Escaping Armstrongism

Goodnight, Gracie

2009-03-16T14:23:00.015-04:00

Well, it's been a fun couple of months. I certainly have enjoyed our little fireside chats. But, as they say, "Even the word cliche is a cliche." But before they say that, they usually say something like, "All good things must come to an end."

I left Armstrongism in August of 2008. Since then I have learned so much.
First of all, I have met the enemy, and he is us. I have seen the many things that HWA hid from us. The man truly needs prayers for his soul. I have seen the many inconsistencies in doctrine and how understanding must be twisted to an unrecognizable degree for Armstrongism to work. I have seen how HWA often flat-out contradicts what Paul clearly taught. I saw how HWA's legalism can put a person in real danger of completely negating Christ's sacrifice for them. I saw how a small fraction of the law is actually kept while the rest is not even explained away. I was told "Mr. Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." And that, dear reader, is blasphemy. Sheer and utter blasphemy. No man can change the law!

I have met the "so-called" Christians, insisting on meeting these people as equals this time (it was always drilled into my head to pity them for their lack of God's calling and hopeless state of deception - ie. "we" were better than "they" are), and I have seen the most loving and caring people on earth. I was utterly unprepared for the kindness I would experience from some people who decided to reach out to me. I was always told how the world was Godless and deceived. I honestly didn't know what to expect. But from certain ones I received genuine concern, patience, help, and an offer for friendship.
One couple, and I will never forget this, were in my state visiting family and chose to drive a hundred miles out of their way in inclement weather to meet me in person for dinner. We talked. We laughed. We enjoyed good food together. When diner was done, they left. They wanted nothing. They asked for nothing. They just desired to meet my wife and me and share a meal together like genuine Christians should do. God bless you, my real friends, you know who you are.

I knew when I started this blog that one outcome was fated to me, one thing was as sure as the rising of the sun, as certain as death and taxes: I was going to be abandoned by everyone in the COGs who swore their friendship to me and called me their family in Christ. I have indeed been shunned by most everyone.

I packed the family and travelled hundreds of miles for weekend visits and stayed in people's homes. I hear nothing from them now. I called cross-country and spoke at length every other Sabbath. I get no answer and no call back now. You'd think they would at least call me and say "Hey, we care." Or at the very, very least they would send a text message. Nope.
Only the ones on the fringe of the faith, or who somehow remain ignorant that I've left still speak to me. It is just the way of things.
This is the fate of all who leave the system.

I'll tell you what they've busied themselves doing - reassuring themselves.
They are patting themselves on their backs for their resolve, comforting themselves by praying for my family not to be thrown into Gehenna, and shoring up whatever weakened pylons that were shaken when I left. I've experienced the same thing several times when other people left. Oh, some will miss my family... for a little while. But all in all, I am now the enemy in their view.

Did anyone leave the 99 and go after the lost sheep? No. What strikes most people is the ease in which their group lets them go. One minute you're vested. The next minute, everyone retreats and you are the enemy. They are perfectly willing to leave old friends on the field. At the drop of a hat. This tells me the relationships were never ever genuine. The love was a feint. The kind words always had strings attached. The disclaimer: "Relationships subject to change without notice; conditional upon continued participation in the group-think." That isn't friendship. No, not at all. It's co-dependence. And it's a shame.

But I knew what I was getting in to from the start. I know their patterns. I lived it for 30 years. I knew that I was absolutely no exception. And that knowledge made my transition much easier.

They probably don't realize it at all. I never did.
A genuine, deep Armstrongist will probably never (or never again) know truly deep human-to-human relationships, so long as they remain in that mode. And this is no shocking revelation as that kind of relationship simply cannot exist under those conditions. It is my opinion that they do not understand true relationships.
Everything is conditional. Perhaps this would be the single most insidious evil of legalism. A legalist would stone their own children if commanded. How can one learn to love one another with Godly love when everything is conditional upon legalistic obedience. A father is to be a sheriff first, a role model next, a disciplinarian often, and free time is to be spent in pursuit of church functions. There is a type of fatherhood there, a kind of spouse, but the man who would abandon his children to fate if they do not pursue Armstrongism, or even divorce his wife if given the order, is neither father nor husband but an actor in that role. The same goes for the wife. She is expected to expend her life's energy controlling the children, making her husband look good, and freeing his time to pursue church functions. She is a subordinate to the husband, not a partner. No matter how many sermons parrot Ephesians 5, the expectation was that the husband rule over the family and the wife be utterly submissive.

I will tell you plainly, the ideal is the relationship between Jesus and the Father.
Jesus submitted, but the Father trusted Him with everything He has. The Father God did not attempt to dominate Jesus, or hide Him away in the wings somewhere. Who is called "Christ"? With whom did God consult when He said "Let Us make man in Our image"? Who is the "Emmanuel", "Prince of Peace", "Savior" of all mankind, "the Rock", "the Way", "Truth", "the Life", "Wonderful", "Counsellor", "Alpha and Omega", etc, etc?? When Christ prayed "Nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done", He submitted willingly, not by force or coercion. He told us straight out that more than twelve legions of angels were at His disposal. Again, He said "I lay down My life", and "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down Myself." This is not the talk of a servant, but of a partner who was in full agreement with what was planned.
And even so, Jesus was full of love and respect for the Father. He said "I can of Myself do nothing", and "I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father".

Is this the relationship model that I saw in the COGs? I tell you the honest truth as I witnessed things, it was not.
I heard stories of husbands dominating their wives. And the converse was also true, I heard many tales of wives undermining their husbands. It was not widely known that many ministers would have loosened up if it weren't for the unbending pressure placed on them by their wives. In many instances it is the ministers' wife who enforces the merciless legalist standard and prevents reform in the COGs.

We are humans, and imperfect. The goal is too high for mankind, I readily admit (hence the need for a Savior and God's Spirit to be involved). Yes, you may find exceptions to the rule (I challenge anyone to locate such an exception due to more perfect legalism as opposed to greater faith in Christ - which thing is opposite to Armstrongism). But something is dead rotten in the COGs as far as interpersonal relationships go.

What truth my eyes were opened to see when the veil of Armstrongism was lifted, what peace I have received (undeservedly) with my Savior, is a danger to the cult. All who are like me must be shunned and the eyes and ears clamped shut or else the light may shine in and they will know the truth.

What's the danger in that? Well, as I have come to learn, Armstrongism doesn't match the Bible. The process breaks down when the mind is allowed to genuinely let the Bible interpret the Bible.
Once I saw the evidence without looking at it through HWA's eyes, I saw what I was fully convinced was not there. And I saw that the earliest Christian writers all agree that what HWA taught was wrong. Those earliest writers are demonized as plants set there by Satan to steer us off course. When I read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho and saw that his arguments for his position were all Bible-based, it was as if I were kicked in the chest by a mule. The entire Armstrongist process broke down and was laid out in front of me for the deception that it is.

You see, "facts" are a matter of perception, "truth" is not (even though we misinterpret it all the same). For those who want to be in the light, the light is a blessing. It show the flaws, it shows reality, it affords an opportunity to become aware of personal ugliness and ignorance. The point in that is to change... to mature.. to grow! But for those who want to remain in the dark, the light is an enemy.. a destroying force. It destroys the dark. It destroys the sleep. It rips off the covering and hurts the eyes. All that was comfortable and familiar because the flaws were unperceived is now foreign and strange because there the flaws are for all to see. They have eyes to see, but they will not see. But if a person insists on darkness, then there is no forward progress. The blind will inevitably lead the blind into a ditch.

I was told that outside of Armstrongism all I would find is deception because God is not there. I was told my faith and Biblical understanding would be revoked from me by God. I was told calamities would ensue because God's protection was lifted and Satan could concentrate his full anger against me. I say truly that these were all false tales told to keep me in darkness by fear.
My life has been better. Challenging! But better. The joy I have felt, the unprecedented closeness with my Savior, the freedom, the brightness of the future... I haven't words to express my gratitude to God. Every week I am blown away at the love and grace of Christ.
Yes, there are dangers in freedom. There are many pits to fall into. But I am convinced that Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, left His 99 and went to gather me. No Armstrongist minister has done similarly. And now, what do I see? I see the anger not coming from Satan's "world" but from Armstrongists. I have been judged and condemned. I have been shunned. I have been utterly chewed out. By "the world"? No. By Armstrongists.

A friend of mine once asked me (and I paraphrase), "How can I see people in this world who go from a life of complete godless sinfulness to what appears to be a genuinely repentant, Bible-based, happy life? How can other churches do that again and again, but I never see that in the COGs? That cannot happen apart from God. How can He be at work in those churches?" At the time I was a good Armstrongist, and I blew the question off not knowing what to say. Now I see the answer as being clear. It was in front of me all along. I was on the wrong team, and I was holding my eyes shut hoping beyond hope that the light would just go away and leave me alone.

Why? What motivates a person to act that way? Hey, if you figure it out, let me know. I've taken some advice from a valued friend and started reading Lifton. So far I'm just terrified that 1984 could be true. Other than that, all I can do is speculate. Let me speculate for a moment, if you would be so generous, and I will tell you what held me.
In a word, fear.

I started as a second generation Armstrongist. Most of my time in the church was an attempt to please my father. He told me about all of the terrible things to come in the Tribulation, how the Catholic Church which I was a part of was the greatest tool of evil in Satan's arsenal, and for fear's sake I wanted to avoid that. It was my father's church but eventually, after some decades, I found I had made the church my own. (That was a step many second gens never get to. Unfortunately, the majority of them fall into a proverbial pit once they left for one reason or the other.)
At first it was fear of the Tribulation. In time it was fear of the terrible things I listed above. Either way it was fear that snared me, fear that reeled me in, and fear that held me there. All the while I prayed for the light of truth to shine but whenever the light would start to shine in my heart, I shoved it back down again for fear that it was Satan deceiving me. I would bury my face in HWA's booklets and online sermons of my favorite ministers until the shadow grew longer and then I would fall comfortably back asleep again for a time.

One time the light grew simply inescapable. I was forced to face facts. Either the inconsistencies in my beliefs were real and HWA was a fraud, or they were not and HWA really could change the law and flip-flop and be a false prophet (and a whole host of other things I've already written about in several other posts).
Well, this time I chose the light. So many things immediately fell into place for both my wife and me. A wash of joy came over me so strong I could physically feel it like a ball in my chest. Inexplicable! That could only be the indescribably joy of I Peter 1: 8. For the very first time - joy, not fear!
My wife thought it would be disingenuous to stay in Armstrongism if I no longer believed it. She was right. I knew that if I stayed, that joy would be killed and I would go right back to sleep again. No, the end of this story wouldn't be, "I love Big Brother". I decided that I had to share the opportunity for that joy with everyone, and I started this blog. Even though I knew I hadn't a hope in hades that anyone in the COGs would listen to me, even though I knew what shunning I would receive from the people who held my newborn children, I had to go ahead. But what I soon realized was a complete surprise to me.

I was meditating on my past, and how I treated people who now were embracing me. I recall writing an official apology to the "so-called" Christians whom I had mistreated, and I set out to write an apology to the COG7 whom I had called "dead" for so long. Then it dawned on me. It wasn't only fear, but pride that held me.

Yes! When I was an Armstrongist I was in on secrets only the Holy Spirit could reveal. I understood prophesies hidden from the foundation of the world. I was an elect saint. I was the Bride of Christ. The rest of the world was headed for a terrible end while hopefully (if I was good enough) I was headed for the place of safety [doubt]. In just 3-4 more years the world would soon come to worship at Jesus' feet and see me standing there. Anyone who wronged me would have no choice but to apologize. All of these very exclusive, very desirous, (VERY carnal) things that a person could never come to on their own and they were mine. In short, I was better than 99.9% of all men who ever lived.

As Cypher said, "What a mind job!"

I speculate that many Armstrongists come for the fear, but stay for the pride.
I never realized it before that time. I have only come to see the scope of it gradually since then. It was nothing I could have hoped to understand while I was still in. No, there you are taught what an honor it is and that we don't appreciate it enough. Meanwhile, we appreciated each other to the exclusion of the rest of the world. They were expendable. They were only ever going to be second-best anyway. After the Tribulation, then Christ would open their eyes. I never saw the inconsistencies in why Christ would punish one last generation so very severely for the sins of all time. I didn't care. Hopefully I wouldn't be on the receiving end [a legalist can never be free of doubt because his trust is in his own righteousness]. "We" were better than "they" were, and "we" liked the idea.
It was pure, sickly, poisonous pride and it was so very dangerous I couldn't stay silent about it. That would be a sin of omission I could not forgive myself for. Even though now some may hate me, God still dearly loves His children who are trapped in Armstrongism. I am not afforded the easy way out of hating them in return.

Well, I've done it. This is the blog. All of what you read here is my story.
I've studied for you, dear reader, the topic of meats, tithes, a brief look into the Sabbath, and a couple other topics I thought would be useful in casting off and trampling under the unbearable yoke of Armstrongist legalism. I have tried not to attack Herbert Armstrong too much or be unfair to him, since my goal was never to attack but to reveal, but I have written a few posts proving he is not at all qualified for the positions he claimed to have held. He failed Paul's qualifications for an elder in more than 11 categories. Since so many people said to me that they do not follow a man, I wrote several posts explaining how that is simply untrue. I have done what I can to show how people like Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland, Harold Smith, etc, are all clones of HWA. If Ron Weinland is a false prophet (and he is), then so is HWA, and so area all who prophesy in his name. I have done all of these things for the love of God that was passed to me without my deserving it, and so I pass it on to you, whomever you are.

May the love of God go with you and guide you into His New Covenant. As for me, I am done here. I have been gifted with the healing of heart that many people do not find for decades or more. I have done what I can. I have peace. I have lost the urge to blog. I am humbled. When it's time to go it's time to go.

From here on in I will only be writing from time to time, and as a guest on the blog of my new friend Seeker of Truth. From even before I left Armstrongismism, his blog, As Bereans Did, has upheld the Christian standards I have tried to achieve here. ABD blog Bible-based, Christ-focused, and never promotes any man. The vision for the blog is a Christian blog, with several authors, catering to former Armstrongists, all under one roof. I like the idea. It is an honor to be invited on board. I may not write nearly as much, mostly because I have peace, but when the Spirit moves me I'll speak my piece.

Finally - thanks to everyone who has helped me, supported me, commented, corrected me on something, prayed for me, lurked, or spread the word. "And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward" (MATT. 10: 42). Thank you. If I have been of any help to anyone, thanks go to God for that. There is hope in the New Covenant, all you need to do is invite Christ in.

Meats - Conclusion

2009-03-12T11:46:00.009-04:00

This is the last post (that I had planned) on the topic of meats. I had planned one last investigation into the subject, but instead I'm just going to review some highlights of what I've learned on this subject over the last 3/4 year.

I'd like to start at the very beginning. I theorize the problem with meats begins like this:

It starts innocently enough with a growing desire to be closer to God. Somehow one becomes confused over some point of the Bible - usually the use of the English word "commandments" in the N.T. (for example in I John). Down whatever path, one comes to the eventual conclusion that the 10 Commandments survived unchanged into the New Covenant (most especially the 4th). I actually hear that a lot. When asked, "What led you to [Armstrongism]?" people have most often responded, "I knew the true church would be keeping the Sabbath." Compounding problems then arise with verses like (MATT. 5: 17-18) or (MATT. 23: 23), which lead people to search for more answers and this leads to meeting up with one religious group or the other. Depending on which religious group one finds, such things as tithing and holy days will be taught until eventually a person is so hopelessly deep into legalism that accepting the meats laws becomes almost logical. Afterwards, anything that is described in the O.T. as "forever" or "perpetual" is fair game. The border between the Old and New Covenants is destroyed, but group-think prevents people from realizing the truth that they are now a part of neither Covenant. Unfortunately, at the very start, the grace of the New Covenant was set aside and reliance on one's own righteousness set in. That is a perfect recipe for going astray. Hence Paul uses terms like "ministry of death". And ultimately, while a person claims to be "the elect", Jesus' sacrifice is lessened to the point where Paul describes it as being "of no effect". The unsatisfiable chase after personal perfection, along with the obligatory fear and doubt that comes from it, betrays this to be horribly true.

Many things are said to be for a ‘perpetual covenant’ between God and Israel, like for example the avoidance of fat. Whenever I mention that food law to any Armstrongist, they dismiss it. The law! Just not THAT law! I actually had a person tell me "No one can do that!" As if that makes any difference in the world. The law is the law is the law. If you start to keep food laws, then keep the food laws. The law has no middle ground (JAS. 2: 10). Just because something says it is a ‘perpetual covenant’, it does not follow that it is valid for the New Covenant.

The challenge is to realize these two items:

(MATT. 5: 17-18) "17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

and

(2 TIM. 3: 16-17) “16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

both declare the the amazing work Christ finished (JOHN 19: 30) when He fulfilled all the law and the prophets. It is a grave error to believe these verses say "keep the Old Covenant" because that is contrary to the salvation of Christ. It is the very error Paul fought so hard against. In fact, to keep a cherry-picked version of the Old Covenant, like the one taught by HWA, will without question cost you everything you think to save.

(GAL 5: 1-4) 1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised [in other words, set out to keep the law - circumcision is Torah not Talmud], Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised [in other words, set out to keep the Torah law] that he is a debtor to keep the whole law [not a cherry-picked version of it]. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

I argue that meats laws are not a weightier matter of the law whatsoever but were wholly ceremonial and wholly abolished by the New Covenant. Look, it's really quite simple. Jesus was party to the Old Covenant. He died. No amount of scriptural misinterpretation should confuse people about this one all-important point.

Once I simply accepted that fact, I came to believe Jesus Christ when He said “What goes into a man cannot defile him”, and “What God has cleansed you must not call common”, which blends with Paul who said “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself”, and “For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving”.

To preach anything else is to say Christ's sacrifice is insufficient. So answer, in what way was Christ's sacrifice insufficient?

Contrary to what may appear overtly obvious, I did not write the posts on meats to get people to eat pork.

If one believes the meats are a sin, then to them it is a sin -- but not because of law. If one eats and defiles their conscience, God forbid. I do not in any way promote that! The real issue I address here is condemnation and judgment. I exhort all who keep the food laws (to whatever degree) to stop judging and condemning people who do not keep the food laws. If someone loves God by having faith in Christ and keeping a high standard of moral excellence, then where is the excuse for breaking the clear commandments against judging another? We have One Judge. Do not call His brothers and sisters for whom He died “self-willed”, “disobedient”, “uncalled”, “condemned”, nor any other such thing, for, as Paul said, "Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died" (ROM. 14: 15). My number one, primary, el numero uno complaint about the COGs is the judgment and condemnation. Meats or no, that has got to stop.

I have also come to see that even if the food laws are no longer in effect, they are a wonderful lesson for us. They hold meaning. They are not without value. Jesus did not destroy any of the laws; He fulfilled them. He fulfilled all things. “Clean” and “unclean” are spiritual now, as opposed to symbolic/physical. Circumcision is of the heart. A good study into the physical symbolism of the spiritual reality will be fulfilling whether you eat or not.

I was surprised to learn that no animal was shown to be given to man to eat until Noah left the Ark. The distinction of the clean from the unclean animals that he took on that Ark were for sacrificial purposes, not for food.

Sacrifice was there from the days of Adam, circumcision from the days of Abraham – both are now gone. Therefore, just because we see something before Sinai it does not follow that such thing is still valid today. The COGs would do well to answer, in what way are they valid today? Then perhaps they would see that all things are fulfilled. The sacrifices, Levitical priesthood, washings, and temple (among other things) some say will return in the future. But they are not here now. Therefore, just because we think we see something in prophecy for the Millennium (all prophetic interpretation is speculation) it does not follow that it is valid today. "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed" (MAL. 3: 6). It is the Lord's nature that 'changes not', but clearly His requirements for us do.

I was surprised to learn that my Armstrongist beliefs caused me to unknowingly hold that all Christians had to become Jews in order to be Christians. I didn't realize that I believed that way. Recognizing it helped me to understand. And immediately God said "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you" (GEN. 9: 3). That is everything. All. Total. "...Every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea" (GEN. 9: 2). No exceptions.

And still people use reasoning to nullify the clear an inescapable words of the Bible. This is not because of any Biblical evidence (as their argument is designed to nullify the words of the Bible) but by an emotional attachment to ideology alone. And this is idolatry - a violation of the very Commandments they claim to uphold.

There are two groups of Christians in the early church: the Jewish converts that were zealous for the law, and the Gentile converts that were instructed to keep no such thing. This was obviously for their conscience’s sake. Exactly as the Pharisees who troubled Paul, Herbert Armstrong commanded the Gentiles to be Jews in order to be Christians. This is contrary to the decree of the Apostles, even while HWA quite plainly did not keep the whole law. A great many things had to be erased from Jewish law for God to cleanse the gentiles; not just the food laws. If it were not so then no Jew could effectively preach to a Gentile or vice versa. The unclean meats were a shadow. Jesus Christ who casts the shadow is clean; the shadow is therefore cleansed.

Peter didn’t understand this at first. It was not something Jesus taught Him while He was alive because they simply could not handle it then. Jesus taught Peter through the Holy Spirit when the time had come, after the calling of Cornelius. These things were confirmed through Paul and Barnabas through miracles. Peter and a few other Apostles just seemed to have a problem accepting it. We can see that the Apostles did mind the Talmud traditions, and that became a stumbling block for them. Old habits are hard to break. HWA's clever comment "Why didn't Peter understand a change in meats laws 10 years later?" drew me in. It wasn't 10 years, for one thing. And Peter was the very first Apostle sent to a Gentile. By that same logic, if he didn't understand that Gentiles were cleansed x years later, then they must not be! Ergo, none of us are Christians anyhow.

Ridiculous!

I also came to disagree that the basis of this debate should be health, seeing as properly cooked pork is much more healthful than fresh scallions (or jalapenos or peanuts or blueberries, etc) with salmonella. If meats are health laws it should say so somewhere in the Bible, but it does not. Nowhere in the Bible are food laws explained to be health laws. They are symbolically unclean in relation to sacrifice, and that's it. Oh, how very many times do I hear "God didn't give us poison ivy to eat." Perhaps not. But He didn't designate clean/unclean plants either. Trying to force meats into a health issue via cleverly worded arguments does not Biblical truth make. The fact remains - meats are not a health issue.

I was at first confused by the meanings of some verses. They seemed to be plain and without need of interpretation. Peter was right to say some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand (2 PET. 3: 15-16). But if it’s health we’re so worried about, then we must begin to treat fast food, hydrogenated oils, food allergies, and laziness with much greater seriousness.

I was also surprised to learn what little agreement there is among the COGs about any of this. Armstrong taught one thing at one time, another thing at another time, and yet another thing at a third time. One group says this, another group says that, another group says the other thing. I even recall hearing one minister describe the issue in terms of "lobsters are gross." (And that's entirely a matter of personal preference. I used to think potatoes were gross.) If it were all so plain, why the confusion?

Whether you believe clean and unclean meats to be a physical law of health, a spiritual sin, a ceremonial sacrifice ritual, or just something you arbitrarily do, I hope you can agree with me that our understanding of the Bible is not open to personal interpretation. The Bible should interpret the Bible. Nor either can any man change the law as I often found HWA had done (what disturbs me most is people are fully aware of that yet go along none the less). I did this study because I thought if my Armstrongist preconceptions were true then they could stand up to scrutiny. I will leave it up to the reader to decide the outcome. Our relationship with God is on an individual basis. Much of how I was taught seemed to be an attempt to make me too afraid to read the Bible for myself. I never realized that I accepted much of what I did because Herbert W. Armstrong claimed he taught the truth and said I would go to the second resurrection (or worse) if I didn’t agree. Simply taking the word of a person because they claim to be some end-time celebrity is most definitely NOT Biblical. The old fallback “that’s not how I was taught” is probably the most dangerous position of all. Only after much study and prayer can we come to have a deep and mature understanding of God’s Word. Sometimes what the Bible is saying is not immediately obvious. A Christian walk is a growth process. It is dangerous to read into the Bible without a humble and teachable attitude. It is dangerous to use phrases like "non-negotiable". If something is true, it will be true every time you revisit the subject. And revisit you should. One must be ready to prove what is good or disprove even long standing beliefs.

Christians Tithe?

2009-03-09T15:31:00.012-04:00

This is the final post (that I had planned) in my study of tithing in the New Covenant. How can I possibly sum this topic up? I feel no matter what I say it will be insufficient in so many ways.

In past posts we have seen that the best minister is an unpaid minister. Paul exhorted elders to imitate him (I COR. 11: 1), and he was unpaid. Unpaid ministers will attest to the manifold benefits of such a practice. The Didache shows:

"Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet."

We have also firmly established the abolition of tithes - and not only tithes, but the entire the Old Covenant as well, taking the Levitical priesthood with it. What should the New Covenant congregation do? The thought of a Church without tithes is unfamiliar to some and naturally uncomfortable. What is commanded if not tithes?

In short, one word: giving! We can see clearly, both in the Old Testament and the new, that helping the poor and needy is a salvation issue.

So, what is the correct method for the New Testament Church? Instead of a multi-tiered tithe system, Christ installed a newer (and in my opinion more difficult) system, in which the Christian is to share all that he has with his fellows. Ten percent seems an insufficient baseline to start with.... but there is much more!

(LUKE 6: 38) Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.

(MATT. 10: 8) Freely you have received, freely give.

(LUKE 12: 32-34) 32 “Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

(ROM 12: 1) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

(EPH. 4: 28) Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need.

The Earliest Example

What I read in the New Covenant bore very little resemblance to Armstrongism. Once again we see the idea of 100% as opposed to 10%, 20%, 30%, 30% + offerings, etc....

(ACTS 2: 44-45) 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

(ACTS 4: 32) 32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.

(ROM. 15: 25-27) 25 But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. 26 For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem. 27 It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things.

They didn't divide away 10%, they distributed to whomever had need. I should point out that this was in no way a hippie commune. People still retained ownership of their own goods. It was a simple matter of generosity. Whomever had extra generously supplied the lack of whomever had need.

(II COR. 8: 13-15) 13 For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; 14 but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality. 15 As it is written, “He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack.”

Is this what Armstrong taught? Is that what we see reflected in his followers? Is there any doubt that within the COGs the majority withheld from each other, even towards their poor brethren? The idea of a tithe prevented the very mindset that God wanted to foster within us. We had already given at the office, so to speak, and our obligation was finished. It is a fact that we did not live according to this example as a whole. While some in the church had a superabundance (HWA chief among them), some went bankrupt trying to follow an abolished system of compulsory tithing. And yet, as is often the case, those who had the least were usually the most willing to give while those who had the most were usually the most willing to withhold.

Money Only?

Now, I feel it should be stressed that giving need not be monetary. How many times are we shown that God gives us Spiritual gifts, and we are to share those gifts. Perhaps a person is destitute and cannot give money. To a tithing system, that person is a liability. Their ability to contribute is cut short. However, in the New Covenant, we are free to give what God has graced us with. Should that be a spiritual gift, great; labor, wonderful; comfort in time of need, excellent; a good example, much needed. If a Christian has anything to give or share, it all counts in God's eyes.

(LUKE 11: 41) But rather give alms of such things as you have; then indeed all things are clean to you.

(ACTS 3: 2-6) 2 And a certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms from those who entered the temple; 3 who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked for alms. 4 And fixing his eyes on him, with John, Peter said, “Look at us.” 5 So he gave them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. 6 Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.”

(I TIM. 5: 9-10) 9 Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, 10 well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.

(JAS 2: 14-16) 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?

Give To Whom?

The COGs have a tradition of not helping anyone outside their own organization. Anyone not in the immediate organization is brushed of as a lost cause, usually with a prideful comment like "let the dead bury the dead" or "God is not calling everyone at this time". Is this correct? To whom should a Christian give?

(MATT. 5: 42) Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

(LUKE 6: 29-31) And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

(ROM. 12: 20) Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”

(ACTS 10: 1-4) 1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?” So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God.”

Cornelius was an Italian.

The Thought Counts!

No, we didn't care for the rest of the world, least of all our 'enemies'. We viewed them as useless; counting the hours until they would be swept away in the Tribulation for their disregard of the Old Covenant. This is a horrible attitude! It is judgmental, it is contrary to the Gospel, and it demeans those Christ died to save.

We should have learned from the example of Zacchaeus. He wasn't perfect, but he gave generously and he made right his wrongs. When Jesus visited him, the crowd gossiped against Jesus because Zacchaeus was a sinner; in their eyes unworthy of God's love.

(LUKE 19: 8) Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.”

Did Christ judge him and dismiss him until the second resurrection?

(LUKE 19: 9) And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; 10 for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Not only did we teach and live contrary to what Christ taught, but we were commanded to withhold any generosity. The tithes were not ours! Only Headquarters was close enough to God to know how to waste the tithe money. After tithes were sent in, if any was left, that too was begged of us, "Send in your widow's mites!" In the face of it all, we were told that God loves a cheerful giver. Well, it's a minor point, but one cannot "give" tithes as they are a requirement not belonging to us, like taxes. That being the case, then we cannot be a cheerful giver in relation to tithes. No... tithes are abolished in the New Covenant, but the attitude in giving still counts!

(MATT. 20: 25-28) “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

(I COR. 13: 3) And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

(II COR. 9: 6-15) 6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written: “He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever.” 10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men, 14 and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the exceeding grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

(I JOHN 3: 16-18) 16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

Especially, do not be deceptive in your giving. Do not lie to God in making a promise on giving that you won't keep, nor should you make inflated claims about your giving (it is far better to hide your giving). Remember Ananias and Sapphira!

(ACTS 5: 1-11) 1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”

She said, “Yes, for so much.”

9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband.

I would mention briefly that both (II THS. 3: 10) and (I TIM. 5: 8) talk very sternly about laziness and an unwillingness to work to earn one's own way. Paul is no fan of people who make a career out of receiving charity when they are perfectly capable of work. Charity is one thing. The poor will always be with us (MATT. 26: 11). Abusing the system to take unfair advantage of the generosity of others is something else entirely.

God Will Reward!

Not that I am saying that Christians should give in order to receive a reward from God, but at times giving is difficult and our carnal natures can work against us. Knowing that God will reward the faithful can go a long way to overcoming your own limitations.

(MATT. 10: 40-42) 40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41 He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.”

(EPH. 6: 8) knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

Conclusion.

If Christ taught tithing, what place would the righteous have in asking “when did we see you and clothe you and feed you?” Clothing and food would not have been tithed, but rather food items only, since that is the focus of the Old Covenant tithe system. And tithing, being called mandatory as well as the sole responsibility of the layman in the church, even the source of their righteousness (which is a grave error), if it were taught by the Apostles it would have been immediately recognizable to all who read the Bible. In all of the early Christian documents we find absolutely no mention of tithing. In fact, the Didache is clear that the teachings of the Apostles were contrary to any demand for money. Instead, what do we see? I think these next two selections summarize our Christian duty nicely!

(MATT. 25: 31-46) 31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ 41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(ACTS 20: 32-35) 32 So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34 Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me. 35 I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’

With all honesty, beloved by God and treasured, you who are still in Armstrongism, consider these verses. Consider this entire study (not that it is anything, or the only such study), and consider carefully all that our Lord Jesus Christ has done for us [which is entirely nullified by a partial keeping of the law]. If you allow yourself to read the New Covenant without the fear of Armstrongism, seeing the truth with the spiritual eyes Christ gives you rather than the eyes of Herbert Armstrong, then you cannot help but see that it is true -- tithes are abolished. In its place is a system of generous giving. What would you say to Christ if you stood before Him, if He asks why you should not be with the goats? Will you say "I was afraid and hid your talents with the ministry"? I would hope not. All you need do is step into the New Covenant.

