Church Governance, Philadelphia, and How Much Time Is Left?

 

The Question of Governance


I was in Worldwide when the ministers and members who were to make up the United Church of God, most of them, left Worldwide because they did not accept the doctrinal changes Mr. Tkach was making.  I did not immediately leave Worldwide at the time the changes started or when UCG formed, but I left later.  But I was studying and watching and thinking about everything that was happening, and I was aware that soon I would probably have to leave if things kept going in the direction they were going.

But when I first learned that a group of ministers left Worldwide to form United Church of God, I was very curious about how they would be governed.  To me, it seemed like they had a dilemma.  This was not a case of a leader forming a new group and other ministers and members coming to him to build and increase the group.  This was a case of a large number of ministers leaving in mass with no clear leader.  Perhaps Mr. David Hulme served a leadership role more than most, but even he did not have the standing and reputation to be the clear leader over the other ministers and having authority from Christ to direct UCG with top-down governance.

So what will they do, I asked myself.  Mr. Armstrong taught top-down governance in the Church.  We knew no other way.  And it was clear that the ministers forming UCG wanted to stay together and form one group.  But there was no clear leader.  At the time, it seemed to me like a problem without a solution.

Well, they organized as a democracy with the ministers voting, or "balloting" as they called it, to elect a leader of the group every certain number of years.  There may have been other elected officials and layers in the organization like a council - I do not remember the details.  But authority came from the voting of the ministers.  That surprised me, I think, but I couldn't disagree at the time too much because I couldn't think of any alternative.  Probably, many of them couldn't think of an alternative either.

But since then I have thought about it and studied governance in the Bible more than I did before.

As a result, years later, around the time of the split in UCG when COGWA formed, I added a chapter, chapter eight, to my online book, Preaching the Gospel - see blue link near the upper right corner of this blog.  That chapter goes through the teaching and examples of God's governance in the Bible.  It shows that Mr. Armstrong was right - God's governance is from the top down, always.

But I also thought a great deal about how the UCG ministers could have organized without voting, thus preserving the principle of top-down governance, yet before it became clear who one top leader should be.

It is God, through Christ, who must choose the leader.  When God does this, He makes His choice known to the Church.  But how?

Some might suggest choosing a leader by drawing lots, asking God to guide the selection, as the apostles did to choose a replacement for Judas in Acts 1:15-26.

But I remember, when Mr. Armstrong was alive, the Church of God teaching that we do not use that method today because we have the Holy Spirit.  The apostles in Acts 1 did not have the Holy Spirit and the discernment the Holy Spirit could give them, so they had to cast lots at that time.  But we do not continue that practice.  This is what was taught in the Church.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Armstrong never cast lots to make a decision, but he certainly relied on Christ to guide his decisions.

I can think of reasons why some may want to cast lots.  One thing that comes to mind is that king David had lots cast when he wanted an answer to a question from God, yet David had God's Spirit (1 Samuel 16:13, Psalm 51:11).  When scripture says David inquired of the Lord, this is referring to the casting of lots, for that is how they inquired of God at that time (1 Samuel 23:1-5, 1 Samuel 23:9-13, 1 Chronicles 24:3-5).  Also, some UCG ministers may have felt that God did not guide Mr. Armstrong's decision to appoint Mr. Tkach as his successor.  They may have felt, especially in the heat of the moment, that Mr. Armstrong simply made a mistake.  So they went with voting, perhaps figuring God would guide their voting by His Spirit to produce the correct results.

I do not say that the casting of lots is definitely wrong.  But I am inclined to think that it is not the best way.  I could be wrong.  In any case, it would definitely be a new doctrine since Mr. Armstrong was alive.  He never cast lots (as far as I know) and he did not cast lots to choose Mr. Tkach, perhaps one of the biggest decisions he made.  Practicing the casting of lots would be a change in doctrine from what Mr. Armstrong taught and practiced, a new doctrine in the Church of God.

