"My Yoke Is Easy And My Burden Is Light" Matthew 11: 30

Greetings readers. It’s "Child Survivor" again. As some of you know, I spent a pivotal part of my childhood in the Worldwide Church of God from 1971 to 1977, then 3 years in an independent offshoot (or splinter group as they are now called) group that was basically Armstrongism “Lite”. Unlike xHWA and probably the other contributors, I didn’t spend enough time in the WCG  to fully embrace Armstrongism and it’s teachings. I never read the literature while in there except for those hideously animated children’s books about Genesis and Exodus. Anything else that I read from Herbert’s literature were usually quotes from anti-cult books that I began reading after we left. But I did indeed EXPERIENCE the teachings of the WCG, as they were heavily enforced on myself and my siblings with dire consequences for disobedience.

Anyway, the reason for this blog involves the very verse in the title. Jesus said His yoke was easy and His burden was light. Did Herbert Armstrong believe in the same Jesus who said this in Matthew 11:30? I seriously think Armstong did not. While I am not promoting “easy believism” where all you have to do is recite some sort of “sinner’s prayer” and whamo, you’re instantly saved and it no longer matters what you do afterwards. Jesus did also tell us this:

“Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” (Matthew 16:24) (New King James Version)

But when it comes to forgiveness of sins, salvation, getting our “ticket to heaven”, this is something that Jesus took care of in a big way. We no longer have to worry about earning our salvation or appeasing the angry deity, as is so common in so many other religions and pseudo Christian groups like COG’s. I always loved how Paul referred to it as “canceling a debt”. One of the most controversial scriptures in the sabbath keeping community is found in Colossians 2 .

“having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.  Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. “ (Colossians 2: 14-17) (NKJV)

What was required of the Children of Israel is not required of the church because we are under a new covenant that Jesus paid for with His own blood. And allow me to give one more passage of when the disciples were faced with the question of exactly what should the church should observe with all the incoming Gentile converts. This is a passage that generally receives little or no attention from the COG leadership.   From Acts chapter 15:

    "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which            neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? …… For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and     to us, to lay upon you   no greater burden than these necessary things:  that you abstain        from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If        you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."    (Acts 15:10, 28 & 29)

So I’m going to briefly look at 4 key elements of life inside the WCG and ask honestly, if the practices of Armstrongism lined up with the scriptures that I presented above. Hopefully we can all make the right analysis. But I want to look at the practices of the Sabbath, the Dietary laws, the Holy Days, and Tithing.

THE SABBATH

Is there more sacred of a cow to the COG’s and Adventism in general than the Saturday sabbath? Me thinks not. What were the typical and MANDATORY rituals? Everyone had to be home by sunset Friday. I live in New England which is on the far east side of the Eastern Standard time zone. For several weeks in December and January, sunset is considerably BEFORE 5pm. Those who had full time jobs, getting home by sunset could be a huge problem. Also, if someone had a job that required them to work Saturdays or weekends, they were screwed. Many people we knew were able to work out something out where they traded work days to keep their religious observance, but many others were not so fortunate and wound up losing their jobs after conversion to the “one true church”.

The other problem with the sabbath was the constant paranoia over what can and can’t be done on the sabbath. I won’t focus how that during the six years I was in the WCG that the sabbath laws changed like the wind. But I will tell you that the laws bordered insanity. If sunset was at 5:17 pm on Friday, the TV went of at that exact minute and everyone was to start the sabbath quietly. You were not allowed to go into a retail store for ANY reason, even if your baby needed a bottle of milk. (sorry junior, you’ll have to wait for sunset Saturday). Yet, dining in a restaurant on the sabbath, was okay, for those who could afford to do so. For those us as children, any school involvement on Saturday was forbidden. So any scholastic sports, drama, band, or other school involvement were forbidden if they were on Saturday. In my town if we wanted to join the school band, we had to do it in the 5^th grade. After that, we couldn’t. I wanted to take up the clarinet and join the band. But I knew it would eventually involve Saturdays, AND it was a third tithe year that year, so I never even dreamed of bringing it up with my parents. So I did not join the school band, one of my big regrets in life. Other rules included no going to the park or beach on the sabbath, though playing board games at home was alright. Our family was forbidden from going to family swim at the YMCA on Friday nights, but swimming in our own pool on the sabbath was okay. Projects around the house such as a home improvement project or doing yard work were forbidden, but any work that was for the big sabbath gathering was okay. Oh and one more thing, you were allowed to have all the booze your wanted on the sabbath.