Church Financing - part 2

2009-03-05T11:54:00.021-05:00

In my last post, we looked at a brief introduction to Herbert Armstrong's perspective on church finance. This time, I would like to contrast that with what I find in my Bible.

Many people say “Christ commanded tithing to the Pharisees, therefore it is commanded for us.” Let's start by reviewing that point.

What was Christ's attitude towards the many monetary demands of the Sadducees and various other religious officials?

(MATT. 17: 24-26) 24 When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?” 25 He said, “Yes.” And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” 26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free."

Some would immediately point out that a temple tax and a tithe are different. I'll give you that. But my point goes deeper than that. The people of the Old Covenant nation were in effect strangers from God (PSA. 39: 12; DEU. 31: 17; MATT. 23: 37) and hence the need for travel three times a year TO the place where God appointed a meeting. The New Covenant Church constitute His temple - even His very body. He is in us. We are the sons. The sons are free! Indeed this applies for there is a great distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant relationship between men and God.

Jesus corrected the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23: 23, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” By this verse, every study about tithing proclaims “Jesus has commanded tithing for us.” Or something to that effect. Is that what was being said here? Let's think about that.

To whom was Jesus speaking - people of the Old Covenant or New Covenant? To the Old, and therefore He speaks to them in terms of the Old. And to whom specifically does He speak - to everyone or just the Pharisees? He addresses only the Pharisees. I will illustrate further. Read verses 1-3 of the same chapter:

(MATT. 23: 1-3) 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples [it says to whom He speaks], 2 saying: 'The scribes and the Pharisees [it says about whom He speaks] sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Now, how many of you keep Hanukkah? Or avoid Gentiles? Or wash your hands before you put anything in your mouth? Or tithe on what you earn, AND on what you purchase, AND on what you sell? Or keep the traditions of the elders by following the Talmud? Or pay the temple tax? Or keep any of the various other observances commanded by the Pharisaical leadership, JUST AS CHRIST SAID TO DO? I suspect the answer is something along the lines of “None.” So, the command Christ gave directly to the multitudes to obey the Pharisees in verse 2 is not binding on us, but the command Christ gave directly to the Pharisees to tithe in verse 23 of the same chapter and book IS binding on us? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

Of course the New Covenant Church is not commanded to obey the Pharisees. Jesus worked very hard to distinguish between the eternal spiritual traits of God that we are to emulate and the corruption of the traditions of men that prevented a proper relationship with God. Of course Jesus wasn't speaking to us, but the Pharisees only -- unless you are willing to accept that He called you a hypocrite as well?

Additionally, Jesus specifically took “Moses' seat” (which was a seat of judgment) away from the Pharisees, and took it upon Himself (JOHN 5: 22). Probably more importantly, Jesus abolished the Levitical Priesthood entirely, establishing the order of Melchizedek with Himself as High Priest (HEB. 5: 4-6, 10). As the transfer of Moses' seat removed the authority of the Pharisees to judge, so the appointment of Christ as High Priest removed Levi's authority to collect tithes. Levi is the only entity permitted to collect tithes.

Interestingly enough, no new command was ever issued to tithe to a ministry. Yet Armstrong taught this one rule, given to Levi only, has moved - without Christ's saying so - from the old priesthood into the new. This is a mingling of the two Covenants... a changing of the law.

Let's look into I Corinthians 9: 1-18 now.

What is Paul saying here? He is saying with clarity that only he and Barnabas supported their ministry from their own labor. According to Paul, none of the other apostles or elders and their wives in his time worked to support themselves. He is saying with clarity that those who preach the gospel are entitled to some support from those who are preached to in order to live. He is using an analogy between the ministry and the Levitical priests to show how both are entitled to live from the offerings of the people. BUT he also makes it clear that “I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me” (v 15). He says with great faith and humility that his goal was not to receive material things (v 18). Paul is not denying a right to receive a wage from the church, but he is doing what only a very precious few have ever done: putting receiving the glory of God much higher than receiving material wealth. Here is why I emphasize that point: If tithing were commanded in the New Covenant, both Paul and those he preached to for free were in violation of the law. Keep that in mind, and let's go on a bit.

Let's circumspectly search these verses for a command to tithe. Disappointingly for many ministers, it is not in there. When people who demand tithes look at these verses they see a command to tithe because the line between the Covenants has been blurred in their minds (not in reality). In their defense, even Peter admitted that sometimes what Paul wrote is hard to understand (II PET. 3: 16) also read (II TIM. 3: 1-11). But it is of utmost importance to understand that just like God's covenant with Abraham is completely separate from His covenant with Israel, so is His covenant with Israel completely different than His New Covenant with all who believe. This is perfectly in line with Hebrews 8: 7-13. "In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (v. 13). They are different and completely so. To mix them muddies up the distinction between shadow and reality. Sure there are vague similarities, but they are not the same.

When the New Testament makes it clear the Levitical priesthood is done away, along with it the right to collect tithes of field, flock, and orchard (never money), and then institutes a new sacrificial system of faith in God through being “living sacrifices”, it thus raises the bar from 10% to 100%. Can one be a 10% living sacrifice? We cannot simply say, “There is a problem here that I must solve. I want tithes... I know, I will change tithe laws!” as Herbert Armstrong appears to have done.

I liked this comment that Bob left on my last post so much, I'd like to copy it here for you:

"One of my favourites is 2 Cor.2:17, which talks about those who are peddling the word of God for a profit. In the KJV it says 'corrupting', which is why the cogs will always quote this verse from the KJ and not any of the more modern translations. In the Greek/English lexicon that I refer to, it actually says the meaning of this word is 'peddling, like a cheap carnival huckster'."

Well said, Bob.

I suspect the root issue we continually face is in desire for money. The Parable of the Unjust Steward in Luke 16 should scare any minister away from the love of money. The grave will welcome the lovers of money when their cash runs out! You cannot serve God and mammon (an unhealthy pursuit of money). Armstrong's ministers have no problem claiming to be Levites when tithes are involved. To whom I ask, “If you're a Levite, where is your me'il, ephod, breastplate, and headdress?” Oh, the law! the law! ...just not THAT law!

Enough background. Are there examples of how the ministry was to be supported?

To start, we have to ask, "how did Christ get His support?"

(LUKE 8: 1-2) 1 Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with Him, 2 and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities — Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons, 3 and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance.

Could this have been a fourth tithe? Or perhaps a tithe on women only? Of course it wasn't! Although, I'm surprised no one has thought of this as a way to extract even more funds. (I should be careful lest I put ideas in their heads.) Jesus was supported by free-will donations while tithes were yet going to the priests. In no way was this a tithe system!

Now, what example did Jesus set for His ministry to be provided for in their duties?

(MARK 6: 7-9) 7 And He called the twelve to Himself, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them power over unclean spirits. 8 He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff —no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts— 9 but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics.

(LUKE 10: 1-8) 1 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. 2 Then He said to them, “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. 4 Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. 5 But whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house. 8 Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.

Definitely not a tithing system! Where are those ministers who say "we must all do exactly as Christ did," now? Dodging this issue, I'd suspect.

I Timothy 5: 18 has been used to promote tithing, arguing that since a minister is worth his wages then a tithe system is still in effect. This conclusion is logically non-sequitur (it does not follow that because a minister is worthy of wages therefore there is still a tithe). But Paul was quoting Jesus from Luke 10: 7, and Jesus WAS NOT referring to tithes! A minister is worth his wages, but as we clearly see from our Example, those wages do not come from tithes.

(LUKE 22: 6) 35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.”

I think the idea of relying on donations frightens a lot of ministers. Tithes are secure and dependable. People don't want to live with uncertainty, like the humble farmer who depends on God's generosity for his livelihood. It especially terrifies a lot of Christ-peddling ministers who are used to disproportionately large salaries, being served instead of serving, promoting a multi-million dollar global work of impersonal magazines and media rather than feeding the flock and preaching in person, and so forth -- in short following an example other than the one Christ left. The unjust minister shouts “The law! The law!”, but when it comes to following this example as Christ set, it is explained away quickly. “The law! Just not THAT law.”

Realize that God's Church has always been poor. These abundantly wealthy past few decades are by far and away abnormal. In the more distant past, ministers often literally sold or forfeited all they had to preach the gospel truth that God opened their minds to see. A great number gave their very lives in service to Christ and His church. Look at Paul's own words. How did he live his life every single day (I COR. 11: 26-28)? He was weary. He was sleepless. He was cold and naked. Do ministers who make high-5 to 6 figures annually have any understanding of that at all?

(II COR. 11: 7-9) 7 Did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you. 9 And when I was present with you, and in need, I was a burden to no one, for what I lacked the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied. And in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself.

Paul preached to the Corinthians free of charge! Paul's ministry in one area was funded by the generous free-will offerings of other areas until this new church could be raised up and support itself with a functioning structure and an elder to watch over it. And even though Paul had every opportunity, especially as a former Pharisee, to use the word “tithe”, he does not, and instead uses the word “wages”. Very telling.

(ACTS 20: 34-35) 34 Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me. 35 I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Again, Paul is seen as providing for his own ministry by his own labors. This would be abhorrent, scandalous, shocking to a Levite! He supported the weak and taught us to do the same. He saw the gift of what He was blessed to give as being infinitely more important than receiving any material thing whatsoever from those he preached to. How refreshing! And what was his trade? Paul was an Apostle and a tent maker. Yet he found time to minister and preach. What a man! Who among the Armstrongist ministry in these late years has the "total resolve" to be like Paul? Certainly not Ron Weinland, who rests from wearying travel with even more travel.

In summary of this post, the flock is served by the ministry, and the ministry is provided for by Christ. How Christ provided did include free-will donations from the flock, but not one word about tithes - even when ample opportunity was given a former Pharisee to use this word. Instead we see a clear-cut system of giving. The ministers had faith in Christ to provide. They didn't worry about "How will we pay for x, y, z?" They were so excited to share what Christ graced them with that they didn't seek material income. Anyone who did, as Bob pointed out, was a "peddler of Christ". [Again, I urge you to read my post on "The Didache" for more on this.]

I agree completely with this quote from Richard Nickels [a tithe-believer]:

“I have refused to live off the tithes, in spite of urging from some that I quit my job and live off the tithes. If I did this, it would likely change the nature of my service. I would need to say and do things to please men rather than please God. I might become a hireling. Is it wrong for a Church pastor to receive a salary? No. I Corinthians 9:9. But, the nature and terms of this salary must not compromise him. His work ethic must be impeccable. He must be free to preach the Truth as he understands it. He must truly be a workman.”

An unpaid minister is generally superior in service because he is following the titheless example he has from the New Testament. If HWA was right, and God loves quality, why not insist on the very best -- an unpaid minister?

Church Financing - part 1

2009-03-03T14:30:00.014-05:00

What examples do we have of payment to the ministry in the early church? Were they supported by tithes? I would like to look in to that. But, for time and space's sake, let's start by looking at Armstrongism for a bit.

There exists the kind of 'minister' who says “Give! Give!” But what he mean is “Give to me so I may have for myself!” James 4: 3 tells us why: “...that you may spend it on your pleasures.“ Unfortunately, one tithe is soon not enough and new tithing and offering laws need to be found to finance an ever more extravagant hierarchy. Calls invariably begin to "send in the widow's mites!"

"And yet, many of us seem to LET DOWN, and grow slack in supporting this great and glorious work. ONCE AGAIN THE RECEIPT OF MONEY IS FALLING OFF! Once again, the situation seems ALARMING! I need your immediate and MOST GENEROUS RESPONSE! Do you know WHY it is such a difficult financial struggle to conduct God's work? It is because THOUSANDS of you Co-Workers who may be poor financially, and have but a little, get to thinking that your little -- perhaps only a dollar or two -- would not be big enough to help. It is BECAUSE so many of you who can't send more are failing to send in your widow's mites that this glorious work of God often faces a crisis. Of course that makes it all the more necessary for those of you who CAN to send in large offerings -- $50, or $100, or $1,000 or more. It is the FAITHFUL TITHE-payers among you, and those who send in generous amounts when you are able, that keeps tiding this work over."

-Herbert Armstrong, "Co-Worker Letter", March-April 1972

Such a one, of course, diverts blame to the law, preaching about how "in force" and "non-negotiable" the Old Covenant laws are. His hands are practically tied! Except, when it becomes necessary to follow those laws he begins to cherry pick. How good are the laws God gives to the Levites? Good enough to demand tithes ...but ignore everything else! Good enough to demand they be paid in, but then ignore the laws about how they are to be distributed out to the poor and elderly. How good are the laws of traveling for the Holy Days? Good enough to keep 1/3 of them but certainly the full price should be collected none the less. So, preach about how good the Old Covenant laws are if you are willing to keep all 630 of them, but do not cherry pick.

"How can any institution function without money?", they ask. Some churches have performed better under a tithing system as compared to a system of voluntary giving, but certainly in large part because they don't teach giving. Many consider the end of the tithing system to be synonymous with the end of the organization itself, but this only betrays a lack of faith in God's ability to run the show and provide for His Church. Perhaps it also betrays the real, avaricious motive behind the call for money. “How will we afford x, y, and z?”, they plead. If your aims were truly in line with God's, is God not able to make all grace abound that we are always sufficient in all things and have abundance to do every good work (II COR. 9: 8)? Many, after decades of indoctrination, would say “...and God provides through tithing!” Yet search the New Testament for a command to tithe and you will only find laws of 100% giving, or search for an excuse to transfer the Levitcal system over to the ministry, and you will only find the Levitical system abolished and replaced. The focus of demanding tithes is entirely backwards!

Herbert Armstrong actually taught it was the whole duty of a Christian to provide for the needs of the ministry.

“But this giving of their prayers, encouragement and financial support was God's assignment as the very means of developing in them God's holy, righteous character.”

-Herbert Armstrong, “The Incredible Human Potential”, p. 111

“...as the very means for the general body of lay members to develop God's own holy, righteous character – by means of giving – giving their continuous prayers for the apostle, giving their encouragement, tithes and offerings.”

-Herbert Armstrong, “The Incredible Human Potential”, p. 112

In fact, it was taught the first specific reason for the existence of the church is:

“To provide a unified body of Spirit-led believers to back up the apostles (and evangelists)”

-Herbert Armstrong, “The Incredible Human Potential”, p. 114

Can there be a more clear and textbook definition of 'fleecing the flock'?? No wonder there were so many humility issues in the ministry!

But Paul, an Apostle of Christ, under inspiration of Christ Himself, says “the administration of this service... supplies the needs of the saints” (II COR. 9: 12). Christ's position is the diametric opposite of Armstrong's position. Even the very definition of the word "minister" is "servant", yet who do we see being taught to serve whom? Armstrong: flock provides for the ministry. Christ: ministry provides for the flock. Give vs. get indeed! [I urge you to read my post on the Didache for more on this.]

Was Christ's focus really the focus to Armstrong? Was this verse in mind when people were advised to sell their houses to pay third tithes? And not only that, but Paul specifically identifies who supports the administration: “Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness” (II COR. 9: 10).

Did you catch that? “He” who supplies seed of the Spirit to sew and bread to sustain is none other than Christ! We had our purpose backwards!

And again, we were taught:

“Jesus had not come on a soul-saving crusade”

-Herbert Armstrong, “The Incredible Human Potential”, p. 113

He didn't? "He became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him" (HEB. 5: 9). Sounds like He did to me! And He said "It is finished" (JOHN 19: 30).

We said He wasn't, but immediately we committed all efforts to send out a dragnet to scour the earth for as many tithe-paying souls we could bring in! Success in “the work” was measured in numbers and dollars. No one cared who was dredged up so long as they “pay, pray, and stay”. We were in error!

I wrote this introduction post to highlight where I feel Herbert Armstrong went regrettably awry (regrettable not only for the tens of thousands of lives he affected but for his own life which had value to God - Christ died for HWA too). What we need is a Biblical solution. In my next post, let's look at how financing a ministry was actually done in the New Testament.

New Covenant Sabbath

2009-02-23T12:14:00.017-05:00

Since I discontinued association with my former COG on August 23rd, 2008, I have heard much ado about the Sabbath. It is THE sacred cow of Armstrongism. Well, I need to talk frankly about the Sabbath.

I see that "Sabbath" means "do nothing" to some groups... in exact opposition of what God wants.

(MATT. 11: 28-29) 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

'Rest', as you can see here, is for the soul in the NT, not the rear-end. Working or not working is not what the Christian concentrates on. Being laden isn't with a physical burden.

(HEB. 3: 18-19) 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

The rest is not physical rest, but something to be 'entered into' by those who follow Christ. It requires faith! Almost no faith whatsoever is required to rest from physical work. It is plain to see, physical work and obedience through physical rest are not being spoken of here.

(HEB. 4: 1) Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.

The rest is a promise from God. Do we need a promise from God to sit? (Some do. But I mean in general?) The answer is no.

For instance, and of great importance, the rest being spoken of can be fallen short of. How do you 'fall short' of physical rest? By not resting fully enough? Hardly! I once "rested" from physical work in a pool on the weekly Sabbath at the Feast of Tabernacles in Tucson Arizona. The heat was unbearable. My friends and I decided we would sit in the cool water and rest. Everyone else sat in the heat with all their fine clothes on because they were too afraid it might be too close to "work", and by extension, a sin. (The looks I got must have been similar to those Jesus got when He and his disciples went through the fields.) My friends and I weren't swimming, or even horse playing, we were sitting and talking. We were doing the same thing hundreds of other people were doing, only we were in a pool in the heat of the day. When the sun went down, everyone else got in too. Now, what Spiritual benefit do you suppose those people had by exposing themselves to the hot desert sun and sweating for hours? Not one bit!

We are talking about physical matters when we talk about physical rest. Sin is spiritual. Some would say, "It is because people aren't keeping the Sabbath in their heart. They secretly desire to break it and only keep it grudgingly." So let me get this straight. It's not only warming a chair on the 7th day of the week that counts, but HOW you warm that chair? I disagree. Although, this answer does start down the road to understanding! (It just fails to continue thereon.)

The problem IS with the heart! That much is absolutely correct. Only, the fork in the road presented is physical rest from work vs. spiritual rest from sin, and the COGs take the path of physical rest. With the physically-oriented mind, that is the logical path, I'll admit. But it neglects to take into account the verses I've just presented which clearly and plainly show the rest is not physical after all. Therefore the true path is not to physical rest, but spiritual rest. It begins in the heart, and it ends in the heart, not with the rump.

How very often did I hear, and parrot, "Have a relaxing Sabbath!" Think about this for a moment. Of what benefit to the world is inactivity? Whom have you benefited? Have you not several hours of rest each day? Does not the Biblical day begin at evening, and therefore is not physical rest one of the very first things you do each day? Whom, besides yourself, does this truly benefit? Can you share Christ while you lie still and silent? Can you inspire others through your relaxing? Can you preach the gospel in snoring? What good comes of it?

(PRO. 6: 6-11) 6 Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, 7 Which, having no captain, overseer or ruler, 8 provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest. 9 How long will you slumber, O sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? 10 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep— 11 so shall your poverty come on you like a prowler, and your need like an armed man.

Consider the ant, you sluggard! While you rest on your laurels in slothful inactivity every 7th day, what good have you done? Whom have you fed? Whom have you lifted up? When Christ asks you why you didn't do as He asked but chose to spend every 7th day holding still, will you tell Him "I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground" (MATT. 25: 25)?

(PRO. 24: 30-34) 30 I went by the field of the lazy man, and by the vineyard of the man devoid of understanding; 31 and there it was, all overgrown with thorns; its surface was covered with nettles; its stone wall was broken down. 32 When I saw it, I considered it well; I looked on it and received instruction: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest; 34 so shall your poverty come like a prowler, and your need like an armed man.

So, those who rest their backsides every 7th day in idle uselessness, thinking you keep the law, consider the ant you sluggard, because it clearly states unless you keep every last stitch of the law you have only managed to estrange yourself from Christ. Physical rest won't heal that breach. But those who rest your souls in Christ, enjoy your peace every day, while it is called "today". The Lord will come to His temple, which you are, and your soul will have true rest --- daily.

Why do you keep the Sabbath?

The number one explanation I've heard is "It's the 4th Commandment." Let's briefly look at that, starting by asking "Is the Old Covenant still in force?" Of course your answer would be "no", or at least I hope it would be. So, let's clarify with, "What was the Old Covenant?"

(DEU. 4: 13) So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

The 10 Commandments were the Old Covenant! So when you say "The Old Covenant is gone", you must include the 10 Commandments which framed it! So when Christ says "If you love Me, keep My Commandments" (JOHN 14: 15) it is not speaking of the 10 Commandments at all (not according to the old physical, shadowy keeping of law anyhow).

Too much for you to bear? Let me also give you this which Paul had given us.

Romans 7: 1-4 and I COR. 7: 39 both spell it out quite clearly through an example of marriage. When a spouse dies, the covenant that bound them is nullified. Christ, being the first party to the Old Covenant, died, thus nullifying that agreement - and the 10 Commandments that framed it! There is no reasoning around this fact. There are but two options: ignore Bible truth to blaze on in your opinion anyhow, or accept this.

And don't think to haul out yet another saying of Mr. Armstrong's, "The only Commandment anyone has a problem with is the 4th!" Because I guarantee you that very saying, which ensnared me and many others in the past, in fact works completely against you. I would ask you the same question; what problem do you have with the 4th Commandment? What I mean is, why do you see the other 9 have been magnified, but not this one? Murder is in the heart long before the act thus it is spiritual, adultery is in the heart long before the act thus it is spiritual, covetousness is in the heart long before any outward show appears therefore it is spiritual, circumcision is of the heart, sacrifices are of the heart, etc, etc -- but we, in our misunderstanding and legalism, clung to the idea that only the 4th Commandment has made it into the New Covenant absolutely unchanged and unmagnified. We patted ourselves on the back so very often saying the rest of the world does not understand. The joke was on us, because it was we who did not understand. It would appear the only Commandment the COGs have a problem with is the 4th!

(GAL. 4: 21-25) 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

And what happened on Mt. Sinai? The giving of the 10 Commandments. This fully applies to the Sabbath!! And the point is of utmost importance. Taking the wrong stance and trusting in your own keeping of the law could very well cost you everything!

(GAL. 5: 4) You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

But closely note the very next thing Paul writes. What does he emphasize?

(GAL. 5: 5) For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith

The number two explanation I've heard is, "God rested on the 7th day of creation; the Sabbath was from the beginning." Review the entirety of Hebrews 4. God rested when the works were finished - not just 'on the seventh day', but when the work was finished. This was symbolic. God offered rest to those in the Exodus, who every last one learned to physically rest every 7th day or they were removed, but yet they were not allowed to enter "that rest". Joshua took them into the Promised Land, but even those ones, who were idle every 7th day, still did not enter "the rest". Therefore, as the author of Hebrews rightly concludes, there remains a rest to be entered into. This is not a 7th day sluggishness, or certainly "that rest" would have been attained by those people. God spoke of another day. As in the beginning, Christ said "it is finished" (JOHN 19: 30), and now He rests from that work. He came to save all mankind, and the work of opening salvation is complete. Right now there is a rest, attainable in faith. We can enter this rest when we cease our works... carnal works. It is a spiritual rest --- a rest for the soul.

When was the last time you asked "Why do I keep the Sabbath?" It's not so simple as "It's the 4th Commandment" or "God rested on the 7th day of creation." The Bible tells us specifically why the Sabbath was instituted:

(DEU. 5: 15) And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

Maybe the correct question is "When was the last time you were enslaved in Egypt and brought out from there?" If you see yourself as being Spiritual Israel, and Christ brought you out from the Egypt of sin, then why do you insist on a physical Sabbath? It is contrary to the very theology you espouse. Our rest is in Christ. Our rest is Christ. "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" (MATT. 12: 8). And what is that rest?

(MATT. 12: 12) Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath

But, do we do good only one day each week? No! There is the carnality of mind coming through again. Not one day a week, but each day! When we enter the rest, through faith, which is to do good and put away evil, we do it at all times. There is no special day of the week when it is better to do good or worse to do evil. The rest of Christ is entered in to. When we enter, we are there! Just as we are the temple of God's Spirit and Christ enters into it. It's not a rest for the body. Consider the ant! No, it is a rest for the soul, just as Matthew 11: 29 says it is!

Therefore Paul says:

(COL. 2: 11-17) 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Don't let anyone judge you that you aren't keeping the Sabbath correctly when you keep it in Spirit and truth, as it was intended. They will come after you with their words and condemn you in that you aren't sitting and being useless like they are. But be bold, knowing the work of salvation is complete, and knowing the rest is open to you.

If you take nothing else away from this, then take this one point: make your keeping of the 4th commandment about spending time following Christ as opposed to wasting time resting the flesh. Work on the Sabbath, work your butt off! But work to do good. Do as much good as you can! Don't sit there uselessly wondering if you've been inactive enough to please God. God is not the God of the dead, who are all inactive, but of the living! Do as much good as you possibly can.

If you read I John 2: 3-4 and see "[Old Covenant] 10 Commandments", this is a mistake. Do a word study on "commandments", you'll see just what I mean. It does not refer to the 10 Commandments at all, but rather all that Jesus commands. You could say that includes the 10 Commandments... if you conveniently set asside all I've said here. Let me show you from John's hand what commandment John was referring to:

(I JOHN 4: 21) And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

John spoke a great deal about love. Love! This is the fulfillment of the whole law (ROM. 13: 8).

Meats: Universal and Plain?

2009-02-20T11:44:00.011-05:00

In my investigation into meats laws I tried to learn why it was that the WCG taught what it did. If the laws were in effect, and it was so plain, the believers should be able to explain their reasoning. I started at HWA's beginning, with the Church of God (Seventh Day). They kept the food laws. However, some influential ministers’ understanding of those laws was different than what Herbert Armstrong taught. How can it be so universal and plain if he thought his own superiors in the church were wrong?

Unfortunately, the investigation didn’t get any easier. It would appear that after certain years in his own church, Herbert Armstrong returned to the interpretation held by the Church of God (Seventh Day). And not only that, but I wound up seeing that many of the splinters that came from the Worldwide Church of God disagree again with Herbert Armstrong. (And I apologize in advance for the length of this post.)

In his autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30, Herbert Armstrong speaks of his own beliefs and experiences as a young minister regarding the dietary laws. Here is an excerpt:

The "Pork" Obsession

"The opposition through the spring and summer of 1933 had come through the two ministers who had moved up to Oregon from California, Elders Sven (Sam) A. Oberg, and A. J. Ray. Mr. Ray was developing, through the summer, a sort of obsession against the eating of "unclean" meats -- pork, ham, bacon, seafoods, and those labelled "unclean" in Leviticus 11. The emphasis he continually put on this doctrine, almost with vehemence, rather gave the impression that, in his eyes, the eating of pork, which came in for his greatest condemnation, was the greatest of sins.

"About the time the Firbutte school meeting started, July 9, 1933, Mr. Ray began aiming his "anti-pork" guns directly at me. He demanded that I state definitely my stand on this question. I had written him a Biblical exposition of the subject, showing that it was a physical FOOD question, rather than a spiritual or Gospel subject. Unless a man broke the tenth commandment by lusting after it, the eating of pork did not violate the Ten Commandments, which constitute a SPIRITUAL law.

"I quoted Mark 7:15-23, where Jesus explained that sin is a spiritual principle -- that which is coming out of the heart of a man -- evil thoughts leading to actions of adultery, murder, theft, deceit, blasphemy, pride -- violations of the Ten Commandments; but that nothing from without, entering in his mouth, defiles the man spiritually. Jesus was speaking of SPIRITUAL principles, and SIN as a spiritual offense."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

These are very important points. Mr. Armstrong, in contrast to his own church, did not teach the clean and unclean meats laws as a spiritual sin. He clearly says that eating the meats is not a sin. Instead, he taught the foods were unfit for the digestive process. As Herbert Armstrong said in His booklet

“God did not give poisonous herbs as food. He gave man the healthful herbs. Man can determine which herbs are healthful, but man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful. That is why God had to determine for us in His Word which meats are clean. Since the Flood every moving clean, healthful, nonpoisonous type of animal life is good for food—just as God gave us the healthful, nonpoisonous herbs.”

-Herbert Armstrong, “Is All Animal Flesh Good For Food”, p. 3

Actually, Genesis 9: 3 does not specify "clean", but rather it says "every moving thing that lives", the root word of 'moving thing' includes reptiles, and again it says "all things".

I utterly disagree when HWA says, "man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful." Let’s think about that for a moment. If this is not a sin issue, but a health issue, then we have a physical law of nature that can be proven with observation. What do we observe? That certain regions in Japan, certain regions in Germany, and certain regions in Italy have much higher life expectancy rates than the rest of the world. Why mention that? They eat unclean meats regularly, some of them almost exclusively, and they will probably outlive you. How can that food be bad for your digestion if people who eat it regularly can expect to outlive the rest of the world? Look in the United States. The life expectancy rate climbs upwardly. Most people in this nation eat unclean meats regularly. Look at what is called the “Mediterranean diet”. It includes meals with seafood and lean pork, but is considered one of the healthiest diets on earth. There is simply no truth to the claim that pork is bad for your health. Obviously, after thousands of years of eating "unclean" meats, it would be widely known if it were physically unhealthy to eat pork. High fructose corn syrup was discovered in the 1970's; not 30 years later many people are aware that it isn't the best idea to ingest it. Same with hydrogenated oils, or saccharine. But we are to believe that after thousands of years and trillions of people eating pork and shellfish, the majority consensus is that there are no physical ill effects, yet it isn't healthy to eat? That's just ridiculous.

So the claim evolved to emphasize improperly cooked pork. “God was protecting His people from trichinosis,” was oft heard. OK. Trichinosis is terrible. I wouldn’t wish it on an enemy. But what then do we say about mad cow, tape worms, ring worm, lice, salmonella, liver flukes and other parasites, avian flu, and not the least of all anthrax? All of these things can easily be contracted from clean meats. All of these are centuries old diseases that have plagued man. Why single out trichinosis and not these?

And if it is a health issue, proper digestion being the focus, how on earth can we continue to eat hydrogenated oils? They are the plague of modern man, raising levels of homocysteine and other bad chemicals in the blood, punching holes in our arteries and causing the liver to produce cholesterol to patch the holes which then blocks up our arteries and causes heart attacks, strokes, and death. Yet neither God nor Armstrong has said, “Thou shalt not eat Crisco!”

Now, I am not arguing that we should put things that are bad for our health into our bodies. We are the temple of the Living God, and we must respect and care for that temple as we are able. But to claim pork and seafood is somehow unhealthy, or more a risk than what we normally eat and call “clean”, is simply not accurate, nor is that found anywhere in the Bible!!

Let’s continue on in the Autobiography and see how that isn’t exactly what HWA believed:

"I told him I refused to make this food question a subject for sermons to the unconverted, unless he could show me Scriptural grounds for so doing."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

HWA plainly shows that in his opinion the laws were not for the newly converted, but for the experienced Christian only. I cannot fault that logic. We cannot expect all people to understand all things from the start of our journey. However, on one hand he says it is not a sin, but then on the other hand he says the law is still in effect. If the law is still in effect, and it is violated knowingly, that makes it a sin. It cannot be a sin, and not a sin. His teaching was inconsistent.

HWA continues:

"Point number one: I read in Scripture that sin is the transgression of the Law. In Romans 7 Paul says the law it is sin to transgress is spiritual -- a spiritual, not a physical law.

"Point two: Jesus Christ, speaking of spiritual defilement in Mark 7, says that physical food entering a man's stomach from without cannot defile him spiritually, but that which comes from within, out of the heart -- adulteries, murders, thefts, covetousness -- transgressions of the Ten Commandments -- defile the man spiritually.

"Point three: The 'clean and unclean' laws of Leviticus 11 are physical, not spiritual laws.

"Point four: Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. He commanded the Apostles, and us today, to preach the KINGDOM of God. That is the GOSPEL I am commanded to preach.