Actually, as I have written over the years in other posts in this blog, I do not think the appointment of Mr. Tkach was Mr. Armstrong's mistake.  I think Christ appointed Mr. Tkach as Mr. Armstrong's successor and caused Mr. Armstrong to discern Christ's will in this matter.  I am sure Mr. Armstrong did not understand Christ's reasons.  But he made the right appointment.

No doubt Mr. Armstrong thought Christ wanted Mr. Tkach because Mr. Tkach would be faithful.  But that was not Christ's reason.  Christ, I am sure, appointed Mr. Tkach as pastor general after Mr. Armstrong for the opposite reason - Christ knew Mr. Tkach would not be faithful to the overall body of truth Mr. Armstrong taught, and Christ wanted to scatter the Church because we had become Laodicean.  This is how Christ spit or vomited us out of His mouth, which He promised to do in Revelation 3:16.  Though harsh, this scattering serves a purpose of waking us up and testing us, and this has been happening since the death of Mr. Armstrong almost forty years ago.

So with top-down governance, how does Christ make His choice for a leader known?

Please read chapter eight of Preaching the Gospel, where I go through many examples in the Bible.

There are two ways God makes His choice known: by appointment by the preceding leader or by fruits.  In the Bible there is also the third way when prophets are available, as when God spoke directly to the prophets or had them case lots - see how God made his choices of kings Saul and David known.  But we do not have prophets at this time in the Church today and we do not cast lots.

So the choices are: appointment from the leader as Mr. Armstrong appointed Mr. Tkach and as Dr. Meredith appointed Mr. Weston, or observe by fruits, as much of the Church saw from the fruits of Dr. Meredith after he left Worldwide, showing that God had chosen him to lead Global Church of God, and ministers and members with discernment gathered to Dr. Meredith when they saw the fruits.

One of the fruits of Dr. Meredith is that he immediately, within weeks, began a zeal-inspired effort to go on TV or radio to revive God's work of preaching the gospel.  Those Philadelphian-like members who had their hearts in the work (John 4:34) saw this and gathered to Dr. Meredith rather than to the few other leaders who left Worldwide previously, but who were not focused on a message to the world, just a message to the Church to support themselves.

Dr. Meredith was the first to revive God's work of preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to Israel and to the world.  This did not go unnoticed by many members and ministers in the Church of God.  This is how God made his choice of Dr. Meredith known - by fruits, not appointment.

So how does this apply to a succession question in the Church today or to a new group forming that must come to know God's choice for leader?

If it is by fruits, it is a process and it takes time.  God blesses the one He chooses and causes him to bear good fruit (Joshua 3:7, Matthew 7:16-20, Matthew 12:33).

But what does the Church, or a new group whether large or small, do in the meantime?

What I will suggest may at first seem awkward or cumbersome.  But I think it is a good path to understand God's choice for leader in the absence of an appointment from a previous leader.

"But the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart' " (1 Samuel 16:7).

With a new group, there is a tendency to want to immediately choose a name, incorporate, and set up central governance, with a leader to govern the group under Christ.  This is what UCG did.  And they built that process into UCG so that now, when a leader dies, there is voting to find a new leader.  But that tends to mask what God decides by showing of fruits.  Ministers in that system are governed by the voting of men, and you can't tell who is being led by Christ in a powerful way.  They have to do what they are told by men, and you can't see what they would do when they report to Christ directly - so you don't fully see their fruits.  You see the results of voting, but not the results of decisions each man makes which show the fruits of that man - whether Christ is leading him and he is following Christ, or not.

So I offer this suggestion as food for thought.

Here is what United Church of God ministers could have done when they left Worldwide.

They could have built, at first, a loose "organization", based on voluntary service and cooperation rather that the authority of a ruling counsel and leader legally installed and empowered by voting.

Each ordained minister, probably including local elders since they are ministers, could do one of two things - start a small group or attach to another minister who starts a small group.  Group names can be temporary, so the name of a small group is not important.  Using "Church of God at" and then the name of a city or suburb would work fine, like "Church of God at Springfield" or something like that.  Meetings can start in the living room or basement of the minister.  If incorporation is needed, go ahead, else postpone it.  Tithes and offerings can be paid to the minister whether tax deductable or not.  You may be able to register the church name with a bank and have tithes paid to that name even without incorporation.

