Should Answerers Be Accused?
I have endeavored to
read through "Should Accusers be Answered?" by DCP.
What he seems not to realize is that Billy Graham, TBN, Benny Hinn and the Pope
could all write the very same thing using all the very same scriptures.
The Bible goes to great
lengths to admonish defending the faith, but then gives way too much leeway to
everyone to struggle with just what that faith is. It's a document
demanding compliance but short on explaining compliance to what?
"Keeping the Commandments," always leads to which ones?
DCP goes on to impute
the only acceptable motives to those who observe and listen to the words of
those who claim to know the mind of God personally.
"Obviously, these “journalists” are not dirtmongers in their
own eyes. They see themselves as merely performing an “information service.”
But they function much like the National Enquirer, The Star or other
supermarket tabloids, so popular today. The difference is that they do this on
behalf of the many splinters, assuring themselves that God is pleased with
their efforts. Actually, these “journalists” directly serve the “god of this
world,” who loves gossip, talebearing, slander, bad news, discord, division and
every other form of human disagreement. While God hates these things, the devil
and human nature feast on them. But try to tell them God hates what they are
doing."
No, you hate what they doing. Could we not
also say, "Obviously, these ministers are not Biblically inaccurate
in their own eyes. They see themselves as called by God Almighty
specifically and obviously. But they function much like the Trinity
Broadcasting Network. The difference is that they do this on behalf of
themselves assuring themselves that God is pleased with their efforts.
Actually , these "ministers" directly serve their
own beautiful minds, who love to preach to the exclusion of others,
connect scriptures that aren't connectable and give them meanings they never
meant, Good News that is not good, demand for loyalty and compliance to 'that
man" and every other form of human reasoning using as many scriptures as
can be assembled to weave their tale. While they think God hates the
noticer and ministerial specialness and seeing themselves specifically spoken
of in the Bible, they can't comprehend they are not really educated enough on
Bible origins and history to take so much time and life energy from those they
dazzle."
DCP goes on to speculate "what if"
there was the Internet during the days of the early Church?
For example, "
"The apostle Paul
reported in II Timothy 4:14 that he was attacked by Alexander the coppersmith
“who did him much evil.” (We will look at this reference later in the book in
another context.) Of course, Paul offers no details beyond this statement about
the specifics of what happened. But let’s ask: What if Alexander had been able
to post his side of the story on the Internet at the time? How many brethren
then would have felt they needed to read “Alexander’s side” of the matter
before they could support an apostle? More important for us, how many among
God’s people today would resist the tendency to study this evil man’s mind
because it was still “archived on the net”?"
Using this example of every person in the
NT who questioned the Apostle Paul, resisted him, left him or simply
did not like the man, DCP simply cannot understand why Church members would
want to know what's up with that? This approach certainly gives those who
expect to be taken as true in all they say a pretty free reign over the lives
of others without accountability. DCP is right that Paul is long telling
us WHO gave him a hard time and did not take everything he said as true but
very short on telling us WHAT the disagreement was. The Apostle Paul
laments that "all in Asia have forsaken me," but can't seem to come
up with explaining just why they ALL did that. ALL is a lot of
people! In the Ephesian letter to the Church in Revelation, the Jesus
figure praises them for challenging those who "say they are Apostles and
are not.' Personally I believe at this point that Apostle was Paul who
the Ephesians rejected and is the "All those in Asia" he was
referring to.
Paul tells us he knew a man 14 years ago who
went into the Third Heaven (It was him obviously) but could not report on what
he saw. DCP likes this approach at times. "I have amazing
information, but can't tell you right now." The need is to say one
has secret or amazing info to impress or lead along, but not telling what it is
keeps the suspense up for a bit. If the Apostle Paul had an out of body
or mind experience, how about he just share it and let us decide if maybe he
needed meds and not a following? Paul even bragged how he withstood Peter
to his face, but once again, does not quite tell us what Peter's problem with
him was. I suspect Peter realized Paul was not about to go along with
what he said he'd go along with in Acts 15 and the food on the table was not so
much unclean as obviously offered to idols. Paul goes to great lengths in
I Corinthians to tell the Church that "WE know the idol is nothing, but in
all men (Peter, James and John) is not that knowledge..." Typically
the duplistic and "just what do you really believe?" when around
various people Paul. (Being all things to all men must make one wonder
sometimes just what do you believe?)
