Gerald Flurry's Wife's Ex-Husband Commits Suicide

On November 16, 2020, Gerald Flurry married a woman he had been "counseling" for over a year. That alone should have sent alarm bells ringing due to the gross ethics violation that it is. Of course, this is Armstrongism after all and proper counseling techniques and standards are not taught or practiced. Hardly any minister in any of the Churches of God has ever had proper counseling training through certified schools with experienced practitioners in counseling. All Armstrongism uses is seat-of-the-pants counseling as they pull information out of church-related literature and claim this is proper counseling.

Flurry admits to his dwindling flock that eight months into his counseling with Viki Barreiro that they began to date "exclusively".

Dear brethren: I have been meeting with Vicki Barreiro for one year. It all started with ministerial counseling. We both developed feelings for each other in that process. We have been dating exclusively for the last four months. We plan to marry in a private wedding with only our immediate families on November 16.
—Pastor General Gerald Flurry

Ethics standards for counselors and interaction between clients is thus:

From Counseling Today, Ethics Update - Romantic/Sexual Relationships:

DK: So let’s start at the beginning. Sexual or romantic interactions with clients continue to be prohibited?

MK: Absolutely. The 2005 ACA Code of Ethics continues to recognize the harm that can be impacted upon clients when they are sexually intimate with their counselor. The counseling relationship is one based on trust, so we must respect the power differential inherent in any counseling relationship regardless of the counselor’s theoretical orientation or perspective. Engaging in any type of sexual or intimate relationship with a current client is abuse of power. Clients come into counseling emotionally and psychologically vulnerable and in need of assistance, so a counselor trying to engage in such relationships would be trying to take advantage of that client and their vulnerabilities to meet their own needs. Relational/cultural theory frames this as striving for a “power with” instead of a “power over” relationship.

DK: So the reason that the 2005 ACA Code of Ethics continues to give no leeway and to ban all sexual or romantic interactions with clients is because we know that harm always occurs when that happens...

DK: As mentioned earlier, the 2005 ACA Code of Ethics increases the prohibition on sexual and romantic interactions with former clients. The old 1995 code stated that counselors were to avoid sexual intimacies with former clients within two years of termination. The revised 2005 code expands the time frame to five years. Why did the Ethical Code Revision Task Force decide to increase this prohibition to five years? 

 

MK: While some may see the exact number of years delineated as arbitrary, the reason a ban on sexual/romantic relationships with former clients was increased to five years was that we wanted there to be a little more time for the counselor to be reflective and to give more time for closure of the counseling relationship. It is really important that enough time has passed for the power differential to be resolved. It is also important to recognize that counselors can decide to make the personal choice to never engage in romantic or sexual relationships with former clients even though the ACA Code of Ethics allows one to do so after a five-year waiting period.

In Armstrongism we have ministers who counsel members to divorce their spouses, withhold sexual favors or even separate themselves by splitting the house in two and living separately. If these men were real practitioners they would be in jail for their corruption and gross ethics violations. Ministers regularly discuss counseling sessions with their wives who then gossip to other church women. Other ministers joke with other ministers about counseling sessions and the things they have to listen to and make fun of their members. Sadly, the Philadelphia Church of God and the Restored Church of God are the biggest offenders in this practice. Whether marrying a counselee or the nurse of your terminally ill wife, ethical and spiritual violations are rampant in these churches and in the Church of God as a whole.

Now for the sad news, Exit and Support Network is reporting:

Husband of Vicky Barreiro Committed Suicide:
January 10, 2021
Did you know that Vicki Barreiro’s husband committed suicide?? Vicki moved to Ponca City, OK to be near HQs in Edmond, OK, leaving her parents, 80 or so years old, alone in CA. –[name withheld]

PCG members will click their tongues and say that Vicki is blessed to be divorced from her ex-husband and married to a true Christian now. Why her ex-husband killed himself is unknown, though they will now lay all blame at his feet now instead of improper and unethical counseling sessions with Gerald Flurry that led Vicki to divorce her husband.

See:  The Wedding Of The Century! King Gerald Flurry Is Getting Married!

 

3000 Years of To Eat or Not to Eat. Why or Why Not? -- Depends Who You Ask

 Bob Thiel is out with his semi-annual and typically Church of God defining practice of keeping what can be eaten and what cannot in mind.  

Why Some Are Eating ‘Biblically Clean’ and COVID

https://www.cogwriter.com/news/doctrine/why-some-now-are-eating-biblically-clean-and-covid/

We here all know the Church of God drill on not eating the unclean animals listed in the OT so I won't rehearse it. 

