One of the arguments against preaching the gospel that come up from time to time is that Worldwide went "all out" to preach the gospel, but that did not prevent the apostasy and scattering of the Church, and therefore going all out to preach the gospel to the world today will not heal or unify the Church of God. People who make this argument seem to be saying, in reference to making a maximum effort to preach the gospel to the world, "we tried that, and it didn't work."
There are a number of fallacies in that line of reasoning. For one thing, there would never have been a Worldwide Church of God of any significant size to even be scattered if it were not for the zeal and sacrifice of Mr. Armstrong and his supporters who had their hearts in the work of God.
But I want to focus on just one point of this argument, which I regard to be false. It is based on an assumption that is not necessarily true, yet I have not heard it challenged. But I want to challenge it now.
That assumption is the idea that everyone in Worldwide, or even the majority, was going all out to preach the gospel to the world till the time Mr. Armstrong died.
Certainly Mr. Armstrong had his heart in the work and had zeal for preaching the gospel to the world. And I am sure that many Worldwide Church of God members and coworkers likewise supported the preaching of the gospel with zeal and sacrifice. They could be said to be going "all out" to preach the gospel to the world. And they may have been the majority during the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s.
But by the 1980s, even while Mr. Armstrong was still alive, I do not think the majority of the Worldwide Church of God was going all out to preach the gospel. I think that is a myth.
I came into the Church in the early 1980s while Mr. Armstrong was still alive. I do not think the Church became lukewarm and Laodicean after Mr. Armstrong died. It had already become that way while he was still alive. The appointment of Mr. Tkach to succeed Mr. Armstrong was the result of the Church becoming Loadicean, not the cause.
In my opinion, the majority of members and ministers in the Worldwide Church of God had become Laodicean before Mr. Armstrong died, and it was in response to the general lukewarm condition that existed in the Church that God inspired Mr. Armstrong to name Mr. Tkach as his successor. It was that appointment that led to apostasy and the scattering of the Church. This was God's doing in fulfillment of the prophecy of (Revelation 3:16): "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
My observation of the Church in the early eighties was that there was a certain camaraderie, enthusiasm, and general warmth between brethren, and there was zeal for God among some. But I did not see a lot of sacrifice for the work of preaching the gospel to the world, not among the majority. People had nice things: houses, nice apartments, nice cars, nice furniture. But on holy days offerings were taken up in the morning services, counted during the lunch period, and the average offering was often announced at the beginning of the afternoon services. Those offerings were small in comparison to the ability of the members to give, in my opinion. And there was not much talk about the work in conversation among members that I observed. When they talked about God's way of life at all, they talked about the fine points of God's law, about doctrine, about prophecy, and about their personal trials, but not much about getting the gospel message and the Ezekiel warning to the world.
My own zeal also was not as strong as it should have been at that time. It has increased since then I hope, as I have learned lessons.
I do not think it is true that, "we tried that" (going all out with zeal to preach the gospel to the world) and "it didn't work" (to keep the Church unified and on track). Rather, the majority of the Church had drifted away from strong zeal for the preaching of the gospel and had become lukewarm about God's work, and THAT (lukewarmness) did not work!
I think it was a lack of zeal for the work of God among the majority that was a cause of God's judgment to scatter the Church. And that same lack of zeal for preaching the gospel today among the majority in the whole Church of God (all fellowships added up together) helps to keep us divided.
If there are those among us who want to help to reunite and heal the Church of God today, the first thing they should do is rekindle a burning zeal and passion for finishing God's work of preaching the gospel to the world as a witness (Matthew 24:14), making disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20), and delivering the Ezekiel warning to Israel while there is still time for Israel to repent (Ezekiel 3:16-19, Proverbs 24:11-12, Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:38-39). Each of us should get "on fire" to get that message out, and our motivation should be love towards God and love towards our neighbors. That is the path towards Church of God repentance, healing, and unity.
And it is that zeal that the Worldwide Church of God lacked at the time Mr. Armstrong died and Mr. Tkach became pastor general. When Mr. Tkach became leader of Worldwide, events were set in motion that caused the Church to be scattered, and we are still in that scattered condition today.
In speaking of the work of preaching the gospel to the world, I have called it "God's work" as many in the Church have done. Some may object to this terminology, saying that it should be called "the work of the Church" and that "God's work" should be a term for what God Himself directly does or for God's work in reproducing Himself in Church members. But preaching the gospel is indeed God's work which He does through the Church. It is part of His work of reproducing Himself in mankind, because preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning just before the end of this age is a vital part of preparing Israel for the great tribulation and the millennium that follows.
It is also proper to call the work that God gives us to do, "God's work", for Jesus also called the work that the Father gave Him to do, "His [the Father's] work".
"Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work' " (John 4:34).
We must FINISH God's work, and Christ will lead us to do that as we yield and submit to His leadership, for Christ no doubt has the same zeal for the Father's work as He leads the Church of God today as He did when He spoke to His disciples after His conversation with the woman by the well as recorded in John 4:31-35.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Is Matthew 24:14 a Command to Preach the Gospel to the World as a Witness?
Some people who are against preaching the gospel to the world say that Matthew 24:14 is not a command to preach the gospel, but nothing more than a prophecy which says that the gospel will be preached, and therefore should not be viewed as a command, commission, or instruction for the Church to preach the gospel.
Matthew 24:14 says "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come".
On the surface, this seems to just be a prophecy. But when you look at God's instructions and examples further, it becomes apparent that this is also an instruction for the Church to preach the gospel to the world as a witness as best the Church of God is able.
We are commanded to love God with all our being (Matthew 22:37-38). Jesus set an example for us to follow. He sought to do God's will and finish His work in every way. "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work' " (John 4:34).
Matthew 24:14 shows that it is God's will that the gospel be preached in all the world as a witness before the end. We know we are near the end. We have the opportunity, the freedom, to preach the gospel to the world as a witness. As we have ability, we should do it to fulfill God's will.
Matthew 24:14 therefore reinforces other commands in the New Testament to preach the gospel.
Did Jesus ever do something in order to help fulfill prophecy? If so, He set an example for us to follow. If Christ looked to prophecy to know the Father's will, and then make choices to help fulfill prophecy, then we should do likewise. We should do what we are able to do to fulfill Matthew 24:14 knowing that Matthew 24:14 shows that it is the Father's will that the gospel be preached in all the world as a witness before the end.
"Now His betrayer had given them a sign, saying, 'Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him.' Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, 'Greetings, Rabbi!' and kissed Him. But Jesus said to him, 'Friend, why have you come?' Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took Him. And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?' In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, 'Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.' " (Matthew 26:48-56).
Notice that Christ restrained the one who tried to protect Him by striking the servant of the high priest. He stated that He could call on His Father's angels to protect Him. But He did not do that for one specific reason. He said, "How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled?" Jesus did not look at prophecy in a passive sense. He actively made decisions and choices to help fulfill prophecy. He knew that it was His Father's will that prophecy be fulfilled, and He made it His responsibility to take an active part in making sure those prophecies were fulfilled.
Earlier, at supper, Jesus spoke of Judas who was to betray Him: "If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.' Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He" (John 13:17-19).
Jesus knew Judas would betray Him, but He chose him as a disciple anyway. Why? To fulfill prophecy, "that the Scripture may be fulfilled". Jesus deliberately chose one He knew would betray Him so that prophecy would be fulfilled.
There are many scriptures that show that Jesus did this or that thing so that prophecy would be fulfilled. Look at Matthew 4:13-16 for example: "And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: 'The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death Light has dawned' ".
At first reading, it might seem that Jesus may have chosen to dwell in regions of Zebulun and Naphtali but not necessarily for the purpose or even with the awareness that He was fulfilling prophecy. But that is unlikely. He knew the scriptures concerning Himself. He had been studying and asking questions from age twelve (Luke 2:42-49). It is apparent, as Matthew 26:48-56 and John 13:17-19 show, that it was Jesus's practice to choose His actions for the purpose of doing His Father's will regarding the fulfillment of prophecy. He didn't just "let things happen". He did His part to make sure prophecy was fulfilled. For other examples, see Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 12:15-21, Matthew 13:34-35, Matthew 21:1-6, Luke 4:16-21, Luke 18:31-33, and John 18:7-9.
