What do Whoopi Goldberg, Justin Bieber and Rod Meredith all have in common?
All three have spoken under the banner of the Christian humanitarian organization World Vision.
Hold on, that can't be right. World Vision International is an evangelical Christian aid organization. Rod Meredith has expressed, on multiple occasions, his distaste for these “so-called Christians."
But wait. Rod Meredith's Living Church of God is holding an upcoming Bible seminar at World Vision Canada's headquarters in Mississauga, Ontario. LCG's upcoming presentation, “Has God Abandoned Mankind?” is slated for 2 p.m. on Saturday, May 14, at World Vision Canada's headquarters at 1 World Drive in Mississauga, Ontario.
Now, what are the chances that LCG chose the World Vision facility at random for its seminar? Mississauga is a city of more than 700,000. Its neighbor, Toronto, has a population of 2.6 million. That's a lot of people, and undoubtedly at least a handful of venues to choose from. How funny is it that LCG chose World Vision?
We don't think it's funny at all.
We suspect that LCG chose the World Vision facility to lend an air of Christian legitimacy to unsuspecting outsiders. To cloak itself in the skirts of the very evangelical Christian groups they mock. To lure in moral, God-fearing folks and disarm them with images of smiling African toddlers.
And this isn't the first time. LCG held a similar seminar at World Vision Canada headquarters back in 2011. Despite the fact that LCG's Official Statement of Fundamental Beliefs violates World Vision's Statement of Faith six ways to Sunday, oops, I mean Saturday. Did this ever come up during contract negotiations? Application for a rental space? Anything?
We also don't think it's funny that World Vision Canada is hosting this seminar while under the impression that LCG descended from evangelical Grace Communion International. Rod Meredith left when GCI was still the Worldwide Church of God, back in 1992, years before Joseph W. Tkach's doctrinal shift. But World Vision Canada is hazy on this point, according to our communications with them:
And even if World Vision is confused about who LCG is, it's highly unlikely that LCG is confused about who World Vision is. They've been a household name for decades.
But just in case LCG missed these details, World Vision is an evangelical Christian humanitarian organization that works to alleviate poverty and injustice for children, families and communities in nearly 100 countries worldwide. World Vision is "motivated by (our) faith in Jesus Christ" and serves to demonstrate "God's unconditional love for all people." World Vision's Statement of Faith is unequivocally Trinitarian.
The organization requires staff to affirm either this Statement of Faith or Apostles' Creed, and says this Christian faith is a "uniting factor among staff." LCG obviously doesn't qualify as World Vision staff; still, one must wonder why LCG leaders would want their name associated with such an organization? Especially when there must be other meeting spaces available in the greater Toronto metropolitan area.
So, is LCG unaware they're associating with an openly Trinitarian organization? And how did World Vision come to the conclusion that LCG is a Protestant group related to Grace Communion International? Were these all honest mistakes; simple miscommunications and misunderstandings? And if so, what will LCG do about it now that all the cards are on the table?
All three have spoken under the banner of the Christian humanitarian organization World Vision.
Hold on, that can't be right. World Vision International is an evangelical Christian aid organization. Rod Meredith has expressed, on multiple occasions, his distaste for these “so-called Christians."
But wait. Rod Meredith's Living Church of God is holding an upcoming Bible seminar at World Vision Canada's headquarters in Mississauga, Ontario. LCG's upcoming presentation, “Has God Abandoned Mankind?” is slated for 2 p.m. on Saturday, May 14, at World Vision Canada's headquarters at 1 World Drive in Mississauga, Ontario.
Now, what are the chances that LCG chose the World Vision facility at random for its seminar? Mississauga is a city of more than 700,000. Its neighbor, Toronto, has a population of 2.6 million. That's a lot of people, and undoubtedly at least a handful of venues to choose from. How funny is it that LCG chose World Vision?
We don't think it's funny at all.
We suspect that LCG chose the World Vision facility to lend an air of Christian legitimacy to unsuspecting outsiders. To cloak itself in the skirts of the very evangelical Christian groups they mock. To lure in moral, God-fearing folks and disarm them with images of smiling African toddlers.
And this isn't the first time. LCG held a similar seminar at World Vision Canada headquarters back in 2011. Despite the fact that LCG's Official Statement of Fundamental Beliefs violates World Vision's Statement of Faith six ways to Sunday, oops, I mean Saturday. Did this ever come up during contract negotiations? Application for a rental space? Anything?
We also don't think it's funny that World Vision Canada is hosting this seminar while under the impression that LCG descended from evangelical Grace Communion International. Rod Meredith left when GCI was still the Worldwide Church of God, back in 1992, years before Joseph W. Tkach's doctrinal shift. But World Vision Canada is hazy on this point, according to our communications with them:
“In fact, the Worldwide Church of Tomorrow (sic) (founded by H W Armstrong) had a radical shift after Armstrong’s death and has become thoroughly evangelical and renamed their movement as Grace Communion International. This denomination is a member in good standing both with the National Association of Evangelicals (USA) and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,” World Vision Canada stated in their communication with ABD. “Given this outcome, we do not have any concerns with their use of our facility.”So there you have it, Rod. World Vision Canada is letting you use their facility for your Bible seminar because they think LCG is an evangelical Christian church. Or what you like to call “Protestant.” They are letting you use their space because they believe LCG descended from Grace Communion International. Because they believe your mentor was Joseph Tkach, not Herbert W Armstrong.