Now this constant paranoia and fear that if we stepped out of line with all the sabbath regulations we would inflict the wrath of God on us….Does this sound like an easy yoke? Let’s move on.

DIETARY LAWS

Nothing was more embarrassing to a young boy than trying to explain why there was so much you couldn’t eat. I won’t even get into the matzo sandwiched during ULB. Now dietary restrictions because of certain ailments like allergies or medical conditions like diabetes are understandable. But strictly following such rules when scripture makes it clear that Christians are under no such laws, is sheer lunacy. But what were we required to do to follow these laws, Armstrong style?

There was the obvious rule, no pork or shellfish. Not eating shellfish wasn’t hard, because as a child I wasn’t fond of it. My parents did enjoy clams, but that was usually on special occasions. But there was so many times we couldn’t eat what was set before us at the relatives’ houses, and the worst part of it all...grocery shopping often took much longer than it should have. My mother was trained to read EVERY INGREDIENT on every can, box, and package of food items she purchased. The first holy day gathering we attended was in 1972, it was the first day of ULB, and the hotel staff where we were holding services and the meal, served Jello for dessert. We started eating it when some lunatic went around frantically telling everyone at their tables not to eat the Jello, THERE’S PORK IN IT! We had just entered the WCG not six months earlier and my parents were like..WAIT, WHAT??? My mom wasn’t sure what to make of it, but she let me finish mine, but there was no Jello in our house again until we stopped observing the dietary laws in 1978. There was also the stress of grilling wait staff in restaurants to make sure nothing was cooked in pork fat or the meatballs or meatloaf didn’t have ground pork in them or make sure they only served all beef hot dogs. (I actually prefer all beef hot dogs these days, please don’t spread it around). They also went one step further by telling people they should avoid sugar, salt, and white flour. So in reality, there wasn’t a lot we could eat during those years.

Now does this sound like an easy yoke or a stressful one? Today’s COG splinter groups still very much enforce these laws, in their own way, but they try to convince their followers that it’s for “health reasons”. When I’ve dialogued with such folks, I’ve asked them that since it’s about health, shouldn’t it be a private decision instead of being dictated by the church? Then they switch gears and say it’s God’s law. I’ll ask, is it necessary to be saved? Then they say it’s not about salvation, it’s about health, then I go back again and round and round and round we go. But those of us who survived being in the WCG know the truth. We KNOW that it was very much a salvation issue. They just know they can’t prove it from scripture.

    "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things                  which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.”     (Mark 7: 15)

HOLY DAYS

At age 8, I was told we could no longer observe birthdays, Christmas, Easter, or Halloween. I was told we would be celebrating days that were much better and we weren’t even going to miss the old ways and that I’d be having much more fun than I ever imagined. I was lied to. I can’t begin to tell you how horrific the holy days were. We originally had to drive 2 HOURS away to sit through 2 services, one at 10am, the other at 2pm with a lunch served in between. Attendance was mandatory and noncompliance could result in being disfellowshipped. Attending meant keeping the kids out of school, unnecessarily putting us behind in class. Attending meant keeping an extra sabbath or two that week. Attending meant taking vacation time. Attending meant the possibility of being in trouble with work for taking the vacation time. Taking the vacation time meant less time with your family and less time to take care of things at home. Is this the easy yoke Jesus promised?

The Feast of Tabernacles meant taking a vacation. Sound good? Not so fast… on the first and last day of the feast and the sabbath during the FOT...DOUBLE SERVICES...MANDATORY. Then the other days, services at 10 am every day. After “fellowshipping” and eating lunch, it was the middle of the afternoon. That didn’t leave much time for family time. Is this the easy yoke Jesus promised?

Days of Unleavened Bread, you had to rid your home of all “leavening”. You had to clean out EVERYTHING….cabinets, toasters, ovens, refrigerators, even your cars. Then you had to eat only unleavened things. Kids had to bring matzo sandwiches to school. That was soooo humiliating. Is THIS the easy yoke Jesus promised?

