How NOT to give a sermon in 2023

 

Bouncing Bob sermons

Imagine if you will, that you are heading to church in a hot non air-conditioned room with a metal roof in the middle of Africa and you show up to and are subjected to a 1 1/2 hour video "sermon" covering so many points your brain tunes out due to the heat, subject matter, and monotony of the speaker's voice. Even the wild flailing gestures can't keep your mind occupied. 

Even in the Zoom age, presentations that go more than 30-45 minutes lose their viewers unless there is room for personal interactions.

Today, the greatest Church of God leader in human history sent out his "sermon" from last week to his dwindling flock. It was all about church governance and the need to submit to HIM and how all of his accusers in Africa are liars.

These are the topics he covers in his "sermon"

Does the Bible support democracy or top down government for the Church of God? 

Does God work, primarily, through one human leader at a time? 

Did the late Pastor General of the old Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong, repeatedly teach that God worked primarily through “ONE MAN AT A TIME, though with others (male and female) assisting that leader? 

Who is that one man now? 

Who should be eliminated as being that one man? 

Would we expect that one man would be part of UCG, PCG, LCG, COGWA, RCG, or CCOG? 

Could God have given one or more Divine signs to point out who that one man is? 

What type of government will be in the Kingdom of God? 

Are we to be preparing to be kings and priests now? 

Is it appropriate to want to push for a non-top down from God’s government if there is some type of corruption in the organization he leads? 

What about 1 Samuel 8:1-20 and 1 Samuel 12:1-5? 

Did Jesus have any financially corrupt with Him? 

What are allegations that have been raised against Radson Mulozowa, Bradox Ochieng, and Evans Ochieng? 

Is there any truth to any of them? If so, which? 

Could there have been some type of deepfake related to an alleged Facebook Messenger chat related to claims of adultery? 

Does Laodicea mean ‘people decide’ or ‘judgment of the people’? 

Should Christians be ‘independents’? 

What about being ‘congregationalists’? 

Have various accusers changed their stories or broke promises? 

What should those who consider themselves to be faithful Philadelphians do? 

Dr. Thiel deals with these and other matters. So there is even MORE crap he talks about?

Bob Thiel was never ordained in the Worldwide Church of God, Global Church of God, or the Living Church of God, for multiple reasons. His mind-numbing sermon above is a perfect example.

The church in the early years dreamed up a course that Ambassador College students had to take called "Spokesman Club", a speech training class loosely patterned after Toastmasters International. Though, if you have ever been a member of Toastmasters you quickly learn how useless the Ambassador program was. 

Spokesman Club has these points when giving a speech:

This is from Speech 2:

Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has shown us that the first rule of success is to have a goal. This is most assuredly true in making a speech. Determine in this speech to accomplish this. Pick one main point: make it simple, useful, purposeful. Aim that one point straight from your heart to the hearts and minds of your friends in the audience.

Don't lose sight of that goal; know where you are going when you start; never deviate from that point; drive that one point home.

Pick one subject you know well, one you have been thinking about over a long period of time, or one that has filled your life recently. The better you know your subject matter the less you think about self (the less you have to fight nervousness.); the more able you are to present it with earnestness and force and help your brother!

Right off the bat, Bob has failed his sermon. Multiple topics and every damn sermon are about HIMSELF!

Select your subject. Write down every point that comes to your mind about the subject. Pare the subject down to the core (your one purpose, aim, goal). Omit all unnecessary ideas, thoughts, wanderings and excuses. Use only the essential elements needed to get across the subject. Draw everything you are going to say toward one point like iron filings to a magnet.

You can watch Bob's eyes as he speaks, his brain is wandering all over the place and he inserts useless topics of the regular brain farts he receives that prevent him from staying on topic.

Speech 3

Dull, dry speeches that put people to sleep are a dime a dozen. You must learn to make, your point, give your purpose ringing clarity. Make it sharp, to tbe point: remember the Word of God is likened to a two-edged sword, not a pillow full of feathers. Misunderstanding is the most common ailment of the human mind. People misunderstand each other in conversation. Political orations are misunderstood. Nations bicker over misunderstandings. The main reason for all this is lack of clarity. Most people don't say what they mean, nor do they mean what they say. Speech number two brought to focus the purpose and sincerity you should have; now concentrate on making that purpose clear. MAKE THE TRUTH PLAIN!

