[T]here was an article in The Journal by Reginald Killingley promoting voting–which we in the Living Church of God do not do... the article neglected to state is that the only reference in the Bible to voting was when Saul (before he became Paul) voted to get Christians killed (Acts 26:9-10). Paul also specifically wrote that this present world is evil (Galatians 1:4) and recall that Jesus taught:
“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight…” (John 18:36).
Furthermore, regarding the recent USA presidential election, both candidates endorsed evil... Christians should not endorse evil. Instead of voting in the election, I urged Christians to pray and fast...
Here's the thing; how do we balance Bob's statements with the actions of Living University's Dr Michael Germano? These comments were posted by an AW reader.Notice this August 2008 campaign contribution by LCG elder and Living University President Dr. Michael Germano:
Contribution to John McCain by LCG elder Michael Germano
FEC Report Showing Germano Contribution
Under HWA, this would never have been allowed. Now, a minister and senior LCG leader can openly support and donate to a political candidate.Yep, Doc Germano apparently pulled out his checkbook for McCain, and even identified himself as a LCG administrator!
One assumes that Doc also turned out to vote as well, being the lesser deed after handing over the shekels.
My question for Bob is, how come it's okay for Germano to indulge in partisan politics, but Reg gets clobbered for asking a few pertinent questions?
And who's in the wrong here over LCG dogma, Bob the naturopath or Mike the administrator? Let's remember that Mike is charged with educating the next generation of Philadelphian COG leaders (assuming there are LCG members who believe that there will be a "next generation.")
Should someone be hauled over the coals for this, fired or even disfellowshipped?
To be clear, I think Doc Germano has every right to throw greenbacks wherever he wants, including lost causes like the McCain campaign. Moreover, he has the right, and I'd argue the duty, to vote.
But Bob, drawing a cloak of unworldly righteousness about himself, says "we in the Living Church of God" do not do that.
So, I'm confused. Does Doc Germano represent a new wave of conservative enlightenment in LCG, or has he just been a very naughty boy?
38 comments:
Maybe Mr. Germano hasn't reached that section of the LCG doctrinal papers yet.
Or maybe we've found someone in LCG who clearly does NOT have the gift of prophecy.
Dear Gavin,
People are human, especially those in GOD'S CHURCH. They, like Mr. Armstrong, are upon occasion, capable of MAKING MISTAKES. Mr. Germano was yet unaware of LCG, er, Biblical Policy. He, like Sarah Palin, is a delicate newborn in GOD'S TRUTH and has obviously succumbed to his human nature. Mr. Germano is at this time being gently re-educated in GOD'S WAY OF GIVE.
That is all.
Bob T.
(Actually Paul Ray)
HWA used to teach that if the Democrats win, it means the end is like really close. If the Republicans win, well, then God has granted more time to do the work.
So, Doc Germano apparently voted for more time. Can't fault him for that! He's just barely gotten started on his Living University project.
Most mainstream Christians do believe in voting because they believe the USA to be a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles. Heirs to God's promises to Abraham through his descendent, Jesus Christ. Heh heh. Bob Thiel is simply taking yet another opportunity to remind us of how ACOGs distort that! Crosses anyone?
BB
The selection of Judas' replacement in Acts 1 might be read as a vote. Verse 26: "diðdwmi" is a verb meaning to give and it is connected to the object "klh=rov" which is a pebble or some small thing used to indicate choice. Yes, sounds like using different color or shape of object to cast votes.
Concerning the article posted by Gavin, whoever that is, I will gladly clear the record. Yes, I studied five separate
years at Oxford University in Oxford, England, and have read numerous papers
at Kellogg College, and Magdalen College, which are major parts of Oxford
University. I lived in the dorm at Rewley Center at Kellogg College. I have
also studied twelve years during the summers at the Hebrew and Jerusalem
Universities in Jerusalem (that is in Israel)not Tennessee. Yes, I did
graduate from Oxford Graduate School, which is in Tennessee, which is a fully
regionally accredited graduate schoo. It is not associated directly with
Oxford University nor has it claimed to be. However, if one graduates
from Oxford in Tennessee, it is required they earn a minimum of one semester
in Oxford University in Oxford, England, as a part of their education.