And even if World Vision is confused about who LCG is, it's highly unlikely that LCG is confused about who World Vision is. They've been a household name for decades.
But just in case LCG missed these details, World Vision is an evangelical Christian humanitarian organization that works to alleviate poverty and injustice for children, families and communities in nearly 100 countries worldwide. World Vision is "motivated by (our) faith in Jesus Christ" and serves to demonstrate "God's unconditional love for all people." World Vision's Statement of Faith is unequivocally Trinitarian.
The organization requires staff to affirm either this Statement of Faith or Apostles' Creed, and says this Christian faith is a "uniting factor among staff." LCG obviously doesn't qualify as World Vision staff; still, one must wonder why LCG leaders would want their name associated with such an organization? Especially when there must be other meeting spaces available in the greater Toronto metropolitan area.
So, is LCG unaware they're associating with an openly Trinitarian organization? And how did World Vision come to the conclusion that LCG is a Protestant group related to Grace Communion International? Were these all honest mistakes; simple miscommunications and misunderstandings? And if so, what will LCG do about it now that all the cards are on the table?
"When eternal life is involved, we need to be sure about what we believe. So, we should cry out to God for genuine understanding. Then we should be willing to follow the Truth—wherever it may lead. With God's help, each of us will need to exercise real faith and courage to actually do that." - Roderick C. Meredith, "Can You Prove What You Believe?"
"So have you honestly and objectively taken time to prove what Jesus Christ actually taught? And are you willing to act on that proof once it has come clearly and distinctly into your mind? Or are you like most people who are afraid to accept Truth because it may affect their relatives, their friendships, their jobs or their 'social standing'?" Roderick C. Meredith, "Can You Prove What You Believe?"
"We like to think that we stand for truth. But how many of us resort to lying "a little" when it suits our purpose?" Roderick C. Meredith, "Are You a Compromiser?"So will you stand for truth, Rod, or will you compromise to suit your purpose? Will you correct World Vision's misunderstanding? Will you tell them that they are a bunch of “deceived, so-called Christians” and that you are representing God's truth, as revealed through Herbert Armstrong? Or will you continue to masquerade as an acolyte of Joseph Tkach, hiding your doctrinal beliefs behind World Vision's skirts?
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************
I just saw this comment by an anonymous poster on a related thread at Banned by HWA and wanted to share. Unbelievable. I only speculated that LCG played GCI's doctrinal shift to its advantage when trying to peddle its wares to evangelical outlets. It sounds like this was exactly their strategy a decade ago!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I heard from GCI's national director for Canada this morning. It appears that he has set the record straight on LCG with World Vision Canada. We'll see what happens.
And now the comment from Banned:
The Living Church of God has absolutely nothing to do with GCI. I couldn't believe what what I was reading. I remember the Living Church of God mislead INSP Networks back in 2006. I received an email from Mr. John F. Roos, Senior Vice President of Marketing April 4, 2006 which he states "They
(LCOG/Tomorrow's World) admit that they came out of the world associated with Herbert W Armstrong". Of course they did, so has the other two-hundred plus splinter-groups. Let it be known that these groups want nothing to do with the "faith once delivered to the Saints" Dr Roderick C. Meredith still teaches and believe many of the unbiblical-- unorthodox teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong. Dr. Meredith's official statement of fundamental beliefs states "Our doctrines, practices, and traditions have their roots in the Worldwide Church of God under the leadership of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong" (p 1). In Restoring Apostolic Christianity, and Who Or What Is The Antichrist? are designed to make those who listen and read his material conclude that what World Vision, and the millions of other Christians recognize as Christianity is really a false religion foisted on the world by Satan and that true Christianity is to be found (ONLY) in the legalistic Armstrong teachings of Dr. Roderick C. Meredith and his Living Church of God. After sending Mr. John Roos a five page email, dated Monday, April 17, 2006, documenting Dr Meredith's attack's on Christianity, and his many Armstrong teachings, INSP Networks cancelled "Tomorrow's World" They also cancelled another Armstrong splinter-group's TV program, "Armor of God" produced by The Church of God International, founded by Herbert's son, Garner Ted Armstrong. No, The Living Church of God is not an Evangelical group, as World Vision states. Their teaching's are contrary to the Word of God. - See more at: http://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2016/04/living-church-of-god-uses-world-vision.html#sthash.s9XuW1Xi.dpuf
This is incredible, Martha! Great article.
ReplyDeleteWhat a thing. The LCG, the for really real one true church among the many one true churches, is hiding their identity behind the "evil" GCI in order to get their message out on the sly. Masquerading as Evangelicals following Joe Tkach Sr. Who would have thought they would be reduced to this. Just to make a buck. The Global Church of God would never have done such a thing!
Then again, Rod Meredith destroyed that entire organization and refused to pay back his own friends just to make a buck.
