COGWA, LCG and the Laying On of Hands

Awww, COGWA, you're so thoughtful. Whipping up fresh biblical half-truths every morning and serving them to all of us in your Daily Bible Verse blog. And in a format that makes them so easy to share with others! What will you think of next???

Honestly, COGWA's Daily Bible Verse blog has been bothering me for some time. I've wanted to address several of them, but never quite find the time. Why are they unsettling? Because, like almost everything COGWA disseminates, they are sparse. Now, all well-written social media communications need to be short and sweet. But in COGWA's case, their brevity allows them to disseminate the image of a sunny, happy, grace-filled church without fleshing out the cognitive dissonance between that snapshot and their largely grace-less doctrines.  And to share this staged snapshot with unsuspecting friends at the click of a button.

But anyway, that's not exactly what I'll be discussing today. The COGWA Daily Bible Verse Blog entry I want to look at today was posted March 1 and comes from Acts 8:14-17: 

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 

Historically, the COGs have used this passage to explain their teachings on how individuals may become members of the church of God. 

“In Acts 8:14-17, the apostles heard that people had repented and had been baptized, but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. This passage shows the method God used to impart His Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands,” writes Mike Bennett, COGWA's editorial content manager.

I've always wondered why God chose to impart the Holy Spirit this way in Acts 8:14-17, but without the laying on of hands in Acts 10. Because clearly, what COGWA describes is one method - but not the only method -  that God gives the Holy Spirit:

(Acts 10:44-45) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

No laying on of hands here. Instead, they Holy Spirit was given in the same manner as it was on Pentecost. Why the difference?

Take a look at Acts 8:14. Where were these disciples? In Samaria. What's the big deal? Well, who made up the early church, at least at first? Mostly Jews. Did Jews like Samaritans? Nope. They despised them. 

Presumably, the vast majority of those baptized in Acts 2 were ethnically Jewish Christians. Acts chapters 1 through 7 take place in Jerusalem. All but the apostles scattered to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1) in the wake of Stephen's stoning and Paul's persecution. It was only once Philip started preaching Christ in Samaria (Acts 8:5) that the Samaritans heard the message. 

Now, do you think the ethnically-Jewish Christians, who regarded Samaritans as unclean, would believe Samaritans who claimed that God had given them the Holy Spirit, independent of laying on of hands, like He did with the apostles at Pentecost? Consider the drama about accepting Gentiles into the church in Acts chapters 10 through 15. Consider the astonishment that “those of the circumcision” expressed in Acts 11:18 when they heard Peter's report about what transpired in Acts 10:

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

If the ethnic Jewish believers in Jerusalem still got their feathers ruffled in the early verses of Acts 11, chances are good that they would not have believed the Samaritans. This, most likely, is the reason the apostles sent such reliable sources as Peter and John down to Samaria. And why God chose to impart the Holy Spirit this time through the laying on of hands. 

“The Jerusalem Jews considered the Samaritans to be second-class residents of Palestine and kept them at arm's length religiously. And on their part, the Samaritans returned the compliment. It is not too difficult to imagine what would have happened had the apostles at Jerusalem first been the missioners to Samaria. Probably they would have been rebuffed, just as they were rebuffed earlier in their travels with Jesus when the Samaritans associated them with the city of Jerusalem,” according to The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

“But what if the Spirit had come upon them at their baptism when administrated by Philip? Undoubtedly what feelings there were against Philip and the Hellenists would have carried over to them, and they would have been doubly under suspicion. But God in his providence withheld the gift of the Holy Spirit till Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans—Peter and John, two leading apostles who were highly thought of in the mother church at Jerusalem and who would have been accepted at that time as brothers in Christ by the new converts in Samaria. In effect, therefore, in this first advance of the gospel outside the confines of Jerusalem, God worked in ways that were conducive not only to the reception of the Good News in Samaria but also to the acceptance of these new converts by believers at Jerusalem,” according to The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

But God did not “withhold the gift of the Holy Spirit”  from those in Cornelius' house until Peter laid hands on them. Peter didn't even get a chance to finish preaching. 

(Acts 10:44-45) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Why would God deliver the Holy Spirit in such a dramatic way? In a way that did not include the laying on of hands?

“The six Jewish believers who were there with Peter were astonished at what they saw and heard. For in accepting these Gentiles and bestowing his Holy Spirit on them, God had providentially attested his action by the same sign of tongues as at Pentecost,” according to The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

“Undoubtedly the sign of tongues was given primarily for the sake of the Jewish believers right there in Cornelius's house. But it was also given for Jerusalem believers, who would later hear of what happened, so that all would see the conversion of these Gentiles as being entirely of God and none would revert to their old prejudices and relegate these new converts to the role of second-class Christians.” 

Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern concurs:

“As with Kefa (Jewish name for Peter), it took a supernatural act of God to dislodge their resistance to bringing Gentiles into the Body of the Messiah, accomplished and symbolized by immersion.” (Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 260).

But wait. Isn't the laying on of hands one of the foundational Church doctrines listed in the book of Hebrews 6? This is what COGWA states in its web entry, “Laying On of Hands.”

(Hebrews 6:1-2) Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 

“Once these stepping-stones of understanding are laid, we are expected to grow toward “perfection” (which can mean completeness or maturity). God wants us to maintain that foundation and then build on it in our converted lives,” according to COGWA's entry.

But most Bible students understand that the doctrines listed here are not necessarily "stepping stones" of the Christian walk, but most likely Jewish practices which the persecuted Hebrew recipients of the letter to the Hebrews should have settled by now. The word “baptisms” in verse 2 does not refer to the Christian practice of baptism, but Jewish ritual washings. The plural use of the word adds to the insight that we are not talking about Christian baptism.