Day of Atonement. We had a 24 hour mandatory day of fasting. But this fasting ventured into the danger zone. Fasting can always be a good thing if done properly, but members were denied even drinking water. Most religions that encourage fasting, don’t forbid water or make it mandatory 24 hours. This can cause health risks and dehydration. Plus, Herbert didn’t follow it himself. He didn’t follow any of his own laws. Is THIS the easy yoke Jesus promised?

TITHING

Nothing infuriates me more than thinking about the triple tithe system that Armstrong enforced. During the WCG years, our family lived like we were in poverty. And yet, for part of the year my dad worked 2 jobs. My mother also had a part time job after my younger brother started school, and yet they made it very clear that as a family, we couldn’t afford ANYTHING. If it involved paying for something, we couldn’t afford it. I went to movies as a treat ONCE A YEAR, and even that was the matinee. I wore clothes that originally belonged to my brother who was 7 years older than I was. Do you know how radically styles had changed from 1965 to 1972? I got laughed at a lot for my clothes and my haircuts. Oh, and my mother cut my hair for me because they couldn’t afford a barber for us kids. It wasn’t fun walking around looking like Moe from the Three Stooges. When we would go out to eat, we were always instructed to get the cheapest thing on the menu and dessert was out of the question unless it was Howard Johnson’s, who at the time had 28 flavors of ice cream. We were ordered to keep lights on at a minimum, thus I had to learn to navigate from room to room in the dark. We also had to make do with one car, but fortunately, dad worked nearby so my mother could drive him to work. And when my dad had to replace his ‘66 Dodge Coronet in 1974, He bought a ‘74 Colt wagon, which was a very tight squeeze when my older siblings were home and we all went in the one car. Family vacations were out of the question because all money was given to the church or saved for the Feast of Tabernacles. Plus, my dad used most of his vacation time to observe the holy days. We also knew a few families that went as far as to sell their homes to give to the church or prepare for their “escape to Petra”.

All this was because of the church’s extreme system of tithing, something never even instructed to Christians. (I expect to get a couple of negatives comments for that one). Does this sound like a system that people would stand in line for to sign on the dotted line? Is it any wonder that they didn’t inform new converts of the third tithe until they were fully indoctrinated and had already pledged their loyalty to Armstrong and the WCG? Is it proper for ministers to live in fairly big houses and drive luxury cars while many of their members couldn’t make ends meet? Was this the way of Jesus? And IS THIS THE EASY YOKE JESUS PROMISED????

FINAL THOUGHTS

I could go onto other hardships from being a WCG member like denial of medical care, isolation from neighbors and relatives, and women not being allow to make themselves look prettier with makeup or men having their hair cut like they were in the service. (this was the 70’s folks!!!) But I think I’ve made my point here. Life in the WCG was extremely burdensome, and many of the splinter groups continue much of this today, though some have eased up a bit on enforcing the rules. Our Lord came to bring us life and peace, even in the trials and tribulations this world brings us. The church, the community of believers should be a refuge from the trials of life, NOT THE CAUSE OF THEM!

I’m going to end here, but just wish to encourage you that if you are in a COG or follow some of the beliefs of Herbert W. Armstrong, but you KNOW something just doesn’t add up, you’re not alone. In fact, you’re very fortunate that we live in this age where a world of information is right at our fingertips. There are many websites that expose cults and isms, but I would recommend you begin with this blogspot. EXHWA has written countless blogs comparing Herbert’s teachings to the Word of God, and so has Martha and a couple others. I would suggest you make best use of this site and study, and most importantly ask God to give you wisdom. I guarantee you that He will do so.

Peace and Blessings, out!

************

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

************

Is Luke 23: 56 Absolute Proof For Christians To Keep The Sabbath?

