Someone contributed a comment in my last post and brought up the point that the Church should not preach the gospel to the world until we first get the beam out of our eye, referring to Christ's teachings in Matthew 7:3-5.
Here is what Christ said, including the previous two verses about judging that set the context: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" (Matthew 7:1-5).
I replied that the point was good and worth considering, but that Christ did not intend this teaching to mean that the Church should not preach the gospel to the world until we completely overcome our own serious problems.
But I also thought the issue of getting the beams out of our eyes and the relationship of that principle with preaching the gospel would be an excellent topic for a post, so I want to discuss this issue in more detail here. I have long thought about the "beam in the eye" lesson and how it applies to the work of the Church, but as far as I recall, this is the first time I am discussing it at length in this blog.
For the record, the one who commented never meant that we should delay preaching the gospel for a long time, because repentance does not have to take a long time, but that deep and thorough repentance is required to be effective in preaching the gospel, and I agree.
The post this person commented in was about ministers leaving COGaic, and to some extent what I say here will be in that context. But the principles in that comment and in this post apply to any Church of God fellowship.
If the Church or the ministry has problems, such as problems in our relationships with each other or with the Father, we certainly should repent.
However, the kind of repentance needed to be qualified to warn someone of danger should not be something that takes weeks, months, and years. We should not be postponing the work of warning others because we are not yet perfect ourselves.
If you and I have beams in our eyes, if we need to repent, then let us repent, now, right now, today in fact, this very hour. Not tomorrow, not next week, today, before the sun sets. Then let's set our alarms for 5:00 am, get a good night's sleep, and early tomorrow morning, before we eat breakfast, we all can get busy doing what God has commanded us - to preach the gospel to all nations (Matthew 10:7-8, 24:14, 28:18-20, Acts 1:8) and to warn Israel and the world (Ezekiel 3:17-21, 33:1-11), to hold back those stumbling to the slaughter, to deliver those drawn towards death (Proverbs 24:1-12). Abraham rose early to do what God commanded him (Genesis 22:2-3), and God often said He rose up early to warn Israel or to send the prophets to warn Israel (2 Chronicles 36:15, Jeremiah 7:13-14, 26:4-6, 29:19, 32:33, 35:14-15), and we should follow that example. We can start with a website, small at first, and we can improve it over time as we go. We can start by teaching the world, in that website, that Christ will come to establish the Kingdom of God ruling over the earth, and we can warn the world about the coming tribulation. Then we can expand that in the future, but we can start with that and build on it.
How well do we represent the God of the Bible and His message to Israel, who said He rose up early to give them the message, if we put off doing it for days, weeks, months, or years?
On Pentecost, Peter preached repentance to the crowds, and that day 3,000 were baptized. It didn't take them weeks to repent. They did it that same day.
The kind of overcoming of personal bad habits and sins that may take a lifetime is not something that must be done first before we serve or teach others.
Picture this scenario.
Suppose you are struggling with a personal fault you need to overcome. Maybe you get angry too easily. Maybe you are finding it hard to forgive a brother. You are praying about it in your apartment by your bed late at night, maybe at 3:00 in the morning because you couldn't sleep (I know you might live in a house, but pretend you are living in a big, high-rise apartment building). But you still haven't gotten past feelings of bitterness towards your brother. You know you should forgive him from your heart, but it seems like you just can't. Every time you try to forgive, you remember what he did to you, and bitterness, resentment, and anger come flooding back into your mind. Or, it could be some other problem. Maybe you have a bad habit you are struggling with. Whatever the problem is, you have started to pray about it, but you know you have a long way to go before you have overcome it. As you are praying and meditating about this, the thought occurs to you, maybe I should go through a period of fasting to draw closer to God to get the spiritual strength I need to overcome this sin.
But all of a sudden, something happens that takes your mind off of your prayers and your meditation. You smell smoke. You cautiously open your door and peek out the doorway of your apartment, and there is smoke in the hallway, not suffocating yet, but it is increasing, fast. Someplace, you don't know where, a fire has started in your building, and you realize, because most people are asleep, you are probably the only one who knows it.
You move quickly. First you call 911 and report the fire. Then you put on your shoes and your coat, grab your money, keys, and identification, and go out the door to get out of the building before you are trapped by the smoke.
But should you warn the other people? Should you knock on doors to warn people to get out? The smoke in the hallway is not too bad yet, but it will be in a few minutes. At first you think, yes, I am supposed to love my neighbor as myself. I better pound on some doors and yell, "the building is on fire, get out while you can." But then you say to yourself, no, I need to repent first before I warn people of danger. I haven't totally overcome my sin yet, and I need to go through a period of fasting and prayer for a few weeks before I warn people about anything. Otherwise, I am guilty of trying to take the speck out of my brother's eye while I have a beam in my own. So won't warn anyone. I will save my own skin and get out of the building while I can. If these other people die they die. In about 3 minutes the smoke will be so thick they probably won't be able to get out, but that can't be helped. I won't warn them, because I am not perfect.
That really makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Don't love your neighbor because you are not perfect yet. Don't do what God commands you because you have to "repent" first, and that takes a long time. So you are going to let those people die and then draw closer to God, not by obeying Him now, but by fasting and prayer for a long time so you can make yourself perfect.
You are thinking about saving your own skin. But you are not thinking about the suffering the families and relatives of your neighbors will feel when they have lost their loved ones permanently to the smoke and fire. And you think you can get close to God that way.
That does NOT make sense.
And neither does it make sense to disobey God's commands to deliver the Ezekiel warning and preach the gospel to the world because we are not yet perfect and because we still have sins to get out of our lives. If we think that way, we are forgetting that not preaching the gospel is itself disobedience, and therefore a sin to be repented of. This world is like a building of fire, and we need to give a warning because we love the people and we want to give them a chance to escape the coming disaster.
Did Christ send out the twelve apostles to preach the gospel during His three-and-a-half year ministry because they were perfect, because they had no sin? James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven on a city because of their resentment over being slighted (Luke 9:51-55). They argued over who would be the greatest (Luke 22:24). They ran away when Jesus was arrested (Matthew 26:55-56). Peter denied even knowing Christ (Matthew 26:69-75). Jesus said they were of "little faith" (Matthew 8:26). They weren't just "not perfect". They were not even converted. Yet Christ sent them out to preach the gospel (Matthew 10:5-10, Mark 6:7-12, Luke 9:1-2). He even sent Judas to preach the gospel, and Judas was an enemy, a "devil" as Christ said when He told the apostles, "one of you is a devil" (John 6:70-71). Did Christ say, "I can't send these men out to remove specks in other people's eyes because they have beams in their own eyes."? No, He used them in spite of their personal faults and weak spiritual condition at that time. He even used Judas.
Some of the men leaving COGaic want to wait to repair personal relationships between themselves before they help the world. But the twelve apostles had relationship problems, otherwise they would not be arguing about who was the greatest, and they did not have God's Holy Spirit, yet Christ sent them out to preach BEFORE they were converted, even while they still had serious problems.
Likewise, as Christ used his apostles in spite of their carnal faults, even Judas, to preach the gospel, so He still uses us in the Church of God, in spite of our faults, to preach the gospel today. What He said to Judas, He says to us: preach the gospel (Luke 9:1-2).
Consider Jonah. Jonah did not want to obey God by giving a warning to Nineveh, but God made him do it. Did Jonah have spiritual problems, even relationship problems with God and man? Duh. I would say. He ran away from God to avoid the job, was even willing to die by drowning rather than do what God said (Jonah 1:10-12). He apparently hated the Ninevites so much he wanted to die because God did not kill them, even after they repented at his preaching (Jonah 3:1-10, 4:1-3). Jonah wanted to die because God was merciful to Nineveh. Did he have a relationship problem? Did he have a beam in his eye that prevented him from having spiritual perception, from seeing the Ninevites clearly as God saw them, as people who needed mercy (Jonah 4:10-11)?
Of course he did. He had a beam in his eye. Did that excuse him from warning? Did God require he get rid of that beam before he delivered the message? No, God had him give the warning message first, even while he still had that beam in his eye. It is not till the last verse in the book of Jonah that God begins to help Jonah see his problem, and this was after God made him give the warning. Do think God would have let him off the hook, excused him from warning Nineveh, if he said to God, "Look, I can't warn Nineveh, I have a beam in my eye. Until I learn to love people more and fear You more, I am not qualified to give the warning. Please send someone else." How would that fly with God?
God put these examples in the Bible, Jonah, Judas, the apostles, for our learning. We are supposed to live by every word of God. We should look to the lessons of the Bible to know how Christ's teaching about the "beam in your eye" applies to preaching the gospel to the world. We should let the Bible interpret the Bible.
We repent when recognize our faults and set to work on them. That repentance might take place in one day, as it did for the 3,000 that were baptized on the day of Pentecost, but the work of overcoming, of continuous repenting, resolving to sin no more, then stumbling at some temptation, repenting again and asking God's forgiveness, getting up and trying again - that struggle against the self, that process and that work of overcoming may take a lifetime, and as soon as we overcome one thing, we discover something else in our character that needs changing, and we have to start working on that. If we wait till we have no more faults to overcome before we preach the gospel, we will never do what God commands us to do.
Yet, not going all out to preach the gospel is itself disobedience and a sin against God that we should repent of, and it can be just as serious as any other sin we sin.
Look at what Paul said about himself: "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:14-24).
Notice he said this in the present tense. He wasn't just talking about himself before he was converted or before he was an apostle. But he was already preaching the gospel even while he was battling against his own sins. In fact he said, "woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Corinthians 9:16).
Do the ministers leaving COGaic say to themselves, "Woe to us if we do not preach the gospel"? If they do, they will have a sense of urgency about it equal to their urgency to have a sermon ready by the end of each week so they can give it on the Sabbath.
When you repent towards God, you can't pick and choose what sins to repent of. If ministers and members leaving COGaic have relationship sins to repent of, fine, repent of those sins, but also repent of the sin of not preaching the gospel as Christ commanded. Do both at the same time. Reconcile and preach the gospel at the same time.
But apparently some of these men want to repent of one sin, their relationship problems, BEFORE they repent and work on their other sin, not preaching the gospel. Why? Perhaps some of them have an inward focus. They want to help themselves, their own group, their own fellowship, because relationship problems affect them personally and directly. But they do not have the outgoing concern that God and Christ have for the world and that Herbert W. Armstrong had. They do not love their neighbors in the world as themselves. They love themselves more and their neighbors less. That is not God's way.
I do NOT say this about all the ministers who have left COGaic. But some of them, maybe. And if some of them are against preaching the gospel right now, they may be influencing and holding back those who are in favor of the gospel. Those who may want to start preaching the gospel now may be compromising for the sake of unity with other ministers who are against it.
Consider the two-fold commission. The Church, the leadership, and the ministry are to feed the flock and preach the gospel to the world.
That two-fold commission, obviously, has two parts. Typically, which part are leaders and pastors in all the Church of God fellowships put together most inclined to favor? What is a typical pastor likely to be more concerned about?
Feeding the flock. Why? Because they work among the flock. They get their support from the flock. It is the tithes and offerings from the flock that pay their salaries, that put food on their tables, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their head. They feed the flock by giving sermons on the Sabbath, and it is unlikely they will get paid if they don't give sermons. So in giving sermons, they are fulfilling one part of the commission, but they are also feeding themselves. And if they don't feed the flock well, problems will develop in their congregations, and those problems can make the lives of the pastors less than joyous, to put it mildly.
So if the ministers do not feed the flock, if they don't give sermons, members will attend someplace else, and wherever they attend, that is where their tithes usually go.
So every pastor must know: "If I don't give sermons, the members will go elsewhere and I won't get paid. No sermons, no services. No services, no members. No members, no tithes. No tithes, no food on my table, and eventually I will lose my house. So I better give sermons. I better feed the flock. Besides, I know how to give sermons, but I have no experience preaching the gospel to the world - that would be leaving my comfort zone. So I will stick to what I know and feel comfortable with and what puts food on my table. If I feed the flock, the flock will feed me."
So you don't have to convince ministers to feed the flock. There is a self-enforcing mechanism about it that works with even carnal men - no sermons, no eat. Maybe that can be summarized as "speak and eat".
I am not talking about just one group. This applies to ANY Church of God fellowship. Only God can read the heart and mind of each minister in every group to know who is doing it for a paycheck only and who is motivated by love. If a minister is motivated by love, that will be more important to him than his paycheck. But if a minister does not love, self-interest will motivate him to feed the flock. Either way, the job will get done, and God knows the heart of the minister. Of course, the minister who loves God and his flock will do a better job of feeding the flock. But even a carnally minded minister may feed the flock for a paycheck. And with some ministers, the motives may be mixed, half motivated by love and half motivated by the paycheck.
But that extra motivation that works even when ministers are not motivated to obey Christ, that self-enforcing mechanism based partly on self-interest that works even when love fails, isn't there for the second part of the two-fold commission - preaching the gospel to the world - especially with men who have never done that before and would know that they may have a long learning curve to do it well. If they feed the flock but don't preach the gospel, what happens to them? Usually, nothing. They still get paid.
Look at Mr. Hulme. He has accomplished very little in preaching the gospel to the world over the last 15 years. He preaches the gospel to the world on a tiny and not very effective scale, with Vision and maybe other means, but the apparent effort and results are small. But has that hurt him financially? I don't think so. Why not? Because he feeds the flock. The flock then rewards him by sending their tithes to him.
And yet, preaching the gospel to the world is just as important as feeding the flock. The same God who commanded feeding the flock also commanded preaching the gospel. If you respect one command, you should respect both commands, because you should respect the God that gave you both commands. But if you do not respect both commands...
If I said, "Every pastor who gives sermons but is not in favor of someone in his fellowship preaching the gospel to the world with the same urgency with which the pastor makes sure he has a sermon ready every week for the Sabbath, is only giving sermons to fill his own belly", would I be wrong? Christ knows. When He returns, I can ask Him.
Consider the two parts of the two-fold commission in light of the principle of not taking the speck from your brother's eye till you remove the beam from your own. If that means you cannot teach others spiritually as long as you have serious problems to overcome, and if that means you cannot yet preach the gospel, then you also cannot feed the flock. Why? Both feeding the flock and preaching the gospel to the world involve correcting faults, taking the speck out of the other persons' eyes. If a minister has a beam in his own eye that prevents him from removing the specks in the eyes of the people of the world by preaching the gospel to them, then that same beam in his eye equally prevents him from removing the specks from his congregation by feeding the flock and giving sermons.
So if a minister says, "I have a beam in my eye, and I cannot see clearly to preach the gospel to the world and remove the speck in the world's eye", then he better also say, "I have a beam in my eye, and I cannot see clearly to give sermons to remove the specks in the congregation." But, of course, if he says the second thing, he won't get paid. But if he says, "I have removed the beam from my eye, and now I see clearly to remove the specks from the eyes in my congregation by giving sermons", then he should also say, "I have removed the beam from my eye, and now I can see clearly to remove the specks from the world's eyes by preaching the gospel to them."
What is needed, to avoid hypocrisy (which is the point of Christ's teaching about the beam in the eye), is that we be striving to do what we say others should do. Repent of your faults when you find them, start to work on them, and then you can teach others that they also should go to work on overcoming those faults.
