Dennis On: Sanctified Ignorance

Sanctified Ignorance is Still Ignorant

We all have our stories of how we got here and who we are in the universe. Most stories told by every culture point out the unique origins of that culture, like as not, springing directly from that particular cave or mountain in distant and mysterious times in the past. When the National Geographic Genographic research team gently informed aboriginal Australians of their African origins, according to the DNA evidence, the Elders reacted with a simple "no, we originated here and maybe they came from us." Comforting and upholding of ancient aboriginal beliefs, but not scientifically true. You could feel the tension this new information brought into the cultural beliefs that for so long had encouraged and sustained them. I doubt they will change their understanding of themselves with this bit of scientific information.

A similar reaction occurred when the team informed the Navajo in the Americas of their DNA origins linking them to a still existent people in Siberia. The immediate reaction was understandably defensive for Navajo origin stories which had them always living in the Four Corners area of the now United States. In time, I believe they agreed that there was room for both the science and the tradition and, in this case, both maintained their truths on tribal origins. But the science was more literally correct. The uneasiness was palpable.

And now the Indigenous People's Council on Biocolonialism, the IPCB is raising even more concerns about the effect this knowledge will have on belief systems of indigenous peoples. For better or worse, "Indigenous peoples have consistently voiced their opposition to this type of research because it breaches cultural values, bioethical standards and human rights law. The IPCB believes the project is being undertaken at the expense of indigenous peoples. Debra Harry, the organization's executive director, writes on their website, "It is quite likely this project will advance new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowledge of ourselves. There can be no claim as to which understanding is correct, and will result in a clash of knowledge systems. Moreover, there could be serious political implications that result from a so-called "scientific" assertion that indigenous peoples are not "indigenous" to their territories, but instead are recent migrants from some other place. This cuts at the heart of the rights of indigenous peoples, which are based upon our collective, inherent right of self-determination as peoples, under international human rights law." A standard ethical requirement in human research is that the benefits must equal the risk. The IPCB believes that in this type of research, there will be no benefit to indigenous peoples, yet the research creates substantial risk for the individuals and peoples affected."

It is this advancement of "new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowlege of ourselves," that seems to be so difficult for humans to handle. Truth is still true though denied by all. In such defensiveness science always get's called "science so called" and even does in the Bible as "Science, falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20). This phrase is always used when the science is really not false, but it is threatening to sincerely held beliefs. I don't like someone knocking the nose off my idols any more than the next guy, but that's progress, painful and ever moving forward. The Bible makes fun of learning at times in this nervousness over knowledge when it mocks those who are "ever learning, but never able to come the knowledge of the truth" (II Tim. 3:7), to which I say, at least they keep trying and even Jesus is reported to have said, "seek and ye shall find." Of course he meant spiritually but it's good advice in all endeavors too.

The moment you believe you have it, you've lost it.

We all have our origin stories that, in time, will probably prove to not be true, at least not literally. We live in an age where even most Christians realize that the origin stories of mankind in the Garden of Eden, through a first set of parents, Adam and Eve, are not literally true. The problem with believing that is that much of the doctrine in the New Testament requires the story of the first Adam and Eve to be literally true as they lead to such literally true doctrines as the role of women in the church, why women have babies painfully, Jesus being the "Second Adam" and the Doctrine of Original Sin. All of these beliefs and teachings are destroyed by the Genesis story not being literally true.  Scientific truth has implications for Biblical origin stories.

If there was no real Eve, or Adam whose fault this wasn't ;) who really caused all of mankind to fall into original sin, for which we all must repent etc, then there is no need of repenting of that which never happened or of needing a Savior in the way portrayed in the New Testament. Stories and ideas have implications to say the least. Many Christians think it is ok NOT to believe in things being literally true. But that has incredible implications for other things they think they believe but dont' realize the connection and contradictions their position causes theologically. Plainly, if there was no literal Genesis like creation of mankind and fall into sin, and it is shown to not be true by good science, the implications are staggering in how we will have to change our views. Frankly most won't but will, as always, attack the messenger and burn the message, or just burn both.

Actually, a simple cheek swab was all it took for me to find out my own amazing DNA trip out of Africa 70,000 years ago. Perhaps this is done for some reason somewhere, but for the Genome project, this fear is very unfounded. Our genetic history is easily taken from the inside of our mouths. Every cell contains the whole.
Simply speaking, it appears that ALL modern humans originated in and then spread out from Africa within the last 100,000 years or less. What a great story to read at Clan meetings! All the "differences" we see in humans are adaptations we made along the way in our trek from there to Europe, Asia and the Americas. Good science gives us good explanations, always subject to new information about this process.

