Church of God Ministries International: Tom Kerry Covid Story

 

CGI'sTony Buchert’s Civil Disobedience

 

Tony Buchert’s Civil Disobedience

The Church of God International’s Medina, Ohio congregation was treated to a discourse this past Sabbath (10/16) on the “proper” understanding and application of the thirteenth chapter of Paul’s epistle to the saints at Rome as it relates to modern Christian resistance to the Covid-19 vaccines. According to Mr. Buchert, Paul’s instructions to the saints at Rome should not be interpreted to suggest that U.S. Christians should conform to government mandates regarding Covid vaccination. Mr. Buchert insisted that those who would dare to employ Paul’s instructions to those ancient folks in their arguments in favor of Christians being vaccinated in the Twenty-First Century are twisting Scripture and attempting to force these “good” people to violate their consciences!

The fact that Mr. Buchert saw fit to address this topic at all suggests that this scripture (Romans 13:1-5) has been troublesome for anti-vaxxer elements within the church. After all, Paul’s language in this instance was fairly straightforward and clear. He wrote: “Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course, you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment but also to keep a clear conscience.” Well, that’s plain enough, right? “Not so fast!” says Tony Buchert.

Mr. Buchert begins his diatribe with a statement of the obvious: This scripture does NOT sanction blind obedience by Christians of every law and edict of the human governments we are currently living under. As he goes on to point out, when some edict/law/mandate contradicts God’s law, Christians should not obey it! Indeed, as Mr. Buchert underscores, to do so would violate that Christian’s conscience and force him/her to violate God’s law. Even so, Mr. Buchert seemed to completely ignore the Christian’s obligation to submit to whatever penalty/punishment that the human government devises for those who would disobey its will. Yes, there are numerous examples of “civil disobedience” in Scripture, but many of the saints who engaged in such behavior often ended up suffering horrendous consequences for their failure to obey. For example, John the Baptist lost his head, and Jesus Christ was crucified! In other words, Christians are still obligated to SUBMIT to the authorities which Paul says that God has placed in charge.

Unfortunately, Mr. Buchert did not confine his arguments in this regard to Scripture. He also chose to introduce things like the Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Federalist Papers into the conversation. In addition to condescendingly implying that the proponents of Covid vaccine mandates are unfamiliar with these documents, he strongly suggests that they buttress his arguments about personal and religious freedom relative to mandates.

And, although he never actually elucidated how those documents support his own views relative to vaccine resistance, he went on to proclaim that government officials must also conform to the Scriptural foundations on which they rest. Did Mr. Buchert forget the concept of the separation of Church and State? Does he understand that many of these secular authorities do not view themselves as serving at God’s pleasure? Does Mr. Buchert understand that the Kingdom of God does not yet currently reign over this earth? And what about the powers that those charters grant to the government (federal, state, and local) to protect the LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its’ citizens? Does Mr. Buchert realize that government must be the arbiter when one citizen’s rights conflict with the free exercise of another citizen’s rights?

Unlike his citation of those august documents of American democracy, Mr. Buchert did actually employ the material of two extreme right-wing sources to support his anti-vaxxer views. Indeed, it came as no surprise to me that Mr. Buchert used material from Culture Watch and Project Veritas to buttress his message to his mentor’s (Pastor Bill Watson) congregation. On the Culture Watch website, we find the following headlines: “Do you think Biden should officially resign?”, “Pope Francis just put a big smile on Dr. Fauci’s face with this pro-vaccine demand”, and “A judge just smacked Planned Parenthood with the worst news they’ve ever gotten.” Likewise, on the Project Veritas homepage, we find headlines like “PFIZER LEAKS: Whistleblower Goes On Record, Reveals Internal Emails from Chief Scientific Officer & Senior Director of Worldwide Research Discussing COVID Vaccine ... ‘We Want to Avoid Having the Information on the Fetal Cells Floating Out There’.”

Obviously, Mr. Buchert is comfortable with sources that deal in conspiracy theories, misinformation, lies, and overt support of extreme political ideologies. For him, these voices should be given the same “rights” in the marketplace of ideas as those of scientists and public health officials! But I guess the end justifies the means – right? After all, Mr. Buchert points out that God rewarded the Egyptian midwives for lying to Pharoah when he questioned their disobedience of his edict regarding the murder of Israel’s male babies!

This is an example of what the Church of God International is currently allowing to be preached from its pulpits? Just when I was beginning to be encouraged by the voices of Jeff Reed and Vance Stinson within that organization, we have this! I guess we should all thank Mr. Buchert for giving voice to all of those poor Christians who are being asked to receive this wicked jab in their righteous arms!