So you would have a fellowship of small groups led by pastors who are willing to form and lead a small group.  Those ministers who are not willing can work for the pastor of one of those groups.  So you might end up, in the case of UCG ministers, with twenty or fifty small groups.

But they will cooperate, not by force and authority, but willingly in an attitude of wanting to help fellow pastors.  Cooperation between groups and their pastors will be based on love, not force and not legal authority.

They will have a network of communication, by phone, by mail, and by email.

Pastors can get advice from other pastors.  "For by wise counsel you will wage your own war, And in a multitude of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 24:6).  One of the first things pastors will perhaps want advice on is, how do I incorporate?  Some pastors may have some knowledge of this.

Over time, some ministers will specialize in different aspects of church administration, feeding the flock, and preaching the gospel, and will be the primary "go to" for advice and knowledge on a particular topic.  They will become known to the whole collection of ministers as knowing a certain subject.  They will give advice to other pastors, but not rule them.

Over time, their fruits will become known.  And by their fruits, it will become known who Christ is leading and blessing.  It will become known which men have the wisdom and love from God to run the whole collection of groups.

Over time, the groups will start to come together.  If a pastor is bearing good fruit, other pastors will join him.

This is how Christ will make His choice and the Father's choice known.  Not by voting.  Not by casting of lots.  By fruits.

In time you will have one group, probably incorporated as a tax-exempt church, with a good name representing the whole group, and with tax-exempt status for all donations.

This is what UCG could have done.

Yes, it is a sacrifice for the ministry.  It is more complicated at first, probably harder than just voting for a leader and letting him make all the decisions.  But it is more biblical in my opinion than voting.

Those are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

A couple of more points before I close this section.

Do not despise the power of a loose organization of many small groups.  You may get more productivity, more energy, more imagination, creativity, and resourcefulness, from the people in those small groups who may feel the need to "step up" to fill a gap of what needs to be done, maybe at first beyond their comfort zone.

You might think that it is safer to have one big legally organized group with central authority for making decisions.  In this world it is not.

Liberals in this country are trying to destroy Christianity and religion.  Satan is trying to destroy the Church and the work of preaching the gospel.  The courts are available to them.  So is technology controlled by large corporations like Google, Youtube, Facebook, etc.  Already some of our message can be "edited out" by corporations intent on promoting the liberal, anti-God agenda.

If we are organized as small groups, a lawsuit against one cannot hurt the others.  But if we are one big group, we are a big target.  Let one pastor make a mistake that opens the door for a lawsuit, and the whole large group can be hurt.  Investments in copyrights, office equipment, vehicles, television and radio contracts, hall rental contracts, etc. can be jeopardized by an expensive lawsuit.  The work can be blocked.  And if lawsuits threaten the stations that carry our programs, they can simply refuse to carry our programs out of concern for their own legal and financial safety.  They may require us to give the politically correct answers on questionnaires about what we teach before they will give us a contract.

The other thing to think about, for those who think nothing can function without strong central authority, even temporarily, is, how do people at a job or a group of friends go to lunch?  Do you have to have a ruler in charge to tell people what restaurant to go to, what time to leave, how many cars to take and who rides with who, etc.  Of course not.  Five or six or more people in an office will simply talk it out and come to a consensus.  This happens all the time.  And we are supposed to have God's Holy Spirit and love each other as Christ loved us!  So why can't we cooperate voluntarily and help each other out?

But overall, this will be a temporary period for Christ to show the leader or leaders by fruits, and then if they come together later in a large organization led by one man as Mr. Armstrong led the Church of God, that man will have proven, by fruits, that Christ has appointed him as leader.



Does God Work Through Rebellion?


During the days when Worldwide was leaving the doctrines Mr. Armstrong taught, one pastor who later went with UCG was trying to stem people from leaving for other groups that were forming.  Apparently he wanted everyone to stay in Worldwide until UCG was ready to form.  He said that God does not work through rebellion.  I found out later that he was wrong, and I found out from the Bible.

