The Truth About Anti-Church of God Literature?
In their booklet with the same title as this post (minus the question mark), Church of God, The Eternal lamented that "Virtually every doctrine in the Church of God is now being questioned." For anyone who is familiar with the Armstrong Churches of God, this title and statement will immediately call to mind the word "hypocrisy." Considering the fact that most ACOG literature is a continuous and relentless attack on the doctrines/practices of traditional Christianity, this charge regarding "Anti-Church of God" literature smacks of "the pot calling the kettle black!"
In the same opening paragraph of COG Eternal's article, they assert that "the present proliferation of literature assailing church beliefs was promoted by the doctrinal changes which took place in the Worldwide Church of God during 1973-74." Really? Might it have something to do with problems inherent to the teachings of Herbert Armstrong? Is it possible that the numerous prophetic failures and the implosion of the Worldwide Church contributed to the phenomenon? The article even admits that more than a dozen splinter groups formed as a consequence of the demise of the parent church! Even so, later in the article, it is asserted that "the failure of an organization does not abrogate truth." I would agree with that statement, but I would also question the judgment of any individual who didn't question whether such a failed organization actually possessed the truth in the first place!
Once again, for those who are familiar with ACOG culture, the first question that this article poses about ACOG critics will come as no surprise. They ask: "Did they ever believe?" Armstrong and his minions have always reasoned that anyone who would abandon their "truth" must have never really been converted in the first place! Of course, the reasoning offered in the article to support this conclusion is circular.
They assert that the folks who have repudiated their doctrines must now believe that they were deceived in the past - "Yet, not one of these writers has admitted it." Really? I have freely admitted here and elsewhere that I allowed myself to be deceived by Herbert Armstrong. Contrary to their assertion, there was a time when I (and other critics) really believed Armstrong's teachings and even tried to convince others of them. Likewise, I have also repeatedly acknowledged my own culpability in all of this - my failure to do my due diligence in investigating and researching what Herbert was teaching!
The COG Eternal article also asserts that the literature that is critical of ACOG teaching presents "incongruous arguments" - which they claim is a manifestation of the prejudice that infects their critics. To support this charge, they offer ONE example of someone making different arguments about the size of the old Worldwide Church to suit the needs of the criticism they are putting forward. Once again, that sounds an awful lot like "the pot calling the kettle black." Herbert Armstrong and his minions twist and ignore Scripture and history to support their teachings about the history of their organization, the history of traditional Christianity, and the biblical identities of modern nations without blinking an eye. In other words, does ACOG criticism of the teachings of traditional Christianity manifest their prejudice against Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians?
Another favorite argument against their critics which finds its way into this present article is their charge that their critics are motivated by emotional reactions to the past. This is probably one of the most pernicious arguments that these folks have always employed against their critics. It is a form of gaslighting. If someone is emotional, they are not being rational and objective. This argument also undermines the validity of the real experiences of the many folks who have been hurt/harmed/deceived by the ACOGs. This argument is also the cousin of the argument that their critics are simply being rebellious and/or are manifesting a "bad attitude." In other words, your criticisms aren't based on reality - they are the product of your own warped and twisted mind or thinking! In this way, they get to dismiss the criticisms without ever actually addressing/answering them.
The article goes on to assert that "distortions render everything questionable." There they go again! They are completely oblivious to and unapologetic for, their own distortions of Scripture, history, and science! Yet, all of those distortions and incongruities inherent in their own history and teachings never provoke a single question about the validity of their own culture! It never occurs to them to question the doctrines based on those distortions or the flawed men who formulated them in the first place. They never think to question the likelihood that Almighty God would use men with such glaring personal failures to "restore truth" to His Church!
The COG Eternal article then attempted to portray critics of the ACOGs as NOT practicing Christian love. They say that "true Christians...will attempt to avoid sarcasm," and "do not make specific sins of others public." Does that mean that Paul's first letter to the saints at Corinth branded him as a false Christian? You remember, the epistle where he ridiculed the congregation's tolerance of a man who was openly having an affair with his father's wife. So, Paul's sarcasm and public outing of that man was inappropriate in a "true" Christian? The article goes on to suggest that the primary objective of everyone should be to protect the truth - the clear implication being that the personal bad behavior of folks who preach the "truth" must NOT be revealed to the public!
Finally, the article advocates compartmentalization in evaluating the performance of the ACOGs. According to COG Eternal, the "truth" can be divided into three distinct and separate categories: doctrine, prophecy, and administration. This allows them to acknowledge that the ACOG culture has been responsible for many prophetic and administrative failures and still insists that those failures have no impact on the veracity/validity of doctrine. Now, do I really need to talk about the interrelatedness of these things? OR Are the problems with their compartmentalization of "truth" apparent to my readers? Do I really need to cite and quote all of the passages of Scripture that deal with exposing false teachers, teachings, and prophets? (Just in case, here are a few for those who may be interested: Deuteronomy 4:2, Matthew 7:15, Romans 16:17-18, Galatians 1:6-9, Ephesians 5:11, II Timothy 4:3-4, etc.) Is that enough? Does that nail it down?
