Gerry Weston: Brethren, Please rise and "sing together in your heads"

This is from a VERY reliable source on Gerald Weston's mandate on singing hymns during church services. 

People might be amused to know that Weston has mandated that LCG members don't sing during song service.  They put on a rinky-dink CD accompaniment and the congregations stands holding their hymnals and they all "sing together in their heads."

This is really sad. 

It reminds me of the mandate dished out to the members in the Dayton, Ohio church that we were to be in Sabbath wear when listing or watching the broadcast at home.

The other interesting thing about Gerry and his crew is that with North Carolina's COVID guidelines for meetings being so restrictive, they have members drive across the border into South Carolina for church services where the guidelines are not as restrictive and they can meet together, with or without masks. 

The Fly in the Ointment: When disfellowshipped members don't stay silent

When a person leaves or is pushed out of one of the Armstrong Churches of God, those who remain expect them to tuck their tails between their legs and never have the audacity to speak or show their faces again. Unfortunately for them, many of us have not gone quietly into the night.

After all, leaving or disfellowshipping is supposed to remove the offending person from the church and cut them off from sowing any more mischief or discord within that body. The leadership of the church expects to be able to both characterize the person who has left and project the agenda and message of the church without hindrance going forward.

Imagine their consternation when someone whom they believe they have eliminated decides to challenge them. It must be infuriating for them to be confronted by someone whom they have labeled as being wrong. “NO, I’m not wrong – YOU are wrong!” That’s simply not supposed to happen. They are supposed to be able to control the narrative.

The thing that infuriates these folks more than any other is that one or more of these rejects would have the audacity to stand up against God’s anointed ones! It infuriates them, and they see Satan as being behind any and all such efforts. It is simply incomprehensible to them that one of their minions would regain their independence and stand on their own two feet again – to begin thinking for themselves once again.

Worse yet, they no longer have the means to control the access which these disgruntled folks have to the folks who have stayed behind – the internet has made that virtually impossible. It has to be frustrating to realize that there is absolutely no way to regulate what folks do in the privacy of their own homes. And with blogs, tweets, Facebook and e-mail everyone has a means now – a forum to reach the public. Yeah, the genie is out of the bottle, and there’s no stuffing him back down inside there!

Of course, from the perspective of those who have escaped these cults, the freedom to help others and make them aware of the hurts and harms that these cults have inflicted on so many is very appealing. We no longer have to suffer in silence and slink away into oblivion. We have a voice, and the cult’s leadership no longer has the ability to stifle, dismiss or suppress it!

Lonnie Hendrix

LCG Wallace Smith: If Your Husband Tells You to Lie It Is Ok Because You Are Following Government

 

The gist of Smith's argument as I understood it when I listened to it was that Sarah was right to go along with Abram's lie to Pharaoh about their relationship because God's will in the home is for the wife to be submissive to her husband and that if she doesn't support him even if he is wrong, it won't work well because she is not submitting to how God designed His government to work in the home. In The case of Sarah it was argued that God worked it out anyway, and that it is up to God to make the husband realize it if he is wrong. He then launched into the argument for binding and loosing, and equated Weston and the LCG "Council of Elders" with the "Council of Elders" that met in the book of Acts, implying that the LCG council is the one God is working through in the twenty first century.  

I have numerous issues with this approach. First of all Smith is cherry picking examples that he thinks fit his argument and ignoring others. As I mentioned in the other comment I made, Abigail did not go along with Nabal and did exactly what Smith says a wife should not do. In fact she went out without his knowledge and took provisions to David and his men, while Nabal got drunk and partied at home. She didn't inform him of what she had done until the next morning. As a result Abigail and her household were spared from being slaughtered in David's wrath, Nabal fell over dead within ten days, and Abigail then became one of David's wives. So my question is, was Abigail correct in this instance to circumvent her husband's wishes, or should she have just meekly submitted to him even when the servants came and warned her that there was going to be trouble as a result of Nabal's arrogance and foolishness? 

Another issue is the idea that LCG's leadership and council are equivalent to the "council" who met in Acts, and they have a right to bind and loose decisions on how to apply God's law for the rest of the church. If the "church" consists of the entire assembly of believers, and these believers are scattered among numerous groups with different councils and different shepherds, what makes Smith think the decisions of his council carry the same gravity as the group of people who met in Acts? The Apostle Paul didn't even give the meeting in Acts as much weight as Smith gives his council. A reading of Galatians 2:1-10 demonstrates this point. I could also add that reading the rest of the chapter would demonstrate that Paul did not view Cephas or Peter as some pope figure who was above criticism or reproach with the power to bind and loose, even if he was wrong. Galatians 2:11-14 demonstrate this point. 

If we cherry pick scriptures that only fit the scenario we want to promote, this is not gleaning the whole truth of God's word, and can be misleading, because we have left out part of the story. It also isn't honest, which goes to Smith's argument about Sarah. Is it okay to go along with a lie if your husband tells you to, and if so, will God always work things out in your favor, or will you suffer the consequences along with your husband? The story of Ananias and Sapphira might be instructive here. Acts 5:1-11 

Concerned Sister