Growing up in a Faith-Healing Cult

From the Friendly Atheist Blog

When I was ten years old, my younger sister became increasingly ill. She had always been frail; pale, thin, and lethargic — even her hair was thin and dull. This time my sister Missy (not her real name) was much worse. My older sister (who was then a teenager) tells me that my younger sister was too weak to walk to the bathroom and my father would carry her there frequently. My older sister would barrage my father with demands that Missy be taken to the doctor. My little sister was too weak to even attend Saturday church services where she might have been anointed by a minister in a ritual called the “laying on of hands.” The minister would take the sick person, and the parents if the person was a child, and go into a coat closet and close the door. There, everyone would kneel and the minister would take a small bottle of olive oil out of a pocket and place a dot of oil on the sick person’s forehead. He would hold his hand on the spot where the oil was placed and begin to pray. Everyone would bow their heads as the minister beseeched God to forgive this sick person of the sins for which she was being punished. When a person was too ill to attend services (which for us were an hour drive away from our hometown) the minister would send home an anointed cloth. It was a piece of gauze with a drop of oil on it that the minister had prayed over. The small square of guaze was ceremoniously placed in a small manilla envelope for safe keeping. At home, our parents would take us into their bedroom where we would all get down on our knees and one would hold the oiled cloth to our forehead and all heads bowed, praying that God would heal us. Some people take a spoonful of medicine. Not us. We got down on our knees and put oil on our foreheads and prayed. Sometimes we got better. Sometimes we did not.

Prayer and anointing were not working for my little sister. In her six years of life we couldn’t imagine what horrible sins she had committed to be so drastically ill. Armstrong explained, however, that “you might not have been guilty of any wrong, yet nature’s laws were violated or you wouldn’t be sick!” How’s that for double speak? Sickness and injury are the result of sin. Unless they’re not. But, hey, something caused it!

So my mom searched herself for what sin she must have committed to cause her daughter to be so deathly ill. I heard her murmered prayers from her room (Armstrongists go behind closed doors to pray in private) asking God to forgive whatever she has done to make my little sister sick. She always emerged from those sessions wiping tears from her face having sobbed the entire time.

Read the entire story here:  Growing up in a Faith-Healing Cult

Make sure you read the comments section about the WCG member who was hit by a falling tree and what happened.

Dennis On "And try to use a 'yes' or a 'no' in your answer!"

"And try to use a 'yes' or a 'no' in your answer!"

 

I was sitting in the Ambassador Auditorium, in Pasadena, California at a Bible Study, in the early 80's, on the Nature of God given by the then resident Greek scholar and thinker. He really was a very intelligent teacher and I always enjoyed, to a point, hearing from him. At times, it was an exercise in going around and around but never quite landing anywhere.

 

The fact that I have yet to understand the true nature of the true God and how He/She/Him/Them relate is irrelevant. It was all pretty heady stuff for my denomination's ministry. I'm sure I was not privy to the half of all the drama being played out behind the scenes between those that were teaching and those that thought THEY should be teaching, but I suspect it would have been much like the Council of Nicea back in 325 where being on the wrong side could have serious consequences.

 

But the most hilarious moment came from a simple question in which the questioner, after trying to frame an intelligent question for this very astute teacher on this profound question, said... "please try to use the word 'yes' or 'no' in your answer."

It was a moment of sheer enlightenment. "Please try to use the word 'yes' or 'no' in your answer." I laughed to tears in that way that is much deeper than the comment warranted because it struck at the heart of what many who repeat the mantra, "God said, I believe it, that settles it for me." are incapable of doing---using a yes or no in an answer to a sincere question about obvious contradictions, impossibilities and inconsistencies of scripture.

 

So let's take play Yes or No. Take your time but you MUST pick a yes or no for the answer. No yeah-buts. While we are well aware that the Bible speaks of three kinds of leaders in the NT (the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the But-u-sees) try to leave them out of it.

 

From Matthew 1 and 2

 

Yes or No: It is interesting that Matthew includes a victim of incest (Tamar), a prostitute (Rahab), a foreigner (Ruth) and an adulteress (Bathsheba) leading up to Mary's birth of Jesus, rather than four upstanding women of Israel in Jesus' lineage.

