Setting Personal Boundaries With Your Minister

The Armstrong Church of God Ministers have consistently, in the name of what they call "God's Government", invaded the personal boundaries of their members in the enforcement of "the Law" within their congregations. Of course, members might think to themselves upon reading this: "What Boundaries?"

Throughout the decades, ministers have been trained, and thus feel compelled as principle, to ask and give counsel to the most private of questions, or the most trivial of questions. What would make most people gravely uncomfortable to discuss is commonly divulged by people within the Churches of God, believing the opinion of the minister is directly from Christ - because they've submitted themselves to "the Authority of the Government of God."

What is a personal boundary, anyway?

"Boundaries are guidelines, rules, or limits that a person creates to identify themselves what are reasonable, safe and permissible ways for other people to behave around them and how they will respond when someone steps outside those limits."*

Regardless of what you have been told, or what you have believed - all people - including ministers - are subject to respect and to follow the personal boundaries that YOU have set up for yourself. It is within your basic rights as a human being, and within your own standards and expectations of privacy, to set up boundaries that all must respect. If you say no, NO means NO.

There are many personal boundaries that must be respected by your spiritual advisors. Most of all, what it is that you decide to share if you are asked to divulge personal information. The ministers of the Armstrong Churches of God have had a history of asking questions that they were not qualified, nor trained, to counsel on. Even Ron Dart, a senior minister in the old Worldwide Church of God, admitted exactly that.

The emotional result of inappropriate boundary invasion by a minister (or anyone, for that matter) can be like:

 "getting caught in the midst of a hurricane with no protection. You expose yourself to being greatly affected by others words, thoughts, and actions and end up feeling bruised, wounded and battered"*. 

Yet the fear that a minister can attempt to seduce you to believe through the power of blind deception can make you feel like it's not "that bad" what they are doing, after all, it is "God's Government". The reality is that they are being spiritual and emotional vampires, sucking out any dignity, self-worth, and privacy for their own interpretations and unqualified judgement, leading you down the road of guilt, condemnation, and lack of self-worth.

What then can you do, if you feel within your heart of hearts that a minister has crossed the line of effective spiritual counsel into disrespect of your basic rights and violating your personal boundaries?

1) Pray for God's assistance to help you stand up for righteousness.
2) Assert that such questions are inappropriate and are making you uncomfortable.
3) If the minister is persistent and presses the issue, or threatens retribution, WALK OUT. 

No person - not one - has the right to invade your personal boundaries once you request them to stop. There is no difference from a person refusing to honor the word "NO", whether it is a sexual request or an emotional request or inappropriate question where you have told them to stop. (This goes with physical boundary intrusions too, like when they used to go through your medicine cabinets decades ago!)  If they persist, or threaten retribution, it is a violation. They have crossed the line. You no longer are subject to submit to their authority. (Secret: You never were subject to their "authority".)  They relinquish any such authority the minute they ignore the word, "NO".

Yes, you may be disfellowshipped. You may be marked. And that is okay. You stood up for what is right, and for yourself, and have asserted the respect you deserve as a person.

 The question is, will you allow yourself to remain in an abusive relationship of disrespect and violation of your personal space and rights - or will you assert your personal basic rights, and be free from the abusers who disrespect your personal space and privacy.

The era of inappropriate questioning and counsel in the Armstrong Churches of God by unqualified and untrained ministers must end. It must start with you. 



*Quotes adapted from the Violence Intervention and Prevention Center from PositivelyPositive.com, outofthefog.net, Where You End and I Begin by Anne Katherine

Opinion: If Your Shoe Fits, Wear it.

Oh, No, Ghastly, It's an ANKLE!!!!!!!!

Recently, an allegation has come forth concerning Dave Pack's Restored Church of God concerning dress attire. The allegation is that non-laced dress shoes are banned to be worn from services (such as penny-loafers). Apparently, in previous decades in Church of God general history, non-laced shoes such as penny loafers were considered indications that a person was living an alternative lifestyle considered sinful in Armstrongism.

This, of course, even absurd as it is, is just one of many aberrations of edicts that come from leadership of the Armstrong Movements concerning dress. Everything from skirt length, to sport jackets, to the color of one's dress shirt has been carefully monitored in most Church of God groups for decades. Ministers of all ranks - and deacons - would look a member up and down, looking for any sign of rebellion against an edict from "the Government of God". Any disloyalty would immediately be reported to the Pastor of the congregation - and such edict would, if necessary, be reported up the chain as far as it needed to go until disciplinary action came down from on high.

Approved Shoe.

It appears, however, that the level of control over dress - especially in the RCG - has reached appalling levels of autocracy. One has stated on a well-known forum that to walk into their headquarters is like taking a step into a GQ. The source claims that one of the highest orders of this particular group is on appearance - taken extremely seriously by the leader, followed precisely by the yes-men.

It becomes apparent that any and all aspects of individuality continues to be assaulted within the walls of many of the Churches of God. Expression of personal choice, and personal flavor is stomped down quick and hard - with a side of flaming condemnation to burn out any shreds of dignity. All must conform to the Approved Standard to be accepted within the clique. It certainly does seem that, at least within the Churches of God, resistance is futile.