Jesus was not a passive observer watching prophecy be fulfilled in Himself. He actively did His part to fulfill prophecy. He used Old Testament prophecy to know the Father's will, and He let scriptural prophecy guide His choices and decisions. Fulfilling prophecy was for Jesus Christ part of doing the Father's work.
As Christ chose Judas as a disciple whom He knew would betray Him in order to fulfill prophecy concerning Judas, so we should preach the gospel to help fulfill a prophecy we know about, the prophecy that the gospel will be preached in all the world as a witness (Matthew 24:14). As Jesus restrained those who would fight to protect Him from being arrested so that prophecy would be fulfilled, so we must do what we can to help fulfill the prophecy in Matthew 24:14. As Jesus used prophecy to know the Father's will, and then do it, setting us an example, so we should use Matthew 24:14 as a guide to know the Father's will, then do it.
By itself, Matthew 24:14 is not a command. But putting this prophecy together with other passages in the Bible that show we are to do God's will in everything and the example of Christ of working to fulfill prophecy, it becomes the equivalent of a command to preach the gospel to the world. As we love God, we will seek to do His will, and as we understand that it is God's will that the gospel be preached to the world, we will do it.
That makes Matthew 24:14, not just a prophecy that we are to passively observe, but the equivalent of a command to actively support the fulfillment of this prophecy by preaching the gospel to the world as a witness as best we are able.
Matthew 24:14 therefore supports and reinforces the commission to the Church to preach the gospel to the world.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
My Comments and Conclusion, Chapter 4
Matthew 24:14 says "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come".
On the surface, this seems to just be a prophecy. But when you look at God's instructions and examples further, it becomes apparent that this is also an instruction for the Church to preach the gospel to the world as a witness as best the Church of God is able.
We are commanded to love God with all our being (Matthew 22:37-38). Jesus set an example for us to follow. He sought to do God's will and finish His work in every way. "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work' " (John 4:34).
Matthew 24:14 shows that it is God's will that the gospel be preached in all the world as a witness before the end. We know we are near the end. We have the opportunity, the freedom, to preach the gospel to the world as a witness. As we have ability, we should do it to fulfill God's will.
Matthew 24:14 therefore reinforces other commands in the New Testament to preach the gospel.
Did Jesus ever do something in order to help fulfill prophecy? If so, He set an example for us to follow. If Christ looked to prophecy to know the Father's will, and then make choices to help fulfill prophecy, then we should do likewise. We should do what we are able to do to fulfill Matthew 24:14 knowing that Matthew 24:14 shows that it is the Father's will that the gospel be preached in all the world as a witness before the end.
"Now His betrayer had given them a sign, saying, 'Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him.' Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, 'Greetings, Rabbi!' and kissed Him. But Jesus said to him, 'Friend, why have you come?' Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took Him. And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?' In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, 'Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.' " (Matthew 26:48-56).
Notice that Christ restrained the one who tried to protect Him by striking the servant of the high priest. He stated that He could call on His Father's angels to protect Him. But He did not do that for one specific reason. He said, "How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled?" Jesus did not look at prophecy in a passive sense. He actively made decisions and choices to help fulfill prophecy. He knew that it was His Father's will that prophecy be fulfilled, and He made it His responsibility to take an active part in making sure those prophecies were fulfilled.
Earlier, at supper, Jesus spoke of Judas who was to betray Him: "If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.' Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He" (John 13:17-19).
Jesus knew Judas would betray Him, but He chose him as a disciple anyway. Why? To fulfill prophecy, "that the Scripture may be fulfilled". Jesus deliberately chose one He knew would betray Him so that prophecy would be fulfilled.
There are many scriptures that show that Jesus did this or that thing so that prophecy would be fulfilled. Look at Matthew 4:13-16 for example: "And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: 'The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death Light has dawned' ".
At first reading, it might seem that Jesus may have chosen to dwell in regions of Zebulun and Naphtali but not necessarily for the purpose or even with the awareness that He was fulfilling prophecy. But that is unlikely. He knew the scriptures concerning Himself. He had been studying and asking questions from age twelve (Luke 2:42-49). It is apparent, as Matthew 26:48-56 and John 13:17-19 show, that it was Jesus's practice to choose His actions for the purpose of doing His Father's will regarding the fulfillment of prophecy. He didn't just "let things happen". He did His part to make sure prophecy was fulfilled. For other examples, see Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 12:15-21, Matthew 13:34-35, Matthew 21:1-6, Luke 4:16-21, Luke 18:31-33, and John 18:7-9.
Jesus was not a passive observer watching prophecy be fulfilled in Himself. He actively did His part to fulfill prophecy. He used Old Testament prophecy to know the Father's will, and He let scriptural prophecy guide His choices and decisions. Fulfilling prophecy was for Jesus Christ part of doing the Father's work.
As Christ chose Judas as a disciple whom He knew would betray Him in order to fulfill prophecy concerning Judas, so we should preach the gospel to help fulfill a prophecy we know about, the prophecy that the gospel will be preached in all the world as a witness (Matthew 24:14). As Jesus restrained those who would fight to protect Him from being arrested so that prophecy would be fulfilled, so we must do what we can to help fulfill the prophecy in Matthew 24:14. As Jesus used prophecy to know the Father's will, and then do it, setting us an example, so we should use Matthew 24:14 as a guide to know the Father's will, then do it.
By itself, Matthew 24:14 is not a command. But putting this prophecy together with other passages in the Bible that show we are to do God's will in everything and the example of Christ of working to fulfill prophecy, it becomes the equivalent of a command to preach the gospel to the world. As we love God, we will seek to do His will, and as we understand that it is God's will that the gospel be preached to the world, we will do it.
That makes Matthew 24:14, not just a prophecy that we are to passively observe, but the equivalent of a command to actively support the fulfillment of this prophecy by preaching the gospel to the world as a witness as best we are able.
Matthew 24:14 therefore supports and reinforces the commission to the Church to preach the gospel to the world.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
My Comments and Conclusion, Chapter 4
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Two Approaches to Understanding the Bible
Among those who will acknowledge that the Bible is the word of God and is true there are two basic approaches in trying to understand it.
Among those who do not acknowledge that the Bible is true, atheists and agnostics for example, there is a third approach, and that is, they approach the Bible as if it is nothing more than a collection of human devised fables. I am not talking about that approach.
There are two basic approaches to trying to understand the Bible as the word of God and as truth.
These two approaches lead to different results.
One approach is most often used among members of traditional, mainstream churches. Either of these two approaches may be used by individuals in the Church of God.
One approach, used by many or most members of traditional, mainstream churches and by some members of the Church of God, is to trust and believe what they think is the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their minds, but without objectively proving by the Bible if this "inspiration" or "guidance" is really correct and from the Holy Spirit. They never consider the possibility that the thoughts that come into their minds on spiritual or doctrinal subjects are thoughts of their own carnal imagination or even inspired by Satan and his demons.
They assume that God's Holy Spirit is leading their "understanding", and they think they are exercising faith in God by believing their own thoughts. They have "faith" that the Holy Spirit is leading them.
Do they study the Bible? Yes. Do they think they understand and believe the Bible? Yes, they think they do. But they interpret what they read in the Bible according to what they want to believe.
They will often ask in prayer that God will guide their understanding of the Bible. Then when they read a scripture, whatever "understanding" or interpretation of that scripture that pops into their heads they think is an answer to their prayer. And their interpretation, which varies from person to person, is often shaped by both their human opinions and desires and by the traditions they have been taught.