Maybe the lesson LCG is trying to teach us is that it's OK to lie and cheat so long as you make a buck from it.
"Worldwide Church of Tomorrow" eh? Well, if World Vision can't even bother to do enough research that they come up with the right name of the organization, perhaps they deserve to be the patsies that they are being played for.
Goes tho show you that Meredith and crew know that the organization is dying. And as it should rightfully should. Let us bury the dead.
ReplyDelete"Worldwide Church of Tomorrow"
ReplyDeleteIsn't that just a crazy and uninformed statement as:
Many newer members of these churches have no idea who Herbert Armstrong was or that Armstrongism is a branch of Ellen G White’s Seventh Day Adventist movement.
This is absolutely baseless. Both can probably classified as "Milleniarism" or "Branches of Millerism." But Armstrongism is no branch of SDA'sism.
I am pretty sure you here on Bereans are capable of doing better.
Respectfully,
nck
Sadly, so many of these Armstrong groups are confusing Christians, Christian radio and TV. There are many of these anti-Trinitarian- - Armstrong off-shoots airing on many Christian stations. One of the most well-known Armstrong teacher airing on Christian radio is Ronald L. Dart, and his program "Born To Win" Dart is very smooth in his approach. It's very difficult to know where his is coming from, because Dart uses the vocabulary of Christianity. He reveals who is really is in his tapes, books, and other literature on other Armstrong sites. Sadly, Dart studied at a Christian college to prepare for the Christian ministry. He even preached in some Baptist churches. In 1958 while listening to Herbert W. Armstrong and his son Garner Ted Armstrong, Dart became convince "What we (His wife) and him were listening to had the ring of truth, and we became convinced and we left the school, and headed out to Mr Armstrong" Many Christian stations even with good "statement of faiths" have been duped by Dart. I could give many examples. One is Faithradio.US Faith requires "all programmers" to be in agreement with their "statement of faith". Dart is not. How did he managed to get on Faith radio stations? How did he get on Salem?, Wilkins? and others? One well--known Christian radio broadcasting network, "Crawford Broadcasting" airs Dart on many of their stations, and another Armstrong off-shoot. I have noticed this with many Christian Networks. I guess as long as "the check clears the bank", almost anyone can air on Christian radio/TV. Dart was a leader in Herbert Armstrong's cult from 1958-1978. He left and became vice president of "The Church of God International, under the leadership of Garner Ted Armstrong who was president. Dart left in 1995, at which time he founded "Christian Educational Ministries" Below is one example where Christians can be duped into these Armstrong cults. PTL: David Bell left the Church of God International, graduated from an evangelical seminary, and now is serving Christ.
ReplyDeletehttp://bpnews.net/18605
My concern is that by airing programs of organizations, when examined more closely are actually unorthodox, people are deceived. This deception is enhanced when programs to promote their ministry are placed among well-known evangelical ministers and ministries.
There is a relationship of trust between Christians and Christian radio/TV stations that the programs they air are produced by groups that at least meet the basic criteria of Christianity. Otherwise, we will soon have more of the Armstrong groups, and other unorthodox organizations using Christian stations to draw unsuspecting listeners in to their folds.
Anon "nck",
ReplyDeleteHerbert Armstrong was once a ranking Minister in the COG7, which was started by an Elder in the SDA Church. Armstrong isn't just descended from the COG7 through this simple connection, most of his theology (such as the Sabbath and his prophetic teachings) come from the SDA church. Not only that, but many of the names of the publications Armstrong came up with actually pulled from SDA literature (such as the Plain Truth came from Ellen G. White's Present Truth, or Mystery of the Ages from Ellen White's Desire of Ages).
We have a few articles to show our research:
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/07/this-has-all-happened-before.html
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2011/01/cog-worldwide-association-claims-false_29.html
Or, if you don't want to see our research, here's an outside reference:
http://www.isitso.org/guide/wcgtreeintro.html
James,
ReplyDeleteI understand Ron Dart's "Born To Win" just got the boot from the CSN network. It was much the same situation where the network simply didn't know Dart's true theology. CSN did the smart thing and actually checked up.
I think what nck is trying to explain is that both the "Ellen G White" SDAs that we know today and the group we call COG7 were two parts of a schism in their parent group - the recently disappointed Miller followers. The majority of the group followed White, those who didn't believe her relating of "visions" would become COG7.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is true that HWA wholesale copied some SDA tracts in circulation during his lifetime.
RSK,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your version of the events, that there was some early schism where the COG7 and SDA are separate. Elder Cranmer left the church in 1860 at the meeting where the SDA church took on the name Seventh Day Adventist. The reason given was that he disagreed with Ellen White as a prophetess. This was not a schism in recently disappointed Miller followers. This was over 15 years after the Great Disappointment. They were well developed as one group, with the same teachings, and one mission, and Gilbert Cranmer was an Elder there.
Evidence that the teachings came through can be clearly seen in early COG7 literature. In addition to what I noted earlier, there are several copies of the COG7 "Bible Advocate" where we can see even HWA's earliest teachings and they are clearly SDA (for example, HWA speaks about the "Third Angel's Message" which is unmistakably SDA). The list of these kinds of things is quite long.
