Update on Church of God, a Family Community Open House

Church of God, a Family Community (COGFC), the group of ministers and members who have recently left COGaic (David Hulme) and are now primarily led by Mr. Brian Orchard and Mr. Steve Andrews, is having a conference. This is the second conference they have had since they started. Sunday, March 2, 2014 was the first day of the conference and it was an open house available for members to attend and for anyone to view online. There seemed to be about 50 people in actual attendance, not including those who viewed the conference online.

Various men took turns speaking and giving presentations. Questions could be submitted via email, and Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews read the questions and answered them. As of the time I am writing this, the audio files have not yet been posted to The Father's Call website, but I expect they will soon, probably in a day or two.

I listened to most of the open house presentations, and I will share some of my impressions in this post.

The theme and goal of this conference is to gain a greater sense of purpose and of who COGFC is and where it is going. There was a review of the goals and purpose agreed to in the January conference, and it was stated that there was a need to refocus on those goals. Various speakers talked about events they went through as they left COGaic (Church of God, an International Community). There were presentations on technical opportunities, website strategy, and media. There were also sessions in which the questions submitted by email were read and answered by Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews.

I heard much in this conference that seemed to be a defense of and a re-affirmation of what was agreed to in the January conference. The leading ministers are still committed to the goals and direction set in the January conference.

There was a call for people to volunteer their talents in various areas, including writing literature.

I have comments and I will mention some other things that were said in the conference.


How God Leads Us

My first comment is, God leads the Church through the Bible.

We need to let God lead us. Christ is the head of the Church and the Father leads us through Jesus Christ. But we should not misunderstand how that occurs.

Christ as head of the Church leads us by communicating with us so we can know what He wants us to do. But how does He communicate?

God and Christ communicate with us and lead us by the Holy Spirit. But that communication occurs primarily as the Holy Spirit opens our minds to understand the Bible and to understand the application of the things we learn in the Bible to our daily circumstances. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit leads the Church primarily apart from the Bible.

Suppose you have a question and you take your question to God in prayer. Then you fast, and at some time during your fast, an answer comes into your head. All of a sudden, you feel absolutely sure of the answer and you feel sure the answer is from God.

But is it from God or is it the product primarily of your human thinking? Or to put it another way, could the answer you feel sure about be the wrong answer? Could you be mistaken in your conclusion?

Suppose you have a conference with others, a three day conference, and there is much disputing and disagreement for the first couple of days and you simply cannot reach agreement no matter how hard you try. Then you pray and ask God for guidance, and soon after, everything falls into place and you have agreement. You and everyone feel sure God has answered your prayers. And you feel sure that the answers or conclusions you agreed to are from God.

Is it from God? Are your conclusions necessarily correct because you prayed and now everyone agrees?

Do you think Catholics and Protestants never have that kind of experience?

Now, I am not saying that God does not lead us exactly that way sometimes. But the main way God leads us is to help us understand the Bible and the application of scripture to the problems we have to solve. And we must always check our conclusions against the Bible.

So in the examples I talked about, personal fasting and then having an answer come into your head, or meeting and praying and then coming to an agreement, the answer or conclusion must align with the Bible. If it does not align, it is not the correct answer. And in seeing if the answer aligns with the Bible, you have to look at all the relevant scriptures on the subject.

Feeling sure about something does not necessarily mean God inspired your thinking by His Holy Spirit.

God leads us to understand His Word, the Bible, and He leads us by His Holy Spirit. But that does not mean that whatever ideas come into our heads about how to understand a passage in the Bible is correct and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

This is something easy to misunderstand. Catholics and Protestants would agree that a person needs the help of the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible correctly, and Mr. Armstrong would agree with that, but what Mr. Armstrong did is entirely different from what Catholic and Protestant theologians have done and also entirely different from what Mr. Tkach and others did in Worldwide after Mr. Armstrong died.

The Bible tells us what God's truth is. It is plain where we need it to be plain. But the Holy Spirit will not inspire us to "interpret" the Bible contrary to the plain language of the Bible. This is where unconverted ministers in traditional, mainstream religion miss the mark. We have to be careful we also do not miss the mark.

For example, the Bible says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). That is plain language. One can look up other verses on the subject of the soul and whether it is immortal or not, and you will find, along with this verse, the teaching that the soul is not immortal. Now, a minister in a traditional, mainstream church that thinks the soul is immortal will look at this verse, and the thought will come into his head, "The word 'die' really means 'separation from God', not end of existence", and he will think that the Holy Spirit is leading him to interpret that verse that way.

But that can't be! Why? Because that word "die" means what it says. The Holy Spirit will help us understand what the Bible is actually saying, but not assign arbitrary meanings to words and verses that are not really in the text.

Mr. Armstrong taught that we need the help of the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible. But He never meant that the Holy Spirit will assign meanings to verses and words other than what those words actually say.

It is the Spirit of God that inspired the words of the Bible in the first place. God, through His Spirit, inspired the right words to be used in the Bible to accurately represent what He is teaching us.

And when something is not clear in the Bible, we let clear verses interpret unclear ones.

But it is Satan who deceives religious mainstream church-goers into twisting the meaning of words and "interpreting" verses to mean something other than what they really say in order to fit their traditions or opinions.

That is why Mr. Armstrong always stressed that we should let the Bible interpret the Bible.

Sincere people can feel sure that God's Spirit is leading them to a conclusion, and yet, their conclusion can be mistaken. This can happen outside of the Church, and I am sure it can happen even in the Church of God.

Everything must be checked against the Bible, and our decisions and conclusions must be based on scripture, not just on the fact that we found agreement with others in the Church and now have unity or on how sure we are that God put the answer into our minds.

This is why I feel that the decisions made by the leading ministers in COGFC in the January conference, and re-affirmed now in this conference, have to be evaluated based on the Bible, not on the fact that they reached agreement and it seemed to them that God inspired that agreement. And the Bible teaches two major things relevant to those decisions. The Bible teaches that government in the Church is from the top down, that is, those higher in authority make the decisions for those under their authority. And the Bible teaches that the gospel and the Ezekiel warning should be preached to the public, and there is no precedent or justifying principle in the Bible for postponing obedience to that commission.

If I am wrong about that, if there is something in the Bible I missed, if someone wants to correct me, he has to do it by the Bible.

The answers the ministers in COGFC are seeking concerning governance should not be based on their gut feelings or how sure they are that God is inspiring them, but must be based on the Bible. They need to be searching the Bible for the answers they are seeking, in other words.

One thing I keep hearing in COGFC messages is the concept of letting God lead us. But one thing that I do not hear, one thing that seems to be missing, is the understanding that God primarily leads us by the Bible, and that the leadership will look to the Bible for answers to important questions. It is not that they are saying the opposite. Of course they will acknowledge, when asked, that we should follow the Bible, absolutely. It is just that when I hear them talking about letting God lead them, there seems to be an absence of an emphasis that we should look to the Bible to know where God is leading us, that is, God leads us, by the Bible.

And because of this lack of emphasis about how God leads us, I fear that the COGFC leadership is relying on their feelings, thoughts, and opinions, and even in some cases circumstances, and attributing them to the Holy Spirit, to seek to know God's will more than the Bible.

Obviously, the Bible doesn't tell us every detail of what we should be doing. It gives us the broad principles. Nevertheless, it does teach us certain principles and things we should be doing.

To use a concrete example, if the ministers came to agreement after praying for God's guidance in the January conference, and that agreement came in a sudden and unusual way after their prayer, the ministers should not assume that the decisions they made, to develop a new model of governance and to postpone preaching the gospel, were God's decisions inspired in their minds by the Holy Spirit, but rather should study the scriptures about that subject, very thoroughly, especially in regard to postponing the preaching of the gospel. Because if what they agreed to, that they think is inspired by the Holy Spirit, that feels right in their gut, is in fact invalidated by an honest investigation of the issues in the Bible, letting the Bible interpret the Bible, then they should believe the Bible, not their own opinions and feelings, even when those opinions and feelings are unanimous and came after prayer and fasting.


Organization

Mr. Andrews spoke about organization. He started by speaking about the events involving his leaving COGaic. He said that at one point he felt he needed to apply Matthew 18 because he had to do what God commanded in Matthew 18 if He wanted God's help and involvement. He said that God will not involve himself if we do not do what we are supposed to do. I found that statement interesting because it exactly expresses what I have been trying to say about preaching the gospel. Why should COGFC ministers expect God to involve Himself in their meetings, in their fasts, in their prayers, if they are not doing what God tells them they should be doing, that is, preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel?

Mr. Andrews reviewed the legal organizational history of Radio Church of God and Worldwide Church of God under Mr. Armstrong's leadership. He said the Worldwide Church of God was not incorporated until 1968. He mentioned that Mr. Armstrong did not focus on "organization" (meaning legal organization such as incorporation), and Mr. Andrews said that this is one of the things COGFC has in common with Mr. Armstrong, that there is not a focus on organization. We organize as there is a need.

I think there is some confusion with terms like organization, government, and governance, and some of the confusion is a matter of terminology and some may be a matter of meaning and concepts. Mr. Andrews speaks of organization primarily in the legal sense, such as forming or not forming a corporation, or forming an unincorporated association - that sort of thing. But to me, those issues are side issues compared to government and the organization that is associated with the structure of government. At the bottom of this post, I will link to a post I published about incorporation where I describe the difference between a corporation and an organization.