“There were such purification ceremonies, or lustrations, in the Jewish religion as in most other religions of the day. Sometimes there was confusion over ritual washings. It would thus be one of the elementary items of instruction that converts be taught the right approach to the various "baptisms" they would encounter,” according to The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

In a similar vein, the “laying on of hands” listed in Hebrews 6:2 likely does not mean exactly what COGWA asserts that it does. Laying on of hands was a common practice in antiquity, was sometimes associated with the giving of the Holy Spirit, but at other times linked with commissioning into Christian service or ministry. We see examples of this in the commissioning of Stephen (Acts 6:6), Saul and Barnabas (Acts 10:3) and Timothy (1 Timothy 4:14). 

This is in keeping with the conclusions of both Theologian John MacArthur and Messianic Jewish scholar Stern, whom I quoted earlier.

“S'mikhah, the laying on of hands, refers here to the ordination of an individual for a particular task of ministry by the elders of the congregation, as with Sha'ul (Saul) and Timothy at 1 Timothy 4:14; also see Matthew21:31N.” (Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 677)

Obviously a proper perspective on Jewish ritual washings versus baptism, on ordinations, on faith and works, on repentance, on resurrection and on judgment would be critical for these Hebrew believers to have, especially given Jewish tradition on each of these topics. But the mere fact that these terms are discussed doesn't mean they indicated the same thing to Hebrew believers as they do in Western society in 2016. And the proximity of “baptisms” and “laying on of hands” in Hebrews 6:2 certainly does not link the two as the first "stepping stones" along the walk of the Church of God lifestyle. 

Further, we see mentions of people in the New Testament who were baptized but never had hands laid upon them. In the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, Philip was whisked away as soon as they came out of the water (Acts 8:39). Lydia and her household were baptized in Acts 16:14-15, but there is no mention of hands being laid upon her. Later in the chapter, the jailer and his household were baptized and rejoiced (Acts 16:34-35) without any direct discussion of laying on of hands. 

In all of these cases, which are we to believe? 

a) None of these people received the Holy Spirit.

b) That hands were laid upon them, the Bible just doesn't record it.

c) God sometimes imparts the Holy Spirit to a believer without a minister laying hands upon him.

Clearly, in some instances, God imparted the Holy Spirit to Gentile believers through the laying on of hands following baptism. And clearly, in other instances, He did not. So why would the COGs choose to adopt and highlight only method highlighted in Acts 8? 

To be fair, COGWA is not the only COG that teaches this. The Living Church of God takes this view in its Fundamental Beliefs. The United Church of God puts it forth in its article, "Water Baptism and Laying on of Hands." Really, most of the Worldwide Church of God splinters hold over this false teaching established by WCG founder Herbert W Armstrong. Who, ironically, was baptized by a Baptist preacher and has no record of having hands laid upon him to impart the Holy Spirit. So much for a Sabbatarian strand with authority stretching backwards across time to the apostles.  

But anyway, this teaching could result from an honest desire to create a standard practice for baptism in the COGs. Or it could be COGWA's best explanation as to how they think God usually works. Perhaps it's a simple oversight of Acts 10. But, conveniently, it also gives them an element of control over their membership. 

How so? Let's return to COGWA's writings on “Laying on of Hands.”

"The laying on of hands does not of itself provide the Holy Spirit. Much like baptism, the laying on of hands is a physical action with a spiritual component. When a minister lays hands on a person after baptism, it is God (not the minister) who gives the Holy Spirit.”

COGWA rightly admits that the minister does not physically transmit the Holy Spirit to the person on whom his hands are laid. It is God who administers the Holy Spirit. However...

“Only authorized representatives of God—most scriptural examples are of ordained ministers—should lay hands on the newly baptized person.” 

So, if I understand the logical implications of COGWA's statement correctly, God chooses to bestow the Holy Spirit upon individuals whom a COGWA minister has baptized and upon whom a COGWA minister lays his hands. The minister's hands are not magical; this is just how God works. Still, only ministers authorized by God - presumably through COGWA - should lay hands upon a newly baptized person.

Furthermore... 

“Once a person repents, believes and is baptized, it is through the laying on of hands that he or she receives God’s Spirit. The Spirit of God would then be in that person as the promised “Helper” (John 14:16), which is necessary for a person to be a follower of Jesus Christ and for our ultimate salvation."

Let me get this straight.  I will not receive the Holy Spirit unless a COGWA minister baptizes me and lays hands upon me. And I cannot inherit salvation without the Holy Spirit. Wow! Sounds like COGWA has a corner on the salvation market. I should have gotten in on the ground floor when I had the chance! 

COGWA's misguided teaching on this topic is dangerous because they allows men to come between you and God. It allows ministers to essentially act as the gatekeepers of salvation. And I'm not picking on COGWA alone - the same is true of LCG, UCG, COG-AIC, PCG and all who adopt this teaching. We've all heard the stories of WCG ministers forcing individuals to leave a second marriage or abandon a “questionable” job (questionable to the minister, anyway) before they agreed to baptize the individual. 

But that's all in the past, Martha! No one in today's COGs abuses their power to the detriment of the membership.

Sure. Tell that to the woman whose PCG parents abandoned her as a teen when she told them she no longer wished to attend the PCG. Tell it to the family of Janet (Gennaro) Privratsky, a young PCG member who committed suicide in response to PCG's no-contact policy. 

Tell it to the man from the Living Church of God who was forced to leave his nursing home job, then disfellowshipped when he gave two weeks notice rather than quitting on the spot at the advice of his minister. 

Tell it to Patrick and Elizabeth Scarborough, who are suing the Living Church of God, Rod Meredith and Rod McNair for the “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress” and “Defamation of Character” after being disfellowshipped and marked for no given reason, despite months of pleading phone calls, letters and apologies. 

But hey, that's PCG and LCG, not COGWA. No worries here, Martha!  

Wait, this isn't the same COGWA that just met with LCG officials in January 2016? That agreed with LCG to work together, treat one another as brothers and build trust between the organizations going forward? The same COGWA that agreed to these in the midst of the Scarborough lawsuit? 