So for example, a member of a traditional Sunday keeping church might read the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath. Then the thought comes into his mind, well, this established the principle of resting one day in seven, then Christ through the New Testament church changed the day of rest to Sunday, but the principle is the same. Then that person thanks God for answering his prayer to guide his understanding. He thinks he is exercising faith in the Holy Spirit by believing the thought in his mind that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. After all, didn't he pray that God would help him understand the Bible? To doubt the interpretation in his mind would seem to be doubting the Holy Spirit.
But he never checks other scriptures to find out if his interpretation is wrong.
The same thing can happen in the Church of God. A member or minister may read the scriptures that say that the Church should preach the gospel and warn the people. Then he reads the scripture that says we should get the beam out of our own eye before correcting others. He prays for understanding, and the thought comes into his mind, the Church of God should focus on feeding the flock, reconciling ourselves to God and each other, and getting the beam out of our own eye before we try to preach the gospel to the world or warn the world. Immediately, that member or minister assumes, without real biblical proof, that his idea is an answer to prayer, that he is being led by the Holy Spirit to think that he and the Church of God should not preach the gospel to the world and warn Israel at this time.
But he doesn't prove his idea in the Bible before he believes it. He believes his idea first, and interprets everything else in the Bible according to this belief. But he never searched out, found, and believed the scriptures that show that the "beam in the eye" passage was never intended to mean postponing obedience to God's command to preach the gospel (see my post entitled " 'Beam in the Eye', and Preaching the Gospel to the World", dated January 14, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/01/beam-in-eye-and-preaching-gospel-to.html ).
I will call this approach, "trusting one's own thoughts", because that is what it is. It is NOT really trusting God's Holy Spirit, not without really proving the truth from the Bible.
What are the fruits of this approach?
Just about every possible kind of heresy you can imagine.
Traditional, mainstream religious doctrines such as Sunday keeping, the trinity, pagan holidays, going to heaven at death, and immortal souls being tortured forever in hell fire are the results of this thinking. Catholics and Protestants alike think God has led them and their church to believe these doctrines through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They have "faith" in that, and you can't shake their "faith" by showing them the scriptures that prove them wrong.
This approach also creates chaos in the Church of God. It is partly responsible for the division in the Church and the scattered condition that exists. As I pointed out in my last post, it is our collective Laodiceanism and Christ's response to our Laodiceanism (Revelation 3:16) that is probably the greatest root cause of our scattered condition, and because the majority of us are lukewarm Christ allows us to have doctrinal differences that tend to scatter us. But this approach too many in the Church of God follow, of trusting in our own thoughts apart from proving what we believe in the Bible, is one mechanism that promotes division and magnifies the divisive influence of differences of opinion in matters of doctrine. This approach was also responsible for the apostasy among thousands of Worldwide Church of God ministers and members after the death of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. God allowed the Church to become divided and scattered to test and chastise us, but it is this process of not putting the Bible first that was the mechanism by which the heresies and the divisions in doctrine came about.
I have spoken of this approach from the point of view of one who reads the Bible and forms beliefs, but there is another aspect of this issue, that is, the approach of those who lead and teach in how they teach.
Some leaders of churches and groups and their ministers teach their members to believe that God's Holy Spirit leads the ministry to interpret the Bible, even apart from what members can prove for themselves in the Bible, and they teach their members to believe the ministers' interpretation of the Bible, as a matter of faith! How do they do this?
They teach that Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 1:20-23, 4:15-16, 5:23, Colossians 1:13-18, 2:18-19). That is true. They teach that Christ through the Holy Spirit guides the leadership of the Church and the ministry into truth. This also is true. Then they "connect the dots" to say, in effect, "Since Christ leads us to teach you the truth, even to interpret what particular Bible passages mean, you should believe us, the leadership and the ministry, in order to trust and have faith in Christ's leadership of the Church. Because if you doubt what we teach you, you are doubting Christ and you are doubting the Bible which says that Christ is the head of the Church." But that conclusion is wrong.
Why?
They are not correctly connecting the dots when they say this. They are skipping something important.
Christ perfectly leads the Church, the ministry, and the members of His body. But the Church of God and its ministry do not follow Christ perfectly. That is why you cannot assume that everything the leadership and ministry say and do is from Christ and approved by Christ and you cannot look to the actions and teachings of the ministry to "see what Christ is doing". Much of it may be Christ's doing and have Christ's approval, but not necessarily everything. That is the missing factor some ministers do not mention and leave out of their reasoning when they try to connect the dots to say that if you doubt the ministry you are doubting Christ.
You are not trusting and exercising faith in Christ by believing the ministry to interpret the Bible for you more than you see for yourself in the Bible. They can help you prove for yourself what the Bible says. They can help you find the scriptures you need. But you must believe what you can see for yourself in the word of God even more than you believe your ministers.
Who practices this approach of teaching the members to believe their ministers' interpretation of the Bible? The Catholic Church, to name the biggest group. Catholics believe that Christ guides the pope to correctly interpret the Bible. It is a matter of faith for Catholics to believe their church in matters of doctrine.
And this approach is also taught by some ministers and leaders in the Church of God.
But there is a different approach practiced by many in the Church of God and among those God is calling out of this world and into the Church.
That second approach is to seek and rely on God's help to understand the Bible, but to let the Bible interpret the Bible, seeking all the scriptures on any important question and letting clear scriptures interpret difficult or unclear scriptures.
It is the approach of proving doctrine and beliefs in the Bible before accepting them. It is the approach of then believing what is proved in the Bible more than church tradition, more than the teachings of ministers and men in authority, and more than one's own personal opinions and preferences.
And in the matter of ministers and Church leaders teaching others, it is the way of proving doctrines by the Bible and teaching others, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible".
This is the approach Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong practiced.
I call this approach, "putting the Bible first".
What are the fruits of these two opposite approaches to trying to understand the Bible?
The fruit of putting the Bible first is the body of true doctrine God has given the Church of God in this end time. God restored much truth to the Church of God through Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, but it was because Mr. Armstrong put the Bible first and PROVED doctrine by the Bible that he was able to understand what God was revealing to him through the Bible.
The truth we have today is the direct result of putting the Bible first.
But the fruits of trusting one's own thoughts, even if one thinks those thoughts are inspired by the Holy Spirit, has been heresy and warfare in the history of the traditional churches of this world and painful division, scattering, and weakening in the Church of God today.
What result do you want in the Church of God? What result or fruit do you want in your own life?
Choose the way of trusting your own thoughts or the way of putting the Bible first, and you will reap the fruits, good or bad, of the way you choose.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 6 - OBTAINING GOD'S HELP -- PRACTICING WHAT WE PREACH
Among those who do not acknowledge that the Bible is true, atheists and agnostics for example, there is a third approach, and that is, they approach the Bible as if it is nothing more than a collection of human devised fables. I am not talking about that approach.
There are two basic approaches to trying to understand the Bible as the word of God and as truth.
These two approaches lead to different results.
One approach is most often used among members of traditional, mainstream churches. Either of these two approaches may be used by individuals in the Church of God.
One approach, used by many or most members of traditional, mainstream churches and by some members of the Church of God, is to trust and believe what they think is the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their minds, but without objectively proving by the Bible if this "inspiration" or "guidance" is really correct and from the Holy Spirit. They never consider the possibility that the thoughts that come into their minds on spiritual or doctrinal subjects are thoughts of their own carnal imagination or even inspired by Satan and his demons.
They assume that God's Holy Spirit is leading their "understanding", and they think they are exercising faith in God by believing their own thoughts. They have "faith" that the Holy Spirit is leading them.
Do they study the Bible? Yes. Do they think they understand and believe the Bible? Yes, they think they do. But they interpret what they read in the Bible according to what they want to believe.
They will often ask in prayer that God will guide their understanding of the Bible. Then when they read a scripture, whatever "understanding" or interpretation of that scripture that pops into their heads they think is an answer to their prayer. And their interpretation, which varies from person to person, is often shaped by both their human opinions and desires and by the traditions they have been taught.