To me, a corporation is a tool of the Church that makes it easier for the Church to function, like a car or a building or an office copier. I used the example of Global/Living in 1998 when Larry Salyer and Raymond McNair and a majority of the governing board took over control of the Global Church of God corporation and, in effect, took it out of Dr. Meredith's control. But that was not the Church, and neither was it the organization. What was the organization? It was the understanding of roles and offices that most of the ministry and members (about 75%) shared with Dr. Meredith. It was the understanding that Dr. Meredith was human leader, under Christ, with authority to supervise that part of God's Church. It was the rolodex or phone book with phone numbers of ministers on Dr. Meredith's desk. It was the willingness of most of the ministers and members to cooperate with Dr. Meredith and to do what he asked them to do. So what happened? The Global corporation had been taken from the organization that Dr. Meredith had built up and was a leader of. So Dr. Meredith and the organization simply formed a new corporation. They chose "Living Church of God" as a name and incorporated. But for several days, or maybe a week or two, the organization led by Dr. Meredith continued to function without a corporation. During that time, Dr. Meredith was still in charge, we still had hierarchical government, and we still had weekly Sabbath services. Ministers who understood and accepted Dr. Meredith's role still did what he asked them to do. That is organization.

When you listen to COGFC ministers talk about organization, sometimes they may be talking about legal organization. Do not confuse that with the structure of government. In the Church of God, they are two different issues. Legal organization, to incorporate or not incorporate for example, is a function of our relationship with this world. It can be a tool to make it easier to do business and to function in this world. But government has to do with decision making within the Church of God, even apart from this world and its ways. You don't necessarily have to incorporate, but you have to make decisions. How are decisions made? Who makes them? That is government and it is the organization that comes from government in the Church.

How are decisions made in COGFC? When you know that, you will know something about their structure of government.

But I can almost hear a COGFC minister say, "Christ will make the decisions and we need to follow Him." Of course. But that does not answer the question of how decisions are made for the simple reason that men, even ministers in the Church, do not agree on what Christ wants for the Church. Someone has to make decisions at the human level. How those decisions are made is a matter of the structure of government. It has nothing or little to do with the subject of legal organization such as forming a corporation.

And COGFC is already organized, it is already using a structure of government, because decisions are already being made about many things. Decisions are made about the website. Decisions are made about speaking schedules. Decisions have been made regarding these conferences.

That structure is not clearly visible to the whole Church of God because decisions are being made in the background. No one I know of has a recording of all the discussions that took place in the January conference that led to the agreement the ministers reached. That is not wrong, it simply makes it a bit more difficult to know how decisions were made. Perhaps they kept talking till some compromised and eventually they all agreed about a few things, then went forward with those things they agreed on.

Right now, it appears that two men are leading COGFC, Brian Orchard and Steve Andrews, and the rest of the ministry is cooperating with them, as long as those two agree. How do they reach agreement? Probably through discussion and compromise. They are close enough to each other right now to be able to do that. They can probably do that with most issues. What happens when an issue comes up and they can't agree or compromise? Nothing. No action is taken on that particular issue.

It is like two friends who want to do something together. One wants to go bowling and the other wants to play cards. They will talk and eventually compromise and do one or the other. But if they can't? Then they do neither.

So I will try to articulate what I think is starting to happen in COGFC, with the pair of Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews as the core.

It is hard to know what kind of model of governance they are trying to develop. They say the structure should be hierarchical, and with that statement Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Hulme would agree. They might say that authority should be practiced in love, and again, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Hulme would say the same thing. But they have questions about governance, and they so far have not articulated those questions very well, so it is hard to know what they are thinking. Saying it should be like a family answers nothing, especially since many families in our society are broken or dysfunctional. Saying that government should be based on the family model only shifts the question to, "Ok, what is the family model"? The question is, how should decisions be made at the human level? Calling it "family" just slightly changes the question to, how should decisions be made in a family? And we are talking about organization, under the Father and Christ, but organization and government at the human level. So to say, well, the Father of the family, that is, God, should make our decisions, answers nothing.

But what the ministers, and especially Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews, seem to be doing at the present time to make decisions seems to be as follows: Someone assumes initiative to call a meeting of those who seem to be leaders. They pray for God's guidance, then have a free discussion of the issues and try to reach agreement. They keep trying till they reach agreement on most or all of the important issues. That agreement can come as each of the ministers, one by one, comes to an agreement with the others, either because he is persuaded by the discussion, or because he compromises and agrees to support the decision even though he does not think it is the best decision. At the end of the day (or the conference), agreement has been reached on many issues, maybe all of them, and they go forward with everything they agree on. But if there are issues they were not able to agree on, they take no action on those - they are deferred till later. And in all this process, there is exchange of advice and counsel and no one is assuming authority over the others to say, "here is my decision". Anyone can raise an issue, anyone can make a suggestion, anyone can express his view whatever it is.

In other words, they seek unanimous, joint decisions, asking God to lead them to those decisions, and they then go forward on those things they agree about and postpone anything they cannot agree about until they agree at a later time.

Is this hierarchical? Mostly, it is not, but neither is it democracy. It may be hierarchical to the degree that others in the fellowship who have not been invited to the meeting submit to the decisions of the leaders. But between the ministers in the January conference, it was not hierarchical.

Right now, to the degree that COGFC ministers and members recognize Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews as joint leaders, it is hierarchical from them on down. COGFC submits to and cooperates with what Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews agree together to do. But there is no hierarchy between those two men. They lead by mutual agreement. Whatever they agree together to do, the rest of COGFC will usually do. Whatever Mr. Andrews and Mr. Orchard cannot agree on, is postponed - no action taken.

If hierarchical government can be described as government from the top down, and democracy can be described as government from the bottom up, this can be described as neither. It is a voluntary, collaborative arrangement.

What are its strengths and weakness? Loyalty, harmony, and peace are a few of its strong points. When people agree to do something, they tend to work harmoniously with each other. No one has cause to resist or complain about a decision he has agreed to.

But its weakness is, it cannot reach decisions without unanimous agreement. The larger the governing group is, the harder it is to reach agreement, which may be why the original nine ministers divided with four of them going in a different direction. Perhaps the real leaders of the January conference were three men, Mr. Orchard, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Nathan. But even three may have been too much and Mr. Nathan left. This means this structure of decision making is limited, and some decisions simply cannot be made.

So it is harmonious, but can be weak. But that weakness may be minimized the more like-minded the governing group is. The more like minded Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews are, the more decisions they will be able to agree about.

But being too like-minded can itself be a weakness in a group because it lacks the valuable input that can come from contrary views.

A stronger structure of government, when the man at the top is of righteous character, is one man at the top to make decisions, surrounded by men with many diverse views who can offer advice, but will support the decision made by the man at the top even when they do not agree with it. That structure of government can make decisions, even quick decisions when necessary, on any issue, whether unanimous agreement is reached or not. It is a more powerful structure. It can accomplish more. And it is the very best structure of governance when the men who are in the organization, especially the man at the top, are of righteous character and live by the Bible. In that case, you cannot beat it.

Is the collaborative agreement model I described that I thought COGFC is currently practicing biblical?

Except for the Acts 15 conference, most of the examples in both the old and new testament are not of this model. Most are of the hierarchical model practiced correctly by Mr. Armstrong and practiced by Mr. Hulme. Paul for example, gave orders, not always, but he had the authority and he used it when he chose to do so. He told Timothy and Titus what to do. They in turn had authority to appoint ministers, and those ministers obeyed Timothy or Titus, and the brethren obeyed those ministers.

But in the Acts 15 conference, you had two leaders, each of which had authority over a part of God's work, and those two leaders were Peter and Paul. And they had a conference because neither reported to the other, but both reported to Christ, and the conference was to know God's will.

Is this like what is happening between Mr. Orchard and Mr. Andrews? In one sense, yes, and in another sense, no. These men are joint leaders of one organization or fellowship, but they are not each a leader of an organization. What would be more like Peter and Paul coming to an agreement in a conference of the leading men of the whole Church would be more like all the top leaders of the different fellowships coming together - Dr. Meredith, Mr. Hulme, etc. - to reach an agreement.

There is another weakness of the model of governance that COGFC is practicing, and that is, it can be unstable. It can work as long as there is agreement, but it tends to break up when agreement is not achieved on something important.

COGFC ministers will have to find their own way on the governance issue. They will have to learn how to articulate it better, even to articulate the questions better before they can find the answers, or at least to help the brethren understand the answers when they teach them. And over time, the collaborative agreement model can become completely hierarchical with the two leading men coming to a recognition sometime in the future that one of them is showing by his fruits that he is the leader Christ has chosen. It can serve a transitional purpose, in other words, to give men time to see the fruits of others to know whom God has chosen.

Perhaps this is what will happen.


What Is God Doing?

Mr. Andrews said that Israel is on the verge of a crisis and asks, how will the message go out to Israel about that crisis and what should we say about it? He asks, what message might God have for us that we can receive and carry to the world? Then he says that he does not know the answer.

I find this amazing. The answer is in the Bible. Mr. Armstrong knew that. We are to preach the gospel and warn Israel. We are to cry aloud and tell our people their sins (Isaiah 58:1). That hasn't changed and it isn't going to change. Details of how that will be expressed will change, but it is our job to use the abilities God has given us to prepare and deliver the message. That is the example Mr. Armstrong set.

He asks, is there any instance in the Bible where God works with one of His servants to do His will, then after that is finished, goes back and does the same thing He has already done? Does God repeat himself? I think the implication is that we should not try to recreate what God did through Mr. Armstrong because God will not repeat Himself - what He did with Mr. Armstrong He will not do again.