It can't be the same COGWA whose officials, while still under the UCG banner, leaked confidential personnel documents over the Internet to foment a church split!

It's certainly not the same COGWA that employs a long-time COG minister alleged to have agitated for the church split on a popular social media outlet using a fake profile! And used said outlet and fake profile to calculate when his group of dissenting ministers had a large enough tithe base to support themselves! 

Right, I see your point. I was totally wrong. There's nothing concerning at all about these guys basically claiming to be the gatekeepers through whom God chooses to bestow the Holy Spirit.

It's certainly biblical to be under the authority of a pastor. The Bible makes it clear that we should assemble regularly with other believers, and that we should submit to the leaders of that assembly. But the Bible also reminds us time and time again to watch the example our leaders set, to consider the outcomes of their behavior and their lives, and to judge them by their fruit.

It's also biblical to be baptized (although it's not required for salvation), and baptism is traditionally performed by a pastor. I was baptized by my pastor. But baptism is an outward symbol of the change that has already happened in a person's life - repentance, death to sin, and new life in Christ by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. It is not what causes the change. As with Lydia in Acts 16:14, God opens our heart, He imparts the Holy Spirit as Jesus explained in John 3:8, and, as a result, we see the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. No minister is the gatekeeper of that process, neither in the beginning, nor in the middle, nor the end.

(John 6:37, NIV) "All those the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never drive away."

No man can come between you and God. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Especially not these guys.

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

Who Requires What For Salvation?

Conditional salvation. The idea sounds so logical. So noble. So right. Obedience in exchange for eternal life sounds good in theory. And Christians truly do owe their lives to Christ. Who would argue it’s acceptable to disobey the God who suffered and died in your place?

Conditional salvation is a core teaching of the Churches of God. It's a badge of honor, one they wave proudly as they mock "so-called Christianity" for placing its emphasis on salvation by grace through faith. Today, and over the next few posts, I'd like to address the topic of conditional salvation as taught by the COGs. Specifically, I'll be addressing the conditions the United Church of God claims God requires for salvation in its May-June 2015 issue of the Good News, in an article titled: “Is Belief All That’s required for God’s Gift of Salvation?”

Why does this false teaching bother me so much? Well, for starters, the Bible has strong warnings for those who pervert the gospel. Adding a works component to salvation definitely qualifies as a false gospel (Ephesians 2:8-9). But that’s more of an issue for those who publish magazines like The Good News, Tomorrow’s World, Discern and The Philadelphia Trumpet; not the average reader.

Here’s why this particular false teaching upsets me - because the COGs sometimes use it to enslave you to themselves instead of to Jesus. Because it allows your spiritual leaders to threaten you with the Lake of Fire when you disagree with them. We don’t run this blog for the awesome dental benefits. We reach out to you because you are our family, our childhood friends, our summer camp counselors, and we care about you.  At the end of the day, if you prefer to abstain from pork, well, hey, we survived just fine without it for decades. And if you decide you feel more comfortable meeting to worship on Saturday, that’s fine, too. What ISN’T fine is your minister making you feel like your salvation is in jeopardy when you object to being spiritually abused.

Do I really believe that UCG is likely to mark someone on a heavy-handed whim? Not really, especially considering they recently moved all their Armstrongist doctrines to the back shelf of their web site. It’s not likely, but it has happened. Still, members of other COG groups have not been so fortunate lately.

Word recently leaked that a Living Church of God minister told a nursing home employee in his congregation to quit his job because elderly people who show signs of dementia are often, in reality, inhabited by demons. If that wasn’t bad enough, LCG is reported to have disfellowshipped the man when he gave his employer the traditional two-weeks notice instead of quitting on the spot. This report comes as the organization has suffered months of power struggles. Last year, the Philadelphia Church of God’s no-contact policy was responsible for a suicide. Not to be left out, the Church of God, a Worldwide Association has indefinitely barred a respected young couple because they challenged its teachings on the Hebrew calendar.

Hear this loud and clear: your pastor has no business telling you that you cannot contact your family. And unless you are a prostitute, a hit-man, an alcoholic working as a bartender; or unless your job requires you to act dishonestly, he has no business telling you where you can or can’t work. Accepting the COGs’ false teachings on conditional salvation makes you and your loved ones vulnerable to suffering this kind of spiritual abuse.

How? Well, let’s consider the first point of UCG article, penned by Scott Ashley. Predictably, Ashley produces the classic COG example: a philanthropist who promises to mail a $100 bill to anyone who sends him a self-addressed, stamped envelope. You are not earning it! It’s a gift, he exclaims! Sending in the envelope doesn’t make it any less of a gift. He then compares this process to the gift of salvation.

“The fact is, the Bible shows that God sets certain conditions for receiving salvation. Meeting these conditions will enable us to receive that gift, while disregarding and failing to meet them will disqualify us from receiving it.” (The Good News, May-June 2015, p. 28)

It’s true that there are two things you must do to receive salvation - repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus, not in your own actions or goodness. If you want to call those conditions, I guess you can. But the process the COGs employ is not equivalent receiving the $100 bill. It’s like being named in a trust – a financial agreement that allows a third party (the trustee) to hold assets on a beneficiary’s behalf. This is fine if the trustee sticks to the contract. But what if he doesn’t? What if he sets up his own hoops and demands you jump through them or be marked?

Wait, Martha. Are you claiming there’s NOTHING else we have to in order to inherit eternal life? What about the 10 Commandments? We have to follow those, at the very least. I mean, Jesus even told us that in Matthew 19:16-17.

"Jesus didn't answer that nothing is required other than believing in God or in Him. He told the young man he must obey the commandments of God to receive the gift of eternal life. How plain!" (The Good News, May-June 2015, p. 28)

Really? Is that what Jesus is saying here, as Ashley claims? Let’s do what he suggests – look at the WHOLE Bible instead of an isolated verse to determine this passage tells us.