Who is a person in the ACOG's? How can one know who a person really is? If everyone is dressed exactly the same, talks the same, walks the same, acts the same - how can you know an apple from an orange? The truth is, you can't. Because in the ACOG's, the message of conformity to the standards of it's leader - the definition of a personality cult - ranks high and above the growth of a person as a cherished and unique individual. The concept of military apparel has been changed from green camouflage and army boots to black blazers and laced dress shoes. And it's a shame against the simplest human rights a person can have - the freedom of dress that most people who have moved beyond the orders of their mom and dad in childhood freely enjoy.

Would THIS fly at Sabbath Services?

It can be understood if someone is practicing truly abhorred practices in the Church, and action needed to be taken, such as if a man and a woman were making out in the middle of a sermon. When members are micro-managed to insane levels - such as if this report about laced vs. non-laced shoes is true - then it has gone beyond the acceptable and clearly into the irrational.

Church of God members are people - just like everyone else. And all people deserve the most fundamental right a person should be given - respect. Respect to know that they can be an individual in how they dress. Whether it's wing-tip shoes, penny-loafers, or even dress boots - these are the reflections of personality that make a person who they are.

Of course, it would be claimed by any group that they have choices - they can follow the rule of law, or they can choose to disregard it and stop attending. It would be claimed that just like any "business", there is a dress code, and it is their choice if they follow it, or if they do not follow it. That if they choose not to follow it, they can simply choose to leave.

If the psychological conditioning wasn't piled on high and deep of the "consequences" of such a choice - namely, leaving God's Place, and Protection, and sacrificing one's crown and salvation - such a choice would be easy. But the psychological torture of such a choice is often so paralyzing that they seem trapped, under a powerful delusion of deception that such things are true - which they are not (if a prophecy fails, you can be certain nothing they say is truth.)

Okay, Okay. I'll wear the RIGHT shoe. NOW can I get in??? ;)

My opinion on the whole thing? I can't tell you with absolute certainty if this shoe fiasco is true or if it is not true. But what I can tell you is this. No person should allow themselves to be treated like a 5 year old child who is not able to dress themselves appropriately. Adults - which is who these people are - full grown, educated adults - should be given the freedom of respect and choice to at least be able to dress themselves the way they feel comfortable. If the shoe fits, you should wear it.

Perhaps even yet some of these fine people who have been smooth talked into appalling and horrid deception of asinine levels will come out of the coma of the cult, and take back their lives, knowing that God is not basing your salvation on the difference between penny-loafers and wing-tip shoes. Because it definitely has ZERO impact on your sole. I mean, soul.

State of The Church #6

And So, It Has Been Said, One Splinter Won't Allow Non-Laced Shoes in Church.

A New Way to Stay Awake In Church!

These days in the Churches of Armstrongism, you will find all sorts of men out there claiming to be the special voice that one should be paying attention to with the commission of the present "truth" to whatever is left of Armstrong's legacy. Which is not much.

You have the skilled orators that gained true speaking skills from the glory days of Worldwide - who know how to speak convincingly and authoritatively,  regardless of how well ridiculous and false their message might be. Kind of like selling an "As Seen on TV" product in an infomercial. For anyone who has seen "Whose line Is it Anyway", it's the same principle as Wayne Brady and Ryan Stiles use to sell never-before seen items in comedy improv to their audience - and sometimes, just as funny!

And then you have the Malms, and the Thiels, and the one Shouty Guy from "Obedient" or whatever that group is. You'd wonder if they ever learned anything about public speaking from their years in the Church. How is it that you can endure it?

Here's a way!

Instead of you being a "congregant" - bored out of your mind, about to fall asleep - what if you were instead an evaluator? What if in your notes, you were not actually taking notes of the service - but evaluating his presentation and skill as a public speaker? 

How would you grade the Splinter leaders on public speaking skill?

Did the speaker use an attention-focusing/story-form Introduction?
Did the speaker inform the audience of the title of the lecture?
Did the speaker inform the audience of the expected goal and outcome of the lecture? 
Did the speaker use an appropriate intonation of voice for the subject?
Did the speaker use gestures appropriately and naturally?
Did the speaker use segues appropriately and naturally?
Did the speaker speak at an appropriate volume?
Did the speaker speak at an appropriate speed? 
Did the speaker speak clearly?
Did the speaker exhibit confidence?
Did the speaker use humor beneficially and naturally?
Did the speaker exhibit a cool and calm demeanor?
Did the speaker constantly refer to a script or use an outline?
Did the speaker engage the audience? 
Did the speaker limit unnecessary pauses/breaks/silence?  
Was the speaker unnecessarily repetitive?

Did the speaker use an appropriate subject material for the event? 
 Did the speaker outline the specific purpose of the message?
Did the speaker stick to the specific purpose of the message?
Did the speaker stay within 1 to 3 points per half hour for long lectures?
Did the speaker stay within 1 to 3 points total for short lectures?
Did the speaker explain each point clearly and purposefully?
Was the speaker persuasive and convincing?
Was the speaker creative?
Did the speaker seem educated on the subject material?
Did the speaker sell his message? 