I think the answer to Mr. Andrews' question depends on what kind of detail you are talking about. In general terms, yes, God does the same thing over and over, but details differ. Likewise, we are to do what Mr. Armstrong did, in general terms, because the Bible commands it, but details will differ. What did God do over and over? The first example that comes to mind is the cycle of sin, punishment, and rescue that occurred in Judges. Time after time, the people would sin, God would punish them by allowing their enemies to oppress them, and then God would give Israel a deliverer to save the people. God empowered the deliverer to defeat Israel's enemies. The book of Judges is full of that. Of course the details differ. Gideon was a different kind of man than Samson, for example.

Of course we will not do things exactly the same way Mr. Armstrong did things. We have the Internet now. Radio is less important. People's attention spans are shorter. But we must still preach the gospel and the warning. The details of how we express the message, how we phrase it, the words and phrases we use, the titles of our articles, the technology we use, can be different, but the basic message is the same, and it is the basic message we are commanded to deliver. COGFC is not doing that. Look past all the words and the meetings and look at actions, and they have not started. After more than two months, they have not started. Those actions tell you and me more about COGFC than all their words about why they have not started.

There is an assumption in COGFC leaders I think that, "God has brought us to this point." But is it not their own decisions that have brought COGFC to the point they are at? What about personal responsibility and free moral agency? God creates the circumstances, but people make decisions, and it is the combination of circumstances plus the choices we make as free moral agents that bring us to the point we are at. Not everything we do is God's choice for us. God has not necessarily brought COGFC to the point it is at. It may be primarily the choices that COGFC ministers have made that brought them to the point they are at, and some of those choices could be wrong. The leaders of COGFC need to take personal responsibility for their choices and acknowledge that their choices and decisions have helped to bring them to the point they are at.

How should the gospel be preached? Should we wait for God to show us a better way or a new way of doing it?

Of course we may develop new methods, and God will help us. But that is no excuse for not using the methods and means we already have today. Mr. Armstrong always tried to preach the gospel by whatever means were available to him at the time. Within Church of God Seventh Day the main method he used was to rent a hall for a meeting and hand out or post announcements in the community inviting them to the meeting, then speak at the meeting. Later, on his own, he used radio. When he first started his broadcast, he had a song service and made it like a church meeting, because he did not know a better way, but later he learned to change the format. He learned by his mistakes, but he never sat on his hands waiting for God to somehow reveal a better method to do what he knew God already commanded to be done in the Bible.

I get the impression, COGFC doesn't want to start to do what God says, to preach the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel, till God somehow, maybe by putting the thought into their minds, shows them, in detail, HOW to do things a different way. Again, I hear the excuse, we should not try to get ahead of God by doing something on our own. That is a ridiculous excuse for disobedience, for not moving forward with whatever means God has given us to do what He has commanded us in the Bible. It is diametrically opposite to Mr. Armstrong's way of thinking and the way of thinking taught by the Bible.

So, ministers neglect or refuse to do what God has commanded in the Bible, then say, God has brought us to this point (of inaction), we don't know what God has in mind, but we must not obey what He says in the Bible because that would be "getting ahead" of God and it would be our work not His. They say, we don't know what God wants. Yet, the Bible makes clear what God commands.

What method of preaching the gospel cannot be replaced by a better method once that better method is known? None. Do what you can now, and when God shows you something better, use that better method. Set up a website. Later, you can improve it or even scrap it if you find a way that works better. In other words, start immediately to obey God the best you can, and continuously improve as God helps you improve.

He said the future of proclaiming a message is probably not on TV, then asks, does our Father ever having used a facility for a purpose at a particular time go back and repeat what He has done before?

Yes, God used Mr. Armstrong to proclaim a message on TV and God is now also using Dr. Meredith to proclaim a message on TV, and guess what, TV still works. People are coming into LCG from the TV program and being baptized. People are being warned. Responses to the program keep increasing. Statistically, LCG probably gets as many responses (requests for literature) from the TV program today, per dollar spent, and maybe more, than Mr. Armstrong got shortly before he died.


Question and Answer Sessions

Questions were submitted via email. Mr. Brian Orchard answered a question about, why can you not preach the gospel to the world and heal the Church at the same time, and he said there is no reason not to do both at the same time, the two can go together. This may be a slight change from previous views because I thought I remember Mr. Orchard saying at some point in a previous message, in a Sabbath sermon or Friday Bible study, that the work of healing the Church must be done first before preaching the gospel to the world.

Mr. Andrews mentioned that Mr. Armstrong often said that he was taught the way the other apostles were taught, by Jesus Christ, and Mr. Andrews said that what Mr. Armstrong meant by that was that the message he was given to take to the world was given to him spiritually through the Holy Spirit from Jesus Christ. But that is not how I remember it. What I remember is that Mr. Armstrong said he learned the gospel from Jesus Christ directly, just as Paul learned from Jesus Christ directly, but with this difference: Paul learned from the Word of God, Jesus Christ, in person and Mr. Armstrong learned from the Word of God in print, that is, the Bible.


Here are links to related posts I published about the difference between an organization and a corporation in the Church of God:

"Should a Church of God Fellowship Be Incorporated?", dated July 3, 2011, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2011/07/should-church-of-god-fellowship-be.html

"Beware of Those Who Preach Against Organization", dated March 28, 2013, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2013/03/beware-of-those-who-preach-against.html

"The 501(c)(3) Issue", dated February 4, 2013, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-501c3-issue.html

Russia's Actions in the Ukraine

The Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union and was basically controlled by Russia, as was all the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union broke up, the Ukraine became independent of Russia.

Now, the majority of the people of the Ukraine, but not ethnic Russians living in the Ukraine, want to remain independent of Russia and would prefer closer economic and political ties with Europe and the west rather than with Russia. Germany and Europe also would like the Ukraine to not be dominated by Russia.

There has been turmoil in the Ukraine recently, and Russia wants to take advantage of the opportunity to gain greater control of the Ukraine, threatening and using military force to achieve their aims. Russia may have helped stir up the turmoil. The United States has warned Russia to stay out of the Ukraine.

But President Obama's credibility here is weak. I think it is unlikely he will back up his warnings with force, and President Putin of Russia probably knows this.

If Russia uses military force or the threat of military force to gain dominance over the Ukraine, and the United States, through inaction and weakness, lets it happen, this will put more doubts in the minds of German leaders and the people of Europe that the United States is not trustworthy as an ally. And if they cannot trust the United States to protect Europe from Russia, then they must increase their own military strength to be able to protect themselves.

In effect, this can be a wake-up call, or part of a wake-up call, for Europe to develop a much greater military strength, and unity, than it has now.

For if the United States lets Russia take the Ukraine, what about other countries in Europe that used to be part of the Soviet Union but now are independent? And what about those countries that used to be part of the communist block and were controlled by the Soviet Union, like Poland and Hungary? And if the United States allows Russia to gain dominance over those nations, by force or the threat of force, how can Germany itself feel safe?

Germany has the technical and industrial might to become a nuclear power whenever it wants. France and the U.K. are already nuclear powers. Germany may decide, at some point, to become a nuclear power to have its own independent deterent against Russian agression, and it may decide also to vastly expand its army and airforce. It has the money to do it.

Then, at a later time, such military forces can be used, not just against Russia, but against other powers as well, even the United States.

American weakness in the face of Russian agression can be the motive for the beast power to rise and become strong in Europe and for Europe to feel the need to be more independent of the United States. Military power in Europe can be developed first for self-defence, but later used for aggression.

What Is the Church of God's Greatest Sin?

What Is the Most Important Thing for the Church of God to Repent Of?

The next festival and holy day season in God's Church will be Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread, in about six and a half weeks. That is a time when we focus on self-examination and repentance.

This is a time when the whole Church of God and most of its members should focus on our need for repentance and putting sin out of our lives. This is the time of the Laodicean era, a time when Laodiceanism and all that includes is the predominant characteristic of the Church of God as a whole (Revelation 3:14-22).

And God commands us to repent (Revelation 3:19). Even Philadelphians should seek a deeper repentance, for none of us are perfect yet.

Christ has harsh words for the Church of God in our time. "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing' - and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked - " (Revelation 3:16-17).

Why is God's judgment against us so harsh? When God brings our ways upon us, when He judges us, what will be His biggest accusation against us? One of course is that we are lukewarm, not on fire for His way of life. But how is that lukewarmness manifest? Christ says we are wretched and blind and don't know it. What are we blind about? Why are we wretched? What are we lukewarm about?

Since Christ addresses this particular message to us, most of the Church of God today, more here than in the other messages, we should take these questions seriously.

What is our biggest sin? Is it laxness with the Sabbath? Is it watching too much TV? Is it abuse of alcohol? Is it neglect of prayer and Bible study and fasting?

Lukewarmness about God's way of life can certainly manifest itself in all those things.

But there is one major sin, and I emphasis that word "sin", because it is sin, that most of Church of God is guilty of, and I think that sin is greater than most other sins in the Church combined.

Sin is the transgression of the law. And the most important matter of the law is love. The two great commandments of the law are love towards God and love towards neighbor. "Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?' Jesus said to him, ' "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets' " (Matthew 22:35-40).

The greatest sin in the Church of God, and one of the most prevalent, is the one of the most obvious, blatant, and serious violations of the law of love towards God and man we could possibly commit. I do not exclude myself, for I have been guilty and need a greater repentance in this particular matter, for though I write about it for others, I myself need greater zeal and love towards God and love towards man.

It is a sin we are guilty of more than any other era of the Church of God, because it has a unique application to our time today.

In a few years, hundreds of millions of people will go through a horrible period of death and agony, and we are too complacent about it. We are too content about it. We figure, if we pray and study and fast and do a pretty good job of obeying the ten commandments, if we support our Church ministry and leadership and respect authority, we will be in a place of safety, so "we" will be ok. So, never mind the physical and mental anguish of the American and British people who will suffer - our own countrymen, our neighbors, literally.