If I am 100 pounds overweight and think that is fine and am not trying to lose weight, I would be a hypocrite to tell someone 50 pounds overweight, "you need to lose weight". But if I acknowledge my sin and go to work on losing weight, if I am trying hard to lose weight and making some progress, I don't have to wait till I am skinny before I say to another overweight person, "I am trying to lose weight and maybe you should too. I have learned some things, and I have a long way to go yet, but I have found a good diet that is working for me and has helped me lose 30 pounds so far, and I will be glad to share it with you if you want - maybe it will work for you too." That would not be hypocrisy.
We are not hypocrites to go to the world and urge them to do the same things we have already done. If I urge the world to keep God's seventh day Sabbath by not working on the Sabbath and by not watching sporting events on the Sabbath, but then I get a part time job on Saturday working in a supermarket and watch basketball games on Friday night, that would make me a hypocrite.
Are we doing that? Are we, in the Church, telling the world, stop working on Saturday, but we have part-time jobs on Saturdays? Are we telling the world, don't keep Christmas, but we all put up Christmas trees in our houses for Christmas? Are we telling the world, God is not a trinity, but we all think God is a trinity? Are we telling the world, Christ will return, but we don't believe Christ will return? Do we warn about the tribulation, but we don't think the tribulation will really happen? Do we tell the world, observe the holy days and Feast of Tabernacles, but we go to our regular jobs on the holy days and we never go to the Feast of Tabernacles?
I don't think that is a problem. Generally, we believe and try to practice everything we preach to the world.
Actually, there is one problem some Church of God ministers or leaders in various fellowships may have in that regard. Some may tell the world, "don't believe me, believe the Bible", then tell their members, in effect, "don't believe your Bible, believe me". But that is a whole other subject, and I have covered that elsewhere. Anyway, I do not think the ministers coming out of COGaic have that problem. I think they teach the members to believe the Bible, as they should.
But if the "beam in the eye" teaching means you cannot preach to the world because you do not believe and strive to practice the truth, then you also cannot give sermons to your congregation for the same reason.
If you share knowledge of God's way of life with the brethren, but not the world, your focus is inward. You want the Church, in effect, to have secret knowledge, for us only, not to be shared with others, so we alone as a small, tight-knit group can benefit from it, not anyone else. "We are the 'in crowd', better than other people," you say, "privileged, in a class by ourselves, with others excluded. We will protect and help our own members, but you outsiders, stay away - you are not part of us and we don't want you."
But we reap what we sow. If we hold on to knowledge, keep it secret from the world, keep it just for ourselves, God will see our attitude and bring the fruits of it upon our heads. What are those fruits? What is the result, what is reaped, of that attitude we sow?
What would be the effect, the harvest reaped, if Mr. Armstrong had that attitude? If Mr. Armstrong said, "I appreciate what I know, but I will not share it with the world", the result of that is that we would not have the knowledge we have today. We know what we know because Mr. Armstrong preached the gospel to the world. But if we do not follow his example, God can take the knowledge from us. If God does not give us spiritual help to keep the knowledge we have, we will lose it. And He may do that if we do not share it with others as those before us have shared it with us.
We need to share what we know with the world. We have to tell them what we have learned. That is not hypocrisy. We know the tribulation is coming. We have no right to keep quiet about it, to work on ourselves only, without giving the world the same knowledge so others have the same chance to work on themselves also. We want to escape and be protected during the tribulation, and we strive to put sin out of our lives. We need to give people in the world that same opportunity, the knowledge of the truth, which God and Mr. Armstrong have given us.
If the ministers coming out of COGaic think that their new group should not preach the gospel to the world yet because they must first do more reconciling with the Father and with each other, they should apply that principle to feeding the flock too. If they want to be consistent, they should refrain from teaching the membership to reconcile with the Father and each other UNTIL THEY, THE MINISTERS, HAVE ACTUALLY DONE IT. If the ministers must first reconcile with each other and God, and if that means they must finish that reconciliation before preaching to the world, then they must also do it BEFORE they teach the brethren to do it, right?
So there is a speck in the eye of the world, a speck in the eye of the members, and a beam in the eye of the ministry. The ministry says, "We can't take the speck out of the world because we have a beam in our eye. But we are not going to wait before taking the speck out of our members' eye." But that's inconsistent. If the beam in your eye prevents you from correcting the world, it should also prevent you from correcting the Church.
So if you ministers have relationship problems that prevent you from preaching the gospel, fine, be reconciled with each other and God, but don't give sermons until you do. Before you talk about reconciliation with the brethren, do it yourselves first. Let Brian Orchard reconcile with Steve Andrews and let Steve Andrews reconcile with Peter Nathan and let all the ministers reconcile with God.
What? You ministers say you have already done that? You have forgiven each other and have wonderful unity and harmony with each other and with God? You have removed the beam from your eye? Great! Now you can preach the gospel to the world. After all, Christ didn't say, don't remove the speck from your brother's eye or only remove the beam from your own eye. He said to remove the beam from your own eye, but he did stop there. You have to DO something after you remove your own beam. You are COMMANDED to remove the speck from the other person's eye.
Or, do you say you haven't done that yet? Steve Andrews hasn't reconciled with Brian Orchard yet? You ministers haven't reconciled with the Father yet? You still have a beam in your eye? Then stop giving sermons to the brethren until you do. How can you see clearly to teach the brethren if you have a beam in your eye? First achieve reconciliation with your fellow ministers and with God, then you will see clearly to give sermons on the subject of reconciliation so the members can do it.
Or maybe you say, we ministers still have a beam in our eye reconciling with God, but we have to give sermons to the brethren, so we can speak on other subjects: the kingdom of God, God's plan for salvation, the ten commandments, prophecy, etc. Then, when we ministers ourselves have finished reconciling with God, the beam in our eye on that subject will be gone and we can teach that subject to the congregations: reconciliation.
Ok, but apply that also to preaching the gospel to the world. Because you ministers coming out of COGaic still have a beam in your eye on the subject of reconciliation, hold off preaching about that one subject and just preach to the world on other subjects like the kingdom of God, God's plan for salvation, the ten commandments, prophecy, etc. Then, when you ministers finish reconciling with God, hopefully in a few weeks, the beam in your eye will be gone and you can include the subject of reconciliation when you preach to the world.
To say, we ministers won't teach the world with a website because we have a beam in our eye, but we will still teach the brethren by giving sermons on the Sabbath, is inconsistent. If the "beam in my eye" is the reason you won't preach the gospel, that same reason would also stop you from giving sermons on the Sabbath. But if that is not the reason you don't preach the gospel, what is your real reason?
One more scripture. If you do a Bible search on "reconciliation" and the shorter form, "conciliation", you might find this verse from Solomon, to whom God gave wisdom: "If the spirit of the ruler rises against you, do not leave your post; For conciliation pacifies great offenses" (Ecclesiastes 10:4). This is talking about how to reconcile with someone in authority over you who becomes angry with you. If your boss is angry with you because you have committed "great offenses", as this verse says, how do you reconcile with him? Consider God as our ruler, and He is angry with us because we have committed great offenses, how do we reconcile with God? Solomon says, "Do not leave your post". In other words, don't quit or run away from the job the ruler gave you to do (as Jonah tried to do). So if we are really serious about reconciling with God, we better stay at our post and do the job God gave us to do. He gave us the same job he gave Jonah, He gave Ezekiel, He gave the other prophets, He gave the apostles, and He gave Mr. Armstrong: Preach the gospel and warn the people. We need to stay at our post and keep doing the job God gave us to do. And if we ran from our post, our responsibilities, we need to return to the job God gave us if we are serious about returning to God.
That isn't the only work God gave us to do, but it is part of it, and we need to do it.
We did that job when Mr. Armstrong was alive. We preached the Ezekiel warning and the gospel to the world. We need to return to that if we want to return to God.
Here are posts related to this post:
"New Website of Ministers Leaving COGaic", dated January 4, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-website-of-ministers-leaving-cogai.html
"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
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 5 - SHOULD THE CHURCH FEED THE FLOCK ONLY?
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Sunday, January 5, 2014
New Church Coming out of COGaic and "Mutual Submission"
In yesterday's post I made a mistake in saying about ministers leaving COGaic, "As far as I know, they have not yet organized or incorporated as a new Church of God." That may be misleading. The fact is, they are a new Church of God fellowship. They are able to receive tithes and offerings and they are holding services. They are a new Church of God fellowship, whether or not they have made a final decision about the name of their group, incorporation, governing documents, or anything else. That does not mean it will be permanent. They may yet join with an existing group. But for now, even though their organization is not complete, they are a Church of God.
One of the issues that has come up is the issue of what some call "mutual submission", based on the following scripture: "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of God" (Ephesians 5:17-21). So we are to submit to one another.
Does this override authority because the one in authority must submit to those under his authority in whatever decisions they want to make? No it does not, else it would nullify other scriptures that teach authority, such as the very next verse: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:22). Husbands are NOT to submit to their wives in the same way that wives are to submit to their husbands. Why? Because wives are to submit to husbands, "as to the Lord". God and Christ have authority over us. They are not required to submit to us as we are required to submit to them. Also, the next two verses show that there is a difference in authority between the husband and the wife to make decisions. "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything" (Ephesians 5:23-24).
Then, what does it mean to submit to each other?
We are to submit to the needs and wants of each other as an expression of love. It is not a matter of authority. In cases where authority exists, it guides the wise and loving use of authority by those who have authority. One in authority, who loves those under his authority, will sometimes submit to the wishes and needs of those under his authority, because he loves them. Nevertheless, the power and right of those in authority to make binding decisions is unchanged.
It is really an application of the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39-40, Mark 12:31). It is also an application of the principle of doing to others what you would want them to do to you. "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12). So, if you express a wish or desire or a need you have to one of the brethren, wanting him to do something for you, do you want him to submit to your request? Then submit also to him when he asks something of you. "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away" (Matthew 5:42). This last verse is in the context of not resisting an evil person (verse 39), but if we should show kindness to those who are evil, how much more to our brethren in the Church? Of course, we cannot give what we do not have, and we have to take into consideration the needs of people who depend on us and many other factors, so we are not obligated to always say "yes". Jesus Himself did not always say "yes" to requests (Luke 20:1-8, Mark 10:35-40, Luke 12:13-14). He at first did not help the woman of Canaan when she asked Him to help her, but He ignored her, and only helped her after she was persistent (Matthew 15:21-28).
But our attitude should be to try to help others when they ask us.
Two brethren, neither of which has authority over the other, can each submit to the needs of the other.
And what about cases where one has authority over another? Should the one in authority submit to the needs and desires of the one under his authority? Sometimes, yes. It doesn't change the authority. If the one in authority makes a decision, the one under the authority should obey. But the one in authority can be motivated by love to submit to the desires, needs, and requests of the one he rules.
Parents understand this with their children. If you have children, do you not sometimes ask them what they want? Does a parent, wanting to please his child, ever say, "What would you like to do today, go to the Zoo or to a baseball game?", and then submit to the request of the child even if it is not the thing the parent enjoys the most? Do you ever submit to the request of your child?
Abraham set an example of submitting to Lot in giving Lot the choice of which way to go when they separated. "Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks and herds and tents. Now the land was not able to support them, that they might dwell together, for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together. And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock. The Canaanites and the Perizzites then dwelt in the land. So Abram said to Lot, 'Please let there be no strife between you and me, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me. If you take the left, then I will go to the right; or, if you go to the right, then I will go to the left.' And Lot lifted his eyes and saw all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere (before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah) like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as you go toward Zoar. Then Lot chose for himself all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east. And they separated from each other" (Genesis 13:5-11).
The angels who rescued Lot from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah submitted to him when he requested to be able to go to a little city nearby rather than the mountains, when he pleaded. "So it came to pass, when they had brought them outside, that he said, 'Escape for your life! Do not look behind you nor stay anywhere in the plain. Escape to the mountains, lest you be destroyed.' Then Lot said to them, 'Please, no, my lords! Indeed now, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have increased your mercy which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, lest some evil overtake me and I die. See now, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one; please let me escape there (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.' And he said to him, 'See, I have favored you concerning this thing also, in that I will not overthrow this city for which you have spoken. Hurry, escape there. For I cannot do anything until you arrive there.' Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar" (Genesis 19:17-22).
Does God not submit to us, in a sense, when we ask things of Him in prayer and He gives us what we request?
Here are examples in the Bible of God submitting to humans under His authority.
God honored Abraham's servant's request for a sign to know who Isaac's bride would be, in a sense, submitting to his request. "Then he said, 'O Lord God of my master Abraham, please give me success this day, and show kindness to my master Abraham. Behold, here I stand by the well of water, and the daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water. Now let it be that the young woman to whom I say, "Please let down your pitcher that I may drink," and she says, "Drink, and I will also give your camels a drink"-let her be the one You have appointed for Your servant Isaac. And by this I will know that You have shown kindness to my master.' And it happened, before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, came out with her pitcher on her shoulder. Now the young woman was very beautiful to behold, a virgin; no man had known her. And she went down to the well, filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her and said, 'Please let me drink a little water from your pitcher.' So she said, 'Drink, my lord.' Then she quickly let her pitcher down to her hand, and gave him a drink. And when she had finished giving him a drink, she said, 'I will draw water for your camels also, until they have finished drinking' " (Genesis 24:12-19).
Christ submitted to Jacob in blessing him after wrestling with him. This is interesting, because He could have broken free of Jacob's hold if He wanted to, but he let Jacob win the match in a sense. "Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob’s hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him. And He said, 'Let Me go, for the day breaks.' But he said, 'I will not let You go unless You bless me!' So He said to him, 'What is your name?' He said, 'Jacob.' And He said, 'Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.' Then Jacob asked, saying, 'Tell me Your name, I pray.' And He said, 'Why is it that you ask about My name?' And He blessed him there" (Genesis 32:25-29). This is a good example also because it shows that Christ submitted to Jacob in blessing him, but not in telling him His name. The one in authority decides when to submit to a request and when not to submit to a request.
In the account of the burning bush, God submitted to Moses, partly, when Moses protested that he was slow of speech. God did not submit completely, and told Moses he still had to do the job, but he gave him Aaron as a spokesman. "Then Moses said to the Lord, 'O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.' So the Lord said to him, 'Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say.' But he said, 'O my Lord, please send by the hand of whomever else You may send.' So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and He said: 'Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And look, he is also coming out to meet you. When he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. Now you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth. And I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach you what you shall do. So he shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God. And you shall take this rod in your hand, with which you shall do the signs.' " (Exodus 4:10-17).
There are other occasions when God submitted to Moses. In the matter of the golden calf, when God said He would destroy Israel, He submitted to Moses and relented when Moses pleaded for Israel (Exodus 32:7-14). God first said He would not go with Israel (Exodus 33:1-3), but then agreed to go with at Moses's appeal and to show Moses His glory, but He did not allow Him to see His face (Exodus 33:12-23). When Moses was so stressed he felt like he couldn't take it any more, God gave him seventy elders to help him bear his burden (Numbers 11:10-17).