"Point five: Paul says plainly in Romans 14 that the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, which is obedience to God's Law.

"Point six: Therefore I do not preach to the unconverted meat and drink because it is not the Gospel. But, on the other hand, the physical body is the 'temple of the Holy Spirit,' and we are taught not to defile it, even physically.

"Finally, point seven: I realize fully that there were both the clean and unclean animals long before Mosaic Law -- even prior to the Flood -- and therefore from creation. God did not create the unclean animals for food. Just as many plants and weeds are poison and not food, so unclean animals were not made to digest properly or nourish the human body. They are not "creatures of God" intended for food. They are not sanctified -- or set apart -- by the Word of God. Peter's vision of the unclean animals in the sheet was given, it is distinctly stated in Acts 10, to show him that he should not call any man unclean -- not to make unclean animals clean. Therefore I do teach every convert and every church member that they should not eat the unclean meats. We do not eat them in our home. Not one of our church members -- not one of my converts -- is eating unclean meats. But I teach it as a physical matter of health, not as a spiritual matter of the true Gospel."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

And that, my friends, was the opinion of the Church of God (seventh Day) and Mr. Armstrong in his early ministry. The clean and unclean meats laws were a physical matter of health, not a spiritual matter of sin.

A massive problem in the Worldwide Church of God was assumption. Even though we commonly claimed to be Berean, we always believed our leaders over the Bible. In fact, to believe unquestioningly was commanded and harshly enforced. No one could question anything. God only worked through the ministry, and not through the congregation. In other words, the members at large were leaves attached to the ministry, and the ministers were small branches that were attached to Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Armstrong was a large branch attached directly to the Vine. We commonly said to reassure ourselves, “God inspired Mr. Armstrong to teach his converts exactly as Paul and James taught,” when that is often demonstrably false in many areas. The proof comes when we review the scattered COGs – very few believe exactly what Mr. Armstrong taught but at the same time few truly agree with each other. How is this teaching universal and plain, then?

For example, the CGG teaches the matter as one of the spirit, and of health, as well as a random and rather meaningless “test commandment” given by God just because He can. They have all the bases covered. This partly contradicts Herbert Armstrong, whom they quote.

“Even though people throughout the world eat unclean food and live, and even though we could probably do the same – and many of us once did – for Christians, it is more than a health matter. In the Bible, God never directly connects keeping the laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 with health. In reality, it is a test commandment to see if we will obey God.”

-John O. Reid “Did God Change the Law of Clean and Unclean Meats”

If God never associates the food laws with health, why do the COGs? Incredibly, when the need arises to explain away Genesis 9: 1-5, they resort to calling the foods laws a matter of health again, preferring to compare pork to deadly nightshade:

“Does God allow us to eat poisonous plants like poison ivy, hemlock, deadly nightshade, etc.? Of course not!”

-John O. Reid, “Did God Change the Law of Clean and Unclean Meats”

But if clean/unclean is a matter of poison, as with the plants, then why are there no unclean plants? [Answer: clean/unclean is ceremonial and relates to sacrifice.]

In this next quote from the founder of the CGG, notice a few things. Note how it is now both a health and a spiritual issue. Carefully note how this is also a sign of keeping the Old Covenant. None of us should be keeping the Old Covenant!

“…in refraining eating the forbidden flesh meats listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 is a sign of keeping the Covenant. Do you understand the spiritual issue that is involved in this? Do you understand that your and my health is secondary? The issue is HOLINESS—spiritual holiness; not physical health. [Directly contrary to HWA!] Why did God do this? I don't know. Maybe it was only arbitrary. [Nothing God does is simply arbitrary. JR just doesn't understand why his desire to partially follow HWA doesn't match the gospel of the New Covenant.] He wanted to see whether we would restrain ourselves. [Because the 612 other laws wouldn't do that well enough?] That's a possibility. Restrain ourselves, refraining from eating those things that everybody else in the world seems to be enjoying and finds tasting so good."

"Now please don't be misled by what I said, because I think there is a physical health issue involved here. But God wants above all that we be holy, and that is the real issue, and so the first place that the "clean and unclean" appears is in what book? Leviticus — the book of holiness.” [Or, if you ask HWA, it first appears in Genesis 4.]

-John Ritenbaugh, “Maintaining Good Health (part 3)”

As a second example, most people who came out of Worldwide only keep the meats laws because they were taught to. They don’t know why. They don’t generally care why. They say, “God said ‘do it’, so I do it.” Noble indeed! Except they have not proven whether or not God says for them to do it. The majority of what Paul taught must be ignored or explained away in order to return to the “yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear”. They read in the abolished Old Covenant some verses that say to Israel that they should not eat pork, so they also avoid pork. Meanwhile, they don’t realize they are keeping the sacrificial law that they themselves teach was abolished. Nor do they realize that avoiding unclean meats was only a small portion of the various washings and sprinklings and meats and drinks laws – most of which they do not keep. They say “I keep the law”, but as I have already demonstrated time and time again, they most certainly do not!

The COGs would love everyone to believe they keep all the food laws. Anyone who does not keep all the food laws is disqualified from sainthood in this age, by their theology. But let's just see if they keep all of the food laws.

(LEV. 3: 17) 17 ‘This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood.’

(LEV. 7: 25-27) “22 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 23 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘You shall not eat any fat, of ox or sheep or goat. 24 And the fat of an animal that dies naturally, and the fat of what is torn by wild beasts, may be used in any other way; but you shall by no means eat it. 25 For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men offer an offering made by fire to the LORD, the person who eats it shall be cut off from his people. 26 Moreover you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwellings, whether of bird or beast. 27 Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.’”

In Armstrong's zeal for the law, did we ever eat beef fat? Answer: yes! Every time we ate McDonald’s french-fries, or any beef broth, or a juicy steak (if one could be afforded), etc.

All discussions on clean and unclean meats would be incomplete without someone mentioning Isaiah 52: 11 (even though the context of this chapter has nothing at all to do with food laws)

(ISA 52: 11) Touch no unclean thing

I ask you, do you own a pet? Have you ever touched a dog? A cat? Hamster? Gerbil? Iguana? Horse? Donkey? Been to an exotic petting zoo and perhaps touched a stingray or a shark or a sturgeon? Ever kill a spider? Guess what, you’ve touched an unclean thing! No self-respecting Armstrongist in all their legalism ever mentions that, though.

Did anyone ever, while asking question for conscience’ sake about pork, ask their generous host if there was any beef fat in their food? Then they didn’t keep all of the food laws, did they? Only the ones that suited them.

In conclusion, while this meats issue may appear very simple it most certainly is not. Just look at the many posts I've made on the subject of meats, and I'm not done yet! While the COGs may appear to be keeping the law they most certainly are not. We were clearly cherry-picking and keeping only the laws we felt like keeping! While the COGs claim it is universal and plain it most certainly is not. There is little agreement among the COGs. I suspect the main issue here is not the law, but that we were attempting to force the Bible to conform to our flawed assumptions. Unwittingly we followed a man rather than God. The confusion that surrounds this topic is not from God! And there is certainly plenty of confusion to go around. Even I don't claim to fully understand the whole scope. I am still, months into my study, trying to separate what flawed teaching was placed into my head from what the simplicity of Christ's gospel for the New Covenant actually teaches.

All My Yesterdays

2009-02-11T22:59:00.008-05:00

Dear readers, first I would like to take a moment to express my deepest appreciation to you for your visiting, commenting, and even supporting this blog. I welcome all of you, whether you agree with me (in whole or in part) or not. You've come from all over the globe - Italy, China, Australia, Chile, South Africa, to name a few... all to my little corner of the Internet. I am humbled, I am without the proper words to express my gratitude, I am encouraged, I am hopeful. Thank you! I mean that.

What I would like to share with you today is a letter from a couple (Bob and Connie) who were seeking many of the things I have so very recently sought (and so have many others, including many of you). This letter was written in 1974-75 and is addressed to a minister of the Worldwide Church of God by the name of Hunting. What I found most striking about the letter was the similarity between the author's own search and mine. In more than one place the author's comments were virtually identical to some I have made. The questions, the search, the frustration, the areas investigated, the order of the process, the conclusions, all eerily similar to my own... and here that was 35 years ago. It was as if this person reached forward in time into my thoughts in the present day and pulled them back to record them in his own words. I get the feeling as if this letter was written for me.

I honestly believe this one letter summarizes every COG splinter group, indeed even the entire history of what I call "Armstrongism" itself.

I am going to quote from that letter, and there are so very many things I believe must be quoted (all emphasis mine) - things that touch deep in my soul and speak immeasurably to what I felt and thought and wrestled with for the past year as I came to realize God was lifting me out of Armstrongism. Please read these along with me and share in these vital new ideas recorded so long ago.

"Both Paul and Herbert W. Armstrong have said 'Follow me as I follow Christ,' or in other words 'as I follow the Bible.' Yet these words are rendered empty and meaningless when we are told we must leave certain decisions up to 'the church,' and that if we don't think a decision constitutes 'following Christ,' we must abide by it anyway, since 'it is 'the church's' responsibility.'"

"...this attitude is a large part of what is wrong with the Worldwide Church of God. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong (and, I think, much of the ministry) looks at the members as poor, dumb sheep; innocent, helpless, babes who must be sheltered, spoon-fed, kept in the dark, told nothing, never consulted, and guarded strictly lest they fall helplessly away or are defenselessly led astray. This is the way the Catholic Church looked at and treated its laity during the Dark Ages."

"Before an individual becomes a member of the Worldwide Church of God, he is encouraged 'to prove all things, hold fast that which is true.' The ministry tells him, 'Don't believe what we say -- check it out.' 'If we teach contrary to God's Word, do not follow us.' Etc. Unfortunately, the opposite process begins once one is in the Worldwide Church of God. The member is told that 'Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is closer to God and has more of His Holy Spirit than anyone else, which is the reason he is the leader of the Church' or 'Since Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is the leader of God's Church, he must be closer to God and have more of His Holy Spirit than anyone else.' Therefore his opinions (re: scriptural or non-scriptural matters) are more godly than anyone else's can be, so to do as he says must be the course of action which most pleases God. This type of circular reasoning is taught to the members, and is applied to a lesser degree to Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong, then the evangelists, then the pastors, then the preaching elders, etc., etc. By the time you get to the lowly lay member, his opinion is worthless, when compared with the hundreds of those who must be closer to God since they have higher positions, or who have higher positions since they are closer to God. In this way the member is stripped of any confidence in himself or God's Spirit in him. He places Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the rest of the ministry in the position of defining what he must believe -- in place of Jesus Christ and the Bible. The ministry carefully shows the lay members how to prove the beliefs of the Worldwide Church of God from the Bible. The member thinks his belief is firmly grounded in the Bible, but for him to prove it he must rely heavily on the proof-texts and the explanations he has been given."

"The approach of the Worldwide Church of God indicates that the lay member needs the Holy Spirit only to help him overcome 'personal problems' and help him accept that which the ministry tells him the Bible says. The Holy Spirit isn't simply to help us agree with the way the Worldwide Church of God explains it. In this way, the 'weak of the world' are being made weaker. It doesn't take a spiritually strong person to merely accept exactly what the Worldwide Church of God teaches and to obey it strictly. But it does require strength of character and spirit to question, research, prove, and then abide by your convictions, regardless of what the Worldwide Church of God or anyone else says.

In this way I think the members of the Worldwide Church of God are not being helped. They know what they believe and how to 'prove' it. If there is a doctrinal change they are then taught what new thing they should believe and how to 'prove' it."

"[HWA] called our Divorce & Remarriage change 'new light,' 'new truth' which God has (finally) shown us. In other words, he subtly blamed our doctrinal error on God. He never once admitted that he had simply been wrong. He never apologized to all the people whose lives and marriages he had ruined. He gave God all the credit for wrecking and destroying thousands of families."

"Another quote from the [May 14, 1974 Letter to the Brethren]: "Brethren, this very experience (the Divorce & Remarriage change) ought to teach all that loyalty to God and to His Church must always be placed first, over supposed or real wrongs or personal grievances." Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is saying loyalty to the Worldwide Church of God must be placed above loyalty to God's Word! He's saying that it was right for us to obey the Worldwide Church of God's unbiblical and anti-scriptural teaching on Divorce & Remarriage all these years, because this is what he terms "loyalty to God's Church." And he says this loyalty must "always be placed first, over supposed or real wrongs or personal grievances." In other words, loyalty to the dictates of an organization must be placed first over what the Bible really teaches..."

"Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong goes on to say...'God has given those of us who are loyal to Him and His Word the relief we relied on Him to give us.' In actual fact, the "relief" has been there for 2,000 years, but it has taken the Worldwide Church of God this long to discover and accept it. And those who were 'loyal to Him and His Word' on the subject of Divorce & Remarriage needed no relief since they refused to ever submit to the Worldwide Church of God's incorrect teaching in the first place. Yet Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong would consider those who ten years ago refused to obey the Worldwide Church of God's teachings on Divorce & Remarriage, Pentecost, etc. to be disloyal, even though they were being loyal to what God said in His Word."

"Then Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong tells how much he and the other ministers appreciate 'the faithfulness of those of you who have endured this anguish in order to be obedient to our God.' Actually, they were obedient to Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God rather than God Anytime we obey men rather than God, He is not pleased, regardless of the sincerity of the individuals involved. Mr. Hunting, is it ever right to obey Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong rather than the Eternal? Yet Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong commends the brethren for doing exactly that, and then labels it faith in and obedience to God."

"When I first began attending the Radio Church of God, I was told this was the true church because we did and taught exactly what the Bible said. Recently the Worldwide Church of God has said we're the true church because we change our teachings when they are wrong."

"...there is no such thing as one True Church the way the Worldwide Church of God believes there is -- in other words there is not one true organization."

"The one true Church of God certainly does exist, but it has no organizational boundaries. The definition of a Christian, one who is a part of the body of Christ, a member of the Church of God is one who has God's Holy Spirit in him (Rom. 8:9)."

"I came to realize that simply taking the word of Mr. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God would displease God. I would be placing them above Him and His Word as the primary molders of my beliefs."

"I perhaps reached the depth of my disappointment with the Worldwide Church of God when I read a statement written by Mr. Armstrong appearing on page 631 of the December 3, 1974, Bulletin. It's implications are horrendous. He said, 'Christ has BOUND in heaven what His Church, even in unrealized error, has bound in earth.' The statement hit me like a lightning bolt."

"The Worldwide Church of God cannot afford to openly present both sides of the story, cannot allow its members to read the opinions of those who disagree with Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the official stand of 'the church.' ... This is why disfellowshipment is such a handy tool for them. New, unapproved, 'heretical' ideas and opinions can be stopped by kicking the trouble-maker out of 'the church' and then forbidding anyone in 'the church' from talking with him."

"...whenever someone who used to be a loyal supporter and member of the Worldwide Church of God begins to believe and teach something different, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong declares them to be 'in the bonds of Satan.' ... the Pharisees accused Jesus of acting 'by Beelzebub the prince of the devils,' although Jesus said His actions were 'by the Spirit of God.' If God through His Holy Spirit is motivating and guiding certain individuals, He will not look lightly on accusers who claim the Spirit-led individuals are actually motivated by and in the bonds of Satan."

"I vividly remember attending, in my freshman year, Pasadena Bible Studies conducted by Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. He was always getting upset at people who sent up questions during the Bible Study. If any question expressed even slight disagreement with him, what he had said, a belief of the Worldwide Church of God, etc., Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong became very irate. He would scold the questioner for 'his attitude,' his lack of respect, disloyalty, and so on. [Where have I seen that before?] Mr. Hunting, I'm not exaggerating. He made it quite clear he does not want to be questioned. He was very defensive and constantly felt the questions to be a challenge to his authority." [Excatly as John Keisz said!]

"Being a student at Ambassador College, and to a lesser extent a lay member in the Worldwide Church of God, is to experience a type of brainwashing. The indoctrination results in a form of mental castration; theologically the individual will not or cannot think for himself. He will blindly accept, believe, and obey whatever Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong says. He will loyally support and uphold the Worldwide Church of God's castigation of those who question, doubt, or criticize."

"I've read Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s booklet, What is the True Gospel. He only quotes five or six of the New Testament scriptures which mention 'gospel.' Three or four of the quotes serve as his 'proof-texts' -- and he proceeds to draw dogmatic conclusions, ignoring both the immediate context and the rest of the New Testament. If he'd examine the other 95 places where 'gospel' is mentioned, the meaning would be quite clear, although very different. This booklet is typical of the research and 'open-mindedness' which has gone into most Worldwide Church of God publications and conclusions. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s concept of the gospel is similar to the blind man who got hold of the elephant's tail and quickly concluded that an elephant resembled a piece of rope."

"I hope you will look at what Mr. Armstrong writes and says about 'the gospel,' and then contrast that to what the New Testament says. Look at the approximately 100 places in the NT where the word "gospel" is found; read the context. Please read Acts 17:3; I Cor. 1:23; 2:~2; II Cor. 4:5; Gal. 1:16 -- you will see Paul emphasized Christ, and didn't merely allude to Him in a way which would prevent embarrassment. When Paul preached Christ, the listeners knew Christ had been preached to them, whereas Mr. Armstrong prides himself in being able to preach the "gospel" in a way that no one realizes it has been preached."

"Although God has personally given Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong no commission, he nevertheless feels that virtually every commission God has ever given is his. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong either thinks he is, or is to do the job given to: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 'watchman,' the 'inkhorn,' the one who 'cries aloud and spares not,' Elijah to come, a type of John the Baptist, either Joshua or Zerubbabel, one of the two witnesses, an apostle, a 'messenger' one who 'prepares the way,' Hosea, Malachi, Moses (anyone who disdains Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s authority or position is immediately compared to Korah), Daniel, Joel, Amos, etc., etc., etc. And, of course, he primarily feels he is to fulfill Matt. 24:14 -- see Rev. 14:6 for the most likely individual to take care of that job."

"When I examined Mr. Armstrong’s 'United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy' belief and found it to be not only scripturally and historically unprovable, but untrue, I realized that virtually my entire concept of Bible prophecy was built on sand; not necessarily the what, but certainly the where, when, and to whom."

"Not only has the Worldwide Church of God set specific dates and placed clear time limits on its prophecies, but time and again it has been in error -- prognosticating that a certain thing will not occur and it does, or that something else will occur which doesn't. Certainly a few of the forecasts have been correct, but when so many are made a few are bound to come to pass."

"When I graduated from Ambassador College, I had no real understanding of the old covenant, and why we kept and followed certain things, and ignored others. Much of the Bible became crystal clear when we realized and accepted that the covenant was made with Ancient Israel, and no one else. Also, we saw that God plainly states that the covenant was to be kept in its entirety, completely, and no place in either the New or Old Testaments are Christians told to keep whatever they feel like keeping. Yet, Mr. Hunting, this is what the Worldwide Church of God does!"

"Please read the covenant to which Israel agreed in Exodus 20-23. How much of that does the Worldwide Church of God obey? I don't mean partially, but exactly as God stated it. The Worldwide Church of God would say that certain portions of the covenant aren't applicable today, or can't be followed because of changed circumstances. However, there is no biblical authority for obeying only part of that covenant. Take Lev. 23 -- where in the NT does it say the Holy Days can be kept apart from the sacrifices which were an integral, if not focal, part of each holy day observance? Why does the Worldwide Church of God, completely arbitrarily, not enforce the blowing of trumpets portion of the Feast of Trumpets (Lev. 23:24), but does enforce the removal of leavening and eating of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:6) during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but does not enforce God's command to build of branches booths which are to be lived in (Lev. 23:40-42) during the Feast of Tabernacles, does enforce fasting (Lev 23:27, 29, 32) on the Day of Atonement, does not enforce the waving of a sheaf of first fruits during the Days of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:10-11), etc., etc.?

There is no biblical authority for such haphazard, fragmented, and selective obedience to God. The entire Day of Atonement observance (as commanded by God in the OT and modified nowhere in the NT) revolved around the goat ceremony, and the Worldwide Church of God is kidding (pardon the pun) itself if it thinks it can observe the Day of Atonement, almost totally disregarding God's instructions for said observance, and then claim to be uncompromising in its obedience to God.

But the problems mentioned above are unavoidable when Christians today try to put themselves in a system God never intended for them. If we offend God's laws regarding the Sabbath, Holy Days, tithing, etc., "in one point," we are "guilty of all," and that is exactly what the Worldwide Church of God is doing as long as it professes to obey portions of God’s Word which were never intended to be followed today."

"Anyway, we have come to research many of the Worldwide Church of God's doctrines, and a close examination shows most of them to be in part, if not completely incorrect."

"Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong always claimed that he 'let the Bible interpret itself.' However, the truth of the matter is that his beliefs and teachings embody a plethora of 'private interpretation.'"

"Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has frequently quoted Gal. 1:6-9, wherein Paul warns against those who 'pervert the gospel OF CHRIST' and preach 'another gospel.' Well, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is a victim of his own quotation -- he indeed perverts the gospel of Christ and preaches another gospel -- the gospel of Herbert Armstrong."

Isaiah 66 and Meats

2009-02-09T12:14:00.006-05:00

In my continuing investigation into clean/unclean meats, I would like to take a serious look into Isaiah 66. I had a friend who agreed with everything I said about meats, but because Isaiah 66 confused him so, he could not accept it.

In order to move forward into this section, one absolutely must keep in mind the whole body of evidence on this topic. Temper that with the fact that prophecy cannot undo the New Covenant made in Jesus' blood. If it appears to, then we can be fairly certain that we are understanding something very much incorrectly.

In the COGs we would spend the better part of an entire sermon hearing about clean and unclean meats, then we were pointed to a place where “clean and unclean” are mentioned, where the minister would hope we would think that all instances of the words “clean and unclean” can mean only meats.

(EZE 44: 23) And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

After such a verse, the minister would follow up with, “The teaching is that God clearly shows in the future there will be a keeping of the meats laws, therefore, they are in effect now.”

This is very much something Armstrong did often – sleight of hand. Notice the redirect. This helps set up the illusion which exists only in the properly distracted mind, that meats laws will be in effect - not that Jesus Christ pointed us to the spiritual meaning of “clean and unclean”.

Now notice another thing Armstrong does often – only giving part of the story. The verse is given, you look it up, you find it, you see the word 'unclean', they tell you what to think about it, then you feel like you’ve proven it and you are a Berean. Is that really proving it for yourself? Is that really, “Don’t believe me, believe your Bible”? No.

Ezekiel 44 refers to the Levitical teachers of the Old Covenant church. Not for everyone, nor for the Gentiles, but: “the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (EZE. 44: 15). Yet no one in Armstrong teaches the Levites are still commanded for our day (except where tithes are involved, of course).

(EZE. 44: 10-11) 10 And the Levites who went far from Me, when Israel went astray, who strayed away from Me after their idols, they shall bear their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, as gatekeepers of the house and ministers of the house; they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.

Armstrong never taught that animal sacrifices are currently commanded. How then can we possibly think that since we see the phrase “clean and unclean” here (in prophecy) it can mean nothing else than the meats laws are still in force (right now)? This assumes this is even referring to meats.

After a good long sermon on meats laws, the ministry would point out Isaiah 66: 17.

(ISA. 66: 17) [AMP] Those who [attempt to] sanctify themselves and cleanse themselves to enter [and sacrifice to idols] in the gardens, following after **one in the midst, eating hog's flesh and the abomination [creeping things] and the [mouse--their works and their thoughts] shall come to an end together, says the Lord.

**Some commentators also suggest that this may refer to the cultic leader in the center who shows by his example how to conduct the ceremonies.

“See?” they say, “God still yet believes pork, creeping things (abominations), and mice to be unclean, eaten by pagans, and contrary to His faith.” And thus conveniently forget their own oft-used argument: "The context of this verse is idolatry, not clean and unclean meats." If Paul can be speaking of eating meats but they say he is only speaking of idolatry, then how can this clearly be speaking of idolatry but they say it is speaking of meats? We always wanted it both ways! And let us never forget that ALL prophetic interpretation is but speculation. When does shifting speculation become certain doctrine? It should not!

We must start at the beginning. This prophecy starts a few chapters beforehand in chapter 63 around verse 11. Isaiah (on behalf of Israel) is praying for God to return. He makes Israel’s case. God then spends the next 2 chapters making His own case in response to Israel. This is very much towards Israel; very specifically for them only. And it was written in the words that were meaningful for them at that time (those meats were condemned at that time).

In Isaiah 65: 1, God is referring to the calling of the Gentiles and the New Covenant. Paul confirms this in Romans 10: 20. That was 1,900 years ago! And why did God (temporarily) reject His people? Isaiah 65: 2-5 talks about the Jews committing idolatry. Baal worship, necromancy, witchcraft – you name it, they did it.

God was always trying to be with Israel. God wasn’t far from them; they were far from Him. Is it any wonder God hates idolatry? These were the practices of certain Jews who profaned themselves among the Gentiles. They practiced more than just eating of swine’s flesh. Even the most foul and ungodly things that men did to debase themselves to idols are implied here in this verse. It is these ones, these idolaters, towards whom the wrath of God is directed, that we see referenced in Isaiah 66. There is absolutely no way this verse is undoing the great and tremendous sacrifice of Christ in ending the Old Covenant.

What would God have loved to see from His people?

(ISA 66: 2) But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word.

God wanted moral excellence, but the people, the ones who weren’t outright idolatrous pagans, only gave Him legal excellence.

(ISA. 66: 3) He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck; he who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood; he who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol.

So, how do we understand ISA. 66: 17? It so closely matches ISA. 65: 4, they must be tied together. In chapter 65, God makes His case against Israel. In chapter 66, He judges. Who is He judging? All people who eat pork? No. Idolatrous Israel! Pictured in these verses are people secreting away for an idolatrous worship service in a grove, for crying out loud, yet all Armstrong ever saw was meats. But it goes much farther than that.

What is God’s focus? Animal sacrifice? Physical meats? Not at all! But the inward man is what God looks on. Exactly as Christ teaches:

(MARK 7: 18-23) 18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" 20 And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

This is the magnified relationship; the New Covenant! God is not pleased with physical temples and physical sacrifices (ISA. 1: 11-14), nor is He displeased with physical meats (I COR. 8: 8). This is why it is so important to keep in mind my whole series about meats through this. God is not pleased with the Old Covenant worship, much less a cherry-picked version of it, but Armstrong uses this prophecy to say that is the only worship God accepts.

God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit, not in physical (JOHN 4: 23-24; ROM. 2: 29, 7: 6; II COR. 3: 6; PHP. 3: 3). God’s temple is inside us (I COR. 3: 16; HEB. 3: 6). God’s requirements are a humble and faithful mind (I TIM. 1: 5). God’s approval is not on those who keep outward rituals, like avoiding meats; most especially if those outward rituals do not come first of all with faith in Jesus and moral excellence (PHP 3: 7-11). Clean is what is spiritually pure, unclean is what is spiritually impure. Nothing like pork defiles us, but idolatry, pork or no pork, is contrary to God. How dangerous it is to idolize a man!

This really gets to the heart of two arguments that hold no merit. The first is “we see it before Sinai, therefore it is in force,” the second is “we see it in prophecy, therefore it is in force.”

We speculate (all prophetic interpretation is speculation) from Ezekiel that in the future there will be a Levitical priesthood with their proper clothing and ceremonies, a physical temple, animal sacrifices, and all sorts of such things that were done away with in the New Covenant. That's not now, that's future. How on earth, then, can we say the meats laws are any different? No Levites today, no commanded garb, no sacrifices, no temple worship.. but meats laws-- that's today! It doesn't make any sense.

We know that from the time of Cain and Abel there were animal sacrifices, and from Abraham we had circumcision. Both gone in the New Covenant. How on earth can we say those things are gone but meats are still in effect? They were a shadow from the day they were instituted. “The Kingdom of God is not in meats and drinks”! “Circumcision is of the heart”! We are “living sacrifices”! Why do we refuse to accept that moral excellence trumps legal excellence? It always has (EZE. 33: 12-20)! It always will! That is the very nature of the New Covenant. The old shadow is revealed for what it is – merely a shadow. The reality is now clearly available to us! We (as Gentiles) are no longer unclean. We are no longer to enter the temple of God through washings and blood of animals. The veil is taken away. We are the temple! We are clean! By the blood of Christ Himself, not by animals. Christ said "It is finished." And it is finished. By faith, not by law. If by law, then Christ died in vain!

(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain

And no prophetic MIS-interpretation can undo this New Covenant.

Flurry's Follies

2009-02-05T16:35:00.014-05:00

I've been poking around Gavin's (from Ambassador Watch) old website. You can find it here. I was Googling for a bit of information about one Mr. Gerald Flurry. You may never have heard that name before. He usually goes by his title, "the end-time Elisha". Now you know who I'm referring to? Yeah, him! That's the guy! Well, Gavin, having done so very much foot work for us through the years, had everything I needed right there. It was all low-hanging fruit! I just walked in, scooped up all I could stomach, and I simply had to post about it and refresh this information in everyones' minds.
What Gavin did was assemble a group of quotes from the Ambassador Report. What I am going to do is borrow a few quotes from Gavin... to whet your appetite and hopefully get you reading the rest for yourself. They are incredibly telling!

"Malachi's Message is a new vision from a mighty angel. It's a NEW REVELATION - not something somebody already knew!
This new revelation is God's way of saying that we must give the little book a special importance and the majesty it deserves. Only then can we properly respond to the great Work of God - much of which revolves around the little book."
-Gerald Flurry, "Philadelphia Trumpet", Sept./Oct. 1992, p.8

Here we have a man, Gerald Flurry, who is claiming direct divine revelation from God (through an angelic representative). Let me repeat that for emphasis: Gerald Flurry is claiming that he spoke with an angel and received prophetic revelation from God!

Flurry (ie. Elisha) is bold in his claims about the authenticity and "majesty" of "Malachi's Message" (ie. the 'little book' of Revelation 10 & 'scroll' Ezekiel 3). Does that make him the Apostle John and Ezekiel as well? He is bold before man and God that this book is divinely inspired and accurate for prophecy.

"God will look to and use THIS MAN who is childlike before His word (Matt. 18:1-3). For example, this man will read God's revealed word in Malachi's Message and act on it out of godly fear! He KNOWS that book contains God's truth. He trembles and obeys."
-Gerald Flurry, "Philadelphia Trumpet", December 1993, p.20

We ought to obey God rather than men (ACTS 5: 29). I wonder if Mr. Flurry read as far as Matthew 18: 6?
At this point, I must remind you of Deuteronomy 18:

(DEU. 18: 20-22) 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Blasphemy? Ehhh, close, but probably not. Let's read a little further.

"There is a colossal reason why Christ moved us [the PCG] to print both these books ["Mystery of the Ages" and "United States and Britain In Prophecy" by Herbert Armstrong]. WITHOUT THEM WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE OR GOD'S MASTER PLAN! That's how critical they are today!"
-Gerald Flurry, Co-Worker Letter, 1/21/97

The Ambassador Report paraphrases another of Flurry's comments this way:

"HWA's Mystery of the Ages and Flurry's Malachi's Message go together 'hand and glove'"
-"hand in glove" by Gerald Flurry, "Philadelphia Trumpet", April 1993, p.24

What Gerald Flurry is saying is absolutely positively no different whatsoever than what Joseph Smith of the Mormon faith claimed, that an angel delivered him a new book of the Bible. To follow the first act of Armstrongism where Herbert Armstrong stole doctrine from the Latter Day Saints church, Gerald Flurry now steals their ideas too.
If you haven't caught on yet, what Gerald Flurry is saying is that the "Mystery of the Ages", the "United States and Britain In Prophecy", and "Malachi's Message" are three new books of the Bible, without which no one can understand the rest of the Bible. If you will but read my posts on British-Israelism, you will see how these claims simply cannot be true. But the "Elisha" appears t have missed one!