But the answer as to "Why not?" has always been elusive. 

Of course the New Testament gives the definite impression that for Paul , as Apostle to the Gentiles, there was no problem with eating unclean foods or even meats offered to idols, which he was told to avoid in Acts 15.  He blew that off once back home to Corinth with caveats I am sure he only practiced in the presence of "the weak in understanding".   I Cor 8 and 10   In this he was truly "all things to all men depending"

And without all the apologetics given by the Churches of God, we have Peter, in a going to the Gentiles setting, being told in Acts 10:

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

This was done three times. Peter doubted the meaning but then got the hint.

“28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

And, of course, we know the COG apologetic being, "Well yeah, go to the Gentiles for sure with the Gospel, but we still don't literally eat the Unclean" etc. 

Jesus is even said to have noted:

“Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him…. Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:1-5, 14-19; RSV)

We're not going to worry if the "Thus" was a later editorial opinion or part of the author's intent. It's in the Bible. 

This post is the "Why Not?" of eating or not eating the creatures on the planet, and debating all the "health" reasons for doing or not doing so. Every one of them can be refuted or argued endlessly about.  For example, today the answer to the health concerns over 

"Which meat is healthier, pork or beef?  is...

"Pork chops used to be on the doctors’ hit list. Today, however, pork is “the other white meat” and is a healthy alternative to red meat. And when it’s eaten in reasonable quantities (8 oz), a pork chop can be quite good for you."

But I would like to draw our attention to what the Jewish Rabbis and scholars have speculated about as to "Why" about. Precious little has to do with health vs it will kill you and God knows what's good for you.  It is also a fact of Israelite history that they were warned not to because they often did not heed the rules.

Huge topic in Jewish history and a good read of the various and many Jewish views as to why can be fascinating. No real why seems to be agreed upon. Church of God types, of course, know more than the people who wrote the Book and the rules and have simplistic views and answers. They also are forced to weave fantastic apologetics for many clear New Testament dismissals of the rules for clean and unclean.

To the point.  The conclusion of the Jewish argument as to "Why are some creatures good for food and others forbidden? is...

. "There is no other reason for all the dietary laws than that God gave them" (Samson Raphael Hirsch, "Horeb," 1837, p. 433). Thus says Lasch ("Die Goettlichen Gesetze," 1857, p. 173) in regard to the dietary laws: "He who truly fears God will observe His laws without inquiring into the reasons for them." Any question regarding the historical development of these laws is obviously excluded from the standpoint of traditional Judaism. "The dietary laws," says M. Friedländer ("The Jewish Religion," p. 237, London, 1891), "are exactly the same now as they were in the days of Moses."

A few quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia

"The distinction between clean and unclean animals appears first in Gen. vii. 2-3, 8, where it is said that Noah took into the ark seven and seven, male and female, of all kinds of clean beasts and fowls, and two and two, male and female, of all kinds of beasts and fowls that are not clean. Again, Gen. viii. 20 says that after the flood Noah "took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar that he had built to the Lord." It seems that in the mind of this writer the distinction between clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only; for in the following chapter he makes God say: "Everything that moveth shall be food for you" (Gen. ix. 3). "

"In Leviticus (xi. 1-47) and Deuteronomy (xiv. 1-20), however, the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" is made the foundation of a food-law: "This is the law . . . to make a difference between the clean and the unclean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten" (Lev. xi. 46-47)."

Reasons for Distinction.

"There was much speculation as to the reasons why certain species of animals should be allowed as food and others forbidden. In the Letter of Aristeas (lines 144-154) it is explained at length that "these laws have been given for justice' sake to awake pious thoughts and to form the character." 

"One should not say "The meat of the hog is obnoxious to me," but "I would and could eat it had not my Heavenly Father forbidden it" (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, end). In Talmudic-Midrashic literature no attempt is made to bring these laws nearer to human understanding. It was feared that much defining would endanger the observance of them, and all were satisfied "that they are things the use of which the Torah forbids" (Tanḥuma, Lev. ed. Buber, Shemini, iii. 29), although they were not capable of explanation."

