No, not Transcendental Meditation... Tom Mahon.
It's taken a while, but at last Tom has stepped up in front of the camera and posted his visage on his blog, as he long ago promised.
Well done Tom!
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
TM Revealed at Last!
No, not Transcendental Meditation... Tom Mahon.
It's taken a while, but at last Tom has stepped up in front of the camera and posted his visage on his blog, as he long ago promised.
Well done Tom!
Sunday, 12 July 2009
A True History of the Not-So-True Church (Pt.1)
Recently someone posted this comment:
[T]he church has existed somewhere in the world continously [sic] since it's founding, and has kept the sabbath and holy days (among the other doctrines) the whole time.
Oh really? Says who?
This was the position of Dugger and Dodd (and later Herman Hoeh), taking a leaf from Ellen G. White's writings. It's a dogma maintained by any number of splinter sects today. For want of a better term, we could call it "remnant" history (as opposed to "restoration" history promoted by Mormons and some others.)
If you buy into the restoration package, you'll be convinced that the "true church" actually died out, swallowed up by Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The Reformation amounted to little more than shuffling deck chairs. Poor old God had no choice but to perform a complete "reboot" using Joseph Smith, or someone else.
More familiar to us is the remnant package, standard issue in Adventist churches. It maintains that the true church went underground, but survived despite persecution, eventually resurfacing in whichever sect you happen to belong to. Keen believers then go back to dredge the history books to see who might have been the genuine article in past ages, resulting in many a fanciful romp. Dugger and Dodd were convinced, for example, that "Saint Patrick" was a Sabbath-keeper!
Following on from this same remnant fiction the United Church of God proudly proclaims on its website: "We trace our origins to the Church that Jesus founded in the early first century. We follow the same teachings, doctrines and practices established then."
Bollocks!
Actually, we can have a pretty good idea about what did happen to the earliest Christian faith; the movement that was "headquartered" in Jerusalem, looked to James for leadership, and indeed did keep the sabbaths. In a follow-up post I'll make a radical suggestion - but one which is widely accepted by competent historians. But for the present, consider this.
The Churches of God without exception use the 66-book Protestant canon of scripture. Why? The ancient Jerusalem-based church certainly didn't. This distinguishing mark, if nothing else, should alert us to the fact that our heritage is lot more recent than the inflated age it claims; any resemblance is superficial and misleading. The Churches of God have absolutely no linear relationship to so-called "apostolic christianity."
We were'nt buying a Rolex, just a Mumbai sweat-shop rip-off.
So where did the "original" church end up? Remember how Hoeh and his imitators talked about the flight to Pella just before the destruction of Jerusalem? That's a good starting point, but what happened then? More on this in a later posting.
[T]he church has existed somewhere in the world continously [sic] since it's founding, and has kept the sabbath and holy days (among the other doctrines) the whole time.
Oh really? Says who?
This was the position of Dugger and Dodd (and later Herman Hoeh), taking a leaf from Ellen G. White's writings. It's a dogma maintained by any number of splinter sects today. For want of a better term, we could call it "remnant" history (as opposed to "restoration" history promoted by Mormons and some others.)
If you buy into the restoration package, you'll be convinced that the "true church" actually died out, swallowed up by Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The Reformation amounted to little more than shuffling deck chairs. Poor old God had no choice but to perform a complete "reboot" using Joseph Smith, or someone else.
More familiar to us is the remnant package, standard issue in Adventist churches. It maintains that the true church went underground, but survived despite persecution, eventually resurfacing in whichever sect you happen to belong to. Keen believers then go back to dredge the history books to see who might have been the genuine article in past ages, resulting in many a fanciful romp. Dugger and Dodd were convinced, for example, that "Saint Patrick" was a Sabbath-keeper!
Following on from this same remnant fiction the United Church of God proudly proclaims on its website: "We trace our origins to the Church that Jesus founded in the early first century. We follow the same teachings, doctrines and practices established then."
Bollocks!
Actually, we can have a pretty good idea about what did happen to the earliest Christian faith; the movement that was "headquartered" in Jerusalem, looked to James for leadership, and indeed did keep the sabbaths. In a follow-up post I'll make a radical suggestion - but one which is widely accepted by competent historians. But for the present, consider this.