Indeed, we do need to insure the privacy of the individual if they wish it and we need to be sensitive to the process that others go through when they are faced with the implications of such information and research. It takes time to accept change and as stated, many won't, but rather will just become angry and defensive. We see this all the time in the attacks Christian literalists launch into from their pulpits when new knowledge threatens old ideas.
It's funny, in my previous church affiliation there was a belief that always annoyed me scientifically. It was the belief, now long discredited, that the Lost Tribes of Israel turned up as the powerful nations of Europe, The British Empire and of course, America. I was Dutch, so that clearly put me in the Tribe of Zebulun, according to the theory. I never gave a sermon on this topic! However, my DNA shows I made no such trip through the middle east to become an Israelite and go on into Europe. Rather it shows a long trip through Iran, Iraq the various "Beckastans" on out onto the steppes of Asia and then one big swing into Europe as Cro-Magnon and then into France, Holland and England in much more recent times. That British-Israelism idea is bunk and DNA testing will show it to be so. That particular idea is racist if ever there was one.

The historical speculations of the Book of Mormon on race origins have been destroyed by DNA testing.  Native Americans are Siberian in origins for the most part and not Middle Eastern from the Levant.  Of course, this will not stop the spread of Mormonism but it does leave them with some difficult problems to explain. Don't worry, the truth of the matter won't stop that Church anymore than it has stopped others.  The book will no doubt become "spiritual truth" instead of literal truth at some point in the future and continue to deceive.

So good science is not "science, falsely so called" or "so called science." Yes, it has implications for theologians and Christians but believing something is true never makes it really true and we need to always have a love of discovery. Sorry to say, it is usually the reactions to new information by those most threatened by it that plunges our world into chaos.

Dennis C. Diehl

DenniscDiehl@aol.com

Women's Head Covers ARE A Requirement for COG Women Today!

Pretty soon this is what women in the Church of God Malmite will be wearing.

The Apostle has spoke, AGAIN!  You rebellious brawling cantankerous women had better SUBMIT! 

A reader of Apostle Malm's blog had this to say about women's hair coverings in church:

 I, too, agree with Christian…God’s Word is the standard, not a linked article. God’s Word says a woman’s LONG hair IS her covering…1Cor.11:15. I come from a Catholic background and always wore a veil until learning this from God’s Word when God called me in the mid 70s.

The Apostle responds:

God’s word says that if a woman refuses to cover her head she should be shorn. If her hair were her covering, why is she to have her hair shorn for not wearing it? If you have hair you would always be covered and would not need to be shorn; or to be threatened by Paul with being shorn! How many refuse to wear their hair? If they refuse to wear their hair they would already be bald so why the need to shear them? We have been mistaught for a long time and now the tradition means more than the scripture. James

Scripture is in red, Apostle Malm's interpretation is in black:

I Corinthians 11

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her [Lord, ruler] head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. To fail to cover her head while worshipping and praying is a shame to a woman; even as it is a shame to have her head shaved. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: If the woman's hair were her covering; why should she be shorn for not covering her head? If her hair is her covering, than her head is already covered so why should she be shorn? And if the woman have no hair to cover her head: how can she then be shorn? Therefore if a woman refuse to cover her head in worship; she should have her head shorn. but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. If she is ashamed to have her head shorn, then let her cover her head in worship and prayer.

 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power [a covering]on her head because [as an example for] of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? A man does not have the glory of long hair; needing to be covered. 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.  A woman’s hair is her covering crown of glory, her mantle or veil. Therefore she must humble herself and cover her crown of glory in the presence of her God. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.  This instruction is in response to the Jewish practice of men covering their heads in prayer. The question being addressed here is not about women covering their heads while praying; but about men covering their heads while praying.  Paul is saying that a man is the head of the woman; and as such is a figure of Christ; while the woman is a figure of the Church and is to be humble herself before her God; by covering her crown of glory in humility when coming before God in prayer or worship.

It All Started 78 Years Ago Today

The cause of so much trouble and division in the Churches of God can be traced back to one single event that happened today, July 9, 1933

78 years ago HWA started a 6-week long tent preaching extravaganza in Oregon.  This was his first rebellion against the Church of God Seventh Day who had ordained him in 1931.  They did not swallow his drivel on British Israelism and holy day requirements.  So in a rebellious attitude he started preaching on his own and today we are/were part of the legacy of destruction left in his wake.

