The ultimate guide to Biblical living... why didn't someone write this book long ago?
And why oh why is it classified under "humor" instead of "religion"?
We're talking about The Year of Living Biblically
by A. J. Jacobs.Here's this bloke - a secular Jewish journalist - living in the Big Bad Apple and writing for Esquire, who decides to live the Bible way for a year. Out go the clothes with mixed fabrics, in comes tithing (though he spreads his largess among legitimate charities rather than delusional televangelists), while he wonders how to apply all those ghastly proverbs about whacking your kids to his exuberant three year old. This is literalism as few of us have known it, not even Tom Mahon and Robert the Berean Messenger. You just have to sympathize with his long-suffering wife!
And it's hilarious; which should tell us all something. There's an entertaining radio feature on the book on NPR.
Here's a book to relish over the long summer break (or for those of you in the other hemisphere, those long winter evenings.) Quirky and profound in equal measure, with cameo appearances from Amish, Mormon Polygamists, Samaritans, Creationists and a host of others. Regrettably, WCG only gets mentioned once, and only in passing, but that's probably a mercy for all concerned.
58 comments:
Perhaps the ministry of the churches of God should attempt to live according to the Bible.
I'm sure the attempts would be just as amusing.
Tithing is tough. It was probably created by the priests in Josiah's day to enrich their cast and also fund the monarchy.
Most of Orthodoxy demands tithing and many evangelicals are quiting their church over the issue. Paying tithes creates a supper wealthy clergy and thinking people are refusing to support that.
Here is a current article on tithing from the WSJ.
"The Backlash Against Tithing"
"As Churches Push Donations, Congregants Balk 'That's Not the Way God Works'
By SUZANNE SATALINE
The Wall Street Journal
November 23, 2007
"Can you put a price on faith? That is the question churchgoers are asking as the tradition of tithing -- giving 10% of your income to the church -- is increasingly challenged. Opponents of tithing say it is a misreading of the Bible, a practice created by man, not God. They say they should be free to donate whatever amount they choose, and they are arguing with pastors, writing letters and quitting congregations in protest. In response, some pastors have changed their teaching and rejected what has been a favored form of fund raising for decades.
The backlash comes as some churches step up their efforts to encourage tithing. Some are setting up "giving kiosks" that allow congregants to donate using their debit cards when they attend services. Others are offering financial seminars that teach people in debt how they can continue tithing even while paying off their loans. Media-savvy pastors, such as Ed Young in Grapevine, Texas, sell sermons online about tithing. And in a shift, more Catholic parishes are asking churchgoers to tithe, says Paul Forbes, administrator of McKenna Stewardship Ministry, a nonprofit that says it has encouraged more than 500 parishes to tithe in the last decade. Popes haven't requested tithes in recent decades.
Church leaders say tithing isn't just a theological issue, but a financial one. Americans gave an estimated $97 billion to congregations in 2006, almost a third of the country's $295 billion in charitable donations, according to Giving USA Foundation, a nonprofit educational organization in Glenview, Ill. But giving to religion is growing more slowly than other types of giving, says Patrick Rooney, director of research at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. That's partly because people are attending church less frequently, says Mr. Rooney, and are giving to a wider array of causes, including secular ones.
That worries some church leaders. "If everyone gives 2% of their income because that's what they feel like giving, you aren't going to have money to pay the light bill and keep the doors open," says Duane Rice, an official with Evangelical Friends International, a denomination that believes that tithing is required by the Bible..."
for the rest of the article go to
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119576921737201375.html
Here is how Evangelical Megachurches are spending their members tithes...
The New York Times
November 23, 2007
"In God's Name"
"Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission"
By DIANA B. HENRIQUES and ANDREW W. LEHREN
In Anchorage early in October, the doors opened onto a soaring white canvas dome with room for a soccer field and a 400-meter track. Its prime-time hours are already rented well into 2011.
Nearby is a cold-storage facility leased to Sysco, a giant food-distribution corporation, and beside it is a warehouse serving a local contractor and another food service company.
The entrepreneur behind these businesses is the ChangePoint ministry, a 4,000-member nondenominational Christian congregation that helped develop and finance the sports dome. It has a partnership with Sysco’s landlord and owns the warehouse.
The church’s leaders say they hope to draw people to faith by publicly demonstrating their commitment to meeting their community’s economic needs.
“We want to turn people on to Jesus Christ through this process,” said Karl Clauson, who has led the church for more than eight years.
Among the nation’s so-called megachurches — those usually Protestant congregations with average weekly attendance of 2,000 or more — ChangePoint’s appetite for expansion into many kinds of businesses is hardly unique. An analysis by The New York Times of the online public records of just over 1,300 of these giant churches shows that their business interests are as varied as basketball schools, aviation subsidiaries, investment partnerships and a limousine service.
At least 10 own and operate shopping centers, and some financially formidable congregations are adding residential developments to their holdings. In one such elaborate project, LifeBridge Christian Church, near Longmont, Colo., plans a 313-acre development of upscale homes, retail and office space, a sports arena, housing for the elderly and church buildings.
Indeed, some huge churches, already politically influential, are becoming catalysts for local economic development, challenging a conventional view that churches drain a town financially by generating lower-paid jobs, taking land off the property-tax rolls and increasing traffic.
But the entrepreneurial activities of churches pose questions for their communities that do not arise with secular development.."
Go to the New York Times web site and do a search for the rest of the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/
Jacob said:
>>>My quest has been this: To live the ultimate Biblical life. Or more precisely, to follow the Bible as literally as possible.<<<
No one can live the "ultimate Biblical life" without a calling from God.
>>>To obey the Ten Commandments. To be fruitful and multiply. To love my neighbor. To tithe my income.<<<
To obey the ten commandments is to love one's neighbour as oneself, and to love God with all one's heart. But this cannot be done unless the love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts by the holy spirit.
Also, to be fruitful and multiply means more than just having children.
Tithing to charities or false religions will not bring any blessings from God, especially if we blow the trumpet before or after we do it. For according to Jesus, good deeds are often best done in secret.