And never mind if everyone isn't warned before it happens. We have the warning, we know the truth, and we can protect ourselves by obeying God.

Are we loving our neighbors outside the Church as much as we love ourselves when we think that way? Are we loving God with all our being? Or are we loving ourselves more than our neighbors, more than God?

In the model prayer which Christ gave to His disciples to teach them how to pray, the first thing Christ mentioned was should pray for is that God's name be hallowed (Luke 11:1-2). God's name represents His reputation. We are to zealously desire that God's reputation for righteousness and fairness be protected and magnified. That won't happen if the warning does not go out to all the tribes of Israel who will go through the tribulation before it occurs, for it will not protect God's reputation for fairness if we, His servants, do not get the warning out while there is time for the people to repent and escape.

If we let them go into punishment without being warned that what they are doing, keeping Sunday, keeping Christmas and Easter, following their mainstream church traditions, is wrong in God's sight, it will seem to them that God was unfair, for they do not know that these things are wrong. They think they are pleasing God in what they are doing. And when they find out they were sinning and are being punished, won't they think God was unfair not to send someone to warn them?

We are certainly not showing love for our neighbors to let them get into a situation in which their repentance and possibly the salvation of some of them is endangered because the lack of warning and God's seeming unfairness becomes a stumbling block for them. We are not showing them love when we let them succumb to their enemy's deceptions, Satan's deceptions, when Satan accuses God of being unfair. Satan is our enemy as well as theirs, and we should protect them as much as we can.

We are not showing love when we see our neighbor mowing his lawn, say "hi" to him, and know that he and his family will suffer and be killed in a few years, and we are ok with that and with the idea that he and others like him may never hear the truth till it is too late for him to repent and escape the punishment.

When we face God in judgment, we have no excuse for what we are doing. We know the tribulation is coming. We know most of Israel has not heard a warning. We know we have the technical means and the legal freedom to warn them. And we know we are not going all out. That makes us guilty collectively and individually.

Are we going all out? No, most of us are not. Maybe none of us are really going all out. We all need to do more. I need to do more - I am coming to realize that.

God has put us in an interesting situation at the end of this age. It is like a "perfect storm" for the Church. He has put us in a situation where we can understand the need, if we just open our eyes and look. But he has also put us in a situation where the only way we know of, the way that works right now, to get that warning message out is to use money to finance mass communication through the Internet, printing and publishing, radio and TV broadcasting, and public speaking campaigns and Bible lectures. So we can give the warning to the degree we sacrifice financially.

But we don't like to sacrifice financially. It hurts. It does not make us happy to give up some of the things we love. We like our junk food, our desserts, our expensive preprocessed packaged foods. We like restaurants. We like our big, new cars, our comfortable houses, our nice furniture, our electronic gadgets, our nice clothes. We like our vacations. We like going out. We like having nice clothes. We like our movies and our TV programs, on DVDs (rented or purchases), on the Internet, or in theaters.

Considering the things we spend money on that we do not have to spend money on, considering what that money could accomplish in giving the warning to the public, do you think we are going all out? WE ARE NOT!

How can we justify that?

Some try by saying, this is not the time to preach the gospel. But God's knows that is just an excuse. Some say Mr. Armstrong finished that work and we don't have to do it. That is nonsense.

Some of us pray for the gospel and the warning to go out, then we give in to temptation and sin, knowing that our sins may hinder our prayers for the gospel. I have been guilty of that.

The biggest sin of the whole Church of God is lack of zeal for preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel. It is really the most direct manifestation of self-centeredness and lack of love for others that there can be. It is blindness, and it is lukewarmness. And for that reason, if we do not repent, God will put us through the same tribulation we failed to warn the world about.

Our selfishness in this matter is wrong. We are hypocrites in our hearts. We claim to follow God's way of life, and sometimes we feel superior to others in the world, yet we may be more guilty of violating God's law of love than they are. No wonder Christ vomits us out of His mouth. No wonder He withholds spiritual healing. No wonder he does not give us a ministry that will work together to bring us together.


Satan's Number One Battleground

I think the issue of preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel is Satan's number one battleground. He hates that message and wants by any means to prevent it from going out to the world.

The idea that we need to wait with preaching the gospel until the Church is spiritually healed and strengthened, is, in my opinion, one of Satan's most effective and powerful lies for waging war against God's Church. I am sure Satan loves that particular lie and promotes it in the Church of God at every opportunity. When I hear that lie being preached, I sense I am hearing the voice of God's enemy. I view ministers who strongly preach this kind of thinking as enemies of the gospel or tools in the hand of our number one enemy, Satan. Most of these ministers may not really be enemies. The enemy is the devil who deceives them into promoting his lies. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12).

So the enemy is Satan, not ministers who themselves can be deceived. But to the extent they are mistakenly deceived into that wrong way of thinking, they becomes weapons in the hand of the real enemy, Satan. Jesus called Peter, "Satan", when He recognized Satan's wrong way of thinking in the words that came out of Peter's mouth. Peter himself was not the enemy. But at that moment he was a tool in Satan's hands for tempting Jesus into not going through with His sacrifice (Matthew 16:21-23).

The gospel issue may be Satan's number one battleground in the Church of God, more than compromise with the commandments, more than government and voting, more than anything. Satan is furious with the truth of the gospel and does NOT want the American and British people to hear a warning before the tribulation begins. He wants the tribulation to fall on Americans and Britons WITHOUT them hearing a warning message first, because he has prepared his accusations against God for them to hear, thoughts of resentment and unfairness he and his demons are ready to pump into their minds: "It's not your fault." "You never had a chance." "God never warned you." "God is to blame for your suffering." "If God gave you a warning, of course you would have listened and obeyed, but God never gave you a chance to obey."

Satan will use any means, any minister, any group he can deceive into thinking, "this is not the time to preach the gospel", and Satan will use those ministers and groups to try to persuade others in the Church. To the extent he succeeds, he has a double bonus, for not only does he make God look unfair and make the repentance of Israel in the tribulation more difficult, but he brings guilt upon the Church for not warning, so the blood of those people will be on our heads.

There is a war going on over the gospel issue. It is a war between Satan and God's people. And what is going on in COGFC is just one battle in that war, and the brethren in COGaic and recently coming out of COGaic are the battleground. It is a battle for hearts and minds and also tithe money. I think Satan wants to tempt, deceive, and influence any person he can, minister or member, to whatever degree he is able to do, to divert tithe money to ANY purpose - feeding the flock, healing the Church, helping the poor, sending money to hurricane victims - ANYTHING, except preaching the gospel and warning the people of the United States and British nations about the tribulation to come if our nations do not repent.

Not that feeding the flock and helping the poor are bad. They are good, in balance, and in fact they are necessary, but when they become everything, and nothing is left to warn our nations, then it becomes bad, and that is what Satan wants.

Reconciliation between brethren sounds good, and it is good, providing we are not reconciling to Satan in the process. If you think that is harsh, consider that Jesus called Peter "Satan" when Peter tried to persuade Jesus not to be a sacrifice. It was not that Peter was really Satan. But Jesus knew, Peter was a mouthpiece for Satan's way of thinking at that moment. It was a wrong idea, a wrong way of thinking, one of Satan's weapons of attack, that was in Peter's mind at that moment, and Satan was able to use Peter as a tool to tempt Christ to not go through with that sacrifice. In a figurative sense, at that moment, Peter was an enemy of Christ, like Satan himself.

The seriousness of the controversy over the gospel might be more clear to the brethren if the debate was about the Sabbath. That is why I use it as an illustration. If some ministers were saying, let's not keep the Sabbath until the Church is healed, let's meet on Sundays and count the Sabbath as a workday until the Church is healed - would brethren put up with them? Not for one second. Yet in all honesty, I would not be surprised if Satan would be more pleased with a group that collected the members' tithes and did not preach the gospel and the warning than he would be pleased if they all kept Sunday but preached the gospel and the warning.

This is a war, like it or not. It is a war between Satan and his demons on one side and the Church on the other, and the war is over the gospel issue - Satan blocking the gospel with every means at his disposal, and Christ leading some in the Church to zealously try to get the gospel and the warning message out while there is time.

What is at stake? For God, His reputation for fairness and love is at stake - his name, in other words. For the Church, the stake is blood guilt if we do not warn the people. For the United States and other nations who will go through the tribulation, the stake is their repentance during the tribulation - will it be easier to repent because they remember the warning, or will it be harder for them because they think God is unfair? What will be their attitude at the beginning of the millennium if Satan convinces them during the tribulation that God was unfair because He didn't give them a warning? And since the survivors will be the first generation of Israel in the millennium, and Israel is to be the model nation to set an example for the world to follow, maybe the whole success of the millennium is at stake.

Some members of the Church of God are "on fire" for the gospel. But with some, that fire is not hot enough because they permit others who do not share that burning desire to get the message out to hold them back. Some brethren want to preach the gospel, but others say, "Yes, we will do it together with you, if you will just wait so we can do it together," and the brethren say, "Ok, I guess I can wait." Yet there is no Bible justification for waiting. Those who see the need compromise with those who don't. Why? For the sake of a false unity? Or because the fire in their belly isn't hot enough yet? It isn't hot enough because they allow others to cool it, to hold them back.


Disunity in the Church of God Is Not Our Biggest Problem

There is a common feeling and thought among members everywhere in the Church of God that we should all strive for unity in the Church of God. Brethren experience the effects of disunity personally when families and friends are divided, when young singles see limited opportunities to find mates because we are all scattered in competing groups, and in other ways. They also feel frustrated and disgusted with the way some leaders of groups attack each other and fight among themselves, as well they should. And because of this, they tend to feel that the number one problem in the Church of God is disunity. "Why can't we all get along?" "Why can't these ministers get along?" "If only we could all be together, everything would be great." And how can anyone argue in favor of disunity? Does not the Bible teach that division is bad? And so, many brethren seem to think that disunity is our number one problem.