 

Yes or No: With Matthew and Luke showing that Jesus' REAL father is not literally Joseph, but rather literally God himself through the Holy Spirit, the idea of Jesus being related through Joseph back to David and Abraham is broken and irrelevant.

 

Yes or No: If the Holy Spirit is a entity of himself, the Holy Spirit is Jesus father.

 

Yes or No: If God did not wed Mary as the father of Jesus, Jesus was born of  divine fornication?

 

Yes or No: While in the context, Isaiah 7:14 predicted the child would literally be named Immanuel, Jesus was never literally called Immanuel.

 

Yes or No:  Isaiah 7:14ff  indicates the child to be born would not know the difference between right and wrong until taught it.

 

Yes or No: Following a star from Iraq/Persia that rises in the East to a specific home West, five miles south of Jerusalem is not literally possible.

 

Yes or No:  Stars,comets and meteorites and planets in the sky can stand over a specific home on earth until you get there.

 

Yes or No: It is odd that Herod and his astrologers could not see the star and could not follow it themselves.

 

Yes or No: When the Magi arrived, (perhaps up to a year after Jesus birth) Mary and Joseph lived in a house with no mention of a home in Nazareth or a need to go back to another home in Nazareth where they had just come from.

 

Yes or No: According to Matthew, lots of children in Bethlehem and the region paid for Jesus birth with their lives so that Jesus as an adult could die for their sins.

 

Yes or No: The angel told Joseph it was safe to go back to Israel but then changed his mind and told him "oops I forgot about Herod's evil son", so Joseph returned to live for the first time in Nazareth.

 

Yes or No: All gift shop angels are female and all Bible angels are male.

 

Yes or No: I can't find any place in the Old Testament where it says a Nazarene is a person who lives in Nazareth and foretells Jesus would be from there. In fact, I can't find Nazareth mentioned as a city in the OT.

 

Yes or No: Quoting a verse in the OT about Israel exiting Egypt is not much of prophecy of Jesus going home from exile in Egypt.

 

Yes or No: Matthew knows nothing of homes in Nazareth, taxes, mangers, shepherds, staying in Jerusalem 40 days for Mary to be purified according to Moses, turtle doves (offerings of poor people) and the long quiet trip home to Nazareth.

 

From Luke 2

 

Yes or No: Making everyone return to their city of birth to be taxed sounds like a formula for empire wide chaos.

 

Yes or No: If Jerusalem was able to care for the tens of thousands who came each year to the three great Festivals, one might think there would be more than a few places to stay comfortably especially if one was a young pregnant girl.

 

Yes or No: Mary having to give birth in a stable indicates the people of Jerusalem at Feast Time were inhospitable.

 

Yes or No: It seems odd that Joseph would take a nine-month pregnant Mary on the dangerous trip to Bethlehem when it was not necessary for her to go.

 

Yes or No: It seems odd that if Zechariah was a Priest in the area of Jerusalem, they might not have thought to let Mary and Joseph stay with them. Mary had just been to see them three months earlier when finding Elizabeth to be six months pregnant.

 

Yes or No: It is interesting that angels and the heavenly host went out into the fields to sing and witness to a few shepherds who then had to find Jesus and tell everyone else themselves what had happened.

 

Yes or No: Heavenly Hosts can't sing for the whole town.

 

Yes or No: The Shepherds seemed to know just where to find Jesus without the star.

 

Yes or No: Eight days after his birth, Jesus was circumcised in Jerusalem.

 

Yes or No: After 40 days, a time of ritual purification for Mary, they walked peacefully back to Nazareth, to their home, with no mention of fleeing to Egypt.

 

Yes or No: Living in Bethlehem in your own home, having Magi bring expensive gifts including gold and causing you to have to flee to Egypt for your lives as Herod slaughters all your neighbors children, is not the same story as trekking to Bethlehem to be taxed, giving birth as if no one knew you, and hangin' out for 40 days to safely return home to Nazareth.

 

Yes or No: If Nazareth was a safe haven, fleeing all the way to Egypt seems unnecessary save for Matthew's need to find more OT prophecies about Jesus.

 

OK, OK, enough! This "yes" or "no" game can be played with many many Biblical references. Just a few more outside of the Birth Narratives to illustrate.

