Their Fabricated Tithing Doctrine: This is the big daddy. This is their sacred cow. This is the beating heart of their evil empire. The crown jewel. The Death Star.

It is amazing how this blog gets under the thin skins of so many little self-appointed false prophets of the church. The Great Bwana Bob Mzungu Thiel, the Chief Overseer of Africa and the Occasional 100 Caucasians, popped his little cork today over a letter we posted some time back by Harry Eisenberg (see previous post) where Eisenberg discussed how the church covered up the fact that tithing was not a command. 

The Great Bwana Bob, along with many of the other charlatans masquerading as COG leaders claim tithing is a new covent command. They have to do this because they would have no other means to fund their disturbing little "ministries". Trying to prove that tithing is still commanded seems to be one of the times they feel justified lying is appropriate. As hard as they try they cannot disprove that tithing is NOT a new coveant command.

Their Fabricated Tithing Doctrine

This is the big daddy. This is their sacred cow. This is the beating heart of their evil empire. The crown jewel. The Death Star. The one ring to bill them all. The pot of gold. Their matrix (into which they want to plug you). Their Wizard of Oz. Their magic spell. Their special power. Their secret recipe with the eleven herbs and spices. Their Golden Goose. The very air upon which they breathe!

Question this doctrine and watch these money hungry pastors bare their fangs. This is a teaching that they will bear no compromise on. Tithing, or at least their own version of tithing, is their one true love.

Here are some bullet points about tithing that these money hungry pastors don’t want you to know:

• The New Testament Church did not tithe.
• The New Testament does not teach tithing for Christians.
• Their favorite Malachi verses cannot be used for Christians since Christians are not under the law of Moses.
• Abraham’s one off tithe of his war booty did not set up a precedent for Christians to regularly tithe their income.
• The version of tithing they teach cannot be found in Scripture (see below).
• The “Storehouse” in Malachi cannot be equated to your local church organization.
• There are plenty of rich (money wise) Christians who do not tithe. This would be impossible if their version of tithing was true.
• The New Testament teaching is that you decide how much to give, and there are no rules about where it goes. You cannot be compelled to give.

It may come as a surprise to learn that their tithing doctrine is a combination of twisted scriptures and wishful thinking, as opposed to solid Biblical exegesis reflecting a central thrust of New Testament teaching. Here is their tithing doctrine stated in a nutshell:

“Christians must give ten percent of their gross income only to their church organization. If they do, then God will bless them for any offerings they make to the church organization beyond this ten percent. But if they do not give ten percent gross, then they are stealing from God and God will curse them.”

There are variations of this teaching, and sometimes it is called a “principle”, but the above definition contains the core essence of this doctrine.

It is vital to grasp that tithing is not for Christians. Tithing was part of the old law (of Moses) which was fulfilled (completed) by Jesus. You know that Christians are not under the law of Moses don’t you?

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. – Romans 7:6

know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. – Galatians 2:16

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” – Galatians 3:10

New wine should not be put into old wine skins, nor should new unshrunk cloth be used to patch an old garment; if you think you need to obey the law of tithing then you need to obey the whole law (or you will be cursed, Galatians 3:10).

What is more, this tithing doctrine they teach isn’t found in either the New or Old Testament. Tithing in the old testament does not match what these pastors preach – this unique tithe teaching is of their own invention.

This is such an important subject that Cultwatch has a special website TithingDebate.com dedicated to setting Christians free from this fake doctrine. There are free books to download and articles to read. Make sure you read our article “Should you give? New Testament Giving Supported!”, because Cultwatch is not anti-giving. If you think tithing is for Christians today, then you need to read TithingDebate.com

Tip: If you are struggling to feed your family or buy them clothes, then understand that you do not need to give to the church. You can still do so if you choose, but you should not feel under compulsion since your family is more important. Also understand that if you are poor then that does not mean God is cursing you, or that you have done something wrong; this is an erroneous teaching these greedy men promote to guilt you into giving. Remember, your duty is to your family first. If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. – 1 Timothy 5:8

Tip: Churches that push this erroneous tithing doctrine will often try to enforce tithing via written agreements (called covenants), and also by monitoring what people give (so they can compel them to give more if they are not meeting the ten percent target). First, grasp that these “covenants” are illegitimate and not worth the paper they are printed on, because they contain false doctrine (like tithing) and set up the pastors as a false authority over you. God would not be party to a covenant that contains falsehoods, therefore God was not party to the covenant you were pressured to sign, therefore you are free from this burden. It is as if you never signed it. Second, recording what you give and using that information to pressure you to give more is wrong, the Bible implies that our giving is best done in secret so that only we and God know what we gave. Don’t go to a church where they monitor what you give. (note: some churches voluntarily let you record what you have given via a numbered envelope system for tax purposes. Done correctly, no one in the church will know what you gave. There is nothing wrong with this kind of recording.)