Greetings again, this is Child Survivor.   When I entered the Worldwide Church of God in December 1971, I was only 8 years old.   My parents' Catholic faith had been a very important part of family life up to that point.   We went to mass every weekend either on Sunday morning or Saturday evening.  We had weekly prayers around the family altar.   We said grace before every meal.  And my parents were actually involved with parish life.  Mom sang in the choir and participated in the Catholic Women's Club, and Dad attended the Knights of Columbus.  Both parents taught the religious education back then as well.   So, it was quite a huge change going into the WCG where absolute obedience was required with a long list of laws and do's and don'ts you had to follow.   But the big sacred cow in the WCG was keeping the sabbath.
A long list of activities were banned from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, including watching television, going shopping, going to the movies or any other recreational activities, or going to see any friends that weren't part of "God's true church".  On Fridays at sunset, the TV went off. We had our dinner and sat around quietly. On Saturday mornings, we drove to the 2 hour service, hung around there for at least an hour afterward, then had different people over every week for a big, holiday-style dinner.  Strangely enough, sabbath laws seemed to change like the wind during my six years in there, but I won't get too much into that.   What I want to zero in on is a claim regarding Jesus' followers keeping the sabbath after the crucifixion.  Sabbatarians like the WCG and it's splinter groups will claim that there is a verse that proves the disciples of Jesus kept the sabbath after He went to the cross.   It's found in Luke chapter 23, vs 56.  It reads as follows, and for context sake, yes context, we will start in vs 53: 

(Luke 23:53-56)   53 And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain. 54 It was a preparation day, and a Sabbath was about to begin. 55 Now the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how His body was laid. 56 And then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.  (NASB)

Now, there is little doubt that the disciples did indeed rest on that Sabbath, the day after Jesus was crucified. (Amazing by the way that this clearly points to the weekly sabbath, and not an annual sabbath. So much for 72 hours in the tomb).  But three things I wish to examine here:
First, what was the mental state of the disciples when our Lord was crucified.
Second, did they even expect Him to rise from the dead?
And finally, why did the disciples keep the sabbath in that verse?

Let's look into this.

THE MENTAL STATE OF THE DISCIPLES:

Any of you who are Sabbatarians or in an Armstrong splinter group have likely read the gospels and the crucifixion and resurrection accounts.  And to those still practicing Armstrongism, I would plea with you to carefully and prayerfully go back and read the passion narratives again and ask the Lord for wisdom.  And when you do this, I trust you will notice that there is more to the passion story than just "three days and three nights".   But one thing you should notice that the disciples were pretty much emotional wrecks when they saw the promised Messiah arrested, beaten, crucified, and buried.   Their mental state was not good.   

DENIAL/LYING: First, we have Peter's mental state.  I don't think I need to remind anyone how Peter denied knowing our Lord not once, not twice, but three times.  He was what many of us would call "cowardly" here.   Peter, one of the inner 3 of the Apostles flat out lied about even knowing Jesus.

VIOLENCE:  But secondly Peter also took to violence to defend the Lord  "Then Simon Peter, since he had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus” (John 18:10) Jesus actually did an intervention here and rebuked Peter’s actions. “But Jesus responded and said, “enough of this” and He touched his ear and healed him” (Luke 22:51)

DISBELIEF: We also have the disciples in a state of disbelief!   And seeing that Jesus had discussed his death and resurrection numerous times, were the disciples expecting it?  Hardly.  

(Matthew 16 : 21-22) " From that time Jesus began to point out to His disciples that it was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem and to suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and to be killed, and to be raised up on the third day. 22 And yet Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You!”

The gospel accounts make it clear the Apostles did not believe what Jesus told the disciples about His death and resurrection.

ABANDONMENT: Another thing they had just committed was abandonment. They left Jesus to fend for himself when He was being arrested and taken away. (Matthew 26:56) ^"But all this has taken place so that the Scriptures of the prophets will be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled."  They left, they fled, they even denied the Lord they had spent over 3 years with! They abandoned not only their own Messiah, but a very close friend.

COWARDICE: I hesitate to use this term, but the actions of the disciples clearly didn’t display bravery. “Now when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were together due to fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, “Peace be to you.”   (John 20:19) Why were they in fear?   They thought the Jews would be coming after them next.   So we know they were not particularly full of great faith at that moment.  So the Apostles were clearly displaying denial, lying, cowardice, disbelief, and abandonment.

Now, please understand, this is not meant as an attack on the Apostles.  I'm simply saying they were human and made some very bad calls here...as all of us would have done had we been in their shoes.   Thankfully our Lord is full of mercy, and He knew it was going to happen. But when we consider what they did after the crucifixion, we need to understand where they were at emotionally. This was not exactly their shining moment, so anything they did, including keeping the sabbath, should not be taken as marching orders for the rest of us.

DID THEY BELIEVE JESUS ROSE AFTER IT HAPPENED?

