3000 Years of To Eat or Not to Eat. Why or Why Not? -- Depends Who You Ask

 Bob Thiel is out with his semi-annual and typically Church of God defining practice of keeping what can be eaten and what cannot in mind.  

Why Some Are Eating ‘Biblically Clean’ and COVID

https://www.cogwriter.com/news/doctrine/why-some-now-are-eating-biblically-clean-and-covid/

We here all know the Church of God drill on not eating the unclean animals listed in the OT so I won't rehearse it. 

But the answer as to "Why not?" has always been elusive. 

Of course the New Testament gives the definite impression that for Paul , as Apostle to the Gentiles, there was no problem with eating unclean foods or even meats offered to idols, which he was told to avoid in Acts 15.  He blew that off once back home to Corinth with caveats I am sure he only practiced in the presence of "the weak in understanding".   I Cor 8 and 10   In this he was truly "all things to all men depending"

And without all the apologetics given by the Churches of God, we have Peter, in a going to the Gentiles setting, being told in Acts 10:

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

This was done three times. Peter doubted the meaning but then got the hint.

“28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

And, of course, we know the COG apologetic being, "Well yeah, go to the Gentiles for sure with the Gospel, but we still don't literally eat the Unclean" etc. 

Jesus is even said to have noted:

“Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him…. Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:1-5, 14-19; RSV)

We're not going to worry if the "Thus" was a later editorial opinion or part of the author's intent. It's in the Bible. 

This post is the "Why Not?" of eating or not eating the creatures on the planet, and debating all the "health" reasons for doing or not doing so. Every one of them can be refuted or argued endlessly about.  For example, today the answer to the health concerns over 

"Which meat is healthier, pork or beef?  is...

"Pork chops used to be on the doctors’ hit list. Today, however, pork is “the other white meat” and is a healthy alternative to red meat. And when it’s eaten in reasonable quantities (8 oz), a pork chop can be quite good for you."

But I would like to draw our attention to what the Jewish Rabbis and scholars have speculated about as to "Why" about. Precious little has to do with health vs it will kill you and God knows what's good for you.  It is also a fact of Israelite history that they were warned not to because they often did not heed the rules.

Huge topic in Jewish history and a good read of the various and many Jewish views as to why can be fascinating. No real why seems to be agreed upon. Church of God types, of course, know more than the people who wrote the Book and the rules and have simplistic views and answers. They also are forced to weave fantastic apologetics for many clear New Testament dismissals of the rules for clean and unclean.

To the point.  The conclusion of the Jewish argument as to "Why are some creatures good for food and others forbidden? is...

. "There is no other reason for all the dietary laws than that God gave them" (Samson Raphael Hirsch, "Horeb," 1837, p. 433). Thus says Lasch ("Die Goettlichen Gesetze," 1857, p. 173) in regard to the dietary laws: "He who truly fears God will observe His laws without inquiring into the reasons for them." Any question regarding the historical development of these laws is obviously excluded from the standpoint of traditional Judaism. "The dietary laws," says M. Friedländer ("The Jewish Religion," p. 237, London, 1891), "are exactly the same now as they were in the days of Moses."

A few quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia

"The distinction between clean and unclean animals appears first in Gen. vii. 2-3, 8, where it is said that Noah took into the ark seven and seven, male and female, of all kinds of clean beasts and fowls, and two and two, male and female, of all kinds of beasts and fowls that are not clean. Again, Gen. viii. 20 says that after the flood Noah "took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar that he had built to the Lord." It seems that in the mind of this writer the distinction between clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only; for in the following chapter he makes God say: "Everything that moveth shall be food for you" (Gen. ix. 3). "

"In Leviticus (xi. 1-47) and Deuteronomy (xiv. 1-20), however, the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" is made the foundation of a food-law: "This is the law . . . to make a difference between the clean and the unclean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten" (Lev. xi. 46-47)."

Reasons for Distinction.

"There was much speculation as to the reasons why certain species of animals should be allowed as food and others forbidden. In the Letter of Aristeas (lines 144-154) it is explained at length that "these laws have been given for justice' sake to awake pious thoughts and to form the character." 