So for example, a member of a traditional Sunday keeping church might read the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath. Then the thought comes into his mind, well, this established the principle of resting one day in seven, then Christ through the New Testament church changed the day of rest to Sunday, but the principle is the same. Then that person thanks God for answering his prayer to guide his understanding. He thinks he is exercising faith in the Holy Spirit by believing the thought in his mind that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. After all, didn't he pray that God would help him understand the Bible? To doubt the interpretation in his mind would seem to be doubting the Holy Spirit.
But he never checks other scriptures to find out if his interpretation is wrong.
The same thing can happen in the Church of God. A member or minister may read the scriptures that say that the Church should preach the gospel and warn the people. Then he reads the scripture that says we should get the beam out of our own eye before correcting others. He prays for understanding, and the thought comes into his mind, the Church of God should focus on feeding the flock, reconciling ourselves to God and each other, and getting the beam out of our own eye before we try to preach the gospel to the world or warn the world. Immediately, that member or minister assumes, without real biblical proof, that his idea is an answer to prayer, that he is being led by the Holy Spirit to think that he and the Church of God should not preach the gospel to the world and warn Israel at this time.
But he doesn't prove his idea in the Bible before he believes it. He believes his idea first, and interprets everything else in the Bible according to this belief. But he never searched out, found, and believed the scriptures that show that the "beam in the eye" passage was never intended to mean postponing obedience to God's command to preach the gospel (see my post entitled " 'Beam in the Eye', and Preaching the Gospel to the World", dated January 14, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/01/beam-in-eye-and-preaching-gospel-to.html ).
I will call this approach, "trusting one's own thoughts", because that is what it is. It is NOT really trusting God's Holy Spirit, not without really proving the truth from the Bible.
What are the fruits of this approach?
Just about every possible kind of heresy you can imagine.
Traditional, mainstream religious doctrines such as Sunday keeping, the trinity, pagan holidays, going to heaven at death, and immortal souls being tortured forever in hell fire are the results of this thinking. Catholics and Protestants alike think God has led them and their church to believe these doctrines through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They have "faith" in that, and you can't shake their "faith" by showing them the scriptures that prove them wrong.
This approach also creates chaos in the Church of God. It is partly responsible for the division in the Church and the scattered condition that exists. As I pointed out in my last post, it is our collective Laodiceanism and Christ's response to our Laodiceanism (Revelation 3:16) that is probably the greatest root cause of our scattered condition, and because the majority of us are lukewarm Christ allows us to have doctrinal differences that tend to scatter us. But this approach too many in the Church of God follow, of trusting in our own thoughts apart from proving what we believe in the Bible, is one mechanism that promotes division and magnifies the divisive influence of differences of opinion in matters of doctrine. This approach was also responsible for the apostasy among thousands of Worldwide Church of God ministers and members after the death of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. God allowed the Church to become divided and scattered to test and chastise us, but it is this process of not putting the Bible first that was the mechanism by which the heresies and the divisions in doctrine came about.
I have spoken of this approach from the point of view of one who reads the Bible and forms beliefs, but there is another aspect of this issue, that is, the approach of those who lead and teach in how they teach.
Some leaders of churches and groups and their ministers teach their members to believe that God's Holy Spirit leads the ministry to interpret the Bible, even apart from what members can prove for themselves in the Bible, and they teach their members to believe the ministers' interpretation of the Bible, as a matter of faith! How do they do this?
They teach that Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 1:20-23, 4:15-16, 5:23, Colossians 1:13-18, 2:18-19). That is true. They teach that Christ through the Holy Spirit guides the leadership of the Church and the ministry into truth. This also is true. Then they "connect the dots" to say, in effect, "Since Christ leads us to teach you the truth, even to interpret what particular Bible passages mean, you should believe us, the leadership and the ministry, in order to trust and have faith in Christ's leadership of the Church. Because if you doubt what we teach you, you are doubting Christ and you are doubting the Bible which says that Christ is the head of the Church." But that conclusion is wrong.
Why?
They are not correctly connecting the dots when they say this. They are skipping something important.
Christ perfectly leads the Church, the ministry, and the members of His body. But the Church of God and its ministry do not follow Christ perfectly. That is why you cannot assume that everything the leadership and ministry say and do is from Christ and approved by Christ and you cannot look to the actions and teachings of the ministry to "see what Christ is doing". Much of it may be Christ's doing and have Christ's approval, but not necessarily everything. That is the missing factor some ministers do not mention and leave out of their reasoning when they try to connect the dots to say that if you doubt the ministry you are doubting Christ.
You are not trusting and exercising faith in Christ by believing the ministry to interpret the Bible for you more than you see for yourself in the Bible. They can help you prove for yourself what the Bible says. They can help you find the scriptures you need. But you must believe what you can see for yourself in the word of God even more than you believe your ministers.
Who practices this approach of teaching the members to believe their ministers' interpretation of the Bible? The Catholic Church, to name the biggest group. Catholics believe that Christ guides the pope to correctly interpret the Bible. It is a matter of faith for Catholics to believe their church in matters of doctrine.
And this approach is also taught by some ministers and leaders in the Church of God.
But there is a different approach practiced by many in the Church of God and among those God is calling out of this world and into the Church.
That second approach is to seek and rely on God's help to understand the Bible, but to let the Bible interpret the Bible, seeking all the scriptures on any important question and letting clear scriptures interpret difficult or unclear scriptures.
It is the approach of proving doctrine and beliefs in the Bible before accepting them. It is the approach of then believing what is proved in the Bible more than church tradition, more than the teachings of ministers and men in authority, and more than one's own personal opinions and preferences.
And in the matter of ministers and Church leaders teaching others, it is the way of proving doctrines by the Bible and teaching others, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible".
This is the approach Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong practiced.
I call this approach, "putting the Bible first".
What are the fruits of these two opposite approaches to trying to understand the Bible?
The fruit of putting the Bible first is the body of true doctrine God has given the Church of God in this end time. God restored much truth to the Church of God through Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, but it was because Mr. Armstrong put the Bible first and PROVED doctrine by the Bible that he was able to understand what God was revealing to him through the Bible.
The truth we have today is the direct result of putting the Bible first.
But the fruits of trusting one's own thoughts, even if one thinks those thoughts are inspired by the Holy Spirit, has been heresy and warfare in the history of the traditional churches of this world and painful division, scattering, and weakening in the Church of God today.
What result do you want in the Church of God? What result or fruit do you want in your own life?
Choose the way of trusting your own thoughts or the way of putting the Bible first, and you will reap the fruits, good or bad, of the way you choose.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 6 - OBTAINING GOD'S HELP -- PRACTICING WHAT WE PREACH
Friday, February 27, 2015
What Is the Cause of Disunity in the Church of God?
Why is there disunity in the Church of God? Why are we scattered and divided into many Church of God fellowships and organizations with some COG members simply staying home because they find no satisfactory option to attend services?
Is it because we can't get along? Is it because of hurt feelings or an unforgiving attitude between brethren? Is it because of personal offenses between the members? Is it because of pride and vanity and selfishness? Is it because of an unwillingness to build and maintain personal relationships?
Or is it because of doctrinal differences between leaders, ministers, and groups?
To a degree, it can be both. But one cause dominates, in my opinion.
Most brethren I have known in the Church are very willing to fellowship with brethren in other groups. It is usually not personal difficulties between the lay members that cause divisions in the Church of God and cause us to be scattered into many groups.
It is doctrine.
And to a degree, it can be unwillingness for the leaders to get along. But if so, they usually make doctrine the point of division that justifies being separate from other groups. A pastor might be personally offended with the leader of the fellowship he attends with and works for. He then leaves and starts his own group. But to justify leaving, he has to establish doctrinal uniqueness. He can't just tell his members, I left because I didn't like the leader of the group I was in and could not get along with him. He finds a point of doctrine he can disagree with, and he tells his members, I left to stay faithful to the truth on this point of doctrine and that point of doctrine.