>>>But also to abide by the oft-neglected rules: To avoid wearing clothes made of mixed fibers.<<<
This has no relevance to Christians.
>>>To stone adulterers.<<<
In this case, Jacob could be very busy, but he likely to be charged with murder.
>>>And, naturally, to leave the edges of my beard unshaven (Leviticus 19:27).<<<
I see nothing wrong with this for those who want to sport a beard.
>>>I am trying to obey the entire Bible, without picking and choosing.<<<
Well, I haven't read the book, but I doubt that Jacob understands what is meant by obeying the entire bible. If Jacob is an orthodox Jew he won't be interested in the teachings of the NT, and the name of Jesus would never be uttered by him.
Of course, the Jewish people is the greatest proof of the divine origin of the bible. The bible prophesied over 4,000 years ago that most Jews would reject Christ, and be cut off from their own good olive tree. During this time, some Gentiles, who are the wild olive tree, are grafted into the Jew's good olive tree. When the fullness of the Gentiles have come in, Christ will return and build the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down.
Because of the Jews unique relationship with Christ, I have a healthy respect for them. They have a zeal of God, but it is without knowledge.
Also, it is not without profound significance that Christ was born of the tribe of Judah.
Well, I haven't read the book, but I doubt that Jacob understands what is meant by obeying the entire bible. If Jacob is an orthodox Jew he won't be interested in the teachings of the NT, and the name of Jesus would never be uttered by him.
Hello! Earth to Tom! You haven't even read the reviews. Jacob is not an orthodox Jew.
This is so typical of those who have been in the Armstrongist Church Corporate hierarchy: They don't listen, they don't read, they don't get their facts straight.
To obey the ten commandments is to love one's neighbour as oneself, and to love God with all one's heart. But this cannot be done unless the love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts by the holy spirit.
We have yet to see any of this actually demonstrated by the one who posted that message.
And that is the problem: The ministers set a terrible example as Pharisees because even if there were one shred of love in them, it has been severely suppressed.
Of course, the Jewish people is the greatest proof of the divine origin of the bible.
Since the Jewish people and Israelites as a whole never much kept the Law of the Old Testament, its hard to see how this statement is relevant, short of the punishment they received. And worse, the Jews of Jesus' time not only killed off their Savior, they went forward to kill off any Christians as best they could. Some example.
Because of the Jews unique relationship with Christ, I have a healthy respect for them.
Typical warped distorted reasoning from an Armstrongist. The Jews certainly did have a unique relationship with Christ: They killed him. They killed his disciples. Today, Armstrongists want to cozy up to them to legitimatize their Old Covenant Crapology. This is particularly stupid, since, by definition, by rejecting their Savior, they don't have the Holy Spirit, unless, of course, the Armstrongists want to admit something they can't possibly admit to. They go whoring off after Judaism to create a pick and choose eclectic cafeteria style religion, feeling perfectly free to adopt whatever will serve their purpose and ignore some of the more stringent prohibitions and preachments of the venue.
And before we even get there, I'm pretty certain that Stinger would approve if I said something about Tom wearing garments of wool and linen [or more complicated, synthetics with natural fibers], making a Succoth at the Feast of Tabernacles, and, no excuses here, just to whom does Tom tithe? Himself? I'm afraid that Melchizadek left no forwarding address, and as sure as hell, death, taxes, revenge and the fury of a woman scorned, since he doesn't attend any CoG these days, except one of his own man-made invention, he wouldn't be giving any money to other hirelings but himself.
Of course, he covers his hypocrisy by saying that it's private and wouldn't want to be like the Pharisees and show off. Too late.
The clueless like Tom have a zeal of God, but it is without knowledge.
Also, it is not without profound significance that Tom had a position within Meredith's cult. Just a guess, based on what he's said before here: It looks like he chose Meredith because he liked his prophecy better. It's filled with death, destruction, devastation for those who don't agree that Germany, and not Islam, is going to be the downfall of Western Civilization. Someone needs to reread the Bible from the beginning from Genesis to see just what relationship Arabs have with the children of Jacob. Missed that, did we?
Keeping the commandments of the Old Testament is honorable; keeping the commandments of Jesus is respectable and godly; it's just that we'd like the Armstrongist ministry to try it out for a change. Not eating out in Restaurants on the Sabbath would be a good start, to show forth the love of God by honoring Him as Creator and living the Sabbath as a delight as opposed to the burden Armstrongists have made it. It's no wonder they have to have social business contact on that day.
Here's the deal: If God is the Creator who made everything, then we are all nothing. He made us according to His Good Pleasure to do what He has set for us to do. He is not a hip-pocket god to do our bidding and certainly not to argue over who is keeping His Laws the most perfectly.
Back in oh, about 1976, Dr. Dorothy came to town and gave a sermon about being concerned about God -- what He wanted and what He felt -- rather than always thinking about ourselves. At the time, it struck me as being very odd. It certainly was five deviations from the mean of the sermons given at the time.
These days, in retrospect, it seems rather advanced and mature -- too advanced and too mature for the Armstrongists to grasp.
Google rejected Dennis:
I hope the guy has a psychiartist available after he is finished.
In the true spirit of NT giving...don't forget to give everything you said you would, even if you were pushed into giving more than you should have. The Minister will strike you dead and the Romans won't even check up on it. :)
Or, to relieve the tension of the tale of Annias and Sapphira, just understand it was a joke on Peter who said he would do one thing,(defend Jesus) but did another (denied him) killing off church members who said they would do one thing (give all), but did another. (held back)
It also was a great way to be sure "and great fear fell upon the whole church.." was in place.
Luke and Paul knew how to make their not friend Peter look stupid to the Church and get them over the idea he was to be any kind of leader but was more like a Judas who betrayed while Peter denied.
An even later date for Acts may indicate a general bash of those who were wanting Peter to be considered the first of many great church leaders.
I love church politics.
I hope I learn to spell sychiatrist too.....
It also was a great way to be sure "and great fear fell upon the whole church.." was in place.