Oxford Graduate School in Tennessee has at least two professors, one in law
and one in philosophy, which are also instructors for Oxford University in
England and live there and travel to Tennessee due to the close association
of the schools although not academically. I have also studied at the University
of Texas in Austin, as well as several other fully regionally accredited
colleges including Princeton Theological Seminary, which is a part of
Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. I might add, of all the
schools named both in the U.S., Israel, and Europe, by far the best school
was Oxford Graduate School in Tennessee. To graduate from Oxford Graduate
School in Tennessee one was required to take four semesters of statistics and
the standards were higher there than any of the state universities which I
attended. The dissertation required 40 percent statistical analysis, compare that to the major universities. The time to finish was a minimum of four years compared to some state universities post graduate two to three year degrees. The cost for one degree was well beyond thirty thousand dollars several years ago. I resent any insinuation of a second class school due to it being located in Tennessee or its quality. While in Oxford University one of my courses in Literature was on Frankinstein, there were no such cases of inferior curriculum in Tennessee. In addition, I graduated as valedictorian at Oxford Graduate School
and was awarded the Chancellor's Award for outstanding statistical research.
I read all my papers for the Oxford Society of Scholars not in Tennessee, but
in Kellogg College in Oxford, England. I fail to understand why any of these
people do not fully support someone who has the academic background I have
instead of questioning what I am trying to do for others who might not have
had the financial support to have completed the same schools. By the way, I am now and always will plead guilty to blantantly defending the biblical text against those who question its origins. Tell Gavin commission is spelled "commission" not commison (sic). Go figure.
Tell Rumney to contact me personally if he has questions. I will answer them gladly. By the way, our school, the American Institute is not my school but belongs to a group of businessmen who paid for my education so we could travel abroad and bring back the biblical information to those training ministers who are serious students but cannot travel to Israel. We are proud of our twenty-five Ph.D. degreed professors who try to help others through teaching instead of criticism. We are one of the only colleges with religious accreditation which is fully accepted by several regionally accredited colleges due to our scholarship and scholars and I would appreciate it if people like Gavin would not screw that up. Unless he has a problem with Jesus, the University of Texas, Harvard, the Hebrew and Jerusalem Universities in Jerusalem, Israel, and twenty other regionally accredited university professors who teach for us, then he needs to shut up and join the good guys who are trying to educate those who really want to serve the LORD. The same teachers who teach for us have graduated from each of the above universities and presently are teaching in regionally accredited institutions. If he wants to criticize some school, do it to Harvard, they can afford it. Just wondering, what are his credentials? Don't question mine, I worked hard for the good education I have earned. By the way, the editor's note was correct as the Journal had it. It case you didn't get the message, yes, it pissed me off! If you want to help get God's work done, you may contact me at: rmoseley@aihls.org or 1-800-617-6205 but I have not got time for the silly fights you guys seem to appreciate competing in. Regards, Ron Moseley
Ron, thanks for the info. Unfortunately you posted under the wrong thread.
I fully and unreservedly accept your scholarly claims, but would respectfully make the following observations.
1. Paragraphs are useful in breaking up a body of text, even in Brill publications.
2. Schoo is spelled school.
3. Frankinstein is spelled Frankenstein.
4. The word "commsion" appears in that form on your Institute's website. I just cut and pasted it, adding the (sic) in order to show that the error originated elsewhere.
5. Does your Institute offer anger management courses? The response you offer is way out of proportion to the comments offered on the blog.
Fully accepting your fine credentials, which are of a far higher order than any I possess, I am still struck by the less than scholarly tone you adopt.
Jesus ruled no kingdom during his lifetime, so unlike his predecessors he had no bodyguards -- but he insisted that his men arm themselves, "... he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." What for? So Jesus will be numbered with transgressors. Then, when two swords are proffered, he says, "It is enough." Is this not curious?
He also said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." This time sword seems clearly a metaphor, but war has surrounded Jesus' name from the first century CE to the present time.
Later, "Simon Peter, having acquired a sword (since Jesus required it), drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. ... So Jesus told Peter, “Sheath your sword. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?” Then, in a pique of irony, he says, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." First he requires his men to buy swords, even at the cost of their clothing, if need be. And then he scolds for using them.
When Pilate queries him, he says, "“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews...". Peter apparently hadn't understood. But to the Jews? What Jews? Almost everyone in town was Jewish. Most of them had just hailed Jesus as king when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, after David's tradition. The men who arrested him were a detachment of Roman soldiers with a few corrupt Jewish priests and officers. Hardly, "the Jews." Was the whole town culpable, even though they could not have known what a few corrupt leaders were doing?
The situation is puzzling. His men are under command to arm themselves, but not to protect him whose kingdom was not of "this world." Yet his men must protect themselves -- or carry swords only for show, to make themselves transgressors? Transgressors of what? Roman law? Jewish law? Jesus had certainly transgressed Roman law by riding into town as king. Would swords on his men strengthen the case of his being numbered among transgressors?
