God Is Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!