Yet in one matter, God did NOT submit to Moses. "Then I pleaded with the Lord at that time, saying: 'O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand, for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do anything like Your works and Your mighty deeds? I pray, let me cross over and see the good land beyond the Jordan, those pleasant mountains, and Lebanon.' But the Lord was angry with me on your account, and would not listen to me. So the Lord said to me: 'Enough of that! Speak no more to Me of this matter' " (Deuteronomy 3:23-26). Yet, even here, God let Moses see the land with his eyes even though he could not go there (verse 27).
God submitted to Gideon's requests for a sign with the fleece, two signs in fact (Judges 6:36-40). He submitted to Hezekiah's tears and desire to live after telling him he would die (2 Kings 20:1-6).
Here is another example, where God told a prophet to do something, but the prophet had a conscience problem with doing what God told him! So God gave him an alternative. " 'And you shall eat it as barley cakes; and bake it using fuel of human waste in their sight.' Then the Lord said, 'So shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, where I will drive them.' So I said, 'Ah, Lord God! Indeed I have never defiled myself from my youth till now; I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has abominable flesh ever come into my mouth.' Then He said to me, 'See, I am giving you cow dung instead of human waste, and you shall prepare your bread over it' " (Ezekiel 4:12-15). God never said that human waste could not be used as fuel, but Ezekiel had conscience problem with it anyway, so God submitted to the needs of Ezekiel's tender conscience and let him use cow dung for fuel for the fire to cook his food. This is an example of God following the same principle He inspired Paul to write about in 1 Corinthians 8:9-13 and Romans 14:14-23.
I mentioned before that Jesus did not at first give the woman of Canaan her request. But after she persisted and answered wisely, He gave her what she requested, in a sense, submitting to her request after He had first refused (Matthew 15:28).
And Jesus submitted, in a sense, to all the Jews who came to Him for healing of diseases and casting out demons, giving them the healing they asked for.
So sometimes it is appropriate for one in authority to submit to the needs, desires, and requests of those under authority. But it is always the decision, to submit thus or not, of the one in authority. This is not something that can be demanded by those under authority.
That is important. Voluntary submission, motivated by love (which is what we are talking about here) is something to be given, not demanded. No one under the authority of a ruler has the right to demand that the ruler submit to his request.
Paul says, we are to be submitting to one another. He does NOT say we should be demanding submission from one another (Ephesians 5:21).
And a pattern of a lack of such submission from a leader towards his subordinates, of and by itself, is not be a good reason for leaving a Church of God organization, in my opinion.
Suppose you work for a Church of God leader who is not in the habit of listening to your views. You have suggestions for doing the work better, but he doesn't want to listen. Or you express a view about how the Church should be run, but he doesn't agree or change his mind. Is that, by itself, a reason to leave? I don't think so. God does not always answer our prayers, even when we plead, and he even told Moses to shut up about asking to enter the promised land.
But, you might say, a leader should get a multitude of counsel and should listen to good advice. That may be true, but if you joined with the leader in years past because you saw that God had chosen that man, based on his fruits, then he has been chosen by God, unless the fruits now show that he is not chosen by God, and I would not call a man's leadership style "fruits". Fruits are the end result of what is being accomplished, things like number of people in the world being warned, the gospel being preached, disciples being made and brought into the Church and baptized, powerful sermons that are helping members overcome their sins and become more like Christ - those are fruits. Not failure to listen to your good advice.
Now, if the good fruits are not there, that might be a reason to leave. If the gospel is not being preached powerfully to the world, if the Ezekiel warning is not being effectively delivered to Israel, if the flock is not being fed with powerful sermons giving meat in due season to help members to grow and become like Christ, then that might be a reason to leave. And if the leader does not listen to good advice, then that might be a contributing factor to the lack of good fruits. But if the fruits are good, even if he does not "submit" to your counsel and the counsel of others, then maybe your counsel isn't that valuable after all.
The concept and principle of "mutual submission" cannot override government and authority God has put into place.
Nor should mutual submission be the primary guiding theme and purpose and mission of the Church.
I hope the new group coming out of COGaic does not miss the mark on this.
Ministers may feel abused. That might be part of the reason they left. And maybe, in certain cases, such abuse may force them to leave. If the leader commands you to do something you cannot do because it would violate God's law, such as bearing false witness by teaching something you do not believe, and then fires you for obeying God more than man, you had no choice. You are out, and you could not have prevented it, not without sinning.
But be aware that talking about your personal trial in this case, or the faults of the person you worked for, is not necessarily going to inspire the brethren to go all out with zeal to support God's work. Members are not going to be stirred up with zeal and enthusiasm for God's work by ministers who emphasize the negative aspect of their prior association, feeling sorry for themselves, and saying, "Woe is me, for I was abused."
I also do not think brethren will be much stirred up by an inward approach, "We will take care of you better than before". What about the world? What about people God is yet calling who haven't yet heard the truth? What about the lost tribes of Israel who need a warning message about the tribulation to come before it is too late?
The Church of God has a great job to do, and brethren need to be stirred up, and many will be, by the responsibility to do that job. It is that common mission, to do God's work in the earth, that has the power to stir up zeal and enthusiasm. It is the understanding that we have to work together to accomplish something important that will stir up the brethren and even help them in their spiritual growth and overcoming. And that accomplishment is not just internal but extends outward, in an outgoing concern for others, outside of the Church. We have a job to do in the world to prepare for Christ's coming. That job is bigger and more important than just ourselves.
COGaic has not done that job very effectively.
This new group of ministers coming out of COGaic led by Peter Nathan, Brian Orchard, and Steve Andrews has a window of opportunity, to get off to the right start in a balanced way. But that window will not be open very long. They are already feeding the flock with weekly Sabbath services and sermons and Bible studies. They need to preach the gospel to the world, and they need to start soon.
When UCG started, they had every excuse for postponing preaching the gospel to the world. "We have to make sure we are ready, and we are not ready yet." But they were feeding the flock. They didn't think they weren't ready yet to give sermons on the Sabbath. Yet, preaching the gospel was something that required a long time to prepare, for some reason. I suppose they thought, we have to give sermons to the membership, or we won't get any tithes, but preaching the gospel can wait.
Should that be the priority, to collect tithes to support the ministry?
Mr. Hulme, after he started COGaic, has also not done a powerful work of preaching the gospel. I don't know about today, but in the past I have heard himself or some ministers in that group indicate that they were doing things behind the scenes to prepare for preaching the gospel, but they were not yet ready to go all out with it, and this was years after COGaic started. Again, excuses.
It doesn't take God very long to size up what your priorities are. You begin showing your fruits from day one. The brethren also see your fruits from day one.
Zimri reigned over Israel only seven days (1 Kings 16:10, 15), but that was long enough for God to judge that he did evil in the sight of the Lord in walking in way of Jeroboam (1 Kings 16:18-19).
How long does it take to start preaching the gospel to the world? How much money does it take? I mean, just to get started.
One or two days. One or two hundred dollars. Less time and probably less money than to hold a three-day conference.
With two hundred dollars or less, in one or two days, you can write a short article warning our people about the tribulation and what they need to do to repent and have a chance to escape. You can buy a domain and hosting with some service (there are many) using your bank debit or credit card, and you can upload your article. Then you can run $50 or $100 worth of pay-per-click ads with Google, Yahoo, or Bing on the word "prophecy" pointing to the article you wrote. That is just a start, but it is a start. It isn't that hard. At about 50 cents to one dollar per click, you can reach from 50 to 200 people who are searching for information about "prophecy" in Google or other search engines, and some of those may never have heard the truth before. Later, you can go to radio and TV, build up and expand your websites, add more articles, add a printed magazine and booklets, and once you have a subscription list invite magazine subscribers to public Bible lectures. You can also run magazine ads such as the ones the Church has run in Reader's Digest. You can later try other kinds of Internet advertising such as banner advertising or Internet radio ads. Internet radio ads may be an interesting opportunity because you can zero in on a particular city and a particular kind of station (classical music for example), and when someone is interested as they listen to that station with their computer, unlike regular radio, they do not have to write down your address, but they can simply click on the small ad that appears on the screen while your radio message is playing. That can take them to your website and article. I don't think the cost is great.
I know starting up in a couple of days with a couple of hundred dollars is an extreme example. I do not fault this new Church for not having started preaching the gospel to the world that quickly. I only use this to illustrate a point. I am simply cautioning against getting caught up in the habit of putting this off because all preparations are not yet perfect. It should not take a year or longer to get started.
Preaching the gospel to the world was the FIRST thing Mr. Armstrong did after he quit his employment with Church of God Seventh Day. Not feeding the flock. Preaching the gospel was his first priority, and because it was his first priority, we have the truth we have today. And he didn't always wait till the money came in. He started preaching the gospel and trusted God to provide the money. He PUSHED.
Roderick Meredith went on radio within a few weeks after he started Sabbath services with what was Global Church of God, after Mr. Tkach "retired" him.
With nine ministers and wives and the membership that supports them, surely there must be someone who can write articles, someone who can edit and proofread them, someone who can help set up websites and pay-per-click advertising, at least to get started.
The last time I looked at this group's website, there was not much from Peter Nathan, only one short article. But he hit the bulls eye. He emphasizes recapturing the zeal and the motivation and the desire to preach the gospel to all the world that we had under Mr. Armstrong. He did not emphasize personal offenses, lack of "mutual submission", harsh leadership style in COGaic, or the trials of the ministers who have been fired or forced to quit.
I think that is the right approach. Emphasize the positive. Look to the job God has given the Church to prepare the world for Christ, and get working at it. Teach the brethren to go all out with zeal and set the example of going all out, not only to feed the flock, but to go out, preach to the public, make disciples of those God is calling and bring them into the Church and baptize them, and warn the English-speaking nations about the tribulation they are about to go through and what they need to do to escape.
The Church is to be built, not just with the members we already have, but by bringing new members from the public. And there is a danger in supporting ourselves and taking care of our own needs while saying, "now is not the time" to reach out to the world or to teach and baptize those in the world that God is calling.
"Thus speaks the Lord of hosts, saying: 'This people says, "The time has not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built" '. Then the word of the Lord came by Haggai the prophet, saying, 'Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, and this temple to lie in ruins?' Now therefore, thus says the Lord of hosts: 'Consider your ways! You have sown much, and bring in little; You eat, but do not have enough; You drink, but you are not filled with drink; You clothe yourselves, but no one is warm; And he who earns wages, earns wages to put into a bag with holes.' Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'Consider your ways! Go up to the mountains and bring wood and build the temple, that I may take pleasure in it and be glorified,' says the Lord" (Haggai 1:2-8). If mountains represent nations, and the Church is the temple, might this mean that God is telling us today who say, "the time has not come", that we should go out to the nations (mountains), bring in wood (prospective members), and build the temple (the Church of God)?
If the ministers who have left COGaic look at what has happened as "their trial" and they have to deal with it by "finding work" by earning a living by preaching to the membership in return for their tithes, I think they are missing the mark. But if they look at it as an opportunity to preach the gospel to the world as COGaic has failed to do and to build the Church of God with new members as God calls them, and if they look at what has happened as something God has arranged for a bigger purpose than just themselves, they may yet accomplish something important.
But if they do no more to preach the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to the public than COGaic has done, then what good is all this? And if they are not willing to start now, or start very soon, why should they be willing to start later?
Time will tell, but I have good hopes that these ministers will soon strive to preach the gospel to the world with zeal.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 4 - WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL? - A LESSON FROM THE HOLOCAUST
CHAPTER 5 - SHOULD THE CHURCH FEED THE FLOCK ONLY?
One of the issues that has come up is the issue of what some call "mutual submission", based on the following scripture: "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of God" (Ephesians 5:17-21). So we are to submit to one another.
Does this override authority because the one in authority must submit to those under his authority in whatever decisions they want to make? No it does not, else it would nullify other scriptures that teach authority, such as the very next verse: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:22). Husbands are NOT to submit to their wives in the same way that wives are to submit to their husbands. Why? Because wives are to submit to husbands, "as to the Lord". God and Christ have authority over us. They are not required to submit to us as we are required to submit to them. Also, the next two verses show that there is a difference in authority between the husband and the wife to make decisions. "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything" (Ephesians 5:23-24).
Then, what does it mean to submit to each other?
We are to submit to the needs and wants of each other as an expression of love. It is not a matter of authority. In cases where authority exists, it guides the wise and loving use of authority by those who have authority. One in authority, who loves those under his authority, will sometimes submit to the wishes and needs of those under his authority, because he loves them. Nevertheless, the power and right of those in authority to make binding decisions is unchanged.
It is really an application of the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39-40, Mark 12:31). It is also an application of the principle of doing to others what you would want them to do to you. "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12). So, if you express a wish or desire or a need you have to one of the brethren, wanting him to do something for you, do you want him to submit to your request? Then submit also to him when he asks something of you. "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away" (Matthew 5:42). This last verse is in the context of not resisting an evil person (verse 39), but if we should show kindness to those who are evil, how much more to our brethren in the Church? Of course, we cannot give what we do not have, and we have to take into consideration the needs of people who depend on us and many other factors, so we are not obligated to always say "yes". Jesus Himself did not always say "yes" to requests (Luke 20:1-8, Mark 10:35-40, Luke 12:13-14). He at first did not help the woman of Canaan when she asked Him to help her, but He ignored her, and only helped her after she was persistent (Matthew 15:21-28).
But our attitude should be to try to help others when they ask us.
Two brethren, neither of which has authority over the other, can each submit to the needs of the other.
And what about cases where one has authority over another? Should the one in authority submit to the needs and desires of the one under his authority? Sometimes, yes. It doesn't change the authority. If the one in authority makes a decision, the one under the authority should obey. But the one in authority can be motivated by love to submit to the desires, needs, and requests of the one he rules.
Parents understand this with their children. If you have children, do you not sometimes ask them what they want? Does a parent, wanting to please his child, ever say, "What would you like to do today, go to the Zoo or to a baseball game?", and then submit to the request of the child even if it is not the thing the parent enjoys the most? Do you ever submit to the request of your child?
Abraham set an example of submitting to Lot in giving Lot the choice of which way to go when they separated. "Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks and herds and tents. Now the land was not able to support them, that they might dwell together, for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together. And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock. The Canaanites and the Perizzites then dwelt in the land. So Abram said to Lot, 'Please let there be no strife between you and me, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me. If you take the left, then I will go to the right; or, if you go to the right, then I will go to the left.' And Lot lifted his eyes and saw all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere (before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah) like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as you go toward Zoar. Then Lot chose for himself all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east. And they separated from each other" (Genesis 13:5-11).
The angels who rescued Lot from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah submitted to him when he requested to be able to go to a little city nearby rather than the mountains, when he pleaded. "So it came to pass, when they had brought them outside, that he said, 'Escape for your life! Do not look behind you nor stay anywhere in the plain. Escape to the mountains, lest you be destroyed.' Then Lot said to them, 'Please, no, my lords! Indeed now, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have increased your mercy which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, lest some evil overtake me and I die. See now, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one; please let me escape there (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.' And he said to him, 'See, I have favored you concerning this thing also, in that I will not overthrow this city for which you have spoken. Hurry, escape there. For I cannot do anything until you arrive there.' Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar" (Genesis 19:17-22).
Does God not submit to us, in a sense, when we ask things of Him in prayer and He gives us what we request?
Here are examples in the Bible of God submitting to humans under His authority.
