Wise words from an Armstrongist Refusnik (FYI Again)!!!
Not all COG's are alike.There's no question that the cult oriented COG's - the HWA era WCG, Gerald Flurry's PCG and David Pack's RCG being the more obvious examples - have (and continue to) cause psychological damage to most if not all of those who support them. It's just a matter of degree - some are more damaged than others. These certainly can and should be held accountable for the inevitable results of their abusive, controlling policies.But not all COG's are like this. Some have largely ejected the cult mentality. Some are in the process of doing so. They all continue to have problems of one sort or another as the legacies of Armstrong's personality cult, abusive government, and speculative prophetic interpretations continue to work their poison.Many of the WCG spin off groups are changing, just as the WCG itself is changing - although not necessarily in the same ways. Case in point: it might surprise you to hear that many stalwart, long time members of groups like UCG and LCG are increasingly accusing those organizations of liberalizing and watering down doctrine. These groups are divided and in turmoil. Older, Armstrongist oriented members are departing in droves to join with the more "fundamentalist" groups like RCG and PCG.And you know what? These older members are right. They *are* "liberalizing" and "watering down" doctrine. They deny it of course - as the Tkach's did. And they continue to maintain strict control, which is a danger in itself even if their motives truly are benign.Then there are the non-Armstrong COG's. What are these? Simply, they are the ones that never were tainted by Armstrong's peculiar brand of COGism. Primarily Church of God Seventh Day (COG7) and its many derivatives. These are the COG's where Armstrong learned basic COG doctrine, which he added to and abused to further his own ambitions and greed. To be sure, some of these groups *have* created a cult mentality - it's a common problem in small Churches of any sort whenever you have naturally controlling and/or ambitious men seeking a following. But for the most part these groups have stayed free of the kind of cultism that Armstrong fostered.People are going to believe what they are going to believe. Armstrong's teachings, his policies, his personality cult, and his prophetic interpretations had a powerful and lasting effect on a lot of people. Armstrong also taught basic COG doctrine which he learned from COG7 - some of which he taught accurately (ie biblically) and effectively.Why do you suppose so many believed Armstrong? Because they *REALLY DID* see in their bibles that much of what he was saying was true. He was very convincing. Of course the best way to teach lies is to liberally mix them with truth.How many of Armstrong's doctrines do you still cling to? Everyone's different of course, but I think even the most die hard anti Armstrongists probably still - whether they are willing to admit it or not - cling to at least some of the doctrines they learned through him and his Church.Of course, those who are firmly committed to Armstrongism have several choices available to them. At present, I'd estimate that David Pack's "Restored" Church of God (RCG) is the closest in terms of pure, undiluted, full strength Armstrongism. Like Armstrong, David Pack claims to be an Apostle. He also lays claim to several "titles" that Armstrong himself once claimed to hold - "Messenger to Israel" and "Watchman" to a specific "era" of "the Church". RCG is a popular destination for the dedicated Armstrongites, and continues to spread the same poison.But there are plenty of alternatives for those who are less than fully committed to Armstrongism, but who still believe many of the doctrines they once learned. These doctrines are not evil simply because Armstrong taught them. For those who believe them, there are Churches were they can be relatively free of the mind controlling cult mentality and abuse. Such people can find others of like mind, with whom they may have profitable fellowship - which some people need very badly.The worst thing someone like this can do is to remain alone with no one to talk to for a long period of time. I think a lot of people make this mistake and it's terribly unhealthy - they'd be better off back in the cult than stewing in their own confusion and uncertainty. That I think is the primary mistake that this man made. He clearly still maintained some - perhaps most - of his former belief system. Yet outside his own family he had nobody to share his faith with. That can be a mighty lonely place to be. I know. I've been there.Of course the reverse can also be true. If someone is staying in a Church they no longer trust or believe in simply because they have friends there, that too is a mistake and is unhealthy. If you can't have some confidence in a Church, it's time to hit the road Jack and don't go back. I know this too. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, ain't going back.Broadly speaking, I define Armstrongism as:1) the personality cult (HWA = Elijah, God's Apostle, etc),2) the abusive, controlling "Government of God", and3) the teaching of highly speculative prophetic interpretation as gospel truth.I make a distinction between Armstrongism and basic COG doctrine - most of which pre-dated Armstrong and which he himself learned from COG7. He of course tried to cover that up by calling it "Dead Sardis" and painting a falsified picture of it in his autobiography, but the fact remains that the core of his doctrine was not unique to him. He learned it from an existing group. That group still exists. And it never had anything to do with Armstrongism, in spite of the many similarities in teaching (doctrine) that can still be found.Armstrongism itself is dying. It's being kept on life support by a small handful of nutburgers, but there's no question that its core constituency is aging and rapidly dying off. There are very few *new* converts.Everyone's journey is different - and God works differently with different people. As Stingerski often says, your mileage may vary. To those who give up most if not all vestiges of COG doctrine, they have plenty of choices - many have become atheists, many have returned to more mainstream denominations and all points in between. There are plenty of potential destinations.But for those (like me) who still believe *some* of the COG doctrines - and there are a lot of us - there are COG groups which can serve the purpose of providing comfort and fellowship. And some of them don't require you to be a "regular" member - you can visit when you feel a need to.I am not currently a "regular" of *ANY* particular COG group. I have been in this state for quite some time now and I'm perfectly happy to be so. I have friends in a number of different groups - as well as a good many friends who are not and never have been part of any COG. When I feel a need for some COG style fellowship, I'm glad I have that alternative available.Admittedly the COG's are difficult waters to navigate. There are narrows and icebergs, storms and pirates aplenty to watch out for. But for those who need them, I'm glad that some are still around. Perhaps if this man who murdered his family had had someone with similar beliefs to talk to, he wouldn't have done what he did.
---FYI Again in WCG Alumni message board making a bold declaration that there is an emerging difference between Armstrongism and the Churches of God that is becoming a reality and needs to be paid serious attention to!
Labels: Armstrongist Refusniks, intelligent quote of the day, XCG independents
Thursday/8 March/2007.Sender:Colin bruce Milne.Te Awamutu.Waikato.3800.New Zealand.
dear Sir/Madam,I must declare my interests first of all in this matter.I am today a member of the NZ Association of Rationalists & Humanists who previously was not a member of the WCG but was however a member of the Youth Opportunities United youth wing.I do think that if a reformed WCG is to be formed,in the aftermath of the setting up of the Grace International Communion Church,maybe it should be made up of all those splinters who have gone to GOG7 & Seventh Day Adventist etc services and can be considered a branch of a Sabbatarian Movement rather than a cultic-sectarian Armstrongite Tendency(yes I know this has an element of Trotskyist terminology).Yours Sincerely,C.Bruce Milne.C.B.Milne.
Posted by
cbmilne33 |
Thursday, March 08, 2007