Moderation and a Lost Logo

Living University has lost its logo, but we're pleased to restore it for the benefit of AW readers (special thanks to "you-know-who" in Pasadena). Whoever designed it didn't take into account the shock/horror effect of anything resembling a cross on the hyper-Armstrong brethren. To be fair, it's doubtful that this rather amateur effort was ever intended to be anything other than a temporary fill-in. In any case, LCG pulled the offending artwork soon after the concerned emails started coming in from disturbed members.

Beginning with this posting comments on AW will be moderated. Hopefully this will help with the quality, and discourage the CAPS LOCK screamers. All opinions are welcome, but basic civility is definitely appreciated. Anonymous postings are fine, but preference will go to those identified by a pen name. Obviously there will be some delay between submitting and publishing, especially considering the difference in timezones between the US and New Zealand, but hopefully the payoff will be in more relevant material. The moderation policy will be reviewed mid-April.

In Step with Herb

The following comments are adapted from a recent posting by "Ripley"

In 1974 dozens of WCG ministers left over a number of points of disagreement. Sweeping excommunications followed, after which they formed the Associated Churches of God. It was the clear position of HWA, GTA and the WCG that the Associated Churches were not part of the "true church."

Ironically, four years later Garner Ted was disfellowshipped and subsequently founded the Church of God, International. He was marked. Members were to have no fellowship with him. It was clearly the position of his father and the WCG that he was not part of the "true church." Those ministers who chose to affiliate with GTA at that time or in the intervening years were not true ministers.

But today, ministers from those organizations would be viewed by most in the various COG organizations as brothers and fellow Sabbath-keeping Christians.

Why? What changed? How did they go from anathema to approved?

The fact is, the basis for no longer being part of the true church was no longer being in step with Herbert W. Armstrong. That's it. Nothing else.

Clearly, there were people who came to a knowledge of the Sabbath and other doctrines through the Associated Churches, and the Church of God, International; were baptized; and began worshipping entirely through those churches, having had nothing to do with the WCG. Presumably, the same thing occurred in various other of the "heretical" offshoots of that era.

But it didn't matter. They were not in step with HWA, so they were heretics. "Proofs" were trotted out to show how this was true. They were not part of the "true church."

Yet today they are! Sure, Flurry doesn't think so, and neither do Pack and a few others. But, by and large, they're considered part of the fold. Look at Ron Dart. He went with GTA, then on his own. But he's OK today, even downright popular.

It's all indicative of an ever-shifting set of principles, changed as needed to "prove" whatever is most convenient at the time. "Nothing has changed," we hear, while in fact just about everything has. And then, the ever-present beaut: "It doesn't matter what HWA did...."

It's exhausting. It's sad. It's unpredictable. It's inconsistent. And yet, adherents insist it's somehow "right," while never being able to pin the tail on the Correctness donkey.

Which means that those who disagree, including many AW readers, can only be viewed as wrong. Case closed. Ha, ha. "You lose." Bible says so.

It gets so ridiculous. "Nyah-nyah-nyah" is not an adequate substitute for genuine credibility or consistency.

University or Dead End?

The website for Living University is now up at www.livinguniv.com. One of UCG's leading bloggers has this conciliatory comment:

Whether one is a member of Living Church of God, United Church of God or any other facsimile thereof, it is in all our interests to have a biblically educated membership and a means of passing it on to the next generation.

Which is a reasonable and balanced statement. But, all invective aside, is this likely to occur in the close confines of a church-run institution?

Biblically educated means more than recounting denominational dogmas, it implies hard questions and critical thinking. It demands that authoritarian pronouncements are able to be challenged, discussed openly and even refuted. Being polite, docile and well-groomed is irrelevant.

Was that even remotely possible at Ambassador College? Those who have listened to former students like Greg Doudna know better. At best AC was a training school. You train seals; humans you educate (there is a difference). For most of its institutional life Ambassador was completely unsuitable for accreditation.

Assuming it ever gets off the ground, will Living University do any better? Here's the outline for its flagship theology course:

THL 135 Life, Ministry, and Teachings of Jesus (3-0-0-3)
Prerequisites: None.
Corequisites: None.
This course covers the life, ministry, and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the four Gospels. Emphasis is on the analysis of the four Gospels in the context of the social, political, and religious conditions of the first century. Upon completion, students should be able to explain the background, purpose, message, and themes of the Gospels and the significance of Jesus Christ in the first century and beyond. The lecture core of this course is a series of recorded lectures presented by noted television evangelist, author, and pastor of pastors Dr. Roderick C. Meredith.