God honored Abraham's servant's request for a sign to know who Isaac's bride would be, in a sense, submitting to his request. "Then he said, 'O Lord God of my master Abraham, please give me success this day, and show kindness to my master Abraham. Behold, here I stand by the well of water, and the daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water. Now let it be that the young woman to whom I say, "Please let down your pitcher that I may drink," and she says, "Drink, and I will also give your camels a drink"-let her be the one You have appointed for Your servant Isaac. And by this I will know that You have shown kindness to my master.' And it happened, before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, came out with her pitcher on her shoulder. Now the young woman was very beautiful to behold, a virgin; no man had known her. And she went down to the well, filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her and said, 'Please let me drink a little water from your pitcher.' So she said, 'Drink, my lord.' Then she quickly let her pitcher down to her hand, and gave him a drink. And when she had finished giving him a drink, she said, 'I will draw water for your camels also, until they have finished drinking' " (Genesis 24:12-19).
Christ submitted to Jacob in blessing him after wrestling with him. This is interesting, because He could have broken free of Jacob's hold if He wanted to, but he let Jacob win the match in a sense. "Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob’s hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him. And He said, 'Let Me go, for the day breaks.' But he said, 'I will not let You go unless You bless me!' So He said to him, 'What is your name?' He said, 'Jacob.' And He said, 'Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.' Then Jacob asked, saying, 'Tell me Your name, I pray.' And He said, 'Why is it that you ask about My name?' And He blessed him there" (Genesis 32:25-29). This is a good example also because it shows that Christ submitted to Jacob in blessing him, but not in telling him His name. The one in authority decides when to submit to a request and when not to submit to a request.
In the account of the burning bush, God submitted to Moses, partly, when Moses protested that he was slow of speech. God did not submit completely, and told Moses he still had to do the job, but he gave him Aaron as a spokesman. "Then Moses said to the Lord, 'O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.' So the Lord said to him, 'Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say.' But he said, 'O my Lord, please send by the hand of whomever else You may send.' So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and He said: 'Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And look, he is also coming out to meet you. When he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. Now you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth. And I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach you what you shall do. So he shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God. And you shall take this rod in your hand, with which you shall do the signs.' " (Exodus 4:10-17).
There are other occasions when God submitted to Moses. In the matter of the golden calf, when God said He would destroy Israel, He submitted to Moses and relented when Moses pleaded for Israel (Exodus 32:7-14). God first said He would not go with Israel (Exodus 33:1-3), but then agreed to go with at Moses's appeal and to show Moses His glory, but He did not allow Him to see His face (Exodus 33:12-23). When Moses was so stressed he felt like he couldn't take it any more, God gave him seventy elders to help him bear his burden (Numbers 11:10-17).
Yet in one matter, God did NOT submit to Moses. "Then I pleaded with the Lord at that time, saying: 'O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand, for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do anything like Your works and Your mighty deeds? I pray, let me cross over and see the good land beyond the Jordan, those pleasant mountains, and Lebanon.' But the Lord was angry with me on your account, and would not listen to me. So the Lord said to me: 'Enough of that! Speak no more to Me of this matter' " (Deuteronomy 3:23-26). Yet, even here, God let Moses see the land with his eyes even though he could not go there (verse 27).
God submitted to Gideon's requests for a sign with the fleece, two signs in fact (Judges 6:36-40). He submitted to Hezekiah's tears and desire to live after telling him he would die (2 Kings 20:1-6).
Here is another example, where God told a prophet to do something, but the prophet had a conscience problem with doing what God told him! So God gave him an alternative. " 'And you shall eat it as barley cakes; and bake it using fuel of human waste in their sight.' Then the Lord said, 'So shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, where I will drive them.' So I said, 'Ah, Lord God! Indeed I have never defiled myself from my youth till now; I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has abominable flesh ever come into my mouth.' Then He said to me, 'See, I am giving you cow dung instead of human waste, and you shall prepare your bread over it' " (Ezekiel 4:12-15). God never said that human waste could not be used as fuel, but Ezekiel had conscience problem with it anyway, so God submitted to the needs of Ezekiel's tender conscience and let him use cow dung for fuel for the fire to cook his food. This is an example of God following the same principle He inspired Paul to write about in 1 Corinthians 8:9-13 and Romans 14:14-23.
I mentioned before that Jesus did not at first give the woman of Canaan her request. But after she persisted and answered wisely, He gave her what she requested, in a sense, submitting to her request after He had first refused (Matthew 15:28).
And Jesus submitted, in a sense, to all the Jews who came to Him for healing of diseases and casting out demons, giving them the healing they asked for.
So sometimes it is appropriate for one in authority to submit to the needs, desires, and requests of those under authority. But it is always the decision, to submit thus or not, of the one in authority. This is not something that can be demanded by those under authority.
That is important. Voluntary submission, motivated by love (which is what we are talking about here) is something to be given, not demanded. No one under the authority of a ruler has the right to demand that the ruler submit to his request.
Paul says, we are to be submitting to one another. He does NOT say we should be demanding submission from one another (Ephesians 5:21).
And a pattern of a lack of such submission from a leader towards his subordinates, of and by itself, is not be a good reason for leaving a Church of God organization, in my opinion.
Suppose you work for a Church of God leader who is not in the habit of listening to your views. You have suggestions for doing the work better, but he doesn't want to listen. Or you express a view about how the Church should be run, but he doesn't agree or change his mind. Is that, by itself, a reason to leave? I don't think so. God does not always answer our prayers, even when we plead, and he even told Moses to shut up about asking to enter the promised land.
But, you might say, a leader should get a multitude of counsel and should listen to good advice. That may be true, but if you joined with the leader in years past because you saw that God had chosen that man, based on his fruits, then he has been chosen by God, unless the fruits now show that he is not chosen by God, and I would not call a man's leadership style "fruits". Fruits are the end result of what is being accomplished, things like number of people in the world being warned, the gospel being preached, disciples being made and brought into the Church and baptized, powerful sermons that are helping members overcome their sins and become more like Christ - those are fruits. Not failure to listen to your good advice.
Now, if the good fruits are not there, that might be a reason to leave. If the gospel is not being preached powerfully to the world, if the Ezekiel warning is not being effectively delivered to Israel, if the flock is not being fed with powerful sermons giving meat in due season to help members to grow and become like Christ, then that might be a reason to leave. And if the leader does not listen to good advice, then that might be a contributing factor to the lack of good fruits. But if the fruits are good, even if he does not "submit" to your counsel and the counsel of others, then maybe your counsel isn't that valuable after all.
The concept and principle of "mutual submission" cannot override government and authority God has put into place.
Nor should mutual submission be the primary guiding theme and purpose and mission of the Church.
I hope the new group coming out of COGaic does not miss the mark on this.
Ministers may feel abused. That might be part of the reason they left. And maybe, in certain cases, such abuse may force them to leave. If the leader commands you to do something you cannot do because it would violate God's law, such as bearing false witness by teaching something you do not believe, and then fires you for obeying God more than man, you had no choice. You are out, and you could not have prevented it, not without sinning.
But be aware that talking about your personal trial in this case, or the faults of the person you worked for, is not necessarily going to inspire the brethren to go all out with zeal to support God's work. Members are not going to be stirred up with zeal and enthusiasm for God's work by ministers who emphasize the negative aspect of their prior association, feeling sorry for themselves, and saying, "Woe is me, for I was abused."
I also do not think brethren will be much stirred up by an inward approach, "We will take care of you better than before". What about the world? What about people God is yet calling who haven't yet heard the truth? What about the lost tribes of Israel who need a warning message about the tribulation to come before it is too late?
The Church of God has a great job to do, and brethren need to be stirred up, and many will be, by the responsibility to do that job. It is that common mission, to do God's work in the earth, that has the power to stir up zeal and enthusiasm. It is the understanding that we have to work together to accomplish something important that will stir up the brethren and even help them in their spiritual growth and overcoming. And that accomplishment is not just internal but extends outward, in an outgoing concern for others, outside of the Church. We have a job to do in the world to prepare for Christ's coming. That job is bigger and more important than just ourselves.
COGaic has not done that job very effectively.
This new group of ministers coming out of COGaic led by Peter Nathan, Brian Orchard, and Steve Andrews has a window of opportunity, to get off to the right start in a balanced way. But that window will not be open very long. They are already feeding the flock with weekly Sabbath services and sermons and Bible studies. They need to preach the gospel to the world, and they need to start soon.
When UCG started, they had every excuse for postponing preaching the gospel to the world. "We have to make sure we are ready, and we are not ready yet." But they were feeding the flock. They didn't think they weren't ready yet to give sermons on the Sabbath. Yet, preaching the gospel was something that required a long time to prepare, for some reason. I suppose they thought, we have to give sermons to the membership, or we won't get any tithes, but preaching the gospel can wait.
Should that be the priority, to collect tithes to support the ministry?
Mr. Hulme, after he started COGaic, has also not done a powerful work of preaching the gospel. I don't know about today, but in the past I have heard himself or some ministers in that group indicate that they were doing things behind the scenes to prepare for preaching the gospel, but they were not yet ready to go all out with it, and this was years after COGaic started. Again, excuses.
It doesn't take God very long to size up what your priorities are. You begin showing your fruits from day one. The brethren also see your fruits from day one.
Zimri reigned over Israel only seven days (1 Kings 16:10, 15), but that was long enough for God to judge that he did evil in the sight of the Lord in walking in way of Jeroboam (1 Kings 16:18-19).
How long does it take to start preaching the gospel to the world? How much money does it take? I mean, just to get started.
One or two days. One or two hundred dollars. Less time and probably less money than to hold a three-day conference.
With two hundred dollars or less, in one or two days, you can write a short article warning our people about the tribulation and what they need to do to repent and have a chance to escape. You can buy a domain and hosting with some service (there are many) using your bank debit or credit card, and you can upload your article. Then you can run $50 or $100 worth of pay-per-click ads with Google, Yahoo, or Bing on the word "prophecy" pointing to the article you wrote. That is just a start, but it is a start. It isn't that hard. At about 50 cents to one dollar per click, you can reach from 50 to 200 people who are searching for information about "prophecy" in Google or other search engines, and some of those may never have heard the truth before. Later, you can go to radio and TV, build up and expand your websites, add more articles, add a printed magazine and booklets, and once you have a subscription list invite magazine subscribers to public Bible lectures. You can also run magazine ads such as the ones the Church has run in Reader's Digest. You can later try other kinds of Internet advertising such as banner advertising or Internet radio ads. Internet radio ads may be an interesting opportunity because you can zero in on a particular city and a particular kind of station (classical music for example), and when someone is interested as they listen to that station with their computer, unlike regular radio, they do not have to write down your address, but they can simply click on the small ad that appears on the screen while your radio message is playing. That can take them to your website and article. I don't think the cost is great.
I know starting up in a couple of days with a couple of hundred dollars is an extreme example. I do not fault this new Church for not having started preaching the gospel to the world that quickly. I only use this to illustrate a point. I am simply cautioning against getting caught up in the habit of putting this off because all preparations are not yet perfect. It should not take a year or longer to get started.
Preaching the gospel to the world was the FIRST thing Mr. Armstrong did after he quit his employment with Church of God Seventh Day. Not feeding the flock. Preaching the gospel was his first priority, and because it was his first priority, we have the truth we have today. And he didn't always wait till the money came in. He started preaching the gospel and trusted God to provide the money. He PUSHED.
Roderick Meredith went on radio within a few weeks after he started Sabbath services with what was Global Church of God, after Mr. Tkach "retired" him.
With nine ministers and wives and the membership that supports them, surely there must be someone who can write articles, someone who can edit and proofread them, someone who can help set up websites and pay-per-click advertising, at least to get started.
The last time I looked at this group's website, there was not much from Peter Nathan, only one short article. But he hit the bulls eye. He emphasizes recapturing the zeal and the motivation and the desire to preach the gospel to all the world that we had under Mr. Armstrong. He did not emphasize personal offenses, lack of "mutual submission", harsh leadership style in COGaic, or the trials of the ministers who have been fired or forced to quit.
I think that is the right approach. Emphasize the positive. Look to the job God has given the Church to prepare the world for Christ, and get working at it. Teach the brethren to go all out with zeal and set the example of going all out, not only to feed the flock, but to go out, preach to the public, make disciples of those God is calling and bring them into the Church and baptize them, and warn the English-speaking nations about the tribulation they are about to go through and what they need to do to escape.
The Church is to be built, not just with the members we already have, but by bringing new members from the public. And there is a danger in supporting ourselves and taking care of our own needs while saying, "now is not the time" to reach out to the world or to teach and baptize those in the world that God is calling.
"Thus speaks the Lord of hosts, saying: 'This people says, "The time has not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built" '. Then the word of the Lord came by Haggai the prophet, saying, 'Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, and this temple to lie in ruins?' Now therefore, thus says the Lord of hosts: 'Consider your ways! You have sown much, and bring in little; You eat, but do not have enough; You drink, but you are not filled with drink; You clothe yourselves, but no one is warm; And he who earns wages, earns wages to put into a bag with holes.' Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'Consider your ways! Go up to the mountains and bring wood and build the temple, that I may take pleasure in it and be glorified,' says the Lord" (Haggai 1:2-8). If mountains represent nations, and the Church is the temple, might this mean that God is telling us today who say, "the time has not come", that we should go out to the nations (mountains), bring in wood (prospective members), and build the temple (the Church of God)?
If the ministers who have left COGaic look at what has happened as "their trial" and they have to deal with it by "finding work" by earning a living by preaching to the membership in return for their tithes, I think they are missing the mark. But if they look at it as an opportunity to preach the gospel to the world as COGaic has failed to do and to build the Church of God with new members as God calls them, and if they look at what has happened as something God has arranged for a bigger purpose than just themselves, they may yet accomplish something important.
But if they do no more to preach the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to the public than COGaic has done, then what good is all this? And if they are not willing to start now, or start very soon, why should they be willing to start later?
Time will tell, but I have good hopes that these ministers will soon strive to preach the gospel to the world with zeal.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 4 - WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL? - A LESSON FROM THE HOLOCAUST
CHAPTER 5 - SHOULD THE CHURCH FEED THE FLOCK ONLY?
Saturday, January 4, 2014
New Website of Ministers Leaving COGaic
As I have reported previously, a number of ministers or employees of COGaic including possibly Peter Nathan, Brian Orchard, Steven Andrews, and others have left or are leaving that organization.
As far as I know, they have not yet organized or incorporated as a new Church of God. As far as I know, they have not chosen a name of a new Church if they intend to organize one. I do not know if all those leaving intend to form a new organized fellowship or may yet join with an existing fellowship.
But they have a transitional website for communicating with the brethren.
The new website is called, "The Father's Call". Here is a link:
http://thefatherscall.org
The domain for this website was set up late last Thursday or early last Friday.
The website contains an audio message (sermon or Bible study) by Mr. Brian Orchard on the subject of government in the Church, a transcript of a message on government (in Word doc format) also by Mr. Orchard, an audio message by Mr. Steve Andrews on mutual submission, and three audio messages by Mr. Bob Rodzaj. It also contains a short article by Mr. Peter Nathan and a short article by Mr. Matt King. There are also pages for contacting the group to ask questions and a page for listening in to Sabbath services each week through the Internet, by telephone, or in person in Pasadena.