Did the speaker summarize for clarity at the end of the message?
Did the speaker effectively maintain the attention of the audience throughout?
Did the speaker end on time?

AND FOR FUN.

Did the speaker pick his nose?
Was the speaker's fly open?
Did the speaker grab the podium like it was about to take off?
Was the speaker's tie crooked?
Did the speaker look like he was about to pee?
Did the speaker have a booger hanging?
Did the speaker drink water excessively?
Did the speaker have to clear his throat?
Did the speaker sniffle?
Did the speaker rock back and forth?
Did the speaker use these words too much?
 - Certainly, Incumbent, Behooves, Just, Abundantly, Clear, Notion, Let's, Turn With Me
Did the speaker use "In Conclusion" more than once?

 You'll be out of the boring service before you can say "Ghastly!"

State Of the Church #5

The new owners just could NOT figure THIS one out....

State Of the Church #4

They are absolutely, positively, categorically NOT keeping Christmas. NEVER!

Ephesians 3, Armstrongism Revised Version

For the Sake of Making a Point, I present to you what is NOT the Word of God, the fully edited Armstrongism Revised Version (written by me, it doesn't exist!) of Ephesians 3, to illustrate the point of how much the Church changed even one chapter of one book of the New Testament, to support their belief system.

3 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles establishing the Church —

² Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace Law that was given to me for you, ³ that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. ⁴ In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ magnification of the Law, ⁵ which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. ⁶ This mystery is that through the gospel Obedience of the Law and the Sabbath and Holy Days the Gentiles are heirs together with British Isrealites are Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together The only true heirs in the promise in Christ Jesus.
⁷ I became a servant of this gospel the Magnification of the Law by the gift of God’s grace obedience to the Law given me through the working of his power. ⁸ Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles Church the boundless riches of Christ, need for obedience to the Government of God and His Law, ⁹ and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery the Government of God, the Kingdom, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things, and will still be hidden to virtually the whole world. ¹⁰ His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, Herbert Armstrong and his church ¹¹ according to his eternal purpose that he  will accomplished  accomplish in Christ Jesus our Lord. The Master Plan of redemption.¹² In him and through faith in him By obedience to the Law and our submission to the Government of God as members of the Church we may approach God with freedom and confidence. ¹³ I ask you, therefore, not to be discouraged because of my sufferings for you, which are your glory.

A Prayer for the Ephesians

¹⁴ For this reason I kneel before the Father, ¹⁵ from whom every family^[a] in heaven and on earth derives its name. ¹⁶ I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, ¹⁷ so that Christ you may may dwell in your hearts qualify  through faith obedience to the Law. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love the Law, ¹⁸ may have power under God's Government, together with all the Lord’s holy people members of the Church, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, important it is that you qualify and are obedient, ¹⁹ and to know this love that surpasses knowledge obedience to God's Government —that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
²⁰ Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, how much we support Herbert Armstrong, ²¹ to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus the Work throughout all generations this end time, for ever and ever! Until World War III! Amen.

Who Are You?

Are you you, or are you something that you never wanted to be? Who are you, anyway?

When you first wake up in the morning, half awake and groggily rising from your nightly slumber, you may find yourself half awake, off balance and heading for the bathroom. As you flip on the light, while yawning, you may catch a glimpse of yourself in the mirror.

And you quickly wake up - WHO is that staring back at you? Your hair looks like it's been through a tornado or the latest punk rock phase, whatever is worse. Your eyes may seem puffy, pillow marks on the side of your face. Five o' clock shadow if you're a guy. It's a picture of you that you would only share with your closest of relatives.

Nevertheless, it is who you are. But is it who you are?

I know that may seem like a redundant question, highly without logic and seemingly without ration. But in the common experience of our past - the Worldwide Church of God - who you believed you are may never be who you really were, or are, or will be. Because they wanted you to conform to what they wanted you to be. And many still have not discovered exactly who they are.

There was a set and established mold of expectation in the Churches of God as to who you were expected to be. Indeed, there was a specific, well-thought out, highly integrated standard that you were expected to either already have met, or were expected to conform to. This standard engulfed everything in your life - from appearance, to characteristics, to communication, to finances, to your marriage, your children, and everything in, around, and in between. They called this expectation of appearance "Godliness". And they called the process of molding yourself to this expectation "Character-building". Once you became the person they expected you to become, in every way conforming to their expectations (a combination of Law-keeping and Standard-Bearing), you were fully integrated and accepted as to one who is "bearing the fruits" as a "Deeply Converted" member of the Churches of God.

Yet the reality is often different from the illusion. The illusion of who you are. The reality of who you are was often what you were when no one was watching. Or when you were at work. Or school. Or with your spouse. The reality may be a shadow of what you had hoped to be, hidden, and dormant for so many years, unable to grow and to cultivate and to be nurtured and fed. The reality may honestly never have been known, because the reality of what you wanted to be - you were told was wrong, or incorrect, or unacceptable.