"My book, The Incredible Human Potential, has appeared in bookstores all over the English-speaking world. It’s story too comprehensive to even begin to condense in this article.

Actually I feel with very deep conviction that I myself really did not author this book — that the living Jesus Christ is its real author. I was merely like a stenographer writing it down. And with that understanding, I feel I may say that this is one of the most important — and most tremendously revealing — books since the Bible!"

-Herbert Armstrong, "Youth '86", Feb. 1986

So make that FOUR new books of the Bible between the two of them.

I find the next quote particularly disturbing. It goes very well with my earlier posts about "Following A Man"

"Of course, there are different groups of lukewarm and dead churches. But Mr. Armstrong ALWAYS PREACHED THAT GOD WORKS THROUGH ONLY ONE MAN AND ONE CHURCH! The rest are deceived....
"This leader I quoted earlier [Meredith] is teaching a satanic doctrine! IT IS VERY UNBIBLICAL TO SAY THERE ARE BRANCHES OF GOD'S TRUE CHURCH!....
"Where did I get this new revelation [Malachi's Message]? As Paul said, it was "NOT AFTER MAN." It came from God! Members of God's Church who can't see that revelation are BLIND!....
"A CHURCH COULD HOLD FAST TO EVERY DOCTRINE MR. ARMSTRONG TAUGHT AND STILL BE LAODICEAN-BLIND!"
-Gerald Flurry, "Philadelphia Trumpet", March 1993, p.28

Mr. Flurry takes it one step farther in saying that no matter what you do, no matter what you know, no matter anything whatsoever... if you do not follow him, then you are Spiritually blind. He has placed himself in the position and authority of Jesus Christ.
I am at this point ready to accept that what Mr. Flurry is doing here is blasphemous!

Finally, let's close up with this quote from the Ambassador Report from Issue 69, July 1998:

"[Randy] Schafer also doubts Flurry's claim that his book Malachi's Message was personally delivered to him by a great angel and that it was intended to be a part of the Book of Revelation. If that is the case, says Schafer, why then has Flurry revised the book a number of times since the angel originally gave it to him? Mike Okamura additionally points out that in Malachi's Message Flurry claims that WCG Pastor General Joseph Tkach Sr. is the prophetic "Joshua," but that "Joshua" is supposed to be alive at the second coming of Jesus Christ, while Tkach Sr. has been dead now for almost three years." [Better make that 13 years!]

Looks like Flurry has massaged the Message over time. Not only that, but we have our first false prophecy pointed out right there for you to read with your own eyes. Please re-read Deuteronomy 18:20-22, paying close attention to the end of verse 20. Gerald Flurry is a false prophet. I will disregard him completely. I suggest you do the very same. And may God have mercy on his soul.

Reader, please get yourself reacquainted with this eye-opening material which you can find on Gavin's site(s) and in other places so that you never forget it! For those still in Armstrongism, children of God, please allow Christ to lead you out of that sore yoke of bondage and into His New Covenant. ASK!

Gavin, There are three great mysteries in life: 1) How many licks does it take? 2) What on earth did I or anyone else ever see in Herbert Armstrong? and 3) How do you, Gavin, stomach reading so very much Armstrongist-related material? You, sir, should have literally exploded years ago. Perhaps you write from a crystalline fortress somewhere near the North Pole, and the earth's yellow sun has imbued you with an incredible constitution. At any rate, I would have given up the ghost while you carry on. Shine on you crazy diamond.

Meats and I Timothy 4

2009-02-02T15:54:00.011-05:00

This is another in my line of posts about clean and unclean meats. This time I would like to go over a few verses in I Timothy 4.

First and by necessity we have to get a little off-topic, then we will get back on topic again.

Paul goes into a certain discussion with Timothy about a distortion of the truth to occur after their time (in the "latter times"). Nothing must be taken for granted because these two men had studied and practiced and worked in God’s Spirit for years.

(I TIM. 4: 1) The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Paul is forewarning Timothy, who will continue after Paul is gone, to hold fast to the things he had already learned. Paul is not giving any new instruction here, or trying to insert any new law from God that Timothy didn’t already know from years of association with him. This verse is often used this as a stick to swat xCOG members with, causing them to fear when they read their Bibles. But “love casts out fear" (I JOHN 4: 18).

Pay close attention to what Paul says these people will fall into:

(I TIM. 4: 2) speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron

"Speaking lies in hypocrisy," Paul says. "In hypocrisy" would lead me to believe this is a "do what I say not what I do" crowd. "Lies" would lead me to believe these people are aware of their deceit, and perhaps even work to cover it up.

HWA does not escape this verse. If there is anything I have discussed on this blog (not that I am the only person to discuss such) it is the cherry-picking, deceitful, hypocritical nature of what Armstrong and his ministers teach. Should I ask you to read my other posts for more on this, or give a few examples? ...I will give a few examples. Actually, I'll do both. Examples first.

Armstrong preached the law, but he didn't keep the whole law -- When have the xCOGs built a booth at Tabernacles according to the design clearly laid out in scripture? Why does Deuteronomy 16 say you should travel three times in the year, but the COGs only travel once? Why do Armstrong's ministers claim to be "modern Levites" when tithes are involved, but not when the myriad other laws and rituals of the Levites are involved (eg. why don't they wear the required garments of a Levite)? The Jews count 613 laws in the Torah. What a small fraction Armstrong chose to keep!

Armstrong preached prophecy, but he failed in almost every single instance -- HWA predicted (on authority from scripture) the return of Christ in 1936, again in 1972, at various times between '36 and '72, and then the ever-shifting "within 3 to 4 years". HWA predicted (on authority from scripture) that the "Times of the Gentiles" ended previous to 1936, and again in 1982, and who can find all the references to the time when "the world" will be ended? There are hundreds of such examples!

Armstrong preached giving, but practiced taking (a salary of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually while his followers went without); preached faith healing (which killed his wife Loma), but made special exception for himself (when he had health issues he had no issue with visiting a doctor); taught only those who keep the whole law will be justified, but kept a fraction of the law (the rest he "changed"); taught the 10 Commandments, but made an idol of himself and his church organization; failed Paul's requirements for an elder (by my count) on 11 points; etc, etc, etc.

(I TIM. 4: 3) They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain food [Strong's 1033: food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law], which God created to be received [Strong's 3336: participation] with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

I have heard men argue that the word “foods” does not mean “foods”, but rather means some other thing. This is obviously not so. It means all foods; whatever is eaten. I have also heard men argue that "received" does not mean "eat". What else besides "eat" then? Are we to believe it is OK to receive a ham as a gift, then not eat it? What, then, put it on a shelf? The word “received” does not immediately mean “to eat”, so what they say about that is technically true, but it is clear from the context that foods will be eaten. You don’t just receive food for the sake of it, as if to put it on the shelf, or hang it over the fireplace. Which foods did God create to be received? To Adam only plants were given. To Noah all foods were given. To the Jews, only certain foods were given. To the Christian without conscience issues, the Jewish laws do not pertain. Do we not already know that Christ died to abolish the Old Covenant, with its regulations about meats and drinks, and restored us to the days of Abraham and Noah where He gave us all things as food?

The Kingdom is not in meat and drink (ROM. 14: 17).

Worldwide was quick to point out the Catholics abstain from meats at certain times of the year according to an ancient pagan tradition that you will never find in the Bible. And they forbid their priests to marry. On the surface this is a close match for the prophecy, I’ll admit. But, technically, the word "foods", which refers to all foods, can especially refer to Jewish ceremonially unclean foods, which the Catholics do not forbid. Worldwide abstains from Jewish ceremonially unclean foods all the time (according to their own unique cherry-picked version of the Old Covenant), and their divorce and remarriage rules were brutal. Could it mean the Catholics? It might. But could it mean men with teachings like Armstrong's? It might! In my opinion, Armstrongism is a closer match. I advise caution when concluding the only possible interpretation here is towards Catholics.

A little known implication of these verses is that they describe more about the details of the "Great Falling Away". Since the time of HWA's passing the great falling away has been said to be from within Armstrongism, but of the people who reject HWA. This is mere speculation, as is any prophetic interpretation. But let me offer to you a twist which you may not have contemplated before.

Read this excerpt from the John Darby's Synopsis of the Bible:

"But there would be some who departed from the faith, from this knowledge of the one Creator and Saviour-God — Him who was manifested in the flesh. They would attack precisely these points which we have named. It might be that they would pretend to carry the idea of christian privileges farther than all others had done, as well as that of profound knowledge of God; but they would sin against first principles, against the faith which connected the Saviour God revealed in Christianity with the one only Creator-God."

Now, what this says to me is, Herbert W. Armstrong may have promoted the falling away, as opposed to guarded against it. For all the times that ministers taught us to hold fast to what was taught at the beginning, they did not mean "the beginning of Christianity in 31 AD", no! They meant "the beginning of your time with Armstrong". For any first generation xCOG member, you would have to fall away from what you were taught in order to pick up this new teaching with Armstrong. So, you have indeed "gone away from what you were taught at the beginning", because you have switched the "beginning". Even HWA himself went away from what he taught at the beginning of his ministry. Many times he changed his policies. Read my article about "Church Government - Image of the Beast?" for more evidence. So, what is the real "beginning"? Mr. Raymond C. Cole fought long and hard in his own mind over this very question. Read my take on his solution in my article "More Following Men"

I ask you, who wonder why you remain in Armstrongism, loved by God, to seriously meditate on the possibility that you are following a cult, and perhaps one prophesied from the beginning --- the REAL beginning; specifically in I Timothy 4! Am I saying HWA has fulfilled this? No. I'm merely saying prophetic interpretation is speculation, hence I speculate on the possibility that this is a match. What if it isn't? I would rather contemplate it then dismiss it, than not contemplate it at all! ...but what if it is?

(I TIM. 4: 4-5) 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received [Strong's 2983: to take; take hold of] with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Worldwide taught the word ‘received’ has nothing to do with eating, then they would explain away the meaning of the verse with semantic acrobatics. God created pork and saw that it was good. If it’s ok to receive it, why isn’t it OK to eat the food which was received? That is never explained, however. While nit-picking the context of other sections to "prove" Armstrong's positions, they ignore the clear context of this section to "prove" Armstrong's positions. This is quite the double-standard. It most certainly is about food, and it most certainly is about eating.

As a matter of fact, the thing that is most surprising is that not once, not one single time in the entirety of the New Testament, is anything written that remotely resembles “food laws are in effect”. For all the times Paul says “everything is good for food”, despite that Jesus said “nothing that goes into a man can defile him”, time and time and time again, Armstrong always has a clever intellectual way to get around allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. Not one time does it say “avoid foods ceremonially unclean,” or any such thing. Think about that.

What God created and gave to man is good. The animals are good. They were NOT unclean from the beginning, as some teach. See my post on "Clean/Unclean For Noah" for more on that subject. The faithful Gentiles are good (again, cleansed, as were the animals). Life is good. Truth is good! In fact, everything God created is good (GEN. 1: 31). God is not the author of confusion, but of peace (I COR. 14: 33). The Kingdom is not foods, but love. But that does not by any means or any interpretation tell us that disobeying God is good. We have already covered idolatry. That isn’t good.

A Funny Little Story

2009-01-29T12:54:00.007-05:00

I'm trying to space out my posts a bit to give you, the honored guest here at my humble blog, more opportunity to read without feeling pressured. I will try to post at most 1 or 2 times per week.

This week, I have a small tale to tell.

In December 2008, I wrote a two-part post about Slandering HWA - I Think Not! In these posts, I got into a regrettable conversation with an impatient minister of Armstrongism whom I had previously held in high esteem. Well, what I did not mention is that I was a member on his website's chat forum. I logged on one day after our exchange to see if he had remembered to cut me off. He had not. So, I posted a couple mild things.

One person (an anonymous and unsuspecting third party) had a topic in there in which he was expressing shock about censorship in the media. This stroke of luck I simply could not pass up! I replied with something along the lines of "You're shocked about censorship? Censorship is a common occurrence in Armstrongism! How many times have you been warned about what you read, or how many times has a person been disfellowshipped and we were told to have nothing to do with them, or how many times had the church put out questionable material which they hid from us? Why, censorship is a staple in Armstrongism." (That is an approximation of what I said. The exact details have faded from my memory.)

To prove my point, I started my own topic. Therein I posted a chunk from Herbert Armstrong's prophecy from the June/July 1934 edition of the Plain Truth magazine where HWA stated Christ would return by 1936. I also pasted my favorite quote there, which you can see at the top of this blog whenever you wish:

"But who today understands what the prophets foretold? Why, only the ministers today whose word comes to pass!-those who are appointed and guided by God to preach the truth! Those whose utterances do not come to pass have not spoken the prophecies truly. We give you here the record of what we have been proclaiming for the past 2 years-a message which no other voices, to our knowledge, have been proclaiming.... But what we have been warning you about is happening!-precisely as we have stated.... This is how you can know that our work is not of men but of God!"

-Plain Truth magazine, DEC. 1956, p.3

You can guess what happened within two days from that time. Yes, my account was revoked. I had been censored. My point was proven.

(MATT. 23: 13-15) 13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

Robbed of Tithes And Offerings?

2009-01-22T19:57:00.015-05:00

Malachi is a small book, only four chapters. Yet its words are very potent. In my continuing investigation into tithes, I would like to investigate Malachi.

Much ado has been made by Armstrong, and especially Flurry, about Malachi 3: 8-9, where God says:

(MAL. 3: 8-9) 8 Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. 9 You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation.

But let's take a much closer look here. Who is the majority of Malachi speaking to?

(MAL 1: 6) To you priests who despise My name.

(MAL. 2: 1) And now, O priests, this commandment is for you.

(MAL. 2: 7) For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

The entire first chapter is to the priests. [There are no more priests in the New Covenant, but Christ only.] The first half of the second chapter is to the priests. [There are no more priests in the New Covenant, but Christ only.] We should ask, which priests are we referring to here?

(MAL. 2: 4, 8) 4 Then you shall know that I have sent this commandment to you, that My covenant with Levi may continue

8 You have corrupted the covenant of Levi

There is not a priest who draws breath who is under the covenant of Levi. Malachi is God's (to borrow a phrase) final witness to the Old Covenant priests. The very same ones Christ supplanted, as described by the author of Hebrews (HEB. 7: 11-13).

Now, the first half of the third chapter is a prophecy of the coming Christ. Herbert Armstrong would have us believe it is about His second coming. I will remind you that all prophetic interpretation is speculation, and nothing to base theology on. I take the position that this speaks of His first coming. The temple in Jerusalem is gone. Judah was judged. And Malachi was fulfilled:

(MAL. 3: 1) And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant [the New Covenant!], in whom you delight.

We can see the fulfillment of these very verses in Matthew 17.

(MATT. 17: 5) While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”

And the very same thing again!

(MAL. 4: 5) Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.

We again see the fulfillment spoken of in Matthew 17.

(MATT. 17: 10-13) 10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11 Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

I like how it is worded in Mark 9: 12-13 as well.

The only reason why Mr. flurry is so adamant that Malachi is about this time is because he is wedded to the false idea that Herbert Armstrong was Elijah. And why that? Because Herbert Armstrong is the sole and singular source of authority, for Gerald Flurry and all of Armstrog's many self-appointed successors, to assume the position of priest and to extract tithes from people against the clear teachings of God's New Covenant. But how many times do you hear them go on about this next verse?

(MAL. 3: 5) And I will come near you for judgment; I will be a swift witness... against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans

Will there be a future fulfillment? This idea has been debated for 2,000 years - starting at the very time of Paul. It probably will have a future fulfillment. But that foreshadowing is peppered in with words meant directly for the time Malachi wrote them. Thus, Armstrong makes a terrible error in assuming the entire book of Malachi is explicitly for the future, and every last word in it. How does he explain the exhortation in Malachi to keep the covenant of Levi (which Christ clearly removed)? He does not. But he does spend an exorbitant amount of time concentrating on the verses dealing with tithing. A double standard? Or cherry-picking perhaps?

The book of Malachi is addressed to the Israel. But then it immediately starts God's case against the priests. The priests who despise God, that is. What warning does any of Armstrong's ministers take from this? They use it as a tool to accuse the ministry in competing organizations. They compete for tithes and they compete for control and they wield the scriptures as a club to beat each other over the head with. (GAL. 5: 15)

In contrast, the Gentiles are prophesied to glorify God.

(MAL. 1: 11) For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; in every place incense shall be offered to My name, and a pure offering; for My name shall be great among the nations,” Says the LORD of hosts.

The "Gentiles" are the people of the New Covenant; the covenant brought in fulfillment of Malachi 3: 1. No doubt that the New Covenant is implied here. Never before were the Gentiles invited to worship God. The incense are prayers, BTW (REV. 5: 8).

Israel may be judged, but it is not forgotten. Even in Israel there are those who fear God. They will be remembered.

(MAL. 3: 16) Then those who feared the LORD spoke to one another, and the LORD listened and heard them; so a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the LORD and who meditate on His name.

Read Malachi 1 to get the context of this book. Who offers offerings? Just anyone? No. The priests! Who claim over and over to be the modern priesthood? The ministry. [That's their claim, not mine. I say Jesus alone is a Priest.] Nevertheless, by this claim they incriminate themselves. To ignore the guilt, they pass blame onto the membership.

How was God robbed in offerings?

(MAL. 1: 12-14) 12 But you [the priests] profane [God's altar], In that you say, ‘The table of the LORD is defiled; and its fruit, its food, is contemptible.’ 13 You also say, ‘Oh, what a weariness!’ And you sneer at it, says the LORD of hosts.

And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the sick; thus you bring an offering! Should I accept this from your hand?" says the LORD. 14 “But cursed be the deceiver who has in his flock a male, and takes a vow, but sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished

God makes it quite plain what the problem was with the priests – they took their duties for granted, they were tired with the services of the temple, they despised God's worship. So they stole from God the perfect sacrifices He is due, substituting all sorts of lesser sacrifices, and keeping the good, which they certainly had available, for themselves. This is very much in line with what I have observed and heard about among the ministry of Armstrongism!

Finally, how many times have we heard the following verses?

(MAL. 3: 10-12) 10 "Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now in this,” says the LORD of hosts, “If I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it. 11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, so that he will not destroy the fruit of your ground, nor shall the vine fail to bear fruit for you in the field, says the LORD of hosts; 12 and all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a delightful land,” says the LORD of hosts.

Yet Armstrong did not understand what he preached. You see, we in the New Covenant are not ever going to receive these promises - tithe or no tithe - because these promises aren't for us!

(HEB. 8: 6) But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

Herbert Armstrong and his students had us all looking for physical promises of a physical covenant when the far better covenant with far better promises waited for us!

Beloved by God and dear to His heart, understand this - you are not a part of the Old Covenant! It is gone. It has been gone for 2,000 years. You cannot be a part of it even if you want to. The opportunity has passed. The world waited for 4,000 years for what we have received. Prophets and angels deeply desired to see it arrive. Now, delivered to us without any help from us, through no effort on our part, which we do not deserve nor have we earned, comes the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ. To this we are called. The breach between man and God has been healed! Our sins are forgiven us! Why insist on attempting to resurrect that which Christ has replaced? Step into the New Covenant!!

Living Armstrongism

2009-01-20T16:18:00.003-05:00

Ambassador Watch made it known that there is a new Armstrong blog on the block. I definitely want to throw my support behind RedFox712 at Living Armstrongism.

Welcome to the club! Here's to your continued success in escaping Armstrongism!!

You've got a long row to hoe, but we're all here for ya!

Shoot me an email sometime, eh?

Great Falling Away?

2009-01-17T12:53:00.012-05:00

Few "proofs" of Herbert W. Armstrong's claims to greatness are promoted quite like the doctrinal changes implemented by Joseph W. Tkach Sr. But I ask the question, is the breakup of the Worldwide Church of God the "Great Falling Away"?

(2 THS 2: 1-12) 1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Paul is referring to questions about the coming of Jesus and the gathering of His own to Him - ie. the second coming. Keep this firmly in your mind while you read! Though the prophecy of the Antichrist progresses over the millennia, this section is not speaking of anything other than the return of Christ. Not some wispy time previous, not another in a long line of inter-organizational disputes, not some minor blip in the overall workings of mankind, but the single greatest occurrence of the common era. Note that we have not experienced any second coming to date. Ergo, this selection in no way refers to either our current time or more importantly our past.

Paul is calming the worries of the readers who have been troubled by deceptive reports, from false prophets. People were saying "it has passed", but Paul said "no, it hasn't", and he gives specific details of the very end.

Notice how he says "as if from us". Someone claiming authority, special understanding, or some secret revelation, was troubling them. If I have demonstrated anything about Herbert Armstrong, it is that he claimed all three of these things, yet he was a false prophet. (See my posts on "False Prophecy" for more details. My blog is the least of sources on this topic! Try this article on for size.) Paul begs us "Let no one deceive you by any means". It's not some simple thing that we can just assign any interpretation we want to this. It is not a ball that we should just casually toss it about. I've read the writings of many COG splinters and they nearly unanimously say "we know the falling away has passed", one even claimed they could prove it! Honestly and plainly, think about it, if this day were past, Christ would be here. I asked you to keep in mind at the beginning that this section is about the return of Jesus Christ. Where is He? If He hasn't returned, then there is no great falling away.

It is currently 2009. The 'great falling away' is claimed to be 14 years ago. Where is Christ? Then that was NOT the great falling away!

Even the very so-called "ministers" who promote this silliness will say there is nothing unusual about the splits in Worldwide.

"Apparently, five of the seven eras were led into oblivion and disaster!"

Gerald Flurri, "Malachi's Message", in section "A Call To Remembrance"

What Gerald Flurry doesn't tell you is that he has no understanding of the history he claims. Most of the men Herman Hoeh claimed were ancestral leaders of the Church of God were actually Catholic reformers. Others were Baptists. Read my post "50 Truths - Part 1" for more info on that.

There are several things listed in the above verses by Paul, not just one. The COGs have been told the falling away has already come, as if it stands alone. It does not. Read it again. There is a falling away, a man of sin revealed, false miracles and wonders, the return of Christ, and finally removal of that man. He is alive when Christ returns. Anyone who says this particular falling away has passed is grossly misinformed. I remind you again that Paul said, "Let no one deceive you by any means." All the claims and all the boastful talk in the world cannot undo the plain words of this epistle. They are nothing but hot air.

I ask, how can a church who boasts that it proves what it believes from the Bible be so very far from the simple words therein?? No one can say "I have proved" that the falling away happened 15 years ago. It cannot be done! Where is the "man of sin"? Joseph W. Tkach Sr.? He's been gone since September 23, 1995! Read the words again "whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming." Where is the Lord? Has He returned? No. Have any saints been gathered to meet Him in the air? No. Did He destroy Joseph Tkack at His coming? No. Joe Tkach Sr. died of complications related to cancer. Was Mr. Tkach accompanied by "all power, signs, and lying wonders"? No. Not a single thing fits. Not one. Yet to bolster their own positions and use prophecy as a tool for control, most COG ministers teach the falling away has passed. This, dear readers, is the very deception Paul warned against!

I will say a third time "Let no one deceive you by any means." Have you allowed these false prophets to deceive you?

O, how very many times I have read damning accusations against the people who remained with the WCG - that they were sent great delusion so they would believe a lie since they do not love the truth. Who is it that believes an untruth? Anyone who accepts Joe Tkach was the "man of sin" and that the falling away has passed are the ones who accept a clear lie. Who, then, is deceived? And this after we were sternly warned by Paul not to be!

These things precede the return of Christ. If there is any explanation for a deceiver that precedes Christ's return, it is here:

(REV. 19: 20) Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

What do we see here?

Joseph W. Tkach: Deception? Check. (But no more than is common to all mankind.) Wonders? No. Powered by Satan? Highly unlikely. Destroyed at Christ's return? No. This does not meet the requirements.

False Prophet of Revelation: Deception? Check. Wonders? Check. Powered by Satan? Check. Destroyed at Christ's return? Check. This one meets all requirements.

Are you willing to say Joseph W. Tkach Sr. is the False Prophet of Revelation? Hardly! Then it is high time we relegate all this slander about Mr. Tkach where it belongs, in the trash!! It is ungodly to misapply these things to someone, especially in such a malicious and deceitful fashion. The truth is in the Bible; the lie is in the slander of the ministry who love to perpetuate a blatant lie. This is not righteousness, but unrighteousness!

"...that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

What personally bothers me the most about all of this is how "the great falling away" is held up as the greatest "proof" of Herbert Armstrong's apostleship; I hear few things more often. But it clearly is no proof at all! These shameless self-promoting ministers twist the gospel for their own gain. Beloved by God, open your eyes and see the truth staring you in the face! For example, read the following:

"Several different churches have been formed by former Worldwide Church of God ministers. All of these churches—including the wcg—are Laodicean, except one. So says your Bible! Only one church has God’s lamp."

Gerald Flurri, "Malachi's Message", in section "A Call To Remembrance"

What is that? Slander. Pure and unadulterated, ungodly, self-promoting deception! Of the same sort which Paul warns us about in 2 Thessalonians. Though I am using him as the example here, Gerald Flurry is not by any means the only one caught up in this type of thing. Almost to the last one, most of Armstrong's ministers are engaged in it.

And it's competition as well. These ones say "God is unity in love", but they display in every way competition in bitterness.

And for a group who claims their unique relationship with God is based on keeping His commandments, this grossly violates the 6th (EXO. 20: 13; MATT. 5: 21-26) and the 9th (EXO. 20: 16) Commandments. Paul tells us in Romans 13: 9-10, that love is the fulfillment of the law. Yet I see no love here. Christ says in Matthew 22: 39 that the second most important instruction God ever gave us it to love your neighbor as yourself. Are we to assume this is how the ministry would like to be treated? In Matthew 5: 43-47, Jesus takes it even farther and says to love your enemy. Yet I see no love whatsoever in such deceitfulness and opportunistic misapplication of prophecy. On one hand, they call each other "brother", but in the other hand is a knife.

(PRO. 21: 28) A false witness shall perish, but the man who hears him will speak endlessly.

Boy, howdy! Do they speak endlessly! Bearing their tale again and again against the ones they call "God's church" (the Laodiceans are still Christ's).

(PRO. 19: 9) A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies shall perish.

This type will tell you there has been the final and great "falling away from the truth", but over and again I have shown in this blog that the truth was not with them to begin with. Certainly not with men such as these! How do you fall away from the truth when there was precious little truth to start with? On the other hand, falling away from a lie is a good thing!

(REV. 2: 2) "and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars"

I'll let Mr. Flurry have the final word on this one:

"If the Ephesus Church members, in a right attitude, tried those who said they were apostles, shouldn’t you?"

Gerald Flurri, "Malachi's Message", in section "A Call To Remembrance"

By What Measure You Use

2009-01-14T20:02:00.008-05:00

I would like to talk frankly about the pedestal some people have placed Herbert Armstrong on.

Have you ever picked a person to be on your team simply because they were your friend? Have you ever avoided someone simply because they look a certain way? Have you ever taken sides on an issue you aren't quite familiar with simply because someone else you respect also holds that opinion? Of course you have! We all do those silly things at least once in our lives. We're human and humans do those things. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just a fact of nature.

Now, have you ever seen someone doing something and spoken out against it (in public or private)? Perhaps you've spoken out against the wealthy taking a ride on the backs of the poor. Perhaps you've spoken against sexual abuse and child molestation. Perhaps you've spoken against some televangelist for asking for money all the time. Perhaps you've spoken against the poor quality of education children get these days.

Or... on the flip side... perhaps you've glossed over someone's indiscretions because you like them. Ever lambaste a corrupt politician from the other side of the aisle but let your own corrupt politician go free? Ever give special attention to someone because they are related to you? For example, turning a qualified stranger down for a job in order to give it to your relative?

(MATT. 7: 2) For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

(LEV. 19: 15) Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

(ROM. 2: 11) For there is no respect of persons with God.

God desires us to use the same measuring stick across the board. Not that we are to be without mercy, but without partiality. James says, in the second chapter of his epistle, "if you show partiality, you commit sin" as well as "Mercy triumphs over judgment." Now, these are all things you well know. Let me now ask you some more pointed questions.

Have you ever called Hal Lindsey, Benny Hinn, or Marshall Applewhite & Bonnie Nettles, for example, false prophets? Or how about William Miller, Ellen G. White, or David Koresh; ever call them false prophets? Or Ron Weinland, Geral Flurry, Rod Merideth, Dave Pack, et al? Perhaps you glossed over one or more of that last bunch, eh? Are you prepared to use the identical measuring stick across the board? If one makes predictions that fail, and you apply the label "false prophet" to that one, then you should be impartial to do the same for the rest - or excuse them all. Why then do so many excuse Herbert Armstrong, who has a long history of false prophecy stretching from the very beginning of his ministry? Either Herbert W. Armstrong is a false prophet, or none of those people are.

Have you ever seen a minister or an elder or perhaps an evangelist who wasn't living up to the office to which they attained? Perhaps you were less than satisfied with Gerald Waterhouse, or Joe Tkatch Sr., or a minister who followed along with Joseph Tkatch? Have you ever said "Hey! That person doesn't meet the qualifications of I Timothy 3: 2-7 and Titus 1: 8-9?" How does politics weasel its way into church like it does? But if we label one person unqualified, we must label them all unqualified, or forgive them all. Are you prepared to use the identical measuring stick across the board? Why then do so many excuse Herbert Armstrong, who fails the qualifications of I Timothy in some 11 points? Either Herbert W. Armstrong is not qualified, or all of those people are.

(I TIM. 3: 2-7)

2 A bishop then must be blameless [FAIL!], the husband of one wife, temperate [FAIL! His temper was well known.], sober-minded [FAIL! He was not very well self-controlled. John Keisz all but called him paranoid.], of good behavior [FAIL! He flew his jet to Romania for "sex therapy". He lived as a king while others starved and went bankrupt. His wife died of an intestinal blockage while he often went to the hospital.], hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine [FAIL! He was infamous as a drunk. Garner Ted said they had to "pour him into bed"], not violent, not greedy for money [FAIL! He was indeed greedy, and the church was a cash cow. He wasted the money, constantly demanded more, ruined lives, bought influence, etc, etc], but gentle, not quarrelsome [FAIL! He was removed from the ministry of the COG7 for being impossible to work with.], not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well [FAIL! This goes without saying.], having his children in submission with all reverence [FAIL! Incestuous rape isn't the submission Paul had in mind. Need I also mention Garner Ted?] 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil [FAIL! "God's Apostle" "Elijah" "Third Angel's Messenger" "Witness" "Spiritual and temporal leader of God's Church on earth" "Zerubbabel" compared himself to King David, Paul and Peter... need I say more?]. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside [FAIL! One British newspaper called him "the Kinky Apostle". If it wasn't for the lavish gifts he gave to dignitaries, would he have been so well received?], lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Have you ever spoken against Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Mark Foley, Barney Frank, David Vitter, or the any of the rest of the immeasurably long list of government figures who were caught up in sexual scandal? What about Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Paul Crouch, Ted Haggard, certain Catholic Priests, and all of the disgusting misrepresentatives of everything that is called good - ever speak out against them? Or maybe even Garner Ted Armstrong? Why on earth do these people betray our trust like that? They are supposed to be the ones we can trust! But if we label one, then we must label all, or let all go free. Are you prepared to use the identical measuring stick across the board? Why then do so many excuse Herbert Armstrong, whose sexual exploits are so well known and so well documented ...and so disgusting that I shudder to mention them...? Either Herbert W. Armstrong is not up to snuff, or all of those people have hit the mark.

