LCG says church members do not have the right to correct the church or call out its errors

Ever since Bob Thiel got his delicate feelings hurt by his spiritual father  Rod Meredith, he has been lashing out at the Living Church of God over one perceived slight after another.  That bitterness is what led him to self-appointed and self-ordain himself as the new end time "work" in the 21st century.  The anger at the constant rejection of his utterances by LCG leaders and evangelists infuriated Thiel.  The ultimate slap down came when Rod Meredith publicly rebuked Thiel from the pulpit, which sent Thiel into a meltdown, of which, he has never recovered.  No one had the right to tell him what to do and what to teach.  So, in the ultimate fit of self-righteous anger, he formed his own splinter cult.

Living Church of God's Doug Winnail has written another missive to LCG faithful warning them that they are not to take it upon themselves to correct or "save" the church, much like Bob Thiel attempted to do and still pretends he can do.

LCG warns about the demonic spirits trying to sway LCG faithful with their own imagined doctrines and against those within and without the church who are critical of LCG policies, actions and treatment of members.

Apparently, Jesus Christ is having a hard time building his church with all of these pesky interruptions happening all the time with the members.  Its always the members who have these problems and never the ministry.  When will LCG stop being such problem children?

So there you have it brethren! Now you can truly have a profitable Sabbath!

Beware of Misguided Ideas: The Apostle Paul warned, “in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1–5) and that many will not listen to sound doctrine but will prefer to follow their own ideas (2 Timothy 3:1–6; 4:1–4). The Apostle Paul also warned that critics from within and from outside the Church will try to divide the Church to gain a following (Acts 20:29–31). He pointed out that Satan will try various ways to mislead well-meaning people (2 Corinthians 2:11)—often new people (1 Timothy 3:6)—by appealing to the human desire to be recognized as an authority (3 John 9–10). Numerous issues threatened to destroy the early Church: different ideas about foods, hair lengths, the resurrection, circumcision, etc. (see 1 Corinthians and Galatians). However, Paul’s constant advice was to “Guard what was committed to your trust” (1 Timothy 6:20), to “hold fast” to what you have been “taught” (Titus 1:9–11) and “avoid foolish disputes” (Titus 3:9; 1 Timothy 6:3–5). When questions do arise over doctrine, the biblical example is to take the issue to the leaders of the Church for a decision (Acts 15:1–31). Nowhere do the Scriptures encourage individuals to take it on themselves to correct or “save” the Church. That is something that Jesus Christ will take care of in His time as He “builds” His Church (Matthew 16:18).
Have a profitable Sabbath,
Douglas S. Winnail

To Sermon, Or Not To Sermon

How NOT to give a Sermon

This is Bob's Sermon Outline. 

Is studying acting acceptable for Christians?

Will animals, like wolves and lions, remain carnivores?

Does Ezekiel 13 warn against false prophets?

Should you be baptized for the dead?

What are Bible marginal references?

Should you follow people like Edgar Cayce?

How do you calculate a tithe?

What is second tithe?

What is third tithe?

What is the ‘tithe of the tithe’?

When do you start a third tithe year?

Did Adam first marry Lilith?

What are the fasts of Zechariah 8:19?

How is God jealous in Exodus 20:5?

Can women hold outside jobs?

What is kosher?

Would Jesus vote?

Should Christians vote?

Dr. Thiel goes through scriptures, facts, COG documents, and historical information to provide answers.

Let's edit this just a tad. 

Is studying acting acceptable for Christians?

Will animals, like wolves and lions, remain carnivores?

Does Ezekiel 13 warn against false prophets?

Should you be baptized for the dead?

What are Bible marginal references?

Should you follow people like Edgar Cayce?

How do you calculate a tithe?

What is second tithe?

What is third tithe?

What is the ‘tithe of the tithe’?

When do you start a third tithe year?

Did Adam first marry Lilith?

What are the fasts of Zechariah 8:19?

How is God jealous in Exodus 20:5?

Can women hold outside jobs?

What is kosher?

Would Jesus vote?

Should Christians vote?

Dr. Thiel goes through scriptures, facts, COG documents, and historical information to provide answers.

There.

Now we have a sermon topic which will be entitled "Is Studying acting acceptable for Christians".  This will thus be the topic of the Sermon. The Sermon length should conclude in 20 minutes. However, being a COG, where long sermons are the norm, let's be generous and, because of the obvious novice level of the speaker, let's expand it to 30 minutes. But before we do this, let's think this over just a bit.

1. HOW MANY MEMBERS ARE ACTIVELY CONSIDERING GOING TO COLLEGE TO STUDY ACTING? 

2. HOW MANY MEMBERS AFTER CONSIDERING GOING TO COLLEGE TO STUDY ACTING CAN ACTUALLY AFFORD TO GO TO COLLEGE TO STUDY ACTING? 

3. IS THE SERMON TOPIC ABOUT STUDYING ACTING SOMETHING THAT WILL BENEFIT THE CONGREGATION AS A WHOLE, OR IS THIS BETTER HANDLED AS A PERSONAL COUNSEL? 