(Now, before you disregard me as an antinomian who wants to live any old way I like, let me state I believe that Jesus gave his followers commands to follow. They are not conditions to be met for salvation, but commands that a changed heart should follow, should desire to follow. The 10 Commandments were the cornerstone of the Sinai Covenant, which was intended for Israel and was abrogated at Christ’s death. But I digress).

A rich young man asked Jesus what “good thing” he needed to do to obtain eternal life. In that time, many Jews believed that a specific act of goodness could win them eternal life, according to the Expositor’s Bible Commentary. The man was quite likely asking Jesus what he believed that act might be. But there was no act that would win salvation – Jesus responded that the man needed to keep the commandments if he wanted to attain eternal life. This should come as no surprise.  Since Jesus was not yet crucified, Israel was still under the Sinai Covenant. Under this agreement, one’s righteousness was established by following the tenets of the covenant. (If you haven’t read “Confusing the Covenants” yet, you really should. Don’t worry, I’ll wait for you.)

Oh good, you’re back. So let’s pick up where we left off. The man asks Jesus what special thing he must do in order to have eternal life. Jesus essentially tells him there is no special thing, he must keep the commandments. Is the man sheepish, because he knows he has fallen short? Nope. He tells Jesus he has obeyed these commandments from his youth.

Now, I’m not trying to pick on this guy. I probably would have given a similar response in the past. And he may truly have lived what most people consider a good life – he probably hadn’t killed or stolen from anyone. He probably generally respected his parents.  But under the terms of the Sinai Covenant, perfect obedience was required. James 2:10 tells us that if we have broken even one part, we are guilty of violating it all.

So did this man really keep the commandments to a degree that he would obtain eternal life? What do the scriptures tell us?

(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

(Psalm 143:2) Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight no one living is righteous.

(Isaiah 53:6) All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

(James 2:10) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point; he is guilty of all.

This man was likely respectable by human standards, but it was foolish for him to assert he had kept the commandments – all the commandments – to a degree that he could be declared righteous. The man’s impulsive reply shows a certain understanding of the law reminiscent of Paul’s description of his pre-conversion condition in Philippians 3:6, according to Expositor’s. This is likely why Jesus demonstrates the man’s “inadequate sense of goodness” earlier in the chapter.  Because, “In the absolute sense of goodness required to gain eternal life, only God is good,” according to Expositor’s.

“Irrespective of what "good" refers to, the man approaches Jesus with a question showing how far he is from the humble faith that, as Jesus has just finished saying, characterizes all who belong to the kingdom” as discussed in the incident with the children in verses 13 through 15, according to Expositor’s.

The gospels give us many examples where Jesus gave spiritual, rhetorical answers to people when people asked questions about rote obedience. Many failed to grasp the spiritual significance of what Jesus was saying because they lacked eyes to see and ears to hear. This is likely one of those occasions, and UCG falls into the same trap in this article.

“Jesus tells this young man, in similar vein, what good things he must do if he is to gain eternal life, precisely because he perceives his questioner has little understanding of such things. But that is still far from telling him that by doing these things he will earn eternal life,” according to Expositor’s.

Theologian John MacArthur expounds further: “Before showing him the way to life, Jesus impresses upon the young man both the high standard required by God and the absolute futility of seeking salvation by his own merit. The young man should have responded as the disciples do in verse 25 and confessed that keeping the law perfectly was impossible, but instead the young man confidently declares that he qualifies for heaven under those terms.” (MacArthur Bible Commentary, p. 1160).

Jesus saw that this man was blind to his own sinfulness. So instead he proceeded to demonstrate that the man’s money was an idol that created a stumbling block that kept him from truly following God.

(Matthew 19:21-22) Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow Me.” But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Jesus is not setting forth terms for salvation in verses 17 and 19, but exposing the young man’s true heart, MacArthur says.

“His refusal to obey here reveals two things: he is not blameless as far as the law was concerned, because he is guilty of loving himself and his possessions more than his neighbors; and he lacks true faith, which involves a willing to surrender all at Christ’s bidding. Jesus is not teaching salvation by philanthropy, but He is demanding that this young man give Him first place. The young man fails the test. Come, follow Me. This is the answer to the young man’s question in verse 16. It is a call to faith.” (MacArthur Bible Commentary, p. 1160). 

Ironically, this passage demonstrates the opposite of what UCG would have us believe. Jesus didn’t tell the man to do a better job keeping the commandments, He told him to place his faith in Him rather than his wealth. We know this because a few verses later, in verse 27, Peter asks Jesus “See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?” What was Christ’s response?

(Matthew 19:28-29) So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

Jesus doesn’t say that everyone who follows the commandments, or is baptized, or follows cherry-picked portions of the Sinai Covenant to an unspecified degree shall inherit eternal life. He says those who follow Him will inherit eternal life. The Greek word – akoloutheo – indicates someone who moves quickly and follows in a straight line, according to Spiros Zodhiates' Complete Word Study of the New Testament. Someone who cleaved to Him, followed His lead and example. Of course the COGs would argue that His example included following the 10 commandments, and that Jesus was talking about blessings for those who gave up family or property to keep the Sabbath and Holy Days. (The latter of which, noticeably, UCG doesn’t state are necessary for salvation in this article).

Matthew 19:29 begs the question of why those in a Jewish society would have to forsake all to keep observances the Pharisees enforced to the nth degree. Unless, of course, Jesus wasn’t alluding to the Sinai Covenant at all. He is talking to His Jewish disciples, not a band of Sabbath-keepers in U.S. Bible Belt. We must be careful not to shoehorn our modern-day situation into a two-thousand year old conversation. Though God will reward those who suffer lost for Christ today, Jesus was directly addressing Peter.

We also can’t force the 10 Commandments into a New Testament salvation model. They were the cornerstone of the Sinai Covenant, which Galatians chapters 4 and 5 expressly tell us to reject. When we add them, or any other works component to secure our salvation, we risk alienating ourselves from Christ, according to Galatians 5:4. At the very least, we unnecessarily wear a yoke of bondage Christians were never meant to carry (Galatians 5:1) – a yoke that can change at the whim of church leadership.