Another factor to consider is whether or not the disciples even expected Jesus to rise again. The modern day sabbathkeeper will ask us what that even has to do with the question of the sabbath. Yet, when I ask them this question, I receive no answer. And it’s very clear that they don’t take this into consideration when they use Luke 23:56 as absolute proof that the cross didn’t eliminate the sabbath command. Nobody is denying that the disciples rested on the sabbath the day after the crucifixion. But during this “rest” were they anticipating our Lord’s resurrection? The gospel writers do indeed address this. First of all, even when the disciples saw the empty tomb, they still didn’t get what happened. See what Mary says to the angel who spoke to her:

(John 20: 11-13)^"11 But Mary was standing outside the tomb, weeping; so as she wept, she stooped to look into the tomb; 12 and she *saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 And they *said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She *said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they put Him.”

Okay, the tomb was guarded by killing machines otherwise known as Roman guards, tomb burst open after it had been sealed, our Lord's burial garments still rolled up neatly, and what does Mary ask the angel?  "Who took him?".   It doesn't stop there.   The Apostles didn't believe it when the women told them.. 

(Luke 24:5-11)" 5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why are you seeking the living One among the dead? 6 He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise from the dead.” 8 And they remembered His words, 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. 10 Now these women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the Apostles. 11 But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe the women."

The women didn't believe Jesus had risen, the disciples didn't believe He would rise.  I won't even go into the followers on the road to Emmaus or "doubting Thomas", but I think you get the point by now. 


SO WHY DID THEY REST ON THAT PARTICULAR SABBATH?

While the passage doesn't give a reason that the disciples rested, I think we have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.   They kept the sabbath because they thought it was all over.   These disciples had spent 3 and 1/2 years with our Lord listening to Him, getting their marching orders from Him, enduring tough situations with Him, witnessing miracle after miracle from Him, and being close friends with Him.  And yet now in their minds, He's dead and gone.  Because they didn't fully grasp His assurance of rising on the third day. 

So when all their hope for what Jesus promised was gone in their minds, what did they do? They went back to keeping the Sabbath.  It's funny how context can change everything.  Hope is gone, assurance is gone, promises are gone, all is lost...hey everyone, we better keep the sabbath.  The context really makes it clear that this verse is not a glowing endorsement of sabbath keeping.  

In fact, the New Testament never comes close to saying anywhere else that the disciples, or Jesus for that matter, actually kept or rested on the sabbath except in this passage.  Most other sabbath passages like Luke 4 and Acts 13 the stories don't end so nice.  Oh sure, the Sabbatarians love to quote Luke 4:16 where Luke tell us Jesus' CUSTOM (not commandment) to go to the synagogue and read to those assembled. And in Acts 13 and other passages in Acts we read that Paul and Barnabas went and preached in the synagogue and the whole city turned out the following sabbath.   But what Sabbatarians conveniently omit is that in Luke 4, the sabbath keeping Jews tried to throw Jesus off a cliff when He declared Himself Messiah or the fact that the sabbath keeping Jews started a riot to have Paul and Barnabas driven out of the region.   Are these the folks (the sabbath keepers) whose examples we want to follow?  I've asked many sabbath keepers this very question, and I seldom get an answer.  And if I do, it's usually "well, the Jews back then weren't doing it right".   Hmmmm.  They have a point there.   Nowhere in the Old Testament, where the sabbath is instructed to Israel, did God ever instruct constructing synagogues and attending them on the sabbath.  This was an addition to Jewish life between the two Testaments. 

Okay, I'm going to wrap it up here because I don't want to get too deep into the whole sabbath debate.  I just wanted to point out the state of the disciples when they decided to "rest on the sabbath" the day after the crucifixion.   I will say after that, all references to the sabbath in Acts are in Jewish settings.   We have no mention of the church keeping the sabbath and no mention of Paul doing anything more than trying to convert the Jews on their day of assembly.  It says nothing about Paul resting on the sabbath or even worshiping on the sabbath.  We also have no instructions to keep the sabbath in the entire New Testament.   Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not opposed to having a day of the week for resting.   I also never said that it is wrong to assemble for worship on Saturday.  I know a lot of Catholics that attend Saturday vigil mass.   But I am saying, how and when we rest is something God allows us to decide for ourselves in the New Covenant.   In our present dispensation of grace, or the “church age”, God cares about the heart, not the calendar.  The early Christians began assembling on the first day of the week in the book of Acts.  It was not the Catholic church that changed it, even if certain Catholic scholars say they did.   Days are not important in the New Covenant.  What is important is believing in the One Who was sent to save us from our sins.   But taking a passage as proof of obedience at a time when the disciples were in fear, shock, and disbelief is not exactly compelling evidence when you think closely about it. 

" Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”   John 6:29

Peace and Blessings to all!

************

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

************

Did Herbert Armstrong Follow New Testament Practices For Church Buildings?

Hey readers, this is "Child Survivor".   I have left a good number of comments here on As Bereans Did over the years.   xHWA is actually a very close friend of mine, though we have never met in person, but I do look forward to doing so in heaven someday.  I have found As Bereans Did to be a very helpful tool in helping people understand the origins and unbiblical nature of Herbert Armstrong's teachings.

My story with the cult goes like this, when I was approaching my 8th birthday, I knew something was up with my parents and my older brother.   Men in suits began coming to the house to discuss religious topics with my parents.  I didn't completely understand what was happening until it was announced shortly before my birthday that we would be switching churches soon, but we couldn't do it just yet until the leaders allowed us to start attending.  (That alone is a topic for another day.)  My parents and my older siblings started talking about this new church we would be going to, but it wasn't just ANY church, it was the TRUE church and all other churches were of the devil, especially the Catholic church, which we had been very faithful to ever since I could remember.  Now, in my earliest of years, I was always fascinated with the Catholic parish we belonged to.  The building was a modern building for back then, but built beautifully.  It had beautiful stained glass windows, lots of beautiful marble, these chandeliers that had crosses all over them, and a life sized crucifix, which I would always feel drawn to during the mass.  As a young child, I didn't pay a lot of attention to what was going on during the mass, but I did always stare at the beauty of the building and mystery that encompassed the architecture and statues.    I would say for that reason alone, I didn't mind going to church that much.  I even made it to my first holy communion at age 7, but sadly it was for naught because we joined the WCG the following December...yup, you heard right...DECEMBER.   That was the first year of no Christmas in our house.

Anyway, why am I bringing up the Catholic church building that I went to up to age 8?  Simple. One of the things that I was told about this new and true church is that it properly taught that the church is not a building, the church is actually the people.  Which is actually correct where scripture is concerned, but I might add, just about all churches do acknowledge the people as the church. Armstrong did not get this as a revelation and unique to his religion.    I was also informed because of that the early Christians met in each others homes, so they had no buildings of their own. That is also correct, we'll touch on that further down.   That is why the church would meet in rented spaces, like the congregation we were going to met in a movie theater to follow the "biblical pattern" of not owning property.   BUZZZZZZZ!   Now I don't think this topic requires a lot of in depth analysis, so I want to focus on 2 questions here.  Did the Worldwide Church of God and the modern splinter groups follow the "biblical pattern" as far as meeting places was concerned? AND were they even consistent in practicing what they preached?   Let's look into it.

WAS THE WCG BEING "BIBLICAL"?

First of all, the Worldwide Church of God made it very clear in their practice that congregations would be ruled by headquarters and would meet in rented facilities.   Now there is nothing wrong with a church meeting in a rented space.   When a new church starts, that's usually the route it has to take, especially today with the price of real estate.  Often new Evangelical or Pentecostal churches begin as home Bible studies, then they move into a rented space like a hall, school, or a section of another church's building.     The church I currently belong to started in 2008 and met in a VFW hall up to 2015.  When the Lutheran congregation in our town folded, our church was able to purchase the Lutheran church building.  And I'm happy to report that there's a lot of stained glass in the sanctuary that our church has kept up.   Purchasing buildings from previously defunct congregations is a common trend for Evangelical churches these days.   Now, when I began at age 8 at the WCG, they rented a movie theater on Saturday mornings.  This was an old style, single-screen theater.  While I found the seats more comfortable than the wooden pews in the Catholic church, that was where my comfort ended.   Later on, the congregation was split to accommodate church members who lived closer to or in Rhode Island, and the Providence congregation was in another movie theater after a few short months meeting at the Providence Civic Center.   The last building we met in was an old Grange Hall that the church was actually able to fix up and lease on a monthly basis.   That one actually felt more like a church in my opinion, even though there were those awful metal chairs.  Now I bring up my history with the WCG to simply ask, is this what the early church practiced?  Let's see what scripture has to say:

