Are the COG's Fundamentalists?

Roger Olsen, a writer on Patheos has an entry up with the title: "Who’s Really a “Fundamentalist?” Again—the American Media Gets Religion Wrong".

He questions, rightly so, how the term "fundamentalist" is tossed around by the press and others when labelling religious groups. He goes on to explain how the word is used to label religious extremists of any religion and conservatives. It is true that the label does not apply because true fundamentalists are defined as thus:

Anyone who knows anything about fundamentalism knows that it arose in America (with simultaneous corresponding movements in Great Britain and Canada) as a militant (not violent) re-assertion of Protestant Christian doctrines in the face of the rise of liberal Protestantism.

What makes his posting interesting is that he uses the United Church of God as an example.  He apparently has relatives in UCG.

Most recently a prime time American television “crime documentary program” called the United Church of God—which follows the teachings of the late Herbert W. Armstrong—a “fundamentalist church.” True fundamentalists would consider any of the denominations that follow Armstrong’s teachings a cult (in the theological sense of the word). (The United Church of God was formed by former members of the Worldwide Church of God (now named Grace Community) when that denomination changed its theology be orthodox and evangelical—after the death of founder Armstrong. (Nothing I say here about the United Church of God is meant in any way to insult or demean it or its members. I have cousins who are members of the UCG. I only mean to point out that its doctrines are not consistent with true, historical fundamentalism.) Earlier in the two hour episode the presenter of the mystery referred to the church as “strict.” I assume, although I remain open to correction, that the writers of the program consider any “strict church” fundamentalist.

There are many problems with this use of “fundamentalist” but the main one I want to point out here is that this is simply dumb. I mean, it is part of the overall and general “dumbing down” of American culture about religion. There are too few labels and categories used and the ones they use become too “thin” to be very descriptive. To call the United Church of God “fundamentalist” is to loosen the label and category “fundamentalist” from history and theology entirely. It becomes nothing more than a label for any religious group that really takes its beliefs and life standards seriously. In that sense, then, one could label some liberal Protestant churches and people “fundamentalist!”

What spurred this on was the 48 Hours recent piece on the murder Amy Allwine by her husband, a UCG elder.

Most know very little, almost nothing, about any church or denomination other than their own (if they have one). Those who are “nones” are woefully ignorant of religion. And part of the blame for that falls on the media who do not even seriously attempt to “get it right” when talking about or portraying religious groups and individuals.

P.S. The particular “crime documentary” program in question here has my e-mail address; the producer knows me and could easily have suggested that the writer(s) e-mail me about The United Church of God so that they don’t misrepresent it. The fact that the married couple at the center of the story belonged to the United Church of God was played up as important to the particular segment of the two hour episode. So what would I have told them to say about it? “Strict” is okay, but I would have suggested they say it is a church that follows the teachings of the late Herbert W. Armstrong who was a famous televangelist considered unorthodox in his teachings by most Christians. That would have been informative. Calling it “fundamentalist” was misleading.

Of all the hundreds and hundreds of splinter groups of the old Worldwide Church of God, UCG is the more "liberal" of them all. even though they stick to the fundamental" roots of Herbert Armstrong.  UCG members tend to believe and practice their belief in many different ways and many times not in alignment with the "official" stance of the church.   This is what infuriates the Pharisaical legalists like James Malm and Bob Thiel.  They look at UCG as "Laodicean", lukewarm in their message and actions.

UCG certainly is not fundamentalist, extremist or even conservative in their beliefs. What exactly would you call them?

Wes White: HWA's Sex Book In Spanish

HWA’s Sex Booklet In Spanish

By Wes White

            1979 was a tough year for the Worldwide Church of God.  Lots of tumult.  Garner Ted had just bolted from the organization the year before -- taking hundreds of members with him and setting up the Church of God International.  Then in January 1979, the receivership crisis began.  

            History seems to have forgotten another traumatic event that exploded in the midst of those turbulent times.  I’m speaking of the WCG Spanish department’s translating of HWA’s book, “The Missing Dimension in Sex.”   