"One should not say "The meat of the hog is obnoxious to me," but "I would and could eat it had not my Heavenly Father forbidden it" (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, end). In Talmudic-Midrashic literature no attempt is made to bring these laws nearer to human understanding. It was feared that much defining would endanger the observance of them, and all were satisfied "that they are things the use of which the Torah forbids" (Tanḥuma, Lev. ed. Buber, Shemini, iii. 29), although they were not capable of explanation."

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4408-clean-and-unclean-animals

" Whether justified in doing so or not, the great majority of West European Jews have broken away from the dietary laws; and the question for the Reform rabbis of the nineteenth century was whether the religious consciousness of the modern Jew should be allowed to suffer from a continual transgression of these laws, or whether the laws themselves should be submitted to a careful scrutiny as to their meaning and purpose and be revised—that is, either modified or abrogated by the rabbinical authorities of the present time. "

"A proposition to this effect was made at the Rabbinical Conference of Breslau (see Conferences, Rabbinical), and a committee consisting of Drs. Einhorn, Holdheim, A. Adler, S. Hirsch, and Herzfeld was appointed to report at the next conference, which, however, was never held. Dr. Einhorn's report, on behalf of the committee, was nevertheless published in "Sinai" (1859 and 1860). Its leading idea is that the dietary laws, with the exception of the prohibition of blood and of beasts that have died (or die) a natural death, are inseparably connected with the Levitical laws of purity and the priestly sacrificial laws, and are therefore of a mere temporary ceremonial character and not essentially religious or moral laws."

"G. Wiener in an exhaustive work of 524 pages, M. Kalisch, and K. Kohler have pleaded for a revision of the dietary laws. S. R. Hirsch and M. Friedländer have written in favor of the full retention of the laws (see bibliography below). Sam Hirsch gives a symbolic and allegorical interpretation of these laws in his Catechism, 2d ed., pp. 55-64, Philadelphia, 1877. As a matter of course, this question of revising or abrogating Biblical and rabbinical laws has no bearing upon the majority of Jews, who believe in the immutability of the Law, both the written and the oral. See Abrogation of Laws; Articles of Faith; Reform Judaism."

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5191-dietary-laws#anchor7

Personally, I find this interesting...

I. Animal and Plant Names:Arguments in Favor of Totemism.

A considerable number of persons and places in the Old Testament have names derived from animals or plants. Jacobs ("Studies in Biblical Archæology," pp. 94-103) has given a list of over 160 such names, including Oreb (the raven) and Zeeb (the wolf), princes of the Midianites; Caleb (the dog), Tola (the worm), Shual (the fox), Zimri (the chamois), Jonah (the dove), Huldah (the weasel), Jael (the ibex), Nahash (the serpent), Kezia (the cassia), Shaphan (the rock-badger), Ajalon (the great stag), and Zeboim (the hyena). Many of these, however, are personal names; but among the Israelitish tribes mentioned in Num. xxvi. are the Shualites, or fox clan of Asher; the Shuphamites, or serpent clan of Benjamin; the Bachrites, or camel clan; and the Arelites, or lion clan of Gad. Other tribes having similar names are the Zimrites, or hornet clan, and the Calebites, or dog tribe. In the genealogy of the Horites (Gen. xxxvi.) several animal names occur, such as Shobal (the young lion), Zibeon (the hyena), Anah (the wild ass), Dishan (the gazel), Akan (the roe), Aiah (the kite), Aran (the ass), and Cheran (the lamb). The occurrence of such a large number of animal names in one set of clan names suggests the possibility that the Horites, who were nomads, were organized on the totem-clan system.

(NOTE:  I always wondered why Moses would raise "the serpent in the wilderness" for healing of snake bite when such images were strictly forbidden in the Big Ten "

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." (Numbers 21:8)

Gospel Jesus confirms this use of the Serpent as meaningful pointing to his own being "lifted up" John 3:14-15. So as a totem perhaps it was fine.)

"IV. Forbidden Food:

Members of a totem clan did not eat the totem animal. As such totems gradually spread throughout the nation, a list of forbidden animals would arise which might be analogous to the list of forbidden animals given in Lev. xi. and Deut. xv. Jacobs, however, has shown that in the list of animal names given by him forty-three are clean as against forty-two unclean."