They have had a ministerial conference going in the last few days, and they have short reports about the conference. In these reports are short letters to Mr. Hulme and to the brethren. Apparently, Mr. David Hulme was invited but did not attend. Those listed as attending include: Steve Andrews, Ted Budge, Stephen Elliott, Bill Hutchison, Peter Nathan, Brian Orchard, Bob Rodzaj, Marshall Stiver, and Cliff Veal.
My impression of this website and this group-in-embryo (if I might call it that) is that they are at the very beginning of decision making about what they will do and are trying to study and learn God's will in this matter. If some of these men (or all of them) were fired and disfellowshipped rather than quit COGaic, then the initiative to leave COGaic at this time was not primarily theirs. If that is the case, it is understandable that they did not go out of COGaic fully prepared to know what they will do in detail. When someone quits an organization to start a new group, he usually has a plan all prepared for what he will do, but when people are fired or forced by circumstances to resign, such an advance plan may not exist and it takes longer to make decisions.
But their website, though simple and not large, seems to function well for providing messages to those who can benefit from them. I'm sure it will grow over time.
These people have many decisions and choices to make. Each person must make his own choice as an individual. These individuals have this in common - they are coming out of COGaic and have been less than completely satisfied with the leadership in COGaic. That sense of facing a crisis together draws them together. The test of whether they remain together will occur over time, and as time goes on, their differences in viewpoint will become more apparent to themselves. Till recently, some of those differences may have been submerged because they were all under the authority of Mr. David Hulme. Now, as they have hopes for the future and as each man expresses his views and hopes with his associates, those submerged differences will begin to surface.
This can be a good thing because it provides an opportunity for men to learn from each other.
Nevertheless, when it comes to following God's way of life, no man can make the decision to obey God and do his will for another man - each of us has to make his own choice. And we have different backgrounds, different viewpoints, and different levels of knowledge and understanding. Thus we can make different decisions. Men can make decisions collectively, but even then each man must decide whether to support the collective decision or to decide otherwise.
The decisions these men need to make, individually or collectively, include: Should we (or I) join with an existing group, and if so, which one? Should we form a new group? If we form a new group, how shall we organize and what will be our priorities, our doctrines, our policies? If we form a new organized fellowship, what will be its name and where will it be headquartered? What will be its governing documents? Who will hold what positions and offices? And if individuals are not able to agree, will they form more than one new group?
Some of these decisions may have been made, but many of these things will take a bit of time to work out in detail.
As far as I know, they have not yet organized or incorporated as a new Church of God. As far as I know, they have not chosen a name of a new Church if they intend to organize one. I do not know if all those leaving intend to form a new organized fellowship or may yet join with an existing fellowship.
But they have a transitional website for communicating with the brethren.
The new website is called, "The Father's Call". Here is a link:
http://thefatherscall.org
The domain for this website was set up late last Thursday or early last Friday.
The website contains an audio message (sermon or Bible study) by Mr. Brian Orchard on the subject of government in the Church, a transcript of a message on government (in Word doc format) also by Mr. Orchard, an audio message by Mr. Steve Andrews on mutual submission, and three audio messages by Mr. Bob Rodzaj. It also contains a short article by Mr. Peter Nathan and a short article by Mr. Matt King. There are also pages for contacting the group to ask questions and a page for listening in to Sabbath services each week through the Internet, by telephone, or in person in Pasadena.
They have had a ministerial conference going in the last few days, and they have short reports about the conference. In these reports are short letters to Mr. Hulme and to the brethren. Apparently, Mr. David Hulme was invited but did not attend. Those listed as attending include: Steve Andrews, Ted Budge, Stephen Elliott, Bill Hutchison, Peter Nathan, Brian Orchard, Bob Rodzaj, Marshall Stiver, and Cliff Veal.
My impression of this website and this group-in-embryo (if I might call it that) is that they are at the very beginning of decision making about what they will do and are trying to study and learn God's will in this matter. If some of these men (or all of them) were fired and disfellowshipped rather than quit COGaic, then the initiative to leave COGaic at this time was not primarily theirs. If that is the case, it is understandable that they did not go out of COGaic fully prepared to know what they will do in detail. When someone quits an organization to start a new group, he usually has a plan all prepared for what he will do, but when people are fired or forced by circumstances to resign, such an advance plan may not exist and it takes longer to make decisions.
But their website, though simple and not large, seems to function well for providing messages to those who can benefit from them. I'm sure it will grow over time.
These people have many decisions and choices to make. Each person must make his own choice as an individual. These individuals have this in common - they are coming out of COGaic and have been less than completely satisfied with the leadership in COGaic. That sense of facing a crisis together draws them together. The test of whether they remain together will occur over time, and as time goes on, their differences in viewpoint will become more apparent to themselves. Till recently, some of those differences may have been submerged because they were all under the authority of Mr. David Hulme. Now, as they have hopes for the future and as each man expresses his views and hopes with his associates, those submerged differences will begin to surface.
This can be a good thing because it provides an opportunity for men to learn from each other.
Nevertheless, when it comes to following God's way of life, no man can make the decision to obey God and do his will for another man - each of us has to make his own choice. And we have different backgrounds, different viewpoints, and different levels of knowledge and understanding. Thus we can make different decisions. Men can make decisions collectively, but even then each man must decide whether to support the collective decision or to decide otherwise.
The decisions these men need to make, individually or collectively, include: Should we (or I) join with an existing group, and if so, which one? Should we form a new group? If we form a new group, how shall we organize and what will be our priorities, our doctrines, our policies? If we form a new organized fellowship, what will be its name and where will it be headquartered? What will be its governing documents? Who will hold what positions and offices? And if individuals are not able to agree, will they form more than one new group?
Some of these decisions may have been made, but many of these things will take a bit of time to work out in detail.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Does Your Pastor Warn Against Making an Idol out of Him?
Is it possible for a Church of God member to sometimes make an idol out of his pastor or the top leader of the Church of God fellowship or organization he attends? Is it possible? By idol, I mean putting the leader's or pastor's teaching above what God teaches in the Bible. I mean being more loyal to a human leader and the organization he leads than to God.
Is that possible? Could that happen in any of the fellowships and organizations that call themselves "Church of God"?
Does your pastor think it is possible, that some members, somewhere, make an idol out of their human leader, following the human leader that they can see and hear more than following the invisible God? Probably, most pastors know this - they can see it happening in some other organizations, not their own.
Men in ancient times, and some today, often wanted a carved or molded image to look to in order to picture the god they worshipped. Carnal man finds it difficult to worship the true, invisible God, "in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). Carnal man craves something he can see and perceive with his physical senses, such as a physical idol. This is prohibited by the second commandment (Exodus 20:4-6). That is human nature.
But we in the Church of God also have human nature. We have God's Holy Spirit, but we still have carnal human nature. Paul admitted he had carnal human nature. "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin" (Romans 7:14). We have to fight our human nature, and God's Spirit within us helps us do that. "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish" (Galatians 5:17).
Paul sometimes called this carnal human nature "sin that dwells in me". "For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me" (Romans 7:15-20).
"I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:21-25).
We are not immune to being tempted to violate any of God's commandments. Jesus Christ was tempted on all points just as we are tempted, but without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
Therefore, a temptation to violate any one of the points of God's law, any of the Ten Commandments, can come upon some members somewhere in the Church of God.
Do you think that no Church of God members are tempted to commit adultery, either in the spirit or the letter (seventh commandment)? No, some are tempted to commit adultery. Do you think no Church of God members are tempted to dishonor their parents (fifth commandment)? Some are tempted to dishonor their parents. Do you think no Church of God member is tempted to commit murder, either in the spirit or the letter (sixth commandment)? No, some are tempted on that point.
Do you think no Church of God members are tempted to worship a physical idol, to use a physical representation as an "aid" to worshipping the invisible God (second commandment)? No, some are tempted on that point.
But taking that last example, is using a "holy picture" or a carved or molded image to picture God the only way of violating the second commandment and the only temptation for Church of God members to violate that point of God's law? Perhaps some Church of God members who were Catholic or came out of a denomination that used images may be tempted to go back to using them. But I think there is a different temptation that is more common in the Church.
We see it at work in some fellowships and organizations. Some Church of God members show more loyalty to their COG leaders and pastors than to God and the Bible. They listen to their teachers tell them things that are so clearly wrong and contrary to God's word, yet they accept those teachings as if they are from God Himself. They take the worst kind of spiritual abuse from their leaders, even allowing their leaders to lead them into sin, because they believe their physical leaders whom they can see, hear, and touch more than they believe the invisible God and His word, the Bible.
Why is that? What is happening here?
I think that some Church of God members are making physical idols out of their leaders and ministers just as the ancients made carved and molded images to represent God. These members let their leaders and teachers serve the same purpose, helping them see what God is like, helping them "picture" God, not in the sense of physical form and shape of the face and body, but in the form of teaching. Studying the Bible, believing what God says, crying out for understanding, is too much work for them. They want an easier way. They want their leader or minister to interpret the Bible for them.
But that is not worshipping God "in spirit and truth".
You can see the evidence of this in the errors, not small errors, but serious, character and life-damaging errors, members in some organizations swallow, support, believe, and practice because their leaders tell them to, even when it is very plain in the Bible that those teachings are wrong.
Perhaps those members are not reading their Bibles. Maybe reading their Church's literature, books, booklets, and articles, and listening to sermons has become a substitute for personal, private Bible study. Maybe they think, I don't have to read the Bible cover-to-cover or spend much time reading the Bible because I am reading my Church's literature and listening to their sermons which quote the Bible and are based on the Bible. They may think, if God wants me to know something, He will lead the minister to tell me. Or maybe they read their Bibles, but interpret everything they read to fit the teachings of their ministers.
I will state here that I believe it is common sense, based on the principles of God's word, that we should spend more time with personal Bible reading and studying than with reading any Church of God literature or listening to sermons. Listen to sermons and read COG literature as much as you want, but read the Bible more. If you spend an hour a day reading your Church's literature, read an hour and a half a day of the Bible, for example. That is putting God first.
But it is not the extremist, wayward Church of God fellowships I am concerned with. I am concerned with the members of the "better" Church of God organizations, the ones that seem to be more sound and balanced than most in doctrine, in policy, in doing God's work of preaching the gospel and feeding the flock.
Maybe the leaders and pastors of those Church of God fellowships do not teach their members to make idols out of them and do not want their members to make idols out of them. But nevertheless, can those members be tempted to make idols out of their leaders and ministers, even in the best Church of God fellowships?
Since no Church of God fellowship has a monopoly on human nature, and since Christ was tempted in all points as we are (implying that we also collectively are tempted on all points, including the second commandment against physical images and idols - Hebrews 4:15), the temptation to make an idol out of our minister or leader can be a temptation suffered by some members in ANY Church of God fellowship. That does not mean the leaders and ministers are at fault in encouraging it, just that members have human nature to fight.
A woman is not necessarily at fault because some man is tempted to lust after her. She may be very modest in dress, in appearance, in behavior, but a man may still be tempted to lust after her. The temptation comes from Satan and our human nature, not necessarily the woman. So it may not be her fault.
Likewise, it may not be the fault of a pastor or Church of God leader that some members may be tempted to make an idol out of him or may give in to the temptation and make an idol out of him.
But I think wise pastors and leaders should recognize that the danger exists and actively teach their members to avoid that sin.
To avoid it, they must recognize it. They most know the signs. And their pastors, leaders, and teachers should actively teach members how to recognize the signs that they are making an idol out of their pastor or top leader specifically or the ministry in general.
It is not enough to keep silent about this. If you are a pastor or leader in a faithful Church of God fellowship, think about how members of some extreme Church of God organizations make an idol out of their leader, and ask, could this way of thinking happen here? Could some members be making an idol out of me and I don't know it? Could they be substituting loyalty towards me for loyalty towards God, and maybe they don't realize what they are doing? If I told them to sin, would they obey, putting me in place of God, somehow justifying it by saying, "God must be leading him to tell me this"? If I told them something contrary to the Bible, would they believe me more than the Bible, letting me twist and interpret the Bible for them?
How do you know? How do you identify the problem? How do you teach against it?
This is something worth studying and thinking about. If this problem exists, it may not be easy to spot. Anyone who makes an idol out of his pastor may seem to that pastor to be the most dedicated, hardest-working, most loyal, most faithful, most cooperative, even the wisest member in the congregation. But what that pastor may miss is that all the cooperation with the pastor may be based on personal loyalty to the man, not to God. This can happen. It happens in some organizations all the time. It can happen in ANY organization. It is a danger that is hard to spot.
Even in matters of doctrine, such a member may seem very wise and knowledgable to the pastor or leader, because that member agrees with him.
Consider a lesson from an account in the book of Acts. "Now Herod had been very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; but they came to him with one accord, and having made Blastus the king’s personal aide their friend, they asked for peace, because their country was supplied with food by the king’s country. So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. And the people kept shouting, 'The voice of a god and not of a man!' Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died" (Acts 12:20-23).
Did Herod, say, "I am a god, not a man"? No, there is no record of that. But the people kept saying that, and Herod's sin was that he did not stop them.
Likewise, it is not enough for a minister to avoid telling members, "Be more loyal to me than to God, believe my interpretation of the Bible, believe me more than God, do whatever I tell you to do even if you think it contradicts God's law." You may not say that any more than Herod told the people he was a god. But you are guilty if you let any of your members practice that way of thinking. You have to exercise due diligence, out of love for your members, to prevent that misplaced loyalty. For if that is a temptation for some of your members, to take the easy way of following a man they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, more than they believe and follow the invisible God, to substitute your sermons and your articles for Bible study, and if they succumb to that temptation, then God will know it, and those members will be in trouble with God. If you love them, you will want to prevent that.
You have an obligation to warn them about that, and to teach any members who may have made an idol out of you to be more loyal to God and the Bible than to you and your writings and speaking.
Pastors are to warn both the righteous in their congregations, that they not turn from their righteousness, and the wicked, that the wicked should repent of his wickedness, or the blood of the members will be on the pastor's head. "When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18). "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:20).
Also, notice this rebuke from God of those shepherds who do not bind up and heal their sheep: "The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them" (Ezekiel 34:4). If the sheep in your congregation have spiritual problems, you have an obligation to help them, even if they are not a problem for you and others - if they are a problem for themselves, you have to try to help them. And you must actively seek out those who are spiritually sick, and not wait for them to come to you, because they may not know they are sick.
The Bible teaches limitations on the authority of the ministry, and ministers have an obligation to teach those limitations. Silence is not enough. Ministers do not, for example, have dominion over the faith of their members. "Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand" (2 Corinthians 1:24). The faith of the members should be towards God and the Bible, not the Church and its literature. This is something pastors should actively teach.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
The Source of Our Beliefs, Chapter 6
Faith, Chapter 6
God Speaks Through the Bible, Chapter 6
Does the Bible Teach Us to Follow Tradition?, Chapter 6
Should Each Member Promote His Own Opinion?, Chapter 6
Did Mr. Armstrong Point to Himself as the Authority for Belief?, Chapter 6
A Possible Problem in the Church, Chapter 6
Proving the Truth, Chapter 6
Can We Make an Idol out of a Man or Church?, Chapter 6
Organization of the Church and Limitations on the Authority of the Ministry, Chapter 8
Chapter 9 - Repentance
Is that possible? Could that happen in any of the fellowships and organizations that call themselves "Church of God"?