Does God ever work through rebellion?

Surprisingly, yes, in a sense.

Did Jeroboam rebel against Solomon and Solomon's son Rehoboam?

Yes.  The Bible calls his action to establish a separate northern kingdom, separate from Rehoboam and the line of David, rebellion, that is, he "rebelled" (1 Kings 11:26-27).

Was this rebellion from God?  God told Jeroboam that He would give him ten tribes (1 Kings 11:31).  Yes, the rebellion was from God.  God even said, this is from Me (1 Kings 12:21-24).

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.  For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household' " (Matthew 10:34-36).  

Sometimes someone has to leave a Church of God group because of problems in that group and because of reasons of conscience.  Whether a minister is fired or quits, the main thing is that a separation is necessary.  And with a minister it often results in that minister starting a group or finding employment in an existing group.  Sometimes that last option is not possible.  So a new group starts.

An ordained pastor does not have the option, I think, to just retire from pastoring and get a regular job with a company of this world.  The calling of God is irrevocable (Romans 11:29).  He is a minister of Jesus Christ, ordained to that office by God, and he cannot abandon his flock and his duties.  He has to serve Christ.  If there are no employment options in the various fellowships, he may be forced by circumstances and conscience to form a new group to serve anyone who needs to be served by him.

A few years ago, a number of people were forced by conscience to leave a group over the issue of singing and masks.  For many of them, they had to do it.  Whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23, see also 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 and Romans 14:1-23).  

These things happen from time to time, and God holds us responsible for our choices and for our motives that inspire those choices.  And sometimes, regardless of who is right, God sees a need to create a separation, as He did with ancient Israel in the matter of Jeroboam and Rehoboam and in the Church in the matter of Paul and Barnabus (Acts 15:37-40).

We are commanded to warn the wicked and preach the gospel (Proverbs 24:11, Ezekiel 3:17-21, Matthew 28:18-20).  We have to do it or we are in trouble with God.  Paul said, woe to me if I do not preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:16).  God says, if He makes us the watchman and we do not warn the wicked, He will require the blood of the wicked at our hand.  In other words, murder-guilt will be upon us.

He also says, keep yourself far from a false matter (Exodus 23:7).

Christ had His harshest words for hypocrisy (Matthew 15:3-9, Matthew 23:13-36).  As I have said before, we must practice what we preach.  We cannot say to the public, don't believe us, don't believe any man, believe God, believe the Bible, while we say to our members, believe Mr. Armstrong, believe Mystery of the Ages, we will not change doctrine, we will not learn anything new, we will not correct any errors Mr. Armstrong made, we will not believe the Bible first - if the Bible says one thing and Mr. Armstrong said something else, we will believe Mr. Armstrong, not the Bible.

If that is what you practice, a way of life opposite to the way of life Mr. Armstrong himself practiced, forget preaching the gospel.  Don't expect an open door.  Christ is not mocked.  And forget the place of safety.  How can you be there?

Recently, a minister said that you cannot teach (in the millennium he meant) that which you do not live (in this life and age he meant).  In other words, we have to live by God's way of life now if we want to be teachers of that way of life in the millennium.  I agree with that.  God is merciful with our problems and none of us is perfect in this life, but we have to try to live God's way of life the best we can now.

But I would expand this principle to include this:  we cannot teach the world the gospel and the warning message and ask them to believe the Bible more than their religious leaders if we do not do the same.

God hates hypocrisy.

We must be willing to learn new knowledge if we tell the world to learn new knowledge.  God hates unequal weights and measures (Deuteronomy 25:13-16).  We must apply the same standard to ourselves as we apply to the world (Leviticus 24:22).  If they have to change, we must be willing to change.  We have to be willing to learn new things.

"Then He said to them, 'Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old' " (Matthew 13:52).  



How Much Time Do We Have Left?


I want to talk about how much time we may have left, because this can have relevance to how we think about preaching the gospel.  Some may think that time is so short that we will not be able to preach the gospel to all Israel.