Peter drew his sword preemptively, so perhaps he was dozing while Jesus explained the sword rationale. Yet the kingdom Jesus looked forward to and for which he was preparing his students were one and the same. His students were to carry swords, but not to defend him, due to the singular nature of his coming ordeal. Is there no possibility that they might have found occasion to defend themselves?
I have to join Gavin in asking how Bob Thiel's quote explains why Mike Germano shouldn't have contributed to John McCain's campaign? Why didn't Jesus tell his men to forget swords and just fast and pray? Perhaps voting is another way for Jesus' modern disciples to ensure that Jesus, to this very day, is still numbered among transgressors -- if voting is indeed a transgression.
Can anyone responsibly apply these first century mysteries to citizens of a twenty-first century democratic republic voting or not voting for a leader whose government is most definitely of this world? We can have dual citizenship here on earth; is it not possible to exercise citizenship simultaneously in America and in heaven?
Once again, please explain.
the article neglected to state...
Yes, in writing positively about voting, Reg didn't bother citing the single proof text on which the non-voting doctrine apparently stands. From that statement one is to infer that voting is bad, in the same vain as the two texts that mention a ruler's birthday make birthdays bad.
Saul (before he became Paul)
From Bob's style of wordsmithing, I don't know if he is implying a renaming like Abram/Abraham. FWIW, Saul was his Hebrew name, Paul was his Greco-Roman name, used with the Gentiles.
There are six confusions in the Church of God that never get resolved, yeah, seven pretty much.
1. To vote or not to vote
2. To smear or not to smear makeup
3. To tithe or not to tithe
4. To rule from the top down or in layers.
5. Where are all the true churches
6. Is it 3-5 again or now 2012
7. Can only singles bring watermelon to the church picnics
Sooner or later it may dawn on an individual that in many things, it does not matter what the Bible says or doesn't say about a topic in the context of 2000 or 4000 years ago.
Dr. Ron Moseley apparently has his own website:
http://moseleyhistory.com
The term "apologetics" can be perplexing. In fact, it can take on a dismissive tone. I understand the need within academia for peer review, consideration of opposing views, and information factored in from other disciplines or branches. However, certain fields or disciplines are based on premises which are often disparate, or seemingly mutually exclusionary. This often leads to tunnel vision, which is frustrating to the seeker of truth.
Just as there can be Christian apologetics, I believe there can also be atheistic apologetics, scientific apologetics, archaeological apologetics, evolutionary apologetics, etc. If one excludes certain or all fields from one's search, and there are always logical sounding reasons for doing this, the result is going to be labelable (is that a word?) as apologetics.
BB
Poor Doc Germano, gonna take a beating for LCG's stupidity. Actually, I don't feel real sorry for him because if he has enough sense to be engaged in the political process in that way he has enough sense to not work for and with LCG folks.
The previous post that referred to the actual scriptural context of Dr. Bob's paraphrased sound bite/quote of Jesus is really in bad form referring to the entire passage and the setting of Christ's capture. Apparently this person did not spend enough time in Harmony of the Gospels at god's college learning how to properly extract part of a sentence that is part of a verse to prove a point of great limpness that has nothign to do with the actual story.
Yes, Dr. Bob, please explain why Paul (and other disciples) used the political and governmental processes to great advantage on more than one occasion if "God's Kingdom were not of this world." (Appealing to Caesar, using citizenship as a get out jail free card, etc.) Explain why HWA and WCG jumped behind all the legal and constitutional shields they did, along with some of the most liberal governmental watchdog groups, when the State of California threatened it with receivership in the 70's. Explain the need to hand off fabulously useless and expensive gifts to fabulously wealthy world leaders if "we are not of this world." Can they not afford Stueben crystal on their own?
Lord have mercy.
jds
Boy those Germanos are quite the rebels. First the Mrs. with her new years eve party picture and now the Mr. with his political posturing. They may just need a good spanking by Spanky.
In reading the diatribe sent in by Ron Moseley, the following statement caught my interest:
"I have also studied at the University of Texas in Austin, as well as several other fully regionally accredited colleges including Princeton Theological Seminary, which is a part of Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey"
As a resident of Princeton Junction, New Jersey, I have always been under the impression that Princeton Theological Seminary was a separate school from Princeton University (which, incidentally, is consistently rated the #1 or #2 university in the United States, winning the #1 honor in some years and falling second to Harvard on others). Sure enough, a check of the website indicates no affiliation with Princeton University.