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14460-totemism

The point being that for the Jewish people and throughout their history since the law of clean and unclean were written by the priests, the "Why?" has many possible reasons with none agreed upon.  

It is truly a case of "Because I said so is why!"

The simplistic idea given by the Churches of God that "because the unclean animals are not good for you and the clean ones are", is shallow and weak. 

Ask about the health benefits of eating any "unclean" creature, such as shrimp and you will scientifically get...

"Health Benefits

Because they're low in carbs and calories and packed with nutrients, shrimp are an ideal choice if you're trying to shed some pounds.

The antioxidants in shrimp are good for your health. These substances can protect your cells against damage. Studies suggest that the antioxidant astaxanthin helps prevent wrinkles and lessens sun damage.

Shrimp also has plenty of selenium. Some studies suggest this mineral prevents certain types of cancer, but there's not enough research to know how well it works."

 The problem with any meats, from Chicken to Pork to Beef to Fish, is in the caution in preparation and not in the nutritional value.   Even pork rinds, (fried pork skins) are considered a much better choice than the standard potato chip which I am sure Church of God types have no problem scarfing down. 

https://drhealthbenefits.com/food-bevarages/meats/health-benefits-of-eating-pork-skin

The point being that the topic of "Why?" are some creatures considered clean and others unclean is a three thousand year old debate amongst the People of the Book themselves with many differencing conclusions drawn. 

Ultimately, "Because God says so" seems to be the best they can do until other come along and say, "Well,  that question today and in the New Testament is rendered moot".

 Others will scream, "Is not! Is not!"

 

CGI: Vance Stinson repsonds To "Imprecation" Post About Bill Watson

 

A response to Lonnie Hendrix's post on "CGI’s Bill Watson: Pastor or Warlock?"

Vance Stinson gave permission to post his letter here.

Hi Lonnie,

 

You asked me to listen to Bill Watson’s message on imprecatory prayer and give you my thoughts on it. The subject was not new to me; I first explored it many years ago. Theories on the purpose and meaning of the imprecatory psalms, as well as questions surrounding whether and how Christians should apply them in their own prayer lives, have been debated by Christian scholars, and different conclusions have been drawn. Bill raises essentially the same questions many have raised in times past, but does so with modern evils in view—the abortion mill, the rise of Marxist elements in our own society, etc. As he concludes his message, Bill summarizes his purpose for giving it:

 

“When is the prayer of imprecation, of asking God to intercede and to short-circuit some of the things we see around us? All I’m doing is asking. I’m asking you to think about it; I’m asking yo to look deep into your own hearts, gauge your involvement, your interest, your action, and then ask yourself, heart-to-heart, maybe in your prayer closed with God the Father—ask yourself, What do you think about it?”

 

At points in the message Bill does seem to be advocating imprecations against organizations, movements, and perhaps even individuals perceived to be enemies of freedom, godliness, and true justice; however, he carefully qualifies his comments by repeatedly reminding his listeners that he’s merely raising the question, not telling anyone how to interpret and apply the biblical examples of imprecation.

 

Bill has raised some thought-provoking questions and placed them in the context of many of today’s issues of concern. Here, in a nutshell, are my thoughts on the subject:

 

I’ve been an advocate of “praying the Psalms” for many years. The Psalms reflect/reveal the good and perfect will of their divine Author as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their human authors. David, who composed many of the psalms, was both a bloody warrior (1 Chron. 22:8; 28:3) and a man of profound faith and commitment. We should expect, then, that deeply introspective prayers composed by a man like King David would reflect his exceptional qualities as well as his shortcomings. And I believe that’s exactly what we do find in the imprecatory psalms.

 

The Tanakh (“Old Testament”) itself is the revelation of God—not merely a revelation (or collection of revelations) fromGod, but the revelation of God Himself. That is, this collection of books (including the Psalms) reveals what God Himself is like, but only in part. The fullness of the revelation of God came into the world at the Incarnation. Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension; His offices of King of Kings, High Priest, and Savior/Redeemer; and His teachings, as recorded in the New Testament, fill up the meaning of (“fulfill”) all previous revelation (Mt. 5:17ff). Indeed, we can see God most fully by looking into the human face of Jesus!