I have noticed that we are approaching the fortieth anniversary of the death of Herbert W. Armstrong.  Many of us have learned from the Church that forty is a number of trial and testing in the Bible.  I have not heard or read anything about this, but I am sure I am not the only one to think about this.  Probably many in the Church have wondered, whether they talk about it or not, is the Church in a forty-year period of trial and testing?  And what happens after the forty years are complete?

The idea I am describing is this.  Mr. Armstrong has been our teacher for many years.  He taught us by word and by example.  A student should be like his teacher (Luke 6:40).  We should live the same way of life as Mr. Armstrong lived when he lived by what God said in the Bible.  We should follow his good example.

But by the time he died in January 1986, how well have we learned?  How well has the Church of God learned?

So perhaps (this is speculation, but I am probably not the only one to think about this) God has planned a period of forty years after the death of Mr. Armstrong to test the Church to see how well we learned from the instruction and example of Mr. Armstrong.

So what happens after God has tested us?

I have been hearing some people talk here and there about the tribulation beginning in maybe a year or two.  Before now, the most I heard anyone say was, soon.  But now some are becoming specific - maybe a year or two.

Perhaps those people are thinking of the forty years after Mr. Armstrong's death as being a period of testing to see who will go to a place of safety.  At the end of the forty years, the tribulation will begin, and those who passed the test will be protected and the rest will go through the tribulation.

There is nothing wrong with that kind of speculation, provided we don't take our speculations and opinions too seriously.  We all know we don't know when the end will come, but I know of nothing in the Bible that says it is wrong to estimate or have opinions about these things as long as we know that we don't really know.

So in the spirit of iron sharpens iron, I will also share my opinion.

I tend to think the idea of forty years of trial and testing after the death of Mr. Armstrong is probably right.  But I don't think the testing is for determining who will go to a place of safety at the end of the forty years.

The place of safety is exactly connected with open door.  They are both in the same message to Philadelphia.  You don't have one without the other.  And no one right now has a wide-open door for reaching the hundreds of millions of the tribes of Israel.

I think we are being tested to see who will be counted as Philadelphian, and at the end of the forty years God will begin to give Philadelphians a wide-open door for finishing the work with great power, greater than Mr. Armstrong did - a really wide open door to reach all Israel - all four hundred million or so from all the tribes including those who live among us and will go through the tribulation with us but may not be descended from Israel exactly.

This will take time.  Then, maybe after a time cycle of 19 years, the work will be done, and Philadelphia will go to a place of safety, or maybe the time cycle will go right to the time of the return of Christ and will include the work of the two witnesses during the tribulation.

So I am estimating that we may have about 15 to 20 years before the end.  That is "soon", but a different flavor of "soon" than only one or two years.

But there is no need for you to think, "I have plenty of time to get ready".  No, you don't know.  You might die today.  For you, the end may come now (Matthew 24:48-51).  I pointed this out in my message for Trumpets.  We need to fear God.

I repeat, this is speculation.  I know I can be completely wrong.  I try not to take my own opinions too seriously.  No one should.

But don't assume we will not have time to finish the work.

A lot has to happen before the tribulation begins, and these things will probably take time.

The Church has taught for years that a German-led Europe will attack the United States.  I agree.  But it will take time for Europe to become strong and the United States to become weak.  I don't see how that can happen in a year or two.

Whatever our problems as a nation, we are still the most powerful nation on earth.  And Europe is weak.  For Europe to attack the United States, today, is nearly impossible.  We could wipe Europe out of existence and they know it.

Look at history.  Before Hitler came to power, Germany had been well on its way to re-arming.  It was getting stronger even before Hitler came to power.  He came into power I believe in January 1933, and then re-arming continued and even accelerated, as I understand it.  Even so, it was almost seven years before Hitler attacked Poland at the beginning of September 1939.  And Poland was only half the size of Germany, and Germany had the help of the Soviet Union to finish the job.  Germany kept getting stronger after that.

To build a strong military takes time.  And for the United States to become militarily weak will take time.

It will also take time for the Church of God to get the true gospel and Ezekiel warning out to all Israel.

