A bit of COG news: COGWA has announced that Mr. Richard Ames of Living Church of God (LCG) visited Jim Franks at COGWA headquarters to see their new building. LCG seems to have friendly relations, to a point, with both COGWA and UCG. Link:
http://members.cogwa.org/news/march-29-2012-member-letter/
Ministers should beware of signing "ethics agreements" with a Church of God organization.
In some cases, an employment agreement might be necessary to spell out certain financial details, such as agreements about ownership of assets, and things like that. But if the UCG code of ethics agreement I mentioned in a previous post is typical of ethics agreements signed by ministers in other Church of God organizations, I see problems with them. These seem to go beyond employment agreements. They are as the label implies, codes of "ethics". They attempt to set a standard of rules or behavior that define right and wrong, and in doing so, they compete with the Bible. God decides what is right and wrong, not man.
The Bible is our code of ethics.
As I understand it, the UCG code of ethics must be signed by non-employed local elders. What if such an elder, realizing such a code of ethics competes with and is contrary to the principles taught in the Bible, refuses to sign? He cannot be fired, for he is not an employee. Will he be disfellowshipped? On what biblical grounds? Will he have his ministerial credentials revoked? He is still a minister of Christ. He may even have been ordained before UCG came into existence. On what grounds could UCG say, "Christ made you a minister, but we are removing you from that office."
Here is a comment I wrote for one of two previous posts on this subject:
"This ethics agreement has been compared with typical agreements employees are asked to sign by major corporations. This is a valid comparison, but there is one difference. If I understand this correctly, all UCG elders are expected to sign this, even those who are not employed by UCG.
"While some kinds of agreements between employer and employee may be necessary based on the employment situation, such as agreements to respect assets of the corporation that an employee may be entrusted with by virtue of his employment, this is not one of them. This agreement is based on the ordination of a man to the office of minister or elder whether employed or not, whether ordained by UCG or not.
"The ordination to the office of minister comes from Christ, not any body of men, though Christ uses men to perform the ordination. It is Christ who places a man into the office of minister. And Christ has His own terms, His own "code of ethics" that ministers must follow. That is the Bible.
"This code of ethics in effect competes with and is a substitute for the Bible. Ministers should not sign, in my opinion.
"If the COG you attend required you to sign a document like this just because you attend with them, would you sign? And if not, why should a local elder?
"And if a local elder, perhaps ordained by Mr. Armstrong or another minister before UCG was ever formed, refused to sign, what would UCG do? Disfellowship him? Remove his ministerial credentials? They cannot remove him from the office Christ has put him into just for refusing to sign an agreement to support the decisions of UCG leaders plus all the other "amplifications" of the Bible in this agreement. They do not have the authority to remove him for that."
A minister must always obey God rather than man when there is a conflict (Acts 5:29). God already gives those whom Christ has placed in office certain authority. If the UCG Council of Elders has that authority, they can give orders to the ministers under their authority, and those ministers have to obey that authority unless it conflicts with the law of God. That is made clear in the Bible (Hebrews 13:17, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 2 Corinthians 13:10, Acts 5:29). You don't need a ethics agreement that requires ministers to promise unconditionally (in effect) to submit to the authority of the Council. That nullifies God's instruction that ministers should obey higher ministers only when such obedience does not conflict with God's law (Acts 5:29).
The Bible warns against making commitments without knowing the consequences of those commitments.
For example, Proverbs warns against becoming "surety" for someone else (Proverbs 6:1-5, 11:15, 17:18). One meaning of "surety" is that it is the making of a commitment to guarantee the payment of a debt, and one who guarantees the debt of another person is committing himself in advance to pay that person's debt if he doesn't. In principle, God is warning us to be careful about making commitments about the future actions of others when you cannot know what those actions will be. Proverbs also says, "A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished" (Proverbs 22:3, see also Proverbs 27:12). We should anticipate what can go wrong in a situation and protect ourselves in advance, and this should include avoiding promises to back up the decisions of others when we do not know what those decisions will be. If someone makes a right decision, you can support that decision, but you don't have to promise to support it before you know what it is.
The Bible is full of examples of those who made rash decisions before knowing the consequences. Joshua and the leaders of Israel swore peace to Gibeon, but regretted it later when they found out they lived in the land that Israel was to possess (Joshua 9:1-27). God put these things in the Bible as examples for us to learn from (1 Corinthians 10:11). Perhaps Jesus had this example in mind when He said, "...do not swear at all..." (Matthew 5:33-37). Jephthah swore to God to sacrifice whatever came out of his house if God gave him the victory, not realizing his daughter would come out (Judges 11:29-40).
Should the Council of Elders be trusted to never go against God's law? No, you cannot give that kind of trust to a human being. We are all free moral agents, we are all subject to Satan's temptations, and we cannot read each others minds. Even God's prophet Samuel could not judge which of Jesse's sons was a man after God's heart. "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). So even Samuel could not judge another man's heart, and Samuel was a man God uses as a righteous example along with Moses in Jeremiah 15:1. Mr. Armstrong did not know that Mr. Tkach would make the doctrinal changes that he did, and Mr. Armstrong worked with Mr. Tkach closely. How much chance does any local elder have to rightly judge the hearts of the men on the Council of Elders to know they will never make decisions the elder cannot support because they conflict with God's law? Then how can he make a commitment to support those decisions?
If an elder signs the agreement, then the Council makes a decision that goes against the law of God, the elder is put into a position of being forced to violate God's law by supporting the decision or to break his promise, a promise he never should have made in the first place. Should a promise mean nothing?