 

Therefore, when I read the Tanakh, I read it through the lens of the Christ-event (which includes all that is mentioned above). The question, then, is not whether or not the imprecatory psalms are instructive for Christian readers—I believe they are!—but is simply this: What does Jesus Christ say about how His followers should think of their enemies? And to this question, we have an unambiguous answer:

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:43-48, ESV, emphasis mine).

 

This passage needs no explanation; its meaning is clear. The meaning of Psalm 109 is likewise unambiguous. The psalm, which is attributed to David, reads (in part) as follows:

 

⁹ May his children be fatherless
    and his wife a widow!
¹⁰ May his children wander about and beg,
    seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!
¹¹ May the creditor seize all that he has;
    may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil!
¹² Let there be none to extend kindness to him,
    nor any to pity his fatherless children!
¹³ May his posterity be cut off;
    may his name be blotted out in the second generation!
¹⁴ May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord,
    and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out!
¹⁵ Let them be before the Lord continually,
    that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth! (ESV)

 

The psalmist is describing a corrupt court whose purpose is to destroy the accused. The New Testament account of Christ’s betrayal, arrest, and trial echoes the situation the psalmist describes. The individual the psalmist refers to is either a corrupt judge or the chief accuser (prosecutor) of this bogus trial. The psalmist, in poetic fashion, is calling on God to reverse the roles and allow him to pronounce judgment on his false accusers; to let them—the chief accuser in particular—receive the punishment they seek for the accused.

 

The psalmist honestly expresses his feelings toward his accuser and the false witnesses the accuser has assembled. His enemies “encircle [him] with words of hate, and attack [him] without cause.” They “reward [him] evil for good, and hatred for [his] love” (vv. 3-4). If we put ourselves in the psalmist’s place, we can easily sympathize with him; we can feel what he feels, and we realize he’s just being honest with his own feelings. One of the lessons here is that we should always be open and honest with God, for we cannot hide our innermost thoughts and feelings from Him. (Bill mentions this important principle in his message.) However, this should not be looked upon as a model for how we ought to pray regarding corrupt individuals and those who persecute us. The psalmist was not praying for his enemy, except in the sense that he was praying for his enemy to die! He obviously did not have love of his enemy in his heart when he composed these words; nor was he thinking in terms of “hate the sin but not the sinner.” No, he wanted the scoundrel dead and forgotten!

 

Should, as disciples of the New David, pray that way? No, we should not! However, there is a sense in which we can and should pray for—and even work toward—the “destruction” of the ungodly. We do this, not by calling on God to reign fire from heaven upon them or causing them to meet the same fate Jezebel or the prophets of Baal met in the days of Elijah, but by calling on God to change their hearts, and by using us as His agents—instruments in His Almighty hands—in helping to bring about such change. This is what the Church’s commission is all about!

 

I don’t wish for the heads of abortion providers to be dashed against the stones or for their bellies to burst open and pour their entrails onto the street for all to see. I want to see them “perish” by way of repentance and remission of sins. My hope—and prayer—is that the gospel will convict them; that the old, sinful, murderous self will “die” and be replaced by the new man in Christ. God destroys the wicked by turning the wicked into saints—and He does it through human agents! This kind of “death of the wicked” happens all the time. It happens every day in the Muslim world and in communist countries where the saints suffer severe persecution. It happens in the abortion clinics and among abortion-providing doctors and nurses. It happens in prisons. It happens in families and homes. It is by way of prayerful intervention and proclamation of the good-news message (the gospel) that our despised, falsely accused, persecuted brothers and sisters in China, North Korea, Nigeria, and many other parts of the world are, so to speak, agents of destruction—death angels!—whose prayers for their persecutors storm heaven day and night.

 

The “destruction” we should pray for (and work to bring about) is the same kind of “destruction” the apostle Paul refers to in his first epistle to the Corinthian believers:

 

“When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man [who was in an incestuous relationship] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:4-5, ESV, emphasis mine).