If Ron Moseley really attended Princeton Theological Seminary, he would know that this religious school has no affiliation with the prestigious Princton University. They're simply both located in the same borough - Princeton, NJ. He's either lying about attending or lying about the affiliation.
More on the Ron Mosely letter.
He says "by far the best school was Oxford Graduate School in Tennessee" what a hoot! In his opinion maybe.
A quick look on the internet tells me that this school has about 100 students and 15 teachers. It requires that students attend a 10-day program at the real Oxford University - probably as a ploy to imply credibility. The whole setup of naming the school "Oxford" and requiring this perfunctory program at the real Oxford strikes me as very misleading. As you may know, most Universities offer short programs to the general public as money-makers. Attending a 10-day program is a far cry from actually getting accepted to attend the real Oxford University as an actual student.
Also, what does Ron mean he "attended Oxford five separate years". Was it a 10-day program each year for five years?
Gavin, I think you denigrated your own credentials too quickly. Although Ron wrote a somewhat convincing but misleading letter, I doubt his credentials approach yours.
Anon said "When Pilate queries him, he says, "“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews...". Peter apparently hadn't understood. But to the Jews? What Jews? Almost everyone in town was Jewish. Most of them had just hailed Jesus as king when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, after David's tradition. The men who arrested him were a detachment of Roman soldiers with a few corrupt Jewish priests and officers. Hardly, "the Jews." Was the whole town culpable, even though they could not have known what a few corrupt leaders were doing?"
How is it that even Peter and Paul in Acts also accused the Jews for crucifying Christ?? The only involvement they had is THEY DID NOTHING TO STOP IT!! Having hailed Christ shortly before this is it possible they turned against him? Perhaps some, but it would seem most would not. The only way they could have been guilty is they did nothing to stop the execution of an innocent man.
That is the problem with many COG's they preach against evil, but do nothing to even hinder it. Hypocritical at best!
I doubt that Dr. G will be chastised for supporting McCain as much as he is criticized for not giving the $$ to the Church!!
Thank God for the little things...good for Dr. G.!!!
Wonder if anyone has noticed that Dr.Bob has also set a date for the Europeans conquering the US by 2017 esp if Barak O.is in office two terms(What that has to do with it is not well known)
What the Europeans plan to do about their own economic and other internal problems is not addressed.
Got em!!!!! Further proof that the "Living Church of God " is not!!!
Game, set, point. Consistency wins again!
Seeker makes a cogent point. We are responsible for each other. But this story still needs more scrutiny.
Not not even those of Jesus' inner circle, excepting Peter, tried to save him, and for that Peter got a sharp reprimand. Jesus later insisted that his servants wouldn't fight for him because his kingdom was not of this world. He had told them of his coming demise. So were they exempted while the rest of Judea were culpable? Jesus' students were every bit as Jewish as "the Jews" being accused of Jesus' execution.
Peter later said, "This Jesus, whom YOU crucified...," exempting himself. He said this to devout Jewish pilgrims in Jerusalem for an annual festival. He accused this huge group of out-of-towners of crucifying Jesus. What is more, according to the story many of them took his word to heart and did their best to cleanse themselves of the sin. It's a puzzle that seems, at least to me, to strengthen Seeker's point. But how well known could Jesus have been to these pilgrims from every nation under heaven?
One must conclude that part of the story has been removed, left out or even misunderstood for who knows why.
The American Institute For Advanced Biblical Studies was founded in 1991 as a specialty college in the field of Middle Eastern history. Originally, a consortium of fifteen scholars, thirteen of which have Ph.D. degrees from major universities, worked together to provide a unique four year curriculum for a limited body of students. Because the Institute is a training center for biblical teachers and laymen relating to Middle Eastern history, it prepares the participants with detailed information on the land of Israel, both modern and ancient.
This project was conceived in 1986 when Dr. Ron Moseley, now the President of the American Institute, began to travel and discover specialists in the five major fields relating to Middle Eastern history. These fields of study include linguistics (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), Jewish culture, geography, archaeology, history of the Middle East, professional writing, lectures and scholarly exchange. After finding the scholars, Dr. Moseley then traveled to their universities, enrolled and studied under these mentors personally. These institutions included the Hebrew University (Jerusalem), the Jerusalem University in Jerusalem, Princeton, the University of Texas, Oxford and several others.