The Churches of God without exception use the 66-book Protestant canon of scripture. Why? The ancient Jerusalem-based church certainly didn't. This distinguishing mark, if nothing else, should alert us to the fact that our heritage is lot more recent than the inflated age it claims; any resemblance is superficial and misleading. The Churches of God have absolutely no linear relationship to so-called "apostolic christianity."
We were'nt buying a Rolex, just a Mumbai sweat-shop rip-off.
So where did the "original" church end up? Remember how Hoeh and his imitators talked about the flight to Pella just before the destruction of Jerusalem? That's a good starting point, but what happened then? More on this in a later posting.
Friday, 10 July 2009
Testimony
Invest nine short minutes. I hope "Sientspirit" continues the series, and some of those in denial about the church's past watch this one.
The intro on YouTube reads: "I go into detail about the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) and end up taking almost 10 minutes to talk about it! I hope I kept it interesting enough; I found it difficult to explain WCG to outsiders, especially in a succinct fashion. Hopefully, you have a little understanding of where I'm coming from once you've watched this video. If you have any questions about the church, feel free to ask! I'll be talking more in detail about certain things that I either only touched on briefly or left out entirely."
The intro on YouTube reads: "I go into detail about the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) and end up taking almost 10 minutes to talk about it! I hope I kept it interesting enough; I found it difficult to explain WCG to outsiders, especially in a succinct fashion. Hopefully, you have a little understanding of where I'm coming from once you've watched this video. If you have any questions about the church, feel free to ask! I'll be talking more in detail about certain things that I either only touched on briefly or left out entirely."
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Phone a Friend
Here's a query from David V. Barrett, a researcher on WCG:
It's very difficult to count how many members left Worldwide either for the offshoots, or for other Churches (I know that some who accepted the new beliefs now attend other Evangelical Churches without the Worldwide baggage), or dropped out of religion altogether, but it must be easier to know how many ministers left Worldwide -- after all, they were on the payroll. Do you happen to know if this number (or percentage) has ever been quoted? I don't recall seeing it.
Does anyone know if the figure has been indeed been published somewhere? I haven't got a clue, other than saying "lots," but I seem to remember folk once marking off the disappearing ministers using a booklet of photographs put together after a ministerial conference during the reign of Joe Senior. Anyone able to source that publication (it used to be online) and/or indicate the number of elders who subsequently dived overboard (or were forced to walk the plank)? Obviously a number would have simply retired, or died in the time since then, so a simple comparison with a current list of ministers would overestimate the loss.
The research in question, a PhD thesis, is now almost complete and should be an invaluable contribution to understanding the WCG/GCI backstory.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Ezra, Columbus, Milton & Mormons
I've been reading 4 Ezra.
To be honest, it wasn't easy to track down. In some bibles it's called 2 Esdras, but in most bibles it's missing altogether. Even Catholic bibles, which contain ripsnorting potboilers like the first two books of Maccabees and Tobit. But be warned, the 2 Esdras in the LXX isn't the 2 Esdras we're talking about... just the book of Nehemiah in drag.
Actually it's more complicated than that. 4 Ezra is the major part of 2 Esdras, which is a composite work. Chapters 1 & 2 – a Christian addition – were taped on later, as were the nightmare-like chapters 15 and 16. 4 Ezra is, properly speaking, the big chunk in the middle.
A comprehensive edition of the NRSV will however include 2 Esdras (the HarperCollins Study Bible, for instance) along with the much underrated Revised English Bible (with apocrypha.)
Is everybody clear so far? There will be a test at the end.
I went searching for 4 Ezra because it's a component in a paper I'm taking this semester on theodicy in the Hebrew Bible. Theodicy (sounds like theoddity, only different) is the difficult art of explaining God's goodness in a less than perfect world. Apart from theodicy it's also full of what many people call “prophecy.” In fact at times it seems to echo the Little Apocalypse of Matthew 24, at others Daniel. Trivia item: 4 Ezra is widely quoted in Mormon circles as evidence for their beliefs on the Ten Lost Tribes (the relevant passage is 13:39-47 – nobody tell Craig White or Dankenbring!) James White, husband of Seventh-day Adventism's Ellen G. White, also mined it for prophetic proof texts, but that's a digression.
But let's set aside the apocalyptic stuff and return to the oddity of theodicy. Here's Ezra. Not the real Ezra of course, but a literary Ezra cut from whole cloth, who after pouring out a troubled prayer is provided with the personal ministrations of an angel called Uriel to clear things up. Ezra is a sensitive, compassionate guy, deeply disturbed by the suffering of his nation and the apparent harshness of God in consigning the vast bulk of humankind to a terrible fate after death. The angel Uriel is, in contrast, a priggish unbending toad – and you get the impression that he's also as thick as a plank – who is quite content to see the vast majority of humanity consigned to the eternal concentration camps of the damned.