The sad thing is, those elders who have no conscience and will think nothing of breaking their word may be the first ones to agree to sign. The ones who sign first may be the ones whose signatures are worthless.
Someone might say, well, a minister can sign, then if something comes up he cannot support, he can resign. Resign from what? Membership in that Church of God organization? He may not be an employee, and this agreement is not limited to terms of employment. What if the thing is a minor matter, yet one he cannot support. Does he support something that is wrong just because it is a small thing? Or does he quit the fellowship over something small? That is a recipe for fragmenting the whole organization. It is a recipe for division. In fact, the members of COGWA who used to be on the Council of Elders of UCG resigned from that Council, giving the reason that they could not support the Council's decisions and their agreement to do so therefore required them to resign. Now, this type of agreement is being extended, apparently, to the entire ministry.
How can you promise to do what a man tells you to do in advance of knowing what it is? "Tell me to do something, and I promise I will do it, whatever it is, even though you haven't told me yet." Is that godly? If you tell me to sin, have I not sinned by making the promise in the first place? I either have to do the sin you tell me to do, or break my promise to do what you say.
It seems to me that ministers who sign this are compromised. What if Christ, through the Bible and through the Holy Spirit, leads a minister to do something different than the Code of Ethics allows? That is certainly possible. This code of ethics contains many do's and don'ts that the Bible does not give as part of God's law or as instructions to ministers. Apparently, the writers of this code of ethics think that God forgot to put them in the Bible.
It seems to me that ministers who sign this are compromised. Christ may indeed lead a minister to do something not allowed by the code of ethics, but the minister has already promised to obey the code of ethics, not Christ. How could I trust such a minister to guide me, teach me, counsel me, or rule over me if I know he is following a paper document, not the Bible, not Christ?
This agreement may be a subtle way UCG claims that all the decisions of the Council are right because Jesus Christ leads the Council. There is no logic in that. Of course the decisions Christ makes are right, but He doesn't always force men, even ministers, to obey Him. It attempts to transfer the trust we should have in Christ into trust in the Council. But God says, do not trust in man (Psalm 146:3), and God puts a curse on those who do (Jeremiah 17:5-10).
A signature on the code of ethics agreement, promising to support the decisions of the leadership of a Church of God organization, is an expression of a level of trust in the leaders that rightly belongs only to God.
I think "Code of Ethics" agreements that ministers in a Church of God organization must sign are a potential trap. I think many ministers who really are converted and are striving to tell the truth, to keep their promises, and to obey all of God's laws will one day regret signing such agreements, if they sign or have signed.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Should COG Ministers Sign Ethics Agreements?
COG News: COGWA has added webpages to its site giving information about its new school called, "Foundation Institute, Center for Biblical Education". Link:
http://foundationinstitute.org/
This post is a follow up to my last post about the UCG's Code of Ethics agreement UCG ministers are being asked to sign.
If a COG organization asks its local elders and employed pastors to sign a "code of ethics" agreement requiring ministers to abide by "amplifications" of the Bible that are not in the Bible and requiring ministers to promise in advance to support the decisions of the leaders of that fellowship, without knowing what those decisions will be, should he sign? In my opinion, he should not. As a member, I would not be inclined to trust a minister very much who has signed such an agreement. I would find it difficult to trust him to tell me the truth about Bible doctrines. I would think he would be compromised by his signature to support the teachings of the organization that employs him whether those teachings are true or not, whether he agrees with them or not.
Suppose a minister signs an agreement to support the teaching of a Church organization. Maybe that organization teaches a certain understanding on a small point of doctrine, perhaps about a detail of prophecy that this minister does not agree with. Maybe the minister has written to headquarters proposing that the small point of doctrine be changed, backing up his position with scripture, and is awaiting an answer. Or maybe, after months or years of working its way through committees, his proposal is rejected, but not on biblical grounds. In the meantime, I, a lay member, come to the minister and ask him about that doctrinal point. What is he going to do, lie to me? Because in effect, that is exactly what he has promised to do!
By signing an agreement to actively teach whatever doctrines the organization teaches, he has made a binding agreement to LIE to members of the Church under certain circumstances.
Or, should the minister feel obligated, because of his signature on a code of ethics to support all the organizations teachings, to resign from fellowship with that organization the second they teach anything he cannot truthfully support or defend, even if it is a small doctrine?
Would Herbert W. Armstrong have signed such an agreement if Church of God Seventh Day had asked him to when he was a member and later a minister attending with that fellowship and employed by them? Read his autobiography. He always placed loyalty to Christ and to the Bible ahead of loyalty to an organization. I am sure he would have refused to sign.
Some have compared this to a typical ethics agreement large corporations sometimes ask their employees to sign. There are similarities, but there are also differences. The UCG code of ethics agreement, if it is expected to be signed by all ministers including local elders, is not an employment agreement. It is not an agreement made necessary by conditions of employment. It is an attempt to, in effect, change or override Christ's instructions to ministers that come from the Bible. As the Pharisees tried to modify or "amplify" God's laws by their traditions of men, so some organizations try to modify or amplify Christ's instructions to ministers by their "code of ethics".
What did the Pharisees do? They tried to "amplify" God's law by adding a lot of do's and don'ts, such as the washing of hands, that are not in the Bible, then made those "amplifications" binding on those under their authority. The Bible was not sufficient for them. Apparently, God forgot to give Moses instructions about the washing of hands, so the Pharisees had to do it (Mark 7:1-7). They "amplified" the Bible all right.