My point being it wasn't just that we can trace the WCG to the SDA church corporate but nearly everything HWA had in the early days can be traced to the SDA church.
Yes, I was generalizing somewhat due to the polarizing effect of White's proclaimed visions and went with "parent group" as opposed to "organization". It might be more accurate to say that some groups of people found her to be inspiring enough for them to follow and some did not. According to the isitso.org link above, "Essentially there was a swirling group of people who believed in both the Sabbath and the “soon coming” of Jesus who were meeting in independent small fellowships around 1860. They never formed into one group that then experienced “splitting.” They just took sides in the first place, based in particular on the issue of Ellen White’s visions, and independently created separate organizations."
ReplyDeleteAh. OK. Thanks for clarifying, RSK.
ReplyDeleteI think the isitso.org article has some details that even this website doesn't. It's a very good article. But I have a definite issue with that paragraph. It starts with "It is sometimes erroneously stated that the Church of God, Seventh Day groups came out of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. This is not an accurate representation of what occurred." It's also not an inaccurate representation of what happened.
The Adventists hadn't officially become the SDA denomination. And the Adventists were very decentralized. So what they say is partly true.
But they were all Adventists who believed in the seventh day Sabbath, they read the same material, and were influenced by the same people. Adventists were not Sabbatarian originally. So this was not the beginning of the movement and they weren't so separate as to be different denominations swirling independently. There was a split at the very beginning, in the mid-1840s, but the Adventists were Adventist because they were the part of the first split that retained Adventism. The rest just went back to whatever they came from. The "Cranmer vs White" was an Adventist split 15+ years in. In this new split, these people were splitting over Ellen White. So what they say is not entirely true, IMHO.
So I believe there are two ways to look at this: A) the COG7 was never SDA technically but they were both Millerite Adventists from a common parent church that suffered a split, or B) The COG7 split off from the SDA church because the SDA church technically was the parent church that suffered a split. I'm thinking that since Ellen G White and her husband were clear leaders on both sides of this split (the people who rejected Ellen rejected her visions), and because the doctrines all stayed the same, I just don't see how A is any real advantage over B. It's all a technicality.
And the technicality just gets more technical when I consider that there is no way to separate HWA from any of it as if to claim that he was somehow not related to the SDA church at all. I find that it is inescapable that he was. I know the WCG and its splinter groups want that separation pretty badly, but I can't see a way that it can be made to work that way.
Well,
ReplyDeleteThanks for providing that information. I make note to study that at a later time.
Based on my knowledge (so far), it is my understanding (until I study your material),
-that cog's existed all over the usa during the millerite "awakaning"
-most of them have commonality in their unifying under the "adventism, millerite" movement But it was a movement not a church. Kind of of an "awakening" movement.
-the moment of "split" between COG and SDA was the moment of adoption of the "SD" to Adventism. Especially EG White's prophecy's and her role in the movement being the point of contention.
Therefore the elders of one of the "many" of "independent" cog churches argued for the "continuation" of the COG movement instead of the "split" or "foundation" of the cog.
It is my understanding that EG Whites revelations are very different. For instance she marked the USA as the Beast Power, whereas HWA marked Europe or the Holy Roman Empire as such.
On other occasions there are similarities indeed, like the 3rd angel message etc.
But as stated I have to look into you materials first.
I'm going to privately ponder the last two paragraphs of the 6:26 comment too about "technicality". Perhaps it is a rather academic discussion after all these years and especially if one was not there during the discussions. But to me personally it is hair raising to see claims that "cog, or hwa are connected to eg white. I believe there is a wide gap between her visions and what became the greater "cog" movement. Perhaps there is even a wider gap between her visions and Adventism in general. (which was sunday keeping in general I thought.)
On another note I saw that in the 1890's just 2 blocks up from the later Pasadena campus there was a COG. Also I was surprised to learn that printer Benjamin Franklin was very much aquainted with Sabbatarians through a Pensylvania friend I believe. And of course the First British Governors of New York make mention of those that "keep the sabbath, like the jews."
nck
Yes, xHWA, Dart was cancelled from CSN. That's over twenty-Christian radios stations that have cancelled Dart's program "Born To Win"
ReplyDeleteThank you for your excellent blog.
NCK,
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear from you again. Thanks for the follow-up. It's a very interesting discussion. I am glad to see you are so interested in understanding!
If you don't mind I will respond to your comments just to help clear things up a bit. This might take two installments.
-that cog's existed all over the usa during the millerite "awakaning"
The Millerite Awakening was pre-COG.
I wouldn't call them "cog's" as that is anachronistic. Up until they unified under the name SDA (or COG7) the congregations were called by all sorts of names including Seventh Day Baptist, Church of Christ, Sabbatarians, and etc. As a whole the group all knew they were the Seventh Day Adventists well before they ever took the name. The Church of God terminology was favored by some but thought to be overly general and nondescript by others. Even when the COG7 took the name they weren't just "Church of God," they were "The General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day)".
-most of them have commonality in their unifying under the "adventism, millerite" movement But it was a movement not a church. Kind of of an "awakening" movement.
