For those with an interest in the rise and fall of the wacky Worldwide Church of God, good news: major excerpts from Greg Doudna's ground breaking book, Showdown at Big Sandy, are now accessible online, and the full version, originally quite expensive, has come down in price. Published in 2006, this is one of the few really essential treatments of this singular American sect, once a major player in the apocalyptic marketplace.Greg writes: ... I have extensive excerpts of Showdown at Big Sandy newly available on my website, www.scrollery.com. I have also got the book available at a more reasonable price on Amazon, Lulu, and Nook e-book. Plus most of the book is accessible for viewing on Google Books, for any who want to check a footnote.
My previous review can be found in PDF format. As before I thoroughly recommend the book, and would do so on the strength of Greg's treatment of the British-Israel nonsense alone. A unique personal account that is also, while very approachable, informed by real scholarship. Definitely worth checking out.
Don't just read the four chapters on British Israelism online -- read Chapter 20 on tithing: It leaves no more excuses for forking your money over to cult leaders.
ReplyDeleteIt also handily answers the question of whether or not you should keep the Feast: Without funding, there's no way to attend those expensive Church Corporate Symposiums (check out the word "Symposium" to find what it means in the original Greek [hint: Ah, the wondrous stories of perversion from the Bronze Age, not unlike the Cult of Herbert Armstrong in the iPod age]). It's Oliver Cromwellism at its finest.
(Posted on behalf of Greg Doudna)
ReplyDeleteThanks Gavin and Douglas. Also be sure not to miss Peter Leschak's poem at the end ("Chapter 25: Song of the Quest"). Its a gem. I reformatted it a bit. Going on forty years now, as history fades into myth, 1970s AC Big Sandy does seem, as in the words of Leschak's minstrel, like a "lost kingdom gleaned from time." Greg D.
>before I thoroughly recommend the book, and would do so on the strength of Greg's treatment of the British-Israel nonsense alone.<
ReplyDeleteYes, I remember, we have been here before. And as before, no reliable evidence was presented then, and no reliable evidence is presented now to disprove that the British people are descended from Ephraim and the Americans from Manasseh, and have inherited the bithright blessings God promiised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Of course, the ability to understand the mysteries of the bible has been given to only God's elect. So it is not surprising, that those who are not God's elect reject this revelation.
That's right Tom, J. H. Allen must have been God's elect because his book "JUDAH'S SCEPTRE AND JOSEPH'S BIRTHRIGHT" is the book from which HWA plagiarized the whole wacky theory.
ReplyDeleteAllen may well have been one of God's elect. Time will tell.
DeleteAnyway, the revelation is not a "wacky theory," as you described it. Do you think that Britain conquered most of the world and established the world's gretest empire by accident or by military power? And what about America becoming the world's greatest nation? All these achievements, are part of the revelation, which you perjoritively called: "the whole wacky theory."
Corky, you clearly must not be among God's elect. God works in mysterious ways and makes them known only to his OBEDIENT servants, who are called the "elect". If you were among the elect, you would realize that GOD inspired J.H. Allen to write that book so that, once the appointed time were fulfilled, it would be available to God's SERVANT H.W. Armstrong during his INTENSIVE study of God's Holy Inspired Word at the Eugene Oregon Public Library. That's right, the nearby library. I kid you not.
DeleteI suggest prayer and repentance. You may still have a chance. God is longsuffering and quick to forgive. Believe me I know.
There is incontrovertible genetic evidence that the Caucasian people of Britain are not Israelites. The British people are principally haplogroup R1b1a2-M269. The Palestinian Jews are haplogroup J. These haplogroups based on rates of change through mutation separated so long ago that suggesting any kind of close relationship is absurd. In fact, Native Americans, haplogroup Q, are more closely related to the British than the Jews to give this some sense of distance. Given enough time, I believe it will be demonstrated that all the people in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 are sub-branch of haplogroup J people. Armstrongites would laugh with disdain at the Mormon belief that Native Americans are Jews and yet Armstrongites believe something that is just as ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteAnd, what is so peculiar about this, Unknown, is that it has been presented to seemingly intelligent Armstrongites many times in the past, and they go away still believing that British Israelism is one of the restored truths.