But perfect love casts out fear.
Makes you wonder.
Acts 5: 10
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events
That perfect love thing is just hard to come by. Obviously the "Peter" of this tale was unwilling to practice it or forgive as he had been forgiven, three times, if I remember John 21 correctly.
People rarely pass on the kindnesses extended by them to others I guess.
Oh and Good morning Douglas! :)
Dennis, I think it is spelled: sighkyatryst!!
The perfect love of Jesus is supposed to cast out all fear, especially during the great tribulation.
You see, he will murder billions of them all in a fit of Godly wrath because they failed to properly kiss his ass due to the fact that they were never called in the first place.
If I keep thinking about the loving and yet evil Jesus I may have to visit the sighkyatryst myself!!
Thomas Munson
Thomas! I have always wanted to chat with you. I have read the drama you encountered with you know who! I think we'd get along just fine.
If it helps, the Jesus of the Gospels would not recognize himself in Revelation. That Jesus is kinda like the evil Dark Spiderman.
"Suffer the little children to come unto me...(Gospels) and let me kill them" (Revelation)
"This has no relevance to Christians."
And why not? Why doesn't that particular law (mixed fabrics) apply to Christians while others do? I have asked this question many times, and I have yet to get a straight answer:
Exactly which commands of the Law are to be observed by Christians?
Paul
"Exactly which commands of the Law are to be observed by Christians?"
The easier ones
The ones that don't interfere with your real life
The ones that benefit the Priesthood
The ones that more beneficial to men than women
The ones that give you permission to push the kids around and make them miserable.
The ones that make you special.
The ones no one else would think to keep.
A problem of Christianity has always been needing tons of grace for lawkeepers and tons of law to keep those under grace in line.
The NT is not the clearest explanation of this phenomenon either. Just be all things to all men always, whenever and do whatever they do and don't do what they don't do depending, and you'll be fine with Paul at least.
James and Peter may disagree but they didn't get to write much about anything important in the NT and Paul made it clear he didn't learn anything from them or any Jewish Christians.
Gal 2:6 As for those who seemed to be important–whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance–those men added nothing to my message"
Sounds like the leader of every COG splinter!
">>>To stone adulterers.<<<
In this case, Jacob could be very busy, but he likely to be charged with murder."
Nah..all the Bible Greats got away with murder..charges dropped.
Paul said
‘…Why doesn't that particular law (mixed fabrics) apply to Christians while others do? I have asked this question many times, and I have yet to get a straight answer:
Exactly which commands of the Law are to be observed by Christians?’
This is a good question, which often hasn’t been faced up to. Several years ago I read what I felt was a good explanation of principles that to use (not, incidentally, written by a minister).
However I hesitate to spend a lot of time writing a ‘straight answer’ for Paul, for the simple reason that we all know full well that Paul considers God is a figment of the imagination, so obviously dismisses anything in the Bible. So what would be the point of using the Bible to give him an answer? It’s rejected before it’s even been read.
"This has no relevance to Christians."
And why not? Why doesn't that particular law (mixed fabrics) apply to Christians while others do? I have asked this question many times, and I have yet to get a straight answer:
it does apply, the underlying principle definately applies,which is to not mislead or decieve people in business.
the purpose for mixing fabrics is to work in cheaper materials, such as cotton, into a wool garment and pass it off as wool.
same can be said for the parapet wall around the edge of the roof of your house. there is no need for one on a house with a 12/12 pitch, but the principle is still there, maintain a safe enviroment, such as bannisters on stairs or elevated patios.
but then, I don't expect those here with the dominant mindset to understand this, much less accept it.
>>>Why doesn't that particular law (mixed fabrics) apply to Christians while others do? I have asked this question many times, and I have yet to get a straight answer:
The answer to your question is found in Matthew 5:18, not till heaven and earth pass away will one jot or tittle pass from the law.
Christians are under an obligation to obey all of the commands of the Torah (if they take Jesus' words literally) including circumcision and the purification laws (Paul went to the Temple to follow the custom of the purification laws after the nazarite vow (funny i thought Jesus nailed it to the cross i hear you say? -Acts 21:26)
There are 613 laws called Mitzvahs. Not all of them apply for us, some can only be observed while living in Israel, some laws are for the priests and the levitical priesthood, others apply only to women or men, etc.
God gave these laws because He wanted His people to stand out from the crowd. There are physical reminders in everything.
The Armstrongites do not generally follow the mixed fabric law (though I have known some that do and I always obeyed it in my WCG days). They divide the law up into two parts, moral and ceremonial (much the same way Adventists do and all the others churches for that matter). It is actually a nice get out clause because if we don't want to obey anything we simply write it off as ceremonial.
If you are confused there is a good book out there by Firstfruits of Zion (www.ffoz.org) called Restoration - Returning the Torah of God to the Disciples of Jesus by D. Thomas Lancaster.
You won't be doubting anymore once you have read it!
"So what would be the point of using the Bible to give him an answer?"
Why would I have to be a believer to receive an answer? Do I need to be a Muslim to receive an answer about the doctrinal stances of Muslims?
At least Robert is being truthful...there are no divisions in the Law. The Law is the Law. The Law does not allow one to observe part of it, or even 95% of it. You observe all of it, or die.
Paul
Robert said:
It is actually a nice get out clause because if we don't want to obey anything we simply write it off as ceremonial.
Yes, this is the lazy way out of most Armstrongites. They've got this "Get out of Law" free card buried in their theology, for when they need it. Like saying that Motel 6 really is a booth.
BTW, how did your booth building go for your latest festival of (hint, hint) booths?
Just thot I'd ask.
And before I get a barrage of written responses proving that circumcision is abolished by Acts 15.
Yes I have studied it. It does not abolish circumcision. The gentiles were required still to attend the synagogue to hear the words of Moses being read on the Sabbath (Acts 15:21).
The added requirements (forbidding blood, sexual immorality, things strangled) were necessary so that Jews and Gentiles could fellowship together: these were minimum requirements.