Your Counter Strategy: Stop giving to that church until they change their ways. That doesn’t mean to stop giving to Godly works, we would encourage you to give as the Holy Spirit prompts you and as you decide. But it is valid to protest false doctrine by refusing to fund the system that promotes that false doctrine.

Check out CULTWATCH: How Pastors Get Rich

How the Truth About Tithing Was Suppressed (And Still Is) In The Church of God

The Great Bwana to Africa Bob Mzungu Thiel had another meltdown today over this letter. Apparently, it is time to run it again.

"Hello. Ted? This is Bob... Remember that tithing research? 

I think we're going to have problems with Harry."

There has been a great discussion on the Ambassador College Alumni site about tithing and how one man, through much research, proved that tithing was not an Old Covenant or New Covenant command for church members.  Of course, this did not sit well with an administration that survived on tithing.

The man who did this research was Harry Eisenberg.

From Ambassador Report 1

Editor: At beautiful, serene Ambassador College a person who is too concerned about truth may suddenly find himself living in a hostile environment. His personal quest for truth may not be regarded as dangerous or heretical as long as his voice is not heard by too many people; but if he is eloquent, or in a position to influence minds in the Ambassador entity, then his quest for truth will be regarded as a great threat.

After Ambassador College ascended to a position of limited prestige among fundamentalist institutions, and while in the midst of accumulating perhaps the most effective propaganda machinery of all such institutions, there occurred the simultaneous accident of accepting a student who regarded the acknowledgement of truth as paramount.

By the time this happened, Garner Ted Armstrong had become a major industry. The Worldwide Church of God had become Ted's religious arm of global influence and the church's Doctrinal Committee had become an efficient oppressor of truth.

The following account, written by Harry Eisenberg, is an account of character assassination. It clearly explains how truth is suppressed inside the Ambassador entity and how the one who discovers it must become silent, giving way to the personal doctrines of those in power, or be removed.

Before his discovery, Harry Eisenberg was an employee of Ambassador College. He is the author of eight major articles published for Ambassador under his by-line, as well as the author of numerous articles written for others or published under no by-line. Here is his story:

Quite by coincidence, I am writing this article on the main campus of the University of Maryland. As is the case with virtually every other institution of higher learning, considerable research into both the sciences and humanities has been undertaken here. The purpose of the university is not only to educate students, but to provide new knowledge and answers to questions affecting our society.

Colleges and universities have in fact been the major vehicle for providing society with new knowledge in just about every field. The student, especially the graduate student, is on campus not only to absorb knowledge but also to make a contribution to the body of knowledge extant in his particular field. To use a familiar phrase, he is expected to give as well as to get!

One would think this principle should hold true for Ambassador College as well. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. This is due to a basic difference between Ambassador College and other institutions of higher learning.

Whereas most universities exist to promote the advancement of knowledge and to pass it on to their students, Ambassador College exists to promulgate to the public the knowledge and values of its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong. New discoveries and/or contributions to knowledge are often not welcome there. For one thing, such new discoveries are not, generally speaking, in keeping with the primary aim, which is the dissemination of existing knowledge. Furthermore, should any new concept uncovered through the research of a faculty member or student conflict even remotely with the views of the founder, such research is utterly unwelcome, as Herbert Armstrong's views are regarded as sacrosanct and inspired.

For example, one student wrote a research paper for an Ambassador theology class, claiming that the scriptures speak of a spirit in animals as well as a spirit in man. He provided considerable evidence to support his contention. Upon presenting the paper to his instructors, the student was urged to keep his ideas to himself. It seems the spirit in man and the idea that animals differ from man is a pet concept of Mr. Armstrong's, and the theology instructors were afraid to present the Student's findings to him.

The following semester the student was not allowed to register for classes and was expelled from the college. He was charged with the crime of "highbrowing the ministers", whatever that means. The loss was Ambassador's, not the student's.