Yet God says, "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:32).
I do not say that Church of God leaders do not have authority to make administrative decisions. In any such case, a minister or member can obey those decisions except when they conflict with God's law. The Bible itself teaches obedience to authority (Hebrews 13:17). But I think there is a great danger in making a commitment to support decisions without knowing what those decisions will be. And it is unnecessary.
There is also a great danger in requiring, or giving, a commitment to obey a document that represents itself as a code of ethics. The danger is that such a document competes with the Bible, and a commitment to follow a man-made code of ethics is in competition with our commitment to obey God and to obey His Word, the Bible. In my opinion, if a COG leader or COG organization requires ministers to sign such a document, that is an indication that they are requiring too much loyalty to an organization and not sufficiently teaching loyalty to Christ and God.
More to come...
http://foundationinstitute.org/
This post is a follow up to my last post about the UCG's Code of Ethics agreement UCG ministers are being asked to sign.
If a COG organization asks its local elders and employed pastors to sign a "code of ethics" agreement requiring ministers to abide by "amplifications" of the Bible that are not in the Bible and requiring ministers to promise in advance to support the decisions of the leaders of that fellowship, without knowing what those decisions will be, should he sign? In my opinion, he should not. As a member, I would not be inclined to trust a minister very much who has signed such an agreement. I would find it difficult to trust him to tell me the truth about Bible doctrines. I would think he would be compromised by his signature to support the teachings of the organization that employs him whether those teachings are true or not, whether he agrees with them or not.
Suppose a minister signs an agreement to support the teaching of a Church organization. Maybe that organization teaches a certain understanding on a small point of doctrine, perhaps about a detail of prophecy that this minister does not agree with. Maybe the minister has written to headquarters proposing that the small point of doctrine be changed, backing up his position with scripture, and is awaiting an answer. Or maybe, after months or years of working its way through committees, his proposal is rejected, but not on biblical grounds. In the meantime, I, a lay member, come to the minister and ask him about that doctrinal point. What is he going to do, lie to me? Because in effect, that is exactly what he has promised to do!
By signing an agreement to actively teach whatever doctrines the organization teaches, he has made a binding agreement to LIE to members of the Church under certain circumstances.
Or, should the minister feel obligated, because of his signature on a code of ethics to support all the organizations teachings, to resign from fellowship with that organization the second they teach anything he cannot truthfully support or defend, even if it is a small doctrine?
Would Herbert W. Armstrong have signed such an agreement if Church of God Seventh Day had asked him to when he was a member and later a minister attending with that fellowship and employed by them? Read his autobiography. He always placed loyalty to Christ and to the Bible ahead of loyalty to an organization. I am sure he would have refused to sign.
Some have compared this to a typical ethics agreement large corporations sometimes ask their employees to sign. There are similarities, but there are also differences. The UCG code of ethics agreement, if it is expected to be signed by all ministers including local elders, is not an employment agreement. It is not an agreement made necessary by conditions of employment. It is an attempt to, in effect, change or override Christ's instructions to ministers that come from the Bible. As the Pharisees tried to modify or "amplify" God's laws by their traditions of men, so some organizations try to modify or amplify Christ's instructions to ministers by their "code of ethics".
What did the Pharisees do? They tried to "amplify" God's law by adding a lot of do's and don'ts, such as the washing of hands, that are not in the Bible, then made those "amplifications" binding on those under their authority. The Bible was not sufficient for them. Apparently, God forgot to give Moses instructions about the washing of hands, so the Pharisees had to do it (Mark 7:1-7). They "amplified" the Bible all right.
Yet God says, "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:32).
I do not say that Church of God leaders do not have authority to make administrative decisions. In any such case, a minister or member can obey those decisions except when they conflict with God's law. The Bible itself teaches obedience to authority (Hebrews 13:17). But I think there is a great danger in making a commitment to support decisions without knowing what those decisions will be. And it is unnecessary.
There is also a great danger in requiring, or giving, a commitment to obey a document that represents itself as a code of ethics. The danger is that such a document competes with the Bible, and a commitment to follow a man-made code of ethics is in competition with our commitment to obey God and to obey His Word, the Bible. In my opinion, if a COG leader or COG organization requires ministers to sign such a document, that is an indication that they are requiring too much loyalty to an organization and not sufficiently teaching loyalty to Christ and God.
More to come...
Friday, March 16, 2012
Would Jesus Christ Sign UCG's Ministerial Code of Ethics?
First, an update on recent COG news from various blogs.
Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA) reported that their fiscal year 2011 income was $8,728,000. Here is a link to the post:
http://members.cogwa.org/news/announcements-from-ministerial-newsletter-january-26-2012/
United Church of God (UCG) has published statistics and a chart showing that responses to its TV program have about doubled each year for the past two years. Link:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/annual-report-beyond-today-tv-responses/
COGWA reported that it has made a decision on the location of a headquarters office. Link:
http://members.cogwa.org/news/february-9-2012-member-letter/
COGwriter has reported on UCG's finances for its fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. Link:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucg-publishes-financials-2/
COGwriter and James Malm have each reported on a recent UCG conference and published various UCG statistics such as number of UCG elders, number of UCG pastors, etc. Links:
COGwriter:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucg-statistics-and-direction/
James Malm:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=6871
James Malm has published a "UCG MINISTERIAL CODE OF ETHICS" in his March 4, 2012 posting. Here is a link:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=6896
Presumably, all elders in UCG will be required to sign this.