  

Sex?!?  Now you know the story is going to get interesting. 

            My late wife, Linda Hardy White, was the editor of “El Communicado,” the Spanish language version of “The Good News” magazine. (She died of ALS in 2003.)

            Linda learned that the translation of HWA’s sex book was far from accurate.  And it wasn’t just poorly done.  Worse than that, the translators were putting things into the Spanish version that actually went totally opposite of what HWA had originally written! 

As a pompous, true believer, I was indignant when she told me of this.   It’s not that I believed HWAs’ writings were necessarily sacrosanct.  In fact, I thought HWA’s two books on sex were quite silly and lacked any real understanding of sexual relations.  Here was this old man telling us what we should and shouldn’t be doing in the boudoir!   It was actually quite creepy. 

But I did believe back then that HWA was God’s anointed.  Obviously, I have repented of that today. 

            Linda’s problem with the translation was not so much indignation that people would go against God’s apostle.  Her concern was more academic.  She felt that no author’s translation should contain inclusions that went against his original work.   I mean, you don’t even have to be a Christian to buy into that.

            So Linda approached her boss, Fernando Barriga. He privately acknowledged to Linda that this translation was something that HWA would not approve, but he justified it by saying that HWA didn’t understand the Spanish-speaking culture.  Linda suggested that they at least explain this to HWA so he wouldn’t find out later – after the book was in the hands of hundreds (if not thousands) of people. 

            Barriga became furious.  He shouted at her, “I am a minister of Jesus Christ!  How dare you question my decisions?”

            Linda backed down and said, “No problem.  You’re the boss.  We’re done talking.”

            She then asked me to mention this to my boss, Raymond McNair, who was the deputy chancellor of the college.  I was Raymond’s flunky assistant.   Naturally, he became quite alarmed.  

So here is what we did.  Linda verbally translated portions of the book from Spanish to English onto a cassette tape.  Not the whole book.  Just the offending chapters.  Two of the Ambassador College secretaries then transcribed Linda’s words from the cassette into type-written pages.   McNair then took these pages to HWA in Tucson.   

            HWA was initially perplexed.  He found it unfathomable that the Spanish department would do something like this.  So he had another Spanish speaker confirm the accuracy of Linda’s translation.  

And then, boy, did it hit the fan!  Needless to say, HWA was livid when he realized what had been done to his sex book. 

            Within a few days, Linda and I found ourselves on a flight to Tucson to see “the apostle.”  We flew down there with Joe Tkach Sr and Kevin Dean.  (Another story for another time.)  We met with HWA in his home and Linda went over the whole thing with him.  

Since it had taken several days for him to confirm the accuracy of Linda’s translation, the Spanish department in Pasadena continued on with this project.  During this time, the booklet went to press.  I don’t know how many thousands of copies were printed before HWA lowered the boom. Once he closed down this project, Walt Dickinson had all the copies of the book thrown into a dumpster behind the Office Facilities building.  

I couldn’t resist taking one.  I believe I have the only one left in existence today.   Here are pictures of the opening pages. 

            Walt Dickenson was removed from the Spanish department and sent out to the field to pastor a couple of churches.  It was probably just as well.  He barely spoke Spanish.  He was in his position “because he was loyal.”   And I think because his family had once owned Dickinsons Jellies and Jams.  When the family sold out, a big chunk of the profits was donated to “the work.”

            Leon Walker (who at the time was Dean of Faculty) was placed over the Spanish department.  In a sense, he is still over it today.  He joined up with United at its inception and brought over many Spanish-speaking churches from Mexico and South America.  (Churches that had been CG7 for decades originally.  Another story.)  When United wanted to replace him as director over their Spanish department, he refused – saying that HWA put him over the Spanish work and that no man could remove him.  (Kinda like a third world dictator who is in power for life.)  So he left United and joined COGWA.  To this day, I believe he is still “over the Spanish work.”

            But I digress. 