To a large degree, I think this is correct. It was a movement that started with people from all sorts of Protestant denominations coming together because they were convinced that William Miller was right. When he turned out not to be right, some refused to give up and then formed a decentralized church. Sometime after 1844 it stopped looking like a movement and started looking like a church. They had congregations, structure, leaders, printing operations, and charismatic preachers. I think it really solidified around 1860.
-the moment of "split" between COG and SDA was the moment of adoption of the "SD" to Adventism. Especially EG White's prophecy's and her role in the movement being the point of contention.
No. The SD began to be adopted in 1844, 16 years before the COG7 and SDA split in 1860. Ellen White started with the visions in this year as well. Ellen White and her husband accepted SD in 1846.
-Therefore the elders of one of the "many" of "independent" cog churches argued for the "continuation" of the COG movement instead of the "split" or "foundation" of the cog.
Not exactly. The Elders weren’t independent in such a way that they were fully independent. The “congregations” were still to the last members of the Adventist movement and united together in this and eventually other doctrines. They were independent in that the movement didn’t want a centralized leadership structure with a single headquarters. When the COG7 and SDA did finally split, Gilbert Cranmer insisted on continuing this decentralized format (hence the name General Conferences..). But the doctrines and material and even the identity were all part of the whole. The fact that Gilbert Cranmer "left" means that there was a unity for him to leave.
-It is my understanding that EG Whites revelations are very different. For instance she marked the USA as the Beast Power, whereas HWA marked Europe or the Holy Roman Empire as such.
There are definite differences in EGW’s revelations and HWA’s. I would still say that HWA took his inspiration from her all the same and others, of course, as he was well known at plagiarizing - but to be fair, EGW also plagiarized. HWA plagiarized his Holy Roman Empire material from the COG7. It is a curious thing that HWA’s own revelations changed over time as well. He at first said Jesus would return by 1936. Then he said Mussolini was the Beast. Then Hitler. Then when Germany was split it was a reunited Germany that would be the Beast. Then Jesus would return in 1975. The story continued to change until he passed away.
On another note I saw that in the 1890's just 2 blocks up from the later Pasadena campus there was a COG.
ReplyDeleteYa know, I had completely forgotten about this until you mentioned it. Yeah, I recall that there was a preacher who HWA obviously copied. I will need to look that up again. Was it G.G. Rupert? I don't recall. But you are right.
xHWA,
ReplyDeleteIt seems you are interested in this topic. or at least willing to share your information.
It does not however diminish my feelings of being off topic on this thread, and perhaps viewed as an intruder. Therefore I apologize in advance.
I am incredibly time cramped at the moment to do research but try not to make "off the cuff" remarks on this quality blog. I will however insert some more information, but admit not having consulted the primary sources.
1st
Of course there is the infamous hoeh, "true history of the cog", booklet.
Although of course that booklet is highly "suspect" it contains interesting passages on the voting on the name of the church. With the adoption of the letters "SD" I did not mean "acceptance of the sabbath" (in 1843), I meant the "voting for the corporate name , seventh day Adventist" which took placde on 1st october 1860. It was obvious that some wanted to "continue" under the name Church of God.
2nd
http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue181/jx022916.pdf
I was reading the account of the Elder Kiesz. (COG7) Although of course the Journal and Kiesz are hardly "primary sources" of the 1860's he makes mention of many travels of the "Whites" to Local Churches who to their disappointment made no effort to associate under the Church name SDA and ESPECIALLY not under the leadership of the "White" prophetess. Which were main bones of contention.
Now as I said these are not primary sources and I may have fallen victim to "cog coloring", since I have limited time available this week. But if the Elder Kiesz is right it seems to me that there were many independent churches who did not associate under SDA and White.
This to me is very different from a "split" or "disassociation."
As an aside about "differences in belief".
In general I believe it is common for people (of different believes) to band together in times of pressure. I do not believe that christians in the middle east fleeing their town for an isis patrol care very much anymore wether their neighbor is catholic or syriac orthodox. At that moment they are all christians being persecuted.
The same process happened in Europe when "the English puritans in diaspora" had "sabbatarians" among their ranks. All English refugees some 12 years before the Mayflower.
I read the church minutes of one such group "council of elders" where the puritans find 1 man (a member), at fault for "the continued dissemination of heresies like "the jews sabbath and easter" among the members. This becomes intolerable for the church council and they refuse that long standing church visitor entry again, so he moves to another city with more "sabbatarians" in the diaspora. He did not seem to have qualms earlier to associate with the other "English" refugees.
nck
NCK,
ReplyDeleteYou left a comment but I can't tell you what happened to it. So, I am posting it for you.
-----
xHWA,
It seems you are interested in this topic. or at least willing to share your information.
It does not however diminish my feelings of being off topic on this thread, and perhaps viewed as an intruder. Therefore I apologize in advance.
I am incredibly time cramped at the moment to do research but try not to make "off the cuff" remarks on this quality blog. I will however insert some more information, but admit not having consulted the primary sources.
1st
Of course there is the infamous hoeh, "true history of the cog", booklet.