4. DOES ANYBODY IN YOUR CONGREGATION HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THIS TOPIC? 

5. WHY? 

6. AGAIN, WHY? 

7. WHO IN AFRICA OR IN THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP HAS THE TIME TO DO SO? 

8. AGAIN, PLEASE, FOR THE REASON OF LOGIC - WHY?!

If there is a logical need for this message as a whole to benefit the whole church body (which there is not), let us proceed then with structuring the message properly. For the sake of humoring the topic, let's just go with this. 

We will now need to outline this 30 minute sermon using the following format: 

1. Introduction (used to engage the audience. Use some humor and pose an interesting question for engagement). 

This should be 4-5 minutes or less. Here's some ideas:

"Many of you this morning have probably risen from bed this morning with quite the urge to go to Hollywood." Wait, no, I don't really think this will work, as the answer to this is none. Sorry about that. Let's switch gears.

"Have you ever wanted to be someone famous? Like Sylvester Stalone, or (insert actor here, here...) Have you ever seriously considered going to school to study acting?" It's a start, but it's a non-starter honestly because this is an un-relatable subject to the majority of the audience. It is better handled with personal counsel one on one, not as a full sermon subject. How did we even get on this subject in the first place? Oh yeah, we had to cancel out all the other subjects and just go with the first one to try to make a cohesive sermon! That's right! And we ended up with a sermon topic on studying acting which 95% of the audience simply does not care about!!!!!!. Right. 

But since we know none of this will matter, let's continue to the second point. 

2. Discuss what acting is. (This should be 5 minutes or less. Be to the point, on target, and be referenced.)

This should be easy. It need not be a long-winded, pointless diatribe about the history of acting, or the pagan origins of acting, or bouncing around to everything about acting that is unchristian or evil. Succinct, simple, and short. And most of all, REFERENCED. 

3. Scripture reading. (Use scripture(s) (no more than 2 or 3 at most) to support your position. This should again, take about 3 to 5 minutes.) 

Find a scripture to support your position on why STUDYING acting is wrong. Not ACTUALLY acting, but STUDYING acting. If you were to give a sermon on ACTING, that would be a whole different message. This one is about STUDYING acting, and why STUDYING acting is wrong. Once you find your scripture on why STUDYING acting is wrong...

***Crickets****

***more crickets****

then we can go to the next point. 

4. Expound on Scripture, explain the position (Why not study acting), overcome any possible objections, prove your point. (3 to 5 minutes.)

This may prove to be difficult, based on the success of point 3. 

Pretending that point 4 was successful, let's move on to point 5. 

5. Re-Engage the audience, tie-back to the introduction, prove the point. (3 to 5 minutes)

6. Conclude the Message. (3 to 5 minutes.) 

Let's pretend that the message outline is completed properly. Now let's give it a chance to actually be a Sermon. 

In the message: 

Use a little humor if needed. 

Use vocal inflection. Don't be monotone. 

Be natural. Avoid stiff and awkward gestures. 

Don't sniff. 

Make sure the scriptures back up the message. 

Avoid crooked bookcases. They are distracting. 

Avoid ragged curtains. They are distracting. 

Relate to the audience. Use real-world examples. 

Be fluid. Don't jump all over the place. The Sermon should flow, not jump waves like a new surfer. 

Stay ON TOPIC. 

Make the message memorable. 

This is a completely free public service lesson. 

There's no charge. 

There's no follow-back. 

There! 

Now that wasn't so hard! Or, was it?

submitted by SHT

Personal Infallibility, the plague of COG leaders and members

This is from a blog posting by James McGrath which precisely sums up how certain Church of God leaders act, and many members, for that matter. Most have no real theological education, have never examined other points of view on theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, or even read anything other than something Herbert Armstrong wrote or said. That in its self adds another dimension to how COG leaders and members think.  If Herbert said it, explained it and said it was true, therefore I believe it is true. End of subject.

McGrath writes:

You can see from what it says the contemporary issue that sparked the statement. But it has a much broader application, which is what made it seem particularly memeworthy. It certainly seems true to my own experience. Even while claiming “it isn’t me, it’s God,” I did precisely what Lars Cade says in practice, although it is only with hindsight and after significant introspection and self-examination that I recognize these things.

Is this your experience of what is at work in fundamentalism – that the reason for being concerned to defend the authority of the Bible is ultimately to defend the rightness of one’s own views and those of one’s community? To be sure, the claim is always that it is one’s own beliefs that are being conformed to the Bible rather than vice versa. But that only works because, despite all the praise heaped on the Bible and its importance, the average conservative Christian does not know the Bible well enough to appreciate its diversity, reads it in a translation that hides discrepancies and differences from them, and knows only (or at least knows best) those parts that can be interpreted as supporting their stance.

“The Bible is True. I believe the Bible. Therefore, everything I believe is true.” Does that sum this viewpoint up well?