I was a paid researcher on the staff of Ambassador College for over four years. Generally speaking, my work involved providing "proofs" for the pet concepts and theories held by Mr. Herbert Armstrong and/or his son, Garner Ted. Occasionally, I was successful as in the case of an article entitled "Did Jesus Have Long Hair?" This article attempted to show that there is historical evidence proving that Jesus did not necessarily wear long hair, as he is often pictured today.

My article was widely reprinted and resulted in a personal full-page interview in a major Los Angeles daily. It was one of few articles which have cast Ambassador College in a good light. It was met with complete silence by an administration which feels any publicity should he its own private realm.

In January 1973, I was asked by my supervisor, Brian Knowles, to research the subject of tithing. In particular, Mr. Knowles was interested in learning who paid what to whom and how in ancient Israel.

And so I began a systematic study of the tithing doctrine by listing each Biblical verse which in any way refers to tithing. What followed was a study of commentaries, encyclopedias arid various historical sources. The result was inevitable! I came to see that the tithing concept as promulgated by Ambassador College and the Worldwide Church of God was contrary to both the Old and the New Testaments.

Scripture makes it plain that the right to collect tithes was given to the Levitical priesthood in exchange for their service in the Temple. There is no evidence that this right was ever passed on to the New Testament Church. The Encyclopedias BRITANNICA and AMERICANA both confirm this view when they state the early New Testament Church did not practice tithing, although it was later adopted by the Catholic Church in the Sixth Century A.D.

Upon presenting the research paper to my supervisor, I was treated in a manner reminiscent of Galileo's encounter with the Catholic Church. I was warned that I had better keep my findings and views to myself. Naturally, it was assumed that I had done the paper because I had some kind of ax to grind and was merely out to prove a previously held notion. Research at Ambassador so often has meant nothing more than finding "proofs" for the "inspired" concepts and ideas of the Armstrongs.

When I was asked to squelch my ideas, I pointed out that that might be difficult as four people had already seen the paper. I was told that if I would keep it down, a doctrinal committee (sic) would eventually consider my findings. Six months went by and about all that the so-called doctrinal committee accomplished can be seen by reading a booklet entitled MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE published briefly by Ambassador College in the summer of 1973.

When I concluded there was no reason why I should keep my paper from others, I proceeded to show it to anyone who inquired about it. Not believing I was the ultimate authority on the subject, I collaborated with a team of some six other Ambassador College researchers on a more in-depth paper on tithing which was completed in December 1973.

As a result of these papers and the fact that I no longer felt a religious compulsion to practice tithing, I was dismissed, without warning, from my job on January 7, 1974. This happened despite the fact that my new supervisor, Dr. Robert Kuhn, acknowledged that I had done outstanding work for him. So much for religious freedom at Ambassador College.

The paper in question was ultimately published with minor modifications by both the Foundation for Biblical Research and the Associated Churches of God. Some open-minded researchers for a newly reconstructed doctrinal committee which was investigating tithing confided to me that any thesis or dissertation from reputable theological institutions that they had the opportunity to examine dealing with the subject in question, tended to agree with my findings.

Finally, in a meeting called to investigate the origin of the papers published by the Foundation and Associated Churches, I was publicly slandered by Ambassador President, Garner Ted Armstrong. Armstrong stated, "Now I don't express it as assassination of Harry's character-it is his mind I'm worried about and not his character. I'm not a bit worried about his personal integrity or his personal habits nor his personal sincerity, but I'm not prepared to say he is the most balanced individual mentally, and that I would rely an awful lot on his research."

But he had been relying "an awful lot on his research". Just weeks before, Armstrong had been parroting my findings on his television program seen by millions in the U.S. and Canada. Furthermore, many of these programs were repeated on the air over and over again. On more than one occasion, articles bearing the by-line of Garner Ted Armstrong but researched by me appeared in fire PLAIN TRUTH magazine.

Only when my findings disagreed with Armstrong's private views was my research no longer reliable and the writer fit for ridicule. But such are the risks that anyone takes who might dare disagree with the administration.

-Harry Eisenberg

Editor: Harry's efforts to obtain the truth about tithing represented a special threat to the Ambassador administration. It is the one threat Ambassador fears the most-the threat of individual integrity asserting itself over Ambassador's aristocratic corporate structure.

Consequently, on January 7, 1974, Harry Eisenberg's hopes of a fair hearing for tithing research died by committee. Harry's voice, as well as his research, had to be removed from among the followers.
The Ambassador College Board of Trustees found nothing sinister about Harry's removal. Ministers and students who had liked him apparently found nothing objectionable in his being disfellowshipped. "He was a youth overly exposed to satanic doctrines, demonic thoughts goaded him into an attitude of rebellion. Nothing unusual in that." It ended, however, in his dismissal from an organization to which he had dedicated his life.