Would Jesus Christ sign such a document? Would the apostle Paul or the other apostles sign it?
Every member of the Church of God has signed a code of ethics at baptism. It is called the Bible, and it provides a complete guide to God's law, His way of life, and his will in every area of life. God helps us to understand the Bible as we strive to believe and obey Him, and as we submit to the Bible's correction, we learn more and more of God's will in our lives. We learn to think as Christ thinks, and that gives us wisdom to know how to handle every ethical and moral question that comes up. Is that not sufficient?
I see a problem when an organization of men makes up its own lists of moral and ethical do's and don'ts and requires its members to sign it, in effect, vowing or promising to follow a man's list of do's and don'ts.
It reminds me of the Pharisees who added many lists of requirements to God's word, some of which actually contradicted God's word (Matthew 15:1-9).
Requiring someone to sign a paper promising to behave ethically is like courts asking people to swear to tell the truth. If a person is not honest enough to tell the truth, his swearing will mean nothing anyway. If a person does not have enough respect for God's law to behave ethically, his signature on a piece of paper will mean nothing anyway.
And what happens when there is a conflict between the code of ethics and the Bible?
In this agreement, ministers must promise to abide by the standards of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 "as amplified" by the UCG code of ethics. But what if man's "amplification" of God's word is wrong?
In this code of ethics are many detailed promises that go beyond what the Bible specifically spells out. I will mention one. Ministers in this "code of ethics" promise to uphold the decisions of the UCG General Conference of Elders.
So in effect, ministers must promise to support decisions of UCG leadership in advance of knowing what those decisions will be and even if those decisions are wrong.
I find it hard to understand how any minister could sign such a document with a clear conscience.
It makes me curious. Maybe readers of this blog can help me out. Do ministers in other Church of God organizations such as LCG, COGaic, CGG, and COGWA have to sign similar agreements, and what do those agreements say? Did Mr. Armstrong require ministers to sign agreements like this, and what did those agreements require?
I do not think Jesus Christ or any of the original apostles would sign the UCG code of ethics.
Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA) reported that their fiscal year 2011 income was $8,728,000. Here is a link to the post:
http://members.cogwa.org/news/announcements-from-ministerial-newsletter-january-26-2012/
United Church of God (UCG) has published statistics and a chart showing that responses to its TV program have about doubled each year for the past two years. Link:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/annual-report-beyond-today-tv-responses/
COGWA reported that it has made a decision on the location of a headquarters office. Link:
http://members.cogwa.org/news/february-9-2012-member-letter/
COGwriter has reported on UCG's finances for its fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. Link:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucg-publishes-financials-2/
COGwriter and James Malm have each reported on a recent UCG conference and published various UCG statistics such as number of UCG elders, number of UCG pastors, etc. Links:
COGwriter:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucg-statistics-and-direction/
James Malm:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=6871
James Malm has published a "UCG MINISTERIAL CODE OF ETHICS" in his March 4, 2012 posting. Here is a link:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=6896
Presumably, all elders in UCG will be required to sign this.
Would Jesus Christ sign such a document? Would the apostle Paul or the other apostles sign it?
Every member of the Church of God has signed a code of ethics at baptism. It is called the Bible, and it provides a complete guide to God's law, His way of life, and his will in every area of life. God helps us to understand the Bible as we strive to believe and obey Him, and as we submit to the Bible's correction, we learn more and more of God's will in our lives. We learn to think as Christ thinks, and that gives us wisdom to know how to handle every ethical and moral question that comes up. Is that not sufficient?
I see a problem when an organization of men makes up its own lists of moral and ethical do's and don'ts and requires its members to sign it, in effect, vowing or promising to follow a man's list of do's and don'ts.
It reminds me of the Pharisees who added many lists of requirements to God's word, some of which actually contradicted God's word (Matthew 15:1-9).
Requiring someone to sign a paper promising to behave ethically is like courts asking people to swear to tell the truth. If a person is not honest enough to tell the truth, his swearing will mean nothing anyway. If a person does not have enough respect for God's law to behave ethically, his signature on a piece of paper will mean nothing anyway.
And what happens when there is a conflict between the code of ethics and the Bible?
In this agreement, ministers must promise to abide by the standards of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 "as amplified" by the UCG code of ethics. But what if man's "amplification" of God's word is wrong?
In this code of ethics are many detailed promises that go beyond what the Bible specifically spells out. I will mention one. Ministers in this "code of ethics" promise to uphold the decisions of the UCG General Conference of Elders.
So in effect, ministers must promise to support decisions of UCG leadership in advance of knowing what those decisions will be and even if those decisions are wrong.
I find it hard to understand how any minister could sign such a document with a clear conscience.
It makes me curious. Maybe readers of this blog can help me out. Do ministers in other Church of God organizations such as LCG, COGaic, CGG, and COGWA have to sign similar agreements, and what do those agreements say? Did Mr. Armstrong require ministers to sign agreements like this, and what did those agreements require?
I do not think Jesus Christ or any of the original apostles would sign the UCG code of ethics.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Lying to God
You probably remember the account in the Bible. Acts 4:32-37 describes how members of the early Church agreed to share things in common, and those who had lands and possessions sold them and brought the money to the apostles. In Acts 5:1-11, Ananias and his wife Sapphira sold a possession of land and agreed between themselves to lie to Peter and the apostles about the amount they had received so they could secretly keep back part of the money for themselves. So Ananias brought only part of the money to Peter and the apostles, but representing it as the whole (verse 2).
"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God' " (Acts 5:3-4).