ReplyDeleteUnknown, what is so peculiar about this, is that I've seen this information shared on numerous occasions with seemingly intelligent Armstrongites, and they walk away still believing that British Israelism is one off the lost truths restored by their "apostle". I believe I know the reason for this. The Jerusalem Council responded to Paul's appeal by applying the traditional Noahide laws to the Gentile Christians, rather than forcing them to first become Jews in order to become Christian. By identifying all of us Anglo Saxon Gentiles as Israelites, Herbert W. Armstrong placed us under the laws that the Jewish Christians were under. Tom will predictably disagree that there ever were such things as Noahide laws, or any difference between Jewish or Gentile Christians, but the fact remains that without British Israelism, Armstrongism simply collapses.
ReplyDeleteBB
Where to start with such a silly concept as "the British people are descended from Ephraim and the Americans from Manasseh"?
ReplyDeleteThe "British people", like all people everywhere, are a mixture. The current-day occupants of the British Isles are apparently more German than anything else, due to the influx of Angles, Saxons and other Germans during the period between the Roman occupation and the Norman invasion. However, the original Celtic population is also well represented in the mix, as are the later Viking invaders and of course the Normans. Not to mention the 20th century influx of people from India, Africa, the Middle East, etc. So really, what are the "British people" and how can this mix be descended from ANY single tribe?
The situation of the USA is even more ridickerous. "The Americans"??? Really??? They're descended from a single tribe of Israel? Gimmie a break here awready. From the very beginning, the American population was a mix of many peoples.
Wait, I just realized ... GOD directed individuals of Manassen descent who were living among the British, Dutch, Germans, etc. to settle America. It's all so clear now! How could I not have realized?
Those Noahide laws would be shortly after the worldwide flood that never happened and killed everyone except for eight people, which also never happened. Far from being gentile, the eight persons surviving the worldwide flood were the ancestors of the Jews - they all being descendants of Enoch who was a descendant of Seth.
ReplyDelete(Posted on behalf of Greg Doudna)
ReplyDeleteByker Bob, you raise an interesting point: that the most direct falsification of British-Israelism seems to have no effect on those holding the belief. Here is my old fellow student/friend at Big Sandy, now editor of the UCG's Good News magazine, Scott Ashley: "While some have tried to discredit the biblical record, we have yet to see any critic of our teachings on the identity of the lost tribes offer a credible alternative to explain how those promises were fulfilled in any other way, or to explain how God didn't really mean what He said" ("United News, Q and A, Background of New Booklet"). And then there is Ronald Dart's defense of the theory which he still holds though he argues it somewhat differently: Dart admits weaknesses in any historical argument, and in fact says that is the wrong way to go about proving the theory and basically writes off any attempt to go that route. He says the evidence for it is in seeing that the prophecies are fulfilled, type and antitype, Israel a blessing for the world anciently, US a blessing for the world today; Israel is foreseen prophetically for the end-time, now is the end-time, q.e.d. As for how the history/genealogy works (which Dart still seems to think is true on more than a metaphorical level), no attempt is made to defend an historical explanation, but "God knows" the individual secret genealogies even if lost in human history (CEM blog, 7/25/13, "Who's Who in Prophecy?"). In both of these cases, mere flat-out scientific falsification/impossibility simply isn't good enough to change anyone's mind. "The Bible says so" (they believe). Therefore, it is so. Mixed in with an ideology of white peoples' entitlement to natural resources of the earth and justification of ethnic cleansing on biblical grounds--which is what Anglo-Israelism is in every single one of its COG forms, however much it is dressed up and believed to be benign. This is why virtually every group and individual believing Anglo-Israelism is a defender of the old British Empire and opposed to the "colonies" becoming independent. It is an ideology of white peoples' entitlement to the best things of the earth, justified by the rationale that white peoples' rule and ownership of the world is in the natives' best interest. Its an ideology in which whites ruling should be good about it, so they don't see themselves as racist or bad people, any more than slaveholders who treated their slaves well saw themselves as being bad people. Its wired in so deep that it is impervious to falsification or moral critique. It isn't that British-Israelism is necessary for sabbatarianism (Church of God Seventh Day and other sabbatarian groups are counterexamples here). But Anglo-Israelism is the thing necessary to keep post-HWA COGs going, because that is the air that's breathed, that is the lifeblood, the "habits of the heart" culturally in this demographics, it is how most came to be HWA's COG. It is in financial self-interests and/or necessity for these groups' leaderships to find ways to keep believing it, otherwise, as they probably accurately realize, those groups' tents would essentially fold.