He was dishonest. He made claims that he was the first person in 1,800 years to teach "the truth"; however, the majority of what he taught came to him from A. N. Dugger and G. G. Rupert of the COG7 or from books he read (eg. "Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright" by J. H. Allen). He claimed he was never a part of any other organization; however, he was a paid minister for the COG7 and one of the preaching 70 (until he was let go). He often made fiery public announcements about not ever knowing this, that, or the other thing when the mouth of two or three witnesses verifies he most certainly did know.

He falsified history. He said the first century church practiced as he taught, when it most certainly did not. He said the move from Passover to Easter was pagan, when it most certainly was not (it was affected by paganism later). His claims about the horns (Vandals, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths) in his publication "The Beasts of Revelation Thirteen" were incorrect and even self-contradictory. He said the church had an unbroken line of history back to the Apostles. However, that is entirely false. I can personally trace his history to 1844 - there it stops with William Miller. Most of the people Hoeh named in his plagiarized history were Catholic.

Then there's the plagiary. He plagiarized all or large parts of "The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy", "The History of God's True Church", "The Proof of the Bible" booklet, "Has Time Been Lost?", several articles he allegedly authored for the magazines, and who knows what else.

The list of cherry-picked beliefs is too long to get in to. Either keep the whole law, or don't. This is what Paul says. There is no cherry-picking! I often hear "We are not justified by the law, but we have to keep it." Then why don't you keep all of it? There are 613 laws in the Torah, of which the COGs keep a small fraction. Not to mention the MANY teachings of Armstrong that are simply flat-out wrong - like tithing, for example. You know as well as I what the law says! (Tithes are for Levites.) You know as well as I what the holy day offerings were really about. (They were burnt offerings - fulfilled by Christ.) You know the holy days are not kept right! (Where is your Tabernacles booth?) You remember the rule against medicine (that killed many people, but HWA often exempted himself from). You remember (divorce and remarriage, aka. "D&R"). You remember the Pentecost controversy. People say to me "Mr. Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." Is that some small thing? He called himself Elijah, is he God now too? NO MAN CAN CHANGE THE LAW!!

Is this article angry? Is it bitter? Is there a root of bitterness in me? This is not about me. These things I report are true as testified by the mouths of many witnesses. Rather than deal with the facts, people castigate the messengers as "bitter". It's a cheap slight of hand to get your attention away from the facts. And if "bitter" isn't used, then "slander" will be, or some other phrase. And that word, slander, is tossed around by ministers who judge and condemn billions of people based on little more than prophetic speculation. When people toss around phrases like 'slander' against people, it is the equivalent of calling them liars. But we have a law, "Do not bare false witness against your neighbor." (EXO. 20: 16) We had better be sure we don't dismiss God for the sake of pride.

All of this judgment and condemnation has gotten out of hand.

(JOB 40: 8) Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?

I do not say these things in bitterness, but in warning and love to you!! I am not angry, but joyful to help those who are in bondage to a severe cult. I am not a novice or unfamiliar with the subject, but 30 years I spent following and teaching Herbert Armstrong. I am not deceived, as the information I share with you is readily available and is proven fact!

Nor either do I say this to condemn Herbert Armstrong. I try my hardest not to condemn anyone. God will judge. I merely find it necessary to make you aware of these things that are hidden from you in order to wake you up to the truth and to shake you out of the spell Armstrongism has you under. These are bitter pills to swallow for sure, but should you accept the quality of the fountain, then perhaps you can accept the quality of the water -- and stop drinking it!

I say to you "come out of her"! Jesus gave up all that exists for you - I implore you to consider what great price was paid for the New Covenant. I implore you deeply to consider what Herbert Armstrong leads people away from. Consider how you are called to be attached to the Vine, directly to Jesus Christ the Head over all things, and not to any man. Consider the price and consequences of glossing over the real HWA - for whatever reason. Don't fall for clever little sayings like, "if any man today was found to be guilty of what David did that they would be rejected as a servant of God as well." This is a diversion. David had real prophets. David was accompanied by real miracles. Most importantly, David repented. Herbert Armstrong's many "sure" prophecies have not come to pass, miracles are non-existent, and there was no repentance.

Apply evenly the measurement which you apply to others and open your eyes to what you are doing, lest you find you call God wrong to justify HWA. Remember how Waterhouse said if God doesn't return during HWA's life, then the Bible is wrong?

More Following A Man

2009-01-10T00:48:00.008-05:00

I was looking for something on the Internet when I stumbled quite by accident across Raymond C. Cole's 'Church of God, The Eternal' website. He attempts to answer the question "By What Authority Do We Exist?" Instead, he illustrates everything I mean when I say that Armstrongists follow a man.

At first, Mr. Cole explains that a minister must be called and sent. He doesn't claim to be called or sent, he just states that one must be. He speaks about true doctrine, but does nothing to show he preaches any. He then shows how a minister has a responsibility to actually do his job. I still don't know what that has to do with proving anything about Mr. Cole's legitimacy.

After this, Mr. Cole basically says "by their fruits you shall know them." Once again, great. But so what? The question was about his legitimacy. Is he saying no one else has good fruits? Why aren't they legitimate if they do? I wonder by this point if there is going to be a response to the initial question.

"It was not until the failure of prophetic interpretations that the wholesale lowering of standards and watering-down of doctrine began," he says. So he admits Armstrong's prophecies failed? I'd hate to have to tell him, but it was the surety of those interpretations that was THE proof that the WCG was the one true church! If they've failed, where does that leave him?

Let's look into his mind a bit, "His [Jesus'] church and His people, for the most part, have forsaken Him!" I agree in part. Many people have forsaken Christ... for Armstrong. But what's more important right here is how Mr. Cole's view of Christ's Church is that of a physical organization instead of a Spiritual body. This displays a complete lack of understanding of the New Covenant.

"Christ kept His promise to preserve His Truth (Matt. 16:18), or there is no truth." Unfortunately, this contradicts the 1,900 years without truth theory. A 1,900 year prophecy is found nowhere in the Bible. It is actually a generalization built on Armstrong's 19-year time-cycles theory. Again, not Biblical, and having little to do with "the Truth". But I digress.

"The Worldwide Church of God never proclaimed ... that one is in hopeless religious confusion." Armstrong never said the Bible is fraud, even though Waterhouse said if Jesus doesn't return in Armstrong's life then the Bible is wrong. He did say the entire world was and is in hopeless confusion (except for his church).

Over and again Mr. Cole speaks of "the truth" and "the revealed truth". Let me explain what Mr. Cole is saying without the cloaked phraseology. He is saying "Contend for the faith once delivered....... by Herbert Armstrong."

THAT is the real issue here.

He says, "Either the Worldwide Church of God taught the Truth, or we have no basis for calling ourselves Christians today."

Mr. Cole's first assumption, the one assumption that makes much of his conclusions fail, is that Herbert Armstrong was delivered a special revelation from God. From this one assumption arises all of his further conclusions, including his assumption that he is a valid minister - and hence the reason he dances around the plain answer to the original question, which answer is "I follow a man." Let me demonstrate.

In his "An Open Letter From Raymond C. Cole", Mr. Cole plainly says, "The concept of divine revelation was the bedrock factor upon which my faith and loyalty to God stood..." I believe every word of this, save one: "God". That should read "Herbert Armstrong". The divine revelation he truly refers to is that which Herbert Armstrong claimed.

Again from the Open Letter, Mr. Cole recalls, "For days Mr. Armstrong continually insisted God had revealed to him that which he was preaching. ... I was left with a single decision to make. Was I going to protect the self, or was I willing to accept in faith and absolute conviction that which had been demonstrated—divine revelation [to HWA]. One of the greatest psychological releases I have ever experienced came at the moment when I decided Mr. Armstrong was right—God reveals His Truth to a chosen servant [HWA]. It, therefore, is absolute and cannot change."

In plain English this means, "I follow a man." His faith is so very much tied to Herbert Armstrong that if HWA was wrong, he sees clearly he is not anywhere near what the actual truth is. He must defend HWA. Everything he has depends on it. Not Christ, HWA.

No, Mr. Cole, either Christ died for us, or we have no salvation. If HWA does not match the Bible, then choose the Bible!

Mr. Cole now begins to pressure those whose faith in men manifested differently than his.

"Those who refuse to accept the validity of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong's original commission ... and the revealed truth, are denying the validity of their baptism."

Fear and control; typical. Keep in mind Mr. Cole means "original" when he says "original"; ie. prior to the 1970's doctrinal changes. In the Open Letter, Mr. Cole refers to 1973-1974 as "an apostasy". Need I say more?

"A true minister will never separate for anything but a departure from revealed truth. Those who have left and started their own works because of personal differences or administrative debates outside the realm of doctrinal perversion, prove by such actions, that the Word, the Truth, is not paramount in their thinking."

Mr. Cole left Armstrongism in the 1970's. This is tantamount to saying HWA departed from the truth, and that's why Mr. Cole left. This was decades before Tkach.

Take this as a whole and it means that if you deny pre-1974 Herbert Armstrong, then you are not a Christian. Now he adds to that.

"If one has accepted doctrinal changes, then he is admitting he never knew the Truth."

So, if you deny pre-1970's HWA, you're not following Christ, and if you accept post 1970's HWA, you were never following Christ. Oddly enough, in his mind, this makes perfect sense.

Now, I tell you the most ironic part of this entire page. I don't think Mr. Cole thought this through very well or he wouldn't have said it like this. He said in the previous quote that if you accept doctrinal changes then you never knew the truth. But it was Mr. Herbert Armstrong himself that approved the changes that caused Mr. Cole to leave the Worldwide Church of God. Even though Mr. Cole may with his words want us to suppose he is standing against Joseph Tkach, with his actions he shows that isn't exactly true. The stand against change that Mr. Cole took was not against Joseph W. Tkach but against Herbert W Armstrong! So this says, in effect, that Mr. Armstrong accepted changes and thus never knew the truth!! How ironic is that?? So, to say that the truth is what Mr. Armstrong taught originally, and then to make an enormous gaff like this and say Mr. Armstrong never knew the truth, why, that's just talking one's self in a circle.

Your only job as a Christian is to accept that Mr. Armstrong received pure truth at the beginning of his ministry, and all changes are of Satan. This, in my opinion, is tantamount to blasphemy. It sets Herbert Armstrong nigh equal to Jesus Christ who came to reveal God's truth. Herbert Armstrong was not the Savior of anyone. Nor was he a valid prophet as he claimed. Nor were there prophecies about him. Nor did he fulfill any prophecies (save possibly for the ones about false prophets). We can talk about Elijah all day long, but the facts remain: 1) Christ said plainly that Elijah was John the Baptist (MATT. 17: 10-13), 2) Herbert Armstrong did not live to introduce the returning Christ, 3) Herbert Armstrong did not return the hearts of the children to the fathers or vice versa. I could go on, but why?

"Now can you understand why I was so troubled by the changes which constituted the apostasy of 1972-74? Can you understand why I will not budge regarding doctrine even now? I fear to compromise. I want only that Truth which is recorded in God's Holy Word and was revealed to an end-time servant (Matthew 28:19–20)." [emphasis mine]

Here is the issue. He doesn't want Christ's version of God's word, he wants HWA's version of it.

He even gives absolutely incorrect information. "In its formative years, the Church of God was the only organization founded on divine revelation. No present religion is founded on the validity of divine revelation, not even the Worldwide Church of God, since its apostasy!" Then what are we to make of the Mormons, or the Seventh Day Adventists, among many others? Many groups claim divine inspiration. All of them are just as devoted to their "leader" as Mr. Cole is devoted to HWA. This claim by Mr. Cole is absolutely false on its face. But why make such a claim at all? He means to say that even though those other groups claim to be divinely inspired, they are not. Why not? They don't have HWA! In other words, he worships a man.

I appreciate that Mr. Cole was observant enough to see that HWA claimed to be divinely inspired, but later changed what he said God had revealed. Raymond Cole called himout on that. I don't think it was the best idea to continue believing what HWA said at first was any more valid than what he said at the end.

Mr. Cole's authority to exist is based on what? Nothing more than Herbert Armstrong's insistence on his own office. And Mr. Cole swallowed it so hard, that he based the rest of his life on it. A Christian follows Christ; Raymond Cole follows Herbert Armstrong. I hate to be so blunt, but I'm trying to illustrate a point - that Armstrongists all say they follow Christ, but it can be demonstrated again and again that they follow a man.

On Following Men

2009-01-08T12:43:00.012-05:00

No one has ever said to me "I follow a man". Of course most people would not consciously follow a man. It is easier to say "I follow Jesus Christ". If I ask one question here it is this: Do people, specifically the people in the COGs, really follow Jesus Christ?

Now, I want people to think about the irony of the statement "I follow Christ" from those who attend a church started by a man who described himself as "the spiritual and temporal leader of the church" and who then proceeded to change the laws of God. Is it following God to change God's laws? Did God come and change His own laws? No. Then who did? A man. When Herbert Armstrong changed his views time and time again, the Bible did not change with him. Yet people followed along before and after. So who were people following? A man. When Ron Weinland did the exact same thing, who were people following? A man. So who is being followed? Christ? That's just not possible!

I observed during my time in the COGs, and even participated in the practice, of following after my ministers in using the phrase "so called Christians". What is that? According to the COGs, that is any person who claims to be a Christian but does not follow the Old Covenant laws. Think of the irony. Think of the irony of a group of people who are not fully following the Old Covenant laws, calling people who do not follow the Old Covenant laws "so-called Christians". I recently got into a little tiff with a minister for this very thing. I attempted to show him the gap between what he says in one place and another. He basically told me I wasn't affording him the deference due him and vowed never to speak to me again. VERY Christian, that! On whose behalf was he offended?

For those who are still in Armstrongism, ask yourself, "Do I keep the law - the WHOLE law?" I understand the natural inclination to excuse yourself. Please fight that inclination and answer honestly. Understand that I don't mean to ask you if you could keep the law more perfectly. You are correct that Jesus Christ covers sins. I mean to ask you if there are portions of the law you don't keep at all. And I am not referring to third tithe. For examples of what I am talking about, do you build a sukkah (booth) at Tabernacles (LEV. 23: 42; NEH. 8: 14-17), or do you travel three times in a year to the place where the Lord places His name (EXO. 23: 14; EXO. 34: 24; DEU. 16), or do you regard a false prophet (DEU. 18: 20-22), or perhaps do you ingest animal fat (LEV. 3: 17)?

Let's put this into a little perspective. According to James 2: 10 and Galatians 5, if you set out to keep the law but do not keep it all, if you even stumble in one point, you have nothing. Have you stumbled in even one point? Then you are guilty of all and are the same as a liar and a murderer and all other such things. Paul does one better and says clearly that if you even attempt to find your salvation through the law then Christ Himself profits you absolutely nothing (GAL. 5: 1-5)! Consider, or think deeply about, your calling!

This reminds me of Galatians 6: 13

(GAL. 6: 13) For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

Not keeping the law while boasting in fleshly ordinances seems to be the way of Armstrong. Yet over and anon we used to say "we are God's true church because we keep His laws". But we didn't keep His laws! Oh, we said we did. And we were very confident in the law. But it goes to show that we never understood Paul or the law!

(I TIM. 1: 5-7) 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. [emphasis mine]

The law is not the proof that God is working in us. His Spirit is. His Spirit does not come from the law, nor the keeping of it. Where do you ever read that? Man's own reasoning conjured it up. I'll tell you what we can read, however:

(GAL. 3: 2-5) 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

I've talked about this before in my post "By This All Will Know". You say the Spirit comes to those who keep the law. Paul calls it foolish to think the Spirit comes through law. So then, is the proof that God is calling you to be found in your foolishness? "Not many wise now are called," it says. Is it proof that you are poor, or in other words, not mighty nor wise? Does it make sense to say "I'm among the weak and foolish of the world, therefore I know God is working with me"? And what is it that is too hard for you to grasp? There is simplicity in Christ!

Or perhaps you view the proof that God is calling you to be found in that you are a "little flock"? As if to say, "We are part of a small church, therefore we are God's true church"? Then why boast about 33% growth each year? Why does the PCG website boast a great deal about increase in size? Why does the CGG write against using size as a measure? So both small size and large size are proof?

Do you glory in your foolishness or your small size or your partial law keeping? In what are those who glory supposed to glory in? CHRIST! There is nothing confusing about that. It does not say to glory in the law or your understanding or your calling or that God has revealed to you some thing or anything at all to do with yourself. It says to glory in HIM. Him personally!

Christ did good for all mankind. All good flows from the Father through Christ. Christ's own faith is placed in His own people. Sin is conquered in Christ. Christ gave up all things, all things that exist. Christ inherited all things. Christ is worthy. Who is Christ? He is the Son of God, at the right hand of God, the Head over all things to His Spiritual Church. Make your boast in Him.

What good have we of ourselves done? None. What faith have we on our own? None. What sin have we personally resisted on our own according to God's standards? Not a single one. What do we deserve from God? Nothing. What have we earned from God? Nothing. Who are we? Nobody.

So why glory in "us"? Why boast in "us"? Why condemn "them"? Why say or even think such things as "God isn't working with them" or "they are as good as dead anyway"? Why sequester yourselves? Why hide what light you have? Matthew 5: 43-48 says you're no better than the tax collectors if you act this way. Why hold your head up over someone else? Why call attention to your organizations? We are all guilty of such things from time to time. But why? Are we not making ourselves wise; wise in our own eyes?! "Not many wise now are called." Put your boast in Christ, not your minister, or your responses to a magazine, or any sort or form of carnal thing. If you can clear away the "us vs. them" mentality, clear away this identification with a clique, then perhaps you will begin to see how "they" aren't one bit less important than "we". Perhaps if you see that Jesus Christ is trying to make one Spiritual man out of many physical men, then perhaps you will cease trying to divide things up again. "But they aren't called because they don't keep the law," you say. Well, you don't keep the law either! Then the rock of James 2 and Galatians 5 falls upon you and it will crush you.

Have we forgotten Philippians?

(PHP. 3: 7-11) 7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. [emphasis mine]

Notice how many times Paul mentions Christ. It is obvious where his focus is. Let's contrast that.

On the Philadelphia Church of God website is a section on their history. There you will find this statement,"The PCG broke away from the Worldwide Church of God in order to preserve the teachings and legacy of its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong". Oh really? Not Jesus Christ? In all actuality, the words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' do not appear anywhere on that page. On the other hand, the word 'Armstrong' appears at least 13 times. A rich tale of HWA's past is told, there is even a link to another article all about Herbert Armstrong... again, no mention of Jesus Christ. Not one word.

In the "About Us" section on the Living Church of God website, we see this "The Presiding Evangelist, Dr. Roderick C. Meredith, was one of the original evangelists ordained by the late Herbert W. Armstrong in December 1952." Notice carefully where Rod Merideth believes he derives his authority. Once again, Jesus Christ is absent.

The Restored Church of God mentions Christ 3 times, Armstrong 4 times. Not a bad start, until you notice the link to the eight chapter 'book' (complete with preface, introduction, and epilogue) about Herbert Armstrong's life. A glance into their uncompromising and unapologetic self-promotion left me queasy. Take for example this sentence "While many groups arose from the WCG, we are the only true extension of Mr. Armstrong's ministry—the Church in which Christ is now working!" In the RCG mentality that I see on display, if you aren't "us" then you are nobody.

Where is the focus? Why, "we" are the focus, of course! Complete and utter "us vs. them" mentality. Competition. Strife. Envy. Pride. Godly? No!

Time would fail before I investigate with you all of the various groups who make Herbert W. Armstrong into an idol and a requirement for salvation.

This kind of thing is par for the course with Armstrongism. For more of this exact same thing, please read my earlier posts "What Do You Mean, One True Church" parts 1 and 2.

What have we seen so far? As a general rule, the boast of the COGs is in Herbert Armstrong. The authority is from HWA. The focus is often on HWA. The teachings came from HWA. And even though many will like to say "but from Christ through HWA", this is clearly not the case since HWA clearly changed the laws of God. So, when given the choice between the version of the law in the Bible and the version given by HWA, the COGs choose HWA. Is HWA greater than God? Where, then, is the focus? And not only did HWA change things, but he contradicts the clear words of the Bible! When HWA says "The Spirit comes to those who keep the law", the COGs eat that up! Yet when Paul says "The Spirit does not come by law but by faith, grace, and promise" and again "the law brings condemnation", the COGs say NO! NO! So, where is your focus? The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them." When scores and scores of primary and secondary witnesses come forward to tell about the kind of fruits HWA had (and his ministers after him), the COGs say "if any man today was found to be guilty of what David did that they would be rejected as a servant of God as well." And after such an avalanche of confirmable, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence the COGs cover their ears and bury their heads and say, "Slander!" Where then is the focus? All of this for a man?

Please understand my motives are not to attack you! I do not confront you with this for your harm. Quite the opposite! I care about you, and I want you to see the distance between yourself and Christ so you will take the steps to close that gap! There were barriers in my way when I was in Armstrongism, and I know those barriers are before you. To see those barriers, you need to accept a few things.

First of all is that God loves you so much He died for you. But not just for you - for all mankind! God is love. Love comes first.

Second, I hope beyond hope that I can get you to see how judgmental and condemnatory the belief system is. The condemnation has got to stop. I think one of the greatest obstacles to my own personal happiness while I was in my former association was the condemnation. No one can be truly happy while condemning others.

Thirdly, and the focus of this post, is I pray you see, by the grace of God, where your focus lies. Is it with Christ? Because I'll tell ya, from the evidence, it does not look good. Or is it with a man or the ministries of men? If that is so, that has got to change immediately.

I want you to ask yourself a question: "Who is the leader of your church?" If you didn't immediately respond, "Jesus Christ", then please allow me to suggest you have much work to do. I would like you to ask yourself another question: "What is my church?" If you didn't respond, "It is the Spiritual body of Christ, composed of everyone with God's Spirit, regardless of all man-made organizations" (or some such thing along that vein), then may I please suggest you have much work to do. How will you know these people? The Bible tells us without doubt "by their fruits." I have looked at the fruits of the COGs and asked, "Do people, specifically the people in the COGs, really follow Jesus Christ?" And from what I see, the answer is a resounding NO!

Quotations from the Hypocrypha

2009-01-06T20:53:00.016-05:00

Most of you have probably never heard of Ron Weinland's former publication "News Watch". He started to put these out years ago when he was still in the UCG. I had totally forgotten about them. Mike from Don't Drink the Flavor Aid helped me stumble across these again.

Here are a few selections to show the difference between Ron Weinland of 1999, and Ron Weinland of 2009. The differences are so striking to me, that I have dubbed his collective publications, "The Hypocripha". I had originally put these up as comments on my last post, but I thought they would be easier for everyone to access if they were here.

The larger point I'm hammering away at is that this is exactly the same thing that Herbert Armstrong did. If RW is such and such a person, then so is HWA, because they are both the same! Yet so many people see RW for what he is, and still give HWA a pass. This astounds me. It's a complete double standard. They still say (and this is a recent quote I received from a minister), "if any man today was found to be guilty of what David did that they would be rejected as a servant of God as well." Incredible! The lengths to which people will go to reason around what they don't want to accept. If that's how this minister honestly feels, then he should completely accept RW as a servant of God. That's not gonna happen.

Shall we begin?

[God's government] is not about rank or position, but a matter of serving and giving. That is spiritual!"

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", July 1998

"The ministry has fallen back into the old, comfortable administrative style learned in WCG. Such administration is rarely one of shepherding, but of control, manipulation, politics and lethargy, all of which has been hard on God's people. ... The blindness within the ministry is so great that many elders will not have the remotest idea what I am talking about. But there are humble, faithful brethren who do know and see clearly what is being said."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", July 1998

Hypocrisy upon hypocrisy!

Those 'humble, faithful brethren' are here, reading this, and seeing through RW like so much glass.

RW quotes Eze. 13: 8-10 and then says,

"These words should be intently sobering when one considers how we in the ministry can go about building a structure after the image we once knew [meaning the WCG] and do so to the neglect of so many of God's people who have been scattered or lost. And when flaws in the structure are pointed out, every effort is made to secretly cover those flaws as hurriedly as possible, making declarations about false accusers or attacks from Satan. The flaws and weaknesses are denied by declaring stability, growth and the need to go forward doing God's work."

"Sometimes it is hard for God's people--especially within the ministry--to see themselves realistically. We seem to believe we cannot be in error if we are His people, especially if we are His ministers. But God gives warnings to His people and to His ministers."

"We need to be jolted by the reality that we will reap what we sow, not deceiving ourselves that we are somehow exempt from judgment simply because we bear God's name. We must not deceive ourselves by thinking we are special as His ministers and somehow bear no accountability."

"Continuing with "business as usual" or total denial of our problems will only bring swift punishment."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", July 1998

"We have not done well in this regard, often failing to love others ... as we should. This simply reflects the state of dysfunction in many spiritual lives, which means we really are not as spiritual as we think we are. A major part of the problem is that we do not tend to see ourselves realistically. Therein comes the"denial."

The ability to see oneself realistically --as God sees us-- is a matter of the spirit, His spirit. It is only natural or carnal for us to deny our true spiritual state. It is a normal consequence of man's selfish nature to "pass the buck" concerning personal responsibility and to also deny ones own culpability."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", August 1998

Wait a minute here... are we to believe that hearing voices and declaring ones self the One Witnesses is being realistic?

"[Some ministers] are trying to strengthen their hold on the congregations they are supposed to be "serving and leading," instead of "ruling and controlling!"

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", August 1998

"Brethren are becoming easy prey to charlatans, false ministers, and crackpots who are only making merchandise of them. One of the primary purposes of News Watch is to warn brethren and expose these kinds of dangers to God's scattered flock."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", August 1998

HA!! Is this a joke??

"[Ministers] often fail to grasp that their own practices have spawned a great deal of the adverse reaction and heightened sensitivities"

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", Oct/Nov 1998

"ministers focus on themselves and all the work they are doing to build up themselves and the organization they serve. They make great plans for the future and try to get others to focus on those dreams."

"Yes, the ministry has been turning inward. Many are concerned about job security and retirement. As a result, compromise subtly encroaches on sound standards of shepherding, integrity, moral leadership, faithful administration, and sound-mindedness. Self-preservation, control, compromise, and other sins become the norm and cannot be recognized nor admitted because sin leaves one groping in the dark. Ministers get caught up in petty jealousies, worrying about brethren listening to other ministers (even within their own organizations). They become territory conscious and numbers conscious, all out of selfish gain."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", Oct/Nov 1998

I feel this completely applies to RW's current self.

"The environment in some church corporations makes [looking to God first and foremost] almost impossible to achieve because their structures require a kind of allegiance that is actually spiritual idolatry."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", Oct/Nov 1998

Look to "2008 God's Final Witness", (or "Mystery of the Ages"), not the Bible! (He says sarcastically.)

"But the sad reality is that too many ministers abuse their power, control and manipulate brethren..."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", Oct/Nov 1998

Right! And RW's one of 'em.

"Sad to say, we find many within the scattered organizations who are coming to the defense of 'the church of their choice,' justifying and excusing the errors, false teachings, unrighteous behavior, and corruption of some of their leaders. Our condition has deteriorated to the point that many brethren not only justify, but also lend strong support that enables such leaders to strengthen their hold and become more deeply entrenched in their wrong practices. This is not a small thing before God, and He holds both the supported and supporter responsible."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", Dec 1998

"For some, lying is apparently justifiable if it is deemed to be for the greater good of an organization, for unity, or for the sake of 'the Work.' Some abdicate all responsibility saying it is not our place to judge our leaders, regardless of their actions. Of course, complacency is so prevalent that many are unconcerned about lies and either are unable to see them or choose not to see them. Some simply give blind support."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", Dec 1998

"Please don't misunderstand, I do not consider myself above them, nor am I speaking out of resentment. I am speaking out of my own shame and heartache for what I have done in my weaknesses as well."

Ron Weinland, "News Watch", Jan 1999

Where the heck is more of this? Where did this Ron Weinland go?

I don't terribly much enjoy posting this stuff. I prefer a more civilized approach to blogging. There's something uncomfortably negative about this. Even so, I feel it has to be done. People need access to this information. I have probably one more post that I want to do in this vein. I just came across an old sermon that RW gave years ago, right before he kicked out half the Toledo congregation. I found it interesting. Then, I seriously hope to return to a more 'comfortable' format.

Ron Weinland on Government

2009-01-05T16:20:00.012-05:00

These words were from a man few would recognize. It goes pretty well in line with my previous article where Herbert Armstrong declared the very governmental structure of the Worldwide Church of God to be none other than the Image of the Beast of Revelation.

This post is going to be a tad more negative than what you're used to here, but I feel in the mood to hold a person to his own standards.

I would submit for your inspection evidence that in all ways Ronald Weinland is like his mentor, and if anyone will call Ron Weinland a false prophet, false apostle, Christ monger, hypocrite, flip-flopper, or any other such thing, then they must in kind use the exact same measure on the other.

"Brethren can become quite confused when they begin listening to all the different ideas about government put forth by competing organizations. Who is right? Where is God? Is God as divided as it would appear when listening to so many conflicting views on the subject? And after all, doesn't each organization believe it has the best structure, or even the only correct structure?

"Some believe organization or government is all about the proper structure. The pendulum swings far and wide on this subject. On one end we are told that only one man can be at the top in a kind of hierarchy, while at the other end it is claimed that such structure is of Satan, of the gentiles, or the way of the Nicolaitans. And between these two is another great smorgasbord. Where is God in all this?

"Is God's government established upon rank, administrative structure or control? Some seem to think so. Do such things produce the fruits of unity and closeness God desires in His family? Obviously not!

"Any government or organization (corporation) is only as good as the integrity and morality of those who administer it and submit to it.

"As a case in point, it might be good to comment on the obsession with the name Philadelphia. Many want to see themselves as Philadelphian, because they believe it sounds so good. ... Bearing the name of a Philadelphian is not nearly as high a commendation as what God said to some in Thyatira: "I know your works, love [agape], service, faith, and your patience; and as for your works, the last are more than the first" (Revelation 2:19, NKJ).

"If ministers and brethren use biblical terminology to jockey for position, despising those whom they see as inferior, is it any wonder people have strayed so far from understanding what the gospel message is all about?

"Those are powerful words! Do you understand the depth and beauty of what they say? Can you discern such love? To do so demands a close relationship with God, being truly yielded to Him in genuine humility--by God living in us. Too many people in God's Church have allowed His love to wax cold in their lives. The result is the growing confusion over organization and government that we see today."

Ronald Weinland, "News Watch", Oct-Nov, 1998

I should remind everyone that this was published less than one year before the time when RW started prepping his Toledo, Ohio congregation to accept him as sole possessor of authority and master of top-down government. He took over the church board, disfellowshipping them, and expelled many of the congregation in February 2000. (Check out the fabulous and improved timeline over at Don't Drink the Flavor Aid for more details.)

I conclude, therefore, that he knew he was being deceptive when he penned it, and did so merely to throw off suspicions.

Oh how the mighty have fallen...

Sick, sick, sick.

**See my next post on Quotations from the Hypocrypha for more of this sort of thing.

Church Government - Image of the Beast?

2009-01-04T00:02:00.007-05:00

Did Herbert Armstrong say the government of the Worldwide Church of God is the Image of the Beast of Revelation? It shocks me too!

I was reading the Painful Truth and came across this gem entitled "Herbert W. Armstrong's 209 False Prophecies" by "the Watcher". Yes indeedly do, I recommend it!