Lonnie Hendrix

The Jot, the Tittle and Liberalism: The Retaining of the Law of Moses in Armstrongist Theology

 

The Jot, the Tittle and Liberalism:

The Retaining of the Law of Moses in Armstrongist Theology

By Neo

 

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.  Acts 15:5, KJV. 

 

“Paul shows right here that Gods law is not abolished — that it is "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart" (II Cor. 3:3).  God's laws — His commandments, statutes and judgments — are to be in our hearts — we are to live them by the power of God's Spirit.”  

– Rod Meredith in “Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation?”

“GOD’S MESSAGE is NOT one of LICENSE, BUT one of OBEDIENCE. For God says, “One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5: 17-18). EVERYONE everywhere, who would live forever, MUST COME TO LIVE BY ALL THE LAW!” 

– Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, Lesson 23, p. 3. 

Armstrongist theology requires that the Mosaic Law kept by adherents to the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong.  Not only must the Law of Moses be kept in toto but it is also written on the heart under the New Covenant.  This means not only the preservation of the letter but any greater stringency that is exegeted out of, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount.  Given this doctrinal position in Armstrongist theology, it is worthwhile knowing what Jesus was speaking of in Matt 5:18 – the jot and tittle verse.   He was talking about nothing less than the full Mosaic Law – including not only laws, statutes and judgments but also ritual, sacrifices and other prescribed elements of liturgy.  Further, the compliance with some of this litigation required the context of the Temple in Jerusalem.   Required Temple worship was removed from Judaic practice in Rabbinical Judaism after 70 AD - not in the Bible. 

Later, after the sacrifice of Jesus, both the animal sacrifices and the ministration of death were excluded from the New Covenant.   So Jesus in Matt 5:17-18 was not speaking of the New Covenant law that would be instituted in the future for the church but the intact Mosaic Law that he kept when he was living under the Old Covenant.   And the jot and tittle constraint immediately underwent revision after Jesus’ death.  Other laws such as circumcision were magnified to become spiritual principles. 

Rhetorically, why then would Armstrongists use Matt 5:17-18 that refers to a transitional and superseded condition pertaining to Jesus’ life on earth to move elements of the Mosaic Law into the New Covenant?   For instance, Matt 5:17-18 is cited as part of the Armstrongist argument for retaining the Old Covenant tithing law as a New Covenant church requirement for salvation.  But by using Matt 5:17-18 to retain tithing, Armstrongists make themselves doctrinally liable to keep the entire Mosaic Law – every jot and every tittle.  They target tithing and the Sabbath and other select laws, for instance, but seem to almost inadvertently open the door to the full scope of the Mosaic Law as a requirement for salvation.  Re-read the quotation from the Ambassador College Correspondence Course above. 

The frightening (for Armstrongists) issue is that they have bound up their salvation in the keeping of the Mosaic Law in its full scope by misapplying Matt 5:17-18.     Whereas, they have readily adopted tithing and the Sabbath, what about this law of equal status and written also on their hearts:

"Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!'” (Leviticus 13:45, NIV)

The term “defiling disease” is in Hebrew tzara’at.  It is not clear what this means medically but the Jewish Study Bible analyzes it extensively and concludes that it refers to a “scale disease” or “surface affection.” It does not refer to leprosy.  How many Armstrongists follow this law, for instance, when their teenagers develop acne?  The only way you can get around this would be to claim that it falls below the threshold of being a jot or a title and, hence, can be disregarded.  (Note: I see in this scripture the endorsement for using masks to prevent the spread of diseases – at least as translated in the NIV.)  So here is an example of a law in the Old Testament, written on the heart and required for salvation, that no Armstrongist keeps. 

So how do Armstrongists reduce the cognitive dissonance – the uneasy state of mind stemming from the discrepancy between what the Law of Moses states and what they actually do?  From what I learned when I was an Armstrongist is that they resort to liberalism.  They void the jot and tittle principle by brazenly modifying what Herman Hoeh taught was God’s eternal, moral law.  This is a radical liberal approach.  A conservative approach is to retain every jot and every tittle just as Jesus defined the scope.  HWA many times used the term “liberal” as an epithet.  One wonders why.  A radical liberal revisionist approach is to believe that the Mosaic Law can be modified at will.   So the jot and tittle principle is nullified and now Armstrongists can stay at a nice hotel rather than experience the rigors of a scripturally prescribed brush arbor. To make it clear, Jesus’ statement in Matt 5:17-18 encompasses the idea of staying in a brush arbor only.  And so apparently for Armstrongists God’s Great Moral Law is not really so eternal after all.    It only lasts until there is a need to change it for convenience.