When you have selected the topic you are going to speak on, ask yourself the following questions about it: what, why and who. . . . and then answer these questions about your subject so clearly that the dullest person in your audience will comprehend without a shadow of a doubt.

When the speaker does not even understand his topic how in the world can the "dullest" person in the room comprehend it? 

"They say" is the most common authority quoted. In this speech you must gather source material, learn to get to the core of the matter, to summarize, to find the crux of the question at hand, to learn to quote substantial authority to back up the statements you make.

MAKE THE FACTS LIVE! Don't just give a dry, statistic-filled speech showing off your knowledge to the third figure after the decimal. The truth can be not only plain but vital and living. FIRST, BE SURE YOU GET TRUE FACTS! Secondly, arrange the facts in such an order that they have real meaning. Thirdly, give the facts character and make them interesting.

Speech 9

Webster says "instruct" means: "to impart knowledge to--especially METHODICALLY-to teach, to inform, to furnish with direction." Educate, teach, describe, inculcate-but be sure to make it plain and Simple, EASY TO UNDERSTAND!

Bring out detail in logically organized continuity. Give complete understanding to your audience of the subject you choose. Present your subject so clearly that your hearers will be able to instruct others in the same subject. 

 

Worldly men go to great lengths to show off their intelligence. When a doctor, a professor, a Ph.D. lectures or writes he usually uses larage cumbersome words that hide the meaning-make you think he knows more than he does. You must make every effort to make your point as plain in the mind of your listener n~ it i~ in your mind.

LOL! HWA nailed Bob's ass with this one. Bob tacks on the Ph.D. after his name as if has a Ph.D. in theology. It's all smoke and mirrors. He has no such thing, but only took classes as Fuller, Ambassador, and enrolled in an unaccredited Indian diploma mill from India. Gavin Rumney went into great detail about Bob's so-called diploma.

Make "simplicity" your guide-word! Ask yourself

Conccrning each point: ls this point necessary? Is it in the right order? Will everyone understand this? Is there a simpler way to say it? Is it PLAIN-TRUTH PLAIN?

Then there is this on evaluating speeches:

Put down the word, INTRODUCT/ON: as the speaker launches into his talk, choose a word or two which will describe the way he gave his introduction. Did it arouse attention and interest? Was it too long, misleading, apologetic; or enthusiastic, striking, and interest-catching'! Next put down: SPECIFIC PURPOSE STATEMENT: was it purposeful and clear, giving a good idea of what the speaker was going to talk about; or was it misleading and inappropriate or perhaps missing entirely? Put down the word, BODY: were the main points clearly defined, properly emphasised and logically developed; or vague and misapplied, lacking supporting material and authoritative, substantiating proof? If audio or visual aids were used, were they effectively employed or distracting? Was the transition from one point to the next clear and easy to follow, organized and logical; or was each point given as a disjointed segment or a disorganized whole? Write down, CONCLUSION: did the whole speech lead to a logical conclusion? Was there a summary of the main points, an appeal to action, a climax, reemphasizing and demanding action on the main purpose; or was the end left hanging as an unanswered question in the mind of the audience? Did he leave any questions he posed in the introduction or specific purpose statement section of his speech unanswered or ineffectively answered? Did he just peter out because of a lack of information, or the lack of a planned conclusion-or worse yet, did he transgress the buzzer and go overtime? 

 

Note the following aspects which cover the main portions of any speech. Your speaker's key problem may lie in one of these. You may not necessarily have to make a comment on each: Platform-Eye contact- Posture-Gestures-Movements-Voice-Grammar- EFECT ON THE AUDIENCE-Power-Sincerity.

Bob has failed every aspect on how to deliver a speech, both with COG standards and Toastmasters standards.  

Herbert Armstrong would have failed Bob in Spokesman Club. Herbert Armstrong would have immediately kicked Bob out for insubordination. Herbert Armstrong would have disfellowshipped and publicly marked Bob for starting his own church. Bob is no more a real Church of God than the Church of Satan is.

LCG: No, no, you fools – Russia and China are not the danger. It’s Germany, Germany, Germany!

 

Some things in Armstrongism never change, particularly if you are the Living Church of God. How many decades has this nonsense been going on? How many more decades will they continue to say this? Those pesky Germans! Always trying to stir up problems. The Church of God today has more to fear from its own leaders like Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, and Bob Thiel than any outside entity.