Uriel basically says, don't worry your silly little head about this Ezra, one of the joys of the saved is to look across on to the torment of the wicked. Grab some popcorn and enjoy the screams.
Slight license there, but it's not too far off. Quote: “Their second joy is to see the souls of the wicked wandering ceaselessly, and the punishment in store for them.” (7:93)
Here's the thing: Ezra doesn't give any ground at all. He politely agrees with the snooty know-all Uriel, then comes back again (and again) for another crack at challenging Uriel's Hitlerian idea of justice.
Think of Abraham bargaining with Yahweh over the fate of Sodom, or Job protesting his fate as Satan's (and Yahweh's) plaything. Like these canonical kin, 2 Esdras can be considered subversive literature.
If you feel like a little bit of a change from the usual biblical fare, you could do worse than dip into 4 Ezra, which is interesting on the level of literature, even if you're skeptical about the scripture part. Sure, it didn't make it into either the Hebrew or Septuagint canons, and it is believed to date from the same time period as Revelation, but among those who drew particular inspiration from it were such luminaries as Christopher Columbus (who quoted 6:42 to Ferdinand and Isabella in campaigning for financial support for his New World expeditions) and Paradise Lost's John Milton. You can read it (in the RSV) here.
To be honest, it wasn't easy to track down. In some bibles it's called 2 Esdras, but in most bibles it's missing altogether. Even Catholic bibles, which contain ripsnorting potboilers like the first two books of Maccabees and Tobit. But be warned, the 2 Esdras in the LXX isn't the 2 Esdras we're talking about... just the book of Nehemiah in drag.
Actually it's more complicated than that. 4 Ezra is the major part of 2 Esdras, which is a composite work. Chapters 1 & 2 – a Christian addition – were taped on later, as were the nightmare-like chapters 15 and 16. 4 Ezra is, properly speaking, the big chunk in the middle.
A comprehensive edition of the NRSV will however include 2 Esdras (the HarperCollins Study Bible, for instance) along with the much underrated Revised English Bible (with apocrypha.)
Is everybody clear so far? There will be a test at the end.
I went searching for 4 Ezra because it's a component in a paper I'm taking this semester on theodicy in the Hebrew Bible. Theodicy (sounds like theoddity, only different) is the difficult art of explaining God's goodness in a less than perfect world. Apart from theodicy it's also full of what many people call “prophecy.” In fact at times it seems to echo the Little Apocalypse of Matthew 24, at others Daniel. Trivia item: 4 Ezra is widely quoted in Mormon circles as evidence for their beliefs on the Ten Lost Tribes (the relevant passage is 13:39-47 – nobody tell Craig White or Dankenbring!) James White, husband of Seventh-day Adventism's Ellen G. White, also mined it for prophetic proof texts, but that's a digression.
But let's set aside the apocalyptic stuff and return to the oddity of theodicy. Here's Ezra. Not the real Ezra of course, but a literary Ezra cut from whole cloth, who after pouring out a troubled prayer is provided with the personal ministrations of an angel called Uriel to clear things up. Ezra is a sensitive, compassionate guy, deeply disturbed by the suffering of his nation and the apparent harshness of God in consigning the vast bulk of humankind to a terrible fate after death. The angel Uriel is, in contrast, a priggish unbending toad – and you get the impression that he's also as thick as a plank – who is quite content to see the vast majority of humanity consigned to the eternal concentration camps of the damned.
Uriel basically says, don't worry your silly little head about this Ezra, one of the joys of the saved is to look across on to the torment of the wicked. Grab some popcorn and enjoy the screams.
Slight license there, but it's not too far off. Quote: “Their second joy is to see the souls of the wicked wandering ceaselessly, and the punishment in store for them.” (7:93)
Here's the thing: Ezra doesn't give any ground at all. He politely agrees with the snooty know-all Uriel, then comes back again (and again) for another crack at challenging Uriel's Hitlerian idea of justice.
Think of Abraham bargaining with Yahweh over the fate of Sodom, or Job protesting his fate as Satan's (and Yahweh's) plaything. Like these canonical kin, 2 Esdras can be considered subversive literature.