But the cause of our divisions is not primarily the inability of members to get along with each other. For a fellowship whose leaders left their former group because they could not get along with the leader to stress building personal relationships in its teaching to the members is fine - we should all strive to improve in building our relationships in the Church of God in love. But to say that this was the cause of the division is usually not the case. The ministers who teach this may be preaching to themselves, but they may be more in need of their own teaching than the lay members they preach to.
Those ministers may construct doctrinal reasons for leaving a group or leader when the actual reason my be connected with their personal relationship with that leader.
Doctrine is teaching, and it is a way of life. Disagreements about our teaching, about what the Bible teaches on any subject, and about how we should be living are disagreements about doctrine.
What are some of the doctrinal matters that divide the Churches of God?
Preaching the gospel is one. Some groups do it and teach it, and some do not. Some do it more than others. But this is a doctrinal matter, definitely. The doctrine is about God's teaching in the Bible regarding the work of preaching the gospel that the Church of God is to do.
Government in the Church is another. Some practice hierarchical governance, some practice voting which they call "balloting", and some have said they are trying to discover a new model of governance based on the family. This is definitely a doctrinal matter. The governance we should practice in the Church of God should be the governance God teaches in the Bible. Disagreements about what the Bible teaches on this subject are disagreements about doctrine.
How much authority the ministry has is another doctrinal matter. Some groups seem to teach that the ministry or the leader has authority to command the brethren what to believe while others may teach that the brethren should believe the Bible first.
Whether Mr. Armstrong's doctrines can be changed or not is another doctrinal matter about which some groups differ. Some say that he is the Elijah to restore all things and they teach that for that reason none of his doctrines should be changed, while other groups teach that Mr. Armstrong's doctrines should be changed if we see in the Bible that they have been wrong. That difference of opinion is a difference over doctrine.
Some make it a major teaching of their group, a doctrine in other words, that their leader occupies a particular office or rank, be it apostle, prophet, or whatever. When other groups disagree with that teaching, that is a disagreement over doctrine. Some make it a matter of doctrine that Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah to come.
Many groups also differ over small doctrines, and often the leaders of those groups magnify and focus attention on those differences, claiming they are right and other groups are wrong. Those doctrines can include things like the meaning of the falling away verse in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, whether we go to heaven for the marriage supper, and other smaller points. There are also doctrinal issues that may seem small to some but great to others, such as makeup, eating in restaurants on the Sabbath, new moons, calendar issues, how to count Pentecost when the first or last day of Unleavened Bread falls on a weekly Sabbath, etc. Some make an issue of whether or not we should label salvation through Jesus Christ as "the gospel of the Kingdom of God", or they make an issue of where we should place the emphasis in our teaching to the public.
These are the things that divide the Church of God. Some differences between leaders of groups over these doctrinal issues may be real and sincere, but some may be manufactured just to be "different" so they can attract and keep a following.
But without these differences, leaders would have a hard time justifying their separation from other groups.
And yet, doctrine is important. A group that practices the doctrine most accurately from the Bible should not compromise with other groups for the sake of unity.
But what is the root cause of our division? WHY are we divided in doctrine?
"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth" (Revelation 3:15-16).
It really does come down to us, the brethren, if we are Laodicean and lukewarm. We can be lukewarm in our love for each other or in obedience to God's commandments or in any point of God's law and way of life. It is because of our faults, our sins, and our lukewarmness that God has given us Church of God leaders that have made mistakes in doctrine and have scattered the Church. The responsibility is ours, for God has given us the leaders we deserve.
We need to respond, each of us, by zealously repenting. But that repentance should not just focus on our personal relationships with other brethren. It should focus on every aspect of the Christian way of life. And love towards God must come before love towards the brethren. We have to really live zealously by every word of God (Matthew 4:4).
Is it because we can't get along? Is it because of hurt feelings or an unforgiving attitude between brethren? Is it because of personal offenses between the members? Is it because of pride and vanity and selfishness? Is it because of an unwillingness to build and maintain personal relationships?
Or is it because of doctrinal differences between leaders, ministers, and groups?
To a degree, it can be both. But one cause dominates, in my opinion.
Most brethren I have known in the Church are very willing to fellowship with brethren in other groups. It is usually not personal difficulties between the lay members that cause divisions in the Church of God and cause us to be scattered into many groups.
It is doctrine.
And to a degree, it can be unwillingness for the leaders to get along. But if so, they usually make doctrine the point of division that justifies being separate from other groups. A pastor might be personally offended with the leader of the fellowship he attends with and works for. He then leaves and starts his own group. But to justify leaving, he has to establish doctrinal uniqueness. He can't just tell his members, I left because I didn't like the leader of the group I was in and could not get along with him. He finds a point of doctrine he can disagree with, and he tells his members, I left to stay faithful to the truth on this point of doctrine and that point of doctrine.
But the cause of our divisions is not primarily the inability of members to get along with each other. For a fellowship whose leaders left their former group because they could not get along with the leader to stress building personal relationships in its teaching to the members is fine - we should all strive to improve in building our relationships in the Church of God in love. But to say that this was the cause of the division is usually not the case. The ministers who teach this may be preaching to themselves, but they may be more in need of their own teaching than the lay members they preach to.
Those ministers may construct doctrinal reasons for leaving a group or leader when the actual reason my be connected with their personal relationship with that leader.
Doctrine is teaching, and it is a way of life. Disagreements about our teaching, about what the Bible teaches on any subject, and about how we should be living are disagreements about doctrine.
What are some of the doctrinal matters that divide the Churches of God?
Preaching the gospel is one. Some groups do it and teach it, and some do not. Some do it more than others. But this is a doctrinal matter, definitely. The doctrine is about God's teaching in the Bible regarding the work of preaching the gospel that the Church of God is to do.
Government in the Church is another. Some practice hierarchical governance, some practice voting which they call "balloting", and some have said they are trying to discover a new model of governance based on the family. This is definitely a doctrinal matter. The governance we should practice in the Church of God should be the governance God teaches in the Bible. Disagreements about what the Bible teaches on this subject are disagreements about doctrine.
How much authority the ministry has is another doctrinal matter. Some groups seem to teach that the ministry or the leader has authority to command the brethren what to believe while others may teach that the brethren should believe the Bible first.
Whether Mr. Armstrong's doctrines can be changed or not is another doctrinal matter about which some groups differ. Some say that he is the Elijah to restore all things and they teach that for that reason none of his doctrines should be changed, while other groups teach that Mr. Armstrong's doctrines should be changed if we see in the Bible that they have been wrong. That difference of opinion is a difference over doctrine.
Some make it a major teaching of their group, a doctrine in other words, that their leader occupies a particular office or rank, be it apostle, prophet, or whatever. When other groups disagree with that teaching, that is a disagreement over doctrine. Some make it a matter of doctrine that Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah to come.
Many groups also differ over small doctrines, and often the leaders of those groups magnify and focus attention on those differences, claiming they are right and other groups are wrong. Those doctrines can include things like the meaning of the falling away verse in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, whether we go to heaven for the marriage supper, and other smaller points. There are also doctrinal issues that may seem small to some but great to others, such as makeup, eating in restaurants on the Sabbath, new moons, calendar issues, how to count Pentecost when the first or last day of Unleavened Bread falls on a weekly Sabbath, etc. Some make an issue of whether or not we should label salvation through Jesus Christ as "the gospel of the Kingdom of God", or they make an issue of where we should place the emphasis in our teaching to the public.
These are the things that divide the Church of God. Some differences between leaders of groups over these doctrinal issues may be real and sincere, but some may be manufactured just to be "different" so they can attract and keep a following.
But without these differences, leaders would have a hard time justifying their separation from other groups.
And yet, doctrine is important. A group that practices the doctrine most accurately from the Bible should not compromise with other groups for the sake of unity.