Notice, the wrong Peter accused Ananias of was not keeping the land or the money, but lying about it. Peter said that by lying to Peter and the apostles, he was lying to the Holy Spirit and to God. Why? Because Peter and the apostles had the Holy Spirit dwelling in them.
I have heard this passage used in teaching by ministers to warn members about the dangers of lying to ministers. That is certainly a valid warning. If we are being counseled by a minister or are communicating with our pastor about something, we should be careful not to try to lie to him or deceive him.
I have heard a speaker say that sometimes in the Bible, God makes an example of someone to show how seriously He views a certain kind of sin, but after that does not repeat the punishment in every case that follows. So not everyone who lies to a minister will immediately fall dead as Ananias and Sapphira did. But God did this that time as an example for us, to show us how seriously he views that particular sin. It is up to us to read the account and learn from that example and avoid the same sin.
But there is more to learn from this example than just the lesson, "don't lie to your pastor."
Look carefully at what Peter said to Ananias. Did he say, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the apostles and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? .... You have not lied to men but to God"? No, that is not what he said. He said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit ...". Ananias lied to God, according to Peter, not because he lied to the apostles, but because he lied to the Holy Spirit. How did he lie to the Holy Spirit? He lied to men who had the Holy Spirit in them, that is, the apostles.
In other words, what made the sin so serious was not the office or position of authority as apostles that Peter and the other apostles had, or the fact that they were ministers, but the fact that they were converted members of the Church of God having the Holy Spirit in them!
This raises questions to consider. Do only leaders and ministers in the Church of God have the Holy Spirit? Do not members have the Holy Spirit also? And therefore, is lying to another member of the Church, whether he is a minister or not, also "lying to the Holy Spirit" and therefore falls into the category of this sin that God considers so serious that He struck Ananias and Sapphira dead as a warning to us not to do what they did?
"Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds..." (Colossians 3:9).
Now take it a step further. If it is lying to the Holy Spirit, and therefore lying to God, to lie to a human being who is converted and has God's Holy Spirit dwelling in him or her, would it not therefore being lying to God for a minister or pastor to lie to a member of the Church who is converted and has the Holy Spirit? And would this not include, not only lying to a member personally in face-to-face discussion, but also lying to a whole congregation by twisting and misrepresenting scriptures in a sermon, or even lying to an entire fellowship and the Church of God as a whole by doing the same thing in published articles, booklets, or books?
Christ sometimes represents the wrong we do to each other, or the good we do for each other, as if it is done to Him personally. "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me' " (Matthew 25:40). See all of Matthew 25:31-46
We have a warning from God in the Bible. None of us, minister or layman, should lie to another converted member of the Church, whether in speaking or writing, whether to one person or an audience. Ministers, speakers, writers, and teachers in the Church of God should never deliberately twist scriptures out of context to make a point to Church members or lie concerning doctrine or anything else. Making honest mistakes is one thing. We all do that, God knows our level of knowledge is not perfect (1 Corinthians 13:9). We need to try our best to be accurate and true in our communications. But Ananias and Sapphira did not make a mistake about how much they sold their land for. They KNEW they were lying. In fact, they conspired together to lie. They agreed about what to say so their lies would match up! That would be like a pastor and a local elder, or a writer and an editor, agreeing between themselves to misrepresent a doctrine or a scripture to the members of the Church!
The impulse to lie to other Church members having God's Spirit, in Ananias's case, did not come from God but from Satan (Acts 5:23). "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it" (John 8:44).
I think that is one of the things God is warning us about in Acts 5:1-11.
"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God' " (Acts 5:3-4).
Notice, the wrong Peter accused Ananias of was not keeping the land or the money, but lying about it. Peter said that by lying to Peter and the apostles, he was lying to the Holy Spirit and to God. Why? Because Peter and the apostles had the Holy Spirit dwelling in them.
I have heard this passage used in teaching by ministers to warn members about the dangers of lying to ministers. That is certainly a valid warning. If we are being counseled by a minister or are communicating with our pastor about something, we should be careful not to try to lie to him or deceive him.
I have heard a speaker say that sometimes in the Bible, God makes an example of someone to show how seriously He views a certain kind of sin, but after that does not repeat the punishment in every case that follows. So not everyone who lies to a minister will immediately fall dead as Ananias and Sapphira did. But God did this that time as an example for us, to show us how seriously he views that particular sin. It is up to us to read the account and learn from that example and avoid the same sin.
But there is more to learn from this example than just the lesson, "don't lie to your pastor."
Look carefully at what Peter said to Ananias. Did he say, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the apostles and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? .... You have not lied to men but to God"? No, that is not what he said. He said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit ...". Ananias lied to God, according to Peter, not because he lied to the apostles, but because he lied to the Holy Spirit. How did he lie to the Holy Spirit? He lied to men who had the Holy Spirit in them, that is, the apostles.
In other words, what made the sin so serious was not the office or position of authority as apostles that Peter and the other apostles had, or the fact that they were ministers, but the fact that they were converted members of the Church of God having the Holy Spirit in them!
This raises questions to consider. Do only leaders and ministers in the Church of God have the Holy Spirit? Do not members have the Holy Spirit also? And therefore, is lying to another member of the Church, whether he is a minister or not, also "lying to the Holy Spirit" and therefore falls into the category of this sin that God considers so serious that He struck Ananias and Sapphira dead as a warning to us not to do what they did?
"Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds..." (Colossians 3:9).