I don't share that view. I understand it, but I don't share it. I do agree that ministers and leaders should not be harshly attacking each other. But disunity is not our number one problem, and unity will not get God's work done or heal the Church.

It is natural for Church of God members to think of division and scattering in the Church of God as problem numero uno because it affects them personally. But who among us has tasted the tribulation? Have you ever eaten your own children? Do you know of any members of the Church of God who, because of unemployment and hunger, have eaten one of their children?

Yet, this kind of suffering is waiting to come to about 500 million of our neighbors in the world in less time than you or I have been alive. I estimate we have about 10-15 years left. How short a time that is to finish the job God has given us! Where were you and what were you doing that many years ago? The year 2000 doesn't seem that long past to me, and from now till the tribulation is not that long into the future. Those 500 million people, about ten thousand times more people than everyone in all the Churches of God put together, need a WARNING. But the disunity that exists in the Church of God seems more real to most members than the tribulation.

I don't think the number one problem in the Church is disunity. I think the number one problem in the Church of God is lack of love and lack of zeal to get the warning message out.

There were 32,000 men who wanted to join Gideon to fight against Israel's enemies, but God narrowed it down to 300, and He did a more powerful work with those 300 than the 32,000 could have done on their own (Judges 7:1-8). God separated the 300 from the rest of the 32,000.

GOD DOES NOT WANT UNITY in the Church of God right now. He wants separation. He is testing us and he wants us to choose loyalty to Him and loyalty to His work more than loyalty to friends, relatives, ministers, and organizations. He wants us to really love our neighbors as ourselves, and He wants to test our love for our neighbors by our willingness to sacrifice for them. Because, before the tribulation, there will be at least two Church of God groups. There may be hundreds, but no matter how much we "come together", there will be at least two, and these two can never come together: Laodicea and Philadelphia. They cannot come together because they have different destinies. And if they come together today, they must separate tomorrow.

I think lack of zeal for preaching the gospel and the warning, the sin of simply accepting the idea that millions of our countrymen will suffer and be slaughtered without first hearing a warning, is the number one sin the Church of God as a whole needs to repent of. Everything else is small in comparison. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I see it. I have read dozens of books on the Holocaust, and the tribulation will be worse.

How will most Church members wake up to the need? Maybe if every member read about 40 books about the Holocaust, as I have done, look at the pictures of near human skeletons who came out of the Nazi concentration camps, and then every time they go out and see their neighbors - the waitress at the restaurant, the people they work with at the office, the cashier at the supermarket who rings up their groceries - picture those people as living skeletons a few years from now, then they will see the need. Where is our compassion? How can we be so cold?

But if we don't see the need now, we will understand when we go through the tribulation ourselves. Then we will understand.

What a high price we will pay for our blindness and lukewarmness now.


Here are some posts related to this one:

"What Good Does It Do to Preach the Gospel If We Do Not Live It?", dated February 22, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-good-does-it-do-to-preach-gospel.html

"Heart-to-heart to Mr. Brian Orchard and Ministers of COGFC", dated February 24, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/02/heart-to-heart-to-mr-brian-orchard-and.html

"Philadelphia Must Come Out of Laodicea", dated February 25, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/02/philadelphia-must-come-out-of-laodicea.html


Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:

CHAPTER 3 - THE EZEKIEL WARNING

CHAPTER 4 - WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL? - A LESSON FROM THE HOLOCAUST

CHAPTER 5 - SHOULD THE CHURCH FEED THE FLOCK ONLY?

Philadelphia Must Come Out of Laodicea

I have prepared this post (except for the last paragraph and some minor editing) and was ready to publish when I became aware of a letter from Mr. Brian Orchard in the COGFC, "The Father's Call", website. This letter announced that Mr. Stephen Elliot and Mr. Bob Rodzaj are, along with Mr. Peter Nathan, going to Living Church of God (LCG). This letter further states that Mr. Brian Orchard, Mr. Steve Andrews, Mr. Cliff Veal, Mr. Marshall Stiver, and Mr. Bill Hutchison intend to stay with COGFC. Also, Mr. Ted Budge is going with UCG (United Church of God). Here is a link to the letter:
http://thefatherscall.org/Letter022514.html

Here is the post I prepared previous to reading this letter:

Since the split up of Worldwide after the death of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and after the scattering the Church of God, there has been a longing among most brethren for unity.

Certainly the right kind of unity is something to be desired, prayed for, and worked for. "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psalm 133:1). "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10). "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" (Romans 16:17).

We should work for the unity among us that comes from unity with God. As each of us draws closer to God, we should draw closer to each other as well.

But we are human, we have human nature, and we have free moral agency. You can seek unity with God yourself, but you cannot make others in the Church seek unity with God. You can encourage them, but ultimately it is their choice, and division occurs and grows when some seek greater unity with God (by believing and obeying the Bible) while others do not. And when that happens, the divisions that occur are the responsibility and fault of those who choose not to believe and obey the Bible, not those who draw closer to God through faith and obedience.

In the COGaic split, which is still in motion (more will probably leave COGaic in the future than have already left that organization up till now), much has been made of the fact that the United States and Britain in prophecy doctrine has been minimized in COGaic and needs to be re-taught and re-emphasized. But there is another doctrine that was taught by Mr. Armstrong, and is taught by the Bible, but may have been neglected by COGaic, and this doctrine is very relevant to what is happening in Church of God, a Family Community (COGFC), a group that has recently come out of COGaic, led by Brian Orchard, Steve Andrews, and other leading ministers.

The doctrine I am talking about is the doctrine of the eras of the Church, as described in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, from the first era, Ephesus, to the last, Laodicea. According to this doctrine, the seven messages to the seven churches represent seven eras of the Church, which occur in the same sequence as the messages in Revelation. So the first era is Ephesus, then the second is Smyrna, the third Pergamos, then Thyatira, then Sardis, then Philadelphia, and lastly Laodicea. Each era represents a period of time in the history of the true Church of God in which the characteristics described in the letter for that era predominate.

I say that this doctrine may have been neglected in COGaic because I remember a video with Mr. Hulme in which he spoke of the seven churches of Revelation. In that video, he described the seven churches, but said nothing about eras of the Church. I suspect this has not been taught much in COGaic.

Yet it is critical for understanding what is happening in COGFC today. The upcoming March conference may be a step in the ongoing fulfillment of this doctrine.

I do not want to try to prove this doctrine at this time. I will just point out that the sequence of the messages in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are identical to the sequence of the cities mentioned on a mail route, according to articles I have seen. There would be no reason for the messages to be listed in that order if the only meaning for us today is that they represented seven characteristics that can be present in the Church at any time. Also, an examination of the history of the Church, especially in the last 100 years, seems to show a match between actual events in the Church and the sequence of messages in Revelation when they are understood as eras.

How does this relate to COGFC, right now?

Decisions are being made that will influence the brethren and ministers who choose to stay in COGFC for years to come, and a correct understanding of those decisions and their consequences may depend on the understanding of Church of God eras. Decisions will be made during and after the March conference, not just by ministers, but by the brethren.

Mr. Armstrong taught that Church of God Seventh Day was Sardis. The Church has taught that Radio Church of God / Worldwide Church of God under Mr. Armstrong's leadership, for most of that period of time, was Philadelphia. We now seem to be in the Laodicean era.

Two characteristics of Philadelphia that differentiate it from Laodicea is that Philadelphia is promised an open door for preaching the gospel and is promised protection from the tribulation (Revelation 3:7-10). Laodicea has neither of these promises.

During the Philadelphia era when Mr. Armstrong was alive, we had a door for preaching the gospel that was open wider than it is today.

Yet the work of preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel was never finished. As much as Mr. Armstrong accomplished, or to put it more accurately, as much as Christ did through Mr. Armstrong, most people in the United States, Britain, and other nations of Israel never heard the warning about the tribulation to come. Moreover, many people are alive today who could never have heard the message from Mr. Armstrong because they were not born until after he had died. That becomes more true with every year that passes.

There is Bible evidence that part of the Church will be protected during the tribulation in a place of safety while another part is not (Revelation 12:6, 12:13-17, Matthew 24:15-22, Luke 21:20-21, 36, Isaiah 16:3-4, 33:16).

If this is the Laodicean era, then the Laodicean attitude and character must predominate during this time in the majority of the Church of God. But if the work of preaching the gospel and the warning is unfinished, and Philadelphia is promised an open door to do it, and if Philadelphia is further promised protection in a place of safety, there must be Philadelphians in the Church today or in the near future to finish the work of preaching the gospel to the world and then go to a place of safety. Yet, they will not be the majority of the Church of God as they may have been during the Philadelphia era.

Philadelphians are promised an open door to preaching the gospel, and I believe it is the Philadelphians who have the zeal to preach the gospel. That is how the door is open for them. Both Laodiceans and Philadelphians have the same physical opportunities to preach the gospel: time, money, freedom of speech and press, technology, communications and business infrastructure, etc. What makes the door open for Philadelphia but not Laodicea is that Philadelphia sees the need and has the zeal and the urgency to preach the gospel and the warning - Laodicea does not.

But as a practical matter, Philadelphia may be limited in what it can accomplish when it is in a larger, predominantly Laodicean organization.