But what is the root cause of our division? WHY are we divided in doctrine?
"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth" (Revelation 3:15-16).
It really does come down to us, the brethren, if we are Laodicean and lukewarm. We can be lukewarm in our love for each other or in obedience to God's commandments or in any point of God's law and way of life. It is because of our faults, our sins, and our lukewarmness that God has given us Church of God leaders that have made mistakes in doctrine and have scattered the Church. The responsibility is ours, for God has given us the leaders we deserve.
We need to respond, each of us, by zealously repenting. But that repentance should not just focus on our personal relationships with other brethren. It should focus on every aspect of the Christian way of life. And love towards God must come before love towards the brethren. We have to really live zealously by every word of God (Matthew 4:4).
Friday, February 20, 2015
Herbert W. Armstrong Taught Loving Authority
The Church of God has taught government and authority in the Church. But the Church has also taught that authority should be used in love. The one in authority should exercise his authority for the good of those under his authority. Those who supervise others should have outgoing concern for their welfare and should serve their needs.
The kind of authority this describes has been called "loving authority". More recently, some have labeled it, "submission", in the sense of those in authority "submitting" to the needs of those under authority.
But whether you call it "loving authority" or "submission", it is not a new concept, a new doctrine, a new teaching, a new idea, a new policy, or a new model of governance. It has been taught by Mr. Armstrong from the beginning. It is not new in any sense.
Mr. Armstrong tried to practice it, and I am sure many evangelists and ministers under his authority also tried to practice it. Did all succeed perfectly? No. We are human and make mistakes. But I think most understood the concept and tried to practice it. Perhaps some made no effort to practice it. God is their judge.
But it was always taught and acknowledged as the right way to exercise authority, the right kind of government.
The Bible certainly teaches it. Christ set the example. He has authority, but He exercised that authority in love, in a spirit of outgoing concern for those under His authority. He loved His disciples.
"You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you" (John 13:13-15).
Christ also taught the principle of loving authority to His disciples, not only by His example, but by His command and instruction. "And He said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called "benefactors." But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves' " (Luke 22:25-27).
An example many of us are familar with is the example of parenting. Parents have authority over their children, but they should exercise that authority for the good of their children, in love, to protect them and teach them and even to serve them.
"Loving authority" is one term to describe this, and I think it is an excellent term to make the meaning clear. But it can be described other ways as well. Living Church of God teaches the principle of "servant leadership", which is closely related.
And some, as I mention, refer to this principle as "submission" or "mutual submission".
But in using the term "submission" to describe loving authority, we have to be careful about what we mean by submission.
If "submission" of one in authority to those under his authority means, "submission to the needs of those under his authority", then it can be a good term to describe it, provided we all understand what that means. But if it is intended to mean, "submission to the choices and decisions and will of those under his authority", that is not what is taught in the Bible.
The Bible does not speak of Christ submitting to the decisions and will of anyone but the Father. But it would not be wrong to say He submitted to the needs of others. But not their will. Why? People do not always know what is best, even for themselves. Parents know this about their children. Children do not know what is best for them. That is why parents must make the decisions, even when those decisions go against what the child might want at the moment. Yet, new parents who have to get up in the middle of the night to feed or care for a baby understand the need to "submit" to the needs of their child.
Christ submitted to the needs of others. He healed others. He served them even when He would rather have rested or been alone (Matthew 14:10-14).
But He never submitted to the will of man (Mark 8:31-33, Matthew 21:23-27, Luke 12:13-14, Luke 9:53-56, Mark 10:35-40).
Likewise, one in authority should submit to the will of God and of those over him, but should submit to the needs of those under him.
One should be careful, in using or hearing the term "submit" in regard to someone in authority submitting to those under his authority, to understand this distinction.
We submit to the legitimate needs of others, to serve them and love them, but we should not always submit to their will, their choices, their decisions, or their demands.
Anyone who uses the idea of "submission" to accuse someone who has been over them in authority of wrong governance for not submitting to their will, then uses scriptures and examples in the Bible that teach sacrificing to serve the needs of others, and call that "submission", and do this to justify rebelling against the one who had authority over them, is using the term "submission" to blur the issue. A good parent will not blur the distinction between what their child wants and what is good for their child. A good parent will submit to what his or her children need and is good for them, but not always to what they want.
For a pastor or Church of God leader to sacrifice for the needs of the membership is godly. For a pastor to rebel against a leader because the leader does not submit to the pastor's will on a particular subject is not.
Of course, members can and often should submit to one another, as the scripture says (Ephesians 5:18-21), and this can sometimes include submitting to the desires and choices of others as well as their needs, when appropriate. Even a parent can submit to the choice of his or her child when the parent says, "Ok, what would you like to do today? Do you want to go the park or the zoo?" But we must not use the concept of mutual submission to say that a leader or one in authority MUST ALWAYS submit to the desires, wishes, choices, and decisions, or even to advice, of his subordinates.
Did Christ submit to mankind? If you mean, did He submit to the needs of mankind, the answer is yes, He submitted to our needs by being a sacrifice for us. But if you mean, did He submit to the will of mankind, that is, the decisions, the choices, and the desires of mankind even when those desires are wrong or based on error, the answer is, no, He did not submit to mankind.
Another distinction that is useful to keep in mind when discussing government is the distinction between the form or structure of government, and the right use of government. You can have the right form or structure of governance in the Church, yet misuse and abuse that form of governance. The right form of governance is top-down, hierarchical, yet that form of governance, like any other form of governance, can be misused and abused. A leader of a fellowship can abuse and harm the members of that fellowship. But that does not mean that top-down governance is the wrong structure. God the Father and Jesus Christ rule the universe through top-down government, and they never misuse their authority. Likewise, when we are in the Kingdom of God, our authority will be given to use from Christ, top-down, but we will never abuse our authority.
Mankind understands the possibility of abuse of authority and has invented democracy to try to minimize or prevent abuse. Man's idea is, if the one in authority depends on the vote of the people to stay in office, he is less likely to rule abusively, and if he does, the people can remove him by voting him out of office. But that is not God's way in the Church and will not be practiced in the Kingdom of God.
Here are links to related posts:
"New Church Coming out of COGaic and 'Mutual Submission' ", dated January 5, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-church-coming-out-of-cogaic-and.html
The kind of authority this describes has been called "loving authority". More recently, some have labeled it, "submission", in the sense of those in authority "submitting" to the needs of those under authority.
But whether you call it "loving authority" or "submission", it is not a new concept, a new doctrine, a new teaching, a new idea, a new policy, or a new model of governance. It has been taught by Mr. Armstrong from the beginning. It is not new in any sense.
Mr. Armstrong tried to practice it, and I am sure many evangelists and ministers under his authority also tried to practice it. Did all succeed perfectly? No. We are human and make mistakes. But I think most understood the concept and tried to practice it. Perhaps some made no effort to practice it. God is their judge.
But it was always taught and acknowledged as the right way to exercise authority, the right kind of government.
The Bible certainly teaches it. Christ set the example. He has authority, but He exercised that authority in love, in a spirit of outgoing concern for those under His authority. He loved His disciples.
"You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you" (John 13:13-15).
Christ also taught the principle of loving authority to His disciples, not only by His example, but by His command and instruction. "And He said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called "benefactors." But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves' " (Luke 22:25-27).
An example many of us are familar with is the example of parenting. Parents have authority over their children, but they should exercise that authority for the good of their children, in love, to protect them and teach them and even to serve them.
"Loving authority" is one term to describe this, and I think it is an excellent term to make the meaning clear. But it can be described other ways as well. Living Church of God teaches the principle of "servant leadership", which is closely related.
And some, as I mention, refer to this principle as "submission" or "mutual submission".
But in using the term "submission" to describe loving authority, we have to be careful about what we mean by submission.