First, the earliest meetings of the church were held in various locations.  When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost in Acts 1 and 2, the disciples were gathered in the "upper room".  From Acts 1:

(ACT. 1: 13-14) 13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upstairs room where they were staying, that is, Peter, John, James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 All these were continually devoting themselves with one mind to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

After the Holy Spirit descended and miracles were performed, we are told the disciples continued the practice of meeting in the temple, but they also began meeting in each others' homes.  "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart," (ACT 2:46).   Meetings in the earliest gatherings of the church included the breaking of bread, which is a metaphor the New Testament writers used for the Lord's Supper, that we also call "communion".  But they also had meals together.  Does this sound like a pattern the WCG followed?  You decide.   

Not too long after the initial birth of the church, homes of believers became the meeting places.
(ACT. 12:12) “When he [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark, where there were many people gathered in prayer.”
(ACT 16:40) “When they [Paul and Silas] had come out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house where they saw and encouraged the brothers, and then they left.”
(ROM. 16:3-5) “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but also all the churches of the gentiles.  Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ.”
(PHI. 1-2) “Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon, our beloved and our co-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house”.

I could go on, but I believe I've made my point here.  Please keep in mind, the early Christians were outlaws.   The exemptions the Jews received for worship of the Roman emperor was not extended to the Christians.  The Christians were outlaws for much of the first three centuries. So, meeting in secret in homes and even in the catacombs of Rome was necessary for their continued existence.  This does not mean that churches could not own property for meeting, but it's very clear the New Testament church did not own any.    The strange point about the WCG teaching is that because the church didn't have church buildings that they owned, then any other means they used was deemed "biblical".   It's the old case of what I'm NOT doing instead of what I AM doing here.   Renting a high school auditorium, a Grange hall, a movie theater, or a Masonic temple does not constitute meeting in each others' homes and is no more "biblical" than erecting a church building.

WAS THE WCG CONSISTENT?

I can say with full conviction that the WCG was NOT consistent in this practice.   While most congregations met in rented spaces, the church on a denominational level owned numerous properties.   When I entered the WCG at age 8 in the early 1970's, I learned the the church owned at least 3 colleges...Ambassador College in Pasadena (which my two older siblings attended but never graduated from) , Big Sandy, Texas and Bricketwood, England.   Also, the church, at that time, owned at least some of the sites where the annual Feast of Tabernacles was held.   I remember the second year we attended the Feast at Mount Pocono, PA, we stayed over a few extra days because the last great day was a Thursday, so Dad kept us there until Sunday.  So we attended the local congregation there at Mt. Pocono the following sabbath and they met in the administration building outside the Tabernacle.  This was church owned property.  The congregations near the colleges met at the colleges, so the properties served for educational and church meeting purposes.  The church owned these properties as well.  So it doesn't really take all that much intellect to see that the WCG did a lot of cherry picking not only with the Old Testament law that they claimed was still in effect, but they did so with their own laws such as this as well.   

Another way that today's splinter groups are inconsistent is that some of them will meet on Saturdays in other church buildings.   The closest United Church of God congregation meets on Saturdays in a Congregational church, or at least they did last I checked.  And yet, the WCG teachings that they are trying to keep going, used to call all other churches "synagogues of Satan".   Seriously?  You're going to use a synagogue of Satan as your meeting place of for "God's one true church"???    

WHAT WERE THEIR MOTIVES?

So why exactly was it okay for God's true church to own property on the denominational level, but not on the congregational level?   Here I can only speculate, but I know enough about Armstrongism to make a very educated guess.  But one thing I knew about them is that everything with Herbert was about control.   Everything, and I mean everything in that cult was controlled by Herbert and all his decrees and rulings were passed onto the congregations.   Pastors' salaries, housing, rent for church meetings, offerings, etc were all done directly to and through headquarters..i.e. Herbert's staff.   Local congregations had almost NO say in what happened in their own congregations, everything was governed by Herbert himself.   If congregations were to have their own buildings, that would have been a lot of lost control by Herbert.   Buildings take a lot of work to maintain and pay for.    They take a lot of man power and endless committees and meetings to buy or build the structure and maintain it.   This would have taken a lot of power over the congregations away from Herbert.  You couldn't have that now, could you?
 

************

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

************