongism, as it sometimes led to interpretations that conflicted with traditional Christian theology or other biblical passages.

 

Key Examples of Proof-Texting in Armstrongism:

 

• British Israelism: Armstrong taught that modern-day British and Americans are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, a key doctrine for understanding biblical prophecy. This belief relied on selective interpretations of Old Testament promises to Israel, such as those in Genesis 12:3 and 15:6, often ignoring New Testament passages like Romans 11:25, which emphasize God's continued plan for Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles without replacing Israel. Critics note that this doctrine was supported by citing specific verses while overlooking broader biblical narratives that do not align with Anglo-Israelism.

 

• Sabbath and Holy Days: Armstrongism emphasizes strict observance of the seventh-day Sabbath and Old Testament festivals (e.g., Passover, Feast of Tabernacles). Verses like Genesis 2:2-3 and Leviticus 23 were used to argue that these practices are mandatory for Christians, often without addressing New Testament passages (e.g., Colossians 2:16-17) that suggest these laws were fulfilled in Christ. This selective use of scripture is cited as an example of proof-texting, as it prioritizes certain texts over others to support the doctrine.

 

• Non-Trinitarian Theology: Armstrong rejected the Trinity, teaching that God is a family rather than a triune being. He cited verses like John 1:1 to argue that Jesus was not eternally the Son, ignoring broader theological contexts and passages like Matthew 28:19, which imply a triune relationship. Critics argue this selective use of scripture distorts traditional Christian doctrine by focusing on isolated texts.

 

• Three Resurrections and Annihilationism: Armstrong taught a unique eschatology involving three resurrections, with the second offering a "second chance" for salvation, and annihilationism (complete destruction rather than eternal punishment). These ideas were supported by citing verses like Revelation 20:4-14, but critics highlight that this interpretation conflicts with Hebrews 9:27, which states there is no second chance after death. This selective use of scripture is seen as proof-texting to justify a distinct eschatological framework.

 

Critics argue that Armstrong's proof-texting often ignored the literary, historical, and cultural context of verses, leading to misinterpretations. For example, his literalist approach rejected textual criticism and broader biblical themes, which some claim "doomed his interpretations to failure."

 

The church was great at cherry picking, too. By focusing on verses that supported his doctrines while dismissing or reinterpreting contradictory passages, Armstrong's method is accused of creating a biased theological framework. This approach is seen as undermining the coherence of biblical teaching.

 

Armstrong's reliance on proof-texting reinforced a rigid doctrinal system, where questioning interpretations was discouraged. This is reflected in his claim of being "God's Apostle," demanding loyalty to his teachings as divinely inspired.

 

Scholars note that proof-texting in Armstrongism contrasts with hermeneutical approaches that emphasize contextual analysis and the unity of scripture. For instance, mainstream Christian theology uses a canonical approach, ensuring interpretations align with the Bible's overall message, whereas Armstrong's method often prioritized his unique doctrines.

 

Armstrong and his followers maintained that his teachings were biblically grounded, not proof-texted, but rather the result of intensive Bible study guided by divine revelation. They argued that mainstream Christianity itself relied on "traditions of men" (e.g., Mark 7:5-9) rather than scripture, and that Armstrong's approach restored original Christian practices. For example, supporters claim that his emphasis on Sabbath and Holy Days was rooted in clear biblical commands, not isolated verses, and that critics misrepresent his method as proof-texting to dismiss his teachings.

 

After Armstrong's death in 1986, the WCG underwent significant doctrinal shifts toward mainstream evangelicalism, renaming itself Grace Communion International (GCI) in 2009. This shift was partly a response to criticisms of proof-texting and doctrinal errors, leading many ministers and members to form splinter groups that continue to adhere to Armstrong's original teachings. These groups still face accusations of proof-texting when defending doctrines like British Israelism or annihilationism.

 

Proof-texting in Armstrongism is a central point of contention, with critics arguing that Herbert W. Armstrong's selective use of scripture to support doctrines like British Israelism, Sabbath observance, and non-Trinitarian theology often ignored broader biblical context and led to controversial interpretations. While Armstrong and his followers believed their teachings were biblically sound and divinely inspired, the reliance on isolated verses contributed to accusations of hermeneutical error. Understanding this practice requires examining both Armstrong's methods and the broader principles of biblical interpretation, such as contextual analysis and hermeneutics, to avoid the pitfalls of proof-texting. Sadly, the average COG member has no idea what contextual analysis and hermeneutics are. Thus, they easily jump from one splinter group to the next that they feel best practices the proof-texting they need to keep their faith secure and unchallenged.

 

David D