If "submission" of one in authority to those under his authority means, "submission to the needs of those under his authority", then it can be a good term to describe it, provided we all understand what that means. But if it is intended to mean, "submission to the choices and decisions and will of those under his authority", that is not what is taught in the Bible.
The Bible does not speak of Christ submitting to the decisions and will of anyone but the Father. But it would not be wrong to say He submitted to the needs of others. But not their will. Why? People do not always know what is best, even for themselves. Parents know this about their children. Children do not know what is best for them. That is why parents must make the decisions, even when those decisions go against what the child might want at the moment. Yet, new parents who have to get up in the middle of the night to feed or care for a baby understand the need to "submit" to the needs of their child.
Christ submitted to the needs of others. He healed others. He served them even when He would rather have rested or been alone (Matthew 14:10-14).
But He never submitted to the will of man (Mark 8:31-33, Matthew 21:23-27, Luke 12:13-14, Luke 9:53-56, Mark 10:35-40).
Likewise, one in authority should submit to the will of God and of those over him, but should submit to the needs of those under him.
One should be careful, in using or hearing the term "submit" in regard to someone in authority submitting to those under his authority, to understand this distinction.
We submit to the legitimate needs of others, to serve them and love them, but we should not always submit to their will, their choices, their decisions, or their demands.
Anyone who uses the idea of "submission" to accuse someone who has been over them in authority of wrong governance for not submitting to their will, then uses scriptures and examples in the Bible that teach sacrificing to serve the needs of others, and call that "submission", and do this to justify rebelling against the one who had authority over them, is using the term "submission" to blur the issue. A good parent will not blur the distinction between what their child wants and what is good for their child. A good parent will submit to what his or her children need and is good for them, but not always to what they want.
For a pastor or Church of God leader to sacrifice for the needs of the membership is godly. For a pastor to rebel against a leader because the leader does not submit to the pastor's will on a particular subject is not.
Of course, members can and often should submit to one another, as the scripture says (Ephesians 5:18-21), and this can sometimes include submitting to the desires and choices of others as well as their needs, when appropriate. Even a parent can submit to the choice of his or her child when the parent says, "Ok, what would you like to do today? Do you want to go the park or the zoo?" But we must not use the concept of mutual submission to say that a leader or one in authority MUST ALWAYS submit to the desires, wishes, choices, and decisions, or even to advice, of his subordinates.
Did Christ submit to mankind? If you mean, did He submit to the needs of mankind, the answer is yes, He submitted to our needs by being a sacrifice for us. But if you mean, did He submit to the will of mankind, that is, the decisions, the choices, and the desires of mankind even when those desires are wrong or based on error, the answer is, no, He did not submit to mankind.
Another distinction that is useful to keep in mind when discussing government is the distinction between the form or structure of government, and the right use of government. You can have the right form or structure of governance in the Church, yet misuse and abuse that form of governance. The right form of governance is top-down, hierarchical, yet that form of governance, like any other form of governance, can be misused and abused. A leader of a fellowship can abuse and harm the members of that fellowship. But that does not mean that top-down governance is the wrong structure. God the Father and Jesus Christ rule the universe through top-down government, and they never misuse their authority. Likewise, when we are in the Kingdom of God, our authority will be given to use from Christ, top-down, but we will never abuse our authority.
Mankind understands the possibility of abuse of authority and has invented democracy to try to minimize or prevent abuse. Man's idea is, if the one in authority depends on the vote of the people to stay in office, he is less likely to rule abusively, and if he does, the people can remove him by voting him out of office. But that is not God's way in the Church and will not be practiced in the Kingdom of God.
Here are links to related posts:
"New Church Coming out of COGaic and 'Mutual Submission' ", dated January 5, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-church-coming-out-of-cogaic-and.html
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Does the Church of God Need Prophets Today, and If Not, Why Not?
Some may say that, because there were prophets in the New Testament Church of God, there must also be prophets in the Church today (1 Corinthians 12:28-29, Acts 11:27-28).
Does the Church of God need prophets today?
A true prophet of God is one who receives a message from God by direct and miraculous revelation, not just through the Bible. God in the past has given His prophets such messages for individuals or for His people as a whole. It is the prophet's job to deliver the message as God instructs. The revelation can come from God through various means, including dreams (Numbers 12:5-6, Daniel 7:1), visions (Ezekiel 1:1-3), voice (1 Samuel 3:1-14), or face-to-face communication with Christ or an angel of God (Numbers 12:7-8).
Mr. Armstrong never claimed to be a prophet. He never claimed to receive revelation direct from God apart from the Bible. Nor did he say in his sermons and articles that anyone else in the Church was a prophet during his time. I think it is safe to say that no man in the Church of God during Mr. Armstrong's lifetime was known and recognized by the Church of God as a prophet. If someone claims that there must be prophets in the Church at all times because there were prophets in the New Testament, that person should explain who such prophets were when Mr. Armstrong was alive.
God does not expect us to be foolish and naive. We are not to automatically believe everyone who claims to be a prophet of God. If a man is a prophet, we can expect God to show us the proof before God expects us to believe the prophet.
"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' - when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
Do we need prophets today?
It may be that the Church will need prophetic revelation direct from God before the return of Christ. If we need prophets, God will provide them. But the Church does not necessarily need prophets at all times.
There is one difference between conditions today and conditions in New Testament times that can explain why there has not been the need for direct prophetic revelation from God in the Church in our time.
In New Testament times, the Bible was not complete and widely and readily available as it is today. Today we have the Bible, and the Bible contains the teachings of the prophets and the apostles, inspired by God and infallibly accurate.
When the Church of God first started in the first century, the Bible was not complete. It was actually being written during the time that there were prophets in the Church. Not only was the Bible not complete, it was not readily available. The printing press was not invented yet. Individual books of the Bible were made by copying the text by hand and were rare and expensive. The Church had access to the scriptures that were already written, but not every individual member could afford to have even most of the books that were already written. God gave us instructions regarding scripture so that we know it is infallible and is inspired by God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 17:11), but Church members did not have complete Bibles in their homes they could study every day.
But today, the Bible is complete. It has been translated into all major languages on earth. It is affordable for almost all Church members. Moreover, today we have proof of the inspiration of the Bible in the form of the historical fulfillment of prophecy, which had not yet occurred in New Testament times.
And since we have the Bible, there has been less need for prophets in our time.
But when and if the time comes for God to give the Church of God messages by direct revelation, God will provide whatever prophets we need to deliver those messages. And He will give us the evidence we need to know they are prophets.
Here are links to posts in this blog related to this subject:
"What Is the Most Important Issue in the Whole Church of God?", dated June 30, 2013, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-is-most-important-issue-in-whole.html
"Christ as Head of the Church", dated July 3, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/07/christ-as-head-of-church.html
Does the Church of God need prophets today?
A true prophet of God is one who receives a message from God by direct and miraculous revelation, not just through the Bible. God in the past has given His prophets such messages for individuals or for His people as a whole. It is the prophet's job to deliver the message as God instructs. The revelation can come from God through various means, including dreams (Numbers 12:5-6, Daniel 7:1), visions (Ezekiel 1:1-3), voice (1 Samuel 3:1-14), or face-to-face communication with Christ or an angel of God (Numbers 12:7-8).
Mr. Armstrong never claimed to be a prophet. He never claimed to receive revelation direct from God apart from the Bible. Nor did he say in his sermons and articles that anyone else in the Church was a prophet during his time. I think it is safe to say that no man in the Church of God during Mr. Armstrong's lifetime was known and recognized by the Church of God as a prophet. If someone claims that there must be prophets in the Church at all times because there were prophets in the New Testament, that person should explain who such prophets were when Mr. Armstrong was alive.
God does not expect us to be foolish and naive. We are not to automatically believe everyone who claims to be a prophet of God. If a man is a prophet, we can expect God to show us the proof before God expects us to believe the prophet.
"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' - when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
Do we need prophets today?