Simply put, judasiscariot.com,
Jannesjambres.com, allofasia.com, alexanderthecoppersmith.com and demas.com
would be strictly taboo. Actually, great humor Dave! If we
don't need their dotcom observations and views, why RCG.com? I prefer
dotcalm myself. But in the world of "True Religion" and "True
Churches" that just doesn't work well.
DCP continues...
"Many are simply no
longer willing to let Christ rule His Church, stating about themselves that “I
am not into ‘control’ anymore.” Each person wants to be his own lord—“his own
man”—with a “nobody’s telling ME what to do” attitude. When things go wrong,
most (ministers and laymembers) lash out because they will not any longer be
ruled. They come to their own decisions—their own judgments—on almost
everything to do with the Church and Work. As a result, the “hatred, betrayal
and offense” (Matt. 24:10) that Christ prophesied would appear in the Church
prior to His Return arrived, and in the worst way. It has allowed most to easily
justify the “every man for himself” approach to governing the Church. Now, the
tail largely wags the dog."
And this true. It's how clear thinking and
critical thinkers think! We all know the phrase "let Christ rule his
Church," really means "Let ME make the decisions." We're
not stupid. "Each person wants to be his own man," really means
"Leave that to me..." I want to be my own man. Being
persuaded in one's own mind is evidently off the table. Coming to one's
own decisions, judgements and such is ok. Kinda of a prove all things
from what I tell. And we all know that once you say, "Now the tail largely
wags the dog,' means you are the tail and stay on your end while I am the
brains of the dog. Again, we're not unaware of what these statements really
mean.
Every dig in the NT by the Apostle Paul was a
human reaction to the reality he created with his views and personal way of
presenting it. One might claim it is the same way God reacts, but that is
simply not true. That is an apologetic for human behaviors. We're
simply quoting as if from God, the ever used concepts that keep the powers that
be , the powers that will remain to be.
Of course there has to be organization in
organizations but voting with one's suggestions for a better way to think, act
or be or voting with one's feet is not one of the Devil's greatest tools.
It's what humans who respect their own views and ability to think things
through do.
More..
"Did Matthew 18:15
require an apostle of Christ to sit throughout his ministry—for 55 years—hoping
not to offend what would be several people in Denver, Dallas, Dubuque, or
Detroit, because this “lynch mob” might have removed him if he had? When
thought of this way, it makes even considering the idea ludicrous.
The passage instructs,
“Go to your brother,” not “Go to your minister.” This is not because ministers
are above the law, nor does it mean that you could not talk to your minister if
you did not understand one of his actions or decisions. It is because a true
minister cannot be removed by any except God Himself, usually through His
faithful senior ministers. Even then, of course, they must have right reasons
for doing this! (This becomes its own great reason why God’s people must go in
search of the government of God and not stop their pursuit until they find
it.)"
This is truly false reasoning and actually not
the example we see in the NT. Evidently the Ephesian Church in Revelation
outed and ousted false Apostles. Someone said, "I am an
Apostle." The Ephesians said, "No you are not." and
Jesus said, "Well done." Whoever this was probably went out and
wrote something like, "Should Accusers Be Answered?" to the Ephesus
in Asia Minor but to no avail.
"The passage instructs "go to your
brother, not Go to your minister." Oi. I can see why one of the
titles in RCG is not "Brother" for the ministry. That's
kinda like saying , the passage says "Prove all things, not prove all the
things I say." Of course the idea that only God can remove such
a one is pure theatre. Saying it is "usually" through
"faithful senior ministers, " is just plain silly as Dave knows he
decides who is both senior and faithful. That tail wagging the Dog thing.
Does RCG have any senior ministers? Do they ever give sermons?
Could we see a portfolio of RCG ministers so we can pray for them as Mr.
Armstrong provided? Maybe that comes after one purchases a Gulfstream II
because travel with the common folk is just too difficult. Ok, we can wait on
that a bit longer.
Again...
"However, RCG is
not for everyone. We exist for those who believe and understand that God has
one government ruling His undivided Church. Those who want to criticize,
evaluate, accuse, “have a say in how things should be run” or to withhold God’s
tithes until things go “more to their liking” will be happier elsewhere. While
God’s way is never a dictatorship, neither is it confusion."
Boy, that's the truth! "While God's
way is never a dictatorship, neither is it confusion."