Suggesting that only gentiles need to observe abstaining from blood, things strangled, and sexual immorality in Acts 15 is nonsense. The list does not include murder, rape, stealing, lying and many of the other commandments. Jesus warned us His intention was not to abolish LAW (Matthew 5).
And if you actually asked yourself what do they all have in common. It is simple! Idolatry. The added requirements were to keep the gentiles from going back into idolatry such as blood sacrifices, prostitution in pagan temples and to keep them away from temple sacrifices.
The question in Acts 15 is not whether circumcision or the law of Moses is required for gentiles but do gentiles have to convert as Jews (into Judaism) before they can become a Christian.
Did the gentiles have to undergo the added proselyte laws (Judaism) requires? Did the gentiles have to convert to Judaism to believe in the Messiah?
The outcome was that gentiles were allowed to fellowship with the Jews on the Sabbath (Acts 15:21) without having to undergo a ritual conversion process (which still takes place today within Judaism).
The gentiles would then learn the Torah by hearing the words of Moses taught every Sabbath and gradually through a process of time and study observe the teachings of the Torah. It is a step by step process!
Incidentally when Paul mentions circumcision and non circumcision is nothing but keeping the commandments of God is important, Paul is saying whether you are Jew (circumcision) or Gentile (uncircumcision), your ethnicity is not important, but keeping the commands of God is! If you do a word study on circumcision and uncircumcision you will notice even God uses the terms to describe two groups of people in various places.
Paul, the apostle uses circumcision and uncircumcision when referring to the two groups of people, Jews and Gentiles. He is not referring to the act of circumcision as people often think he is.
>>BTW, how did your booth building go for your latest festival of (hint, hint) booths?
There are some nice sukkots for that authentic experience (http://www.sukkot.com/).
There use to be a UK website selling sukkots but it has disappeared.
It is one of those things I have to save my money for!
But at the moment I am saving up my money to get a web store (package costs 1,500 pounds) with X-cart including designing logo and customisation. Hopefully if all goes well I shall be selling some judaica products from Israel next year. By June I hope to up and running!
Exactly which commands of the Law are to be observed by Christians?
Paul said
‘Why would I have to be a believer to receive an answer? Do I need to be a Muslim to receive an answer about the doctrinal stances of Muslims?’
OK then – Try
http://www.lionofjudah1.org/Doctrinaldoc/Which%20OT%20Laws%20Apply%20to%20Christians.doc
I believe this was written some ten years or more ago, when WCG was in full turn around mode.
I didn’t write it, and wouldn’t endorse every word – but it defines the same principles that I use in understanding which commands of the law are to be observed by Christians.
Ignored in this discussion thus far, near as I can tell, is the experience of A. J. Jacobs spending four months+ keeping the New Testament.
Reaching into the hornets nest and stirring it up: The Death of Jesus, according to the New Testament, was the end of the Old Testament. Period. The veil in the tabernacle was ripped right down the middle, showing that we now have direct access to the Father [but with Jesus Christ as advocate]. So the Law was done away with. On the other hand, the Law was not done away with. The explanation has always been that the sacrifices and all those irritating statutes and judgments were added for transgression. The priests will have to serve in the temple with animal sacrifices in the Millennium. Or is that during the second resurrection? Can anyone straighten that out? Anyway, the Law is done away with. Certainly, by the time the whole bloody Temple System was ended in 70 A.D. and the Pharisees went bye bye, the conditions under which sacrifices, tithing and a whole slew of other things disappeared by design, apparently. That's because the Jews assenting to the death of Jesus said that his blood would be on their heads and on the heads of their children. So 40 years later [check your calendars because most of you are wrong], the Temple was destroyed after 40 years of testing and trials were over and the Jews failed miserably to repent as a whole and refused to accept Jesus as their personal savior, for reasons already pointed out here on this forum.
There was also another point to the Old Testament Laws: To keep the civil government together. The whole tithing, Temple System, priesthood, sacrifices, statutes, judgments and so forth were there to insure that Israel had a single source of authority for their law. This Law was to be such an example to the nations around about that they were supposed to -- and this never really caught on -- ask about the all Wise and Wonderful God who gave them such great Laws. Never happened of course, except a bit under Solomon, but then there were all those wives he married, so he was pretty busy with things other than spreading around God's Laws, Statutes and Judgments. Can't imagine.
Anyway, the Law was done away. But the Apostle Paul said the Law was good and honorable. Maybe the Ten Commandments? The hard ones for the ministers of the CoGs are idolatry, blasphemy [taking God's Name in vain] and often adultery. Bearing false witness and stealing are a given for the ministry.
Along the line we find some interesting things in the epistles, to wit: There is such a thing as the commandments of Jesus. We are to keep them. One of them is to love one another. That's a commandment. If we also extend this to the Beatitudes we get into real trouble. Not only are most of the Ten Commandments mentioned there, but low and behold, even contemplating breaking them is sin. Haven't committed adultery, but looked with longing sexual glances at the forbidden fruits is death, for the wages of sin is death. And all have sinned.
Well, what is not given here is just which Commandments A. J. Jacobs kept out of the New Testament. Keeping them all in the Spirit is a whole lot harder than in the Letter of the Old Testament physical Laws.
And Jesus made that clear: He condemned the Pharisees for breaking the Commandments, even though they didn't. At least not technically. In the New Testament, there is no luxury to claim just because you didn't execute the armed bank robbery, you are guilty. Mr. McCoy will prosecute you anyway after finding the blueprints to the bank and the plans of a minimum of conspiracy.
And in the case of the ministers, it would be depraved indifference as they ignored the plight of the needy 1-Ws at Big Sandy.
How much more when Christ returns.
If the righteous scarcely be saved, where will the sinner and ungodly appear? [Except at Rod Meredith's ministerial conferences.]
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.
But then I suspect those in the power structure of the CoGs don't actually believe in God. Not really. They certainly don't act like it.
So it would be an interesting experiment if the ministers of the CoG spent a year living according to the Commandments of Jesus and write about their experiences.
I'll wait for the reviews on Amazon.com before buying, thanks anyway.