You can have a Church of God fellowship with 1,000 members, 800 of whom are Laodicean and 200 of whom are Philadelphian, and God will open the door for that organization to preach the gospel to a degree for the sake of his promise to Philadelphians, but that door can never be open wide as long as the organization is mostly Laodicean. Only when an organization is predominantly Philadelphian will the door to preaching the gospel be fully opened so that the job can be finished.

Those who do not have their heart in preaching the gospel and the warning will always hold back and hinder those who do. They will drag their feet. They will make excuses. They will postpone. They will say, "now is not the time." They will say, "we don't have enough money". They will say, "the Church is not ready, we have to heal the Church first."

And when the majority in an organization is Laodicean, especially among the leadership, or when the leader himself is Laodicean, that organization will never do more than a small or perhaps token work of preaching the gospel, just enough to try to satisfy the Philadelphians among them, to raise their hopes, to keep them in the organization and to keep their tithes.

Philadelphians will never be able to finish God's work of preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel until they come out of Laodicea, separate in other words.

At some point, there has to be a separation.

No matter what degree of reconciliation and coming together you will have in the whole Church of God, by the time the tribulation starts, we cannot all be together, because there must be at least two groups. Philadelphians may reconcile with Philadelphians and probably will. Laodiceans may reconcile with Laodiceans, and probably won't. But if Philadelphians reconcile with Laodiceans, they will have to separate again, and that is because they have different destinies. Laodiceans will not have an open door for preaching the gospel and they will not have protection from the tribulation, and Laodiceans are the majority and will remain so, because Laodicea is the last era of the Church. Philadelphians are the minority, and they are promised the open door and protection.

But for Philadelphia to have maximum effectiveness in preaching the gospel, for them to have a door that is wide open as it was for Mr. Armstrong, I think they must separate from Laodicea at some time before the tribulation begins. I think at some point God will gather Philadelphia and do a powerful work through them. And I think it is the Philadelphians that must take the initiative to separate from Laodiceans in many cases because Philadelphians are the minority.

When I read the message to Philadelphia, I get the impression that these are people who have to go out of organizations, perhaps many times, to be faithful to God. This can be a trial. But one of the rewards promised to Philadelphia, almost like a reassurance that they will no longer have to go out of organizations as they have done so many times before, is that they will not have to "go out" anymore. "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more" (Revelation 3:12). Christ does not make that promise to other eras or churches. It is as if Philadelphians have had to go through this particular trial of having to go out of organizations, to separate, in order to remain faithful to God. That is why Christ gives them a special assurance and encouragement - in the Kingdom of God, you will never have to go out as you have had to do in this life.

Moreover, God can do a more powerful work with Philadelphia alone than with Philadelphia as a minority mixed in with Laodiceans who are the majority. There is a mind-set in the Church of God that is against preaching the gospel. People in this mindset seem to want to use any excuse not to preach the gospel or to give it low priority. When they are in the same fellowship as those who want to preach the gospel, it seems they always hold them back.

In the matter of Gideon, there were 32,000 men who wanted to join with Gideon to fight Israel's enemies in the first major battle, but God separated out only 300 to do the job (Judges 7:2-8).


What does this have to do with COGFC?

There are conflicting pressures in COGFC. I do not think all these ministers, and members, have the same views about important issues.

Obviously, there are leading ministers, those among the nine leading ministers in the first conference, who have helped to set the direction of COGFC to postpone preaching the gospel indefinitely. Yet, at the same time, there may be ministers in COGFC, whether among the leading nine or not, who have zeal for preaching the gospel. And the membership itself may be divided, with some members "on fire" for the preaching of the gospel and others only leaving COGaic to stay with their pastors and their friends who have left COGaic.

I have said that those with zeal for the gospel will not be held back. If the leading ministers in COGFC sense the zeal of these members, they may agree to preach the gospel now, but only make a token, minimum effort to do it. In other words, they will do a very small work, maybe using 5% or 10% of the tithes to preach the gospel, but never going beyond that, never coming close to 35-50% like Dr. Meredith or Mr. Armstrong spent on the gospel. It would be Mr. David Hulme all over again, doing a very small work, perhaps just to satisfy the membership so they stay in COGFC, but never really being effective.

If that happens, I think it would be a mistake for those with zeal for the gospel to stay in such a group.

I said before, COGFC needs to start preaching the gospel, even if it is only on a small scale at first. But that is only the right course if it is something that starts small and then grows big. It can start small, but should not stay small. But I think there is enough evidence, in the track record of the controlling ministers in COGFC and in the messages that have been given in Bible studies and sermons, that these controlling ministers do not have sufficient zeal for the gospel to do a powerful work, and it is unlikely they will change. And I would not have confidence that if they started now on a small scale to preach the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel, that they will ever let that work grow to become a major, successful program for preaching the gospel. I do not have confidence that controlling ministers in COGFC will ever let that group do more than a token work of preaching the gospel, but not be really effective.

I said before, your fruits become known to God and to the brethren from day one. How you start is important. For two months, COGFC has preached and practiced a consistent message: we will not preach the gospel to the world for an indefinite period of time, and our reason is, we want to "heal" the Church first. That message is inconsistent with the Bible, and those with zeal for the gospel should see that, but the controlling ministers in COGFC have not seen it.

From my perspective, for COGFC to come out of the conference, whole, intact, and committed to starting to preach the gospel on a small scale would not necessarily be a good thing. With those included who have set the current direction so far, it is unlikely they will make more than a token effort, perhaps to please the brethren. It would start small, and remain small. Then what? Are COGFC brethren to then bear with the slow pace of the gospel in COGFC for 15 years as they did with Mr. Hulme for 15 years? I do not think we do not have another 15 years.

But if those who are on fire for the gospel separate and form a new group, or go with Living Church of God which is already preaching the gospel effectively, they will start to preach the gospel to glorify God's name and to show their love and compassion for the American, Canadian, and British peoples. And then, if they start their own group, they will start small, because all things must start small, but they will not remain small. The work of preaching the gospel may grow and grow as it never did with Mr. Hulme and as it never will with those COGFC leaders who made the decision in the beginning of the year to postpone preaching the gospel indefinitely. And if they go with LCG, they will be joining a work that is already preaching the gospel more effectively than any other major Church of God organization.

COGFC should not try to stay together, just for the sake of unity, if it is a false unity, a unity of name and bank account but not a unity of mind and heart. If the ministers and members differ about such important issues as the gospel and government, how long can a forced, artificial "unity" last? And as long as it does last, what can it accomplish?

What do these people have in common to hold them together, besides calling themselves members of the Church of God? What do they have in common that all the fellowships in the scattered Church of God do not have in common? Just one thing - they all just came out of COGaic.

What is that? It is nothing. They worked with David Hulme a long time. They have some shared experience and some shared trials, but their views can be as different as night and day. Two cannot walk together unless they are agreed (Amos 3:3), as Mr. Armstrong liked to point out, and if these men do not agree, why try to force a false unity that does not and will not ever really exist?

How long can a false "unity" in COGFC last? And as long as it does last, nothing good is accomplished.

The initiative to separate may have to come from those who are in favor of preaching the gospel, and some ordained minister may have to take the lead. Those against the gospel will not separate. They have been in control from the beginning, even with Mr. Nathan in the group, and how much stronger will be their control with him gone? They will not say, "we are leaving".

Here is the bottom line: In my opinion, those who are in favor of preaching the gospel in COGFC must SEPARATE from those who are against it, either to form a new group firmly committed to preaching the gospel NOW and with priority and power, or to join with and support Living Church of God in the work LCG is already doing. I do not think COGFC can be a very effective tool in Christ's hands for preaching the gospel as long as it is together as it is now.

If that separation occurs, then some good will come out of this COGaic split. Also, a new group firmly committed to right government and preaching the gospel powerfully can serve as a magnet to help others come out of COGaic. Or, if those in favor of the gospel leave COGFC to join LCG, they can help ministers and members in COGaic to consider that as an option more than they have before.

Right now, COGFC is probably not attracting anyone still in COGaic. And that is a shame because COGaic is only very weakly preaching the gospel to the world. But to help members still in COGaic come out of that system, you need a stronger magnet than COGFC has been so far. A new group with a definite leader, organized hierarchically as we had with Mr. Armstrong, and going all out to preach the gospel from day one, can certainly serve as a strong magnet to help members come out of COGaic. And to the extent ministers and members come out of COGFC to join and support Living Church of God, they can help LCG serve as a magnet for members still in COGaic.

Some members have "fire in their bellies" to preach the gospel. But as long as they give others permission to hold them back from action, that fire is not hot enough yet. Philadelphians will be more effective when they stop letting Laodiceans hold them back from doing what God commands.

God isn't going to warn the world through the majority of the Church that is Laodicea. He is going to warn the world through the efforts of a much smaller part of the Church that is Philadelphia.

The number one problem for the Church is not how to reconcile with each other. The number one problem in the Church is to preach the gospel and the warning to the world.

Eventually, those members and ministers who understand the importance of the gospel will have to separate from those who think that the most important issue for the Church is reconciliation and "healing".

One qualification. I am not hostile to the remaining COGFC ministers and brethren. They are part of God's Church and those ministers need to be respected by the membership. They may have good things to teach and offer their members - I am not belittling that. My main point is, those with zeal for the gospel and those without it are not a good mix. There needs to be a separation. Let the two groups part as friends, but let them part.

Heart-to-heart to Mr. Brian Orchard and Ministers of COGFC

I would like to write this for any COGFC leading ministers willing to read this, especially those who have been giving Bible studies and sermons and have helped to set the current direction of COGFC, such as Mr. Brian Orchard, Mr. Steve Andrews, and Mr. Bob Rodzaj.

I will keep this short, because I sense few will read it if I make it long.