Real Men Will Shave Head of Wife If She Prays In Public Without Head Covering (Updated)

Men, is your wife asking too many questions at church causing long discussions to happen?  Dose she run off at the mouth at church talking to other men asking questions that she should be asking you first? Is you wife going over your head in other matters without seeking your holy manly wisdom first?

Apostle Malm has laid our the law on what you men need to be doing with your brawling women in church:

A wife’s function is to be a HELP MATE for her husband. She is to ask her husband; to cut down on the discussion in church service and help maintain order; to keep her husband “in the loop” so that he knows what is going on and also learns the question and answer; and out of respect for him.  He is the one she should be loving and putting first in her life and thoughts; to whom she should be looking.  It is not right for her to go over his head without his consent to ask another.
This is called “Chain of Command” and it is the major cardinal sin in any organization to go over the head of one’s boss.  That is a major sign of DISRESPECT. 

 Wives are not to provoke their husbands and are to faithfully fulfill their role regardless of what the husband does.  They are to set a godly example even if the husband does not.   

Is the Apostle soon going to be demanding that women in his splinter group cover their heads in church like the COG splinter group House of Yahweh cult does?

Paul tells us that a woman’s hair is given to her as a crown of glory and they she is not to pray or prophesy without covering her glorious crown of hair with a veil as an act of humility; so as not to outshine her husband, her head.  before I go into this further I would like to make the point that Paul here clearly says that a woman may prophesy.
Were not Deborah judge in Israel? And Miriam a prophetess?  Was not Anna a prophetess, Luk 2:36 ?  There is plenty of room in the faith for our women to shine!  Let them do so decently and in order; remembering that their first priority is their husbands and children until they be widowed and their children be grown.  Then let them become guides and wisdom for the younger women; and through the younger married women [who will influence their own husbands] they will influence the whole Ekklesia.

 Now women are to cover their crown of glorious hair whenever praying or prophesying [in public or private] out of respect for the authority over them.  And if they refuse to do so, they should have their heads shaved and their glorious hair cut off [shorn].  Why? So that they do not wax proud and become vain, as so very many have become today.  So that they do not outshine their husbands in their glory.  So that they come before God in the beauty of true humility; and not in the emptyness of proud, vain,  transitory physical beauty [vainglory]

You  men are not off the hook either.  Do you bully your wife?  You had better be careful;. She might just be ruling over you in the world tomorrow on some distant planet!  God knows how embarrassing THAT would be!

You husbands who are domineering, how do you know: Whether in God’s Kingdom your wife will be greater than you? 

Women, know your place in the Church of God! Otherwise you could have a nightmare like Loma did and cause your husband to start a new Church of God!  As if we need any more of them right now....

(UPDATE)  The Apostle Malm DOES think that you women need to cover your head in church!

In the area of women wearing a covering while in prayer, does this mean we (the ladies) should have a covering on our heads during opening or closing prayer, or during any other prayer we have a part in by saying Amen? We have never been taught this in WWCG or LCG, I don’t know if other COG’s teach it. Thanks very much.
This was NOT taught by HWA as Loma would have none of it. And a simple scarf or small hat [not overly ostentatious remember the purpose is to show modesty and respect for Godly authority]. The instruction is when you are praying or prophesying, and I think that would include participating when others are doing so together with us as well. I understand what you are saying about just during the prayer, but you are also participating in prophesying when you participate in any service. When we were younger the wearing of hats was customary and some just did not remove them in the service which is quite correct. This is indeed something new as far as modern HWA based COG teachings are concerned [there may be an exception that I do not know about], although some have been following this instruction for many years. My wife who you knew began doing this in the 70s. James

Clyde Kilough Calls His Opponents "Nasty, filthy Cockroaches"

When James Malm is not dealing in prophetic interpretations and end time speculation, he has great moments of clarity as to the current state of affairs of United Church of God and Church of God a Worldwide Association.

Today's post by Malm deals with Clyde Kiloughs member letter published on July 7th.  Kilough goes to great lengths to distance himself and those henchmen he surrounds himself with as being apolitical righteous men.  Yet, the main reason Kilough and his crew left UCG was over politics!

Kilough lays out these points as to what he says shows the political corruption that corrupts unfaithful Christian leaders (i.e. - not him or anyone in his splinter cult).