 

Yes or No: If in the beginning, there was only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, (Seth was called the third child of Adam and Eve after he was born after Abel's murder), it seems strange that Cain was worried about those that would kill him if God banished him to wander the earth. There was no one else. Was he waiting for Seth to grow up, marry an as yet unborn sister, and hunt him down with his kids? Did God forget there were no others out there to hunt him?

 

Yes or No: Jesus overturned the money changers early in his career as John said. (Jn 2:13).

 

Yes or No: Jesus overturned the money changers just prior to his arrest and crucifixion as Matthew said. (Matt 21:12).

 

Yes or No: John names turning water to wine as Jesus first miracle.

 

Yes or No: Matthew, Mark and Luke never heard of it.

 

Yes or No: Paul seems to know nothing of the Gospel accounts of Jesus real life, and says he was simply born of a woman like everyone else.

 

Yes or No: Paul was converted, wrote all the meaning of Jesus and died before the Gospels, which seem never to have heard of him, though he was "a Pharisee of the Pharisees" and "above all my fellows,", were ever written.

 

I would like to think that had I been asked these questions when pastoring, I would have at least said, "That's a great question."  I have sat in on nerve wracking sessions with some HQ type coming to my area to straighten out some member who asked the wrong questions or came up with different answers from those given.  Seems both were wrong when it is all said and done!

 

Sometimes, most simply don't even know what questions to ask.  It never dawns on someone to even wonder how you can flee to Egypt for two years AND simply leave town and go home to Nazareth after 40 days. 

 

Instead of "apologizing" which I know is a sincere defense of scripture as presented, the ability to think for oneself and come up with a yes or no is also an excellent exercise in being honest with a presentation. 'Nuff said....the birth narrative realities are my way of asking us to think about what we have always been told by others and honor your own observations about the Bible, without fear what your minister or organizations might think or do.

 

Dennis C. Diehl
DenniscDiehl@aol.com

Zambia Cattle Rustling Saga Paints Kubik and UCG In Bad Light

Poor Victor Kubik keeps getting raked through the coals and looks worse every day in regards to the Zambia cattle rusting situation.

First he made false public allegations against Zambia COGWA members stealing cows he had given to UCG brethren (this was prior to the split) through his "charity" Lifenets.  COGWA hit back denying the allegations just prior to the Feast.  They essentially called him a lair and took the UCG members who stole the cattle to court and won.  The cattle had to be returned.

Kubik hits back at them again and COGWA quickly responds calling him a lair again.

Today, Apostle Malm has a behind the scenes background on UCG and Kubik which gets into how UCG was formed when they jumped ship in 1994/5.

Kubik and a large group of cronies met for months while on WCG's payroll in the 360-390 apartments on the Pasadena campus.  They plotted and schemed on how they could form a new splinter group, take a lot of money along with them, and to ensure that their standards of living would be maintained.  For many of these in this group it was more about maintaining their living standards that they were used to than it was about leaving over doctrines.  Remember that almost all of these men had never held a normal civilian job in their lives.  They had no work ethic to fall back on to.

Malm correctly points out that many of these men (who were still employed by WCG) actively kicked out WCG members during this time because they were not agreeing with the changes.  Yet while they were doing this they were secretly plotting to form a new church where some of these disfellowshipped people would join after it was formed.

You would think that once they been abused by these abusive men that they would steer clear of the new organization, but no, they jumped right over and started getting abused again.  Many in the COG are just like battered women.  They hate the abuse, but find safety in the presence of the abuser because they think they have no where else to go.  A beating now and then pales in having a "home" to come back to all the time.

Malm lists several things that these men were concerned about as they were sitting in the apartments plotting their new group:

Finally in Dec 1994-Jan 1995 both shoes fell. The new doctrines were presented to the brethren, shocking those who had insisted on keeping their eyes tightly shut and denying the reality around them. Then the shock treatment was applied to the ministry.

• The Jan 95 Pastor General Report indicated that the Pastors could not be guaranteed their jobs in the future and should now start evaluating their marketable skills.
• Over 40 ministers were handed “last chance” retirement packages.
• 30 more ministers were scheduled for lay-off with a 150 additional lay-offs projected by the end of 1995
• Contracts for the entire fleet of ministerial rental cars were canceled.
• Many local churches throughout the US merged for services.
• All subsidies to the International work have been discontinued.