Greg,
DeleteI have encountered a cleaner, purer, non-racist Bible-based theory as to why the USA seems to be the most blessed nation on the face of the earth, and the recipient of the blessings promised to Abraham.
Basically, the blessings were promised to the "seed" of Abraham. Jesus Christ is Abraham's seed. Paul tells us that Christians are the new Israelites. The blessings don't go to a racial group, but to an innumerable number of followers of Jesus Christ, and from all conceivable ethnicities. The United States was founded by people seeking freedom to practice their religion without fear of penalty or reprisal. Actually even having a mass produced Bible that one could read for oneself was a novelty at that time, as were many of the precepts coming forth from the Protestant Reformation. The US has always had a huge saturation of Christians, and has been the leading proponent for, and international beacon of Christianity, spreading it around the globe in many ways. The blessings promised to Abraham have seemingly been inherited by a melting pot nation colonized by and populated by predominantly Christian peoples. Armstrongism does not acknowledge them as Christian, however, because they do not keep the rituals of the Torah.
There are so many other factors involved in this discussion. The original tribal genes of Israel would have long ago been diluted into nothing. Mannasseh and Ephraim's mother was Egyptian. Random genetic sampling indicates that German genes are actually predominant amongst citizens of the USA. And, anyone who has even casually studied the history of the British Isles knows that that kingdom is also melting pot in quality, having assimilated Celts, Picts, Anglo Saxons, Normans, and other groups, to say nothing of the more recent immigrants. It would seem that of the tribes of Israel, only the Jews maintained any semblance of culture or purity. All the others intermarried into the Heinz 57 variety of white people alive today.
BB
Methinks only an American could have written that.
DeleteI apologize, Gavin. I did come off as being chauvinistic in my attempt to provide an alternative to the racial chauvinism which we all unfortunately imbibed. Either type of chauvinism is unattractive.
DeleteBB
No sweat. My tongue was somewhat in my cheek when I wrote that ;-)
DeleteByker Bob: There is some popular mythology in what you have written. Actually, the people of the British Isles are very homogenous genetically. Whether Pict or Anglo-Saxon, they tend to all be R1ba2. Jews,whether Ashkenazi or Sephardic, tend to be a portfolio of haplotypes. They can be haplogroups R1b, R1a, E1b, G, or J to name the larger classes. The ancient Palestinian Jews were haplogroup J and intermarriage seems to have resulted in the diversity.
DeleteThe United States, after some prophetic period of time, acquired the Louisiana Purchase. But was it because the British settlers were Israelites or was it because that every nation where these British settlers went would become a haven for the Jews. I think Scott Ashley should recognize that there are multiple interpretations of history.
-- Neo
Wow. That is fascinating. Hope you hang around here, because I'm learning a lot!
DeleteBB
The whole bible has been proved wrong a thousand times in a thousand different ways but does that ever faze a believer? Nope. Believers believe what they want to believe...evidence, facts, common sense, reason and rationality mean absolutely nothing. You see, they know it's true because they feel it in their hearts and they get tears in their eyes when they read a poignant story...and look at the adorable face on a kitten...
ReplyDeletePosted on behalf of Greg Doudna
ReplyDeleteHi Gavin,
Two posts on the "showdown" post discussions of British-israelism, if you
feel they would be useful.
---------
The current issue of "The Journal" has a front-page story on a guest sermon at the Big Sandy Church of God by Dennis Mouland in which he brings out the history of racism in the British-Israelism belief in the old WCG, such as language and attitudes justifying genocide of native Americans in the European conquest of North America in the name of God's promises to Abraham. He does not directly challenge British-Israelism itself but does seem to ask the question of whether this kind of horrifying racism is inherent in it. Has such a sermon raising this kind of question happened before in a COG group in an approved sermon (apart from WCG as it was making its changes)? Is that why this is a front-page news story? Would other COG groups permit such self-reflectiveness in a sermon, in members' hearing?