The announcement of Harry's termination took less than a few seconds. There was no risk that the doctrinal committee would expose the true reasons for Harry's dismissal because members of that committee had been a party to it. There was no risk of exposure from members of the Ambassador-controlled media because a few words about the "Ambassador Oasis" from the charismatic Ted Armstrong and the students would inquire no further. They would not try to digest the indigestible, think the unthinkable, or question Pilate about the removal of a Christian.

No, on January 7, 1974, all seemed well. In fact, things seemed better than ever. And, in short time, the people would again be reminded that "God's work is moving ahead stronger than ever."

"Alpha Men" In The Churches of God

 

Plain Truth 1961

Rod Meredith is well known for saying some absolutely bat shit crazy stuff over the decades, most of it easily disproved. Why people view him as some spiritual giant is mystifying to most people.

Nothing pushed his buttons more than being referred to as "the church's most effeminate minister". Reportedly, Herbert Armstrong himself said that. In the early 1970's when he was "teaching" a class at Ambassador in Pasadena, he had an absolute meltdown over the fact that many men were wearing Izod pink polos. Only queers wore pink. Supposedly, almost all the men in his class wore pink Izod polos to class the following week. You can just see his red face with veins popping as he had a fit. Delightful!

The church has always had gay and lesbian members in it for decades, some closeted, some not. Melvin Rhodes and Dennis Luker were sympathetic to gay and lesbian members in the Worldwide Church of God/United Church of God and had developed an online support group for members.

In 2011, I had this from a gay UCG member posted on my blog as a comment:

I am a member of UCG and had a laugh when I read about the rumor of UCG's "Hidden Gay Feast Site." It is disheartening to me that some COG folks would be bitter about UCG's efforts to show compassion toward homosexuals. Showing kindness and respect for people doesn't mean "justifying" sin, as some of these people seem to think. 

 

The UCG upholds the traditional biblical teachings about sexual relationships: Sex in heterosexual marriage is good; all other sexual relationships is sin. 

 

I've survived the harsh COG for 40 years. I remember the terrible attacks and contempt shown for gays during the WCG years from the 70s forward. 

 

I'm so glad that men like Dennis Luker and Melvin Rhodes have been willing to listen and learn about the subject of homosexuality; and have shown compassion and respect to me and others who have struggled with homosexuality for most of our lives. 

 

I live as a celibate Christian man, as a member of the UCG. My survival in the Church is due in part to Dennis Luker being willing to step out and learn about this issue - and also treat me with respect. 

 

I have a story posted on the Internet, if anyone cares to read it. It is at: www.michael9776.com 

 

Sincerely,
"Michael" (not my real name) from  "UCG's "Hidden" Gay Feast Site? Hardly....."

Today, James at The Painful Truth site sent me a link to one of his current articles: Alpha male. In it he has a quote from a letter sent to him by a former church member.

My grandparents began listening to radio church of god back in the old days and the rest is history. My parents were both raised in the church and while my dad is no longer in it and hasn’t been for many years my mom and grandma are still deeply involved with different splinter groups. I have attended many different splinters throughout my time in the church such as United, Living, the fathers call, which is led by Brian Orchard, and faithful flock, which is led by Don Billingsly. I can safely say that these last two people are some of the few people in the world that I truly hate.

I put my foot down and refused to attend church anymore in 2016 and it caused a big rift between me and my mom. My Parents divorced in 2009 and I lived as a “spiritual orphan” for most of my life. I’m sure most of you know that divorced women are the lowest lifeform possible in the church and it wasn’t much better for me. Having been out of the church for four years now I’m only starting to begin to understand just how badly it has infected my way of thinking.

To give an example I was unable to acknowledge the fact that I am gay until 2019 and it still amazes me to this very day. It always felt like my worst nightmare growing up and I secretly hoped I would not turn out gay but here I am. I also find it extremely hard to go see a doctor. I have been vaccinated once in my life and while I would like to get more I can’t bring myself to do it. I received a tetanus last year when I was in the hospital for a work related injury.