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4408-clean-and-unclean-animals

" Whether justified in doing so or not, the great majority of West European Jews have broken away from the dietary laws; and the question for the Reform rabbis of the nineteenth century was whether the religious consciousness of the modern Jew should be allowed to suffer from a continual transgression of these laws, or whether the laws themselves should be submitted to a careful scrutiny as to their meaning and purpose and be revised—that is, either modified or abrogated by the rabbinical authorities of the present time. "

"A proposition to this effect was made at the Rabbinical Conference of Breslau (see Conferences, Rabbinical), and a committee consisting of Drs. Einhorn, Holdheim, A. Adler, S. Hirsch, and Herzfeld was appointed to report at the next conference, which, however, was never held. Dr. Einhorn's report, on behalf of the committee, was nevertheless published in "Sinai" (1859 and 1860). Its leading idea is that the dietary laws, with the exception of the prohibition of blood and of beasts that have died (or die) a natural death, are inseparably connected with the Levitical laws of purity and the priestly sacrificial laws, and are therefore of a mere temporary ceremonial character and not essentially religious or moral laws."

"G. Wiener in an exhaustive work of 524 pages, M. Kalisch, and K. Kohler have pleaded for a revision of the dietary laws. S. R. Hirsch and M. Friedländer have written in favor of the full retention of the laws (see bibliography below). Sam Hirsch gives a symbolic and allegorical interpretation of these laws in his Catechism, 2d ed., pp. 55-64, Philadelphia, 1877. As a matter of course, this question of revising or abrogating Biblical and rabbinical laws has no bearing upon the majority of Jews, who believe in the immutability of the Law, both the written and the oral. See Abrogation of Laws; Articles of Faith; Reform Judaism."

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5191-dietary-laws#anchor7

Personally, I find this interesting...

I. Animal and Plant Names:Arguments in Favor of Totemism.

A considerable number of persons and places in the Old Testament have names derived from animals or plants. Jacobs ("Studies in Biblical Archæology," pp. 94-103) has given a list of over 160 such names, including Oreb (the raven) and Zeeb (the wolf), princes of the Midianites; Caleb (the dog), Tola (the worm), Shual (the fox), Zimri (the chamois), Jonah (the dove), Huldah (the weasel), Jael (the ibex), Nahash (the serpent), Kezia (the cassia), Shaphan (the rock-badger), Ajalon (the great stag), and Zeboim (the hyena). Many of these, however, are personal names; but among the Israelitish tribes mentioned in Num. xxvi. are the Shualites, or fox clan of Asher; the Shuphamites, or serpent clan of Benjamin; the Bachrites, or camel clan; and the Arelites, or lion clan of Gad. Other tribes having similar names are the Zimrites, or hornet clan, and the Calebites, or dog tribe. In the genealogy of the Horites (Gen. xxxvi.) several animal names occur, such as Shobal (the young lion), Zibeon (the hyena), Anah (the wild ass), Dishan (the gazel), Akan (the roe), Aiah (the kite), Aran (the ass), and Cheran (the lamb). The occurrence of such a large number of animal names in one set of clan names suggests the possibility that the Horites, who were nomads, were organized on the totem-clan system.

(NOTE:  I always wondered why Moses would raise "the serpent in the wilderness" for healing of snake bite when such images were strictly forbidden in the Big Ten "

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." (Numbers 21:8)

Gospel Jesus confirms this use of the Serpent as meaningful pointing to his own being "lifted up" John 3:14-15. So as a totem perhaps it was fine.)

"IV. Forbidden Food:

Members of a totem clan did not eat the totem animal. As such totems gradually spread throughout the nation, a list of forbidden animals would arise which might be analogous to the list of forbidden animals given in Lev. xi. and Deut. xv. Jacobs, however, has shown that in the list of animal names given by him forty-three are clean as against forty-two unclean."

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14460-totemism

The point being that for the Jewish people and throughout their history since the law of clean and unclean were written by the priests, the "Why?" has many possible reasons with none agreed upon.  

It is truly a case of "Because I said so is why!"

The simplistic idea given by the Churches of God that "because the unclean animals are not good for you and the clean ones are", is shallow and weak. 

Ask about the health benefits of eating any "unclean" creature, such as shrimp and you will scientifically get...

"Health Benefits

Because they're low in carbs and calories and packed with nutrients, shrimp are an ideal choice if you're trying to shed some pounds.

The antioxidants in shrimp are good for your health. These substances can protect your cells against damage. Studies suggest that the antioxidant astaxanthin helps prevent wrinkles and lessens sun damage.

Shrimp also has plenty of selenium. Some studies suggest this mineral prevents certain types of cancer, but there's not enough research to know how well it works."