Take for instance profession. Many in the church were discouraged from being what they knew they could be or do. People with skills for medicine were discouraged, for example. Perhaps one had the gift of law enforcement in public service - police, fire, ems. Perhaps the job they were good at doing, they could not do, because they were convinced that doing so would violate the Law. The list could go on, and on, and on.

Take for instance those who did not meet the mold because they were not good at what they were told to be good at. Like the student at Ambassador who was not sports-oriented, or the Y.O.U. member who couldn't throw the ball in the hoop. Or the high-voiced male who was constantly told was effeminate or unmanly. Or the woman who was dreadfully unhappy with the role chosen for her as a homemaker, cook, and sewing expert. They were forced to mold and condition themselves to expectations because that was considered the right way to be and behave. But was it who they were?

Is it who they are?

When I confronted a minister about some aspects of my time in the Worldwide Church of God, this preaching elder admitted outright that the attitudes displayed by the minister were the way they were because they were expected to conform certain people and types to expectation. People were not allowed to be who they were. The level of control was beyond the maximum. Your expectation was to be a drone. A robotic programmed, wholly obedient, assimilated member of The Family. Where any deviance of the expectation was met with condemnation and judgement. Your personality and your talents may have been stomped on, defecated on, pissed on, and finally, puked on if you did not change and conform, or "repent" of who you were to become what they wanted you to be.

I'm not saying we should not aim for a goal of Godliness. But Godliness does not eliminate YOU.

Godliness does not eliminate your talents. Your skills. Your personality. Your humor. Your abilities. And Godliness does not eliminate your freedom. Your freedom of choice, your freedom to live, and your freedom to grow and develop who you are, and to take the best path in your life to the glory of God.

I know of some people who simply do not believe that they have free will. That God has to tell them every decision, and command every path, and instruct every highway. How can one grow with this mindset? How can one possibly understand the gift God has given to us if they believe that they are simply programmed drones with no abilities beyond "Yes, Sir"? Does not God intend for us to life an abundant and fulfilled life - one of service and Godliness - but also one of truth, fully using every talent and ability to the fullest of one's potential?

What we were not told in the Worldwide Church of God is our true identity. As Christians, our identity is in Christ, and is in Christ alone. Being in Christ does not rob us of who we are, or what we can do. Being in Christ means doing all things and all decisions in an attitude of love and respect to God and man, in faith, trust in confidence of God's providence in our lives - believing in the power of the Word of God in our everyday life - which is a way of life beyond physical standards. It is spiritual purity, the clearest of living waters.

Our identity in Christ is defined by our Fruits in Christ - the exhibition and the practice - in whatever skills we have - of righteousness in Christ. Of love, of peace, of joy. Of kindness and gentleness. Of meekness. Of self control. These fruits do not rob us of our abilities and our talents. They compliment and embody our abilities and our talents. In fact, they are quenched and stifled in drones and autocratic robots. Our identity - and who we are - is in Christ.

What we DO is up to us. As individuals. As people with choice, and freedom. As people with talents, and gifts, and paths to take that for so many of us have been trampled on and covered up by so many hirelings of the Churches of God, whose only goal is to conform us to their version of law and expectations. They are the self-appointed Thiels, and the Malms, and the Hard-core leaders of the Churches of God - they are the do's and dont's of Armstrongism that hold you down and out, and poor, and weak, and miserable.  They are the ones that have kept you from discovering who you are.

When you discover WHO you are in Christ, you are released from bondage, and free to live in the service of Christ - by His fruits - to everyone. You are free. Free to serve, free to grow, free to use your skills and assets and virtues in ways that your talents are best suited for unencumbered by the demands of the oppressors, guided by the Law of Love, respect, and the Spirit of Christ in all you say and do in accordance with the will of the Father.

For the Christian - this is life.

As Jesus said in scripture:

2 Corinthians 3:16-18 (Biblehub)

But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit .

Galatians 5:1 1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

13-24 (Biblehub)

13You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ^a ; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ^b 15If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever ^c you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Dating In Armstrongism

Dating was one of the most complicated and most watched activities within the church, as the church was attempting to control the morality of it's members (and, it could be argued, maintain massive immorality in it's ministers at the same time, though this was not always the case with all ministers.) There were many very complex do's and dont's among the single and teen dating scenes that dictated exactly what you were going to do, with who, and how it was to be done. Along with these were a strong list of exactly what you were NOT going to do – that is – if you wanted a good chance of staying in the church, for those who cared.

Take kissing, for example. 

Was this even acceptable when dating within the Church?

 

Kissing was considered something to wait for until marriage vows were traded among a couple. Many did not, but there were just as many rebels as there were followers. Physical contact while dating was considered completely tabboo, and kissing was a small part of this. The fear was that if a couple started kissing, it could lead to uncontrollable attraction, foreplay, and ultimately pre-marital intercourse. Therefore, to attempt to stop this from happening, kissing itself was forbidden among dating couples. How often this was ignored by dating couples, outside of prying eyes of watching ministers and parents, however, was anyone's guess. 

If the Churches of God had this back in the Armstrong Era...