Hat tip to a reader for this:

Friday, March 24, 2023

 

Where Will China's Ambitions Lead?

China and Russia are growing closer. Last month, China proposed a 12-point plan to end the war in Ukraine. This week, Chinese President Xi was in Russia meeting with President Putin. President Xi commented that his country was prepared to work with Russia “to stand guard over the world order based on international law” (The Guardian, March 20, 2023).   In another part of the world, China recently “brokered a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, in the process upending U.S. calculus in the Gulf and beyond” (CNN, March 15, 2023). Analysts know that as China’s ambitions continue to grow, it will need more oil. Shoring up relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia and building up its own credibility with both nations bodes well for China’s future oil needs. However, the country’s recent diplomatic coup in the Middle East and its pledge to work with Russia as a protector of international norms serves China’s plan to further push the waning United States out of the role of global hegemon. As the U.S. declines and further alienates other nations, it leaves a global leadership vacuum that must be filled. China appears to be working to fill that void. As analyst Nic Robertson noted, what the U.S. has long feared is now happening, regardless of the ultimate result of the war in Ukraine: the creation of an alternative world order that is not centered on the United States.   British and U.S. decline was prophesied long ago in the pages of the Bible, as was the rise of other nations to take their place as the end of the age approaches. Interestingly, the leading international power will ultimately notbe China! While China will likely play a major role in end-time events, eyes should be on Germany! To learn more about the future of the world, be sure to read our free resource, Germany in Prophecy.

 

Kaiser Wilhelm II Was NOT The Antichrist! Whew!

 

You can all relax a little now. It has been established by a COG authority that Kaiser Wilhelm II was not the Antichrist, but maybe a type of beast. Isn't it so wonderful to have all of these authorities in the church telling us how things are and how they all fit into prophecy! Aren't we blest above all other churches!!!!!! 

Now, if only they researched and discussed Jesus as much as they do these useless topics. One can dream, can't they?

A reader sent this to me this morning:

My study on Kaiser Wilhelm II (attached) has been updated with several items, one of them is this quote:

 

Marr Murray (1915) in his book Bible Prophecies and the Plain Man:

 

"The first beast of Revelation has seven heads, ten horns, and ten crowns, making twenty-seven separate features combined in one beast. There are exactly twenty-seven kingdoms, arch-duchies, principalities, and dependencies in the German Empire. They are Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Wiirtemberg, Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Saxe-Weimar,  Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Brunswick, Saxe- Meiningen, Saxe-Altenburg, Coburg and Gotha, An- halt, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sonders- hausen, Waldeck-Pyrmont, Reuss (elder branch), Reuss (younger branch), Schaumburg-Lippe, Lippe, Lubeck, Bremen, Hamburg, Alsace-Lorraine, and the Colonies. 

 

There are, then, a number of likenesses between the Kaiser and the Antichrist. But there is one characteristic of the latter which is lacking in the Kaiser, or at any rate has not been evinced up to the present. And that is the fact that the Antichrist will be a military genius. He will be something more than a capable general: he will be greater than Cesar, or Napoleon, or Alexander, or any of the great military captains of the world. Events have shown that the Kaiser does not possess this pre-eminent genius. He has prepared the mightiest military machine the world has seen, but he cannot utilise it to the full. If Napoleon had had a quarter of the Kaiser’s military resources and advantages he would have been an Antichrist indeed. When the Corsican aimed at the domination of the world, France and Europe were exhausted after the great Revolution. The Kaiser has had innumerable advantages over  Napoleon. He has enjoyed a period .of remarkable material prosperity, and has had time in which to make the most detailed preparations. The time and the opportunity are his, but he has not the genius to snatch them.

 

We must conclude, then, that he is not Antichrist. He is merely a man possessing some of the characteristics of the Antichrist. But if we imagine a blend of Napoleon and Kaiser, then we have an idea of what the real Antichrist will be like." (pp. 302-03)

 

Also, I have assembled a new table that demonstrates some similarities between the more recent Beast leaders. Does this provide insights into the final Beast? While I have mentioned these similarities before in previous articles, I thought it would be easier to follow and comprehend in the attached table form.

 

In due course I shall add this table to the ‘What will the Beast be Like?’ article available here.