            Looking back, I regret getting involved in this Spanish department dust-up.  In retrospect, so many of us now see how dysfunctional the WCG was.   I should have counselled Linda to just let it go and let things work themselves out.  Sooner or later, HWA would have learned about this mistranslation and dealt with it. Of course, then there would have been a bloodbath with people being fired, disfellowshipped, and marked. Linda was genuinely trying to save her departmental peers pain and humiliation.  

           

 If these folks would have listened, Walt Dickinson would have stayed in his job.  Even though he could barely speak Spanish. 

            Finally, why do I bring up these things from almost 40 years ago?  Two reasons:

            First, I like history.  I want to know the why’s of history.  When I read about a historical figure performing a certain action, I want to know why he took these steps that he did.  What motivated him to do that?   I want future historians to have as much information about the WCG as they can, so they can better understand it.  We must preserve our history – warts and all.  I continue to confess the imperfections of my past.  On this blog site and in sermons, I have admitted things about which I am embarrassed and ashamed.  History needs to know these things.

            Second, those of us who have survived those days need to learn lessons from what went on back then.  If we fail to learn from our past mistakes, we’re going to keep repeating them over and over again.  Too many of our organizations have brought their WCG dysfunctionality in with them. This cancer needs to be removed from the COG movement.  

Enough is enough.  Haven’t enough people been hurt already over the decades?  Let’s learn from the past so we can avoid hurting others today.  

            Wes White lives in Big Sandy TX and may be reached at 

wdwhite49@yahoo.com

GCI on living in a pluralistic society

The Bible thumpers in the COG who love to use the law (Malm, Thiel, Pack, Flurry, Weston) as a weapon will be getting their Pharisaical knickers all in a knot over some things said below.

First, Christians can honestly and forthrightly promote societies and governments that defend the right of all people to spend their lives seeking truth, goodness and beauty, and the ultimate Source of those values. To seek this God, who is revealed in Jesus Christ, is a task given to all people, as declared by the apostle Paul in a public square in Athens:

From one man [God] made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. (Acts 17:26-27)[1]

When it reaches out with humility, respect and freedom, the church can help people (even those who hold views and moral convictions in conflict with Christianity) to seek and discover truth and life, and the true object of worship. Members of the church do this by first listening and coming to understand, then looking for opportunity to share their own journeys and convictions concerning the faith, hope and love given them by grace through the gospel of Jesus Christ according to Scripture.

The second corollary to the fifth point is that as Christians we should resist attempts to close the public square to honest, respectful and humble interchange, especially when it involves excluding people whose voices are already marginalized. Everyone who values an equal right to justice under the law, and the free exchange of beliefs and ideas (religious or not) should be welcomed in the public square, no matter what the basis or lack of basis they have for their viewpoints.

As Christians, we can, in good conscience, advocate for pluralism in the public square that is descriptive rather than prescriptive. While descriptive pluralism respects all viewpoints, prescriptive pluralism excludes all claims to ultimate truth (seeing them as mere human constructions that are valid only for certain individuals or groups). Descriptive pluralism serves the common good and allows the church to freely and openly fulfill its mission of worship and witness.

As Christians, we believe there is only one way to a right relationship with God—through the grace and truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, who alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life. His name alone indicates the eternal, personal and particular source of salvation. He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Though we are firm in this belief, we see in the New Testament that God, in his providence, leads persons over time along many pathways to Jesus. Therefore, we should respectfully and patiently allow room for God to draw people to himself, through Jesus, by whatever means he chooses. Until Christ returns, descriptive pluralism in the public square will continue to be a necessary and good way to provide a place where all people, no matter their background or point of view, can have opportunity to encounter the Source of all truth, goodness and beauty.

In a truly pluralistic society, all who value freedom and show respect and humility toward others are welcome in the public square, while ideologues who seek to control, manipulate, threaten or shut down public discourse are resisted. A truly pluralistic society makes room for all to seek what is true and good, and thus contribute what they have to the public square. As Christians, we have good theological reason to promote descriptive pluralism within the public square and to support the governments and institutions that uphold this pluralism. We know that the Triune God is patient and kind, making time and space for us to seek him and know him, and for the church to proclaim salvation in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so that all might reach repentance and know and worship the living God.  Church, Kingdom & Government part 3