Why are so many in the COG happy reading the Bible in isolation than they are in risking themselves and going outside and doing it?

 

Christianity Without Religion (PTM) has a short article up by Brad Jersak, People of the Book or the Book Above the People?

It includes this comment by Barbara Brown Taylor on the Bible and how people worship the words in ink more than the concept of putting those words into action and doing something about it. This has been the malady of the Church of God for decades. The words in The Book, the inked out words, are far more important than actually doing what it says. The church has always been selective in what it believes and practices when it comes to this. This is part of the reason Pack, Thiel, Weinland, Weston, and Flurry are all about talking and writing so much. They think their spoken words and their writings are far more important than actually being 'followers of the Way' and getting off their privileged asses and putting their so-called faith into action. These fake leaders and far too many other COG leaders think their words are far more important than following Jesus. In the same manner, they have deified the words of the Bible and the book itself as the reality instead of moving past the printed words and into doing some kind of action. This is why so many COG members ignore church leadership any more.

"… I notice [that] whenever people aim to solve their conflicts with one another by turning to the Bible, defending the dried ink marks on the page becomes more vital than defending the neighbor. As a general rule, I would say that human beings never behave more badly toward one another than when they believe they are protecting God. In the words of Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mohandas, “people of the book risk putting the book above people.” "

 

"I know that the Bible is a special kind of book, but I find it as seductive as any other. If I am not careful, I can begin to mistake the words on the page for the realities they describe. I can begin to love the dried ink marks on the page more than I love the encounters that gave rise to them. If I am not careful, I can decide that I am really much happier reading my Bible than I am entering into what God is doing in my own time and place, since shutting the book to go outside will involve the very great risk of taking part in stories that are still taking shape. Neither I nor anyone else knows how these stories will turn out, since at this point they involve more blood than ink. The whole purpose of the Bible, it seems to me, is to convince people to set the written word down in order to become living words in the world for God’s sake. For me, this willing conversion of ink back to blood is the full substance of faith. 

 

In practice, this means that my faith is far more relational than doctrinal. Although I am guilty of reading scripture as selectively as anyone, my reading persuades me that God is found in right relationships, not in right ideas and that a great deal of Christian theology began as a stammering response to something that had actually happened in the world."

 

-Barbara Brown Taylor

London Calling: Upcoming Forbes Interview on WCG's teaching on "The Place of Safety"

 

I was contacted by an editor at Forbes London who is writing about WCG's teaching on "The Place of Safety" and my personal experiences with the concept as a former Pastor.  Interesting in that Forbes is mainly an economics publication 

(I hated the speculation and never intended to tell anyone to go anywhere taking Gerald Waterhouse's marathon sermons with a grain of salt from my youth. You all recall, I am sure, his response when I asked him what he would do when HWA died. I eventually told him personally how I felt about his visits and that he caused more problems for me than he solved. He just said "Is that right?" and I got kicked under the table). I would have opted for online "final training"  The whole concept was a badly cobbled opinion and teaching taking many unrelated and vague OT and NT scriptures and weaving them into making the texts mean what they never meant nor could mean to this day ).  After the Jonestown debacle, the fear of it all in the minds of many was set.   However, I found that "going along to get along" was more common than speaking up. 

Before this interview, Wednesday, I would like a bit of fresh input on how you may have felt personally about it when the concept was presented. No rants, just how you really felt.  Fears, expectations, questions, etc.  Back in the day, did you agree?  Did you look forward to it?  

Thanks for your input. 

An aerial view of Petra reveals that while it may have deterred the Romans, it is not exactly safe from above in our day.  

Why the church needs your tithe money

 

Steven L Ross - Where is the Place of Safety? Info needed

 

I received a note today asking for information on the following individual and the article he published. Does anyone have the article and /or know where Steven Ross now is?

The reason I am asking is that a reporter from an internationally known magazine is researching a report/book/podcast on Steven L. Ross in relation to the Petra info spoken about below:

I'm trying to learn more, both about Steven and his split from the church, as well as the church itself. Can you help? Any information is welcome. 

And if anyone who knew Steven can talk to me, I'd love to talk to them. 

Those interested in the Petra doctrine or those who may have relatives or friends hooked on the idea will benefit from an article recently published by the Foundation for Biblical Research. It is titled "Where Is Your Place of Safety?" Written by former WCG member Steven L. Ross, the article is one of the best ever done to disprove the WCG's Petra theory. AR32, June 1985

When you are no longer welcome at your parent’s house because you chose to leave 'the church'

 

There has been a lot of discussion on this blog over the years about various Churches of God who actively destroy families due to their arcane and divisive doctrinal/church teachings. From Dave Pack's cult breaking up marriages to Gerald Flurry's cult which prohibits members from speaking to children and/or parents who are no longer church members. The list of abuses has been long and at times shocking in how unchristian they all are.

Here is a letter from a person who has dealt with this in his family's life. 

A post recently appeared here about what it means to be persecuted, and one of the comments that it provoked hit particularly close to home. The commentator wrote: "What does it mean to be persecuted? I will tell you what it means .... It means that you are no longer welcome at your parent’s house because you chose to leave ‘the church’. It means that your children never met their grandparents because you are an outcast (because you left ‘the true faith’). It means that you, your husband and your children are told that you are ‘evil’, ‘satanic’ and ‘lost’." Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon experience among those who have left one of the Armstrong Churches of God.

And, like many others, I have personally experienced some of this rejection and isolation described in this person's comments. After leaving the Worldwide Church of God, all of my former friendships and associations within that organization ended abruptly. Even worse, the only way "back" was to conform to the expectations of the corporation/organization. Without my complete submission, it was made clear to me that reconciliation was impossible. All of those relationships were contingent upon my unqualified acceptance of the party line.

Later, when I left the “fill-in-the-blank” Armstrong Church of God, the same thing happened - only it was even worse this time, because family members were also involved. My dad was a minister in that organization, and he was friends with one of the leaders of the group. Even worse, that leader/friend was a hardliner in the tradition of the old Worldwide Church. Also, my brother (along with one of his children's family) joined the church and adopted and fully endorsed that leader's theology and political views.

However, unlike my earlier experience, this time the death of the relationships wasn't immediate and complete. Instead, the relationships deteriorated over time. Eventually, religious and political topics were declared to be off limits in my interactions with family members - they didn't want to hear anything that contradicted their views. Contact and conversations became less frequent and confined to the weather, home repairs and the health status of family members.

In fairness, I don't want to give the impression that this was an entirely one-sided affair. Over time, I began to resent the restrictions on our relationships. I also began to resent my dad's frequent traveling on behalf of the church, and his unwillingness to visit me. And how does one deal with the sincere desire to "fix" things - to make things better? What do you do when the other side regards you as ignorant, deceived, apostate, wicked or some combination of all of the above? Do you surrender your identity and beliefs to rekindle the closeness and affection that you once shared with them?

In thinking about these things (and I've had many years now to think about them), I'm reminded of the principles behind successfully navigating relationship difficulties (marriage counseling, conflict resolution, etc.). Among many, the foundational principles governing such endeavors are that both sides acknowledge that there is a problem and have the desire to "fix" things. And how does that work when one side believes that compromise or accommodation might endanger their prospects for eternal life in God's Kingdom? How does that work when one side believes that the other is intent on destroying the church or the republic they cherish?

I must admit - at times, the situation seems hopeless and beyond repair. But then I'm reminded of something that alcoholics and addicts have known about for a long time: The Serenity Prayer. You know - the one that goes something like this: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.