Does your pastor think it is possible, that some members, somewhere, make an idol out of their human leader, following the human leader that they can see and hear more than following the invisible God? Probably, most pastors know this - they can see it happening in some other organizations, not their own.
Men in ancient times, and some today, often wanted a carved or molded image to look to in order to picture the god they worshipped. Carnal man finds it difficult to worship the true, invisible God, "in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). Carnal man craves something he can see and perceive with his physical senses, such as a physical idol. This is prohibited by the second commandment (Exodus 20:4-6). That is human nature.
But we in the Church of God also have human nature. We have God's Holy Spirit, but we still have carnal human nature. Paul admitted he had carnal human nature. "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin" (Romans 7:14). We have to fight our human nature, and God's Spirit within us helps us do that. "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish" (Galatians 5:17).
Paul sometimes called this carnal human nature "sin that dwells in me". "For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me" (Romans 7:15-20).
"I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:21-25).
We are not immune to being tempted to violate any of God's commandments. Jesus Christ was tempted on all points just as we are tempted, but without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
Therefore, a temptation to violate any one of the points of God's law, any of the Ten Commandments, can come upon some members somewhere in the Church of God.
Do you think that no Church of God members are tempted to commit adultery, either in the spirit or the letter (seventh commandment)? No, some are tempted to commit adultery. Do you think no Church of God members are tempted to dishonor their parents (fifth commandment)? Some are tempted to dishonor their parents. Do you think no Church of God member is tempted to commit murder, either in the spirit or the letter (sixth commandment)? No, some are tempted on that point.
Do you think no Church of God members are tempted to worship a physical idol, to use a physical representation as an "aid" to worshipping the invisible God (second commandment)? No, some are tempted on that point.
But taking that last example, is using a "holy picture" or a carved or molded image to picture God the only way of violating the second commandment and the only temptation for Church of God members to violate that point of God's law? Perhaps some Church of God members who were Catholic or came out of a denomination that used images may be tempted to go back to using them. But I think there is a different temptation that is more common in the Church.
We see it at work in some fellowships and organizations. Some Church of God members show more loyalty to their COG leaders and pastors than to God and the Bible. They listen to their teachers tell them things that are so clearly wrong and contrary to God's word, yet they accept those teachings as if they are from God Himself. They take the worst kind of spiritual abuse from their leaders, even allowing their leaders to lead them into sin, because they believe their physical leaders whom they can see, hear, and touch more than they believe the invisible God and His word, the Bible.
Why is that? What is happening here?
I think that some Church of God members are making physical idols out of their leaders and ministers just as the ancients made carved and molded images to represent God. These members let their leaders and teachers serve the same purpose, helping them see what God is like, helping them "picture" God, not in the sense of physical form and shape of the face and body, but in the form of teaching. Studying the Bible, believing what God says, crying out for understanding, is too much work for them. They want an easier way. They want their leader or minister to interpret the Bible for them.
But that is not worshipping God "in spirit and truth".
You can see the evidence of this in the errors, not small errors, but serious, character and life-damaging errors, members in some organizations swallow, support, believe, and practice because their leaders tell them to, even when it is very plain in the Bible that those teachings are wrong.
Perhaps those members are not reading their Bibles. Maybe reading their Church's literature, books, booklets, and articles, and listening to sermons has become a substitute for personal, private Bible study. Maybe they think, I don't have to read the Bible cover-to-cover or spend much time reading the Bible because I am reading my Church's literature and listening to their sermons which quote the Bible and are based on the Bible. They may think, if God wants me to know something, He will lead the minister to tell me. Or maybe they read their Bibles, but interpret everything they read to fit the teachings of their ministers.
I will state here that I believe it is common sense, based on the principles of God's word, that we should spend more time with personal Bible reading and studying than with reading any Church of God literature or listening to sermons. Listen to sermons and read COG literature as much as you want, but read the Bible more. If you spend an hour a day reading your Church's literature, read an hour and a half a day of the Bible, for example. That is putting God first.
But it is not the extremist, wayward Church of God fellowships I am concerned with. I am concerned with the members of the "better" Church of God organizations, the ones that seem to be more sound and balanced than most in doctrine, in policy, in doing God's work of preaching the gospel and feeding the flock.
Maybe the leaders and pastors of those Church of God fellowships do not teach their members to make idols out of them and do not want their members to make idols out of them. But nevertheless, can those members be tempted to make idols out of their leaders and ministers, even in the best Church of God fellowships?
Since no Church of God fellowship has a monopoly on human nature, and since Christ was tempted in all points as we are (implying that we also collectively are tempted on all points, including the second commandment against physical images and idols - Hebrews 4:15), the temptation to make an idol out of our minister or leader can be a temptation suffered by some members in ANY Church of God fellowship. That does not mean the leaders and ministers are at fault in encouraging it, just that members have human nature to fight.
A woman is not necessarily at fault because some man is tempted to lust after her. She may be very modest in dress, in appearance, in behavior, but a man may still be tempted to lust after her. The temptation comes from Satan and our human nature, not necessarily the woman. So it may not be her fault.
Likewise, it may not be the fault of a pastor or Church of God leader that some members may be tempted to make an idol out of him or may give in to the temptation and make an idol out of him.
But I think wise pastors and leaders should recognize that the danger exists and actively teach their members to avoid that sin.
To avoid it, they must recognize it. They most know the signs. And their pastors, leaders, and teachers should actively teach members how to recognize the signs that they are making an idol out of their pastor or top leader specifically or the ministry in general.
It is not enough to keep silent about this. If you are a pastor or leader in a faithful Church of God fellowship, think about how members of some extreme Church of God organizations make an idol out of their leader, and ask, could this way of thinking happen here? Could some members be making an idol out of me and I don't know it? Could they be substituting loyalty towards me for loyalty towards God, and maybe they don't realize what they are doing? If I told them to sin, would they obey, putting me in place of God, somehow justifying it by saying, "God must be leading him to tell me this"? If I told them something contrary to the Bible, would they believe me more than the Bible, letting me twist and interpret the Bible for them?
How do you know? How do you identify the problem? How do you teach against it?
This is something worth studying and thinking about. If this problem exists, it may not be easy to spot. Anyone who makes an idol out of his pastor may seem to that pastor to be the most dedicated, hardest-working, most loyal, most faithful, most cooperative, even the wisest member in the congregation. But what that pastor may miss is that all the cooperation with the pastor may be based on personal loyalty to the man, not to God. This can happen. It happens in some organizations all the time. It can happen in ANY organization. It is a danger that is hard to spot.
Even in matters of doctrine, such a member may seem very wise and knowledgable to the pastor or leader, because that member agrees with him.
Consider a lesson from an account in the book of Acts. "Now Herod had been very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; but they came to him with one accord, and having made Blastus the king’s personal aide their friend, they asked for peace, because their country was supplied with food by the king’s country. So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. And the people kept shouting, 'The voice of a god and not of a man!' Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died" (Acts 12:20-23).
Did Herod, say, "I am a god, not a man"? No, there is no record of that. But the people kept saying that, and Herod's sin was that he did not stop them.
Likewise, it is not enough for a minister to avoid telling members, "Be more loyal to me than to God, believe my interpretation of the Bible, believe me more than God, do whatever I tell you to do even if you think it contradicts God's law." You may not say that any more than Herod told the people he was a god. But you are guilty if you let any of your members practice that way of thinking. You have to exercise due diligence, out of love for your members, to prevent that misplaced loyalty. For if that is a temptation for some of your members, to take the easy way of following a man they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, more than they believe and follow the invisible God, to substitute your sermons and your articles for Bible study, and if they succumb to that temptation, then God will know it, and those members will be in trouble with God. If you love them, you will want to prevent that.
You have an obligation to warn them about that, and to teach any members who may have made an idol out of you to be more loyal to God and the Bible than to you and your writings and speaking.
Pastors are to warn both the righteous in their congregations, that they not turn from their righteousness, and the wicked, that the wicked should repent of his wickedness, or the blood of the members will be on the pastor's head. "When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18). "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:20).
Also, notice this rebuke from God of those shepherds who do not bind up and heal their sheep: "The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them" (Ezekiel 34:4). If the sheep in your congregation have spiritual problems, you have an obligation to help them, even if they are not a problem for you and others - if they are a problem for themselves, you have to try to help them. And you must actively seek out those who are spiritually sick, and not wait for them to come to you, because they may not know they are sick.
The Bible teaches limitations on the authority of the ministry, and ministers have an obligation to teach those limitations. Silence is not enough. Ministers do not, for example, have dominion over the faith of their members. "Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand" (2 Corinthians 1:24). The faith of the members should be towards God and the Bible, not the Church and its literature. This is something pastors should actively teach.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
The Source of Our Beliefs, Chapter 6
Faith, Chapter 6
God Speaks Through the Bible, Chapter 6
Does the Bible Teach Us to Follow Tradition?, Chapter 6
Should Each Member Promote His Own Opinion?, Chapter 6
Did Mr. Armstrong Point to Himself as the Authority for Belief?, Chapter 6
A Possible Problem in the Church, Chapter 6
Proving the Truth, Chapter 6
Can We Make an Idol out of a Man or Church?, Chapter 6
Organization of the Church and Limitations on the Authority of the Ministry, Chapter 8
Chapter 9 - Repentance
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Peter Nathan and Other Ministers Leaving Church of God, an International Community?
There have been reports on the Internet about a number of ministers or employees leaving (resigning or being fired) COGaic (Church of God, an International Community). Information in these reports is scanty, and I have not yet seen definite, reliable confirmation of this. COGaic is led by Mr. David Hulme. Mr. Hulme helped organize United Church of God (UCG) in 1995 with ministers and members leaving Worldwide Church of God because of the doctrinal changes made in that church by Mr. Joseph Tkach. In 1998, Mr. Hulme left UCG to form COGaic.
I am waiting further confirmation, but it seems that a number of ministers and employees have left or are leaving COGaic, possibly including Peter Nathan, Brian Orchard, Steven Andrews, Bob Rodzaj, and Cliff Veal. There may be others as well who have left or will leave.
I have seen a new website with a couple of posts by Mr. Nathan. As of this writing, the website is under construction and not ready for viewing, so I will not name it or give a link to it yet. The name of the site is not necessarily the name of a new Church being formed, but may simply be the name of a website and blog that may be used to provide information if Mr. Nathan and others want to publish. It may not even be a permanent site. But I plan to post further information about this or other websites published by ministers leaving COGaic as those sites develop and seem ready for publication or are announced by others.
What are the issues behind the separation?
Apparently, Mr. Nathan and possibly other ministers are concerned with COGaic's lack of zeal for preaching the gospel, a a too-accommodating stance towards pleasing the world in COGaic's public relations and image, and weakness in teaching the proven truth that the United States and other English-speaking nations are part of the lost ten tribes of Israel.
If those are the reasons, they seem like good ones to me.
I do not know all the background information about these above named men. But some of the names I recognize. Peter Nathan and Brian Orchard are well known names in COGaic, important ministers, not just local elders and pastors. Years ago I read that Mr. Nathan helped Mr. Hulme organize COGaic when they came out of UCG. These ministers, most or all of them, came into COGaic of their own free choice, and they can leave COGaic of their own free choice. They, with Mr. Hulme, came out Worldwide, then came out of UCG when they felt that those organizations were no longer serving God faithfully and it was not God's will that they remain. Likewise, they can now come out of COGaic for the same reasons. In principle, they are not doing anything different than Mr. Hulme has done himself twice in leaving an organization to form a new group.
Sometimes, to be faithful to God, ministers and members of God's Church have to leave an organization. They have to go where Christ leads, as best they understand His will. Sometimes organizations and their leaders change, and sometimes, what was not apparent when a leader starts an organization, becomes apparent over time as the fruits of the leader become better known (Matthew 7:16-20). Observing fruits takes time (Luke 13:6-9). God chose Saul as king over Israel, gave him time to show his fruits, then rejected him in the end because he did not bear good fruits. Likewise, ministers may join with a leader, then later leave when the positive fruits do not appear.
Zeal for preaching the gospel to the world as a witness and the Ezekiel warning to Israel is vitally important for the Church of God. The identity of Israel, the knowledge that the English-speaking nations of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and other nations are part of the lost ten tribes of Israel, is also vitally important for several reasons.
For one thing, the fulfilled prophecy regarding the tribes of Israel is a vital proof that God has inspired the Bible. How important is that?
We can know of God's existence from creation, even apart from the Bible. The design of the universe and the existence of our conscious minds are proof of God's existence. The universe shows that design choices have been made, in the number of dimensions of space (three), the number of fundamental forces and their characteristics (four, as far as we know), the fundamental particles, and all the laws of physics. This required that a great Designer made those choices, and those choices have been made to allow man to exist. Science cannot explain how the universe came to be, and science is totally clueless when it comes to explaining the existence of human consciousness, so clueless that science finds it difficult even to discuss it intelligently.
But none of that proves that the Bible is true, only that a Creator exists. Without the Bible, we would not know God's plan and purpose, we would not know about Jesus Christ, we would not know the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and we would not know what we need to do to be saved.
We can know that the Bible exists, but without proof, how can we know it is God speaking?
Fulfilled prophecy, including the prophecies about the United States and British Commonwealth, is that proof.
The truth about the identity of Israel is also important for doing God's work of delivering the Ezekiel warning to Israel, because it is Israel that will go through the tribulation and needs the warning. "Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it" (Jeremiah 30:7). "Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn....The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; Let my name be named upon them..." (Genesis 48:14-16).
That warning must be delivered BEFORE the tribulation begins and the two witnesses begin their special work. Why? The two witnesses do their special work at the beginning of the tribulation, but once the tribulation begins, it is too late for Israel to escape the tribulation by repenting. It doesn't do much good to warn someone of a disaster after the disaster has happened. That could hardly be called a "warning".
Our nations need to be warned now, while there is time for individuals to heed the warning and escape the punishment. That is the purpose of a warning, to allow those who are willing to heed it to escape.
But, you might say, no one can heed the warning unless they are called as firstfruits to salvation in this age, so the vast majority will not heed. And God knows whom He is calling, and He can make sure those people come into contact with the Church of God and its teaching even if the Church only does a small work of warning the nations. So even if we reach only 1% of the people, that is enough because God will make sure those whom He is calling will be among the 1% who hear the message. The other 99% can't repent anyway, so for the Church to try to warn everyone is not necessary.
That is wrong for several reasons.
Most of the first generation of Israel in the millennium is alive today. It is important to warn them because they need to be prepared for repentance during the tribulation and conversion at the beginning of the millennium. Giving them a warning message now prepares them for that repentance.
Why?
They need to accept responsibility for their decision to ignore the warning. They need to be warned so they know that God was fair to warn them while there was time to heed and escape. They cannot go into the tribulation thinking they had no chance to heed a warning because they never received a warning. They cannot go into the tribulation kidding themselves, thinking, "If only someone warned me, I would have listened, but God never warned me I was doing anything wrong. That is not fair - I never had a chance. No one told me it was wrong to keep Christmas and Easter and Sunday. No one told me I should be keeping the annual holy days. It's not my fault, for if I heard a warning, I surely would have heeded it." Probably, they would not have heeded the warning, but if they don't hear it, they will imagine, "sure I would have heeded it".