You have used the phrase, "what God is doing", but you do not seem to recognize what God is doing in the minds of some of the brethren. Something different is happening in your minds, and you may assume that if the same thing that is happening in your minds is not happening in the minds of others, what is happening in the minds of others is not of God. But God is doing something with some of the brethren at the end of this age that is very important. He is stirring some up to white-hot zeal for finishing God's work of preaching the gospel to the world. That kind of zeal will be necessary considering the enormity of the job that must be done.

But you do not seem to think this is of God. You feel the need to explain to these brethren that they need to refocus on reconciliation and drawing closer to God. You may feel the need to explain why that reconciliation needs to happen before preaching the gospel rather than at the same time.

You talk about reconciliation and tearing down barriers, but you seem to be blind to the fact that you are actually creating barriers between yourselves and many of the brethren. You talk about reconciling to God, but in the minds of some you hurt your credibility because they see that you are not doing what God says.

How are you creating barriers?

You are forcing some members to choose between you and God. You are forcing them to choose to depart from COGFC ministers or disobey God's law and God's will. In other words, you are creating a conscience problem for them. And that is true, even if you are right about the need for Church healing before preaching the gospel. You are not right, in fact, because the scriptures do not support your position, and many brethren who understand the need to preach the gospel now, not later, know this.

Perhaps you cannot help being blind to the need to preach the gospel now. God evidently has not opened your mind to see that because He is not working with you the same way. But you should at least be able to perceive, if you have any empathy at all, that this is an absolute need for the brethren who feel this way. And while you preach reconciliation with God and with scattered sheep, you are alienating some of the sheep in your own fold.

There is a need for Churchwide repentance/healing/reconciliation. That is true. God may be working in your minds to see that need and to take responsibility for helping to fill that need. But that should be done at the same time as preaching the gospel to the world. And at the same time God may be working in your minds to see the need for Churchwide repentance and healing and reconciliation with God and with brethren, God is also working in the minds of many of the brethren, apparently not you, to see the need to preach the
gospel and warning to the world right now, not later, not after repentance. You feel that what you are doing is what "God is doing", but you do not have enough empathy with the brethren or spiritual discernment to see what God is also doing in them. So you hold them back. And what could be a good message of repentance becomes a false message of a false repentance that fails to recognize the need for the Church to repent of its failure to zealously preach the gospel to the world.

Brethren who see the need for preaching the gospel are boxed in. They agree with you that the Church needs to repent and seek out lost sheep, they want to support you and stay with you, but they cannot stay with you because you are forcing them to sin.

For those brethren, to fail to preach the gospel now is sin. To support a ministry that is postponing any action to preach the gospel, without themselves doing something on their own, would be, for them, sin. And you are forcing them to choose between sin or leaving you. That is not reconciliation.

Should we be careful not to create a conscience problem with others in the Church of God? Consider these scriptures:

"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin" (James 4:17).

"But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).

"For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:10-12).

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!" (Matthew 18:6-7).

Did God force someone to violate his conscience, and sin? Consider this account:

" 'And your food which you eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day; from time to time you shall eat it. You shall also drink water by measure, one-sixth of a hin; from time to time you shall drink. And you shall eat it as barley cakes; and bake it using fuel of human waste in their sight.' Then the Lord said, 'So shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, where I will drive them.' So I said, 'Ah, Lord God! Indeed I have never defiled myself from my youth till now; I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has abominable flesh ever come into my mouth.' Then He said to me, 'See, I am giving you cow dung instead of human waste, and you shall prepare your bread over it' " (Ezekiel 4:10-15).

Ezekiel had a conscience problem with what God told him, so God gave him another way that did not offend Ezekiel's conscience. In this God sets the example for us.

You are also spiritually starving the membership, not feeding them, because part of our spiritual "food" is finishing God's work. "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work. Do you not say, "There are still four months and then comes the harvest"? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest!' " (John 4:34-35). To the degree Christ is living in the brethren, those brethren will also feel that their spiritual food is to finish God's work of preaching the gospel, and you are not feeding them that food - you are not giving them the opportunity to do it.

When you tempt members to stay with you for the sake of their friends when they know they should go elsewhere to support the gospel, you may be leading them into sin, and if you do, you are sinning against Christ.

You cannot prove your current course of action by the scriptures or by any spiritual principle taught in Bible or by any valid logic:

1) The beam in the eye passage was never intended to be used to say that we should not preach the gospel until we improve our own spiritual condition, because if that were the case, Jesus would never have sent Judas out to preach the gospel. Neither would God have required Jonah to preach repentance to Nineveh, because Jonah had a bad attitude towards God and man, both before preaching to Nineveh and afterwards, but God used him anyway. It is God who does the correcting - we only have to deliver the message, like a mailman, that God has given us to deliver. We point people to the scriptures and the scriptures will teach and correct them. We also share the good news of God's plan and coming kingdom with them.

2) Setting a right example only reaches a few around us. It does not reach 500 million people - there are not enough of us for that.

3) There is no precedence in the New Testament after the Church started on Pentecost for postponing preaching the gospel until those who are to do it first draw closer to God.

4) God commands preaching the gospel, and you can only reconcile to God by doing what he says while you are seeking him.

5) There is absolutely no reason why preaching the gospel and seeking a deeper Churchwide repentance/healing/reconciliation cannot be done at the same time, in fact, they reinforce each other and can only be done effectively together.

Besides preaching repentance/healing/reconciliation, you have also spoken of the need for trust. But by saying one thing, but doing something else, you are destroying the trust that could exist between you and the brethren. By speaking of the importance of preaching the gospel, but not actually doing it, you cast doubt on your sincerity when you say it is important.

You are building a wall between yourselves and those who know that they MUST do something to preach the gospel, now, not later. God is working in them to know this, God is stirring them up to preach the gospel with urgency, but you are not giving them an opportunity to do what God is leading them to do while they are with you.

In this, you are building walls, not tearing them down. And those brethren who understand the need, whose minds God has stirred, will have to leave you. You are forcing them out more surely than David Hulme forced you out of COGaic.

That is sad, because you may really have something to offer for repentance, reconciliation, and drawing closer to God. But on the other hand, how real is your knowledge and commitment to reconciliation if you can't understand reconciliation with those who want to obey God in your own fellowship. So maybe the things you say about Churchwide repentance, healing, and reconciliation are really smoke and mirrors after all, because these are subjects you do not really understand and believe, and if you do not understand these subjects, how can you teach the brethren about them?

You have chosen to take a very different path than Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong took. He was human and could make mistakes, and if he has made mistakes in doctrine or practice, and we can see those mistakes in the Bible, we should correct them. But such correction should come from the Bible. In your case, you cannot prove he was wrong from the Bible, either in government or in preaching the gospel. He had the right structure of government and he placed the right emphasis on preaching the gospel, and all of us, you included, are able to know the true gospel because of his emphasis on preaching the gospel. But you have taken a different direction from him without proving to the brethren that he was wrong in either of those two things. And you have placed a veil over your decision making, so the brethren do not know how decisions are being made or who is making them.

What Good Does It Do to Preach the Gospel If We Do Not Live It?

What good does it do for us to preach the gospel to the world if we are not living the gospel? What good is it to give a warning message if we are not heeding that message ourselves in our daily lives? What good does it do to preach the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel and teach them God's way of life if we are not being a good example of living the way we preach?

That is the issue I will address, but the biblical answer may not be what you expect.

Consider this statement: "Without our obedience to the gospel, preaching it to others means nothing."

Is this a true statement or a false statement? Think about it before you answer. How you answer may speak volumes about your spiritual perspective.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

Notice especially the last verse, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing." I could paraphrase it in relation to preaching the gospel, like this: "And though I give all my goods to preach the gospel to the world, and though I sacrifice all that I have to deliver the Ezekiel warning to Israel, but have not love, it profits me nothing."

There is one word that needs to be emphasized in Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 13:3 and my paraphrase of that statement. Later in this post, I will emphasize it to make my point.

Look at something else Paul said: "Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice" (Philippians 1:15-18).

In 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 Paul said, if he served others, but did not have love, it profits him nothing. Yet here, Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached even by those who did it from a wrong motive. Apparently, in Philippians 1:15-18, Paul was not concerned that those who preached Christ from selfish ambition did not do it from a motive of love.

One more passage: "I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen" (Romans 9:1-6).

Did Paul really say, if he bestowed all his goods to feed the poor, but have not love, it would profit nothing? No he did not.

Now I will repeat 1 Corinthians 13:3, and this time I will add emphasis on the word I want to draw attention to. "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits ME nothing."

If Paul does good deeds towards others, but without love, perhaps being motivated by selfish ambition, does it profit nothing? It depends on your point of view, and actually, it depends on whether you have love for others. If Paul serves others from a bad motive and without love, it does not profit Paul. It does not profit the one doing the good deed. Nevertheless, it profits the one helped.

If Paul gives his goods to feed starving poor people, but his motive is selfish ambition because he does not have love, his good deed does not profit Paul, but it certainly profits the poor people he is helping.

So, if you have not love, but sacrifice to help others, perhaps motivated by selfish ambition or some other wrong motive, does it profit? It depends on your perspective. If your perspective is helping yourself only, then no, from that point of view, it does not profit, it does not do any good, because it does not profit YOU. But from the perspective of the people you are helping, yes, it profits, because it profits them.

A starving person may not know your motive for giving him food. You may be doing it out of love or some selfish motive. But the food helps him just the same. It helps you also to give the gift if your motive is love, but if it is vanity or selfish ambition, perhaps to make you feel good about yourself, then it does not help you. But it still helps the other person.

So if you say, "Well, if my motive is wrong, then it is useless to do good deeds for others", that right there shows a wrong perspective. That shows that you think it is useless to help others unless God rewards you for your good deed. You are thinking of the benefits for yourself, not the other person.