-----------
To Byker Bob: while what you describe may seem to be a kindler, gentler vision of the US/Britain as modern Israel--in an allegorical not biological sense--this is not without problems too. In "Showdown" I quote Noll, Marsden, and Hatch, _The Search for Christian America_, on how that idea worked out in practice: "Since the Puritans considered themselves God's chosen people, they concluded that they had the right to take the land from the heathen Indians ... They had explicitly biblical rationale for their policies. They regarded themselves as the new political Israel...The result was worse than if they had made no attempt to find a Christian basis for politics ..." The problem is if the allegorical Israel is defined in terms of fulfillment of the ancient promises of land and natural resources, even an allegorical understanding of one's own nation as modern Israel seems inevitably to become a self-serving ideology of imperial self-justification and entitlement.
Seems like there is plenty of racism surrounding either model. That is one huge stain on our nation, and has affected not only Native Americans, but also the African slaves and their descendants, the Chinese railroad workers, loyal Japanese Americans who were interned during WWII, and many other non-white groups. When these inequities came under the spotlight, starting in the 1960s, it also created an awareness for most of us who were WCG members at the time that racism was inherent in British Israelism. Amazingly, most of the splinters seem to be in a state of denial that doctrinal racism is even a problem.
DeleteBB
Yes, very true BB. Here is a simple question that young people in COG groups might ask their ministers sometime: what should the policy of newly-arrived white Europeans ("Israelites") have been toward those Native Americans who refused to get off the land they were living on, that the white Europeans had supposedly been given title to by God 2500 years earlier? A followup question might be (if you actually are able to get a straight answer to this question): "and why aren't you willing to put this answer in print for the world to see?" If it seems like this might be uncomfortable, sort of unpleasant, well, part of growth for a young person is risking discomfort in asking difficult questions that strike to the heart of matters. The powers that receive such questions then are faced with a choice: they can learn and grow themselves, perhaps encourage open and genuine discussion and reflection, or they can decide against learning and growth and shut down the question and the questioner. Any group or church whose leaderships suppress growth, it is time to leave. Life is too short, our gifts of life too precious, not to be reflective and grow in, as the Quakers say, the true Light that shines to every person. (As I know you BB have been well saying in many ways for a long time, with much respect from me for that.)
Deletescroller, a little history lesson is in order. In 1492, the population of North America was apparently approximately equal to Europe. However, when settlers arrived here in the early 1600's, they found a continent virtually uninhabited! What happened? Disease (from Europeans) had almost wiped out the native population. There was little opposition to English settlers on the East Coast, but there was some.
DeleteThere is some debate about this, but there is a strong argument that the English colonists worked hard to get along with the natives, and tried to avoid violence. There was plenty of land for everyone, and no need to force anyone off.
Larry, your history lesson is somewhat misleading. Your first paragraph is very true. Regarding the second paragraph, it is true that at first the English colonists worked hard to get along with the natives and there was plenty of land for everyone. However, as time went on, in the early years of the American republic, settlers of European descent crossed the Appalachian mountains and began to settle inland, and the relationship became very much one of taking the land and forcing the Natives to move. Sometimes it was peacefully and sometimes by force, but it was always a matter of the former-Europeans now-Americans taking and the Natives being disenfranchised. Indeed, the writings of the American leaders during those years show a mindset where the Natives have no rights at all - they are perhaps an annoyance, or a hindrance, to be dealt with.
DeleteAs time went on and the Natives repeatedly got pushed back into less habitable land, the violence increased. The Natives increasingly fought back. This continued throughout the 19th century and the stories are well known. The Americans were relentless and the end result is what we see today: an American (western) country, with the Natives either (1) being confined to reservations on extremely marginal land or (2) choosing to assimilate into the mainstream culture.
This of course is not unique to America. It is true of all nations and has repeated itself many times in history. The strong take over and the weak lose out. It simply illustrates man's inhumanity to his fellow man in past times. Thankfully, it appears mankind (in general) is beginning to move beyond this approach.
While your overall analysis is accurate, you fail to understand the mindset of the settlers who lived on the frontier, as my ancestors did. The Indians were savage, very dangerous, and did not respect private property. This may sound hypocritical, nevertheless, that is how they were viewed.
DeleteThe US government actually took measures to PROTECT the Indians, against the wishes of the frontiersmen. This is how Ft. Washington (now known as Cincinnati, Ohio) came into existence. Look it up.