As Christians, we have a responsibility to obey God. And that responsibility involves living an abundant life that draws others to Christ. Jesus came to free us from a yoke of bondage. When you allow your spiritual leaders to start placing conditions on your salvation, you are allowing them to put the yoke right back on.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some good, honest ministers out there in the COGs. I happen to disagree with them on some major points of doctrine, but I know would give you the shirt off their back. And I don't dispute that Hebrews 13:17 clearly tells us to obey and submit to our spiritual leaders. But if we're going to invoke the authority of verse 17, we must also give just as much weight to verse 7 of the same chapter, which tells us to consider the fruits of these same leaders’ lives. We should imitate good spiritual leaders as they imitate Christ, and you can know them by their fruits. But these verses don’t mean you must submit to abuse.

Unfortunately, there are also leaders who live to control. They learned from the best, Herbert W Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God; from which the modern-day COGs are descended. They often feel justified in following his controlling example. Refusing to submit to their spiritual abuse is not the same thing as rejecting biblical authority. It is acceptable to have concerns when church leaders send you membership letters characterizing their internal political enemies as “spiritual wolves”.  It is okay to raise your eyebrows when leaders release confidential personnel files to gain political support, as UCG and COGWA did during their nasty 2010 split. The Bible has strong words for those who divide the brethren as soon-to-be COGWA leaders did when they formented the split via the Internet. It is ok to be concerned when church leaders pressure you to donate even more money by insinuating Jesus will ask you about your level of church contributions at His return. When they advise you to abandon your handicapped child at the mall. (find secondary confirmation here)
When they tell you to cut off contact with your siblings, your parents, your children or your grandchildren because they are not a part of your church. When they tell you to quit your job, and then mark you when you don't jump as high and as quickly as they would like.

Sadly, these cases are not as few and far between as they should be. There are still many in COG church leadership who equate obedience to God with obedience to their personal whims and preferences. The COGs’ skewed understanding of the Sinai Covenant and the book of James allows men like these to threaten you and control you. And if you don’t straighten up, you are in rebellion against the government of God, cut off from your friends and family in this life, and headed to the Lake of Fire in the next. Is it really worth your salvation to question a leader's judgment? Do you really want to take that chance? After all, if obedience is required, who knows how much obedience? How good do you have to be in order to “make it”? At least Muslims put a number of on it – they believe 51 percent of your works must be “good” in order to inherit eternal life. But in COG theology the message often is that you’re probably pretty close to the cutoff, and another mistake could push you over the edge.

Jesus didn’t tell the rich young ruler that he needed to keep the commandments in order to inherit eternal life. Instead, He demonstrated that even his best actions and intentions were insufficient where salvation is concerned, and encouraged him to place his faith in Him. Don’t make the same mistake as the young man in the story. Stop placing your faith in your own record of obedience. Step fully into the New Covenant and place your full faith in Christ .

No, salvation isn’t conditional on our record of obedience. And boy, should we be thankful for that.

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

Open Letter to Pastors Resigning from UCG

I've heard a lot about the UCG ministers and who have resigned or been kicked out. I wanted to post something from the people whose lives are being turned upside down by the UCG crisis. These deserve to have their voice heard. Tragically, that rarely happens. Sounds to me that the UCG members just want the ministry to practice what they preach.
     A reasonable request.
(Funny, that sounds a lot like what we want them to do, too.)

Before the elders foot their own bill to attend the upcoming Ministerial Conference in Cinci this January 31 through Feb 1, I hope they all take some time to read Open Letter to Pastors Resigning from UCG

An Open Letter to Pastors Leaving UCG 

Dear Mr. Pastor (generic for any and all of the many

                    pastors I’ve known over the years)

As many of you have thought it fitting to distribute open letters to the administration of the United Church of God about various errors you believe committed by church leadership, and explaining the reasons for your resignation, I hope you will understand that for similar reasons I am writing this letter to you--all of you--about your conduct. I am a lay member of UCG, not an elder and no one of any special standing or reputation.  However, I believe that my views and feelings represent those of many church members that have not been heard during this crisis.  While some of them may disagree with this letter, I believe that it represents the views of a great many of us.  As a large number of us have been members of the church longer than you have been pastors, please give our views some of your attention now.  After all, properly caring for church membersis why you were called by God into the ministry and hired by the church as a pastor.

From the perspective of us members, it seems that many of you Elders are upset at each other over what you think other Elders have said or done, and now you are having trouble doing your jobs because of it.  Some of you are angry about the way certain men have treated various other men.  I have not read or heard any resigning pastor say that he himself was mistreated or forced to do something immoral.  Rather, many keep saying what sounds to me like, “someone else was done wrong, so I must resign!”  In doing this, you are forcing the members of your congregation to make an extremely difficult and painful choice—all because you have become offended.  Well, the stance you are taking offends me somewhat, but that does not justify me leaving my congregation or inflicting wrong upon any other person.  More than once over the years, we members have watched our pastors occasionally make mistakes, such as: giving advice to members of our congregations that turned out to be bad; instructing members to refrain from attending services because of a sin that it tuned out they actually didn’t commit; affording preferential treatment to some members over others; and so on.  Collectively you pastors always acknowledged that you sometimes made mistakes, and you taught us members to wait and to trust that God would correct such errors.   This was the correct thing to teach; we believed you and bore with your errors, (which have fortunately been rare).  Isn’t that exactly what you should be doing now?