Does "noted television evangelist, author, and pastor of pastors Dr. Roderick C. Meredith" have any recognised qualification for teaching this course? Is his doctorate from a legitimate university? Is his knowledge of the subject current? Has this "noted author" ever published a peer reviewed paper? How about any book not churned out for free as a church promotional? Is listening to "Dr." Meredith's tapes a credible strategy for a core paper?

Living University is, I suspect, a folly that will bleed LCG dry. It defies belief to imagine that any competent authority would ever accredit it. To think that this "university" will attempt to offer qualifications in psychology, anthropology and "health promotion" fairly beggars the imagination.

Would you want your family doctor to have a degree from Hamburger University? Why is that not okay, while a pastor can be functionally illiterate in theology and a danger to all concerned every time he opens his mouth to offer "counselling"?

Anyone in LCG, UCG or any other CG should consider investing in a real education, not hunkering down with recordings made by a rogue amateur who is now, and always has been, out of his depth.

The blog writer is correct: "it is in all our interests to have a biblically educated membership." For that reason alone, Living University is a very bad idea.

Oh Susanna!

The postings have been a bit slow lately. I blame Susanna. Yes, that's her in the painting. She won't mind, she's used to it. In fact I got carried away with the lady and her story, which you'll find in the Book of Daniel, chapter 13.

Susanna has been the subject of the last assignment for Interpreting the Old Testament. Indulge, said the lecturer, in the "hermeneutics of imagination." Herman who?

Some wiseacre is going to point out the fact that there is no Daniel 13. Quite right, but there is in the Septuagint. Grab a Catholic translation (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) and there it is. Feminine beauty, randy old men, spineless husbands, scandal, Perry Mason...

But while I've been dallying in the garden with Susanna, events have moved on in the Living Church of God. What's going on in Canada? Who is Ross Abasolo, and is he really joining Chuckie Bryce? Apparently so. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

And income is down, sort of. You brethren better dig deep for those Holy Day offerings.

"...there are a number of projected programs we will have to "cut" if the income level does not increase substantially. Satan's recent attacks have certainly had an effect... I am requesting that you ask the brethren to go "all out" in supporting God's Work at this critical time. Please remind them to set aside some extra large offerings for the upcoming Holy Days."
See, I wasn't kidding. Same old, same old... Susanna was a lot more fun.

I suppose it's proof - as if we needed another example - that houses built on sand wash away at full tide.

Mississippi Mud Cake redivivus

Gird your loins Philadelphians, it's almost that time of year again. Unleavened everything, at least for the faithful members of the various Churches of God. Necessity is the mother of invention, and creative cooks are dusting off the recipe books as April 1 approaches.

Which is where Mississippi Mud Cake comes in. It was a seasonal recipe in the Worldwide News, circa 1977 (I'm guessing). Being a bloke with extremely limited culinary talent, then or now, I was seduced by the Dark Side of my chocolate addition to give it a go... the prospect of a week of hard rations was motivation enough (the unleavened bread photograph is original "hard tack" from the Civil War. John Brown's body may lie a-mouldering, but that stuff looks as unappetising as the day it was baked!)

Some things never change. Crispbread begone! The good folk of COGdom are even now gathering ingredients to fend off the munchies. Here's one such temptation, from the Likeminds board.

UNLEAVENED BANANA BREAD

1/2 C. shortening
2 eggs
3/4 C. brown sugar
1 1/2 C. flour
1/2 tsp. salt
1/2 C. cream or evaporated milk
1 tsp. vanilla extract
1 1/2 Cup bananas -- cut up
1/2 C. nuts -- chopped

Beat shortening, eggs, and brown sugar. Add flour and salt, milk and vanilla, bananas and nuts. Bake in 10x6-inch pan at 350° for 30 minutes

Sounds almost within my competence. But so did the mud cake and, well, let's just say it didn't inspire me to give up my day job and open a bakery. Those of us outside the US would need to adjust those inches and degrees to metric equivalents - anyone got a slide rule?

The rolling dice

Bill Lussenheide comments on the shape of COGs to come...

Demographics show that about half of all the brethren will be deceased within 15 to 18 years.

Most of the "iconic" leadership of the COGs, i.e. Meredith,Hulme, Rittenbaugh, Flurry et al will also be deceased.

The iconic groups will be scattered and split apart, as all groups that rely on iconic leadership do when their "guru" dies leaving a power vacuum.

The survivor will be UCG, as it does have in place set succession plans and its leaders, or "the 12," do not necessarily have too much personal draw or persona to matter much if they die or are replaced.