This was BEFORE most of the brethren had left; and was PLANNED well before the announcement in the PGR. This was a very carefully prepared corporate move to divest of potential dissidents and financial burdens.
In additional news:

• The WCG airplane was put up for sale.
• Hundreds of regular employees were laid off.
• Imperial School closed as of July 1st.
• 1/2 of the editorial staff was dismissed.
• Major cuts abound at the Festival Office, and the Feast of Tabernacles `95 (now known as the celebration of Jesus Christ) looks questionable.
• Seven evangelists were offered healthy severance packages [only if they agree to never preach again and to keep quiet about their WCG experience] including Debar Appertain, David Hulme, Dean Wilson, Leroy Neff and the famous Gerald Waterhouse.

Some elders left because of doctrine!  Others left to get and hold a job!  Still others left to continue the effort to apostatize the brethren!  In most cases they did NOT leave of their own will, but were FORCED OUT!

These men were FORCED out; and the later meeting led by Denny Luker, to form a new entity was done with the knowledge and tacit approval of Joseph Tkach!  Most of these men did not leave voluntarily; they were forced out by Tkach for economic reasons, or as a part of the stripping away of any potential dissidents to his new doctrine.

 Very many in the vanguard of the Tkach doctrinal changes, also left WCG to have a job and the adulation of the people;  These folks wanted to follow the Charismatic mega church success model and to eventually bring the Tkach changes into the new organization called UCG.  Others were indeed followers of the HWA success model and wanted to maintain the HWA focus and his traditional teachings and style.

From the very beginning UCG was a deeply divided organization with these two internal founding groups battling for power and control.  That made a further split inevitable which ultimately came in Dec 2010.
The HWA based folks left to form the COGWA and those who wanted the Evangelical mold remained and now control UCG.

Malm is pointing all of this out because he says this is the background story of the Zambia cattle situation.  It's the HWA men (COGWA) vs the liberals in UCG who want to maintained their power positions.

The present situation in Zambia developed when the majority of the Zambia board  chose to terminate Association with UCG and instead Associate with COGWA.  COGWA being much more Armstrong loyalists.  The church in Zambia was registered as an independent legal entity in accordance with the UCGaia Rules of Association. All Zambian church assets were vested in this legal entity and not in individuals, and certainly not solely in Mr. Banda.  The legal entity in Zambia is managed by 5 Trustees of which Banda is one.

The situation in Zambia came to a crisis point when a person was unwilling to subscribe to the terms of the loan program of the cattle revolving fund. The animals in question were NOT the personal property of these particular individual. This person, angry over losing the animals (which were all voluntarily returned), and angry over the split of the congregation fabricated the  “rustling” story.

Then Malm says that Kubik sued the COGWA for  the return of the cattle and lost the lawsuit.

Vic Kubik sued Banda as an individual, demanding that he (as an individual) hand over assets to himself [to Kubik], which belonged to the Zambian church entity mentioned above. It would be illegal (and theft) for Mr. Banda to take assets registered in the name of this entity, and hand them over to Mr. Kubik. Mr. Banda has no authority to do this.

After the above was explained to the court, the injunction that was obtained against Banda at the behest of Mr. Kubik was discharged, and Mr. Kubik was stricken from the proceedings. It seems that Banda was involuntarily dragged to the courts of this world by Vic Kubik.

UCG is ripe with corruption  and greedy men.  This was well known by many when they formed their group back in the mid 90's.  That is why so many who disagreed with the changes did not go with UCG and stopped attending.

UCG had a chance when they formed their church to start a new and revitalized organization. Instead they brought the same corrupt men over, put them into the same power positions where corruption reigns to this day.  Their homes, cars, and salaries are their first priority, power is second, and for a select few, caring for the brethren is then taken into consideration. Others couldn't give a rat's ass what happens to the members.  They have made this quit obvious in their actions.

If UCG had truly believed in their core doctrines they would have stepped out in faith and might had done amazing things.  But greed and power was the model for the day and remains to this day.  It is no wonder that UCG is losing members rapidly and is NOT the glorious beacon of Truth that they let on.

Read the rest of Malm's blog entry here:  The Zambian situation explained