We, as members of the church have been taught for years that we should not base our commitment to be a part of God’s church upon the actions of other people.  You ministers reminded us that the church consists of human beings who are in the process of being converted but who are certainly not perfect yet.  Should not that same standard apply to Elders and even to leaders of the church?  In particular, many have raised an outcry over Mr. Leon Walker being removed from his position over the Latin American region.  Yet, clearly the government structure of UCG gives the Council of Elders full discretion over whom to put in such job assignments.    The Council may or may not have been mistaken about misconduct by him, but still, the Council genuinely possessed the authority to reassign him at will--even if for no other reason than that they believed it was time for a change.  Why then did so many of you pastors take offense at this, when throughout your careers, you have been similarly re-assigned many times to different congregations—often causing considerable heart-ache among your congregations?  We often didn’t like the way such things were done, but you told us that it needed to be done and that we should accept and welcome ministerial reassignments.  Shouldn’t you accept the same advice you have given to us many times?

I understand that many who are leaving believe that the leadership of UCG is enacting a secret plan to change the teaching of how and when to keep the Sabbath.  Have you personally been told to teach something different about the Sabbath than before?  I haven’t heard one single Elder say that the Council or administration of UCG directed him to change the way he taught the members of his congregation to keep the Sabbath.  The booklets and articles that the church publishes on the subject of the Sabbath are still the same as before.  Isn’t it true that the only way a church doctrine can be changed in UCG is if three-quarters of all the Elders in the church vote to approve such a change?         If that is the case, true teachings will be safeguarded considerably more by you remaining a part of UCG you wouldn’t teach me that I should operate a business on the Sabbath.  If and when you receive a directive from the Home Office instructing you to do so, please let us members of your congregation know so that we can join you in resisting heresy.  But please don’t raise alarm over mere suspicions and fears.  I may or may not agree with the decisions that other people make about how they keep the Sabbath—face it, we’ve had disagreements about things like whether or not to eat in restaurants or to watch the TV news on the Sabbath, for as long as I can remember—but you always taught us that such differences of opinion are not good reasons for leaving our congregation.   Shouldn’t you follow that same advice now concerning membership of this organization?

I have heard that some pastors have concluded that the government structure of UCG is broken and can’t be fixed. I wonder, when did it become broken—was it when the Council of Elders and Mr. Kilough disagreed on how much money to spend on a television program?  Was it when the Council of Elders removed Mr. Kilough from the office of president—or perhaps when it   previously removed Mr. Holiday from that position, or maybe when he replaced Mr. McCullough?   Why did you not feel the need to leave UCG at any of those earlier times?  Was the government broken already when you met in Indianapolis fifteen years ago to form it?

Certainly, you ministers (remember, we members had no say in the matter) established a form of church government that is somewhat inefficient and can be slow to enact new policies.  I am fairly certain that you formed, and we all accepted, this type of government purposely because it makes it impossible for one or a few ministers to ever force upon UCG the kind of doctrinal heresies that were enacted in WCG.  If you leave and form some new church organization, are you sure you will have the same safeguards from your new employer?  You are asking members like me to join you in leaving UCG, but I am not at all sure that you are going to form a structure that will protect me from the type of false teaching that came in WCG.  The fact that you are leaving an organization that makes it nearly impossible to introduce doctrinal change to go to a new one that is a blank slate makes me suspicious of both it and of you.  I’ve trusted you for years, but the experience I had fifteen to twenty years ago prevents me from giving any minister that kind of blind trust again.  Wouldn’t you feel the same if you were in my position?

I’ve also heard it said that we can’t move forward with the organization and/or the leadership UCG now has.  Different people seem to disagree on what “moving forward” really means.  As a member of the church, I’ve seen UCG move forward in accomplishing several things that seem quite positive.  The Good News magazine, World News & Prophecy, and dozens of booklets preach the gospel through the print medium, free of charge to whomever requests them.  Different websites make the same material—and much more—available to literally billions of people around the world.  The weekly Beyond Today television program now airs across the U.S., preaching the gospel in yet another medium, reaching different audiences.  To meet the responsibility of educating and developing members of the Church, UCG has maintained and provided pastors for congregations across the U.S. and the world. Young men (well, younger men) have been hired and trained as pastors; youth camps and family weekends serve our children; ABC provides advanced academic training in God’s Word.  I should admit that as an Ambassador College, graduate, I was not convinced at first that ABC would work, but I later had to admit that it has done very well.  So what is it that the church needs to “move forward” in doing, that UCG cannot do?  The only item in that area that seems to be a sticking point is building a campus in Texas.

Rather than write yet another argument about whether or not moving to Texas was a good idea, let me just share with you the attitude of many church members.  We stopped caring so much about the logistics concerning buildings and moving long ago, and became alarmed that many of you could not seem to stop arguing about it.  How many times over the years has our congregation had to meet for weekly Sabbath services in a hall that many of us hated?  And then, when you put in considerable hard work to find a new hall for us to meet in, some of us griped and complained about the new one.  Didn’t you tell some of us privately—and sometimes say from the lectern—that no meeting hall would be perfect? that we should stop murmuring and instead focus on serving the church?  The whole moving the Home Office debacle seems to us common church members to be little more than the same thing on a larger scale.  As such, we advise you, our pastors to quit the murmuring and to accept what we have now for what any building or campus will be:  a necessarily temporary facility that we should make the best of while we have it.  You taught us that the energy we could spend grumbling would be much better employed in active service to our fellow Christians.  Should you not have accepted this advice yourselves years ago?

Surely I have not addressed all of the issues.  Perhaps I’ve missed entirely whatever particular offense has driven you to the point of resignation.  Hopefully, though, you see my primary point.  You as the Elders of the church have problems that you need to deal with in a way that does not tear apart the church to which we members have devoted ourselves these many years.  Please note that by addressing this to the pastors who are resigning, I am not at all excusing those who remain of any fault.  They may have committed some wrongs—but they are not doing harm to me and my fellow members by disrupting what has become our spiritual home.  If and where they have been in error, you have all the more moral duty to remain with us members and be sure that you are an Elder who is not doing wrong.  I say this partly because, if a similar problem existed in our local congregation, you would give us the same advice.  You know this is true, because you have done so before; if you continue to serve as a pastor, you’ll surely have occasion to do so again.