Okay, we just went from "there was plenty of land for everybody" to "The Indians were savage, very dangerous, and did not respect private property".
DeleteSomehow the second statement rings more true ... from the settlers' perspective of course. So what's the next logical step, Larry? Because "the Indians were were savage, very dangerous, and did not respect private property", what were the settlers justified in doing?
Not sure just what you are asking or implying? We are not rewriting history here, merely analyzing it. All that can safely be said, is that the people living on the frontier, far from any government protection, experienced fear bordering on paranoia, when it came to the natives.
DeleteIt is very difficult for someone living in peril, to be morally concerned about what the Europeans were doing to the Native Americans!! That is fodder for historians who had never seen any of their family raped or scalped.
And when I mentioned "respect for private property", I was not referring to land, but personal possessions. There was, has been, and actually still is, plenty of land.
Bill McDowell, back in the 1960s declared that the United States was the property of the "Lost tribes of Israel (Manasseh) and the Indians (Native Americans) were supposed to be destroyed by the British Settlers in America because they were corrupt as a people, immoral, degenerate.
DeleteIt's just my opinion, of course, but it seems terribly suspicious that this may well have been racism... based, of course, on British Israelism.
Douglas - of course it was racism. Of that there can be no doubt.
DeleteLarry - your opinion and mine are not very different. Of course the people on the frontier lived in fear, even terror. And certainly there were atrocities in both directions. If history had worked out the other way, and the "Indians" were collectively stronger than the white man, I'm sure they would have done to us as much as we've done to them.
But honestly, there's plenty of land for everyone? Then why are the remaining Indian tribes cramped into small reservations in semi-desert locations?
It seems to me there's land enough for anyone as long as he has enough money to buy it and to pay the ongoing taxes and other expenses on it. So, if an Indian assimilates into the white man's culture and plays by the white man's rules, he can earn money and own land. On the other hand, if the Indian wants to live by his traditional culture, well, that's not going to work too well for him.
well..."of course"!! Gosh, everything has to be about "racism" in the USA: the most cosmopolitan country in the history of the world, and the least racist one on Earth.
DeleteThat's probably part of the reason we've become the least racist country on earth. Many of us are mindful of past wrongs and are conscious not to perpetuate them.
DeleteI realise people want to be loyal to their national identity, but dude, you must be seriously delusional if you think the US is the least racist country on earth.
DeleteNot arguing on this issue with you Gavin. But, having traveled all the USA, and a fair portion of the world, I can make that statement on good authority. You, OTOH, would be unwise to believe almost anything the American news media says about racism....
DeleteGavin, I guess I fell into that assumption as well. Living here in the U.S., I see plenty of racism; however, I have seen LOTS of progress. I grew up in the 1950's and believe me things are MUCH better for minorities in 2013. We even elected an African-American president, which has to say something about a lack of racism in the majority of the electorate.
DeleteThat said, I value your perspective: what countries on earth would you say are less racist than the U.S. of A. and why?
If there were any of the "ten lost tribes" left that weren't slaughtered by or assimilated into the Assyrian nation and then slaughtered by the conquering Babylonians when they slaughtered as many of the Assyrians as they could find, then they were surely the people known as Samaritans. Which, by the way, is what the Samaritans always claimed and genetics does not disprove and may even verify. Something else that is not well known by Christians of today is that the Samaritans also had a temple to Yahweh that was destroyed. Yep, the Samaritan woman alludes to it in Luke 4:20.
ReplyDeleteThat was supposed to be John 4:20...don't have a clue what happened...Satan?
DeleteFor those who are interested, DNA Refutes British Israelism is available to disprove British Israelism through the DNA evidence.
ReplyDeleteThanks Doug! Of course, the true believers won't read it and won't believe it, while the skeptics like myself don't really need it. However, there may be some readers "on the fence", who aren't sure what to believe: the actual proof would benefit these folks.
ReplyDeleteBritishIsraelism.com... hmmm... coming soon... what could the "Spectacular" book be?
ReplyDeleteWhat may be lurking out there?
Someone bored with too much time on their hands... or could it be...?
I cover the y-dna part on my web site at http://code251.com/y-dna.html
ReplyDelete