Now take it a step further. If it is lying to the Holy Spirit, and therefore lying to God, to lie to a human being who is converted and has God's Holy Spirit dwelling in him or her, would it not therefore being lying to God for a minister or pastor to lie to a member of the Church who is converted and has the Holy Spirit? And would this not include, not only lying to a member personally in face-to-face discussion, but also lying to a whole congregation by twisting and misrepresenting scriptures in a sermon, or even lying to an entire fellowship and the Church of God as a whole by doing the same thing in published articles, booklets, or books?
Christ sometimes represents the wrong we do to each other, or the good we do for each other, as if it is done to Him personally. "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me' " (Matthew 25:40). See all of Matthew 25:31-46
We have a warning from God in the Bible. None of us, minister or layman, should lie to another converted member of the Church, whether in speaking or writing, whether to one person or an audience. Ministers, speakers, writers, and teachers in the Church of God should never deliberately twist scriptures out of context to make a point to Church members or lie concerning doctrine or anything else. Making honest mistakes is one thing. We all do that, God knows our level of knowledge is not perfect (1 Corinthians 13:9). We need to try our best to be accurate and true in our communications. But Ananias and Sapphira did not make a mistake about how much they sold their land for. They KNEW they were lying. In fact, they conspired together to lie. They agreed about what to say so their lies would match up! That would be like a pastor and a local elder, or a writer and an editor, agreeing between themselves to misrepresent a doctrine or a scripture to the members of the Church!
The impulse to lie to other Church members having God's Spirit, in Ananias's case, did not come from God but from Satan (Acts 5:23). "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it" (John 8:44).
I think that is one of the things God is warning us about in Acts 5:1-11.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
My Latest COG "Olds" - UCG and LCG Meet
I can't call this "News", since it is about 3 weeks old, but I have fallen behind in my reading, and it is news for me. I like to chronicle what I feel may be significant events in the Churches of God, so even though many of you who keep up with COG news may already know about this, I will report it anyway, at least to provide anyone a chance to comment on this topic even though it is not "new".
On January 12, 2012, UCG reported in its Inside United: Realtime blog and LCG reported in its weekly updates that there was a meeting between leaders of United Church of God (UCG) and Living Church of God (LCG). The meeting took place January 9 and 10 at LCG headquarters in Charlotte, NC. Attending from UCG were Dennis Luker, Victor Kubik, and Peter Eddington. Attending from LCG were Roderick C. Meredith, Richard Ames, and Douglas Winnail.
They discussed subjects of mutual interest including disaster relief for Church of God members, strategies for preaching the gospel, differences of view concerning the structure of government, and matters of legal concern such as how the Church can help members get time off for the Sabbath and holy days. There was no discussion of any merger.
Here are links to the announcements:
UCG announcement:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/announcement-ucg-and-lcg-representatives-meet/
LCG announcement:
http://www.cogl.org/cgi-bin/cogl/weeklyupdates/cogl-wkupdates.cgi?category=WeeklyUpdate1&item=1326546011
I am a bit surprised because I would have thought it more likely that leaders of COGWA would first meet with LCG leaders. Several years ago, when they were part of UCG, COGWA leaders Jim Franks and Clyde Kilough had visited LCG headquarters and met with LCG leaders.
While leaders of UCG and COGWA have been willing to meet with LCG, I think it will be a while before there are similar meetings between UCG and COGWA.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Church Government, Chapter 7
On January 12, 2012, UCG reported in its Inside United: Realtime blog and LCG reported in its weekly updates that there was a meeting between leaders of United Church of God (UCG) and Living Church of God (LCG). The meeting took place January 9 and 10 at LCG headquarters in Charlotte, NC. Attending from UCG were Dennis Luker, Victor Kubik, and Peter Eddington. Attending from LCG were Roderick C. Meredith, Richard Ames, and Douglas Winnail.
They discussed subjects of mutual interest including disaster relief for Church of God members, strategies for preaching the gospel, differences of view concerning the structure of government, and matters of legal concern such as how the Church can help members get time off for the Sabbath and holy days. There was no discussion of any merger.
Here are links to the announcements:
UCG announcement:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/announcement-ucg-and-lcg-representatives-meet/
LCG announcement:
http://www.cogl.org/cgi-bin/cogl/weeklyupdates/cogl-wkupdates.cgi?category=WeeklyUpdate1&item=1326546011
I am a bit surprised because I would have thought it more likely that leaders of COGWA would first meet with LCG leaders. Several years ago, when they were part of UCG, COGWA leaders Jim Franks and Clyde Kilough had visited LCG headquarters and met with LCG leaders.
While leaders of UCG and COGWA have been willing to meet with LCG, I think it will be a while before there are similar meetings between UCG and COGWA.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Church Government, Chapter 7
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Should a UCG Member Leave Because UCG MIGHT Change Doctrine?
Someone commented in my December 12, 2011 post, "COGWA Headquarters Location", that UCG to date has not made any doctrinal changes, and UCG members should not leave that Church just because they MIGHT make doctrinal changes in the future.
I agree that UCG has not made any major doctrinal changes. As far as I know, they have not made any minor changes either, though I have not been watching them closely enough to know definitely one way or another.
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that they have made NO doctrinal changes to date, zero, nada. Should a UCG member leave that organization just because he or she thinks they MIGHT make changes in the future?
Though some UCG members who left to go to COGWA may have left because they expect UCG to change doctrine, many who left UCG to go with COGWA did not leave because they thought UCG might change doctrine, but they left to stay with their pastor who was leaving. In other words, when their pastor left UCG, the members had to make a choice to leave UCG or leave their pastor. Some of them stayed with their pastor giving greater priority to their relationship with the man they know than with a corporate organization. I do not fault them for that.