 The problem with any meats, from Chicken to Pork to Beef to Fish, is in the caution in preparation and not in the nutritional value.   Even pork rinds, (fried pork skins) are considered a much better choice than the standard potato chip which I am sure Church of God types have no problem scarfing down. 

https://drhealthbenefits.com/food-bevarages/meats/health-benefits-of-eating-pork-skin

The point being that the topic of "Why?" are some creatures considered clean and others unclean is a three thousand year old debate amongst the People of the Book themselves with many differencing conclusions drawn. 

Ultimately, "Because God says so" seems to be the best they can do until other come along and say, "Well,  that question today and in the New Testament is rendered moot".

 Others will scream, "Is not! Is not!"

 

CGI: Vance Stinson repsonds To "Imprecation" Post About Bill Watson

 

A response to Lonnie Hendrix's post on "CGI’s Bill Watson: Pastor or Warlock?"

Vance Stinson gave permission to post his letter here.

Hi Lonnie,

 

You asked me to listen to Bill Watson’s message on imprecatory prayer and give you my thoughts on it. The subject was not new to me; I first explored it many years ago. Theories on the purpose and meaning of the imprecatory psalms, as well as questions surrounding whether and how Christians should apply them in their own prayer lives, have been debated by Christian scholars, and different conclusions have been drawn. Bill raises essentially the same questions many have raised in times past, but does so with modern evils in view—the abortion mill, the rise of Marxist elements in our own society, etc. As he concludes his message, Bill summarizes his purpose for giving it:

 

“When is the prayer of imprecation, of asking God to intercede and to short-circuit some of the things we see around us? All I’m doing is asking. I’m asking you to think about it; I’m asking yo to look deep into your own hearts, gauge your involvement, your interest, your action, and then ask yourself, heart-to-heart, maybe in your prayer closed with God the Father—ask yourself, What do you think about it?”

 

At points in the message Bill does seem to be advocating imprecations against organizations, movements, and perhaps even individuals perceived to be enemies of freedom, godliness, and true justice; however, he carefully qualifies his comments by repeatedly reminding his listeners that he’s merely raising the question, not telling anyone how to interpret and apply the biblical examples of imprecation.

 

Bill has raised some thought-provoking questions and placed them in the context of many of today’s issues of concern. Here, in a nutshell, are my thoughts on the subject:

 

I’ve been an advocate of “praying the Psalms” for many years. The Psalms reflect/reveal the good and perfect will of their divine Author as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their human authors. David, who composed many of the psalms, was both a bloody warrior (1 Chron. 22:8; 28:3) and a man of profound faith and commitment. We should expect, then, that deeply introspective prayers composed by a man like King David would reflect his exceptional qualities as well as his shortcomings. And I believe that’s exactly what we do find in the imprecatory psalms.

 

The Tanakh (“Old Testament”) itself is the revelation of God—not merely a revelation (or collection of revelations) fromGod, but the revelation of God Himself. That is, this collection of books (including the Psalms) reveals what God Himself is like, but only in part. The fullness of the revelation of God came into the world at the Incarnation. Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension; His offices of King of Kings, High Priest, and Savior/Redeemer; and His teachings, as recorded in the New Testament, fill up the meaning of (“fulfill”) all previous revelation (Mt. 5:17ff). Indeed, we can see God most fully by looking into the human face of Jesus!

 

Therefore, when I read the Tanakh, I read it through the lens of the Christ-event (which includes all that is mentioned above). The question, then, is not whether or not the imprecatory psalms are instructive for Christian readers—I believe they are!—but is simply this: What does Jesus Christ say about how His followers should think of their enemies? And to this question, we have an unambiguous answer:

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:43-48, ESV, emphasis mine).

 

This passage needs no explanation; its meaning is clear. The meaning of Psalm 109 is likewise unambiguous. The psalm, which is attributed to David, reads (in part) as follows:

 

⁹ May his children be fatherless
    and his wife a widow!
¹⁰ May his children wander about and beg,
    seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!
¹¹ May the creditor seize all that he has;
    may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil!
¹² Let there be none to extend kindness to him,
    nor any to pity his fatherless children!
¹³ May his posterity be cut off;
    may his name be blotted out in the second generation!
¹⁴ May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord,
    and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out!
¹⁵ Let them be before the Lord continually,
    that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth! (ESV)

 

The psalmist is describing a corrupt court whose purpose is to destroy the accused. The New Testament account of Christ’s betrayal, arrest, and trial echoes the situation the psalmist describes. The individual the psalmist refers to is either a corrupt judge or the chief accuser (prosecutor) of this bogus trial. The psalmist, in poetic fashion, is calling on God to reverse the roles and allow him to pronounce judgment on his false accusers; to let them—the chief accuser in particular—receive the punishment they seek for the accused.