Although of course that booklet is highly "suspect" it contains interesting passages on the voting on the name of the church. With the adoption of the letters "SD" I did not mean "acceptance of the sabbath" (in 1843), I meant the "voting for the corporate name , seventh day Adventist" which took placde on 1st october 1860. It was obvious that some wanted to "continue" under the name Church of God.
2nd
http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue181/jx022916.pdf
I was reading the account of the Elder Kiesz. (COG7) Although of course the Journal and Kiesz are hardly "primary sources" of the 1860's he makes mention of many travels of the "Whites" to Local Churches who to their disappointment made no effort to associate under the Church name SDA and ESPECIALLY not under the leadership of the "White" prophetess. Which were main bones of contention.
Now as I said these are not primary sources and I may have fallen victim to "cog coloring", since I have limited time available this week. But if the Elder Kiesz is right it seems to me that there were many independent churches who did not associate under SDA and White.
This to me is very different from a "split" or "disassociation."
As an aside about "differences in belief".
In general I believe it is common for people (of different believes) to band together in times of pressure. I do not believe that christians in the middle east fleeing their town for an isis patrol care very much anymore wether their neighbor is catholic or syriac orthodox. At that moment they are all christians being persecuted.
The same process happened in Europe when "the English puritans in diaspora" had "sabbatarians" among their ranks. All English refugees some 12 years before the Mayflower.
I read the church minutes of one such group "council of elders" where the puritans find 1 man (a member), at fault for "the continued dissemination of heresies like "the jews sabbath and easter" among the members. This becomes intolerable for the church council and they refuse that long standing church visitor entry again, so he moves to another city with more "sabbatarians" in the diaspora. He did not seem to have qualms earlier to associate with the other "English" refugees.
nck
NCK,
ReplyDeleteYeah, we're WAY off topic. The world's an imperfect place. We've gotten off topic in the comments before, and I'm interested in this conversation, so I'm not going to worry about it.
-Although of course that booklet is highly "suspect" it contains interesting passages on the voting on the name of the church. With the adoption of the letters "SD" I did not mean "acceptance of the sabbath" (in 1843), I meant the "voting for the corporate name , seventh day Adventist" which took placde on 1st october 1860. It was obvious that some wanted to "continue" under the name Church of God.
Everything Hoeh wrote is highly suspect to me, but he did use facts from time to time. (Just be cautious on how he spins things. I've noticed that when he uses facts and I check them, he usually takes things very much out of context from their original source.)
My mistake on how you meant the SD! I tried to use dates just in case I misunderstood. Glad I did.
Did some want to continue under the name Church of God? Yes. But that was a minority. Most never had that name. Gilbert Cranmer's own congregation called themselves after the name Church of Christ (not to be confused with the greater Church of Christ movement). Many found Church of God confusing and too vague. Some were outright opposed to it. But then again some absolutely insisted upon it! The ones who insisted on it failed to influence the SDA name but succeeded in influencing the COG7 name. Still, from what I read, even when the COG7 took their name it doesn't seem to me that most felt this was the one true name or any such thing.
I want to sidebar for a minute in case anyone in the future reads this.
One thing that the COGs never told us is what a great number of organizations call themselves "Church of God." For example, even the Catholic Church refer to themselves as that. So, it's a very general term. What Armstrong tried to do (because he saw others doing it first) was he tried to create a history where the WCG could trace itself directly to the Apostles. But we've looked into that and HWA simply was not by any means accurate in the research. His history is false. One of the things we cannot find is any church of god movement prior to Adventism. Yes, there were some independent Adventist groups who called themselves Church of God, and the COG7 definitely took that name, but it does very little to trace the history of the WCG to any greater "Church of God" in the past - because it wasn't there. Here is how the GCI (formerly WCG) traces its own history; this is a very helpful graphic to our current discussion:
https://www.gci.org/aboutus/roots
Sidebar done.
If you like the Journal article, try this one. It has many primary sources and tons of small chunks of info that I found to be very helpful:
http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/ABC/Richard_C_Nickels/Books%20in%20plan%20text/6papers/6PAPERS6.TXT
It's long and it's winding, but there are so many wonderful little bits in there.
Quick comment about that link I posted in the sidebar that might interest you, the GCI graphic takes a third position from my A) or B) above. They actually say both are true. I suppose that's a valid compromise. The COG7 both is and isn't descended from the SDA church.
xHWA
ReplyDeleteI did a quickscan of the link you provided and it is very interesting.
Perhaps an irrelevant discussion for many but a nice distraction for me as others do their crossword puzzle or watch their favorite soap opera. I have to read the material to form an opinion.
So far it seems to me that they make a point declaring that it is the SDA that is departing from "the original" by way of the new visions and other "new bones of contention".
Kind of the departure of the "majority" of the old wcg into something "new" and small remnants remaining with "original teachings."
So your "majority" argument does not resonate with me at this point.