So then, you, Mr. Pastor, should you not—will you not—please, please accept and follow the same teaching you have given to us church members over the years?  You always taught us not to take offense and leave the church because of the sins of others—even when the others were ordained Elders.  This is not to imply that I believe that the leaders of UCG have sinned—just that even if they have, it does NOT justify your current actions.  You taught us that God called us to His church and that we should look to Him, and not let any man push us away from Him and the church that He established.  I believed what you told me then, and I still believe it is true today.  Should you not believe your own teaching and follow it—for the sake of us, lowly church members?

Sincerely,

Frank Dunkle, Columbus, Ohio

PCG Parents Abandon Teen Daughter

You read that right. Philadelphia Church of God parents abandon minor-aged daughter.
I had to take a while to cool off before I wrote this post. I am just going to parrot Felix Taylor and spare you the angry rant that I would very much love to cut loose with right now.

I checked Felix's blog, Life After WCG And More Abundantly, and he linked to a letter on Exit and Support Network about a 17-year old girl who told her parents that she no longer wished to attend Gerald Flurry's Armstrongist splinter-church, the Philadelphia Church of God. Well, given the opportunity to follow Jesus' example and love her unconditionally with forgiveness and hope, her parents chose to abandon her to the streets.

!!ABANDON HER TO THE STREETS!!

Here is a link to the article so you can read for yourself.

(I TIM. 5: 8) But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Likely this poor girls' life, if it ever recovers, will have little room for Jesus Christ, since the horrific version of Christ she was abused with should turn any sane being away in disgust. What have her parents done?
Gerald Flurry, you _______!
This is no joke. And people wonder why we do what we do in the ex-COG blogosphere.

WELCOME TO ARMSTRONGISM!

(MAT. 23: 23-33) 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ 31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.
33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

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

Cui Bono?

For some time, I have been under the impression that the issues with various churches and even cults in regards to doctrinal beliefs revolved around, for the most part, different interpretations of Scripture that results from pre-conceived beliefs. As one theologian put it, “Our beliefs tend to drive our interpretation and translation of the Scriptures.”

But another motive is what drives doctrine when it comes to cults and cult-meisters.

What is the motivation of a wolf in sheep’s clothing (read, wool suit)? To feed his own belly; to use religion as a means of personal gain. And the personality type who does this are those who are narcissistic megalomaniacs. It does not hurt their conscience to take advantage of, and destroy the lives of other people.

This is what drives their “interpretation” of Scripture; to achieve personal gain, and the only people who matter to him are those who can help him achieve this end. All others are expendable and not worthy of his (or her) attention.

We can give these people any number of labels; “Christian Guru” comes to mind, even though there is nothing Christian about them outside their own claims.

The old covenant makes for a convenient and ready-made system for accomplishing what these gurus want most; money and power over others. All one needs do is play to people’s egos, and play to one’s fears.

One’s ego is stroked by convincing them that God has taken a personal interest in them, opening up hence unknown “truths” to them that are not being revealed to mankind in general, while warning these same people of the dreadful consequences of rejecting that “truth” that they are privileged to be receiving should they reject it. It is a hard combination for many people to ignore.

From there, it is merely a matter of “modifying” their understanding of Scripture so that the guru, the cult-meister, profits as a result. Tithing serves the guru’s purpose perfectly, and, with just a little modification of the interpretation of Scripture, the people are convinced they are to send him their monetary tithes.

But the gospel as found in Scripture does not serve the needs of the guru cult-meister. No problem though, the gospel can be altered by him also, so as to serve again his aims and end. Simply make tithing obligatory as a part of your gospel. Seeing though that it would be difficult to justify one modified point of old covenant law, other points of that law have to be accepted as being required for salvation also – as long as those points also somehow benefit the guru cult-meister.

The true irony in this whole process is that anyone from within the group that recovers from their involvement in the group and the control of the guru ends up being seen as, in some instances, attempting to undo the now accepted theology for their own benefit! I have been accused of doing what I do for the purpose of personal gain so many times I have long since lost count.

I show people tithing is not required in the new covenant. How on earth do I personally gain from pointing that out? I have never taken one dime from anyone for the work I put into teaching and counseling people out of the teachings of “Armstrongism.” I even turned down $15,000 from one individual who had been saving up his tithes, thinking he had to give it to a true representative who was doing God’s work. I told him it would be better for him to give it to the poor; the fatherless and widow.

Those unfortunate people who are in religious cults have everything backwards and upside down. They impoverish themselves giving their money to a cult-meister while accusing anyone who would dare point out they are wrong as those with personal motives of self-aggrandizement. The latest such accusation brought against myself was an Armstrongite claiming I was trying to make myself one of the two witnesses of Revelation! Believe you me, that is one position I have no desire to fulfill! It’s bad enough having Armstongites and Seventh Day Adventists breathing down your neck nearly everyday, but at least you are reasonably sure you are not going to be put to death tomorrow.

There is no personal gain in what I do, besides the occasional satisfaction of knowing that I have managed to help rescue a person from the grips of tyranny and freed their minds so that they can logically and rationally go about the rest of their lives. I’ve had people call me up in the middle of the night to thank me for helping them out of their involvement in a cult and from the brain-washed state they were in as a result.

On the flip side, hardly a day goes go by when I don’t get an email from someone, somewhere, telling me what an evil, rotten person I am. Here’s a sampling from just today:

You are one-dimensional in your thinking.

You cannot reason beyond your own pride
and make-believe.

You have chosen a verse or two and twisted
their meaning to suit yourselves, rather than
looking into their true meaning as a whole.

You have lost your way. You witness lies.

You perhaps have even lost eternal life (?)

You therefore must assuredly be a law-breaker.
Break one law and you break them all.

This proves you liars, and self-serving old men.

What is wrong is that you commit the unforgiveable sin and turn God's Spirit of grace into a falsehood. You condemn the unchangeable law of God. You lead other foolish people astray with your lies.

