Post-WCG Life and Theology ARCHIVES

I had the opportunity to meet Jon Buck in the late '90's at one of which was probably my last Feast of Tabernacles of WCG. I will say with my meeting with him, he's quite a character and that is a good thing. He was supportive of the changes in the WCG without the evangelical schmaltz that Joe Jr. and friends sought to aggressivel impose on the WCG membership. C'mon, Jon is a Brit and Brit's have no time for sentimentality (especially the American kind) or being "over the top." I do hope there will be an opportunity to talk with Jon Buck again at some pont (hey, if you are reading this blog, feel free to comment here anytime!). He currently pastors a WCG church in Barrie, Ontario. I have replied to Douglas Becker in the comments section of the post on Bishop Carlton Pearson's view on universalism that the evangelical WCG still preaches a righteous provision on the unevangelized dead. Jon Buck explains this in the Sepember/October 2005 edition of The Northern Light (a Canadian based WCG publication) in the Pastor's Corner section titled Exclusive or Inclusive? What Are We? Mind you, there are those Protestants especially of Calvinist persuasion wished WCG that they would accept a more restrictivist view (in addition with the belief of the Western Church's view of hell, eternal torment in The Lake of Fire). Because of the new evangelical WCG's refusal to do so, those of Calvinist persuasion still believe that the WCG is a still a cult. Where do I stand? Those who have known what I have said that I believe that theological the WCG is orthodox in it's theology but cultic in it's orthopraxy (the practice of those beliefs) . The root cause I believe, is the hierarchial government that is still instituted (but this is another subject for another time). I see nothing cultic in believing in the divine perseverence of God. A 19th century Scottish fiction writer and Congregationalist preacher George MacDonald believed in it to and had no use for the restrictivist view of Calvin (which the theory of predestination actually reduced him to tears). Well here is the link to Jon Buck's article at http://www.wcg.ca/northernlight/2005_sep_oct/pastors_corner.htm . I hope many will enjoy it or be inspired by it!

I remember seeing Carlton Pearson (and many other preachers) when I used to have UHF on my old black and white TV to tune in on Trinity Broadcasting Network on channel 49 (now on channel 26) on Buffalo, New York's WNYB in the early to mid 1990's. As my theological perspectives have changed over the years, so has Bishop Pearson's. While I have embraced much of the theological orthodoxy of essential Christian faith, Bishop Pearson has accepted a more heterodox view. Some will argue that he has accepted a heretical view or is a heretic, plain and simple. It is over the touchy issue of hell. It is a very emotional and argumentive issue over many Christian theologians whether they believe in the conditionalist or traditionalist view of hell. Bishop Pearson believes in a form of universalism, that nobody goes to hell. Instead we go through hell (with the trials and suffering on earth) as opposed of being consigned to hell. Bishop Pearson also says, ""The bitter torment of the idea of an angry, visceral, distant, stoic, harsh, unrelenting, unforgiving, intolerant God is hell. It's pagan, it's superstitious, and if you trace its history, it goes way back to where men feared the gods because something happened in life that caused frustration that they couldn't explain." Bishop Pearson has a paid a price for his newfound teachings. Besides the heretic label, he lost his associate ministers who resigned and a congregation that dwindled from 6000 to 300!

Where do I stand in the midst of this? I can sympathize with Bishop Pearson's sentiments but I cannot agree with his conclusions. I believe his conclusions do not in anyway solve the problem of fighting evil. What happens with people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh---or Charles Manson---how about the fanatical con-men of certain XCG splinters ---or the child molester, the pedophile, the sexual promiscous stripper who uses and manipulates men sexually and financially, the greedy and narcissistic corporate executive---or the abusive boss at work---all get a free pass to heaven? Their lives on earth was of no consequence? What they did on earth was okay? God said in the book of Nahum that he will in no way acquit the wicked. Will God just change their natures to good? If that is the case, God was joking about free-will and prefers robots. To me, that god is just as immoral as the "harsh, angry and vindictive" god. Therefore, a hell must exist to restrain or eliminate evil on a permanent basis. I believe that hell is the choice of man, I have stridently opposed the Augustinian-Calvinistic view that there are those who are predestined to hell and I have took the scripture from II Peter 3:9 that, "God is not willing anyone to perish but for all come to repentence" very seriously and at take it at face value. At the same time Hebrews 10:26 warns of unimaginable eternal consequences for those who want to live a life of sin and want to be an a "spirit of independence" from God after receiving the knowledge of the truth. Therefore, there must be a hell as a demonstration of God's ulimate love for the righteous and his ultimate fight against the wicked. As C.S. Lewis described that in the final judgement, the righteous say, "Your will be done!" and God says to the wicked, "Your will be done!"

Where do I and Bishop Pearson have common ground? We both do struggle with the restrictivist view that the unevangelized dead count as automatically "unbelievers" and "the wicked" and will automatically go to hell, whether or not they heard the gospel or not. Bishop Pearson had relatives who were "unevangelized" and it cannot not be argued that this can make him (and other people) struggle with the idea of how this can be a "loving God?" Many people have known that I have always believed that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to salvation, I have at the same time believed that it is possible that God (the Father, the Son and the Spirit) CAN make a righteous provision for the unevangelized dead who did not hear nor understand the gospel through no fault of their own but this is where the similiarities end. I cannot believe that everyone goes to heaven. If one has a problem with the conditionalist view of hell (annhilationism) and the Western view of hell (literal eternal torment by fire taught by Protestants and Catholics), I hope that Bishop Pearson may spend some time on what the Eastern Orthodox believe in heaven and hell and I think this is probably the most humane treatment on the topic for those that believe that the spirit in man is conscious after death. I provided the link here before and I will do it again: http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html . It is my hope that Bishop Pearson does re-read his Bible again (as I had to do many times and I will be doing it many times over for years and maybe perhaps some decades to come) and can reconcile the love of God and his judgement against evil as a single unit. His current theology as it stands will present some very serious problems and dire consequences that he probably never intend to create but nevertheless have been created by faulty theology.