I've never quite worked out how mature, sensible people can indulge in the mind games of apologetics. It's a dismal pursuit. First you fix on a conclusion to your taste, then stack the evidence in its favour, and proceed to defend it tooth and claw against all comers.
Schweitzer had something relevant to say here.
Because I am devoted to Christianity in deep affection, I am trying to serve it with loyalty and sincerity. In no wise do I undertake to enter the lists on its behalf with the crooked and fragile thinking of Christian apologists, but I call on it to set itself right in the spirit of sincerity with its past and with thought in order that it may thereby become conscious of its true nature.
Albert Schweizer in Out of My Life and Thought: An Autobiography.
Perhaps it is just me, but I would think that it is for those who have had a lifetime of good works like Dr. Schweitzer who would receive the accolade of "Well done, thou good and faithful servant," rather than the apologist who twisted Scripture into a perversion successfully, but had no really good works for which there could be such encouraging words.
ReplyDeleteAnd Albert Schweitzer was an extremely good sport. So what does that say about Christian Apologists?
ReplyDeleteBasically, you've expressed why I favor a personal relationship with God, as opposed to the formulae which organized religion attempts to impose. Since we are all unique individuals, it naturally follows that our Mentor would have us on individualized plan.
ReplyDeleteLast evening, I was watching a preacher, known for his ability to inspire, on TBN. He was preaching the message that people needed to constantly remind God of His promises to Christians in order to be financially blessed. This was a permutation of the "prosperity" gospel, as if prosperity was intended to be the normal state of Christians. It was all so formulaic, and insultingly simplistic. Of course, I realized that the long term spiritual state of the individual is what has priority, per the pages of the New Testament, not our financial condition, which can often vary in accordance to the lessons we are being taught at any given time.
On another topic, I've often admired Schweitzer for his philanthropy. Perhaps he gained an appreciation for human life based on the daily body count in his mills, where safety conditions were nearly prehistoric.
BB
It just seems that the purpose of apologists is to prevent people from knowing God as their Father -- having a true personal relationship -- in favor of the apologist being the king, ruler and emperor for power, prestige and, of course, money, to sever any relationship with God for their own gain.
ReplyDeleteSuch scenarios often result in spawning atheists and agnostics.
"In no wise do I undertake to enter the lists on its behalf with the crooked and fragile thinking of Christian apologists, but I call on it to set itself right in the spirit of sincerity with its past and with thought in order that it may thereby become conscious of its true nature."
ReplyDeleteYou guys may not believe this, but I'm essentially trying to take the same approach as Schweitzer does, with the new blog.
Did bad stuff happen in the Church? Yes. Absolutely. In many many many many cases, said behaviour actually went directly against the documented teachings of the WCG. Additionally, the bad things that happened were the direct result of "a few rotten apples" and were NOT systematic to the Church, in any way. Unlike, for instance, that little "problem" the Catholics are dealing with right now...that, friends, is systematic abuse! Think big picture, please!
The isolated problems impugned of the WCG canNOT have been systematic, because over the course of almost twenty years, spanning two almost completely opposite congregations (one large and ethnically diverse and considered "liberal" the other small and ethnically homogenous and considered "hardliner"), I attest that I never saw anything happen, on the scale of what's been posted on ESN, PT, or any of the other sites. Said sites which tend to sensationalize the details (as I did on the Purple Hymnal, parroting what I had read elsewhere on the Internet) in an attempt to obscure the truth, which is and was and ever will be, far more nuanced than the black-and-white thinkers want everyone to realize.
Example: Neil Earle and Richard Pinelli are referred to on ESN as "the Gestapo Twins" and "the terror of Toronto," I don't remember either of those gentlemen visiting my house. But a steady stream of family friends, both in and out of the Church leadership, always did. Despite the fact that my mother was unconverted....
I can also state with unequivocal certainty that never, at any time, did a minister, pastor, preaching elder, elder, deacon, or otherwise, go through our cupboards, when they visited my family.
In my experience, the only members of the Church who caused problems, were the troublemakers, gossips, and backsliders, who were either blatant hypocrites (keeping pagan holidays on the sly, all the while prattling on about how "faithful" they were for "giving up" said holidays), or who deliberately ignored/discounted everything the Church taught that they didn't want to follow.
"Basically, you've expressed why I favor a personal relationship with God, as opposed to the formulae which organized religion attempts to impose."