 

To “deliver to Satan” means simply to expel from fellowship. The purpose of this action is two-fold: 1) to prevent “a little leaven” from leavening “the whole lump” (v. 6), and 2) to motivate the offender to repent of and overcome his sinful tendencies (“the destruction of the flesh”). Without the “destruction of the flesh” (repentance, overcoming), the man’s “spirit” won’t be “saved in the day of the Lord.” (Side note: This text does not mean “Let the sinner die physically so that he might be saved spiritually in the second resurrection,” as some few have suggested.)

 

In addition, when we take our concerns before God, we, as followers of Christ, must recognize who the real enemy is. Paul says, “For we so not wrestle against flesh and blood [our human persecutors are but pawns; they’re not the realenemy], but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). That’s the real enemy! And that’s the enemy we should proactively oppose (see vv. 13-20 for how to do it).

 

In conclusion, the imprecatory psalms are deeply meaningful, especially when we read them through the lens of the Christ-event. The details of the New Testament Passion narratives “fulfill” (i.e., fill up the meaning of) the imprecatory psalms’ descriptions of the treachery and deceit of the accusers and the overwhelming anxiety of the accused; and they speak, in human terms, of divine retribution and the ultimate fate of the ungodly. These psalms also remind us of the importance of laying our hearts bare before God, of being completely honest about our innermost thoughts, feelings, and motives. And, finally, they remind us that the accuser of accusers is at work behind the scenes, that human accusers are mere pawns, oftentimes believing they are doing God a service. Our hope and prayer is that God will “destroy” them—that is, destroy the carnality the enemy uses to hold them under his sway—and “raise them up” to a new life in Christ. So when we pray for our persecutors, we look to the model of David—the New David, that is—who, in the torments of the cross, prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”

 

That’s the rich spiritual and Christological meaning I derive from reading the imprecatory psalms through the lens of the Christ-event.

 

COGWA: The Duplicitious Actions Of Mark Fike

 

When we were love-bombed the other day by Mark Fike, he made all kinds of baseless accusations against us here. When I saw his name it rang a bell but could not place it. Then when someone posted a comment that James Malm had information about him it dawned on me. Mark, in direct rebellion against United Church of God and in direct rebellion against the government he claimed to follow, threw a Bob Thiel style hissy-fit and left United Church of God to join ranks with COGWA.

We even featured the story of the Reno debacle here: COGWA Crowing About Latest UCG Defections

Remember, boys and girls, this is the face of the Church of God movement today.

James had this on his blog:

Wayne Icenhower
11/02/2020 at 11:10


I’ve been on the periphery, and in certain cases involved directly with the ongoing debacle. I’ll state here that I (along with a few others) strongly advised UCG administration NOT to promote Mark Fike a so-called interim pastor, as he and others in the local leadership were either a part of the problem, or THE problem. I warned Mark Welch in writing that if he continued with the plan to put this guy in charge, there wouldn’t be a UCG congregation in Reno. It didn’t surprise me at all that he was working to move people to COGWA, even while continuing to deal with UCG. Maybe he thinks they’ll give him a paycheck, to get on the payrolled gravy train (so he thinks). 

 

I’m aware of some “doctrinal disagreements”, one of which is honoring baptisms of SDA members. Not much else. Also, Joe “officially” resigned in August, and was not fired twice. Don’t know where that misinformation came from. COGWA certainly didn’t split from UCG a decade ago for “doctrinal reasons”, so I perplexes me why at least of few of those embarking on this new project really think the doctrines are going to be any different. 

 

I also think the numbers are double the actuals. I’ve attended Reno services a few times in the past, and there weren’t more than 15 or 20 total in attendance at that time. Now, I understand there are 6 to 12. 

 

Seems to be some misplaced hubris on the part of Dave Register and perhaps Franks and others, as this certainly doesn’t rank as earthshaking. They don’t know what they’re getting yet, obviously. Most of these folks are troublemakers–in particular their so called “elder” Fike. This guy, ironically, was ordained by Joe Horchak back in 2010 or so, as a reward for being loyal to UCG during the UCG/COGWA split. I can say, first hand, that since we’ve been associated with UCG in this area, Fike has worked to sabotage church functions for nearly all of that four year period. Joe should have removed his credential long ago for insubordination, but he shied away from conflict. 