Eric Snow's rendition would benefit greatly from the premises discovered by Dr. Robert Horn.
It's so good to have some one who knows which of the OT laws Christians are supposed to keep so that everything will be nice and legal(istic).
Let's not even think about Rom. 13:9, that's probably just the rantings of a mad-man, even though it is also in Gal. 5:14 and James 2:8, it probably doesn't really mean what it says. It can't, it's too simple.
I've thought for some time that churches/religious organizations would have more freedom to be politically involved, and serve the community if they had just incorporated as a business and get out from underneath the IRS scrutiny of non-profits.
There's lots of corporations that never turn a profit. Yet these churches keep going at it investing tax free donations into hard assets like real estate and airplanes. When they could make a tidy return on that donated cash producing a real product or service.
I would not be surprised to see religious corporations competing side by side with secular coporations in the future. Particular in areas of environmental friendliness and stewardship of the environment.
In fact I think that would be a worthy thing. Beats sending missionaries to Latin America to preach Jesus to Catholics.
There are some quasi-religious corporations, such as Thrivent (formerly called Lutheran Brotherhood), which supplies insurance and investment products for Lutherans.
I'd like to know what corporations WCG tithe money has helped spawn in the name of Church investments over the years. Anyone know of any aside from the obvious money wasters like AICF?
Corky said:-
‘Let's not even think about Rom. 13:9, that's probably just the rantings of a mad-man, even though it is also in Gal. 5:14 and James 2:8, it probably doesn't really mean what it says. It can't, it's too simple.’
Of course I believe these scriptures, and of course it’s that simple. I would include Mat 22v37-40 in this too, where Jesus Christ also included love to God as well as to fellow man.
The rest of the Bible expands on how this love is expressed (You know, things like not stealing from your neighbour, hating them, sexually going after you neighbours husband/wife).
It is simple – but the great creator of the universe has also expanded it to show how principles can be put in action, and how they apply on a universal scale.
"The hard ones for the ministers of the CoGs are idolatry, blasphemy [taking God's Name in vain] and often adultery. Bearing false witness and stealing are a given for the ministry."
Having soaked in the ministry and sat quietly with thousands of members discussing their concerns in their own lives, this is a very broad generalization. Perhaps in your experience, they seemed a given, but they are not a given in a ministry any more than a congregation. And it is not a given in any more in the COG than in ANY religions with ministers, priest, apostles and congregants.
All I ever met were human beings doing the best they could and when they felt comfortable or safe, were willing to talk about it and see how to do better. I include myself in the struggle. This is my experience.
Of course there are the extremes like the predictable chaos now at Oral Roberts University which is the oft told tale. I imagine there are many fine,as in compassionate, genuine and sincere ORU faculty, students and ministers who came from there who are besides themselves just as we experienced and other organized religious institutions do as well.
Every Priest is a pedofile is simply not true either but that's the joke these days too the Catholic Church has to live with.
Dennis
Having soaked in the ministry and sat quietly with thousands of members discussing their concerns in their own lives, this is a very broad generalization. Perhaps in your experience, they seemed a given, but they are not a given in a ministry any more than a congregation.
By this time, Dennis, I'm convinced you were the exception, except, of course, when you knew perfectly well the swill coming from Pasadena wasn't true. That's why it's a given: In a Church Corporate like the WCG and most of the spit-offs, it is necessary to keep the facade. But then, I've talked with the Pierce County Resource Director, and she too has to follow the directives of the management trap as outlined by Dr. Chris Argyris because she has to "support" the management above and around her.
The results are all the same:
1. Lie;
2. Cover up;
3. Cover up the cover ups;
4. Make the whole thing undiscussible.
This all comes from having to be in charge, seem compassionate and understanding, be positive and above all, win!
It's all about politics.
Another word for politics is manipulation, particularly the manipulation to influence people to think things are just hunky dory when they are not. Those of us in the United States deserve some pity over the next year because we are going to be subjected to some of the worst manipulation ever. And when it is over, my always true and accurate prediction stands: The scoundrels will win. And if they weren't they will be. And by the way -- and this has nothing to do with Biblical prophecy, another inappropriate mapping of the bizarre -- 2008 doesn't look to be a good one for the United States and 2009 will be worse. It will be a tough road to hoe, if the fears of those I am encountering in my day to day travels are correct. You can be sure that the church of gods mavens will seize the credit, but you might as well predict that every empire will fall, because sooner or later, it will -- mostly because of lies. And some greed.
The church of gods is a no win situation. First, it is a fact free environment filled with distorted perceptions of narcissistic alpha males whose sanity is always in question, if not their integrity, always seeking to be free of accountability while insuring a structure to make everyone else accountable to them. In this mix of selfish obsessed lustful insanity, weirdness grows like a garbage fill. Eccentric is the kindest word you can use.
Those subjected to the stress of the situations created by such men may do the best they can, but in the end, it's a losing battle: It is impossible to be competent in a dysfunctional environment, and, oh boy, was the WCG dysfunctional -- as are just about every one of the xCoGs. If you are competent as a human being, you are automatically rebellious, because the structure is set to prevent real love and concern for others -- the whole thing is about the church, the leader(s), the money and the administration. If you go along with it, you are incompetent, because the whole thing is dysfunctional.
Those of us who are looking for some sort of way to find truth and beauty in the realm to probe for some sort of redemption of the venue, continue to fail. It does seem to be unredeemable. There are great ideas, such as every person who ever lived having a second chance at salvation. But let's face it, to get there, you have to put up with a lot of crapology, some truths mapped to insanity: The roadmap of Europe is overlayed on the Geography of China. You may seem to have the truth, but there are all those niggling little things that not only don't work, they have never worked and never will work, such as 1975 in Prophecy, for example. In the end, because it doesn't work, it's not sound and nobody can make it work. The only reason that the WCG seemed to work for awhile was because of the enormous resources of billions of dollars behind it. Doing unnatural acts is always extremely expensive and sooner or later bankruptcy ensues.