UCG will pick up a good percentage of the remnant parts of the other deceased COGs, however, will probably only be in the 7 to 10 thousand member range and 80% of it will be concentrated in the 20 largest US markets, (equivalent to where there are Major League Baseball franchises.)

Some evidence of this trend can be found in FOT attendance of UCG, which is around 20,000 as opposed to their weekly attendance of around 12,000.

The 7 to 10 thousand UCG attendees 15 to 20 years from now will be basically very senior "senior citizens".

That is how the dice is rolling out for the COGs unless they can come up with a new and cutting edge way to convert the under 40 crowd. Attempts are being made, but results are still yet to be determined and are questionable.

Turn back the tide!

The Oracle speaks:

The Living Church of God has more than one hundred and forty elders around the world. Over the last two years or so, about a dozen elders have decided to leave the Living Church of God—some over doctrinal issues and some for personal reasons—to start their own organizations or to join someone else. This is hardly the “mass exodus” that some Internet sites want to assert. What has been encouraging is that few people have followed these departing elders. In fact, some who have left are also beginning to trickle back after seeing the lack of fruits in other organizations. Overall, most congregations around the world are positive and focused, while here and there some few individuals are confused and negative—especially if they spend a lot of time on the Internet. Most of the brethren in the Living Church of God see where the Work is being done, and are grateful to be part of the team that God is using to do His end-time Work.
(Winnail's weekly update, March 15)

Translation: Nobody PANIC!

Doug has a lot in common with ancient King Canute who commanded the tide to turn back. The old 1970s strategies that worked so well for the Armstrongs are redundant in the 21st century. The Internet isn't going away, no matter how much Doug pouts, so he'd better get used to it. More and more members are no longer happy to be treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on effluent... or tossed an occasional plastic bone to gnaw on (the mirage of an accredited sect-run university for example?)

Of course, Doug didn't resort to the cry "God is on His throne brethren!", so things can't have hit critical just yet.

Oh, wait, there is more:

Pre-Passover Trials: Jesus told His disciples at the Passover, “In the world you will have tribulation,” but said that with His help we can overcome through these trials (John 16:33). The Apostle Paul reveals that Satan will try to use personal crises, or attempts to disrupt or divide the Church, to undermine and shake our faith in God and leaders He has chosen (I Thessalonians 3:1-5). Satan seems to be most active in his efforts to confuse and discourage people just before the Passover and other Holy Days. The Bible clearly reveals that personal trials and Church disruptions are to be expected by Christians who are called to be part of God’s Church (I Peter 4:12). One of the keys to enduring trials and overcoming difficult circumstances is to exercise patience—trusting God to sort out confusing situations (James 1:2-8). God is on His throne. He is still guiding His work, as He has down through the ages. We cannot afford to let Satan get our minds off the meaning of the Holy Days that picture the plan and purpose that God is working out on this earth. We need to keep pre-Passover trials in proper perspective.

Translation: more of that effluent is about to hit the fan.

Who Speaks for the COGs?

Once upon a time there was a monolithic sect called the Worldwide Church of God. Everybody was required to submit to the leaders and - incredibly - even think alike about anything of consequence. And it worked, at least for a time.

Until it all crashed.

Today the refugees are clustered in little groups, each eager to distinguish its virtues from the failings of the others. In place of one rigid hierarchy there is a proliferation of minor warlords. Then, uniformity; now, diversity.

So who, if anyone, speaks for the COGs?

That's easy: Bob Thiel.

"...we in the COGs believe that... We in the COGs believe that..." (March 17)

"We in the COGs do not consider that... We do not consider that... Thus, we in the COGs feel that... we in the COGs do not..." (St Patrick article)

Bob even wallops old Saint Pat for something he might be accused of himself: "It is quite presumptuous, as well as wrong, for Patrick to conclude that..."

Presumptuous. Very apt.

Naturally Bob, like everyone else, is entitled to his beliefs and opinions, and to advocate those views. But does Bob even speak on behalf of warlord Meredith? If not, how much less "the COGs." What makes one man's view more truly "COGish" than another (Mark Armstrong's or Clyde Kilough's for example?)

Where, for example, does it say that COG members shouldn't wear green on March 17? (Bob's latest pronouncement is called "Why The Church of God Does Not Wear Green on St. Patrick's Day") Okay that's Bob's understanding, and good for him, but a member of UCG in the Republic of Ireland might feel somewhat different.

Nobody is asking Bob to clam up, just to quit claiming to be some kind of ecumenical spokesman. After all, COGwriter is something of an institution, and the news service Bob provides is appreciated by many.