The article by James then continues on with how hypocritical COG ministers and elders were (and still are) and calls them outright liars (which is true). His first topic is: Reality #1: The Ministers of Armstrongism are liars

He goes on to talk about how hypocritical and abusive church leaders were as they led secret lives of their own while making the lives of members a living hell. From HWA's incest, GTA's philandering with both men and women, to Rod Meredith's bullying. 

Alcoholism was rampant in the ministry from Herbert Armstrong down to the lowly church elder. In the 1980's one minister, Dennis Luker, tried to help the ministry deal with this problem. He combined with local Pasadena churches to start a support ministry for alcoholics. I remember the photo taken with him and local Pasadena community ministers and priests on the church steps of a local Episcopal Church. Soon after that, the crap hit the fan. How dare he work with worldly Christian and think that counseling by these unconverted agents of Satan would help COG ministers! How dare he! Even worse, it exposed the COG ministry as having their own issues they were dealing with and the church could not have that happening. Having an infallible ministry was a church priority.

James continues on:

Evangelist Dennis Luker strove to do the honorable thing. In fact, in context, it was an almost impossible uphill battle to make any headway. A minister before him had traveled amongst the churches to tell his story of the journey from alcohol to encourage members to follow suit. The problem is that because of Herbert Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong, the free flow of alcohol was permanently embedded within the ‘ministry’ of the Gospel. It wasn’t called the Feast of Booze for nothing. When we look at the history of Armstrongism, it does appear that at least 50% if not 90% of the problems in the cult were a result of Alcohol abuse among both the members and ministers. So… in 1982, Evangelist Dennis Luker issued what he called, “The Luker Challenge”. He said, “If you say you can do without it, prove it!” And that challenge did start many on a positive path to recovery. Unfortunately for Armstrongism, as soon as people left the haze of alcoholism, many of them went on to leave Armstrongism. And why not? Better off in every way.

From that point on many of the top leaders and his fellow ministers had it in for Dennis Luker. He had a target on his back. When he started his ministerial outreach to gay and lesbian church members that target immediately became an enlarged bullseye.

Many COG ministers started immediately lying about Dennis Luker. James coninues on with this:

Some people assumed and spread the rumor that Dennis Luker was gay. That is absolutely not the case. He was anything but — Married with two adult children… but then you know very well what church gossip was like. Yes, he was a feminist, but definitely not homosexual. Some are wondering that if that were true, why all the interest in gay men? This has to do with family relationships.

Evangelist Dennis Luker had a close friend in the church who happened to be a millionaire businessman who also was married with children. In due time, Dennis Luker’s daughter married the son of the millionaire friend. It was quite the affair. The wedding and reception was held in a prestigious hotel. There were hundreds of people. The reception itself cost $25,000 and each person attending had the opportunity to have some really good cuts of beef. It would have cost 3 times as much today. His daughter had at least two children. In due time, the Luker’s son married the daughter of the millionaire businessman. They had two children. The children were ‘double cousins’.

In due fullness of time, the Luker’s son finally he admitted he was gay and went off with his male lover. That hit the families very hard and that is why Mr. Luker was so invested in his interest of gays. It is doubly shocking in the context of the Worldwide Church of God. Herbert Armstrong and the administration pretended the whole thing never happened and swept it under the rug, leaving the Lukers to deal with the whole unfortunate situation as well as they could with all the whispers in the background.

The post by James continues on in great detail about attitudes in society, churches, cultures, and much more when it comes to GLBT people. He doesn't give the GLBT people a pass either. 

James ends the extensive article mentioning this (referencing Rod Meredith's asinine article above):

A brief comment concerning the Featured Image: The Shocking TRUTH about “QUEER” Men by Roderick C. Meredith…

• • It’s completely wrong;
  • Promotes J. Edgar Hoover as the bastion of heterosexual masculinity when he was in reality a cross-dressing homosexual named ‘Lois’ whose partner was Clyde Colson;
  • Recommends vigorous exercise to “resolve” homosexuality in men, when, in fact it will increase testosterone levels to increase their libido and desire for other men;
  • Never even begins to suggest that Jesus living in a gay man through the Holy Spirit will completely transform him into a standard marriageable heterosexual husband and father;
  • Implies that homosexuality creates crime and juvenile delinquency;
  • Causes weak and sickly men;
  • Promotes treason;
  • Changes focus from homosexual men to effeminate men;
  • Blames homosexuality on the dominating women in male lives;
  • Might be prevented by fathers taking sons hiking, camping, hunting and fishing;
  • Satan is queer;
  • Is a complete embarrassment.

Check out the entire article here: Alpha male