Perhaps it is true that God is not the author of chaos and that the respect for God brings peace and a sound mind. If that's the case, the Churches of God are certainly in a lot of trouble as is religion at large.
Questeruk said...
Corky said:-
‘Let's not even think about Rom. 13:9, that's probably just the rantings of a mad-man, even though it is also in Gal. 5:14 and James 2:8, it probably doesn't really mean what it says. It can't, it's too simple.’
Of course I believe these scriptures, and of course it’s that simple. I would include Mat 22v37-40 in this too, where Jesus Christ also included love to God as well as to fellow man.
Of course there's nothing like commanded love. Especially toward an invisible entity who has less than a snowball's chance in hell of even existing.
The probability of a god existing is so remote that it should be considered impossible. The book doesn't exactly help either, what with all the contradictions and inaccuracies.
But, since "the end of all things is at hand" two thousand years ago, maybe the book doesn't count.
DennisDiehl here:
I did stay too long and probably said to0 little. I kept thinking it would change and felt an incredible responsibility to the local congregation not to just walk off and leave them.
Transitions are messy and painful and sometimes if not often drag out over a longer time that we would wish.
As I have said of my personal questioning of the Administration experience in the past. Every yes meant no. Every "we're not going to do that" meant,"Watch this" and so on. I've been on the receiving end of Joe Tkach on the phone yelling "squelch it" and of course it was true.
What an overall, dumb ass experience! I have many unchangeable regrets personal and organizationally. I can't unring my bell.
Defending the local congregation from HQ when I felt it necessary, in hindsite, jammed me between the devil and the deep blue sea. I got a real lesson being the baloney between the bread. Neither slice admits you were ever in the sandwich.
In the judgement when "god" says, "I never knew you.." I'll get to say, "well yeah, how about something original? You can't hurt me with that line." Remember, my overseers said I knew a lot about Jesus (like the history and flaws in the story) but I didn't know Jesus.
Others have told me the problem is that I need to give up my intellect, my will and return to Jesus. (My counselor asked just how much of my brain I was going to excise to meet tribal demands)
Former Best friends won't talk to me or tell me God is just giving me a bit longer to repent and then ...well...who knows.
And not ONE WCG minister from my past (well one who asked to stay annon.) has ever been in touch in anyway to say anthing. As I have said, the last time I ever heard from WCG was the night Dan Rogers called to terminate me. I find that quite amazing after decades working for and with the monkies. The ones who called to get me follow them don't count.
I come back to AW, especially around this time of year, to find some kind of spiritual stimulation or even some kind of weird comfort. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. I've learned a lot here too.
You will find me an extemely open person because there is amazing freedom in saying, "yes, that was a wrong perspective" and "I wasn't that kind of person or minister."
I thank God I was Presbyterian long before I was WCG.
Anyway, dumbass answer too. I'm a bit lonely and have to be careful of anxiety issues especially at this time of year for some reason. Actually I know the reasons.
In the past I have given my phone out on AW and my email and very very few ever take me up on it. Actually none. So in someways even being here now is like being there in the past. I hate drama and I dislike conflict intensely. But sharing ideas or understanding like real humans is a wonderful thing.
I have used the word "I" here about as often as Dave Pack would. I trust the circle of protection being a member of AW COG will afford me some mercy on that egocentric issue :)
Anonymous said...
Tom>>>"This has no relevance to Christians."<<<
Anon>>>And why not? Why doesn't that particular law (mixed fabrics) apply to Christians while others do? I have asked this question many times, and I have yet to get a straight answer:<<<
It doesn't apply, because at the time of reformation, the new covenant replaced the old.
"It doesn't apply, because at the time of reformation, the new covenant replaced the old."
Then under the New Covenant, which laws are to be observed?
Paul
Does anyone have information as to whether the followers of the spin-offs (Pack. Flurry, Meredith, etc.) are still faithfully giving the 3T's plus freewill and other $$$'s. The various spin-offs have to be hurting financially.
Or if the membership rolls are still holding. It seems most everyone has either left or if they remained, lose some steam along the way.
Dennis -- can you imagine a worse life than having devoted 40+ years to a religious organization, knowing it was a fraud. I am referring to those who continue to stay in the ministry, fully aware of this; and not those like yourself who left when they became aware of the magnitude of lies & misrepresentations.
Douglas Becker said:
>>There are great ideas, such as every person who ever lived having a second chance at salvation.<<
This is a heretical idea! Salvation has nothing to do with chance. Salvation is a gift of God to his chosen elect, whom he predestined to salvation before the foundation of the world. I could expand of this by citing several scriptural texts, but as most of you here have fallen from grace, it would be a waste of my time.
"but as most of you here have fallen from grace, it would be a waste of my time."
Translation: From prior experience I know that my position can easily be refuted.
Paul
Anonymous said...
>>>Then under the New Covenant, which laws are to be observed?<<<
The ones taught by Jesus and the Apostles; of which Jesus said: "If you know these things, happy are you if you DO them." And in another place he said: "He that hears these sayings of mind and DO them, is like a man that built is house upon a rock, etc.."
The church is a community of saints, not a refuge for sinners, you may surprised to learn!
Tom saith: "This is a heretical idea! Salvation has nothing to do with chance. Salvation is a gift of God to his chosen elect, whom he predestined to salvation before the foundation of the world. I could expand of this by citing several scriptural texts, but as most of you here have fallen from grace, it would be a waste of my time."
Yet another example of Tom's all knowing and all loving God: Bring billions of people to life with the certain knowledge that many will life life in futility, destined before their birth to suffer and amount to nothing more than an insignificant moment in creation.
Tom, you make me more than a little sick. If you are a saint than I am Mickey Mouse.
Dennis said: "In the past I have given my phone out on AW and my email and very very few ever take me up on it. Actually none."
I tried calling you twice, left a message at least once and sent a text to make sure I had the right number. All I got back was a 'got it' I believe. We shared a few emails and that was it. I'm not the most prolific communicator in the world but I like to think I count as more than none.
Off topic: Simona,I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving Holiday.