We could recount many stories in the Bible that illustrate politics at work and its destructive consequences for individuals, nations and the entire world. Would we dare be so naive as to think it could not exist in the Church today?
How does it manifest itself? Just to give a few examples, we can see politics at work when people:

• Ambitiously strive for personal goals and put themselves and their interests first in trying to advance themselves.
• Use their power or position to obtain their own will over what is best for the whole body.
• Advance certain other people due to friendship, reward or payback for favors.
• Manipulate situations to get close to those in positions of authority, either to influence them or perhaps just for the prestige of being in some kind of “inner circle.”
• Shift blame when they’ve done something wrong in order to avoid accountability and responsibility and thus try to protect their place or position.
• Manipulate others, such as through controlling the flow of information or slanting of information.

No siree Clyde!  That does not sound like you and your men at all! No way, no how!  Puke, gag, sputter..........

The best part of Clyde's letter is how he describes what these kind of men are like.  Talk about a pot calling the kettle black!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me leave you with this thought. Where I live is in a part of the country where one of the nastiest and filthiest of insects—cockroaches—commonly invade and infest houses, and virtually everyone has a battle on his hands to keep them out. Worldly politics is one of the nastiest creeping sins that can infest the house of God as well. There are basically three things to do to prevent cockroaches: You don’t bring them in from the outside, you stop them from coming in by repairing the cracks in your house, and you keep your house clean so they don’t have anything to feed on. Brethren, preventing politics in our spiritual house is no different—let’s not bring it in, let’s not give it openings, and let’s not give it anything to feed on in our hearts and minds!  July 7th Member Letter

Malm says there is a deeper meaning to this letter than Kilough is letting on.  Malm says there is deep division in COGaWA concerning government.  Many of the men who jumped ship to join up thought they were coming into a church that was going to clean up it's act.  Now that the dust has settled, they are quickly seeing that things have not changed.  Kilough and crew are still dealing in dirty politics and are in the process of weeding out all that disagree with him.

There is a power struggle going on in COGWA between the split leaders who want power and those who had followed them believing that a new and better way was on offer.  Clyde and friends must be deeply frustrated to resort to this level of dirty politics.

The genius of this missive is that it does not name anyone, rather it takes the more generic approach of attempting to link the concept of any type of dissent, as somehow being evil and in need of  being eliminated. The use of innuendo, inference and double talk to make his faction appear righteous and any dissent appear evil, is the very classic dirty politics which he is railing against.

By making this link in people’s minds, people are united in support of his factions policies and any dissent is thought as an unthinkable evil.  This is “Power Consolidation” at its worst, and is the very thing that they complained about in UCG.  This is the very reason some left UCG and here it is; right back in their face.

 --------------

The HWA WCG was a very political organization that was in a constant state of political intrigue which resulted in regular splits.  The brethren were kept ignorant of most of this through the control of information. Even so several major splits in the 1970s could not be kept secret.

 As the Tkach changes took place over a period of about five to sight years, most of the elders fully supported the changes [some did not].  Many of those who did not support the changes either resigned or were fired by those surrounding Joe T.  Only when a large segment of brethren began to understand what was going on and began to leave, did a large group of Tkach supporters decide to leave and set up shop for themselves.

These people cared little for doctrine and cared mainly for power, a paycheck  and personally belonging to a caste system that elevated them above the brethren.  Within this group of elders was division over how to proceed, but the main division was over which clique of friends could gain and maintain control.

The really big issue with them was that Joe would no longer be able to afford to pay them with so many leaving, and there would be many layoffs and pay cuts.  They acted to leave Joe and lead the leaving brethren; for the primary purpose of saving their jobs and pay checks!  Doctrine was never a real issue for most of these folks.  The elders who had doctrinal questions had already left long before.  They come close to admitting as much on the UCGAIA website when they said that they left for administrative reasons and made no mention of doctrine!

Today, neither UCG nor COGWA has any real interest in doctrine; the split was all about control and power as Denny admitted.  It is about the success model that they want to follow and the control to follow their agenda.  To them doctrine is a means of keeping the brethren happy and contributing and it is really only lip service with little practical application.

It finally became clear in 09 that the Franks Kilough group would lose control and be forced out.  As soon as the balloting for the new CoE took place the new president Dennis Luker invited the losing group to an amicable separation.  This was a mutually agreed divorce.  This then took some months to effect as both groups vied to maintain control over as many brethren as possible.

The new group called COGWA was then set up with the split leaders in charge temporarily; followed by those who would naturally follow them, as well as many who were motivated by disgust over the treatment of the Latin American brethren and the rhetoric concerning the UCG Council’s unethical behaviour.

You can read the rest of Malm's missive here:  COGWA Member Letter