UCG has not officially changed doctrine, and maybe they never will, but it is not wrong for a member to read the signs of the times (Matthew 16:2-3) and foresee and avoid future problems (Proverbs 22:3, 27:12). Many members do not want to invest in the growth of an organization if that organization is getting ready to turn away from sound doctrine. They would rather invest the tithes and offerings God has entrusted them with in whatever group they believe will be most faithful now and in the future. Church of God members have the right to make those kinds of judgments. That is the right exercise of godly wisdom.
It's really up to each individual to exercise judgment to stay or leave, and there are so many factors involved including personal circumstances and levels of understanding that it is probably wrong for anyone to judge another member for leaving or staying in UCG. For one person it might be best to stay and for someone else it might be best to leave. God can give each person the wisdom and discernment to know God's will and make the best decision for that particular person, not someone else.
While I have seen no concrete proof that UCG is going to change doctrine, I think there is strong circumstantial evidence that many leaders and ministers in UCG want to change doctrine and are getting ready to make the attempt. The strongest evidence, in my opinion, is the Sabbath paper they published, one that I think is was very provocative and in its implications seemed to change doctrine and contained errors, a paper that was bound to provoke questions from members, questions addressed to their pastor who was then forced to take a stand for or against the paper. It appears to me that this paper was used as a vehicle for pressuring pastors to leave UCG, and it would be those pastors who were the most loyal to the Sabbath doctrine who would be pressured to leave. Now, if that is the case, and if UCG leaders are 100% faithful to the old doctrines, why and how could they use this method to get rid of the pastors they wanted to get rid of? As soon as those pastors left, UCG seems to have reversed itself on the Sabbath paper, basically affirming the old Sabbath teaching. It appears that once that paper had served its purpose in helping to get rid of most of the paid ministry, it was no longer needed and it was in effect disavowed. I think once the COGWA ministers were out of UCG and could no longer vote in UCG elections, UCG leaders had a different priority, namely, to reassure their members that they would NOT change doctrine so they would not leave to go to COGWA.
UCG ministers may not all be in agreement. They stuck together during the split to support their own side, but now that they won that battle, cracks in their unity may emerge. Probably, some want to change doctrine a lot, some a little, and some do not want to change doctrine at all. Time will tell whose policies will prevail in UCG.
I do not agree with the governance structure of UCG or COGWA, and I am concerned about COGWA's inability to do a strong work of preaching the gospel because of their budget situation. They have too many paid ministers and not enough tithe-paying members to support the ministry plus an effective work of preaching to the public. But if I didn't care about those things, if I were attending with UCG and my only priority was sticking to the old doctrines, I would definitely be considering going to COGWA at this point.
I agree that UCG has not made any major doctrinal changes. As far as I know, they have not made any minor changes either, though I have not been watching them closely enough to know definitely one way or another.
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that they have made NO doctrinal changes to date, zero, nada. Should a UCG member leave that organization just because he or she thinks they MIGHT make changes in the future?
Though some UCG members who left to go to COGWA may have left because they expect UCG to change doctrine, many who left UCG to go with COGWA did not leave because they thought UCG might change doctrine, but they left to stay with their pastor who was leaving. In other words, when their pastor left UCG, the members had to make a choice to leave UCG or leave their pastor. Some of them stayed with their pastor giving greater priority to their relationship with the man they know than with a corporate organization. I do not fault them for that.
UCG has not officially changed doctrine, and maybe they never will, but it is not wrong for a member to read the signs of the times (Matthew 16:2-3) and foresee and avoid future problems (Proverbs 22:3, 27:12). Many members do not want to invest in the growth of an organization if that organization is getting ready to turn away from sound doctrine. They would rather invest the tithes and offerings God has entrusted them with in whatever group they believe will be most faithful now and in the future. Church of God members have the right to make those kinds of judgments. That is the right exercise of godly wisdom.
It's really up to each individual to exercise judgment to stay or leave, and there are so many factors involved including personal circumstances and levels of understanding that it is probably wrong for anyone to judge another member for leaving or staying in UCG. For one person it might be best to stay and for someone else it might be best to leave. God can give each person the wisdom and discernment to know God's will and make the best decision for that particular person, not someone else.
While I have seen no concrete proof that UCG is going to change doctrine, I think there is strong circumstantial evidence that many leaders and ministers in UCG want to change doctrine and are getting ready to make the attempt. The strongest evidence, in my opinion, is the Sabbath paper they published, one that I think is was very provocative and in its implications seemed to change doctrine and contained errors, a paper that was bound to provoke questions from members, questions addressed to their pastor who was then forced to take a stand for or against the paper. It appears to me that this paper was used as a vehicle for pressuring pastors to leave UCG, and it would be those pastors who were the most loyal to the Sabbath doctrine who would be pressured to leave. Now, if that is the case, and if UCG leaders are 100% faithful to the old doctrines, why and how could they use this method to get rid of the pastors they wanted to get rid of? As soon as those pastors left, UCG seems to have reversed itself on the Sabbath paper, basically affirming the old Sabbath teaching. It appears that once that paper had served its purpose in helping to get rid of most of the paid ministry, it was no longer needed and it was in effect disavowed. I think once the COGWA ministers were out of UCG and could no longer vote in UCG elections, UCG leaders had a different priority, namely, to reassure their members that they would NOT change doctrine so they would not leave to go to COGWA.