It may be that the Church will need prophetic revelation direct from God before the return of Christ. If we need prophets, God will provide them. But the Church does not necessarily need prophets at all times.
There is one difference between conditions today and conditions in New Testament times that can explain why there has not been the need for direct prophetic revelation from God in the Church in our time.
In New Testament times, the Bible was not complete and widely and readily available as it is today. Today we have the Bible, and the Bible contains the teachings of the prophets and the apostles, inspired by God and infallibly accurate.
When the Church of God first started in the first century, the Bible was not complete. It was actually being written during the time that there were prophets in the Church. Not only was the Bible not complete, it was not readily available. The printing press was not invented yet. Individual books of the Bible were made by copying the text by hand and were rare and expensive. The Church had access to the scriptures that were already written, but not every individual member could afford to have even most of the books that were already written. God gave us instructions regarding scripture so that we know it is infallible and is inspired by God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 17:11), but Church members did not have complete Bibles in their homes they could study every day.
But today, the Bible is complete. It has been translated into all major languages on earth. It is affordable for almost all Church members. Moreover, today we have proof of the inspiration of the Bible in the form of the historical fulfillment of prophecy, which had not yet occurred in New Testament times.
And since we have the Bible, there has been less need for prophets in our time.
But when and if the time comes for God to give the Church of God messages by direct revelation, God will provide whatever prophets we need to deliver those messages. And He will give us the evidence we need to know they are prophets.
Here are links to posts in this blog related to this subject:
"What Is the Most Important Issue in the Whole Church of God?", dated June 30, 2013, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-is-most-important-issue-in-whole.html
"Christ as Head of the Church", dated July 3, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/07/christ-as-head-of-church.html
Thursday, February 5, 2015
New Development in COGFC Governance Structure
After their January 2015 ministerial conference, Church of God a Family Community (COGFC) announced that Mr. Brian Orchard would be leader. Here is a link to that announcement:
http://thefatherscall.org/january-24-2015-update/
They also announced a name and address for correspondence and tithe payments. They are using the name "Church of God", without any descriptive words to identify their fellowship as distinct from other Church of God organizations. There was no indication of incorporation at this time in their announcement.
As a matter of clarity, in my posts I will continue to refer to them as COGFC, Church of God a Family Community, since this seems to have been their name till now. If that is no longer their name, then just think of it as a descriptive term I will use so you know who I am referring to. If I just say, "Church of God", that could refer to any number of organizations or to the Church as a whole.
Alternatively, I can refer to them as COGWCOCOGaicAILBBO (Church of God, which came out of COGaic and is led by Brian Orchard).
I think "COGFC" is better.
When COGFC ministers and members first separated from Mr. David Hulme, it was unclear what structure of governance they would have. There were a number of leading ministers in that group, but there were three in particular that seemed to be the main leaders: Peter Nathan, Brian Orchard, and Steve Andrews. After Peter Nathan left COGFC to join LCG, Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews seemed to be the main leaders.
What form or structure of governance did they have throughout 2014, the first year of their existence?
It was not democracy as UCG and COGWA practice. There was no institutionalized voting of ministers to set policy and select the top leaders. Nor was it top-down government with one man at the top responsible to Christ directly, as practiced by the old Worldwide when Mr. Armstrong was alive and is practiced by LCG, COGaic, and several other Church of God fellowships.
As I have described in a previous post (see link below), it seemed to be a loose organization based on governance by mutual agreement. When the ministers agree, they act. When and where they cannot come to agreement through discussion or compromise, they do not act.
In my earlier post on this, I said it is a weak form of governance compared with top-down, hierarchical governance. God teaches hierarchical government in the Bible.
I think what has happened is that COGFC has learned through experience what the Bible has taught by revelation. A stronger form of governance is needed. Now, they have a top-down, hierarchical structure of governance.
Mr. Brian Orchard will lead COGFC. He will be responsible to Jesus Christ for how he leads COGFC. And while he is likely to listen to advice and counsel from other ministers and members and respect their input, and he is likely to try to maintain good relations with all the ministers and members in COGFC, final decisions will be his. He will not be limited to what he can get Mr. Andrews to agree to.
This will be a somewhat stronger form of government than existed before in COGFC.
In a sense, this may represent a fresh start. Time will tell.
The issue still remains that to be successful and faithful in serving God and doing the work God wants the Church to do, COGFC will have to follow the Bible as a guide to God's will and will have to make a major effort to preach the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to the public. I think they will have to treat the work of preaching the gospel to the world as approximately equal in importance to feeding the flock, if they will be faithful to the Bible. And if they do that, their yearly budget will show it. It will also be shown by their actual accomplishments in preaching the gospel to the world.
Here is a link to a related post in this blog. This post describes in more detail what I think their governance structure has been during the year 2014:
"COGFC's Governance Structure and Model", dated March 6, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/03/cogfcs-governance-structure-and-model.html
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 8 - GOVERNMENT IN THE CHURCH OF GOD
http://thefatherscall.org/january-24-2015-update/
They also announced a name and address for correspondence and tithe payments. They are using the name "Church of God", without any descriptive words to identify their fellowship as distinct from other Church of God organizations. There was no indication of incorporation at this time in their announcement.
As a matter of clarity, in my posts I will continue to refer to them as COGFC, Church of God a Family Community, since this seems to have been their name till now. If that is no longer their name, then just think of it as a descriptive term I will use so you know who I am referring to. If I just say, "Church of God", that could refer to any number of organizations or to the Church as a whole.
Alternatively, I can refer to them as COGWCOCOGaicAILBBO (Church of God, which came out of COGaic and is led by Brian Orchard).
I think "COGFC" is better.
When COGFC ministers and members first separated from Mr. David Hulme, it was unclear what structure of governance they would have. There were a number of leading ministers in that group, but there were three in particular that seemed to be the main leaders: Peter Nathan, Brian Orchard, and Steve Andrews. After Peter Nathan left COGFC to join LCG, Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews seemed to be the main leaders.
What form or structure of governance did they have throughout 2014, the first year of their existence?
It was not democracy as UCG and COGWA practice. There was no institutionalized voting of ministers to set policy and select the top leaders. Nor was it top-down government with one man at the top responsible to Christ directly, as practiced by the old Worldwide when Mr. Armstrong was alive and is practiced by LCG, COGaic, and several other Church of God fellowships.
As I have described in a previous post (see link below), it seemed to be a loose organization based on governance by mutual agreement. When the ministers agree, they act. When and where they cannot come to agreement through discussion or compromise, they do not act.
In my earlier post on this, I said it is a weak form of governance compared with top-down, hierarchical governance. God teaches hierarchical government in the Bible.
I think what has happened is that COGFC has learned through experience what the Bible has taught by revelation. A stronger form of governance is needed. Now, they have a top-down, hierarchical structure of governance.
Mr. Brian Orchard will lead COGFC. He will be responsible to Jesus Christ for how he leads COGFC. And while he is likely to listen to advice and counsel from other ministers and members and respect their input, and he is likely to try to maintain good relations with all the ministers and members in COGFC, final decisions will be his. He will not be limited to what he can get Mr. Andrews to agree to.
This will be a somewhat stronger form of government than existed before in COGFC.
In a sense, this may represent a fresh start. Time will tell.
The issue still remains that to be successful and faithful in serving God and doing the work God wants the Church to do, COGFC will have to follow the Bible as a guide to God's will and will have to make a major effort to preach the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to the public. I think they will have to treat the work of preaching the gospel to the world as approximately equal in importance to feeding the flock, if they will be faithful to the Bible. And if they do that, their yearly budget will show it. It will also be shown by their actual accomplishments in preaching the gospel to the world.
Here is a link to a related post in this blog. This post describes in more detail what I think their governance structure has been during the year 2014:
"COGFC's Governance Structure and Model", dated March 6, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/03/cogfcs-governance-structure-and-model.html
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 8 - GOVERNMENT IN THE CHURCH OF GOD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