Aw Charlie, you're my bud. I was reminiscing more about those that I pastored, and drove all over creation for. Call again!
dd
Dennis Diehl here:
>>>I did stay too long and probably said too little. I kept thinking it would change and felt an incredible responsibility to the local congregation not to just walk off and leave them.<<<
It depends on what you said. If you told the congregation, over which the Holy Spirit had made you an overseer, that the doctrinal changes were heretical, then you have fulfilled your responsibility to the flock. On the other hand, if you behaved like a fearful watchman, who saw the wolf pack coming over the hill, and in fear fled and left the flock to be mauled and scattered, then you are a hireling.
On three occasions, Jesus asked, "Peter, do you love me?" And on each occasion, Peter said, yes. And on each occasion Jesus replied: "Feed my sheep." Which means, the only way I will know that you truly love me, is if you don't abandon my sheep, but are willing to lay down your life for them.
I have not met one single minister who stood at the lectern, and told his congregation that what Tkach was preaching was spiritual poison. As a consequence, thousands of the brethren died of spiritual poisoning. But God will require the death of his flock at the hands of those ministers who put financial considerations before the welfare of his people!
>>>Dennis -- can you imagine a worse life than having devoted 40+ years to a religious organization, knowing it was a fraud.
At the end of the day, it is a living. And a very comfortable one at that, like so many of ministers in the churches. Do we honestly think the local baptist minister is going to question seriously his doctrinal basis, when he could loose the house his church allowed him to live in, loose his parish and his livelihood.
If we feel people must have integrity then we are kidding ourselves. This is the real world! People have bills to pay, pensions to maintain, vehicles to pay for!
The ministers of the COG groups are no different to ministers in any church denomination. I knew one minister in the Church of England who said that doctrine wasn't important to him, though he had a nice house but grumbled to me that he still had targets to meet. He has to get a certain number of people attending his church every week.
The only solution is not to have a paid ministry (have part time ministers who subsidise their job by proper employment).
DennisDiehl
I didn't have a lot of time to tell the congregation of anything.
My departure was during the time when we were still being told we were not changing while changes were being made. We were still in the liberal Sabbath keeping mode and not "Let's flip to Sunday, keep Xmas and Easter, Wave our hands and slobber all over Jesus" stage. As I said, it was the time where you asked a question and got a lying answer, but didn't know it.
It was during this time I studied myself out of belief in the inerrant text and literalism of my Sunday School days. I used the Xmas is coming thought that was percolating in the background to study the Birth Narrative's of Jesus figuring if that ever happened, I'd have a story about Jesus in the Gospels bigger than the one they were concocting. The congregation at the time enjoyed the series for the most part. I was teaching it at a local Catholic Church under a Montsignor who was a student of Dr. Raymond Brown who wrote "The Birth Narratives of the Messiah."
I'd recommend that book to anyone who wants a serious explanation about why the stories of Jesus miraculous birth are as they are, how they were put together (badly in most places) and why.
As I said, transitions are messy and take time. My marriage was coming apart as well for which I take responsibility. It had nothing to do with being a hireling. For lots of reasons and in lots of ways, my head was spinning just like everyone elses.
If I had been hireling quality, I would have joined those that wanted me to "take the local church" or join a sphincter group.
Nope...whatever I was going to do, it was not going to be ministerial having anything to do with telling people what they want to hear or what I was expected to say. I certainly was not interested in the politics of it all.
There was never any theological questioning in WCG or much intellectual content in seminars and refreshers. I would have done much better at a Yale Divinity School or something with some punch. I am not capable of knowing Jesus as some emotional feeling or generic pablum. That's why I left the Presbyterian church of my youth and got take full circle by another church that reinvented the wheel and get over how clever they were doing it.
After the five minute phone call ending it all, I sat on the steps of the apt and felt a very weird relief along with all the fear of "what now."
I attended my own church for a few months and it was pathetic. Those who were itching for the job, got it and believe me, are not inspiring types.
I went to one last feast, got slapped on the back by Joe Tkach Jr, who I ignored and then he prayed for me during the opening prayer. The cross being dragged into the Feast decked in purple was it for me. I never went back.
I completely believed God called me to be a minister when I was very young and for most of those years. If God couldn't get his act together and guide "the work" as we all prayed for years any better than this, the contract was null and void.
Now I realize God was not in it as not in many other groups and ideas and think he is the sole originator of. I grew up late.
Right after WCG sold the whole campus for undisclosed millions Ronald Kelly told me that because Christ had worked a great miracle , the church could not follow through on promises made to ministers for years of service. It was then I realized that the WCG Jesus was a trickster and easily envoked to get an abbarent organization off the hook when convenient. It was Satan that attacked the Church in '79 and Jesus attacked it himself in the 90's, so it made sense. They were a great tag team!
I practice not defending myself but do try to explain it through my own eyes of experience. I am comfortable with my own experience and motives. Being "one of them" "a minister" "Bastor" "Pastord" or aledged hireling goes with the turf after such a religious experience that had so many goofy participants.
Om na-mo
Bha-ga-va-----te
Vasudeva-ya
Dennis, who is hated by Google, perhaps you should publish your telephone number (or 'A' telephone number) again and see what happens.
Just suggestin'.
Lochinvar
tom saith: "I have not met one single minister who stood at the lectern, and told his congregation that what Tkach was preaching was spiritual poison. As a consequence, thousands of the brethren died of spiritual poisoning. But God will require the death of his flock at the hands of those ministers who put financial considerations before the welfare of his people!"
Tom, you point an awful lot of accusatory fingers...When exactly did you first start bellowing sermonettes and sermons? What years and what churches? Would you care to post your sermons on-line and let us see if you are talking out of both sides of your mouth?
I don't know how they did things in the UK but my local WCG pastors taught (and it was a question asked before you could be baptized) that if the church was wrong about something and you knew it, you were to pray to God to correct it, and in his own good time it would be corrected.
At least three of them left to be a part of the startup of other churches. I would imagine that they prayed about it for some time before deciding that armstrong must have been right about everything except for God having the power to fix things within his own organization.