UCG ministers may not all be in agreement. They stuck together during the split to support their own side, but now that they won that battle, cracks in their unity may emerge. Probably, some want to change doctrine a lot, some a little, and some do not want to change doctrine at all. Time will tell whose policies will prevail in UCG.
I do not agree with the governance structure of UCG or COGWA, and I am concerned about COGWA's inability to do a strong work of preaching the gospel because of their budget situation. They have too many paid ministers and not enough tithe-paying members to support the ministry plus an effective work of preaching to the public. But if I didn't care about those things, if I were attending with UCG and my only priority was sticking to the old doctrines, I would definitely be considering going to COGWA at this point.
Monday, January 2, 2012
How Europe May Finally Unite
With all the attention given to the growing unity of Europe, it remains a fact that Europe has not yet fully united. A "United States of Europe" doesn't exist. The beast power has not formed yet.
Europe is in no way ready to challenge the United States militarily. Not even close. The United States, though weakening, is still the most powerful nation on earth today.
Yet Bible prophecy predicts the rising of the beast power and the fall of the United States, probably in less than about two decades. And it is clear that the United States is weakening fast, mostly through economic problems and internal divisions.
I usually resist the temptation to speculate, except in my private thoughts. Not always. Maybe 5% or less of my speculative thoughts about the Church or the world make it into this blog. Like now.
How might a final, strongly unified European Empire form?
I think we can see clues in what has been happening in Greece and other weaker nations of the EU with their budget problems. They basically spend themselves into debt they cannot manage in order to provide "government benefits", or welfare, to the people, more in payouts than they take in in taxes (sound familiar?). And when government tries to cutback welfare spending, the people riot.
So here is a possible scenario.
The stronger nations of Europe, Germany and France for example, which basically have the power to control the Euro, tighten the rules to force smaller, less responsible nations to cut spending. They have to do that or the Euro will be ruined.
Germany will not allow the Euro to go down. It can't afford that. Germany wants a united Europe, and for that to go forward, there must be confidence, confidence in the idea of a united Europe and confidence in one European currency. If the Euro fails, that confidence is permanently damaged or destroyed. No one will be quick to trust the Euro or any other common European currency again, and the very idea of a united Europe will be harder to realize.
So Germany will require nations like Greece to cut welfare spending or leave the Euro-zone, and if they leave the Euro, they will still have to cut spending one way or another.
Now, under current circumstances, the strain may not be too severe. There may be some civil unrest, but it will be manageable.
But if there is a European and worldwide economic crisis, a severe recession or depression triggered, perhaps, by disruption of oil supplies from the Persian Gulf because of a war involving Iran, then hardship in some countries in Europe may reach the breaking point where rioting and internal division outpace the government's ability to manage them.
In that case you could have, in Greece for example, revolution, civil war, anarchy. If that happens, one or more sides may appeal to Europe to help to restore order and end human suffering and death, and Germany could send in the army. This would be a precedent that establishes a central European government, backed by a strong military, which would have real authority - authority backed by force - over individual nations in Europe. And if such an authority is successful, if it restores order, ends suffering, and brings a good result in the eyes of the people, that will tend to establish it firmly and permanently. There will be no going back after that. Independence of individual nations will be lost.
Europe is in no way ready to challenge the United States militarily. Not even close. The United States, though weakening, is still the most powerful nation on earth today.
Yet Bible prophecy predicts the rising of the beast power and the fall of the United States, probably in less than about two decades. And it is clear that the United States is weakening fast, mostly through economic problems and internal divisions.
I usually resist the temptation to speculate, except in my private thoughts. Not always. Maybe 5% or less of my speculative thoughts about the Church or the world make it into this blog. Like now.
How might a final, strongly unified European Empire form?
I think we can see clues in what has been happening in Greece and other weaker nations of the EU with their budget problems. They basically spend themselves into debt they cannot manage in order to provide "government benefits", or welfare, to the people, more in payouts than they take in in taxes (sound familiar?). And when government tries to cutback welfare spending, the people riot.
So here is a possible scenario.
The stronger nations of Europe, Germany and France for example, which basically have the power to control the Euro, tighten the rules to force smaller, less responsible nations to cut spending. They have to do that or the Euro will be ruined.
Germany will not allow the Euro to go down. It can't afford that. Germany wants a united Europe, and for that to go forward, there must be confidence, confidence in the idea of a united Europe and confidence in one European currency. If the Euro fails, that confidence is permanently damaged or destroyed. No one will be quick to trust the Euro or any other common European currency again, and the very idea of a united Europe will be harder to realize.
So Germany will require nations like Greece to cut welfare spending or leave the Euro-zone, and if they leave the Euro, they will still have to cut spending one way or another.
Now, under current circumstances, the strain may not be too severe. There may be some civil unrest, but it will be manageable.
But if there is a European and worldwide economic crisis, a severe recession or depression triggered, perhaps, by disruption of oil supplies from the Persian Gulf because of a war involving Iran, then hardship in some countries in Europe may reach the breaking point where rioting and internal division outpace the government's ability to manage them.
In that case you could have, in Greece for example, revolution, civil war, anarchy. If that happens, one or more sides may appeal to Europe to help to restore order and end human suffering and death, and Germany could send in the army. This would be a precedent that establishes a central European government, backed by a strong military, which would have real authority - authority backed by force - over individual nations in Europe. And if such an authority is successful, if it restores order, ends suffering, and brings a good result in the eyes of the people, that will tend to establish it firmly and permanently. There will be no going back after that. Independence of individual nations will be lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