That was from today. Care to see a sampling from yesterday?

Remember that when you blatantly attack the Holy Sabbath that you are not attacking Sabbath keeping Christians. God is the author my friend "LEST YOU FORGET". You might want to tone down your rhetoric. Christian Sabbath keepers are really trying to help and deliver you from the Mark of the Beast. Be thankful before you mount your next attack against the Holy Sabbath. Friend you know the truth. Stop kicking against the pricks.

The Old Covenant was a good Covenant but the people were sinful, faulty, messed up, rebellious, cantankerous and biligerent as you have demonstrated . . . toward the Sabbath truth.

Here’s from the day before yesterday, April 15th:

The Ten Commandments apply to all mankind. ... you are obligated to keep the Sabbath day holy. Stop kicking against the pricks. Get your theology together. You are so confused. You don't understand Old Covenant vs New Covenant theology. You are way off base. Take your time and do proper exegesis. Your isogesis has messed up your confused mind. Why are you so bitter? Who hurt your feelings? What happen in your former Church that caused such bitterness in your heart toward the Sabbath? Why are you attacking God's Holy Law? Are you aware that you are only hurting yourself and giving atheists fuel for their fire?

Your allegiance will be either to God or Man. You can't serve two masters. You will love one and hate the other. Your constant attacks on God's sacred Sabbath suggests that you have already made your choice quite clear. You will be judge for your blatant disobedience, disrespect and disregard of God's Holy Law and his Holy Sabbath day unless you repent(James 2:10-13). This is a nondebatable issue. . .

There have been even more colorful emails in the past. Here’s one of my recent favorites:

You Bear the mark of the beast.
6666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666

This was all done in large, red letters. My reply was thus:

May God forgive you for being so quick to judge and condemn.

Followed with a response:

“Say this to me at judgement day Satan.”

Also done in large, red letters.

Those who would deceive; those who are not interested in truth, are motivated by greed and the self.

Those who seek to help others are not out to deceive, and are not motivated by greed and the self. Their motivations are selfless in nature, and they are in receipt of persecution from the very ones they are trying to help.

And yet, there are those who read these blogs who have brought accusations against me, accusing me of being self-motivated after all. I guess now those of you who have done this will have to change your accusations to accusing me of wanting and desiring persecution and that I must enjoy being reviled.

You know... it would be so much easier to just quit doing what I do, and let those comparatively few I am able to help suffer through their fate for the rest of their lives, and maybe into the next one.

Cui bono. What do I have to personally gain? Neither wealth nor control or power over others. I gain a “thank you” from those people and a feeling of satisfaction knowing they have now been exposed to the true gospel as found in Scripture.

I’m such a terrible person...

Bill Hohmann

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

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.

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

The Mirror

I was asked to write something to help some people see the difference between what the bible says, and what the HWA Mini-Me’s were teaching. I’m inclined to think it was an exercise in futility, but I did it anyway.

I started crawling out of my mind trap around 1989 when I began researching authority, because I had a so-called minister that was making my life a living hell, as if it wasn’t that already. I abandoned the church before it changed its doctrines because I had already found gaping holes in their arguments. Because of this, it has appeared to me that arriving at a different theological view is the singular route to getting the O.C. shackles off, so it has seemed logical to concentrate on this. But I find the personal accounts far more interesting.

Someone keeps asking me if I’ve read the current Armstrong Survivor post, saying, “you’ve got to read it, it’s amazing how much you have in common with AS and Aggie A.” So maybe I’ll begin talking a little more from the witness perspective since the bible proofs are pretty much huffing and puffing against a stone wall. The only ones that can save the deluded are themselves.

Beyond the general sense of futility, it seems blogging can be cathartic, so maybe there is some reason to continue. Talking to real live human beings, however cloaked in pseudonyms, is a new experience for me. I definitely have my tortuous-shell defenses engaged if I need to interact with another person in the real world. This is a remarkable place where one can approach honesty in a way that has no precedence, at least in my experience.

My nerves were pretty well fried before I hit puberty; frequently, at church, my right leg would quit working, and I’d have to lift it with my hands to get across the floor. My face was probably bright red with embarrassment. The congregation looked at me out of the corners of their eyes, and closed up their little huddles to present me with a wall of backs to isolate themselves from the church outcast.

It was the same story in all the church areas I attended; Olympia; Tacoma; Spokane; Seattle; Phoenix; Pasadena; and to the Canadians, credit, Vancouver BC was almost OK. They might not have wished to show discourtesy to the jittery American since I was a guest in their country. The similarity in behavior, in different areas says; the ‘cause’ was their common beliefs.

Church philosophy didn’t believe in psychological disorders, apart from spiritual corruption. So I’m sure I was a demonic presence as far as they were concerned. The church believed psychologists to be on the same level as voodoo priests. The church thought they were the only ones with all the answers. They would teach crap that caused people to create an environment of tension and a world of paranoia, poverty and shame for their families, and deny any of the human-collateral-damage, qualified help.

Actually, kids in general ostracize other kids who are “weird,” but not to the extent of OWCG kids. You’d think that adults would mature out of that kind of superficial judging. They certainly didn’t in the church of Herbert. I was too weird to have friends at school, and any kid who so much as talked to me at church would have lost substantial social status. I never did have a friend as I grew up, and never once did a single one of them waver from their attitude of disgust and condescension.

Now I have to ask the question; whose fault was it? This is a no-brainer. Kids learn and perpetuate the cultures they absorb from their environment; so when you have condescending, know-it-all, self-important leaders; you get condescending, know-it-all, self-important lay members; and of course kids of lay members.

Someone once said, “If you want to know how you really are, look at your children, they’re a mirror that hides no flaw.” It is a weightier flaw, the church of Herbert had, than the flaws they focused so much upon, (strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel). And I had a broad enough sample to conclude that the mirror reflected the same hideous image regardless of where the church of Herbert might have been located.