Translation: "God's way is plainly a dictatorship and to keep it from
being confusing, only I run the show." If DCP can imply that people
leave because of Satan, being unconverted and evil sinners and not because they
are thinking critically, asking questions and expecting to have a bit of say in
what can easily get out of control when decided by just one man, I can offer
translations of his concepts. It's too bad so many COG's are lead by demand and
not by cooperation. I guess UCG has proven that doesn't work either. I
have learned where two or three are gathered together, one runs the show, one
listens and one cleans up and brings the watermelon to the church picnic.
However...
"Again, the
official position of The Restored Church of God is to not answer accusers! I
have learned—and this is its own interesting point—that those who love the
truth do not require or even want me to explain myself. Remember, those always
demanding the “inside story” are rarely satisfied with answers anyway, because
their focus is all wrong. They ignore that we teach the full truth of God and
are doing His Work with real force and power.
So, we let God answer
our accusers while we “turn the other cheek.” Although I would love to
occasionally write an answer of explanation, I have learned to withhold myself.
As explained, and I repeat this for emphasis, when I did this in the past, I
could never see what good was accomplished. While I may have felt better
personally, it rarely changed anyone’s mind."
Evidently this has not really been learned or
it's going to be unlearned. God must not have been clear on this concept in all
cases. However if not answering has now become a grand announcement that
answers were about to come big time, then why can't we see that God's
inspiration is not exactly set in stone? Just sayin'. And if I was one
who suggested that someone does answer their accusers and got put down for it
using the scripture and the non-dictatorial nature of God but now seems to
have been right after all...what's with that? The dog decided to take the
advice of the tail after all. I'm not such a bad just the tail after all,
it would seem.
Personally, the "turn the other
cheek," "if made to walk one mile, walk two," and "If
someone takes your coat," were short term teachings of a man and then
expectant church knowing "it won't be long now." Many such
sayings are not life courses but short term admonitions that have long since
expired and should be taken off the shelf. Jesus never expected time to
go on after him or the Romans to win.
And finally, the point being made...
"Keep it simple, brethren:
The real reason a person leaves the Church—lay member or minister—is that he
simply does not love the full truth (II Thes. 2:10). It is no more complicated
than that! However, the one who leaves will never admit this, so he must create
an “exit theology” in order to (1) soothe his own conscience and (2) portray
himself instead as a “grassroots crusader” for God.
If such men cared so
much about doctrine, then why did they speak up in this manner, with false
accusations and scathing attacks? Why did they not “quit themselves like men”
and talk to a Headquarters minister face-to-face when they had the opportunity?
Why do they lack the courage to openly state they disagree with Mr. Armstrong,
both in doctrine and in approach to doing the Work? This fits well with the
tactics of their new “Presiding Evangelist.”
I personally get weary of being told what my
motives are for ever learning and never being able to settle on one grand
follow me truth. Seekers don't have "tactics," they have a desire to
know truth and not be conned into anything less than truth. I lost my
faith in the story, the naive history, the inerrancy, the motives and the
clarity of the Book. The grand leadership, including Herbert Armstrong as
present in form and actions of those that followed him simply destroyed my
naivete' on things religious and run buy guys. Now DCP is saying why did
you not speak up like a man? Ummmmm....Dave....it never worked that
way. People were speaking up in all the ways you hate and because humans
like you don't listen to the input of others, we have to go away. Herbert
Armstrong was not a man given to advice or observations that didn't coincide
with his own habit of getting used to having his own ways. Such are many
of the COG lone gunmen. Everything in me wants to offer a quote or
two up from someone close and deep within the experience of
RCG to make this point, but I won't do it. I promised I would not do
it ever. People are screaming at you to join the real human race and the
real need for people to have positive hopes and dreams and kind loving
leadership if that is what some want you to be to them. The day of the dictator
and one man show anywhere on this planet is passing quickly. I expect it
will not go easily.
I will always be personally fascinated with the
Bible, it's origins and the impact it has had on the lives of people. I , like
many, no longer can abide being told by others what I can examine for myself
and examine much more accurately than ever before because good old knowledge
has indeed increased since I went to school. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with that.
So, please don't accuse me or everyone else when
we simply wish to have better answers to really important issues that really
effect the quality of life now, much less in the future. When a man sets
himself anywhere on this planet as only responsible and accountable
to an invisible and actually non-present deity and not the
observations of those one actually affect by their beliefs about themselves ,
that is troubling and very dangerous. Divining the will of this deity
without accountability is insane. History has already taught those with
eyes to see that lesson.
Amen