"CHurch of Christ" Are you arguing that Christ is not God, or to put it mathematically Christ = God? (Just kidding on the technicalities :-))
Time and space does not allow me to make further (half) informed statements. But I will ponder whether "Church succession" depends on a) a succesive laying on of hands going back to the first apostles. (The Roman Catholic Church of God) is probably the only Church that can claim that type of succession, b) Not the leaders but the MEMBERS going from flock to flock holding elements as they move to "bodies" with different names. c) Not the leaders nor the members but certain doctrine and teachings as the defining element e) or all three.
Anyway. My last paragraph was just a free flow of thought. Not so much questions that need an answer right now. But I will read your flow of thought if it comes. That is what it was here. An exchange of free flow of thoughts. Not so much one teaching and the other listening or an argument for that matter. All in the spirit of 1840, little house on the prairy type of velocity.
nck
-"CHurch of Christ" Are you arguing that Christ is not God, or to put it mathematically Christ = God? (Just kidding on the technicalities :-))
ReplyDeleteJust in case someone reading this takes this too seriously, no, I am not saying Christ is not God. I am saying there is no power or spiritual benefit in the organizational name "Church of God" as HWA taught there is.
NCK,
Glad you're reading and thinking and forming your own conclusions. Good on ya!
Keep on free flowing those thoughts.
Feel free to delete this if it does not fit the purpose of the blog.
ReplyDeleteI'm not into doctrinal disputes.
Your "long and winding" statement on the link might be a put off for some.
But I am enthusiastic about many of the nuggets that can be found.
For example
-the mentioning of the Napoleonic empire going into the abyss some 50 years after the event. And where are we now. 70 years after WWII.
-The mention of the use of Tobacco by the Williams's for 48 years. (Among those having "the filthy habit", MOTHER Williams (smoking a pipe), that is hilarious.)
-The marking of "skating rinks" as "bad places". I wonder what went on at the skating rink.
-The Church of God in Indian Territory being overrun by multiple people from all nations driving for homesteads.
-The German brethren in the Dakota's before the invention of the internet knowing nothing of the "work" of the "official" church of god in the Dakota's.
-The visit of the Ethiopian prince.(reminiscent of hwa visiting haili selassie)
-Their worldwide evangelistic work that is obviously sped up by the fact that many of the "evangelists" were first generation immigrants to America having close family ties with their families in Sweden, Germany, who they still were in contact with through letters etc.
-I can just hear these people speaking with their thick accents, the english language being their 2nd language, speaking in fervor of their new found life in the America's and their protestant families listening.
And of course the information about our original discussion on the "ugly ad painful" discourse/argument between the SDA (the Whites) and the COG.
A shame the article is secondary source. They should scan the primary source once. Maybe I will look that up one day and read about their comments on the Titanic or the assasination of president Garfield.
nck
Since Martha has been so kind to let us talk history on her thread I must honor that by returning to the World View topic.
ReplyDelete1st I caution for witch hunt persecution but I do however commend the exposure of blatant hypocrisy.
2nd The actions toward "World Vision" are not without historical precedent.
3rd I'll leave it at that.
999 / SA 300 Missives Book C fo. 126 / Letter
Letter sent by the city of Leiden to Jan Jansz. (van) Baersdorp, member of the Provincial Executive of the States of Holland, in reply to an undated letter received from him in 1609. Van Baersdorp is asked to hand to the lord grand pensionary (of Holland) the reply from the city of Leiden together with the request received from John Robinson and some members of the Christian Reformed Religion and the decision taken with regard to that request on February 12, 1609.
The city of Leiden declares that when a request was received from John Robinson, pastor, and some members of the Christian Reformed Religion, all born in England, it was decided to grant permission to them to come and take up residence in Leiden.
At the time the city of Leiden was NOT AWARE that the persons in question were members of the sect of the Brownists.
Browne returned to the priesthood in England but Browne's followers continued to meet in various communities. Two of these communities, Scrooby and Gainsborough, stand out in history. Among the Scrooby congregation which fled to Holland but who did not come to America until a decade later was John Dunham, whose grandson, Reverend Edmund Dunham, founded the Seventh Day Baptist church in Piscataway, New Jersey, nearly a century later in 1705.
So next time one celebrates Thanksgiving and honor the Pilgrim fathers, remember that these celebrations are due to the Aldermen of the City of Leiden who, even after intervention of the central government, did not decide to call in "the cleaning crew", but accepted the taxes and due payments during the 12 year stay of these "misfits." "Pecunia non olet."
nck
That is a very ... unorthodox .. interpretation of why we celebrate Thanksgiving. You do know that the Pilgrims were Puritans not Sabbatarian Baptists, I trust.
ReplyDeleteYou know, nck, I have had some thoughts along those lines and wasn't sure of the correct place to express them. I certainly wouldn't advocate a witchhunt. People have freedom of religion and speech, although I'm not sure exactly how those play out under Canadian law.
ReplyDeleteMy issue wasn't that these views were being expressed at all. It was the hypocrisy and underhandedness they employed. It was that they were being expressed under the banner of an explicitly evangelical Christian facility, and presumably feigned evangelical Christian beliefs under false pretenses.
People have a right to their beliefs. And conversely people have a right to limit the expression of beliefs on private property, particularly when they are at odds with one's Statement of Faith. That was my beef. You won't catch me sticking my nose into LCG's seminars at the Holiday Inn or whatever.