The policy of quality education at the American Institute is achieved by several unusual, but highly effective methods of study. These scholars provide enough hours through lectures, videos, and personal time, in their specialized fields, during a period of four years (eight semesters) to guarantee a limited group of students a distinguished degree from some of the best specialist in their fields.
The American Institute is incorporated in the state of Arkansas as an independent, non-profit institution of higher education, awarding a specialized four-year Bachelor of Religious Education in Middle Eastern Studies Degree, and a Master of Religious Education in Middle Eastern Studies Degree.
From AIHLS.org
Stan
Ron Mosely's books, radio, video:
Ron Mosely
"7. Can only singles bring watermelon to the church picnics"
Crap. All these years I thought the singles brought drinks.
There is no good answer to should a Christian vote. Depends on the brand of Christianity and the perspective they hold.
No Church seeks to mix the OT God with the NT Jesus more than the COG's. They see one consistent thread, that is not there, from Genesis to Revelation. The trick seems to be to discern God's will and how God does things.
The problem with using the Bible to know what God thinks of anything is that "God" starts out as man's best friend, talking with him in the mythology of the Garden of Eve story and it's all downhill from there.
Shortly after that we have a god that is beginning to fade out of the picture. Abraham gets some direct voice contact. Jacob is supposed to have had a knock down drag out fight with God who had to leave before the sun came up. (Strange)
Then we have a God that Moses hears in his head and talks to him from bushes, smoking mountains and clouds.
Elijah gets to see God's behind once and then the only contact people seem to have is through the prophets who get to hear the voices but the people just have to trust them.
The Psalms are full of "where did you go God?" agonies and why have we all been left behind.
The concept of sin seems to strenghten when the masses can no longer hear the voice of God, blame themselves, or are blamed for it, and repent harder of their sins, so the voice will return and tell them what to do and how to be.
In the NT, Paul hears his voice in his head, which we have to trust again is true. All of Paul's knowing what God wants us all to believe comes in visions, including the "Passover" or Eucharist.
Today we have God on paper in the form of the canon. We read it, search it and try to figure out the answers to questions that we probably really don't need to bother looking for, because we don't hear the voice of God in our heads anymore.
Religion has always tended to make the mind unconscious and compliant. The less religious, the more conscious a person seems to be as to the possibilites of life, science and such. Just a personal observation.
Too bad one can't just say, "I think I need to vote" and let it go at that without others deciding if they did God's right thing. It's endless.
Someone rightly observed that Paul used the political machine whenever he needed to. He dropped names, flashed his Roman citizenship (which makes his being a real pharisee suspect believe me) and kissed ass whenever he needed to "be all things to all men." If one is all things to all men, how do you ever really find out what the real person believes?
Anyway, it's not the churches, the members or the ministers business if an individual in a democracy exercises their right to vote.
There is not difference between "Pray for leaders, that it go well with us" and "Vote that it go well with us."
I ramble....
Should someone be hauled over the coals for this, fired or even disfellowshipped?
This sort of affront to a ranking and ordained member of the Living Church of God cannot and should not be tolerated. Dissemination of semi-official gossip and extrapolation of doctrine may be useful, in its place (the internet being for weirdoes), but casting dispersions upon the actions of one of GOD’s ministers (even if he didn’t know what that minister’s actions were) is clear grounds for a little marking and avoiding and casting the devil his own. Disfellowship Dr. Bob!
Mark The Narc Lax
Bob Thiel should consult his copy of the Canons of Evangelistic Discipline of the Living Church of God for the proper voting procedures to follow to elect the next Living Presiding Evangelist.
If the late Meredith didn't appoint his successor ala' Herbert, the Council of Elders skips a meal, has a prayer, then goes into a shouting and shoving match as to who is the most important evangelist of the true Living Church of God-under Herbert W. Armstrong of course- since Roderick Meredith walked the face of the earth.
Instead of having successive Mafia-style duels to determine the next Living successor, the Canons of Evangelistic Discipline should call for a vote.
Gavin,
Thanks for your most generous offer as "diplomatic" envoy but how could I, a most unworthy and
humble Israelite accept? You are a far more qualified candidate than self.
I am not certain any longer if I am an Israelite.Recent genealogical data reveal Iranian inputs into the family,so the crescent may have more meaning than the Star of David.
Those ham and oyster missiles sound most scrumptious food so I doubt if they will ever reach their target.
Have a most Kosher Xmas,
Seamus
Dennis,
Having read your synopsis of the Bible re: voting, I don't know what to say. All I can tell you is that I see programs on Christian television that provide quite a different viewpoint and understanding. This is just awesome, and never fails to take me to places that the WCG was totally incapable of even thinking of reaching. So uplifting.