I think the idea of forty years of testing of the Church after Mr. Armstrong is very plausible.  If that motivates you and inspires you with a sense of urgency, great.  It inspires me and helps motivate me to push harder to draw close to God and pass the test.

But I think the reward at the end of it will be an open door for the gospel and the Ezekiel warning.  I want to be among those who will have an open door.  I want to contribute.

It may be that there will be a call to go to Petra while the gospel has still not gone out to all Israel.  If there is an open door to warn all Israel but more time is needed to finish going through that open door, I do not think I would be inclined to believe the word to go to Petra.  Rather, I hope I will have the courage to stay in the United States and continue to support the warning work.  The place of safety is fine, but getting the warning to all Israel is more important.

"He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it" (Matthew 10:39).



The Characteristics of Philadelphia


We are in the Laodicean era.  That is part of why we are scattered.  It is pretty obvious.

But there are and will be some Philadelphians, a relatively small number, even in the Laodicean era, to finish the work and go to a place of safety after it is done.

They may be scattered.  They may be few in number.  Perhaps none of the existing fellowships right now is fully or even mostly Philadelphian.  Philadelphians may not be a majority in any group.

And they can increase.  There is still time for some Laodiceans to repent and draw closer to God and be counted as Philadelphians.  I think maybe I am in that number.  I do not count myself as a Philadelphian - I have too much to overcome.  But there is still time, and I am determined to draw closer to God.  I am trying.  Being Philadelphian for me is a goal - I am not there yet as far as I know.

But at some point Philadelphians have to come together from their present scattered condition.  They will need to be gathered to do a great work.  Christ will accomplish this, probably through imperfect human leaders.

It will probably be necessary to recognize Philadelphia when we see it.  Not everyone will, I am sure.

So for those who are interested (if you are still reading this long post to this point, thank you for your patience), here are my thoughts about the characteristics of a Philadelphian remnant Church of God.

I will share three points.  I have posted about all of these before.  These are not in priority order - I don't know what the priority would be.


1.  There will be top-down governance.  I have already covered this and chapter eight of my book goes into more detail.  Philadelphians will not choose their leader by voting.  Christ will choose the leader.


2.  There will be zeal for the gospel and the Ezekiel warning.  I have covered this in other posts in this blog and in my book, but I will highlight some points.

All Israel, all the nations that come from the lost tribes, everyone, needs a strong warning.  Some may think, God only calls a few and the rest can't repent anyway so the warning does not help them.  But they need the warning even though they are not called.  They will begin to repent in the tribulation, but they need a warning before the tribulation so they can accept responsibility for ignoring the warning and know that God was fair to warn them.  To repent they need to trust God.  They need to believe in God's fairness and righteousness.  Giving the uncalled a warning now helps their repentance later.

And even though the majority of Israel is not called in this age, some may try to respond to our message the best they can, and God may spare them from the worst of the suffering (some will suffer more than others) and let them live into the millennium.  Jonah was reluctant to preach to Nineveh (like the Church in our time, maybe?), but God made him do it, and Nineveh repented.  The Ninevites were not called to conversion, but they repented to some extent, maybe to save their skins, but they changed their behavior and God spared them from punishment.  Interestingly, God does not usually give population numbers for cities, but in Nineveh's case the number named was more than 120,000 - Revelation 7 gives the number 144,000 as 12 tribes times 12,000 from each tribe.  On the basis of 12,000 per tribe, the population of Nineveh as given could represent ten tribes.  See the whole book of Jonah and chapter 7 of Revelation.  Coincidence?

Some may say the two witnesses will get a warning out.  But they only receive power when the tribulation starts (Revelation 11:1-12).  It is too late for anyone to heed a warning then to escape the tribulation, for it will already have started.  The Church of God needs to get the warning out now.

Traditional Christians, Catholics and Protestants who keep Christmas and Easter, especially need a warning because no one has told them that what they are doing is wrong.

Failure to get the warning out can jeopardize the people's salvation because it can make their future repentance harder if they think God is not fair.  Getting the warning out shows God's mercy and fairness and glorifies His name and reputation.  For all eternity, God's creation will praise and thank Him for His righteousness, wisdom, power, and love for getting a final warning out to the people.