Anywho, I get to this one, "23) 1940 PT: 'Christ will come after 3.5 years of tribulation in October 43'", and I decided this was so interesting that I had to read the source for myself. There was no month stated. I decided to start at the beginning of the year. Well, I got to April-May, and I found a major curiosity. You simply have to read it for yourself:

"The first pope, in the real sense of the word, was Leo I (440-461 A.D.)," says the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 7, page 829. To him this form of GOVERNMENT of the Roman Empire was the most marvellous thing on earth. It became an obsession. He applied its principles to the CHURCH, organizing the church into a GOVERNMENT, forming the PAPACY. This CHURCH GOVERNMENT or ORGANIZATION is the IMAGE OF THE BEAST. Says Myers' Ancient History: "During the reign of Leo I, the Church set up, within the Roman Empire, an ecclesiastical STATE (government) which, in its constitution and its administrative system, was shaping itself upon the imperial MODEL." The Britannica calls the papacy an ECCLESIASTICAL WORLD EMPIRE! This IMAGE---church government---compelled people to WORSHIP THE CHURCH! And since the church was organized into a government, this was worship of the IMAGE---FALSE worship---IDOLATRY!!

"But this church became a MOTHER, and DAUGHTER CHURCHES came out of her ... And ALL ARE ORGANIZED , and have CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ...

"Yes, CHURCH GOVERNMENT is the "IMAGE" of the "BEAST." When people speak of "MY Church," they mean their organized denomination. And today people seem to IDOLIZE their CHURCHES! This is "worshipping the IMAGE of the BEAST."

Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, April-May 1940, p. 9 [emphasis his, if that wasn't obious]

Church government is the "IMAGE of the BEAST"?? Oh, where to begin?

Perhaps I shall remind you that church government is the first, number one, el numero uno, primary, of the 18 "truths" restored by HWA. Yet, church government, Armstrong said in 1940, is the "IMAGE of the BEAST." We all know of the time when HWA said church government is the one thing the Catholics got right.

Why the flip-flop? Yet this isn't the only time he flippidy flopped!

"There is not single HINT in the NEW TESTAMENT of any Church BOARD with authority to rule, to govern, to decide doctrine, or to handle tithes and church finances (the whole church). In a later number we shall devote an article to explaining Acts 15, which certainly sets no such example.

"Jesus never organized, or re-organized his Church! There is NO SCRIPTURE for it!

"All authority and power to rule is limited solely to each LOCAL congregation. But there is NO BIBLE AUTHORITY for any super- government, or organization with authority over the local congregations!"

"How, then, did ORGANIZATION, and the idea of CHURCH GOVERNMENT get into the Church? It came out of BABYLON! Spiritual BABYLON -- that is, ROME! The same as nearly all the false doctrines of Satan."

Herbert Armstrong, Good News, Feb. 1939

HWA firmly came out against church government to such a degree that he pulled out all stops to attack the idea. He even invoked the name of Nimrod! Not only does this prove he flip-flopped, but it is is solid evidence against the fabled 'divine revelation after prayerful Bible study' story we've all heard a million times. Recall Pentecost, D&R, healing, meats as a physical issue only, and others - all changed over time.

If there was a revelation, wouldn't it be right the first time, and not after a few iterations? Not only that, but how can the diametric opposite of what was 'revealed' eventually become the "truth"? After the alleged revelation, HWA said government was evil; the "IMAGE of the BEAST" no less. Decades later, government is great! It's one of the proofs!

Is it just the Catholic Church's government that HWA spoke of? No. He said "ALL ARE ORGANIZED , and have CHURCH GOVERNMENT." But which was the best? That is obviously the governmental form employed by the Catholic Church. If Leo I gushed over Rome, HWA gushed over Roman Catholicism.

I would now like to deconstruct a few things from the above quote.

"an ecclesiastical STATE (government)"

The Catholic Church is also a state. Certainly that doesn't apply to the WCG, right? Ahhh, but the Worldwide Church of God was also a state. Stanley Rader admitted to so much.

The following is a snippet of transcript from an interview Stanley Rader did with Mike Wallace on television's "60 Minutes" back in 1979:

[Wallace] "Are you suggesting that Herbert Armstrong is a head of state?"

[Rader] "Exactly. Exactly. And..."

[Wallace] "And you're the Secretary of State?"

[Rader] "You got it. By God you got it, Mike. That's it! That's the whole key. This is a state and we are representatives of God, and I am Mr. Armstrong's Secretary of State."

Stanley Rader, 60 Minutes interview with Mike Wallace (starting at time stamp 8 minutes 29 seconds)

(You can download the audio file in .mp3 format from the Painful truth here. Look at the bottom of the page for "Rader-Mike-Wallace-Interview.zip".)

"in its constitution and its administrative system, was shaping itself upon the imperial MODEL"

The government of Rome, which the Catholics copied, and which HWA copied in turn, was 'imperial'. Oddly enough, the name of the church sponsored grade school was what? Imperial! A name which the Philadelphia Church of God carries forward to this day. How appropriate it is when one says, "Herbert Armstrong built an empire"!!

"this church became a MOTHER, and DAUGHTER CHURCHES came out of her"

Let's give HWA some of his own medicine. This "mother church" is the Worldwide Church of God, and her "daughter churches" the UCG, LCG, PCG, RCG, CGG, PKG, CGF, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.

Not so nice when the barrel of that gun is pointed at you, is it?

I point this out for one reason. Do we not see what a tangled web and a fine kettle we have when we start condemning and judging others?

To quote Harold Smith, of the Church of God Fellowship, "All prophetic interpretation is speculation." Based upon absolutely nothing more than speculation, Herbert Armstrong judged and condemned BILLIONS of people. His ministers mimic and perpetuate this same unsavory nonsense. HWA put the above into writing, thinking he was doing a service to God. His words have now come full circle to bite him in the rear. Certainly - certainly - all of this condemnation must stop! All of the bickering and arguing over who is the false church and who is the one true church has done absolutely nothing good.

"When people speak of 'MY Church,' they mean their organized denomination."

Yes. And this is exactly what the splinters promote. If it were not so, then there would not be so very many splinters.

(I COR. 3: 3-4) 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

"This IMAGE---church government---compelled people to WORSHIP THE CHURCH!"

And I say there is NO difference between what Leo I did and what HWA did.

"And today people seem to IDOLIZE their CHURCHES!"

This is exactly what we were taught to do in Armstrongism! This is exactly what they promoted! All that talk about "one true church". All of those "proofs" and "truths restored" and great swelling words about how HWA was "God's Apostle" and "Elijah" and "the voice in the wilderness". All of the buildings and the temple in Pasedena and the international trips and the Steuben crystal and the magazines and the radio shows and the "work". All of that pomp and circumstance was hyped and pushed and advertised to show how we should honor and respect the 'one true church' so we could all pay, pray, and stay.

And what exactly was all of that? Herbert Armstrong himself will sum it up:

"this was worship of the IMAGE---FALSE worship---IDOLATRY!!"

(II COR. 11: 13-15) 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

Beloved and prized by God who are still in Armstrongism, look at the evidence for yourself. Open your eyes and see the confusion! God is not the author of the decades of flip-flopping and condemnation. God is not the author of all of these splinters, each clamouring to continue the idolatrous empire. I implore you, by the love of God, do not let those men deceive you any further. There is another way! A simple way. A loving way. Step into the New Covenant!

MORE COG Theological Ancestry

2009-01-01T23:55:00.011-05:00

Back in September 2008 I posted about the COG Theological Ancestry. I still believe that HWA gained much of what he believed from A. N. Dugger, but I wonder how much he got from G. G. Rupert. Rupert is undeniably a large source of inspiration for HWA. But was he as important as I had previously assumed? It may seem I overestimated Rupert - in at least one area.

I happened across an article on, of all places, the Worldwide Church of God website. I may not be willling to send my tithes in to Joe Jr., but I like his new direction. The WCG has access to material I could only dream of. I would love to spend a month in their archives! And they aren't afraid to apologize for their past.

One manifestation of their guilt is a well written three-part document entitled "Herbert Armstrong and Anglo-Israelism" By Ralph Orr, from 1996. Here is a quote to whet the appetite:

"How did Mr. Armstrong come to believe in Anglo-Israelism? One possible source is G.G. Rupert, a Sabbath-keeper in Oklahoma. In 1915 Rupert convinced A.N. Dugger to allow him to advertise his book The Yellow Peril in The Bible Advocate. Thus it is possible that Herbert Armstrong could have come across Rupert's book in back issues of the Advocate. However, no evidence exists that proves Rupert to be the source for Mr. Armstrong's Anglo-Israelism. Rupert's Anglo-Israelism was not his Anglo-Israelism.

"However, Herbert Armstrong did (perhaps later) become familiar with Rupert's work. Copies of Rupert publications were among Mr. Armstrong's possessions. Rupert's observance of the biblical festivals might have increased his attractiveness to Herbert Armstrong. Still, an examination of Mr. Armstrong's correspondence for the late 1920s proves that his Anglo-Israelite beliefs came from another direction, which we will now discuss."

This study touches on some great topics, such as how HWA came to believe he had a special calling from God. Wouldja believe, it was because some strange woman arrived at his door and asked him to unload some wood? Sounds like a Monty Python skit to me. Strange women, walking around in towns, distributing wood, is no basis for a church government.

"There was no vision. There was no dream. There was no voice. There was only the woman at the door with an offer for him to stack wood, which he concluded was an answer to prayer. That offer to stack wood kept the Armstrongs from starving and enabled him to continue to write. This was all it took to convince him that he had a unique calling — a God-ordained commission to shout the Third Angel's Message to the world."

This is it, ladies and gentlemen. This is what Armstrongism is based on - wood stacking.

Whenever the topic of HWA's flaws is brought up among his followers, inevitably there is this response: "If King David were alive today, would you reject him for his flaws too?" Answer: if King David were alive today he would be speaking with God via legitimate prophets, with signs and other wonders, and not relying on a hunch and an old woman with wood. If only it were true that he spent hours studying the Bible and praying on his knees and God revealed the truth to him. Yet that isn't so. I can demonstrate quite easily how his theologies grew and changed over the years (remember church government, Pentecost, D&R, etc?). There was no great revelation. It really, truly, incredibly boils down to a woman and a pile of wood. Hundreds of thousands of people call him an apostle because of this.

The most important thing to understanding Armstrongism is British-Isralism. That was what HWA was on about in those formative years. The false doctrine of British-Israelism is key to understanding Herbert Armstrong. It is the main reason the WCG split from the COG7. This study is incredibly informative on many fronts, but especially on how HWA came to accept British-Israelism. I highly recommend it!

One bad thing is that navigating the website is clunky. The WCG needs to revise the site. I think the study used to be in 5 parts, because the links are numbered incorrectly. On the bottom of the second page, after the list of references, is a link to the next section. It says it takes you to part 5. Ignore the incorrect numbering and just click the link. Even the naming of the html pages is totally incorrect.

If it makes things easier, I will link to the three parts here for you.

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

Slandering HWA? I Think Not! - Part 2

2008-12-29T18:49:00.010-05:00

This is a follow-up post to my original post "Slandering HWA? I Think Not!"

The minister responded! I am shocked, to say the least. Here is the correspondence, as promised.

Original message from me to minister:

I recently listened to your message about Slander. I find that in general, your advice was good.

However, I would point out that you have preached it to be true that the Catholic Church is a harlot and the Protestant churches are the daughters of harlots - often calling them all "so called Christians" or some similar thing, insinuating that they do not follow Christ but the deceptions of Satan - and all of this based largely upon unprovable prophetic speculation and the teachings of a proven false prophet. Your accusations are virtually baseless!

You say it is NEVER good to say anything other than what is positive, it is NEVER allowable. You who participate in the accusation and slander of BILLIONS, shall one not be accurate to call you a hypocrite?

Original response from minister to me:

Slander is making untrue charges about others. I don't know where you are coming from with your insinuation that I am a hypocrite or that "my accusations are virtually baseless". I am not making accusations--only teaching the accusations made by God. God throughout the OT indicts Israel as well as all nations for harlotry when they pursue false gods and idolatry. If you have ever studied any history of the Catholic church and all of the groups that came out of the RCC, then you cannot deny that they all practice idolaty. The entire Xmas season is considered harlotry by God. Easter, Lent, etc. are all the continuation of idolatrous practices founded in ancient religious rites. The indictments against the mother of harlots in Revelation are made by the same God from the OT. Jesus' example was the same: He indicted the Pharisees by calling them serpents and a generation of vipers; that was not slander, it was the truth. It is the duty of Christ's ministry to teach what God says; if you don't like that, consult God and tell Him you aren't in agreement with His charge to the ministry to preach the Word. While you're at it ask Him to help you examine your condemnatory, self-righteous attitude because the tenor of your correspondence to me is not a humble one. In fact, I will never again respond to anything you send if the attitude is not different than what you exhibited in this email.

Final reply from me to minister:

I am sorry you were so easily offended by my letter to you. I did not insinuate that you are a hypocrite. I merely pointed out that what I heard you say doesn't match with what I know you say in other places. Is that an invalid topic? I know in the past no minister would have allowed such a question. I thought you were different. I was wrong.

I have studied the history of Catholicism, as well as the history of Armstrongism. I have studied the accusations of Alexander Hislop and found him to be utterly false. Indeed the Catholics are in error, but not any more than you are - only in different ways. You say "the law! the law!" You seem to believe it all is made better by a confession that you have flaws. But it still remains that you fail to keep the whole law. Tell me, when is the last time you made a booth at Tabernacles, as you are commanded to do? I'll wager not once. Or when was the last time you traveled three times in the year to the place where God puts His name, as Deuteronomy 16 commands? No, you only travel once. And these are minor examples! The parts of the law you do teach are twisted and cherry picked in favor of making lords of men who rob homes and lead away captive the hearts of God's children into the yoke of bondage. You have failed in more than one portion of the law, yet you disregard your own teachings of the law that only a keeper of it is justified. You charge the entirety of the earth with idolatry, but you overlook your own flawed teachings. You yourself have made a false god of Herbert Armstrong and his cherry picked version of the law as well as his failed prophecies. Name two that have come to pass? Certainly you will not include his prediction of Christ's return in 1936. The very name of Christ is disparaged around the world because of the horrendous damage the "ministry of God" as you call it has caused. And this is not slander, but the horrible truth.

I think I would be wise to cease corresponding with a person whose best answer to a valid question is to vomit more accusation. And then you attempt to place some burden of humility upon me as if you bear none of your own. It is a right proper indicator of the true contents of your heart. I can see plainly that you do not grasp the very New Covenant which you claim to be a minister of. I deeply believe the ministry of God is charged to preach and warn. What I fail to see from you is proof that you are a minister of God. But merely a minister of error, false prophecy, accusation, and hypocrisy. I see a Pharisee.

Good day.

My commentary:

Well, I suppose it was a bit much hoping I could ask an Armstrong minister about hypocrisy. What did I expect? Was he going to think it over? No. He did the typical holier-than-thou maneuver and claimed I wasn't being humble. I've gottent that treatment somewhere before. I once received this gem from the false prophet du jour, Ron Weinland:

"This will be my last attempt to respond, as it is quite evident your mind has been made up on many matters for some time. You are seeking to find fault with me. ... It has been obvious to me that you did not recognize me as your minister. If I am not your minister, I am certainly not your brother. You can't have one -- in this case -- without the other. You don't seem to recognize your true relationship with God. A minister is to teach and instruct God's people in His ways, but when those whom He has called are in judgment of His ministers, then instruction is obviously being rejected. You are in a spirit of bitterness and can't even see it because of your self justification.

"You have placed yourself in the position of the minister -- of the teacher -- you have elevated yourself above what God gave you. Read your letter again. You are now the teacher. Do you really believe that is how God works?

"You even signed your name as a minister of Jesus Christ -- in His service. You have never been ordained to that responsibility. You have truly taken too much on yourself and I do fear for you if you do not repent speedily for such presumptuousness. Do you think you can do this lightly before God and He not correct you mightily for it? ... you have really gone way too far. In addition, it is quite evident from such a response that you are far from having any love for me as a brother, but instead you are in a gall of bitterness and it will eat away at you and consume you if you fail to repent.

"Please don't delude yourself by speaking about Jesus Christ, God and love, and do so in a railing manner with such sarcasm and anger." -end

Notice any glaring similarities? It almost seems as if both letters were written by the same hand. Well, it seems that the whole lot of Armstrong ministers are indeed cut from the same cloth. I am without words to express my grief that so many people are under the sway of these men.

I once held this particular minister in very high esteem. I thought of him as a friend. I defended him often when others attacked him. My heart is torn for him. I will pray for this minister that he doesn't end up like Ron Weinland. He could use your prayers as well.

**A very brief follow-up to this post can be found here: A Funny Little Story. If you're interested.

Slandering HWA? I Think Not!

2008-12-29T12:46:00.009-05:00

Nolo.com defines Defamation as such:

"A false statement that injures someone's reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, or condemnation. If the false statement is published in print or through broadcast media, such as radio or TV, it is called libel. If it is only spoken, it is called slander."

I am somewhat concerned that there is a minister out there who is indirectly accusing people of slander who are attempting to tell the TRUTH about Herbert Armstrong. Not only that, but this minister also commits slander against these people by insinuating they are merely a tool of Satan; a manifestation of Satan's desperation to deceive as many of "God's elect" before his time is up. Accurately, this minister paints Satan as the accuser. Inaccurately, he paints those people who tell the truth about HWA as accusers.

Now, I do not agree with the people who unfairly attack HWA. I am not writing this to throw in my money with genuine slanderers. For what it's worth, I agree with much of the minister's sermon in that he displays slander to be an ungodly act which our Lord finds unacceptable. Conversely, I do wholeheartedly support and agree with those who tell the hidden truths about the kind of person HWA really was and the kinds of things he really did that run contrary to the image of "God's chosen apostle" which he painted for the public to buy.

Am I trying to say that every story out there about Herbert Armstrong's misadventures is true? No. I am certain there are things on the Painful Truth, just for example, that are not exactly truthful. I am also certain that the vast majority of things most certainly are truthful. That is one danger that this particular minister points out - we cannot be certain of the quality of what we read. So that is why I try to stick to things I can prove.

Everyone should be fully aware that Herbert W. Armstrong was a master advertiser and the founder and leader of an organization which looked to him as a holy man and an apostle, but behind the scenes what type of a man he was most certainly did not match the image he portrayed. There is ample evidence for this. The evidence is both primary and secondary. Primary being people who were eye witnesses on the scene. Secondary being people, like myself for example, who were not there but have other evidence to show.

What is the motivation for this? I cannot speak for everyone. I simply will not accept that everyone who put forth information about Herbert Armstrong and the happenings in the Worldwide Church of God and its splinter organizations did so for noble reasons. It is obvious that some people gave information out of hurt or spite. But that is most certainly not the case in the majority of instances. Most of the people that I have read or spoken to have come across to me as being desperate to get this information to the public as a warning. And they did so out of concern for the people who are being deceived! In the majority of instances, the motivation IS noble.

Does wrong motivation equal false accusation, though? Certainly not! People turn state's evidence all the time. In order to save their own skins they sell out their friends and break sworn confidence. Is that noble? No! There is no honor among thieves. However does that mean their testimony is false? No! The testimony itself is separate from the motivation. Without this sort of dishonorable testimony, several horrible characters could never have been brought to justice. But the real question remains - is the information accurate? If so, then by the very definition it was not slander. And such, even those who put forth information about Herbert Armstrong with less than honorable motivation must not themselves be falsely accused of slander! Be careful, you who cry "slander!", lest you yourself become hypocrites!

The minister in question says, "Never circulate a negative report." Generally speaking, this is good advice. He says slander and accusation are "verbal murder" and "weapons of destruction". Genuine slander and false accusation are indeed such!

Let me say this, however, when the accusation is a revelation of the honest truth, to save the people who are in clear and present danger, then what sort of nonsense is this sort of teaching?? To say "never" makes this advice unstable!

There is a great gulf of difference between gossip and warning someone about danger. If you knew that there is a serial rapist dating your friend, would you not inform them that they are in danger from a serial rapist - thus bringing a negative report? Or if there were a known child molester living in the neighborhood of your friends, would you not warn them - thus bringing a negative report?

Is it not hypocritical that this minister warns of gossip and slander, while he himself accuses the Pope of being the Second Beast of Revelation 13 and the entire Catholic Church of being the Great Harlot of Revelation 17, and the entire Protestant community as being daughters of harlots?? I advise this minister should first pull the beam out of his own eye (MATT. 7: 3)!

Take this warning from Ezekiel, for example:

(EZE. 33: 1-6) 1 Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, speak to the children of your people, and say to them: ‘When I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, 3 when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’

When a person sees a danger like a false prophet or a false minister, it is his obligation to warn people of it. Motivated by this very verse, this minister follows his mentor into a flood of unfounded defamation against Christianity. And based on what? Proof? No! Based on private speculation about prophecy. It is the stated motivation of the Armstrongite churches that they must warn the world! And indeed, their accusations are generally false. "The Pope could lead the future Beast." But perhaps not! We don't know that for a fact. What is a fact is that Armstrong has already done terrible things in the past, and those things have been covered up. However, when someone speaks the truth about Herbert Armstrong, and reveals the danger to those deceived by his ministers, then all of a sudden we hear "Slander! Slander!"

(JER. 6: 17) Also, I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not listen.’

Of course they won't listen. This minister makes a distinction between "the world" [a derogatory term implying anyone who is not of Armstrong is of Satan], and "the brethren" [loaded language implying that association with Armstrong equates to favoritism from God]. And what is the real demarcation? That Armstrong was an apostle and we all must follow his cherry-picked version of the law. Accept that and you're in. See through it, and you're a slanderer.

So, it's OK to say bad things about "the world", but not "the brethren". So, SOMETIMES "slander" is more OK, and sometimes it's not. How is this not hypocrisy? How is this not a dual standard? How is this not ungodly? So, this minister looks down on people because they are not of his group, while he preaches to us to speak evil of no one. The Almighty God does not respect persons (ROM. 2: 11). There is no double standard with God. Does this minister think somehow that his own slander and accusation and verbal murder will get past God (PSA. 101: 5)? Remove the plank from your own eye and then, by the grace of God, perhaps you will see!

This minister gives himself an out and says, "criticize those people who are lying." Very good, then. Finally, we have come to an agreement. When I see Herbert Armstrong lying, I will criticize. This minister says "we must be careful of what we allow into our minds". YES! And the works of Herbert Armstrong are not exempt from that!

I will give you two undeniable truths about Herbert Armstrong:

1) He was a false prophet! Read: The Plain Error -or- Prophecy for Fear and Control

2) He was a teacher of falsehoods! Read: COG Theological Ancestry -or- The Babylon Connection

And those are just a couple of selections from my meager blog! There are the plethora of other former Armstrongist blogs out there who have much more information than I do. Or, if you really want a site to behold, go to the Exit Support Network and read up. Listed there are many primary sources of information from first-hand witnesses of the upper echelon of Worldwide.

Is it slander to point out truths? Here is some more interesting slander from the Exit Support Network's article entitled "The Rich Apostle":

"Herbert Armstrong had five luxurious homes filled with art treasurers. (Post-Gazette, Thurs., Nov. 24, 1977, "Worldwide Church of God Amasses Wealth Amid Rising Criticism). His 1980 income tax returns showed that he gave himself and his wife Ramona an income of $387,755, paid federal taxes of $147,545, and deducted only $37,427 (or just over 9.5 percent) as church contributions. His accountant, Jack Kessler, said HWA gave himself a salary of $500,000 per year in 1981. (Jack Kessler 1981 Letter to Worldwide Church of God Board of Directors). HWA had a number of Swiss bank accounts, many foreign bank accounts, owned considerable wealth and had all his living expenses paid for by the church. (AR#26, October 1983)

"HWA's opulent Ambassador Auditorium was built for $11 million in 1974. (LA Times, January 17, 1986) "

"By the mouth of two or three witnesses..." (MATT. 18: 16) it says. Well, please allow me to point out that we have not just one, or two, or three, or ten, or fifty. There are hundreds of people who are primary and secondary witness to the destructive teachings and the deceptions of Herbert Armstrong!!

I cannot speak for everyone. This blog is not a matter of returning evil for evil. I mean that honestly! This blog is a case of warning. This blog is a case of trying to help people get away from that system of abuse. And if those who hear this warning do not heed it, then their blood is on their own heads, as they say. For those of you who are still in the COGs, you who think you needed to sound the warning and you who thought you had no need for a warning of your own, please listen to clear ringing of the truth!

So, this minister who gets up on his bully pulpit and reviles unfairly, would like people to believe all sorts of negative things about those who tell the truth about Herbert Armstrong and his ministers, all the while accuses and slanders BILLIONS of Christians, let him take his own medicine.

I sent him an email and asked him if that doesn't seem hypocritical to him. I don't expect a reply to that. (I'll let you know if I ever do get a response.)

**Well, guess what! He DID respond! Read it here.

(LUKE 6: 22) Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake.

This minister isn't just lashing out at me. I'm small fish. But for what it's worth, I won't let it bother me any more than what has motivated me to write this post. I forgive him. Armstrong has no hold on me any longer. Let them rage that their tithe income is reduced. I know there's joy in heaven for my having left (LUKE 15: 7)! And I know that same joy awaits all who see through Armstrong's lies and by the grace of God step out of his yoke of bondage and into the New Covenant!

What Is A Biblical Tithe?

2008-12-27T23:59:00.011-05:00

If one strives to keep the law, one had better familiarize one's self with it. We must look into the law and see what was tithe-worthy and what was not. Let's not forget the story of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu who offered profane fire on God's altar and were killed (LEV. 10). After all, God could not possibly want an offering of anything except what He commands... right?

(LEV. 27: 30, 32) 30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’s.

32 And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the LORD.

(DEU. 14: 22-23) 22 You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. 23 And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.

(NEH. 13: 5, 12) 5 the tithes of grain, the new wine and oil, which were commanded to be given to the Levites and singers and gatekeepers

12 Then all Judah brought the tithe of the grain and the new wine and the oil to the storehouse.

(DEU. 14: 28) At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates.

(DEU. 26: 1-2, 10) 1 And it shall be, when you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and you possess it and dwell in it, 2 that you shall take some of the first of all the produce of the ground

10 and now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land which you, O LORD, have given me.’

This next verse is used by Armstrong to say that the tithe was of everything. It uses the phrase “tithe of everything”, but to say 'tithes were of everything and therefore they were of cash' is contradictory not only to the rest of the Bible but contradictory to the very verse where the phrase exists. The verse explicitly lists what tithes were brought in, then uses the word “everything” in reference to those things – not every possible thing in Israel. Top not come down!

(II CHR. 31: 5) As soon as the commandment was circulated, the children of Israel brought in abundance the firstfruits of grain and wine, oil and honey, and of all the produce of the field; and they brought in abundantly the tithe of everything.

Where were the tithes taken from? The farming communities!

(NEH. 10: 35-37) 35 And we made ordinances to bring the firstfruits of our ground and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, to the house of the LORD; 36 to bring the firstborn of our sons and our cattle, as it is written in the Law, and the firstborn of our herds and our flocks, to the house of our God, to the priests who minister in the house of our God; 37 to bring the firstfruits of our dough, our offerings, the fruit from all kinds of trees, the new wine and oil, to the priests, to the storerooms of the house of our God; and to bring the tithes of our land to the Levites, for the Levites should receive the tithes in all our farming communities.

So, it is clear that tithes were specifically of the garden, the field, the orchard, and the flock. No mention of fish nor money. The tithe was not of money. This is evident in that the second tithe only was allowed to be exchanged for money (DEU. 14: 24-25). Anyone who says differently doesn't have a Biblical leg to stand on here.

Legion are the men who hope if they can prove that if God owns everything then money can be tithed on. This is absolutely false. God indeed owns everything... EVERYTHING! No Christian denies that. He owns athlete's foot fungus. He owns the vast methane wastes of the gas giant planets. He owns all that is beautiful and priceless. He owns the cold vacuum of space. He even owns those crumbs of toast at the bottom of your toaster. Simply proving that God owns all things does nothing for the tithing argument. Yes, the silver and gold are His (HAG. 2: 8). The Lord says in Psalms 50: 10-11, “10 For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. 11 I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are Mine.” And again “For the world is Mine, and all its fullness” (v 12). Yes, indeed everything that has been created is His (JOHN 1: 2). But that does nothing for the tithe argument.

In order to look at what is titheable, we must not look at what God owns, but what He and He alone says is to be tithed upon, and TO WHOM! The simple and undeniable fact here is that God tells us in the verses I've collected for you at the beginning of this post what He commands will be tithed upon, and no man has the authority to expand upon or decline from that. In a chapter which specifically lays out the tithe laws, God also says “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” (DEU. 12: 32)

Those who misunderstand the tithe law look around at the grand ministries they have raised up and say “If tithing were only limited to agricultural produce, then preachers could not be sent out.” According to whom? The gospel that God sends out is His power to us (ROM. 1: 16), and if you are called to take that gospel where God desires it to be sent, then He Himself will see it is accomplished (ROM. 4: 21; I COR. 4: 12; HEB. 1: 3; II PET. 1: 3). God doesn't need the tithe laws to be messed around with in order to do what He purposes. God doesn't need Herbert Armstrong or any man besides to figure out how to finance the New Covenant! Remember Luke 19: 40, where Jesus said “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.”

When it is argued that freewill giving is not acceptable to God in the New Testament, and the example of Cain's offering is brought up to illustrate the point, everyone should take a lesson in what exactly Cain did. Cain was making a burnt offering, which we must not do. Cain was indeed bringing what the Bible tells us time and time again that God finds acceptable to offer: produce of the ground. However, Cain brought a defiled offering. Genesis 4: 7 tells us Cain did not do well in his offering. Was that simply because Cain “brought whatever he wanted to God”? NO! What was done was done for a reason, and four our edification.

Read this excerpt from my post about The Genesis Prophecies:

Everyone knows that Genesis 3: 15 is a prophecy of Christ. In Genesis 4: 1-8 is the story of Cain and Abel. Most people think this is a great little story, but it is much more - it is a prophecy too! With all due respect to the Jews, for whom I have great respect, Cain, the older brother, represents the Jewish Old Covenant church, and Abel, the younger brother, represents the Christian New Covenant Church (including the Messianic Jews, IMHO). Cain was a farmer, as Israel was an agrarian nation; Abel was a shepherd, as Christ is the Lamb of God (JOHN 1: 29) and the Great Shepherd (HEB. 13: 20). Cain's sacrifice was perfectly fine in God's eyes but was not accepted because of faithlessness, as the Jews were not accepted because of their faithlessness; Abel's sacrifice was accepted through faith (HEB. 11: 14), as the Christians are accepted through faith. Cain was jealous of Abel's blessings and set out to kill him, just as the Jews immediately set out to persecute and kill the Christians.

Now, take a very grave lesson from this. Those who say they can determine for themselves what the tithe laws say, those who think they must solve some problem in God's laws by taking the initiative and altering the law as they see fit, those who say they are modern Levites and ignore the plain words of the Bible, those who argue the Pharisees whom Christ cast out of the priesthood are our best example for tithe law – ALL skate on thin ice, dangerously close to hypocrisy. While they say “don't offer whatever you want”, they must add to and take from the clear law of God in order to offer [read receive] what it is that they want – money! You simply will not find money listed as an titheable item in the scriptures. Money, on the other hand, is a perfectly acceptable freewill offering. All should beware, unless they find themselves attempting to be more righteous than God. If the tithe law says “plants and animals”, then the tithe law is “plants and animals”. End of debate.

Those who demand tithes have used conjecture and human reasoning to conclude that since the nation is no longer primarily a farming community, we must tithe off of other sources. They hope to say, “God owns money, and so you must give some of yours to me.” This isn't what God says. Armstrong was adept at altering the law to suit himself, but no man can change tithe law! If there is a tithe, it must be from only what God selects. This is the problem that you get when you try to force the laws for one agrarian nation in the Old Covenant into a global religion in the New Covenant. It won't work. God foreknew that and prepared – not by adding money to tithe law – but by removing the Levites and the tithe. In their place is an entire way of life which could very much be referred to as “the way of give”. This goes well beyond money. God expanded giving into all things. We can give of money in a New Covenant fashion, we cannot tithe of it. Once again we hear from the tithe commanders “Keep the law! Keep the law!" ...Just not THAT law.