If they go into the tribulation thinking God was not fair to warn them, they will tend to blame God, and that will make their repentance more difficult. It will also make our job of working with them in the millennium more difficult.
Our lack of zeal for the Ezekiel warning, if the message doesn't go out to all Israel now, can be a stumbling block for Israel's repentance during the tribulation. They will tend to blame God instead of accepting their own responsibility for not heeding our warning.
I cover all of this in more depth in chapter four of my book, Preaching the Gospel. In that chapter, I quote from a number of books about the Holocaust to show that many Jews were not brought closer to God by the suffering they endured, but actually lost faith in God because they thought God was not fair. Chapters three and five also talk about the importance of preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel. In fact, this theme, the importance of preaching the gospel and Ezekiel warning to the public, is the main reason I started that book and later led to starting this blog. Links to that book and those chapters are at the bottom of this post.
Also, does a person have to be called to salvation in this life to escape God's prophesied punishment by heeding God's warning? Not necessarily. The people of Nineveh were not called to salvation as part of the firstfruits. Yet they repented at the preaching of Jonah (Jonah 3:1-10, Luke 11:32). What kind of repentance was this? Was it the kind of repentance required for conversion (Acts 2:38-29)? Was it that deep? Probably not. Probably it was simply fear of punishment and desire to escape the punishment that motivated them to change their behavior. Nevertheless, they changed their evil ways and tried to heed the message as best they could, and God accepted that and spared them. So, is it possible that an uncalled person who hears our message may, without the depth of repentance needed for conversion in this life, at least try as best he is humanly able to heed the warning and change his ways to escape the punishment? I know of no scripture that rules that out.
And if some few, though not called to salvation yet, try to respond to the message by changing their ways as best they can, as the Ninevites did, even if they are never converted before Christ returns, might not God spare them at least from the worst of the tribulation?
Not everyone in the tribulation will suffer equally. Not all the Jews in Germany and German-occupied Europe during World War II suffered equally - some had it worse than others, if the Holocaust can be an example of what the tribulation might be like. And some survived while others did not.
Most who go through the tribulation will die in it. But some will survive and be the first generation of Israel in the millennium, and we will have to work with them. Our job will be harder then if we have to explain why we were not zealous to warn them now. They will remember if we warned them or not.
And God has the power to control who lives and who dies, who suffers more and who suffers less, depending on each person's attitude and response to our message. There is a prophecy that God will purge the rebels from among Israel. " 'As I live,' says the Lord God, 'surely with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you. I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out....I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Lord' " (Ezekiel 20:34-38). Our message can be an important part of God's test to see who is rebellious and who is not, who is to be purged and die during the tribulation, and who is permitted to live into the millennium and enjoy the blessings of living under Christ's government. God can see how even uncalled people respond to our message, most laughing or scorning the message but a few respecting and trying to respond to it, to decide who to purge and who to let live, who will be most teachable in the millennium and who will not.
I have watched COGaic a bit over the years. I have heard some of their sermons, visited their services, attended the Feast of Tabernacles with them, and read some of their writings. I have noticed that they do not do a powerful work of preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to Israel.
I have noticed something else, and I have no idea whether this also is a reason why some ministers are leaving.
It seems to me that Mr. Hulme has taught a wrong "identity" to the members of COGaic. It seems to me he has taught members to identify with that organization more than with the whole Church of God. I have gotten the sense Mr. Hulme has taught members or allowed some COGaic ministers to teach members that they are causing division or having a wrong attitude if they even think that God may be working in other Church of God fellowships in addition to COGaic. I have heard that members are discouraged or forbidden to visit other Church of God fellowships or to date or marry members of other Church of God fellowships. I have heard or read that COGaic ministers are forbidden to perform marriage ceremonies between COGaic members and members of other Church of God fellowships.
I don't say that this is only a characteristic of COGaic - there are other Church of God organizations that can have this problem. But I have not attended those other organizations in person as I have COGaic, so I have less firsthand knowledge about them.
But that doctrine, the teaching of the idea that a particular fellowship is the WHOLE Church of God, but without proof that this is true, or the emphasis on identification with that organization more than with the whole Church of God, which I think of as "identity heresy", is wrong.
Certainly, there is a difference between an organization that is faithfully doing God's work and others that are not. Certainly God can work more effectively through some men and leaders than through others. Certainly some men submit to Christ more than others. There is nothing wrong with a leader of a COG fellowship warning members about the dangers of fellowshipping with groups that compromise with God's law and way of life. Members certainly should seek out and attend with and support an organization that is more faithful rather than less faithful. Where we attend and who we support are important.
But members of God's Church are fellow members with all those having God's Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-11). We are ONE body, not many (Romans 12:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27). That is basic. We are scattered, and that is unfortunate, but all converted Christians are members of one Church of God in God's sight, and our identity is with that body and with Christ and with the Father, not with one organization among many organizations in the scattered state of the Church today. Scripture proves this.
Moreover, God through Paul gives instructions about whom we can marry. We are to marry "in the Lord", not "within an organization" (1 Corinthians 7:39). Making membership in an organization a qualification for a mate, in this time when the Church is scattered and most organizations are small, puts an unnecessary burden on singles. Christ had harsh words for religious leaders who bind heavy burdens on men's shoulders which they themselves are not willing to bear (Matthew 23:4). COGaic is not like Ambassador College where you had a high concentration of eligible single men and women available for marriage, which is where most long time ministers found their wives. COGaic has an above average concentration of the elderly, so the percentage of young single men and women is small even in comparison to many other Church of God fellowships.
A Church of God leader should not teach his members to primarily identify with himself and with the organization he leads. Members should identify with God the Father, Jesus Christ, and with converted Church of God members having God's Holy Spirit, which members are our brothers and sisters in Christ, even if they are attending other organizations.
Let Jesus Christ be the example. When he was on earth during his ministry, did He exclude those who were not with His "group", His organization, His apostles and disciples who were "with Him"? You might think, yes, for example, He excluded the Pharisees.
Yes, He did exclude the Pharisees because of their wrong doctrine, even though He acknowledged that they had some authority as ones who sit in Moses's seat (Matthew 23:1-3). But He did not exclude everyone who was not with His "organization" under his personal supervision. Rather, those who did the will of His Father, even if not under His personal supervision and not with His disciples, He accepted and said they were on "His side".
Consider this account: "Now John answered Him, saying, 'Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side' " (Mark 9:38-40).
Is not God and Christ trying to show us something from this account? Is not Christ teaching us something by His example? Why else would it be included in the Bible, except that God is showing us something?
There has been much talk about "one man rule" and the statement "God only works through one man at a time". But as I have pointed out in other posts in this blog, these can be two different things. "One man rule" can often be used to describe hierarchical government. It does not necessarily mean that God is only working through one man at a time. Imagine a business corporation. You have a president, and under the authority of the president you have several departments, with each department having a head or manager or director. So for example, if you have a company that manufactures and sells "widgets" (whatever a widget is), the president may have several departments with a leader of each. He has an accounting department and an accounting manager to run it. He has a manufacturing department with a manufacturing manager to run it. And he has a marketing department with a marketing manager to run it.
Now, under the president, in each department, there is "one man rule", that is, one man runs accounting - the accounting manager. One man, the marketing manager, runs the marketing department. One man, the manufacturing manager, runs the factories. But the president does not work through only one man at a time. He works through three men at the same time, each man head of one of three departments.
Likewise today, one man, David Hulme, manages COGaic as an organized fellowship in the Church of God. One man, Roderick Meredith, manages Living Church of God (LCG) as an organized fellowship. I could give other examples. In that sense, each of these organizations, like a department in a business corporation, can be said to have "one man rule".
But according to the Bible, the idea that God only works through one man at a time is wrong. There are several examples of God working through more than one man at a time, not all under the authority of one man. God worked through king David and the prophet Nathan at the same time. Nathan was not under David's supervision when Nathan delivered prophecies from God, and David was not under Nathan's supervision in matters of the kingdom of Israel. Each man reported directly to God in the work God gave him to do. God used Nathan to rebuke David in David's sin concerning Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 12:1-15). God used Nathan also to tell David that he was not to build the temple (1 Chronicles 17:1-15).
God also worked through several prophets at the same time in the Old Testament.
Christ used Peter as the leader of the apostles to the circumcised and Paul as leader of the apostles to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:6-9). Paul did not report to Peter in his day-to-day work, and in fact he rebuked Peter at one point (Galatians 2:11-21), and Peter did not report to Paul, but each man reported directly to Christ, and most of the other apostles, evangelists, and ministers, as far as we know, reported to one or the other of those two men. Thus, Christ worked through two men at that time.
So Christ can, if he chooses, work through more than one man today.
By the way, in the matter of the identity of the English-speaking nations as part of Israel, critics of this doctrine enjoy attacking it, but their arguments are faulty and without value. I have spent considerable time studying this issue and proving the truth for years before I came into the Church of God and was baptized. I first learned about this doctrine when I read Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong's book, The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy, some time after 1968 when I became a Plain Truth subscriber. Sometime in 1972 I started a project to prove if the Bible was God's word, and I finished it at the end of 1980, spending about 2,000 hours of work on it. Much of this had to do with the doctrine of the identity of the lost tribes of Israel. I was able to prove for myself beyond any reasonable doubt that this doctrine is true and that the Bible is inspired by God. Then, after researching the churches and the doctrines of the Bible, I began attending Worldwide and was baptized in 1982.
Since then, I have read some of what critics of this doctrine have said, and I have not found a single serious, logical argument against it. The attacks made against this doctrine are not based on sound logic.
If you have questions about this doctrine, or do not know how to answer the critics of it, feel free to ask your questions here in this post or in an email to me - I may be able to help.
There are some details of proofs I have not examined, such as some of the details of the history of the line of David, because I did not feel qualified to research that, did not have the time, and because I did not need those details as proofs - I found sufficient proof in easy-to-verify history and scriptures.
But I can answer many of the objections of critics, such as their statements that there has been intermarriage and blurring of the hereditary lines.
I also cover the proof of this doctrine and explain the steps I took in researching it in my book, Preaching the Gospel, in chapter one. I also discuss the proof of creation and God's existence and the flaws in the theory of evolution in that chapter.
In any new Church of God fellowship, I look for and hope for three characteristics, not necessarily in this order:
1) Zeal for preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel. Such zeal should show the evidence of good fruits in doing God's work and the evidence of God's blessing with an open door. If the zeal, faith, and obedience are there, there will be good results over time.
2) Willingness to teach and practice putting the Bible first over Church of God tradition or the teachings of any man including Mr. Armstrong. In practice, this means being willing to change doctrine in order to learn new knowledge from and be corrected by the Bible, when and if such change is necessary. Also, ministers should prove doctrine they teach to their members from the Bible and teach their members to believe true doctrine because the Bible teaches it, not because the Church and its ministry interpret the Bible for them. Ideally, the ministry should teach its members to believe what God says in the Bible more than they believe the Church of God ministry, yet at the same time, respect the office of minister and not contradict the ministry in conversation with other members. If a member sees something in the Bible that contradicts the teaching of the Church, he should believe the Bible rather than the ministry until such time as the ministry can show him from the Bible that he is wrong and he is able to see it for himself in the Bible. And in the meantime, he should keep his disagreement confidential between himself and the ministry and with God in prayer and study, but not discuss it with other members. In this way, the ministry will not compete with God for the faith and trust of the members, but will direct and point the members to put their faith and trust in God and the Bible. I talk about this in chapter six of my book.
3) Understanding of and practice of hierarchical government from the top down. This means there will be a leader who reports to Christ, and the other ministers and employees in that organization report to the leader in matters of the administration of the work of the Church. The leader will be recognized as such by the other ministers and members, based on fruits, at the start of the organization, and there will not be voting, elections, and "balloting" of men to choose or remove the leader or to make decisions concerning the work of the organization. Christ will chose the top man and show whom He has chosen by the fruits, and then lead the top man, and the top man must submit to Christ and to the word of God, the Bible. I talk about this in chapter eight of my book.
In addition to the above, any Church of God should teach and practice basic soundness of doctrine, such as understanding God's plan and purpose, keeping the weekly Sabbath and annual holy days, having the name "Church of God", etc.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Chapter 1 - The United States and Britain in Prophecy
CHAPTER 3 - THE EZEKIEL WARNING
CHAPTER 4 - WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL?
CHAPTER 6 - OBTAINING GOD'S HELP -- PRACTICING WHAT WE PREACH
CHAPTER 8 - GOVERNMENT IN THE CHURCH OF GOD
I am waiting further confirmation, but it seems that a number of ministers and employees have left or are leaving COGaic, possibly including Peter Nathan, Brian Orchard, Steven Andrews, Bob Rodzaj, and Cliff Veal. There may be others as well who have left or will leave.
I have seen a new website with a couple of posts by Mr. Nathan. As of this writing, the website is under construction and not ready for viewing, so I will not name it or give a link to it yet. The name of the site is not necessarily the name of a new Church being formed, but may simply be the name of a website and blog that may be used to provide information if Mr. Nathan and others want to publish. It may not even be a permanent site. But I plan to post further information about this or other websites published by ministers leaving COGaic as those sites develop and seem ready for publication or are announced by others.
What are the issues behind the separation?
Apparently, Mr. Nathan and possibly other ministers are concerned with COGaic's lack of zeal for preaching the gospel, a a too-accommodating stance towards pleasing the world in COGaic's public relations and image, and weakness in teaching the proven truth that the United States and other English-speaking nations are part of the lost ten tribes of Israel.
If those are the reasons, they seem like good ones to me.
I do not know all the background information about these above named men. But some of the names I recognize. Peter Nathan and Brian Orchard are well known names in COGaic, important ministers, not just local elders and pastors. Years ago I read that Mr. Nathan helped Mr. Hulme organize COGaic when they came out of UCG. These ministers, most or all of them, came into COGaic of their own free choice, and they can leave COGaic of their own free choice. They, with Mr. Hulme, came out Worldwide, then came out of UCG when they felt that those organizations were no longer serving God faithfully and it was not God's will that they remain. Likewise, they can now come out of COGaic for the same reasons. In principle, they are not doing anything different than Mr. Hulme has done himself twice in leaving an organization to form a new group.
Sometimes, to be faithful to God, ministers and members of God's Church have to leave an organization. They have to go where Christ leads, as best they understand His will. Sometimes organizations and their leaders change, and sometimes, what was not apparent when a leader starts an organization, becomes apparent over time as the fruits of the leader become better known (Matthew 7:16-20). Observing fruits takes time (Luke 13:6-9). God chose Saul as king over Israel, gave him time to show his fruits, then rejected him in the end because he did not bear good fruits. Likewise, ministers may join with a leader, then later leave when the positive fruits do not appear.
Zeal for preaching the gospel to the world as a witness and the Ezekiel warning to Israel is vitally important for the Church of God. The identity of Israel, the knowledge that the English-speaking nations of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and other nations are part of the lost ten tribes of Israel, is also vitally important for several reasons.
For one thing, the fulfilled prophecy regarding the tribes of Israel is a vital proof that God has inspired the Bible. How important is that?