I'll let you and xHWA slug out Thanksgiving.
Hey, wait a hot minute. I don't want to slug out anything. :-P
ReplyDeleteI was just mentioning a wee little item is all.
Re: Martha
ReplyDeleteWell yes, I recognized the intention by my "exposure" comment. I was thinking about Holiday Inn too. So we think much alike on this issue. As they say, Iron sharpens Iron. I have no stock in LCG and no beef with anyone. But as one approaches the Wall of Liberty one can expect both friends and foes sharing words of (philosophical) caution. That's all.
Re: xHWA
-Now, how many people have really experienced the true reasons of any celebration nowadays? We can read about it in the textbooks. Or blatant propagandadistic interpretations in (old) highschool history books that the Pilgrims came straight from England fleeing the King.
I mean how many have truly experienced the hand of persecution or survived against all odds?
As an aside, how many people celebrating the day, actually know apart from persecution by the religious authorities, how "nasty" those puritans really seemed to be in the eyes of outsiders, like their liberal contemporaries.
How many today know of their 12 year sojourn?
Yes, you can trust me. I know that the vast majority of the groups that are now called the Piglrims were Puritans.
As you can see, even the aldermen in 1609 thought so.
Much to the dismay of the central government of their hosts, receiving complaints about the dissenters from the "Pure" Puritans.
But you must recognize by the correspondance of the civil authorities in their places of refuge and the minutes of the "english churches" in the diaspora that the people later to be called Pilgrims had dissenters among them. (like the Brownists). It seems part of the group were sold the leaking and sinking Speedwell and therefore had to board the Mayflower in Southampton JOINING with IMMIGRANTS.(Immigrants versus People persecuted for religious reasons.)
It seems these dissenters had had exchanges with earlier sabbatarian groups too in their 12 YEARS of sojourn in their places of refuge. Only when they left for America discussion about the "sabbath of the jews" started to rage in the established churches in their former places of refuge. These scholarly discussions seemed to mirror the earlier discussions and arguments between "the English" that had left for America, now brought to light by scholars of the mainstream.
xHWA
I know you like to research and are not likely to fall into the trap of "history altered for propaganda (whitemans burden etc)". Perhaps you do however share some of the amazement the first british colonial governor of New York felt when first confronted with the results of true liberal thought and true religious tolerance.
The fog of time has clouded this experience that perhaps can only be compared to a visit to modern day hustling and bustling "Silicon Valley", with its start ups and failures, drama and success.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=1jniBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=thomas+dongan+and+the+sabbath&source=bl&ots=V5gJ2PqaKG&sig=LSe0y66Rsjmh_kqJlKBtBNVN0w8&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjktLrMh5DMAhWHlw8KHX2OAJcQ6AEIUDAH#v=onepage&q=thomas%20dongan%20and%20the%20sabbath&f=false
nck
nck, I know that xHWA's time is very limited, much like yours, so I don't know when he will have many spare moments to weigh in on research as in-depth as that.
ReplyDeleteBut I wanted to mention that xHWA and I had a lengthy discussion about the Puritans last fall when I was doing some cursory reading about that period in European history. Suffice it to say that he is WELL aware of the often outrageous actions of the Puritans in that era. Truly, he brought me up to speed on the extra-textbook-ical climate of that period.
Martha,
ReplyDeleteWe were just having a nice an informative conversation. No need for speed.
If there was any necessity for immediate answers or solutions I would have e-mailed privately. :-)
I was reading the journal of a 1640 new amsterdam sea captain the other day. He had just paid a courtesy visit to the northern Puritan settlements.
The Puritans had just harshly punished a young couple, for having had "carnal relations" before their wedding date due in 3 weeks.
The sea captain mentions in his journal that he found the punishment "a wholly unpractical and strange matter" and it seemed ridiculous to him since these folks were going to get married soon.
Now I don't know if my life should be guided by the ethics of a 1640 sea captain. LOL LOL
I do know however that they shipped the brightest lawyers of their day whose actions, ideas and decisions we still find in some form or shape in the current Constitution.
Contrary to popular belief it is some of their principles that guard the flame of freedom, certainly not the sometimes oppressive bickering of christian folk.
I refer to Russell Shorto for more information.
I admit often taking the "roman" side of things.
In the movie "the Passion" the Romans are confronted with religious bickering. The governor asks what's happening? The answer by the commanding officer. "Tumultum ad murum." "Unrest at the gates." That phrase struck me like a lighting bolt hearing it for the first time. Perhaps because of past experiences or, whenever I see religious folk bickering and not seek understanding. So far I am doing quite well being polite here. xHwA has pacified me.
nck
For historical accuracy.
ReplyDeleteCapt De Vries reports:
"the wipping of a "just married" couple in 1638 Hartford and 6 week separation ordered by the church council" For the crime of having "carnal relations" before the wedding was officiated.
He considers this judgement "a joke".
(It reads like a contemporary account of isil territory.)
He then notes:
"They tie abusers of alcohol to a pole and whip them like we would do with thieves."
LOL pass the cranberry sauce please LOL
nck