ReplyDeleteYes and no. What you state, Bob, is exactly what the WCG I grew up in always taught; you negate your own point by then referring to the very formulaic organized religion that you're trying to refute.
If you don't think what is presented on TBN (and the other networks like it) is formulaic organized religion, then I honestly don't know what else to say.
But you definitely can't get there: A personal relationship with God the Living Father through His Son, our High Priest; from here: A pagan professor on the TV waving a "prosperity hankie" around and urging people to "Call now for prayers! $100 pledge gets you this green hankie that will make you rich!"
Or worse yet, any of the plethora of shows that engage in everything but preaching, never mind the fact that even if they did, they wouldn't actually preach the Gospel of Christ, they only preach the false gospel about Him. And they aren't even doing that much anymore, it seems!
They jump around on the stage like circus clowns, yelling and screaming, and talking about worldly things that should be of no concern to a Christian, and they might might just tack on a "Believe IN Jesus!" at the end. Maybe.
Honestly, the most religious programming on the one basic cable "religious station" up here in Canada isn't even the professing Christian programming; make of that what you will. But the fruits of the professing Christian TV preachers are, by and large, anything but positive to those with discernment, IMO.
Wow PH! That is some of the most intelligent stuff I have ever seen you post!
ReplyDeletePsalms:
ReplyDeleteI regard TBN not as being totally accurate, not white as the driven snow, and not as being my new church, or mentor. What I do consider it to be is a place from which I can often select appropriate nuggets. They are not the architect of my personal relationship with God, and never will be. The fact is, there IS a lot about that network that is very cartoonish. Of all the featured speakers, I can probably stand to listen to perhaps 4 or 5.
The good news is that I get to exercise Godly discernment, recognizing that some are inspired, while others are carny barkers and pretenders. It's not like WCG where one had to take all or none, and where one was not allowed to go outside the group for second opinions.
As for your earlier comments on an accurate portrayal of the WCG, location and staff had much to do with whatever abusive authority did or did not exist. I don't believe that anyone who was ever a member would like to have been a part of Dave Pack's congregation, as an example. And, there were others about whom we have such a sheer number of complaints that there is little doubt that they practiced predatory authority.
What we do know is that Armstrongism presented a lying witness (British Israelism, "True" History of the "True" Church, Hislop, Velikovsky, 1975, etc.) to prop up their theologically questionable system of beliefs. If one feels that the sabbath, holy days, and unclean meats are in force for those living today, there are certainly any number of Messianic groups with exponentially more reliable theology and far better ethics supporting them probably right in one's own neighborhood.
In spite of it all, there were some really fine people in the WCG, both in the ministry, and amongst the simple lay members. I believe many of them did have circumcised hearts, and that that was due to the personal nature of their relationship with God through Jesus Christ. But, in most cases, this was in spite of, and not due to Armstrongism.
But, hey. Your mileage may vary. When Christ returns, He will indeed straighten out all of our misconceptions, and that's when we're all going to be able to be friends without reservation. Until then, I suspect that some of us will need to agree to disagree. That's the most loving thing, and it's how Paul taught his Jewish and Gentile Christians to get along.
BB
It's all about the scholarship. Yes, peer reviewed, published works of the scholarly academics of ghost hunters.
ReplyDeleteThere is no telling how many hours of academic research went into discovering that Exodus 1:7,9 is "hyperbole" by the biblical scholars. Not that it was an outright lie told by the writer of Exodus, mind you, no, but "hyperbole".
So, you see what apologetics is good for? It's good for keeping the Bible true, no matter how many lies can be found in it.
But, hey. Your mileage may vary. When Christ returns, He will indeed straighten out all of our misconceptions, and that's when we're all going to be able to be friends without reservation.
ReplyDeleteI say we get it all straightened up now on our own, just on the odd chance that Christianity is no more true than any of the thousands of religions that have come before it.
I say we get it all straightened up now on our own, just on the odd chance that Christianity is no more true than any of the thousands of religions that have come before it.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Waiting until after a resurrection from death to find out that you lived a lie is a little late, especially if there is no resurrection.
I, on the other hand, actually sat in court while the elder, deacon and deaconness in the UCG defended the stalker in the church.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, reason prevailed and the judge issued the restraining order.
Unfortunately, we have access to court documents and even videos of WCG ministers and some of the ACoGs doing the things which some want to have swept under the rug.