If you feel like a little bit of a change from the usual biblical fare, you could do worse than dip into 4 Ezra, which is interesting on the level of literature, even if you're skeptical about the scripture part. Sure, it didn't make it into either the Hebrew or Septuagint canons, and it is believed to date from the same time period as Revelation, but among those who drew particular inspiration from it were such luminaries as Christopher Columbus (who quoted 6:42 to Ferdinand and Isabella in campaigning for financial support for his New World expeditions) and Paradise Lost's John Milton. You can read it (in the RSV) here.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Otagosh otagone
AW's sister blog has been withdrawn. Remember (if you're ancient enough) those letters the High and Herbal One wrote to co-workers long ago... each setback was portrayed as another clever leap forward.
Well, it isn't that way. Two active blogs is one too many, and to be utterly frank, otagosh was a bit pretentious and not nearly as much fun as this one. So, in the best tradition of making a virtue of necessity, the two have now been combined.
So expect to see an occasional biblioblog item appearing here among the usual curmudgeonly rumblings about Joe, Gerry, Spanky and their gangs. I'm sure you'll be as excited as I am at the prospect of a posting on 4 Ezra. No, really, 4 Ezra: how could Ronnie Weinland possibly compete with that?
More changes are in the wind for next year: a new domain and associated blog to replace AW. Not to panic though, there's six months to go yet.
Well, it isn't that way. Two active blogs is one too many, and to be utterly frank, otagosh was a bit pretentious and not nearly as much fun as this one. So, in the best tradition of making a virtue of necessity, the two have now been combined.
So expect to see an occasional biblioblog item appearing here among the usual curmudgeonly rumblings about Joe, Gerry, Spanky and their gangs. I'm sure you'll be as excited as I am at the prospect of a posting on 4 Ezra. No, really, 4 Ezra: how could Ronnie Weinland possibly compete with that?
More changes are in the wind for next year: a new domain and associated blog to replace AW. Not to panic though, there's six months to go yet.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Holy Trinities Batman!
I have a copy of Is God a Trinity? on file, published by the WCG way back when. In those distant times there was little doubt about the answer: no!
But times have changed, and what appears to be the first booklet published under the GCI brand is titled A Brief Introduction to Trinitarian Theology.
This time round they're not even bothering to ask the question.
The kind of trinitarianism GCI promotes isn't the standard version you'd find in Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox communions, but a variety pickled with the MSG of junk theology, marketed under the labels "Barth" and "Reformed," and produced in porridge vats with the patented perichoresis ingredient by Baxter Kruger, the terrible Torrances, and their ilk. Perichoresis, you ask? How to put this delicately... God (to quote Wikipedia) enjoys "mutual interpenetration."
This particular concoction has universalist dimensions, so much so that the booklet even asks the rhetorical question Isn't this universalism? and consciously distances itself from bog Calvinism. Well, that's commendable I guess, but the fact remains that it stills build on a Calvinist foundation (as does Arminianism - which can only make sense as a reaction to Calvinism.) You buy a cheap Ford, strip it down and soup the coupe... is it still a Ford?
Well, it sure ain't a BMW.
Who's the author? There's no attribution in the online edition; GCI seems to be using the same anonymity policy as the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. Part 1 sets out the case, and part 2 is a kind of "catechism" that rehearses possible questions. If you reside in the USA, Joe & Co. will graciously send you a free copy. If you live elsewhere, you'll need to read it online.
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Loo Paper
LU - Living University - can now issue degrees. Not accredited degrees, mind you. The vagaries of the US system elude this writer, but the nice people at UNC seem to have given the LCG go ahead to issue bits of paper. Here's how LCG is reporting it:
On June 9, 2009, Dr. Erskine Bowles, President of the University of North Carolina, accepted the findings and recommendation of a UNC staff report regarding Living University’s request for exemption from North Carolina licensure. Exercising authority delegated by the University of North Carolina Board of Governors, the President declared Living University exempt from licensure to conduct in Charlotte, North Carolina, the Associate of Theology and the Bachelor of Theology degree programs under provisions of G.S. 116-15(d) and the Rules and Standards for Licensing Nonpublic Institutions to Conduct Post-Secondary Degree Activity in North Carolina with respect to religious education.