We can know of God's existence from creation, even apart from the Bible. The design of the universe and the existence of our conscious minds are proof of God's existence. The universe shows that design choices have been made, in the number of dimensions of space (three), the number of fundamental forces and their characteristics (four, as far as we know), the fundamental particles, and all the laws of physics. This required that a great Designer made those choices, and those choices have been made to allow man to exist. Science cannot explain how the universe came to be, and science is totally clueless when it comes to explaining the existence of human consciousness, so clueless that science finds it difficult even to discuss it intelligently.
But none of that proves that the Bible is true, only that a Creator exists. Without the Bible, we would not know God's plan and purpose, we would not know about Jesus Christ, we would not know the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and we would not know what we need to do to be saved.
We can know that the Bible exists, but without proof, how can we know it is God speaking?
Fulfilled prophecy, including the prophecies about the United States and British Commonwealth, is that proof.
The truth about the identity of Israel is also important for doing God's work of delivering the Ezekiel warning to Israel, because it is Israel that will go through the tribulation and needs the warning. "Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it" (Jeremiah 30:7). "Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn....The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; Let my name be named upon them..." (Genesis 48:14-16).
That warning must be delivered BEFORE the tribulation begins and the two witnesses begin their special work. Why? The two witnesses do their special work at the beginning of the tribulation, but once the tribulation begins, it is too late for Israel to escape the tribulation by repenting. It doesn't do much good to warn someone of a disaster after the disaster has happened. That could hardly be called a "warning".
Our nations need to be warned now, while there is time for individuals to heed the warning and escape the punishment. That is the purpose of a warning, to allow those who are willing to heed it to escape.
But, you might say, no one can heed the warning unless they are called as firstfruits to salvation in this age, so the vast majority will not heed. And God knows whom He is calling, and He can make sure those people come into contact with the Church of God and its teaching even if the Church only does a small work of warning the nations. So even if we reach only 1% of the people, that is enough because God will make sure those whom He is calling will be among the 1% who hear the message. The other 99% can't repent anyway, so for the Church to try to warn everyone is not necessary.
That is wrong for several reasons.
Most of the first generation of Israel in the millennium is alive today. It is important to warn them because they need to be prepared for repentance during the tribulation and conversion at the beginning of the millennium. Giving them a warning message now prepares them for that repentance.
Why?
They need to accept responsibility for their decision to ignore the warning. They need to be warned so they know that God was fair to warn them while there was time to heed and escape. They cannot go into the tribulation thinking they had no chance to heed a warning because they never received a warning. They cannot go into the tribulation kidding themselves, thinking, "If only someone warned me, I would have listened, but God never warned me I was doing anything wrong. That is not fair - I never had a chance. No one told me it was wrong to keep Christmas and Easter and Sunday. No one told me I should be keeping the annual holy days. It's not my fault, for if I heard a warning, I surely would have heeded it." Probably, they would not have heeded the warning, but if they don't hear it, they will imagine, "sure I would have heeded it".
If they go into the tribulation thinking God was not fair to warn them, they will tend to blame God, and that will make their repentance more difficult. It will also make our job of working with them in the millennium more difficult.
Our lack of zeal for the Ezekiel warning, if the message doesn't go out to all Israel now, can be a stumbling block for Israel's repentance during the tribulation. They will tend to blame God instead of accepting their own responsibility for not heeding our warning.
I cover all of this in more depth in chapter four of my book, Preaching the Gospel. In that chapter, I quote from a number of books about the Holocaust to show that many Jews were not brought closer to God by the suffering they endured, but actually lost faith in God because they thought God was not fair. Chapters three and five also talk about the importance of preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel. In fact, this theme, the importance of preaching the gospel and Ezekiel warning to the public, is the main reason I started that book and later led to starting this blog. Links to that book and those chapters are at the bottom of this post.
Also, does a person have to be called to salvation in this life to escape God's prophesied punishment by heeding God's warning? Not necessarily. The people of Nineveh were not called to salvation as part of the firstfruits. Yet they repented at the preaching of Jonah (Jonah 3:1-10, Luke 11:32). What kind of repentance was this? Was it the kind of repentance required for conversion (Acts 2:38-29)? Was it that deep? Probably not. Probably it was simply fear of punishment and desire to escape the punishment that motivated them to change their behavior. Nevertheless, they changed their evil ways and tried to heed the message as best they could, and God accepted that and spared them. So, is it possible that an uncalled person who hears our message may, without the depth of repentance needed for conversion in this life, at least try as best he is humanly able to heed the warning and change his ways to escape the punishment? I know of no scripture that rules that out.
And if some few, though not called to salvation yet, try to respond to the message by changing their ways as best they can, as the Ninevites did, even if they are never converted before Christ returns, might not God spare them at least from the worst of the tribulation?
Not everyone in the tribulation will suffer equally. Not all the Jews in Germany and German-occupied Europe during World War II suffered equally - some had it worse than others, if the Holocaust can be an example of what the tribulation might be like. And some survived while others did not.
Most who go through the tribulation will die in it. But some will survive and be the first generation of Israel in the millennium, and we will have to work with them. Our job will be harder then if we have to explain why we were not zealous to warn them now. They will remember if we warned them or not.
And God has the power to control who lives and who dies, who suffers more and who suffers less, depending on each person's attitude and response to our message. There is a prophecy that God will purge the rebels from among Israel. " 'As I live,' says the Lord God, 'surely with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you. I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out....I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Lord' " (Ezekiel 20:34-38). Our message can be an important part of God's test to see who is rebellious and who is not, who is to be purged and die during the tribulation, and who is permitted to live into the millennium and enjoy the blessings of living under Christ's government. God can see how even uncalled people respond to our message, most laughing or scorning the message but a few respecting and trying to respond to it, to decide who to purge and who to let live, who will be most teachable in the millennium and who will not.
I have watched COGaic a bit over the years. I have heard some of their sermons, visited their services, attended the Feast of Tabernacles with them, and read some of their writings. I have noticed that they do not do a powerful work of preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to Israel.
I have noticed something else, and I have no idea whether this also is a reason why some ministers are leaving.
It seems to me that Mr. Hulme has taught a wrong "identity" to the members of COGaic. It seems to me he has taught members to identify with that organization more than with the whole Church of God. I have gotten the sense Mr. Hulme has taught members or allowed some COGaic ministers to teach members that they are causing division or having a wrong attitude if they even think that God may be working in other Church of God fellowships in addition to COGaic. I have heard that members are discouraged or forbidden to visit other Church of God fellowships or to date or marry members of other Church of God fellowships. I have heard or read that COGaic ministers are forbidden to perform marriage ceremonies between COGaic members and members of other Church of God fellowships.
I don't say that this is only a characteristic of COGaic - there are other Church of God organizations that can have this problem. But I have not attended those other organizations in person as I have COGaic, so I have less firsthand knowledge about them.
But that doctrine, the teaching of the idea that a particular fellowship is the WHOLE Church of God, but without proof that this is true, or the emphasis on identification with that organization more than with the whole Church of God, which I think of as "identity heresy", is wrong.
Certainly, there is a difference between an organization that is faithfully doing God's work and others that are not. Certainly God can work more effectively through some men and leaders than through others. Certainly some men submit to Christ more than others. There is nothing wrong with a leader of a COG fellowship warning members about the dangers of fellowshipping with groups that compromise with God's law and way of life. Members certainly should seek out and attend with and support an organization that is more faithful rather than less faithful. Where we attend and who we support are important.
But members of God's Church are fellow members with all those having God's Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-11). We are ONE body, not many (Romans 12:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27). That is basic. We are scattered, and that is unfortunate, but all converted Christians are members of one Church of God in God's sight, and our identity is with that body and with Christ and with the Father, not with one organization among many organizations in the scattered state of the Church today. Scripture proves this.
Moreover, God through Paul gives instructions about whom we can marry. We are to marry "in the Lord", not "within an organization" (1 Corinthians 7:39). Making membership in an organization a qualification for a mate, in this time when the Church is scattered and most organizations are small, puts an unnecessary burden on singles. Christ had harsh words for religious leaders who bind heavy burdens on men's shoulders which they themselves are not willing to bear (Matthew 23:4). COGaic is not like Ambassador College where you had a high concentration of eligible single men and women available for marriage, which is where most long time ministers found their wives. COGaic has an above average concentration of the elderly, so the percentage of young single men and women is small even in comparison to many other Church of God fellowships.
A Church of God leader should not teach his members to primarily identify with himself and with the organization he leads. Members should identify with God the Father, Jesus Christ, and with converted Church of God members having God's Holy Spirit, which members are our brothers and sisters in Christ, even if they are attending other organizations.
Let Jesus Christ be the example. When he was on earth during his ministry, did He exclude those who were not with His "group", His organization, His apostles and disciples who were "with Him"? You might think, yes, for example, He excluded the Pharisees.
Yes, He did exclude the Pharisees because of their wrong doctrine, even though He acknowledged that they had some authority as ones who sit in Moses's seat (Matthew 23:1-3). But He did not exclude everyone who was not with His "organization" under his personal supervision. Rather, those who did the will of His Father, even if not under His personal supervision and not with His disciples, He accepted and said they were on "His side".
Consider this account: "Now John answered Him, saying, 'Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side' " (Mark 9:38-40).
Is not God and Christ trying to show us something from this account? Is not Christ teaching us something by His example? Why else would it be included in the Bible, except that God is showing us something?
There has been much talk about "one man rule" and the statement "God only works through one man at a time". But as I have pointed out in other posts in this blog, these can be two different things. "One man rule" can often be used to describe hierarchical government. It does not necessarily mean that God is only working through one man at a time. Imagine a business corporation. You have a president, and under the authority of the president you have several departments, with each department having a head or manager or director. So for example, if you have a company that manufactures and sells "widgets" (whatever a widget is), the president may have several departments with a leader of each. He has an accounting department and an accounting manager to run it. He has a manufacturing department with a manufacturing manager to run it. And he has a marketing department with a marketing manager to run it.
Now, under the president, in each department, there is "one man rule", that is, one man runs accounting - the accounting manager. One man, the marketing manager, runs the marketing department. One man, the manufacturing manager, runs the factories. But the president does not work through only one man at a time. He works through three men at the same time, each man head of one of three departments.
Likewise today, one man, David Hulme, manages COGaic as an organized fellowship in the Church of God. One man, Roderick Meredith, manages Living Church of God (LCG) as an organized fellowship. I could give other examples. In that sense, each of these organizations, like a department in a business corporation, can be said to have "one man rule".
But according to the Bible, the idea that God only works through one man at a time is wrong. There are several examples of God working through more than one man at a time, not all under the authority of one man. God worked through king David and the prophet Nathan at the same time. Nathan was not under David's supervision when Nathan delivered prophecies from God, and David was not under Nathan's supervision in matters of the kingdom of Israel. Each man reported directly to God in the work God gave him to do. God used Nathan to rebuke David in David's sin concerning Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 12:1-15). God used Nathan also to tell David that he was not to build the temple (1 Chronicles 17:1-15).
God also worked through several prophets at the same time in the Old Testament.
Christ used Peter as the leader of the apostles to the circumcised and Paul as leader of the apostles to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:6-9). Paul did not report to Peter in his day-to-day work, and in fact he rebuked Peter at one point (Galatians 2:11-21), and Peter did not report to Paul, but each man reported directly to Christ, and most of the other apostles, evangelists, and ministers, as far as we know, reported to one or the other of those two men. Thus, Christ worked through two men at that time.
So Christ can, if he chooses, work through more than one man today.
By the way, in the matter of the identity of the English-speaking nations as part of Israel, critics of this doctrine enjoy attacking it, but their arguments are faulty and without value. I have spent considerable time studying this issue and proving the truth for years before I came into the Church of God and was baptized. I first learned about this doctrine when I read Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong's book, The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy, some time after 1968 when I became a Plain Truth subscriber. Sometime in 1972 I started a project to prove if the Bible was God's word, and I finished it at the end of 1980, spending about 2,000 hours of work on it. Much of this had to do with the doctrine of the identity of the lost tribes of Israel. I was able to prove for myself beyond any reasonable doubt that this doctrine is true and that the Bible is inspired by God. Then, after researching the churches and the doctrines of the Bible, I began attending Worldwide and was baptized in 1982.
Since then, I have read some of what critics of this doctrine have said, and I have not found a single serious, logical argument against it. The attacks made against this doctrine are not based on sound logic.
If you have questions about this doctrine, or do not know how to answer the critics of it, feel free to ask your questions here in this post or in an email to me - I may be able to help.
There are some details of proofs I have not examined, such as some of the details of the history of the line of David, because I did not feel qualified to research that, did not have the time, and because I did not need those details as proofs - I found sufficient proof in easy-to-verify history and scriptures.
But I can answer many of the objections of critics, such as their statements that there has been intermarriage and blurring of the hereditary lines.
I also cover the proof of this doctrine and explain the steps I took in researching it in my book, Preaching the Gospel, in chapter one. I also discuss the proof of creation and God's existence and the flaws in the theory of evolution in that chapter.
In any new Church of God fellowship, I look for and hope for three characteristics, not necessarily in this order:
1) Zeal for preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel. Such zeal should show the evidence of good fruits in doing God's work and the evidence of God's blessing with an open door. If the zeal, faith, and obedience are there, there will be good results over time.
2) Willingness to teach and practice putting the Bible first over Church of God tradition or the teachings of any man including Mr. Armstrong. In practice, this means being willing to change doctrine in order to learn new knowledge from and be corrected by the Bible, when and if such change is necessary. Also, ministers should prove doctrine they teach to their members from the Bible and teach their members to believe true doctrine because the Bible teaches it, not because the Church and its ministry interpret the Bible for them. Ideally, the ministry should teach its members to believe what God says in the Bible more than they believe the Church of God ministry, yet at the same time, respect the office of minister and not contradict the ministry in conversation with other members. If a member sees something in the Bible that contradicts the teaching of the Church, he should believe the Bible rather than the ministry until such time as the ministry can show him from the Bible that he is wrong and he is able to see it for himself in the Bible. And in the meantime, he should keep his disagreement confidential between himself and the ministry and with God in prayer and study, but not discuss it with other members. In this way, the ministry will not compete with God for the faith and trust of the members, but will direct and point the members to put their faith and trust in God and the Bible. I talk about this in chapter six of my book.
3) Understanding of and practice of hierarchical government from the top down. This means there will be a leader who reports to Christ, and the other ministers and employees in that organization report to the leader in matters of the administration of the work of the Church. The leader will be recognized as such by the other ministers and members, based on fruits, at the start of the organization, and there will not be voting, elections, and "balloting" of men to choose or remove the leader or to make decisions concerning the work of the organization. Christ will chose the top man and show whom He has chosen by the fruits, and then lead the top man, and the top man must submit to Christ and to the word of God, the Bible. I talk about this in chapter eight of my book.
In addition to the above, any Church of God should teach and practice basic soundness of doctrine, such as understanding God's plan and purpose, keeping the weekly Sabbath and annual holy days, having the name "Church of God", etc.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Chapter 1 - The United States and Britain in Prophecy
CHAPTER 3 - THE EZEKIEL WARNING
CHAPTER 4 - WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL?
CHAPTER 6 - OBTAINING GOD'S HELP -- PRACTICING WHAT WE PREACH
CHAPTER 8 - GOVERNMENT IN THE CHURCH OF GOD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