This is why Paul was glad when Christ was preached, even when Christ was preached by those who did it for selfish ambition, not love. Why? Because it profited those who did the preaching? No, without love, it profits them nothing. But because it profits those who hear the message, whether the person doing the preaching has love or not.

So the very answer to the question shows if the person answering has outgoing love for others, or not. If you are only thinking of yourself and the reward God will give you in this life or in the Kingdom, you will say, "No, if I preach the gospel, but do not have love, it does no good." What you really mean is, it does no good for you, and you would be right, you can expect no reward from God for doing the right thing but for a wrong motive, not in this life or in the Kingdom of God. But if you really do have outgoing love for others, then you would answer, "Yes, if I preach the gospel, but do not have love, it won't help me but it will still help the people who hear the gospel", and that kind of answer would show that you do, in fact, have love for others, because you are not evaluating the answer to the question on the basis of what profits you but on the basis of what profits others.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a Church member in Worldwide during the time Mr. Tkach was making doctrinal changes. The Church member had been considering participating in a public service program to tutor people outside the Church in English, people for whom English is a second language, to help them in their reading or speaking skills at a local community college or someplace. I do not remember the details of the doctrinal issue that prompted the conversation, but it may have been something along the lines of us being saved whether we do good deeds or not. And his comment was something like: "Well, if we don't have to do good deeds to be saved, then it really doesn't matter if I serve in this program to help others improve their English skills - what good will it do?" And my thought was, "Well, it will do good for the people you tutor."

Paul was not just concerned about his own salvation and his reward in God's kingdom. He was concerned about others. He had real outgoing love, which is why he said in Romans 9:1-6 which I quoted that he could wish that he himself was accursed from Christ for the sake of his fellow Israelites - he was willing to give up his own reward or salvation for the sake of others. Of course, God does not require that, but this shows where Paul's heart was at.

Would you be willing to give up your salvation if it would help others to be saved?

At the beginning of this post, I made this statement and asked if this is true: "Without our obedience to the gospel, preaching it to others means nothing." I said that your answer will say something about your spiritual perspective. And now I say that it says something about your love for others vs. your love for yourself.

For if you answer, "Yes, that is a true statement. It does us no good to preach the gospel to others if we do not live it ourselves", then you are showing that your love is primarily for yourself. You are looking to the reward. You know you will not benefit from preaching the gospel if you are not living it, so from your perspective, "it means nothing."

But if you answer, "No, it is not a true statement, because preaching the gospel to others means a lot to the people who hear it, whether we live it or not - they will have same opportunity we had, to make their own choice, and if God is calling them, they can be saved, and if not, at least they will remember that they heard a warning, and that will help them later", then that shows that your love is outgoing towards others. You are not evaluating the statement in terms of your own reward, but how preaching the gospel affects other people.

You might say, "If we are not living the gospel, God will not bless us, open doors for us, and give us good success in preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning". Absolutely true, and that should certainly motivate us to live the gospel. We should be motivated to obey God more because we know that the more we obey Him and the more our ways please him, the more He will bless our efforts to preach the gospel and the more we can help others.

But we have to be preaching the gospel for God to bless our efforts. He can't bless our preaching of the gospel if we are not preaching the gospel.

And the idea that we cannot preach the gospel until we are perfect or until we draw closer to God is nonsense. God can bless us in proportion to our obedience. If we are obeying a little, God can bless us a little, but if we obeying a lot, God can bless us a lot. Paul never said, "Those people who are preaching Christ motivated by selfish ambition are doing no good at all." He said, "...in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice." He REJOICED that those who were motivated by selfish ambition, not love, were preaching Christ. Why? For the sake of the ones who did the preaching? No, if they have not love, it profits them nothing. But for the sake of those who hear the gospel, Paul rejoiced, because it profits those who hear the message even when it does not profit those who preach the message.

Jesus sent Judas to preach the gospel (Matthew 10:1-8)!

Were the people who heard the gospel from Judas helped? Of course they were helped. What about the people Judas healed? What about the people Judas cast demons out of? Did they profit from the work Judas did? Of course they did. Was Judas right with God? Was he living the gospel? Absolutely not. Jesus said he would have been better off if he were never born (Matthew 26:23-25). But Jesus still used him. He sent him to preach the gospel and heal the sick. And those who heard the gospel from Judas and were healed by him were helped, whether Judas was living what he preached or not. And he was not living what he preached, for he was a thief and took money from the money box (John 12:4-6).

God sent Jonah to warn Nineveh. Look at Jonah's character. Was he living righteously at that time? He had such a bad attitude, not only did he run away from the job, he was angry even that Nineveh repented and God did not destroy the city. But God used him, and Nineveh benefited (Jonah 1:1-3, 3:1-10, 4:1-4).

There have been people, evangelists, who have served God's work in modern times who had spiritual problems, even serious faults, yet people benefited from the work they did. I used to listen to Garner Ted Armstrong on the radio in the late 1960s or early 1970s, and I learned from him, and many were benefited by many ministers and evangelists who were with Mr. Armstrong, but they were not perfect, and some embraced the changes Mr. Tkach introduced. I have seen pastors I have learned from, who have helped to teach me God's way, leave the truth, and they may not have been converted.

If we, the Church of God, have serious spiritual problems, we can still benefit others by giving them the warning and the truth. All we are doing is sharing with them the knowledge others have shared with us. They can make their own choice to obey or not just as we must choose. And if we choose not to obey, we will lose out, but the people who hear us can still choose to obey.

And if we have spiritual problems, will this hurt our effectiveness in preaching the gospel? Yes, it will, because God will not bless us as much as He will when we repent and overcome. But we can still reach some people with the truth, and they can begin to benefit immediately. Then, as we grow spiritually and overcome our sins, God will increase the effectiveness of the work of preaching the gospel we are already doing. If God can use Judas, He can use us.

God even used Balaam to bless Israel (Numbers chapters 23 and 24). Yet Balaam was not a righteous man (2 Peter 2:15-16, Jude 11, Revelation 2:14).

Wanting God's blessing and help for preaching the gospel can be an excellent motive for us to repent and seek God, once we are preaching the gospel. We start preaching the gospel, we start running pay-per-click advertising, and we start to pray for the success of the ads as they are running. There will be an announcement, "We are running an advertising campaign for our article on the United States in prophecy this week, please pray for the success of these ads during the week." Then each night, the members will pray that God will bless the campaign. But as our consciences' convict us, we realize we need to do a better job of obeying God so God will answer our prayers. So we repent and seek God more fervently so he will hear our prayers for the advertising campaign, not for our own reward or salvation, but because we love our neighbors and want them to hear the warning message and the good news of God's coming kingdom.

And how should we preach the gospel? There are several ways, but one way to start, one door that is open right now, is to set up a website that teaches the gospel and the warning, then advertise it with Google pay-per-click ads. That door is always open for those willing to walk through it. It is not a door you have to knock on. It is wide open, you only have to walk through it.

So it is not a matter of trying to figure out how to preach the gospel, as if we do not know how to do it. It is not a matter of knocking on one door, and if it does not open, knocking on another, until we find one that is open. We already have one that is open - we don't have to knock.

And if we go through that door, we show God we are serious. Then He can open other doors for us: radio, print, TV, public meetings, etc. But it all starts with that first step, to walk through a door that is already open.

That door is so wide open, you don't even have to be a minister or a Church of God fellowship to go through it. Even a single lay member, with the ability to write an article and a bank debit card to buy the ads online, or a group of lay members working as a team, can go through that door, with or without a minister.

If lay members are able to do it, how much more can ministers do it?

But only if they are willing.

And those who hear our message, even when we go through that first door, will benefit from it.


We are judged by what we do, not just what we say we will do.

" 'But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, "Son, go, work today in my vineyard." He answered and said, "I will not," but afterward he regretted it and went. Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, "I go, sir," but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?' They said to Him, 'The first' " (Matthew 21:28-31).

"But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).

There is a lesson in this. God will judge us by what we do, not by what we say we will do. Likewise, when we want to know what someone will do, don't just listen to what they say they will do, watch WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

For someone to say, "Preaching the gospel is very important to me, and I am going to do it, but I don't know when", that doesn't carry much credibility with me, no matter how sincere they seem, how smooth their words, how charismatic their sermons, or how good their excuses. But if someone says, "Look, I am preaching the gospel, I have a website, I ran ads, I am getting responses, and I am going to continue to preach the gospel," that has credibility with me. I know that preaching the gospel has some importance to the second person, but not necessarily the first.


Here are links to posts related to this post:

" 'Beam in the Eye', and Preaching the Gospel to the World", dated January 14, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/01/beam-in-eye-and-preaching-gospel-to.html

"Decision Time for Ex-COGaic Ministers and Brethren - Where Will they Stand?", dated January 17, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/01/decision-time-for-ex-cogaic-ministers.html

"Will the Nine 'Mutually Submit' to Some among the Fifty?", dated January 22, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/01/will-nine-mutually-submit-to-some-among.html

"Fasting to Know God's Will and Isaiah 58:6-8", dated February 6, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/02/fasting-to-know-gods-will-and-isaiah.html

"Peter Nathan Is Going with Living Church of God", dated February 15, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/02/peter-nathan-is-going-with-living.html

"Update on Church of God, a Family Community (COGFC)", dated February 19, 2014, link:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2014/02/update-on-church-of-god-family.html


Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:

CHAPTER 4 - WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL? - A LESSON FROM THE HOLOCAUST

CHAPTER 5 - SHOULD THE CHURCH FEED THE FLOCK ONLY?