Of greater importance though, is not the testomony of the cloud of witnesses, but the proof of DNA and five other proofs that British Israelism is crock, we have the false prophecies as a record that Herbert Armstrong, Roderick Meredith, the UCG with it's tabloid headline Good News, the false history of a non church to demonstrate the idolatry, the heresy, the blasphemy according to Biblical Standards (in the New Testament, if that's at issue).
The WCG was a complete abberation totally corrupted, with even Herbert Armstrong himself calling Ambassador College "Satan's College". GTA and the AC Coeds? Where is that on the systemic scale, do pray tell?
If you want further analysis, just answer the question is where is the Empire today? If it were of God, would it not have continued?
Although today it is the liberal view that one opinion is exactly as good as any other, there are certain -- and they may be too subtle for some -- indications that trying to bury misdeeds and corruption in a thinly veiled cover up are that they may be unsuccessful because they are so unconvincing.
It's like one person told me -- and I'm still trying to process this: "What you say is true, but I still don't agree with you".
I think we just got another one of those: If the David defense isn't good enough, the apologists pretend it never happened, just like so many are saying the Holocaust never happened.
The false prophecies were systemic.
Hmmm. Just what does Revelation 22 say about liars?
There are things which we can and should get straightened out in the here and now. The types of things of which I was speaking are differences in belief. Yes, try to pollute less, recycle, and leave as little a carbon footprint as possible! But, how are you going to straighten out religious differences, such as Armstrongites considering fervent Evangelicals to be either Laodecean, or deceived? Or, flipping the coin, Evangelicals not being able to get along with Armstrongites because they consider them legalistic?
ReplyDeleteBB
"But, how are you going to straighten out religious differences, such as Armstrongites considering fervent Evangelicals to be either Laodecean, or deceived? Or, flipping the coin, Evangelicals not being able to get along with Armstrongites because they consider them legalistic?"
ReplyDeleteYou answered your own question, Bob. "When Christ returns, He will indeed straighten out all of our misconceptions, and that's when we're all going to be able to be friends without reservation."
"I, on the other hand, actually sat in court while the elder, deacon and deaconness in the UCG defended the stalker in the church."
ReplyDeleteYou mean "in [your] congregation," not "in the church" Douglas. I would also be very interested in knowing how these people based their actions in and on the Scriptures, or where they acted by direct instruction of the teachings of the WCG. In fact, I contend that they did not. Do you disagree?
Was it a bad thing to have happen? Yes. Was the stalker demon-possessed? Yes. Was the faith of those who defended the demon-possessed individual so twisted and distorted, that they were no longer able to see, and seek after the truth, and their faith so weak, that they could not cast the demon out of their midst? I would say yes.
With great respect, Douglas, you refer to this incident almost exclusively, when you are criticizing the Church as a whole. I empathize (believe me) with the victim, and I am sorry that such a thing happened at all, never mind within the bounds of a congregation that was ostensibly "of the Church of God." (I personally do not believe any of the apostate groups, UCG included, to be "of the Church of God.")
It was a terrible thing to happen, and it was terrible that the leadership of your congregation sided with the powers and principalities of the air, instead of standing firm in the faith, and standing up for the truth.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Their actions were not a result of the teachings of truth, and nowhere could they be found within scripture; "By their fruits...." Not "by their fruits you shall know the whole Church is false" but "by their fruits you shall know them." You shall know those who profess to be Christians, falsely-so-called, and you shall know those who are Christians, by the preaching of their lives.
This terrible incident, no matter how filled with evil, both within the participants and in the very nature of the event, is not representative of any systematic problem with the Church. In fact, it reinforces that those involved acted contrary to the teachings of the Church. Moreover, that the individual who allowed a demon into his mind, acted contrary to the teachings of Christ!
I don't believe Douglas meant to imply that the doctrines of the WCG or Armstrongism caused people who had previously been normal to become stalkers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, via the stalker incident, he has exposed a small portion of the massive collection of empirical evidence which supports the conclusion that there was systemic ineptness and abuse in the exercise of authority which we had been taught had the guidance and power of God behind it. The ministry simply forgot the whole idea of asking "WWJD?", and always handled matters from a public relations standpoint instead.
BB
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with you (and Douglas) that the incident in question, or any of the other incidents recounted on ex-WCG websites, could, in any way, be considered reflective of "systemic" abuse. Ineptness, yes, although that cannot be said to be the exclusive domain of the Church....
I personally think there is no justification for calling isolated incidents of misguided authoritarianism systemic, especially when you acknowledge the fact that those individuals were acting in direct oppposition to the teachings and doctrine of the Church itself.