 

Speaking of “Prying Eyes”, it wasn't uncommon for the ministers to either spy themselves, or set up spies in the church for the purpose of trying to catch somebody “in the act” of breaking one of the church's laws on morality and infidelity. Even so, there were those who were just plain unliked in the church, and it wouldn't be a stretch to report a complete fib just to get someone in trouble – especially if they were trying to break up a couple they thought should not be a couple, or a friendship, or anybody they didn't agree with should be talking with each other. This was commonly done in the church. 

This happened more often then Kermit Nelson wanted to know at SEP.

 

There were usually two groups of teenage kids in my local congregation: I called them The Rebels, and the Losers. Since I was undoubtedly a part of the “losers”, partly because I wanted to follow the Church's version of what was right, this was not an issue for me. However, I did walk in on a few of the “rebels” - and of all places, this was at the Summer Educational Program. You either were against the church's teachings due to hormones, and indulged in “rebellious” behavior, or you were for the church, and relegated a “loser” no matter how innocent and naïve you were. Regardless of either class you were in, you were an outcast to the world through and through – unless you completely “rebelled” and became a part of what was termed “The New Morality”. 

This would get you kicked out of everything!!!

Petting and Necking – admittedly a stage beyond just “kissing” - in the church, was considered sexual foreplay and was forbidden among dating single individuals. Couples were supposed to wait until marriage to perform forbidden acts such as listed here. Dating was strictly controlled and in some cases, date results were to be reported to the minister to see how it went. Just like with kissing, Once petting and necking began, it was thought that they were already well on their way toward pre-marital intercourse. This was, after all, considered fornication. If dating included petting and necking while the members were in the church, that couple was separated by the ministry – at the LEAST. At most, you were told you were setting a bad example, and couldn't return until you 'repented'. 

Another thing – interracial dating of any kind was forbidden in the church. If you were white, you dated a white person – not olive, not hispanic – not latino – white, and the same exact policy with other races in the church. You didn't do it. Racism was rampant in the church based on their interpretation of scriptures and bible prophecy. Whole congregations at one time of color were segregated. This is just the way it was.

The acceptable space between dating couples: "Let There Be Light!"

Who you dated was controlled by the minister or your parents – and you did what they told you to do. If they wanted you with a person, you obeyed. If you were a teenager, if they wanted you to double-date for a period of time, you did. If they did not want you with a person, you broke up. You did, again, what you were told. If they thought you were compatible, you were compatible – even if you were most obviously not compatible. You simply accepted and “worked through” the trial that was to last your whole life, because this was “God's will”. Regardless of the strange pool of “weirdness” in the church that made dating extremely unattractive for many, you didn't think of dating someone outside of the church – they were unconverted, it was told, and could well become a bad influence in your life. Therefore, if you “liked” someone who was out of the church, you were to – well, “un-like” them – they wouldn't understand you, and you would be too tempted by them. It was called, in church speak, being “unequally yoked” - just like a married couple where one is in the church, and one is out of the church.

With that said, The thought of dating outside of the church – to those who wanted to follow the church's teachings, and were old enough – was unheard of. Any potential mate was only, and I mean ONLY – found within the church. The problem with this is that those within the church were, unwittingly and unknowingly, just as messed up as you were, and any prospective suitor knew you were messed up too. Yet dating outside of the church was not an option, so, regardless of what a couple might say, most church couples, anxious to get married to escape the soon coming Tribulation, they thought, married anyway and settled with what they got.

The thought of dating outside of the church – to those who wanted to follow the church's teachings – was unheard of. Any potential mate was only, and I mean ONLY – found within the church. The problem with this is that those within the church were, unwittingly and unknowingly, just as messed up as you were, and any prospective suitor knew you were messed up too. Yet dating outside of the church was not an option, so, regardless of what a couple might say, most church couples, anxious to get married to escape the soon coming Tribulation, they thought, married anyway and settled with what they got. A truly tragic thing for many of the couples who were entangled in the dating snare of Armstrongism.

And don't hold hands. 

 

State Of The Church #3

Law always Trumps Grace in the COG's. Every time.

Herbert Armstrong: A Classic Case of Narcisistic Personality Disorder

Herbert W. Armstrong was a Narcissist.

This has been discussed on many COG-related blogs and websites over the past twenty years. This site shall be no exception.

The Churches of God have enabled and fueled Narcissists for the entirety of their70+ years of existence, claiming and deceiving the grandiose delusions that they and they alone were the only ones God was calling and working with out of the billions of people on the Earth today. Not many were as thoroughly narcissistic, though, as the businessman, Herbert Armstrong - who displayed, without any doubt and with thorough verification and confirmation - every aspect of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

From Wikipedia: 

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.^[2][3] Those affected often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or on their appearance.^[3] They often take advantage of the people around them.^[3] The behavior typically begins by early adulthood, and occurs across a variety of social situations.^[3]

The DSM-5 indicates that persons with NPD usually display some or all of the following symptoms, typically without the commensurate qualities or accomplishments:^[6][9]

HWA Walking Through A Massive Parade Front and Center

 

1. Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from other people
2. Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
3. Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions
4. Needing continual admiration from others
5. Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others

There were constant Pastor General Report mailings to ministers absolutely filled with ministers heaping on the praises and lavish endorsements of HWA, each fueling and enabling the narcissistic behavior of HWA on every level, causing him to believe his grandiose fantasies as reality. HWA had the self-perception of being not only unique, but the only "apostle" on the face of the Earth at that period of time. He considered himself fully superior to all other ministers and members of the Church, and to all humanity who was not being "called by God" at the time. And, Herbert constantly, from age 16 onward, enjoyed and was motivated to spend time and be like high-status "important" people as well as institutions. His expectations of superior treatment ranged from constant complaining about the size of his office to the "quality" he constantly expected and demanded from others and for himself. He also felt needy for special treatment - and he absolutely and unquestionably demanded obedience from all people under his "authority" as Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God. 

Another proof of NPD was exploitation.

1. Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
2. Unwilling to empathize with the feelings, wishes, and needs of other people.

 

  Exploit means to derive full use and benefit from a source. 

An example of Herbert's exploitation of his members of his church was to drain out and squeeze every ounce of income he could from them - without care or without concern about their personal struggles, instead shifting the responsibility to God to take care of them because they were obedient to HWA - or as he called it "The Government of God".

He would demand First Tithe, Second Tithe, Third Tithe, Regular Holy Day offerings, Building Fund Offerings, Local Church Activity Fundraisers, Additional Contributions and Donations as required from the members - and plead, beg, threaten and gravel for increased Co-Worker contributions pleading every possible crisis and emergency that could possibly exist to increase his funds large enough to complete his Master Plan. This fulfilled the very definition of exploitation.

• Intensely envious of others, and the belief that others are equally envious of them

Herbert would continually watched other evangelists/"competition" and compared himself to them (Oral Roberts, Billy Graham), often criticizing their methodologies of their crusades and large-scale evangelistic events. He fit both categories of the above statement perfectly - envious of them, and believing they were envious of his accomplishments. His boasting over ratings - beating Oral Roberts - was extreme, as can be noted in sermons he would give in the 1950s. 

• Pompous and arrogant demeanor

Herbert often referred to himself as The Apostle, The Head under Jesus Christ, and many other titles and descriptions.He would also refer to himself in the third person - or sign his name to third person attributions written by others.

People with NPD tend to exaggerate their skills, accomplishments, and their level of intimacy with people they consider high-status.

From the very early years, he would often brag of his associations with the famous and the fortunate - such as Hubbard, oil executives - using his job in the Trade Journal meeting with Chief Executive Officers to boost and boast his accomplishments with millionaires and successful people - taking notes of how they did what they did as he went on.

When their own ego is wounded by a real or perceived criticism, their anger can be disproportionate to the situation.

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others' views, unaware of others' needs and the effects of their behavior on others, and insist that others see them as they wish to be seen.

Since the fragile ego of individuals with NPD is hypersensitive to perceived criticism or defeat, they are prone to feelings of shame, humiliation, and worthlessness over minor or even imagined incidents.

They usually mask these feelings from others with feigned humility or by isolating themselves socially, or they may react with outbursts of rage, defiance, or by seeking revenge.

According to Leonard Groopman and Arnold Cooper, the following have been identified by various researchers as possible factors that promote the development of NPD:^[20]

• An oversensitive temperament (personality traits) at birth.

• Excessive admiration that is never balanced with realistic feedback.

• Excessive praise for good behaviors or excessive criticism for bad behaviors in childhood.

• Overindulgence and overvaluation by parents, other family members, or peers.

• Being praised for perceived exceptional looks or abilities by adults.

• Severe emotional abuse in childhood.

• Unpredictable or unreliable caregiving from parents.

• Learning manipulative behaviors from parents or peers.

• Valued by parents as a means to regulate their own self-esteem.

Herbert Armstrong fits the category of what has been defined as an "Unprincipled Narcissist."

Unprincipled narcissist Including antisocial features.

Deficient conscience; unscrupulous, amoral, disloyal, fraudulent, deceptive, arrogant, exploitive; a con artist and charlatan; dominating, contemptuous, vindictive.

It is my critical, unofficial, unscientific, and wholly unprofessional statement and belief, based on many years of personal experience within Armstrongism, observation, analysis, co-worker letters, articles in all sorts of Media, including Pastor General Reports, The Plain Truth, The Good News, Videos, Attributions, reports from those who knew him, the Autobiographies, that Herbert Armstrong was in all ways a Pathological Unprincipled Narcissist, suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, to the harm and detriment, financial, spiritual, emotional, and mental, of his victims both in his Worldwide Church of God and around the world via media, including radio and television. 
It is also my opinion that many of those who have developed their own organizational splinters using Armstrong's methodologies also display narcissistic tendencies, exacerbated by Armstrong's narcissistic personality disorder, business, and dogma.    Finally, it is my opinion that those who are a part of the organizations of Armstrongism are prone to develop Narcissistic Personality Disorder, based on the teachings and doctrines of the groups that promote the agendas of Armstrongism.     