One concept has stuck with me for decades now. It's kind of a corollary, if you would, to anthropomorphism. I believe that when any of us reads, it is the things with which we personally identify that leap out at us and remain. HWA seemed to see a punishing God. He taught us that punishment was the way in which God displayed love. Pastor Greg Laurie (who actually lost his son a few months back, and still praises God!) and others to whom I listen today see a loving God who is just looking for an excuse to bless us.
Purple Hymnal has opined on many occasions that man creates his own gods, and I concede that this is often true. These gods, however, usually bear no resemblance at all to the Biblical God. Psalm 135:15-18 actually concerns itself with anthropomorphism. Speaking about idols, vs 18 states "Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them."
What we do see is so susceptible to our own attitudes. There are always opportunities to read between the lines, and what we see there can be positive, uplifting, and can provide solutions, or it can be negative, and depressing, with no fulfilling way out.
BB
Seamus
You DO realise that you've just turned down the 7 figure honorarium that went with that posting?
;-)
You will not get an explanation from Bob! He will remain silent about this as he continues bang other COG's in his quest to prove that LCG is truly the one and only...
He didn't say anything about that New Years Day hat that Mrs. Germano was wearing either that was posted on LCG's web site for a brief time.
Such is life...and honesty!!!!!!
Gavin:
I think that Seamus is taking the practical approach. His Royal Highness and Doctor of Thielogoly Bobulus wouldn't receive your ambassador any more than he accepts comments on his blog.
Besides which you are now identified clearly as the King of the South.
"Besides which you are now identified clearly as the King of the South."
ROFL!!
An Aside:
I don't find an email on the author of Weinland Watch, but he posts the latest interview with Weinland but nicely balanced by other theologians and psychologist. I highly recommend the short read.
The psychologist hit a home run with this observation about humans and why Ron and those like him can be believed, for a time.
Susan Tanner
"Apocalyptic thinking can be very useful to people who need to feel a sense of control, and that they therefore feel calm because they know what’s going to happen. Living with uncertainty, living with a question mark is the hardest thing to do for all human beings. We like to know what’s going to happen. That’s why we visit clairvoyants and you know we have our tarots read and all sorts of things…."
"Living with a question mark...'
That's it. That's why we have humans writing prophecy in the Bible which is so wrong so often.
Gavin,
Worldwide allowed one to repent.
Will a full repentance and retraction give me access to that seven figure honorarium you were talking about?
And I am quite willing to gift you the nett tithe( after expenses,of course).
Seamus
"Living with a question mark...'
That's it. That's why we have humans writing prophecy in the Bible which is so wrong so often."
Also why humans have been doing it wrong for two thousand-plus years and counting.
Thanks for the plug Dennis.
Well, I spoke with an LCG pastor this week who confirmed what I suspected: Germano's contribution to the McCain campaign has not been widely known in the church membership, or even in the LCG ministry. In fact, he didn't even know about it until I brought it up.
Thanks to Gavin and the anonymous poster who brought this up. (How in the world did you find out??) However, I must disagree with one part of Anon's analysis:
-- Now, a minister and senior LCG leader can openly support and donate to a political candidate. --
Since this matter has not been openly known within the LCG membership, I can't agree that it constituted open support in the way Anon appears to mean it -- at least, not until it showed up on AW! :-)
Libro
(I personally believe this is a matter between Germano, McCain, and God -- but I doubt everyone in LCG will feel so generous...)
When the first deacons were chosen in Acts 6, the "whole group" chose seven deacons.
How did the "whole group" (by that time numbering over five thousand men (Ac 4.4)choose seven from among their number *without* some sort of voting?
I would VERY much like for Mr. Thiel to explain this.
Then again, perhaps not. I remember back in the day when he insisted that the Church should always put the LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME in preaching the Gospel (and of course, that was LCG, and UCG put their 2nd largest amount in it, which gave him ample opportunity to build up his splinter and cast down another). Then, suddenly LCG ended up spending more one month on another 'category' (and they have since then). Since then Mr. Thiel instantly dropped the whole "must have the most money going into preaching the Gospel", focusing on his other points instead in order to continue praising LCG. A change of standards? Yes.
I have a feeling if he did comment on this situation, this is the same kind of thing he would do. Bend the rules slightly, as it were.
How do you feel about Michael Germano's political donation to McCain?
Well, I guess it could have been worse. He could have given it to Obama.
Post a Comment