Meanwhile a prodigal pastor returns to Charlotte's embrace. An announcement from Spanky:
We would like to welcome back Mr. and Mrs. Rees Ellis, pastor in Belgium and Northern France, and brethren who have decided to reconnect with the Living Church of God after our unfortunate and regrettable separation about 10 years ago. Mr. Ellis spent several days this week here in Charlotte discussing aspects of this reconnection with me, Mr. Ames, Mr. Apartian and Dr. Winnail. The discussions about reconnecting actually began with Mr. Carion before he died.
Does this mean Ellis now gets a steady income?
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Joe's Deeply Sincere Apology Strategy
Has Joe Tkach apologized to you for all the garbage the church put you and your family through?
No?
It seems it ain't because he hasn't been trying.
Thus spake the Unelected One recently, commenting on Curtis May's in-house "reconciliation" ministry:
[T]rying to reconcile with former members is probably the least of it because they don't want to be reconciled. We tried and tried hard. We wrote letters to several people, and they write back and say 'stop harassing us.' In the letters we [say we] are sorry if we caused any offense, is there is any way we could reconcile? And the letter comes back 'if you write and harass us again we will get lawyers.' I thought wow, that is the response... so we are very willing to reconcile, but from that end we are just sort of waiting till it just comes to their mind. It's kind of like the old analogy of the dog that gets hit by a car and split open and lying there, and you go down to help the dog but he’s trying to bite your hand, and that’s how it's been with a lot of those folks, although as time goes on some are becoming more and more, uh, willing to at least talk or have some level of friendship.
One of our former pastors, you might remember a guy named Dennis Diehl. Some might remember his name. He went all four years in Pasadena for college, but after he left us he became half a Buddhist then became an Atheist, and I don’t know where he is now, but he just wrote me a letter two weeks ago saying he forgives me for everything so, uh... yeah, so I wrote back and said I am so happy then we can be reconciled, kinda be like we can be friends in college again, and anything I can do you know I am willing to do, so its happening but its the merest trickle.
Speaking only for myself, at no stage in all the years since I left WCG/GCI, including those before AW came along, has anyone in that church's ministry bothered to initiate contact, let alone apologize. Any "reconciliation" attempt came from my initiative (I attended a couple of services in Wellington around the time the New Covenant teachings were introduced.)
Interesting to see the mention of Dennis, though I'm not sure Joe quite represented him correctly. Notice though who made the approach.
Speaking at the same gathering of client ministers in Canada, Joe played the YouTube item below to much amusement. Who'd have thunked it!
So, did you get one of those letters from Joe or his underlings?
Related link: Dennis' new (?) website
No?
It seems it ain't because he hasn't been trying.
Thus spake the Unelected One recently, commenting on Curtis May's in-house "reconciliation" ministry:
[T]rying to reconcile with former members is probably the least of it because they don't want to be reconciled. We tried and tried hard. We wrote letters to several people, and they write back and say 'stop harassing us.' In the letters we [say we] are sorry if we caused any offense, is there is any way we could reconcile? And the letter comes back 'if you write and harass us again we will get lawyers.' I thought wow, that is the response... so we are very willing to reconcile, but from that end we are just sort of waiting till it just comes to their mind. It's kind of like the old analogy of the dog that gets hit by a car and split open and lying there, and you go down to help the dog but he’s trying to bite your hand, and that’s how it's been with a lot of those folks, although as time goes on some are becoming more and more, uh, willing to at least talk or have some level of friendship.
One of our former pastors, you might remember a guy named Dennis Diehl. Some might remember his name. He went all four years in Pasadena for college, but after he left us he became half a Buddhist then became an Atheist, and I don’t know where he is now, but he just wrote me a letter two weeks ago saying he forgives me for everything so, uh... yeah, so I wrote back and said I am so happy then we can be reconciled, kinda be like we can be friends in college again, and anything I can do you know I am willing to do, so its happening but its the merest trickle.
Speaking only for myself, at no stage in all the years since I left WCG/GCI, including those before AW came along, has anyone in that church's ministry bothered to initiate contact, let alone apologize. Any "reconciliation" attempt came from my initiative (I attended a couple of services in Wellington around the time the New Covenant teachings were introduced.)
Interesting to see the mention of Dennis, though I'm not sure Joe quite represented him correctly. Notice though who made the approach.
Speaking at the same gathering of client ministers in Canada, Joe played the YouTube item below to much amusement. Who'd have thunked it!
So, did you get one of those letters from Joe or his underlings?
Related link: Dennis' new (?) website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)