This post is governed by and Text is redistributed under the following terms, under the Terms of Wikipedia for content use:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
 Photos from Behind The Work Videos, AC Press
Some text above is from Wikipedia. This text has been altered to include observations by the author of this post. Refer to the Wikipedia Post for all Wikipedia exact references. 

 

State Of The Church #2

You Cannot Force Someone To Be Happy.

Herbert Armstrong would always say that the role of the Overseer - the spirit being Worldwide Church of God God-Being in the Millennium - under Christ - would be to FORCE people, through the enforcement of Law under Jesus Christ - to be happy - by teaching them the ways of the Law and swift punishment for disobedience to that Law.

This reason was partially enforced by his literal interpretation of the scripture of Zechariah 14, which claimed that all the nations that do not go to Jerusalem for the Feast would receive no rain.

Of course, this was an allegorical parable to those who had not yet been revealed the spiritual mysteries of God which were made possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit which reconciles us to the Father. No one in the Old Testament days of Zechariah could ever understand that this scripture - like all the scriptures in the Law and the Prophets - pointed directly to Jesus Christ. And neither could Herbert Armstrong.

There's one aspect, however, that even a literal interpretation - what Herbert Armstrong was best at - cannot nullify. And that aspect is the freedom of choice that humanity has been given. No, freedom of choice does not eliminate consequence. But you are always free to choose whether or not you will follow Christ, or if you will not. If you will receive rain from heaven, or if you will not - the blessings of living life abundantly in Jesus, or the consequences of "no rain".

The aspect of kingship that Herbert Armstrong drooled over was very apparent in what was approved for the musicals he allowed in the Young Ambassador Festival of Music. One musical that was allowed into the Festival Film was "The King and I". In this musical, you have a display of a very authoritative king who is used to yielding all power and control over his subjects, produced in 1956. Such a musical would certainly have appealed to Herbert's love of power and control - and especially ruling. This was, exactly, the kind of kingship that Herb and Hirelings, through psychological trickery and deception, chained their tithe slaves with day in and day out. But through all of this trickery and deceipt - one thing he never did was forced anyone to be happy.

Herbert never was able to take away the freedom of choice from the members of his cult. He may have been able to deceive people into thinking leaving his cult was the worst thing they could ever do. Why, they'd be reduced to working manual labor. They'd be possessed by blood-thirsty demons. They'd have no friends, no life - in this age, or in the age to come. Good for nothings. This power of deception, however, was overcome by many who did leave the cult, and through overcoming, began to see through the lies and trickery with a clear head and conscience. Herbert was never able to force anyone to be happy.

The truth is, you cannot force anyone - for any reason - to be happy. In fact, forcing people - the exact words that Herbert used - is, in every way, illegal in spiritual and human law.

Forcing someone to do anything is a violation of free will - the one thing that God has always put as a prime directive for everyone - physically and even spiritually. God did not force Satan to be happy and content. He did not force the demons to do His will. He did not stop them from rebelling. He never stopped them from interfering with humanity. He never stopped "the serpent" from offering "Eve" the "Apple". You will never find in scripture God forcing ANYONE to do anything they did not want to do. God did not even FORCE Jesus to sacrifice Himself, and to become sin for us. Jesus himself said if he wanted to, he could call upon thousands of angels to minister to him. Jesus CHOSE to do what He did for us. He CHOSE to lay down His life for us. And by choosing to do so, he became worthy of all honor and praise and kingship.

In reality, Herbert's love of "Force" should be scary to anyone who hears or looks into it. Herbert's ministry of force was evident in everything he did. From forcing members to become ordained (they didn't have a choice). From forcing ministers never to retire. (They didn't have a choice) To forcing members as to where to go for the Feast, to what Hotel - they didn't have a choice either. To forcing members as to how to dress, or what they can or can't do on a certain day. (They didn't have a choice). Everything in Herbert's mind was FORCE. A rod of iron. A fist and a sword.

Of course, he would say, "I'm not forcing anyone! You have choice! If you want to go, GO! We don't need you anyway!" In so many words. Yet, he was forcing his way. And he did this with and through fear of consequence if you did not obey. That you would be HAPPY under his control and his power. That you would be HAPPY as his tithe slave. That you would be HAPPY under the rule of his interpretation of all powerful Law. And that you would be DEAD - spiritually - if you dared rebel and go do your own thing - words he despised.

But none of this was true.



Jesus taught that in his Spirit, there is freedom, there is liberty, and there is peace. Jesus said that his yoke is easy, and his burden is light. The Apostles taught the power of living a life of love and service to your fellow man - to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus taught his disciples to CHOOSE life. To CHOOSE to do right. To CHOOSE to be a great example. To CHOOSE.

Even in the book of Matthew, in Chapter 25, Jesus spoke specifically of the freedom of choice. He said that there would be two groups of people. Those who chose to serve - to visit the sick, the jailed, the widows, the orphans - and those who did not. He never indicated once he would force them to do anything while living life on Earth. He never once said anything about commanding them to do this or that. He never took away their choice. There were simply those who chose to, and those who chose not to. He did not force them. He showed them a way, and set an example. The choice was always up to them.