 

The psalmist honestly expresses his feelings toward his accuser and the false witnesses the accuser has assembled. His enemies “encircle [him] with words of hate, and attack [him] without cause.” They “reward [him] evil for good, and hatred for [his] love” (vv. 3-4). If we put ourselves in the psalmist’s place, we can easily sympathize with him; we can feel what he feels, and we realize he’s just being honest with his own feelings. One of the lessons here is that we should always be open and honest with God, for we cannot hide our innermost thoughts and feelings from Him. (Bill mentions this important principle in his message.) However, this should not be looked upon as a model for how we ought to pray regarding corrupt individuals and those who persecute us. The psalmist was not praying for his enemy, except in the sense that he was praying for his enemy to die! He obviously did not have love of his enemy in his heart when he composed these words; nor was he thinking in terms of “hate the sin but not the sinner.” No, he wanted the scoundrel dead and forgotten!

 

Should, as disciples of the New David, pray that way? No, we should not! However, there is a sense in which we can and should pray for—and even work toward—the “destruction” of the ungodly. We do this, not by calling on God to reign fire from heaven upon them or causing them to meet the same fate Jezebel or the prophets of Baal met in the days of Elijah, but by calling on God to change their hearts, and by using us as His agents—instruments in His Almighty hands—in helping to bring about such change. This is what the Church’s commission is all about!

 

I don’t wish for the heads of abortion providers to be dashed against the stones or for their bellies to burst open and pour their entrails onto the street for all to see. I want to see them “perish” by way of repentance and remission of sins. My hope—and prayer—is that the gospel will convict them; that the old, sinful, murderous self will “die” and be replaced by the new man in Christ. God destroys the wicked by turning the wicked into saints—and He does it through human agents! This kind of “death of the wicked” happens all the time. It happens every day in the Muslim world and in communist countries where the saints suffer severe persecution. It happens in the abortion clinics and among abortion-providing doctors and nurses. It happens in prisons. It happens in families and homes. It is by way of prayerful intervention and proclamation of the good-news message (the gospel) that our despised, falsely accused, persecuted brothers and sisters in China, North Korea, Nigeria, and many other parts of the world are, so to speak, agents of destruction—death angels!—whose prayers for their persecutors storm heaven day and night.

 

The “destruction” we should pray for (and work to bring about) is the same kind of “destruction” the apostle Paul refers to in his first epistle to the Corinthian believers:

 

“When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man [who was in an incestuous relationship] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:4-5, ESV, emphasis mine).

 

To “deliver to Satan” means simply to expel from fellowship. The purpose of this action is two-fold: 1) to prevent “a little leaven” from leavening “the whole lump” (v. 6), and 2) to motivate the offender to repent of and overcome his sinful tendencies (“the destruction of the flesh”). Without the “destruction of the flesh” (repentance, overcoming), the man’s “spirit” won’t be “saved in the day of the Lord.” (Side note: This text does not mean “Let the sinner die physically so that he might be saved spiritually in the second resurrection,” as some few have suggested.)

 

In addition, when we take our concerns before God, we, as followers of Christ, must recognize who the real enemy is. Paul says, “For we so not wrestle against flesh and blood [our human persecutors are but pawns; they’re not the realenemy], but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). That’s the real enemy! And that’s the enemy we should proactively oppose (see vv. 13-20 for how to do it).

 

In conclusion, the imprecatory psalms are deeply meaningful, especially when we read them through the lens of the Christ-event. The details of the New Testament Passion narratives “fulfill” (i.e., fill up the meaning of) the imprecatory psalms’ descriptions of the treachery and deceit of the accusers and the overwhelming anxiety of the accused; and they speak, in human terms, of divine retribution and the ultimate fate of the ungodly. These psalms also remind us of the importance of laying our hearts bare before God, of being completely honest about our innermost thoughts, feelings, and motives. And, finally, they remind us that the accuser of accusers is at work behind the scenes, that human accusers are mere pawns, oftentimes believing they are doing God a service. Our hope and prayer is that God will “destroy” them—that is, destroy the carnality the enemy uses to hold them under his sway—and “raise them up” to a new life in Christ. So when we pray for our persecutors, we look to the model of David—the New David, that is—who, in the torments of the cross, prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”

 

That’s the rich spiritual and Christological meaning I derive from reading the imprecatory psalms through the lens of the Christ-event.