The 1979 Receivership and the Big 3

2008-12-24T01:30:00.013-05:00

I was reading through some of the old Pastor's Reports (later, Pastor General's Reports), I had a hunch that it would be interesting, and I wanted to review what I saw there with you.

Reading those reports reminded me of something. Recently, I saw the CEO's of GM, Ford, and Chrysler appear before Congress, begging for Congress to forcefully extract money from the taxpayers and transfer it to them in return for nothing. Generally, this is called "theft". They can't sell us their cars, so they figure rather than build a car that we will buy, they will simply confiscate our money. I very much enjoyed listening to the Senators rip them up one side and down the other for show. Oh, they'll get the money. But the rub is that those three men flew to D.C. on private jets. This is something HWA often did. Cry and cry about cash shortages, but live like a god on earth. And so he was, in his own mind. That's where I'd like to start.

HWA was the 'god on earth' of the Worldwide Church of God.

Mr. Armstrong has been the spiritual and temporal leader of the Church since its inception

-Mike Blackwell, Pastor's Report, p. 3, Jan. 30, 1979

Not just temporal, but spiritual and temporal!

I am the founder, Pastor General , and spiritual and temporal leader of defendant Worldwide Church of God, Inc. (" Worldwide") . In addition, I am chief executive officer, chairman of the board of directors and chairman of the board of trustees of Worldwide and its two related entities, defendants Ambassador College, Inc. ("Ambassador"), and Ambassador International Cultural Foundation, Inc. ("AICF"); together with Worldwide, Ambassador and ASCF will collectively be referred to herein as "the Church".

The Church, which was originally known as the Radio Church of God, was founded by me in the mid-1930's for the purpose of proclaiming "the Gospel throughout the world as a witness of the coming of the Kingdom of God." Matthew 24:14. I am the appointed Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and, as such, have been both the spiritual and temporal leader of the Church from its inception.

-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor's Report, pp. 28-29, Jan. 8, 1979

JESUS CHRIST chose and appointed me

-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor General's Report, p. 3, Jan. 31, 1980

Of 5 general categories of letters received by Worldwide's Mail Processing Center, number 5 was:

"The writers know that Mr. Armstrong is God's Apostle."

-Richard Rice (Mail Processing Center), p. 4, Feb. 5, 1979

The April 23rd, 1979 Pastor's Report includes some of the most unsettling diatribes on HWA's personal power and authority that I have ever read, and he authored the material himself. He made it perfectly clear, he is the sole head of the church on earth, all plans are planned by him, all decisions are made by him, and there is no number 2.

He was so confident in his authority, he felt he did not have to submit to the authority of the state government.

I will not submit to government's administering the Government of God's Church and Work.

Herbert Armstrong, Pastor's Report, p. 31, Jan. 8, 1979

When they wanted something (usually money) they could be very liberal in Biblical interpretation, for example changing Deuteronomy 16 from speaking of 3 holy days into speaking of 7 holy days, or for another example changing burnt offerings into money offerings. As such, when they wanted to get away with something, they were equally as fast and loose.

Romans 13: 1 says " Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." But notice carefully that it doesn't say "obey" every detail of what the higher powers may tell you to do. Be subject to those higher powers, nevertheless. During Nazi Germany there were laws and programs of the state that you as a Christian would have had to refuse to do. Perhaps you in many cases would have quietly, non-violently disobeyed by omission, being subject to the powers that be and any penalties they might impose.

-Rod Merideth, Pasor's Report, p. 8, March 13, 1979

God help you if you so much as question church policy, but rebellion against the state is no big deal. After all, when the state wants HWA's ill-gotten gains, it's tantamount to Hitler's Nazi Germany! And why not? When HWA wanted your hard-earned gains, it was tantamount to the end of God's work on earth!

Therefore, as the appointed Apostle of Jesus Christ, I commanded Messrs. Raymond McNair, Roderick Meredith, Ellis LaRavia, Ralph Helge, and Stanley R. Rader, in Christ 's name, to do everything possible to protect the Church's operations under me

Herbert Armstrong, Pastor's Report, p. 31, Jan. 8, 1979

He appointed those men to protect his physical organization, all the while telling the lay members that the physical organization was not important. "The church is spiritual!" he said. This is double-speak, of course. Often one thing was said in one place, and another thing in another place. It depended on what outcome was desired. Take this next statement for example:

Although Armstrong did not advise followers to break the law, he stressed that loyal members of the Worldwide Church would “obey God . . . and fight to protect and honor the very building of God.”

-Russell Chandler, L.A. Times, Jan. 23, 1979

The "very building of God" was Worldwide. HWA fled out of state, to Tucson, Arizona. He left his generals in charge in Pasadena. And when it became convenient, HWA planned to abandon the WCG (the "very building of God") and begin a new organization under the name "Philadelphia Church of God". Not so important after all, I guess. But why abandon it?

When the temporary Receiver (now dismissed) fired me, I was not in California . I continued to RUN THE WORK from Tucson. The Receiver tried for a short time to run the Work, but he was UNABLE! Immediately I had money sent in MY care which was deposited in a corporate account here in Tucson [corporate perhaps, but NOT a WCG account; they were separate. See Pastor's Report, p. 4, April 17, 1979]. He had no control over GOD'S tithes. We funneled funds into Pasadena just in time t o pay God's Church bills and the Receiver was unable to lay his hands on the money--which was his goal.

-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor General's Report, p. 3, Jan. 31, 1980

It is always about the money!! The state of California was interested in taking control of the money. If there's one thing governments love it's money. However, the stated purpose of the receivership was to stop HWA and Stan Rader from stealing it for themselves. It was just as much about the money with HWA as with the state of California. Now HWA put into practice his rebellion against the state; he had his precious tithes diverted to Tucson, and safely out of the hands of the government.

let the brethren know emphatically that Mr. Armstrong has directed (and, for the record, I and all on our P.A.D. team emphatically agree!) that ALL U.S. tithes and offerings be sent to "Herbert W. Armstrong" P. O. Box 431 Tucson, Arizona, 85702"

-Rod Merideth, Pastor General's Report, p. 3, March 5, 1979

As you know, Mr. Armstrong has asked that all donations to the Work be made payable to "Herbert W. Armstrong" and sent to Tucson for processing. However, some are still making their checks out to "Worldwide Church of God" and sending them to Tucson. These "WCG" checks cannot be deposited in Tucson and are forwarded to Pasadena for processing. Any checks of this type will be acknowledged on "Worldwide Church of God" receipts.

All checks should be made payable to "Herbert W. Armstrong" and mailed to Tucson.

-Rod Merideth, Pastor General's Report, p. 4, April 17, 1979

"Headquarters today is in my very small office in Tucson, Arizona.

"Some get the idea that Headquarters is in Pasadena"

-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor's Report, p. 6, April 23, 1979

On Jan. 27, 1979, previous to these announcements, the ministers were forbidden by the state of California to contribute to Herbert Armstrong's new ministry or to allow the diversion of church money to him. Now we see why the loophole to disobey the state had to be created - MONEY!

From the comfort of Tucson, Arizona, outside of California's jurisdiction and in complete safety, HWA said:

‘‘I wonder If people aren’t going to have to go to jail,” he continued, adding: “If we have to suffer the persecution of being thrown in jail, then I’m ready to go. . . if they want to arrest 86-year-old people”

-Russell Chandler, L.A. Times, Jan. 23, 1979

Of course he's going to say that. He was completely safe. He was in utterly no danger of jail. It's easy to talk smack when you know you can't be called out. I could say that I will go to Mars right now and without any helmet, because I'm not afraid! But that's because I know there's absolutely no chance of me being put in that position.

And the beat went on.

I want to ask every one of you to give a sermon within the next couple of weeks encouraging the brethren to do their part in God's Work and to enthusiastically build their zeal toward paying God's tithes to his Work and toward generously and even sacrificially giving the generous offerings that are so needed at this time in the very Work of the Living Christ!

-Rod Merideth, Pastor General's Report, p. 2, March 5, 1979

It wasn't good enough to ask for tithes. A tithe is only 10%. No, HWA needed 3 tithes, a 'tithe of a tithe', 7 holy day offerings, freewill offerings whenever it could be afforded, and still that wasn't enough!

Because of the very tight financial situation we will be in for the next few months, we want to start immediately to implement a fine idea Mr. Richard Rice has submitted. It involves church fund raising projects. We will send you a complete packet on this within a few days, but I would like to ask all of you personally to start NOW to begin planning and perhaps even preliminary organization of fund raising projects in your area as a special emergency crusade to raise monies to be sent to Tucson at the earliest possible date. Get your leading members together, and begin to organize different groups to engage in painting houses, cleaning houses, ironing, mending, etc., washing cars, selling farm produce, artwork, baby sitting, conducting paper drives, yard and garage sales, bake sales, quilting bees, collecting scrap iron, delivering sales papers or advertisements for local firms, etc.

This is one way the members can directly have "a piece of the action" in SERVING God's Work at this time, and yet it will involve very little of their own personal money -- merely time, effort and elbow grease. So please try to catch the vision, fellows, and get your churches enthusiastically involved in these projects as soon as possible.

-Rod Merideth, Pastor's Report, p.1, March 27, 1979

Never mind how having "a piece of the action" in serving God involves living a Godly life, loving one another, and confessing that Jesus is Lord. Never mind that. They didn't understand it. These men were so confused that they thought raising money of all things is the responsibility of every Christian.

At the very same time they were asking ministers and local churches to go without pay (see Pastor's Report, p. 10., March 13, 1979). Yet, exactly like the now infamous CEO's of the "Big Three", they didn't bother to stop their own wastefulness:

God willing, a number of us will be flying out from headquarters to visit many of your areas during the Passover season!

I will be going to Cincinnati for the Passover and then to New York for the last part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Denny Luker will be going to Seattle-Tacoma for the Passover and then to Portland for the last half. Burk McNair will be going to Washington, D.C. for the Passover and then to Charlotte and later Richmond for the last part of the Feast. Gerald Waterhouse will be going to St. Louis for the Passover and then to Nashville for the last half. And Sherwin McMichael will be going to Minneapolis for Passover and then to Kansas City for the last half of the Feast.

-Rod Merideth, Pastor's Report, pp. 2-3, March 27, 1979

Yes. While the church sacrifices and the ministers go without pay, the elite are jet-setting. And if you didn't like all this, should you somehow cut through the layers of secrecy and find out about what was really going on, you would be under strict command to shut up and do as you are told or be disfellowshipped and "marked".

So you listen carefully , and all of you, as you know, are forbidden to associate with, and to eat with, or fellowship with, and if you're really loyal, you're not going out and commiserate with people and say: "Oh well, let's all be the underdog and yak it up and try to judge God's apostle."

-Rod Merideth, Pastor's Report, p. 10, Jan. 8, 1979

This from the same man who wiggled his way out of responsibility to obey the state of California. I say, the same logic applies here.

I will continue to climb into the way-back machine and read these Pastor's Reports. I don't know why. I must be a masochist or something. Maybe I think it's relevant for today since these same games go on as they always had.

Anyway, the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. come to mind, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, [I am] free at last!" ...and I would like those people who are still trapped in Armstrongism to be free with me.

In Memoriam, Samuele Bacchiocchi

2008-12-21T14:42:00.004-05:00

Samuele Bacchiocchi January 29, 1938 - December 20, 2008

"Biblical scholar Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, best known for his teachings on how Sabbath observance shifted toward Sunday worship in much of Christendom, died yesterday at his Michigan home at the age of 70 after a two-year battle with fourth-stage liver cancer."

This summary of his life from WorldNetDaily.

I have some of his books. I still think I will buy a few more. For a man that Herbert Armstrong no doubt believed was a misled heathen, he epitomized to me the qualities of an ideal Sabbath keeper - far beyond anything HWA achieved. Not a shred of contempt for differing opinions. Not an ounce of condemnation. Loved all. Called all Christians his brothers. Allowed into the Pope's most private archives. Researched his opinion and stayed fast to what he believed, but based on faith and a deep desire to learn the truth. This was a true Christian.

Whether or not you (or I) agree with him, I feel he more than deserves respect.

God rest his soul and comfort his family in their time of loss.

Debunking Zeitgeist Mythology

2008-12-18T13:26:00.005-05:00

I stumbled across a website today, completely without looking for it. It is called "The Debunking of Zeitgeist Mythology" the subtitle is "A Response to the Anti-Christian Movie 'Zeitgeist'". Seems to me the author is "R. Christopher".

If you haven't seen Zeitgeist - part 1, then you probably have no idea what I'm talking about and you might as well skip this post entirely. So far as I understand, part 1 was removed from the latest Zeitgeist movie anyhow, and only exists in old copies.

To fill you in, there was a movie made some time ago called "Zeitgeist" and it was in 3 parts. The first part was supposedly supressed information about the "real" history of Judeo/Christianity (mostly Christianity). The first part I could have done without, but the other two parts - about debt, money, and how our economy really works - were pretty interesting in the light of how they matched with another movie I've watched entitled "Money As Debt".

"R. Christopher" disagreed with part 1, and did his own research. The linked site is his response.

I'm not endorsing either side. They exist. I've seen them. You probably have too. I'm not going to comment on what I thought about R. Christopher's review, either. It's better that I let you make up your own mind. I have my opinion. They're free. Go get one of your own (that adds the value to the free item).

;)

God Is Love

2008-12-17T12:50:00.010-05:00

To all my friends who have comforted me, and all those who have found any comfort here:

“The LORD bless you and keep you;

“The LORD make His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you;

“The LORD lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.”

(NUM. 6: 24-26)

Next week is Christmas 2008. I have been out of Armstrongism for about 4 months. I suppose this is as good a time of year as any to do some introspection. I don't personally keep Christmas (but I no longer fear it). Perhaps it's the years of indoctrination speaking. Or maybe I *gulp* agree with Armstrong on the origins of the day and it really does bother me. If my conscience is bothered by something, then I shouldn't do it. I know that in the COG7, Christmas is frowned upon. I support them in every way. God bless them and prosper them. But I will have my own relationship with my Savior, thank you. (Nor have they ever tried to dictate to me. It's really not like Armstrongism there!)

Even so, when in Rome...

I was reading some of the other former Armstrong blogs and some of my older material. I came across some of the stuff my new friends wrote about me and this blog back when I first left my independent COG. They were overwhelmingly supportive. They didn't even know who I was. Nor did they care. They just wanted me to feel welcomed and supported.

For all of those whom God loves in truth who are still in the COGs (desiring to find Christ but you don't know where or how), I know because I used to do this myself, you call only those in the COGs "brethren". And why? Because they share a bond with you - though many of them wouldn't give you the time of day. When you leave, they will turn their backs on you too. I can tell you that I still love my old COG associates. I've learned a great deal since I left. One of the first things I learned was that my "brethren" aren't just in the COGs.

(MARK. 9: 38-41) 38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our side. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward."

I wasn't exactly one of the former Armstrong bloggers, yet these people to whom I was a stranger gave me more than a cup of cold water. They refreshed my heart with their kindness and sympathy and support. They saw that I was trying, and that was good enough. Jesus is clear that He will repay them for their kindness, and that reward is sure. But take this lesson - Jesus was kind to those who weren't following Him; yet many in the COG's forbid even prayer for those who aren't in the COGs.

I once got into a most literal debate about whether or not people in the COGs are to ask others to pray for those outside "the church". PRAY!! Not lift a finger, not donate, not even "be warmed and filled". Just ask God for help. There was a man who clearly took the stand that most definitely one must not ask another to pray for someone outside the COGs.

He said, "Is it appropriate to broadcast special prayer requests to the entire church for any or all unconverted friends, acquaintances, neighbors, or relatives. I still say it is not."

Well, that's a fine imitation of Christ, THE Council for the Defense, THE Savior of all mankind, THE One who died for even His enemies, THE One to whom they should be pointing people both by word and by deed. This man would apparently love his dog who can't even speak the name of Christ more than a stranger. Good thing this man said each are allowed to pray privately! Still, it was so disturbing that I haven't contributed to that group's conversation in any depth since. This is a "Christian" group, mind you. "Followers" of Christ. But, as we can see in Mark 9, Jesus was not against those that weren't in His group.

(I JOHN 4: 20) If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

(JAS. 4: 8-9) 8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

I think it odd that on one hand we have people who couldn't tell me from Adam yet they welcomed me in and were exceedingly kind to me. On the other hand, I have people who knew me from my youth who don't talk to me anymore; people who were as close as brothers who won't talk to me anymore; people who won't even so much as ask their fellows to pray for 'outsiders' - least of all those who have left to follow Christ. Yet one is generous and kind as Christ was, while the other calls themselves the sole chosen people of Christ while acting as if no one else has value.

I have to say, if it's at all true that "by their fruits you shall know them" (MATT. 7: 16), I am not too keen on the fruits of the COGs. Search as I may, I could not find 'following the Old Covenant law' listed among the fruit of the Spirit (GAL. 5: 22-23). Paul tells us in I Corinthians 13 that if we have prophecy and understand all mysteries and possess all knowledge yet we do not have love then we have nothing. Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, not based on who followed Moses in the strictest fashion, but by who showed acts of love (MATT. 25: 31-46). While Jesus stood and watched the Pharisee, strict in keeping the law, praise himself in prayer to God for how he was God's chosen, Christ chose to praise the tax collector who saw himself for what he was and prayed to God for mercy (LUKE 18: 9-14). It says that out of the heart of a Christian there will flow rivers of living water, speaking of the Spirit (JOHN 7: 38-39). Where is even the glass of cool water from these who call themselves "God's elect"? In Matthew 21: 28-32, Jesus tells of a son who did not want to do his father's will but did it anyway, then another son who said he would do his father's will but never actually did. Jesus concludes "Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you" (MATT 21: 31).

Is this what you want? Is this the religion you would choose? To make your boast in the law while neglecting the weightier matters of the law, just as the Pharisee did (MATT. 23: 23)? Take great care in how you think of yourself in relation to God, calling yourself 'God's chosen'. Christ concluded, "for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (LUKE 18: 14)

(I JOHN 3: 18) My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

(I JOHN 4: 11) Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

And where would any person get the idea that Christ is "us vs. them", or loves only those who love Him? Did your "minister" misquote I John 2: 15 to you? I tell you the truth, he did so because he wanted to make an income of you! While Christ died to reconcile man to God and tear down the partitions that separate, they work to build up partitions again and cordon off those who will pay them tithes from those who will not. Why heed him, then? Why do you still entertain the idea that the COG is God's and all else is the unclean world? Did they not also read to you Matthew 5?

(MATT. 5: 43-47) 43 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father 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. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?

And who did Jesus say were His brothers?

(MATT. 12: 46-50) 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

And what is the will of God?

(I JOHN 3: 11) For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another

(I JOHN 4: 21) And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

Am I saying this to accuse you? No. Do you feel accused? I don't intend that. I hope that perhaps you feel pricked in the heart, but not accused. We know who the Accuser is - and who the just Judge is. But use your own judgment; look at the fruit and decide for yourself which did the will of God and which did not. Don't I say often that God loves you? And I believe that! He died for you! I say what I say here to make a contrast and to pray that you allow yourself to SEE the difference in the New and the Old Covenants. There is a great difference, and thank God there's a difference! Paul said the Old was the "ministry of death" (II COR. 3: 7) and the "ministry of condemnation", but the New is the "ministry of righteousness" (II COR. 3: 9). So I don't condemn you. Not in what I write nor in my heart. In fact, I deeply desire for you to be where I am and feel the joy that I feel. This entire blog is for you! To help you! There's a love and a joy waiting for you that I never felt while I was in the faith of Armstrong. I want you to have this. I want you to finally be confident that your salvation is definite and sure. I want to seee you follow Christ and not men. I want you to step into the New Covenant! To see you freed, that is my 'glad tidings of joy'. God bless you today and always.

Don't ever forget this:

(I JOHN 4: 16) God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.

Mercy triumphs over judgment, and the greatest of things is love!

Clean and Unclean Wordstudy

2008-12-15T16:19:00.008-05:00

Mickey asked a while ago:

"I wonder, though only if you have the time and inclination (or anyone with a bit of skill for that matter), if you would present a review of the usage of the Greek in these scriptures respecting the words "common" and "unclean". The reason I ask is that someone at UCG gave a recent sermonette online (yes, I was silly enough to listen in - what can I say but curiousity) and presented his argument from the Greek usage of those words."

Sure! ...but I don't know what level you would like someone to go into. I'll go the simple route, then. If anyone is interested in doing their own wordstudies, here is a nice howto from docstoc.com. I really do suggest you read through it if you're not very familiar with how to use a Strong's Concordance. I'll give you some really important info to keep in mind. In Strong's, this symbol ": -" (minus the quotes) separates the definition of the word from the translation of the word. The definition is what the word means, the translations are words the author thinks fit it well. Don't think that just because there is a transliteration, that it is a really good substitute for the word. Like a thesaurus, not all words really fit.

I would guess, Mickey, that this person you heard basically opened the Strong's Concordance and tried to become an armchair linguist. I would about guarantee his goal was not to understand the Bible, but to get the Bible to say what he wanted. Time and time again I've seen the COGs wallop the truth with a creative application of information from Strong's. Ron Weinland uses it often to try and transform Jesus into a created being. Keep in mind that the definition of 'clean' will be what it is, no matter what, and 'unclean' will be what it is. The question is - does the entirety of the evidence in the New Testament support or reject the keeping of food laws? I believe the answer is a resounding 'no'.

I would like to bring up what a commenter named Purple Hymnal reminded us of a while back:

"In the interest of complete balance, I quote Wikipedia on Strong's Concordance:"

"Strong's Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool. The use of Strong's numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written.

"Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context. The use of Strong's numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds. Many scholarly Greek and Hebrew Lexicons (e.g., Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Dictionary, and Vine's Bible Dictionary) also use Strong's numbers for cross-referencing, encouraging hermeneutical approaches to study."

I'm not knocking Strong's Concordance. It's great! But these words are true. So take what I'm about to do with a grain of salt, because I'm about to list some words and their entries from Strong's. I will also link to some Lexicons to help round them out. These are some important words in regards to the meats topic.

Old Testament

CLEAN

[Strong’s 2889, Heb. Tahor, adj., from 2891]: pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial, or moral sense):- clean, fair, pure (-ness).

[Strong’s 2891, Heb. Taher]: to be bright, i.e. (by implication) to be pure (physically sound,

clear, unadulterated; in Leviticus uncontaminated; morally innocent or holy): be (to make,

make one’s self, pronounce) clean, cleanse (self), purge, purify (-ier, self).

(LEV. 11: 47)

New Testament

CLEAN

[Strong’s 2513, Gr. Katharos, adj.]: clean (literally or figuratively): - clean, clear, pure.

(ROM. 14: 20)

UNCLEAN

[Strong’s 169, Gr. Akathartos, adj.]: impure (ceremonially, morally [lewd], or specifically [demonic]): - foul, unclean.

(ACTS 10: 14 & 28; ACTS 11: 8; II COR. 6: 17; EPH 5: 5)

CLEANSED

[Strong’s 2511, Gr. Katharizo, verb]: to cleanse (literally or figuratively): - (make) clean (-se), purge, purify.

(ACTS 10: 15)

COMMON (also Unclean in ROM 14: 14)

[Strong’s 2839, Gr. Koinos, adj.] common, that is, (literally) shared by all or several, or (ceremonially) profane: - common, defiled, unclean, unholy.

(MARK 7: 2; ACTS 10: 14 & 28; ACTS 11: 8; ROM. 14: 14)

COMMON (also Defile in Matt. 15 and Mark 7)

[Strong’s 2840, Gr. Koinoo, verb]: to make (or consider) profane (ceremonially): - call common, defile, pollute, unclean.

(MATT. 15: 11 & 18 & 20; MARK 7: 15 & 18 & 20 & 23; ACTS 10: 15; ACTS 11: 9)

So, really all we have is two Greek adjectives:

1) Katharos

also see Biblestudytools.net for the Greek New Testament Lexicon entry for Katharos

2) Koinos

also see Biblestudytools.net for the Greek New Testament Lexicon entry for Koinos

The other words I listed are either the negative or a verb form of these.

This should go a small ways to answering your question. Correct usage and meaning are very difficult to grasp from Strong's. I've seen false prophets twist Strong's a thousand ways from Sunday and generate all forms of distortion from it. But if we can manage to get the agenda out of the way, it's going to come out better.

Now for my typical pontification.

Part of the idea of cleanliness that absolutely must be grasped, but is not by Armstrongism for some unknowable reason, is that the Jews were given the idea of ceremonial cleanliness (and uncleanliness) in order to separate them from the Gentiles, and to be a lesson to them on distinguishing holy from unholy. Meats were a big part of this separation (there were other separators, like the prohibition on intermarriage). Now, in the New Covenant, those partitions must by necessity be taken out of the way. Even the veil to the Holy of Holies is torn in two. Jesus Christ made a reconciliation. If man is not separated from God, how can we separate man from man? Christ fulfilled every last portion of ceremonial cleanliness. It is done. Meats are not a health issue, as Armstrong claimed. Never are they associated with health. I admit that at the time there were health benefits, but that does not make a thing spiritual; this is no different than circumcision. These physical shadows simply have no place in the New Covenant other than as an example to help us wrap our minds around the spiritual reality. What separates now is the presence of the Spirit. Armstrong tries to grasp this, but he refused to accept the shadow is not equal to the substance.

The number one argument I've heard from my former association is "the Lord changes not". This is an easy out, of course. Are we to think the Word did not change from God to man to dead to God? Of course He changed! It is the essence of the Lord - His goodness and mercy - that 'changes not', or else we would be destroyed. His requirements for us do change. The ceremonial laws are a great example. They were instituted, kept valid for over a thousand years, fulfilled, and left in the past where they served their purpose. While Armstrong loved to say 'the Lord changes not' in order to promote legalism, he overlooked that if 'the Lord changes not' actually applied to the law, then they wouldn't have been instituted in the first place.

What I noticed is by far these words for unclean and common appear in reference to demons. That should be a good example of what unclean is. Clean, on the other hand, is the state we find ourselves in. We are not sinless, just under grace. We are cleansed by the blood of Christ that takes away our sins. Certainly the blood does not make us perfect, or what would be the point of this life? We still need to grow and build character. Meanwhile, Jesus takes on our sins and credits us His righteousness for our faith. In Jesus we are cleansed.

The Babylon Connection

2008-12-12T00:42:00.015-05:00

I have finished reading “The Babylon Connection” by Ralph Woodrow, and I wish to share my thoughts on it with you, if you will bear with me.

“The Babylon Connection” is 9 chapters, 119 pages, of very easy to read information countering Alexander Hislop and his book “The Two Babylons”. This is no deep scholarly work given to verbosity and headiness. Even though there was an under-tone of sarcasm, I still found the information to be more than valuable.

If you are unfamiliar with Alexander Hislop’s book (and I don’t know how you could possibly not be familiar with it) I will sum it up for you: the Catholic Church is the biblical entity called ‘Babylon the Great’,the Pope is the Antichrist, Protestants are harlots, and all of the traditions of the churches come from ancient Babylon. In fact, the subtitle of Hislop’s book is “The Papal worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and his wife.”
And this is a pillar in the theology of Herbert Armstrong, right next to British-Israelism.

Woodrow was once a firm believer in Hislop and probably his greatest proponent. He had written a book based on Hislop’s, entitled “Babylonian Mystery Religion”. After being challenged by one Mr. Scott Klemm, Woodrow began to research and understand the flawed nature of how Hislop came to his conclusions. Woodrow wrote “The Babylon Connection” in response to what he had learned. He points out the many flaws, contradictions, errors, and even lies which Hislop left strewn about in his book. Woodrow’s point in writing the book was not to prove or disprove the claim that the Catholic Church had absorbed many pagan practices. His point was that Hislop’s research was so entirely farcical that it could in no way be trusted. I think Woodrow was quite convincing towards this goal.

What it comes down to is that Hislop took ancient myths from around the world, or even artistic renderings of mythical figures, distorted the information to his liking, and then attributed it to Nimrod… oh, and Semiramis… and Cain, Noah, Adam, Satan, and a host of other people. For example, on pages 7 through 9, Woodrow lists FIFTY NINE separate mythological, Biblical, and historical figures that Hislop claims are other names for Nimrod. If taking three pages to list the various identities of Nimrod isn’t fantastical enough for you, Hislop simultaneously attributes those very same identities to other people.

One example is in that Hislop in various pages of his book referred to Semiramis as being Nimrod’s wife, and again his daughter, and again his mother, and again that Nimrod had two mothers, and again nine mothers. And this is history? Woodrow counters with evidence that Semiramis and Nimrod did not even live in the same century together!

Another example would be this quote from page 21 of Woodrow’s book:

“Hislop says Nimrod was the ‘Father of the gods’; Cush, Nimrod’s father, was the ‘Father of the gods’; Kronos was the ‘Father of the gods’ – all of these statements being found on page 32 [of The Two Babylons]! On page 277 he says Pluto, the god of Hell, was the ‘Father of the gods’. On page 164 he says Seb was the ‘Father of the gods.’ On page 27 he says Vulcan was the ‘Father of the gods.’ On page 299 he says Saturn was the ‘Father of the gods,’ who ‘was in one aspect just our first parent Adam!’ Does any of this make sense?”

I would have to conclude no!

Let’s see… what else doesn’t make sense? Woodrow shows Hislop to be false when states the Catholic traditions were begun by Nimrod and Semiramis. Remember, Hislop claims almost all Catholic traditions started in ancient Babylon – including Christmas, Easter, steeples, the fish symbol, candles, relics, a round communion wafer (emphasis on the round), halos, confession, a mother and child, a trinity, the bright clothes of the Pope, the dark vestments of the priesthood, and a whole host of other such things. Not only that, but the very rites of Christianity itself Hislop attributes to Nimrod - including anointing with oil, baptism for the remission of sins, a suffering savior, and the cross.

Woodrow quotes an article from ‘The Saturday Review’ printed September 17th, 1859. This article speaks about Hislop’s book. I found it so compelling, I would like to quote it here.

“In the first place, his whole superstructure is raised upon nothing. Our earliest authority for the history of Semiramis wrote about the commencement of the Christian era, and the historian from whom he drew his information lived from fifteen hundred to two thousand years after the date Which Mr. Hislop assigns to the great Assyrian Queen. The most lying legend which the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now the ground of a charge against it.
”Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the assumption that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblances in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed for the natural working of the human mind.
“Thirdly, Mr. Hislop’s method of reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third-rate historians [sic], groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted…into something totally different.
“Fourthly, Mr. Hislop’s argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system…
“We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable.”

Indeed! Couldn’t have said it better myself. Now, if only the COGs would read this!! I lost track of how many times Hislop was quoted in the Living Church of God’s material which they sent me.

Speaking of “etymological torturing”, one thing Herbert Armstrong was well known for is completely bogus word etymology. Take a word, find something else that sounds similar – no matter where the word is from – and draw a conclusion. Voila! Instant etymology. We are all familiar with how Armstrong tried to link the Pope to the word “Lateinos” and thus the number 666. In the final paragraphs of page 2 from the February 1938 Plain Truth magazine, under the section heading “Was Mussolini Reared By A Witch?”, Herbert Armstrong made the following comment, “His title, ‘Il Duce’, is derived from the Saxon word ‘duce,’ meaning ‘DEMON.’” What garbage! I'm calling this. “Il Duce” actually means “the Commander”, and it is taken from the Latin work “ducem”, from which we get the word Duke.