So I'll repeat my questions in case you are confused and add one more:
- When and in what church did you take to preaching?
- Will you post your sermons on-line so we can see if you have been a hypocrite or just crazy?
- When did you have your epiphany where you realized that you were right and everyone else is wrong?
"The ones taught by Jesus and the Apostles; of which Jesus said: "If you know these things, happy are you if you DO them."
So if any of the Law was not taught by Christ or the Apostles, then Christians do not have to observe them?
Paul
And Tom, again I ask, why would I be surprised to learn?
paul
864 905 5804 After seven for freeby talk time! Or any weekend. Email in profile by clicking my name.
Charlie said...
Tom: >>>"I have not met one single minister who stood at the lectern, and told his congregation that what Tkach was preaching was spiritual poison. As a consequence, thousands of the brethren died of spiritual poisoning. But God will require the death of his flock at the hands of those ministers who put financial considerations before the welfare of his people!"<<<
Charlie>>>Tom, you point an awful lot of accusatory fingers...When exactly did you first start bellowing sermonettes and sermons?<<<
********************************************
In stead of asking me irrelevant questions, and accusing me of pointing fingers, why not rebut what I said, by stating how many ministers you know who stood at the lectern and told their respective congregations not to believe what Tkach was preaching?
BTW, please note that I didn't say, no minister spoke out against Tkach's teaching. I said, I haven't met one minister who did. If you have met one or several ministers who spoke out, then please say so.
Tom,
I'll address your red herring first.
I don't know of any that spoke out against Tkatch from the pulpit. My last minister only said he would never preach anything he couldn't prove from the bible, but he did preach some of tkatch's changes prior to exiting to United. Which would include some doctrines that United (and later Hulme's sect)would not hold.
Happy?
My question to you is very relevant to this thread though. You do point a lot of fingers, you judge everyone, set yourself up as a saint (you said that, not me) and yet, no mention of where or when you started preaching. I would like to know if you preached in worldwide and what you preached for one. I'm willing to bet we could find all kinds of contradictions and hypocrisy which you will justify. You are also on the record as stating that it is a sin to start your own church...well, armstrong started his own, meredith started his own (twice) and now you have your own website.
If your self-righteousness and pomposity could be made into a mountain, Mt. Everest would be dwarfed.
Tom, did you preach against the 'changes' while in WCG, if you were a minister then?
I personally didn't hear anyone preach against the Tkach-era changes, since I stopped attending shortly after Stanley Rader was baptized, and wasn't around for that later stuff.
From talking with family and friends, I do know that there were ministers who would not preach about or implement them. I hear it got rather hairy, as members were in contact with members in other areas, who would tell them of what was being preached in those other WCG congregations.
It must have been a strange time indeed, to have been a member.
Dennis:
I was never in the ministry or deaconry or any such thing, but I can relate to many of the emotions you describe in your leaving WCG experience.
I had given a few sermonettes and had been tapped by the local pastor to be the festival elder the last year I attended. I politely refused, pointing out that I had already decided not to attend that year, but that didn't dissuade him and he didn't take "no" for an answer.
By that time I was beginning to see what Harmstrongism had done to my life and those around me - and I also saw that I shared in the guilt because my tithes, offerings, prayers and general support had helped ensnare others.
I called the pastor and left a message that I couldn't be his festival adviser and that I couldn't do sermonettes any longer either. I stopped attending that sabbath, and haven't been back.
I also came to realize that the train wreck that WCG went through got the message of doctrinal change to just about everyone that had ever attended any of the COG's. They then too had an opportunity to re-evaluate what they believed and if the "changes" were true.
I sense a feeling of regret in your posting, which is quite understandable. I hope it doesn't include guilt - everyone's been given an opportunity to live free from the bondage of Harmstrongism, whether they choose to take it or not.
KMS
Not a chance? Predistinated?
Has Tom heard about the Second Resurrection? The Judgment? The Lake of Fire for those who blew their chance?
Heretic.
Charlie said...
>>>I don't know of any that spoke out against Tkatch from the pulpit.<<<
And I am yet to communicate with anyone who does.
I started giving sermonettes in the summer of 1982, and my last sermonette in WCG was June 1995. I left WCG around the middle of July 1995.
My local pastor was Peter Shenton, who is now with Hulme. Ask him what I preached and what was his reaction?
Tom,
Thank you for finally addressing at least one or two questions.
I stopped attending a few months after you, largely from disillusionment, went to a few United services mostly out of a feeling of obligation, gave up armstrongism entirely around 1999, and became disgusted by it around 2001 after some extensive research and reflection.
Not to gloat, but I left when Jesus failed to honor HWA's false prophecies in 1975. That set of circumstances said it all. God did not provide His witness to HWA's ministry in any way similar to the way He did for Moses, the prophets, or Jesus and the apostles.
Taking that into consideration, why should someone have felt compelled to preach against Tkach's changes? Obviously some effort had to be made to perhaps get God involved in the WCG, as it's only obvious that what had come before that was not working. I'm not saying that what the Tkach's did was right, as I really don't see the witness of God with the "new" WCG, or for that matter with any of the splinter groups. If God is working with any group today, that group has not been made obvious as of yet. I can't imagine the real thing being spawned by anything associated with the ACOG movement. Why would God reward a group that faked and lied about the gifts of the Holy Spirit?
BB
My pastor was also Peter Shenton but I don't remember a Tom Mahon? You also in Ross on Wye congregation? Or are you Tom Smith, a fellow Messianic Jew?
I do remember at the time some fellow exWCG members around 1993 who was saying that Peter Shenton was not preaching any of the new doctrines. He refused to preach them.
And Peter Shenton accused me of spreading dissident literature but all I did was send in a few addresses to the Philadelphia Church of God because they were encouraging us all to do that. And I thought they were the true church back in those days.
"Not to gloat, but I left when Jesus failed to honor HWA's false prophecies in 1975."
A true critical thinker who acts on the evidence.
It's not easy.
Paul
Post a Comment