 

In summary–with regard to Fike and few other of his close associates and family members — GOOD RIDDANCE. I think it will be a very short honeymoon. I don’t have anything personal against either UCG or COGWA, but I would encourage them to pull background checks on folks going over before promoting them to any type of leadership position. 

 

Regards, 

 

Yes, the political intrigues are shocking and totally ungodly. As for firing/resigning it is customary to ask for resignations in place of firing a person in order to make the situation easier for all sides. The word fired was a word used by a source and perhaps firing was a bad choice of words given the deep internal divisions you have revealed in Reno. The whole affair is disgusting. James

Another one of James readers comments:

As someone who was in the congregation when Joe first was fired and Ken was brought in. I can say without a doubt our congregation at the time was split in three groups, two divinding families one out of respect I won’t mention and the fikes. Thirdly those of us caught in the wicked web of lies and manipulation by M & J Fike. To your face they acted so great but behind doors they’d cast eyes and slander words. They’d try in secret to have letters signed to complain about Ken literally the first week he was there. I was shocked to see how low they would go. Ken confronted it and had a large circle meeting with us all and wanted any complaints openly heard and talked about so WE as a congregation could move forward. What a shock when myself and only a handful of others that weren’t directly related to either party by blood relation spoke up about the division and what is being said behind closed doors. Mark fikes face was priceless, stone cold. I’m not kidding when I say this he looked like he felt nothing, was hollow even calculating his next move when being called out openly for manipulative actions and dangerous and inappropriate conversations. His response was nothing. Nothing got better just more coldness in the congregation. The fikes would spread rumors of young men in the congregation being too forward with relationships (young man brought his girlfriend to church and held hands) or how one family is trying to “pawn” their eldest daughter off on another young man who was attending (he left after hearing such a thing) these were real time examples and factors into a small glimpse of what that family whom seems morally bankrupt was willing to do to stay in charge or take charge. I left soon after Ken left not to join them but put it all behind me, now most 10 years later I find this post and it just opened up so many old.wounds and memories and nasty interactions with that family.

 

Update 13 Feb:  More information has been coming in and it now appears that Aaron Creech was the victim of a long conspiracy by the local elder Mark Fike who was working to gain a congregation for himself in Reno.  It seems that in this case doctrinal issues were largely blown out of proportion or invented.  That does not mean that there are no doctrinal issues in UCG. 

Mark seems to have made big issues out of every little thing for a very long time including while Joe Horchak was there in an effort to gain a following and congregation of his own.  When Aaron Creech was assigned to take over Reno a great effort was made to undermine him.  When only a few would agree with Mark he opted to lead those who would follow him to leave UCG and join COGWA.  

Update 11 Feb: Gerald Coleman the website manager for Sacramento wrote to say that no sermons by Aaron Creech were ever uploaded or removed from Sacramento.

The Reno site was checked and there were several sermons by Aaron in the evening and the next morning they were gone.  Other persons have told me the same thing and I do have copies of incoming emails corroborating this. 

In fact Aaron was the Reno elder for four months and did have sermons at the Reno site.  I may have erred in including Sacramento but I stand by my statement in reference to Reno.

Update 9 Feb: After this post was published all of Aaron Creech’s sermons were almost immediately removed from the UCG Reno site.   

The sun has set on the Sabbath almost two hours ago so I will post this by popular demand. 

After Joe Horchak was fired from UCG for the second time, Mark Fike was made interim pastor of Reno and served from August until Aaron Creech arrived as senior pastor in Sacramento / Reno last November.  

For several years the clique now running the CoE in UCG has been slowly and subtly conditioning brethren, especially in their home areas and areas run by their close associates, to accept various doctrinal changes.  

Once Aaron Creech was established in Sacramento / Reno, 25 people have left UCG-Reno due to claimed doctrinal / false teaching issues. One should remember that these are strong UCG loyalists who refused to follow Ken Geise in 2010.  

Not counting the Creech family that travels from California to Reno twice per month, only 12 UCG members remain and that could change. 

Pastor Mike Fike resigned last Wednesday and all local speakers, song leaders and the area elder have chosen to exit. 25 persons have chosen to affiliate with COGWA. The 25 new COGWA members left UCG within the past month.