Deceptive etymology is an honored tradition of Armstrongism. Herman Hoeh was a master at this kind of twisted nonsense. If anyone could excel Hislop, it would be Hoeh. Also, I once personally heard Steven M. Collins claim the Biblical “Javan” is in fact “Japan”; and he based his claim almost entirely on the sound of the words. Never mind “Japan” and “Japanese” are American words. The Japanese call themselves Nahon-jin, they speak Nahon-go, and they are from the land of Nippon - which sounds nothing like Javan. Biblical Javan is associated with Greece by most Biblical scholars. Woodrow points out how Hislop does this sort of thing time and time again.

To make a long story short, why does it even concern me? Well, because Herbert Armstrong so adamantly fed his church Hislop’s swill. He raised it nearly to par with scripture. Not only that, but many splinter groups (though not all, to their credit) continue the tradition – decades after Hislop was proven to be wholly unreliable. As I mentioned before, I have recently received booklets from COGs that all but base their whole argument on Hislop’s folly. If it were just Hislop, that would be one thing. But his material in the hands of Herbert Armstrong makes this stuff dangerous.

Did I fail to mention it is entirely based upon this abject nonsense that the COGs foment an unbroken history of condemnation against the entirety of mainstream Christianity? True!
Before HWA got sucked into Hislop's lies he used to praise Luther and Calvin as messengers from God.
Now they call the Pope the Antichrist for crying out loud! They claim he is destined to burn in Gehenna. They do everything they can to tie the office to the numbers 666. They claim the Protestant churches are the harlot daughter churches of Babylon the Great Harlot in Rome, and Christ does not listen to their prayers. Rarely if ever do they use the term “Christian” when relating to anyone but themselves, preferring the derogatory term “so-called Christians”.
And why debase several billion people against the clear teachings of the New Testament? Hislop.

I used to believe this stuff. I used to say these terrible things. That is why I feel it necessary to write this. God forgive me. My fellow Christians forgive me. I was deceived!

And kudos to Ralph Woodrow for his book. You can get one for $8 on Amazon.com.

I Corinthians 8 and 10

2008-12-10T22:42:00.007-05:00

This is another post on the subject of clean/unclean meats in the New Covenant. The more I read the Bible for myself, without the 'guidance' (read 'control') of Armstrong's ministers, the more I see that HWA was very much wrong. I would like to look at select verses from I Corinthians 8 & 10 because these chapters always appear in COG booklets. How do they compare to what I had always thought while I was attending a COG?

Paul lays out his teachings a little more plainly in the eighth chapter of First Corinthians than he did in Romans 14.

(I COR. 8: 4-6) 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Paul makes it clear that the food is nothing. The point isn’t to focus on eating foods offered to idols, because eating the food is nothing at all, because the idol is nothing at all. It is all about the unintended consequences. Paul talks about conscience and how we either affect our mind and the minds of our neighbors negatively or positively. We who are used to Christianity and have faith in Christ know there is no God but the Father and no Lord but Jesus Christ alone. Paul reminds us that not all (including those who are new in the faith) fully understand this.

Is there really such a thing as idolatry? Yes. Is it a victimless crime? No. Paul takes it seriously. Idolatry is a lie, and as such t is against God. God takes it seriously. Weighing heavy on God's mind is the ability of His children to have a close and meaningful relationship with Him. Are there false gods - literally? No. The only God if the Father and the only Lord is Jesus - if you want to look at it like that. So the idol is just material and the offering is just food. Then what's the big deal? The deal is that when the conscience is injured we can separate ourselves from God out of guilt. We can injure our own conscience in doing what we know we shouldn't - but what we do not intend is when we do what we know we can... and it injures someone else's conscience. Paul wants us to be acutely aware of this!

(I COR. 8: 7) However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

This is such a confusing sentence; please let me explain it as it was explained to me:

The new Gentile converts, because they were idolatrous for so long, still regarded the idol as something real. They were not yet experienced enough in the faith to disregard their lifelong customs. The foods which they once ate during their time in idolatry, they ate without hesitation and without knowledge that idolatry was sinful to the one true God; polytheism is what they had always done. But now, knowledge has come in that the idol is contrary to God but that knowledge is not yet mature. Guilt is associated with the entire process - the idol, the food, and all. It shouldn't be, but at this natural and completely understandable phase it is.

(I COR. 8: 8) But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

Armstrong most certainly taught we are the worse if we eat, contrary to Paul’s clear instructions not just here but in many other places. And not just about the clean/unclean meats issues either (many will recall the white bread, peeled potatoes, etc teachings). This statement from Paul is important in that it can certainly assist in showing the Old Covenant meats laws are not binding on the New Covenant Christian. Armstrong's version of dietary law is cherry-picked and does not completely match the Bible's version anyhow.

How many times and in how many different ways must this truth that God does not judge what goes into our mouths be illustrated in the Bible before it becomes 'true' to the reader? For some, there simply aren’t enough times. Armstrong trumps all.

(I COR. 8: 9-13) 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

There is liberty in the New Covenant. Even in doing what is perfectly acceptable a Christian should be mindful of others. This goes along well with Matthew 5: 19.

So far we have been discussing how certain verses in the Bible deal with Gentile conversion and idol worship. This is one place where I think my study is different than others. I do not conclude that because people misuse and misunderstand the previous verses (and Armstrong was right - people have), it means the dietary laws are still valid. On the contrary, since we have not proved the law of clean and unclean meats was carried over into the New Covenant - we have clearly shown the Gentiles were taught no such thing - we add weight upon weight that Armstrong was in error in this area, being zealous for the Old Covenant as the Jewish converts who troubled Paul. The Word of God, the main party to the Old Covenant, died, thus relieving any burden to keep the Old Covenant. The burden of proof is now on the COGs to show the burden was reinstated, and they do not come through in that in any way. Not that there is any real problem with observing dietary restrictions. However, the problem comes in when judgment and condemnation come in, or when legalism is depended on for a qualities (such as God's righteousness) that it can never bring.

We now shift focus to I Corinthians 10. Our first question in the tenth chapter of First Corinthians should be, “what is the context of the verses we’re about to read?” Verse 14 sums it up.

(I COR. 10: 14) Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.

The context of this entire chapter is idolatry again - I should say 'still'.

(I COR. 10: 18-21) 18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.

This was this kind of honest talk that frightened some of the new converts. Paul knew that sacrifices hold no special power or significance. But we must avoid idolatry (I COR. 10: 14). These rituals were not in God’s honor, but demons. We cannot be the resurrected body and blood of Christ, as the Passover meal pictures the broken body of Christ, AND yet take part with demons. However, Paul now works to reassure. Paul was telling the Christians not to worry about meat they were unsure of – but definitely avoid eating as a part of an idolatrous act.

(I COR. 10: 25-26) 25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.”

Paul is not directly dealing with the clean and unclean meats laws here. However, I will remind you that the majority of what was sacrificed to pagan idols was not “clean” by Jewish standards. That Paul isn’t talking about meats here is probably the biggest argument against them; in other words, he didn’t mention unclean meats because it isn’t a New Covenant issue in the first place. Indeed, this is about idolatry, and not about clean or unclean.

The COGs would exclaim, “We cannot read clean and unclean meats into this verse!” Paul is dealing with meat sacrificed to idols. But just in case someone ever stopped to think that most meats sold in Gentile markets were unclean – offered to idols or not - the COGs would usually add “Eat everything sold in the market… except unclean meats.” Thus, they wrote their own Bible, adding to as it fit them, and taking away where they pleased. I very much respect Fred Coulter, but in his version of the Bible (he authored his own version) those words are clearly added in. Italicized or not, I feel it is incredibly inappropriate to add in your own personal beliefs into the text of the Bible (DEU. 4: 2; REV. 22: 18-19).

Even so, Paul taught that we should not judge each other. If someone believes they should avoid something, be accommodating and let them believe this way, praying they mature in the faith. Do not cause them to do what they honestly believe to be wrong, or to worry about it unnecessarily, or flaunt your freedom in their face. Even though meats laws were not carried forward into the New Covenant, it may not always be expedient or edifying to eat. Think of others. (I COR. 10: 23-24)

Paul also refers to what we often find ourselves doing, having dinner.

(I COR. 10: 27-30) 27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake -- 29 the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

First off, Paul says plainly "eat whatever is put before you". This directly contradicted Herbert Armstrong's theology, and accepted practices in the COGs. This leads to yet another important principal expounded here – the well being of the unbeliever! (Who is a child of God and a potential believer.) Do not unnecessarily cause them to worry about offending you. This is a rule the COGs regularly overlook – asking many questions for conscience’ sake, and making it immediately and openly known to all that they will not eat what is set before them if it is “unclean”. This makes many people feel uncomfortable and hurt and their effort unappreciated, and makes Armstrongites look like callous and inconsiderate zealots. We gave God a bad name in their eyes. We should have just eaten what was set before us with thanks given to God as the Bible says to, and done what we were shown by asking no question for conscience’ sake.

I do not agree with people who say the host in verse 28 is informing the guest that the meat was in the past offered in sacrifice. That doesn't mesh, in my mind, with Paul's flow of logic. However, I agree with Jamieson Fausset and Brown's Commentary, and Vincent's Word Study, who say it is not the host who is commenting on the meat but a fellow Christian guest who is young in the faith. It makes a good amount of sense. I can perhaps agree with Matthew Henry's Commentary that the host is at the time performing a non-Christian rite or service. But I would think that this would be a gathering I would excuse myself politely from. The blunt reality is that participating in the body of Christ which God has called us to is something that is more important than making everyone feel good. (I COR. 10: 14) "Flee idolatry."

I like to visualize it like this: when you both go before the Judgment of God, how will you explain to God and that person why you allowed that one to cause you to sin? You have then sinned against him as well.

We have still not seen anything that shows meats laws were carried forward into the New Covenant. We have seen evidence to the contrary, however. I would summarize I Corinthians 8 and 10 like this: be mindful of giving offense, and do not be easily offended (I COR. 10: 32). This is love. And to love is the command we have from Christ.

The Didache

2008-12-08T09:56:00.008-05:00

I brought up the Didache a while back, but didn't do much with it. I would like to go over some selections from the Didache with you.

In case you don't know, the Didache is a Christian document dating anywhere from some 70 AD to the end of the second century. It's old and it's easy to read. Many of the oldest documents are written by a single author. That makes them easy targets for ad hominen attacks by COG ministers that point out one perceived flaw in a person, then claim that taints every word they've ever spoken. I think that does a great disservice to everyone. This document, however, is a general instruction and has no single author.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not trying to get anyone's hackles up in this by claiming this document is on equal footing with the Bible. I'm not saying that. I am merely pointing to it and showing how the people of that time thought as compared to the COGs of our time.

ALSO: I'm pulling my link here from a Catholic website because of the quality of the website's feed, not because it's a "Catholic" document. I know some would be quick to jump on me for this misperception.

I'm going to give you chapter and verse from the Didache, then comment below it.

(1: 5-6) Happy is he that gives according to the commandment; for he is guiltless. Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and, coming into straits (confinement), he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing. (Matthew 5:26) 6 But also now concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.

Give! Be charitable! But woe to the ministers because they constantly demand when there is no lack, and they take when there is excess, and rarely do they give to those who are truly in need! People went bankrupt while the upper echelon lived like great sultans in a harem of tithe payers. Even the local ministers were pampered while their own brethren were cast out for not being able to bear the weight of the tribute levied against them. They withhold money and God's word and Christian love to those who are not like themselves. Perhaps worst of all is the 'stock story' they will bring out of the time when they helped a non-believer [that God had clearly sent to them to experience their generosity].

The Didache tells you to let your gifts stay with you until you can be sure to whom you should give them. It DOES NOT say that you are beholden to give in excess of 30% of your income to a minister regardless of any and all circumstances. Nor does it say that minister should decide to whom alms should be given. In fact, now that I think of it, I am unaware of a single early Christian document that commands tithing (including the New Testament).

If you didn't catch it, the phraseology is "gives according to the commandment". I know of none of the 10 Commandments that say to give. This piques my curiosity about a thought I've been having these last few weeks that perhaps when the New Testament says "commandment" it is not referring to the 10 Commandments at all. Perhaps a better way to think of it would be "commands" or "instructions" rather than "Commandment(s)". Just a thought.

---

(2: 6) You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty.

Do not be a hypocrite?! Do not be haughty?! Why, if there were two adjectives I would choose that best describes the general attitude of the Armstrong ministry, it would be these very two! There are exceptions. Do I slander maliciously? Do I bring unfounded accusation? I would wager there is not a single person who ever attended the COGs who doesn't either have a personal story of deep trouble with the ministry, or who doesn't know of several stories to that effect. I would go so far as to say that the great majority of all problems involved the ministry.

I have laid out example after example of hypocrisy and ministerial abuse here in my blog. I have read and attest that there are several other high quality blogs out there (I link to several) who all witness to the same.

(2: 7) You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

Men were hated. The great and swelling accusations that I heard (and at times participated in -- to my shame) against the Catholic Church and against all that was not Armstrongist... they were inexcusable. They were condemnatory. They were un-Christian (anti-Christ). And they were, in most cases, baseless, fabricated, distorted, etc, etc.

---

(4: 5-8) 5 Be not a stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a drawer of them back to give. 6 If you have anything, through your hands you shall give ransom for your sins. 7 You shall not hesitate to give, nor murmur when you give; for you shall know who is the good repayer of the hire. 8 You shall not turn away from him that is in want, but you shall share all things with your brother, and shall not say that they are your own; for if you are partakers in that which is immortal, how much more in things which are mortal?

The ministry continuously have their hands stretched out to receive. Herbert Armstrong encouraged tithes and offerings for various projects and 'budget shortfalls' and works. He helped himself to that money generously! He gave off the top to his family and friends. He gave great and expensive gifts to heads of state who needed for nothing in order to get a few moments of paparazzi time with them. Then if, by some odd stretch, some would be left over at the end to make it to those who truly needed it, then the hand was withdrawn to give. Those who were their own, who hoped to partake in that which is immortal, could not afford to partake in that which makes mortal bearable - like properly fitting clothes, or a healthy diet. And how many of those "final witness" projects, like the temple in Pasedena, actually fulfilled the purpose we were lead to believe they were funded to fulfill? NOT A SINGLE ONE! There the temple sits, to this day, in Pasedena, sold off piece by piece and occupied by other churches. The stately colleges, the pricey advertisements, the extravagant gifts, the lavish trips around the globe - they accomplished little or nothing towards what we were told. (It accomplished everything towards what it was really meant to accomplish.)

They cry "God's people tithe!!!" No, God's people GIVE! There's a vast and spiritual difference between the two! Peter himself showed that giving is more than mere money. (ACTS 3: 6) Then Peter said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." Peter gave!

---

(11: 4-5) 4 Let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord. 5 But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet.

Why say "if he remain three days"? Because this is a person who arrives to gain something, and stays to continue gaining something. It is about making an income from people, rather than teaching God's honest truth.

(11: 6) 6 And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.

If he asks for money (for improper or selfish use) - he is FALSE!

(11: 8) But not every one that speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he hold the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known.

According to their ways you will know a real minister. Do they make a profit of you? Do they cherry-pick the Bible and practice it with hypocrisy? Do they abuse and cast out the congregation? Do they focus on themselves and think highly of their office? Do they accuse and judge and condemn others? Do they cause division? Do they cry out for tithes and offerings like a baby cries for milk? Do they, God forbid, pray for people to get cancer and die? ...I could go on.

(11: 11) But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him; but if he says to you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him.

Asking for money in order to give it to people in need, like Paul clearly did, is perfectly fine and encouraged. Asking for money for pet projects, or any other such thing ["God's people tithe!"] is actually against God.

---

(12: 5) But if he wills not to do [work to support himself], he is a Christ-monger. Watch that you keep aloof from such.

A "Christ-monger"! Like a salesman who hocks Christ for gain. Christ is not a commodity to be sold! He is a free gift, undeserved, to be given absolutely freely to all with nothing in this life received in return! But if you listen to Armstrong, there is no such thing as a "Christ-monger" in his group, because your entire responsibility as a Christian is to pay up and pray for his success. Now I ask you, how could it be, under a tithing system, that such a thing as a "Christ-monger" could even exist?? Armstrong says your entire duty is to pay him and let him be a Christian for you. (I paraphrase.) (What? You don't believe me?? Read "The Incredible Human Potential"!) Yet these first Christians said for us to be wary of "Christ-mongers". Odd.

---

(13: 1-4) 1 But every true prophet that wills to abide among you is worthy of his support. 2 So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. (Matthew 10:10); cf. (Luke 10:7 3) Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. 4 But if you have not a prophet, give it to the poor.

They are worthy, who devote their lives to giving the free gift of Christ, to be supported by those who accept the gift. This is not to say that they profit and grow rich while bilking the congregation. A true minister will be humble and only require those things that any regular person would need to live. You see, in the early days, there was no "home office" or college or any such thing. There were travelling evangelists, so to speak, and there were local elders and deacons. These people either supported themselves (like Paul usually did) or they asked to be put up for the night and fed and clothed. That's really about it. None of this multi-million dollar empire nonsense! None of this expense account garbage! No budget excesses! Certainly no dream of fluttering about the earth in a private jet (or fleet thereof)! So, when they do, and they certainly do, cry out that 'a worker is worth his wages', mis-quoting the Bible against you (I TIM. 5: 18), you can know what the Bible meant by that.

---

(15: 1) Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops [ie. elders] and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, (1 Timothy 3:4) and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.

Why all this focus on not letting "Christ-mongers" rip you off? Could they have foreseen the problems we have today? I think they had this problem quite a bit in their day as well.

Notice how this does NOT say "elders and deacons and ministers". The specific office of 'Minister' is nowhere described in all the Bible.

Please understand, I do not bring any accusation to condemn any one whatsoever. I only point out any of this to show the contrast between the Christian calling and how Armstrongism falls flat. And God reads and knows my heart, I point these things out in love of those children of the Most High who attend the COGs, that perhaps they may have their eyes opened to their condition. For many years I attended the COGs and I thought all was well - except for a few points that nagged the back of my mind. I would not allow myself to search the answers. I used to say certain things were non-negotiable. Then God stepped in and opened my eyes through several people that were of great aid to me. For the love of Jesus Christ and the hope of His Salvation, I stepped into the New Covenant. Once I arrived there, and was filled up to overflowing with an unspeakable joy, I couldn't help myself but I had to call out to those people who are still trapped in Armstrongism. I had to provide the answers to those things that I misunderstood for so long for others to read (even if I duplicate so much other information on the other blogs who went before me and admittedly do a better job than I do). I had to call out to those people God so deeply loves and offer them access to the information they will only be kept away from by Armstrong's ministers. Why? Because there is a joy in the New Covenant that you simply have to experience. There is a gap between what both the Bible and history say, and what Armstrong says. That gap will be called "confusion" and "sin" by Armstrong's ministers. They misunderstand. How can they only agree with a certain amount of the Bible, then say the rest is "sin and confusion"??!! In my mind, this is tantamount to blasphemy! They will say the Didache was written by people who were 'sinners' and 'confused'. But read it for yourself! Find one thing in the Didache that disagrees with the text of the New Covenant.

Loved and cherished by God, for whom He sent His only Son, and for whom His only Son gave up all things to languish and die on the cross, listen to the words of God. Please do not shut your eyes to His truth! Step in to the New Covenant!

Not All That Glitters

2008-12-05T11:57:00.012-05:00

I have been thinking about my time in Armstrongism. It was fear and intimidation, ultimately, that held me there. I was deceived by the half-truths and outright lies. But I have to admit that among all the hypocrisy, pride, guilt, fear, rivalry, envy, deception, and all that, I heard some VERY high quality preaching about some fundamental Biblical issues.

I wonder to this day if there is another group who has the nerve to preach to their people what the authoritarian structure of the COGs allows them to get away with (not that I'm praising their structure, I'm just making an observation). There are many problems in certain Christian denominations which I feel ultimately stem from fear of preaching a solid message for fear of losing bodies from the seats. No COG fears losing bodies, that's for sure! It has its upside in that they can preach a prickly subject at will. But the downside is, in all honesty and bluntly, far worse than the upside.

(DEU. 8: 3) "So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD."

(II TIM. 3: 16-17) "16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I love the way they emphasize actually living by the words of the Bible rather than just knowing the words academically. No, seriously! Practice what you preach! Not a bad message at all. I love that. You can't go wrong pointing people towards the Bible. You can't go wrong recommending people concentrate on Godliness and the truly important things in life like love and charity and humility -- which are manifested in such things like actually living peaceably, putting away self-centeredness, seeking approval of Christ rather than men, etc.

Paul absolutely, positively did not say "put away the law, take up hedonism, don't do a dawgone thing except call on God in times of stress, and go live in any way you see fit... to Christ". Paul holds us up to a clearly defined standard of living! I define a Christian as a person who follows Christ. Even though that leaves a lot of room for leeway, I would have a very hard time applying my definition to someone like Homer Simpson, or someone who arrives at church on Christmas and Easter only, or someone who launches a 'holy war', or even someone who can academically argue nuances of the Bible and Bible history but does not actually put in to practice the tenants of the faith.

The COGs do a pretty good job at preaching against that sort of thing. And I commend that portion of their messages.

However.....

I know from experience that they generally put on a great show but fall flat in practice. A great number of those same people who preach Christ are placing themselves on pedestals and in some cases praying for people to die. Have a nice day! I don't want to harp on that right now, though.

But even though they at times have good content, they always ruin the message by pressing this modified Old Covenant legalism!!

They become hypocritical in that they say "live by every word" when they most certainly do not live by every word! You cannot preach the keeping of the law and then turn right around and only keep the parts you feel like keeping. Look, it's really quite simple:

Armstrong says "tithe or die". OK. But before I send in my tithe, I want to make sure they have storehouses fit to keep it. I would be told it's none of my business, of course, but a storehouse is needed because God never said tithing came from money - Armstrong said that - God clearly stated tithes come from the garden, field, and orchard. Period. Now, I also need to verify that they have some Levites there to receive the tithe, because God clearly gives the tithe to the Levites since their livelihood was taken from it. Period. Yet ministers are not in fact Levites. Paul says the Levitical priesthood is gone and replaced by Christ Himself and not men (ministers are not priests); in his argument, Paul used tithing to show how Christ excelled Abraham - Armstrong said that means tithes go to ministers... again, NOT what the Bible says. So then I would have to ask how on earth is it that they teach that we should follow every word of the Bible while they clearly and blatantly do not.

And I don't want to give anyone the impression that tithing is the only area where this can be demonstrated. What about minister = servant? What about how we are all family and all equal in God's eyes? What about the fact that there is no clearly defined office of minister in the first place, but only elder and deacon! (The word for 'deacon' and the word for 'minister' are the same word in Greek.) What about the one-on-one relationship every one of us has as a God-given opportunity? God's Spirit is in the hearts of all of His people, and that means without any man in between us and God. What about how all of God's people are called to become a kingdom of priests - and not the ministry only?

Should I even go in to the structure of the COGs? The trained and ordained ministry is elevated to a position where, in their private theology, God works through the ministry alone. Why, of course! That's needed to keep control! Just as the Catholic Church refused to allow the Bible to be printed in common tongues to prevent people from reading it and learning what it really says, so the ministry places themselves between men and God so the common person cannot believe he or she could actually have a close enough relationship to God (that gave up all that is and died to ransom them) that they might possibly be able to read the Bible for themselves and know what it really says!! We need the ministry as a buffer to keep the people in fear and ignorance and keep tithes rolling in. Live by every word indeed!

They will press that anything aside from what they teach is "doctrinally perverted" and a sin. Of course! They need to keep control! They need to propagate the lie that Herbert Armstrong was an Apostle - since it is that which gives them their authority. Is there such a thing as being "doctrinally perverted"? In other words, are there wolves in sheep's clothing preaching falsely? YES! But are those people in the COGs or outside of them? Well, to be entirely correct, it's both. However, I have never heard of a COG minister who understands the New Covenant. Nor could I imagine there could be such a person, since that person would leave that church and no longer be a minister therein.

The Didache, a Christian document written during the lives of the Apostles, clearly empasizes the dangerous people are the ones who preach for money!

Keep in mind that salvation is by undeserved grace from God through faith in God. I went through in two separate posts where I sent letters to the COGs and not a single one said plainly "salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ" without adding to it "and following Armstrong's doctrines" (I paraphrase, but that's how it boils down).

Now, I've heard one minister say clearly, "God will not give grace to somebody who hears the words and does not do them." Then there is no salvation for these ministers! Because there are words that they twist, words that they ignore, and words that they add outright. I submit for evidence that a close friend of mine said bald faced to me "Mr. Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." And this was by no means the first time I'd heard that from people.

So what am I on about? What is my complaint summarized? That these men, these ministers of Armstrong, that inject themselves between people and Christ and enslave people to a cherry-picked legalism that cannot save, sometimes sound wonderful, but they are dangerous!

They give messages that have invaluable bits of truth hidden therein. I totally agree with much of what they say and I whole heartedly back the idea that we should actively live as followers of Christ. But without fail they go back on their own instructions. They say, "Live by every word of the Bible." But they practice, "Live by every word of Armstrong." And to keep people from simply reading such things as Galatians and having their eyes opened to its clear and wonderful meaning, they press fear and control! They preach that you will die if you disagree with them. That they are the true shepherds and all others are wolves. They say it is "Spiritual disorientation" and a sin (to disagree with them). Well then Paul must have been incredibly disoriented! Jesus Christ must have been incredibly disoriented! The Bible itself must be disoriented, because in many places it disagrees with them.

I'm not holding these ministers to a standard they can't hope to reach. I completely admit that no man understands all the truth, or understands all prophecy, or has all knowledge. There are wrong ways outside of the COGs just as in. But what they have that they call "truth" is cherry-picked, added to, and distorted. Nor either am I bashing them personally. I'm not bashing anyone. It's a matter of calling a spade a spade.

You who are in the COGs - desperately and deeply loved by God - listen not to what I have to say, but to your own Bibles. Listen to Christ! Step into His New Covenant! I want you to actually have all of those things that those ministers say you can have, but they can never seem to bring you to that point. I want you to reach out to Christ! He is the only way.

With Freedom Comes Responsibility

2008-12-02T08:42:00.006-05:00

I've been doing some deep pondering lately. I have been comparing my "progress" as a Christian while I was in Armstrongism, and what has changed since I left in August of 2008. Oddly enough, and though I know it is a natural progression, I feel that I was more mindful of my pursuit of Christ while I was within the rigid confines and authoratarian structure of Armstrongism. To put it more bluntly, the freedom of New Covenant Christianity has given me room to slack off lately.

(I am going to get a little preachy here, so please excuse me, and bear with me.)

Here is a warning for all who are leaving Armstrongism: Freedom means responsibility! If we will not take the responsibility upon ourselves to do the things we know we should be doing as Christians, then we have only ourselves to blame. Without a minister to intimidate you - not can you (because you can now more than ever) but WILL you keep up on your relationship with Christ on your own? I pray that you will!

There is a reason why James felt it necessary to write what he did in his epistle.

(JAS. 1: 22) But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

(JAS. 2: 14-17) 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

(JAS. 2: 24) You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Armstrong greatly twisted what James was saying. Instead of clarifying James, who simply wanted people to actively practice what they preach, Armstrong modified James into saying 'If you don't keep the Old Covenant, you will die.' (I paraphrase, but that is the gist of it.) Armstrong said that "works" means 'Old Covenant law', when it means absolutely no such thing! "Works" here means simply enough 'deeds', GOOD deeds, some of which James even points out bluntly for us: put away wrath and wickedness, bridle your tongue, be impartial, care for the needy, be humble, do not condemn, be patient, persevere in trials, help the wayward brother... all of these are 'deeds' which come from the Spiritliving within us and bearing fruit, not mere rote acts of obedience to Old Covenant law (especially not a cherry-picked, partial keeping of the law).

Many people try to misinterpret - or sweep under the rug - what James is saying. It sounds too much unlike Paul, from a certain point of view. In reality James compliments Paul (God is not the author of confusion). James wants us to actively nurture our relationship with Christ, and put our money where our mouths are. It means a great deal to God! What James is saying means a lot to me right now. The problems I see potentially creeping into my own life are the very same James and the rest of the Apostles and Church shepherds dealt with from that day forward; the New Covenant offers us room to slack off.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying there is acceptance towards slacking off in the New Covenant. I am merely saying that there is freedom, and with freedom comes the natural tendancy of humans to do the least to get by. It's not the Covenant's fault, but our nature's fault. And it is something we should all, as Christians, be working against! Hence the warnings time and time again to persevere.

Look at what Christ said:

(REV. 2: 7, 11, 17, 26) ["To him who" or "He who"] overcomes...

(REV. 3: 5, 12, 21) ["To him who" or "He who"] overcomes...

(REV. 21: 7) He who overcomes...

Overcoming here clearly means overcoming not just the world, but our selves. I perceive that we are our own greatest obstacle. A tendancy to slacking off will simply not get that job done!

And we should very much take these warnings to heart. I have heard from some people that once we are saved, we are always saved. Peter himself disagrees!

(2 PET 2: 20-22) 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

If there were no possibility of this coming to pass, then there would have been absolutely no reason for this warning from God through Peter.

What I am implying is that I am a firm believer in the slippery slope, and I believe that a little slacking off now can head down that slope to destruction.

(PRO. 6: 6-11) 6 Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, 7 Which, having no captain, overseer or ruler, 8 Provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest. 9 How long will you slumber, O sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? 10 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep— 11 So shall your poverty come on you like a prowler, and your need like an armed man.

Considder these words from Solomon as referring to Spiritual harvest, and you see my point.

(PRO. 24: 30-34) 30 I went by the field of the lazy man, and by the vineyard of the man devoid of understanding; 31 And there it was, all overgrown with thorns; its surface was covered with nettles; its stone wall was broken down. 32 When I saw it, I considered it well; I looked on it and received instruction: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest; 34 so shall your poverty come like a prowler, and your need like an armed man.

Here is a person with an otherwise perfectly good field. Rather than bearing fruit of the Spirit, it is choked with briars. Does this remind anyone of Matthew 13? And here it was all due to just a little rest; just a little laziness and slacking off.

So I asked myself, and I'm interested to hear what others think about this thought --

Knowing that all things work together for good to those who love God (ROM. 8: 28), is it perhaps a good thing that groups such as Armstrongism have this rigid structure? Could it be, could it possibly be, that these people who migrate to these types of groups do so because they need that rigid structure? Could it be, could it possibly be, that God has allowed this - not to bring them into subjection to men and frustrate their salvation to a vain chasing after the law - but to by any chance save those who are given to slack off in freedom through providing a more rigid and authoritarian structure for them? Could it be that there is a silver lining to such things as Armstrongism?

Anyhow, take this post for what it is - just my thoughts on my performance thus far. I am disappointed in myself. I needed to preach, not to you, but to me, for just a bit. I feel a bit better now. I hope it has helped you too.

And especially for those who are exiting Armstrongism, loved dearly by God, please take it deeply to heart. I thrived under the rigid structure. When freedom came, a greater opportunity also came for wandering off. It will be much more difficult to 'know' the way that you should go, until you grow in the New Covenant and see clearly the simplicity in Christ. Keep up on your studies and your prayers!!!!! Write to me and we'll talk. Whatever I need to do to encourage you, I'm here to do. And there are plenty of success stories out there for you to draw inpiration from. Don't be intimidated. I promise you - it is so far better to step fully into the New Covenant! God bless you and keep you, but DO step in to that better covenant!

Happy Thanksgiving to All!!

2008-11-26T08:43:00.006-05:00

I wanted to get this in today, before you all go about your busy-ness.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!!

Remember it's not "Turkey Day", but "Thanksgiving" - so give some thanks!!!! Be liberal about it and festive and just pour out thanks. I will be thanking God for just about everything. I have MUCH to be thankful for this year! Including, I might add, the blessing of being able to put up this blog and help people escape from Armstrongism.

Actually, I would like to especially thank everyone who reads this blog. If you think you are helped by me, then you should know that I am even more so helped by you!