The Church of God is not a social club and should not be run like a social club.  Summer camp, winter weekends, adventure hikes are all good, in balance, but our main zeal, time, and money should be invested in getting God's message out to the masses.  If we invest more in social activities than helping Israel, that is a warning sign that we are off track.

If we fail to warn the wicked, God will require their blood at our hands (Ezekiel 3:17-21).

But to succeed, we must have an open door (1 Corinthians 16:9, 2 Corinthians 2:12, Colossians 4:2-3, Revelation 3:7-8).  And if we want that open door, we must not be hypocrites preaching what we do not practice (Luke 11:44-46).

And this leads me to my final point about Philadelphians.


3.  There will be a willingness to learn new knowledge from the Bible, and members will be taught to believe the Bible more than the Church.  Along with this teaching, there will be teaching to not contradict the leadership and ministry in conversation with other members.  These two things must go together.

If you have the first but not the second, you have chaos.  You have division with everyone promoting their own ideas.  But if you have the second without the first, you have idolatry towards the Church, towards Mr. Armstrong, or towards the current leadership and the ministry, giving them the faith that belongs only to God.  And you have hypocrisy and no open door.

I have posted about this so much, no doubt some readers are getting tired of it.  But no one has shown me wrong by the scriptures.  And it is important, because without these two doctrines we fail to deliver the warning and the blood of the people can be required at our hand.  These two doctrines are two parts of point three.  Call them point 3A and point 3B.  To repeat, point 3A:  Be willing to learn new knowledge from the Bible and teach the brethren to believe the Bible more than the Church, and point 3B:  Teach the members to not contradict the ministry in conversation with other Church members.

There are two ways to avoid division.  You can teach the brethren to believe Mr. Armstrong's interpretation of the Bible, the Church's traditions, and the ministry's interpretation of the Bible.  Or, you can teach the brethren to let the Bible interpret the Bible and believe the Bible first, more than the Church, and also teach them not to spread their ideas and contradict the ministry.  I think the second way qualifies Philadelphia for an open door to finish the work and go to a place of safety.

We have to be willing to put the Bible first over the teachings of the Church if we are to preach the Ezekiel warning and avoid God's judgment for failing to warn the wicked.  Unless we do, we cannot say to the public, without being hypocrites, "Don't believe us, don't believe any man, believe God, believe your Bible".  

I don't think Christ will give a wide-open door to hypocrites.  And without the open door there is no place of safety, for both are promised in the same message.

We need to deliver the true gospel and Ezekiel warning messages to all Israel before the tribulation begins, or we may bring blood guilt upon ourselves.

To preach an effective message to the public, we cannot say, don't believe your ministers, believe our ministers.  We have to say, don't believe us or any man, believe God, believe the Bible.  That is the only way our message will be credible.

To be effective, we need Christ to give us a wide-open door for preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning.

We also need the wide-open door, and go through it, to qualify to go to a place of safety.

We cannot expect Christ to give the open door to hypocrites who tell the public to believe the Bible more than any man or church, but tell our members to believe Mr. Armstrong, or our Church of God traditions, or our leaders and ministers more than what they see in their own Bibles.

So to have the open door and go through it and avoid the God's judgment against those who fail to warn the wicked, and to be able to go to a place of safety, we need to teach the members to believe their Bibles more than Mr. Armstrong and the Church, and we need to be willing to change doctrine, correct errors, and learn new doctrinal knowledge from the Bible.

To avoid division while teaching the members to believe what they see in the Bible more than the Church, we must also teach the members to not contradict the Church and ministry in conversation with other members.  They can discuss their differences with the ministry, but keep the matter confidential from other members and avoid discussing it with them.


These are the characteristics I think will be present in a fellowship that is Philadelphian in character.  Those who have these characteristics will be the ones to finish the work with power and go to a place of safety.

This is my opinion, but it is based on scripture.  Other posts I have published in the past go into more detail, and I will continue to post about these things in the future.

We are each and all of us being tested.  Let's pass the test.