Unlike the old WCG, healthy communities thrive in an atmosphere of debate. The goose-stepping days under Herbert Armstrong didn't lead to harmony. The proof of that is in what happened when the rubber bands broke in 1996. Among Herb's present-day imitators debate is a pretext for division, as we've seen with Charles Bryce. Debate is a bad word in the Armstrong lexicon.

In The Closing of the Western Mind, Charles Freeman notes an alternative view first expressed long ago by Heraclitus of Ephesus. The harmonious city (or church) is not one in which everyone lives in peace but one among whose citizens there is constant activity and debate (p.10). Debate is a necessary prelude to reason, tolerance and charity. Small wonder then that these qualities often seem in short supply in the brittle, splinter-prone world of Armstrongism.

Think back to the Early Church. Judging from the evidence in the New Testament alone, the wheels seem to be coming off. Dissension, name calling, different practices. Who spoke for the first generation of Christians? Paul? (Paul thought so). Peter? (Matthew and Mark thought so, e.g. Mt 16: 17-19). James? (Thomas thought so: "Go to James the Just" Gospel of Thomas 12) How about "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? John thought so. It took the creative talents of Luke to try (with mixed success) to draw those loose threads together and paper over the cracks.

It seems nothing much has changed.

The host of heaven

The modern world is a very different place from the one our forefathers and foremothers lived in. If you had to put a single person at the fulcrum of change it might well be Copernicus. After him, the planet was demoted from center of the universe to one more sphere orbiting an unspectacular sun.

One of the significant casualties of 'modernity' is astrology. For thousands of years our ancestors looked up to the skies with awe, and read purpose and prophecy in the motion of the heavens. Paul imagined he had been "caught up to the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2), the clockwork motions of the stars were thought to determine human destiny, and even those giants of the Enlightenment were keen on divining meaning from the firmament.

Copernicus made no distinction... between astronomy and astrology, referring to them jointly as “the head of all liberal arts.” ... Kepler was his era's foremost astrological theoretician... Even Galileo, like most Renaissance astronomers, routinely calculated astrological birth charts... Newton reported that it was his own early interest in astrology that stimulated his epochal researches in mathematics... (Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind, p.294-295.)

Given the universal interest in such things, it's no wonder that many commentators have searched for astrological references in the Bible. If the rest of us find that a curiously antiquarian quest, perhaps it indicates that we have a blindness to the subject that marks our own more rational age. After all, one of the pivotal New Testament stories has three Magi following a star which leads them to Jesus. Three centuries later the upstart emperor Constantine was to legitimate his bloody campaign for the imperial purple by a heavenly sign of his own, a portent that coincidently elevated a form of Christianity to the heart of Roman power.

No post-WCG figure has made a stronger case for astronomical references in the scriptures than former pastor Dennis Diehl. Dennis recommends a site called Solar Mythology and the Bible, and has a couple of articles on the subject, one on Isaiah 14, and another on “the original Sun of God.”

Is he on to something? That's for you to decide. Sophisticated liberal theologians are loathe to see these superstitions in their urbane analyses. Fundamentalists are too blinkered to look beyond their treasure trove of proof-texted dogmas. Maybe we've been missing a very real layer of pure nonsense parading as profundity.

There's a reading list linked from the Solar Mythology site, and for those with a thirst for a deeper understanding of just how different the modern/post-modern world-view really is, you could do worse than tackling Richard Tarnas' powerful book The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View.

For myself, I'm one Piscean who is delighted to be on this side of the Copernican divide.

Of Philistines and Philadelphians

The Philistines have had a really bad reputation for a very long time. They're the villains in the Old Testament/Tanakh (remember Goliath?) But the facts, it seems, are not always what they seem. This was a literate and cultured people. Check out the March 13 NY Times article.

Which leads to an interesting question. Does the Bible portray "the bad guys" accurately? Is it impartial and objective, a "God's eye-view", or are we reading through layers of long-forgotten political convenience and national polemic?

Unfortunately there's a lot of material in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles that's, well, historically suspect, as Finkelstein and Silberman clearly demonstrate in David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. Another provocative writer (with a more populist touch) is Matthew Sturgis, author of It Ain't Necessarily So. Having read both, I recommend them to anyone interested in the history behind the ancient stories. In short, it's not just the Genesis material that we have to exercise caution over. The "historical books" also need to be read with great care.

Needless to say, True Believers and Philadelphian hold-fasts, like fundamentalists of all persuasions, will avoid material like this. Others will find their horizons stretched by inconvenient facts, and may find themselves embarked on a exhilarating learning curve.