Just as such, by the imposition of dictatorial force, you cannot command happiness. You cannot command rejoicing. You cannot tell someone they have to be happy at a certain time and a certain place. (Yes, they tried this too, at the Feast.) You cannot force unity. You cannot force positive emotion. The most you can do is create a fraud. Someone who appears happy, someone who appears joyful, someone who appears in line - but inside, could be depressed, angry, sad, frustrated, down, discouraged, and downtrodden. This is not "the Government of God". This is nothing but the worship of appearances and the culture of lies from the inward self out to all a person encounters. It's a culture of evil, lacking honesty and truth.

The idea of "forcing" people to be happy is contrary to every word and every verse in the word of God. God is a God that allows choice - and consequence to those choices. God is also a God who is very clear what Justice he serves on those who violate someone else's choice - that is, forces someone to go against their free moral will in life. This "Government of God" of Herbert Armstrong?

It was not the "Government of God" at all. It was the "Government of Dictatorial Force and Power" - the government of oppression. 

No. You can never force someone to be happy.

Happiness is only accomplished when your choices fulfill your destiny, and your purpose. 

Whatever that may be.

State of the Church #1

Division, or Truth?

Herbert Armstrong, in the Church Purple Hymnal, in "How This Hymnal Came To Be" - the introduction of the many familiar Dwight Armstrong four part harmony songs - said the words in the title above, pertaining to why he would not allow "Christian" songs to be included in his collection of hymns for the Church. For this reason, based on his extreme prejudice and contempt for all things mainstream Christianity, he said that it is as sinful to sing a lie as it is to tell one.

Pretty potent words of blatant hypocrisy, if you ask me. How many times did we sing something about us moaning bitterly, when we weren't? Or with shame and confusion covering our faces - everyone smile!? Or "For God's Day is Now at Hand" - when it wasn't. But we sing something about "What a Friend we Have in Jesus" - apparently, that was a lie to the Church. Or, "and he walks with me, and He talks with me" - well, maybe that wasn't a lie. In our church, He was outside knocking at the door trying to get in.

How about now?

What about when the Splinters sing "Onward Christian soldiers?" How is we are not divided not a lie within the Churches of God? You bet they're divided. All of them. They can't even get together for a feast service. Not even once a year.

Or how about "How Good and How Pleasant" - for those who have those in their hymnals? Together in Unity? Really? What COG is completely united together in unity? Name one? Anyone? I'm not counting those who "play church". You know who you are.

If it REALLY is just as much of a sin to sing a lie, as it is to say a lie, as Herbert constantly proclaimed as the core of his reasoning to get his brother Dwight to write the Purple Hymnal and forever put his tunes in our heads, then you know what my opinion is? It's probably an unpopular opinion. One that might get one in hot water with a minister. Want to know what it is? It's really easy.

Don't sing the lies! Am I agreeing with HWA on this? No - I'm agreeing with the word of God on this, in my honest opinion. But I know that such a statement could never happen within a Church of God. Obedience to "the Government of God" is far more valuable then truth. The fear of the minister - that conditioning - is strong. One of the strongest forces in the mind of a Church of God member.

I might add, that if you decide to sing or not sing in a mainstream Church - in many of the mainstream churches - it's encouraged for you to worship your own way. Many times they will start the service by saying:

"Many of you today may feel like standing up, that's fine. Some of you may want to stay seated, that's fine, too. Some can come up to the altar, others can stay in their seats. Some may sing loudly, others may sit quiet and prayerfully. However you worship is between you and God as we come into his presence."

Such an attitude of personal worship between God and Man would be a rarity in the Churches of God.

So if you aren't comfortable with not singing because you'll get a target on your head from a Minister - and you don't want to SING A LIE - better yet, change the words. How about, as loudly as you can, "We are ALL divided, NOT one body, we, Not in hope in doctrine, NOT in charity". I wonder how that would go over! Oh wait! Am I causing division? Or promoting truth? What is better? Division... or truth? Read Luke 12:51 and tell me what you think about Jesus' response to such a question.

Or - there's the ol' Silent Sing Trick! Keep mouthing the words "We are not divided" but sing "We are .... divided". :P The only person who could tell? Your family next to you. But I guess this would become quite the problem if the whole church did it! Can you imagine? Everyone singing WE ARE .... DIVIDED, ...... BODY WE...... IN FAITH AND DOCTRINE.... IN CHARITY... Can you just see the Pastor's face now? Usher meeting! To the back! Pronto!


And then 45 minutes over service for a sermon on respect of authority in the Church - which trumps truth.

I'm being totally facetious here. No one's going to do any of the above. I know anyone reading this will certainly just sing the falsehoods, "We are not divided, all one body we", all while their internal thoughts are yelling "HA! HA! RIGHT! WHATEVER! ISNT THAT A LOAD OF HOOEY!"

The point of all this is simple. In the Churches of God, authority trumps truth. Lies trump truth. Appearance trumps truth. Law trumps truth. So if truth is Jesus, and Jesus is truth...

Where's Jesus?