Letters from our readers
Thanks for having the courage to print my article, "Women Can Be Pastors in the Churches of God; Here's Why" in the June 30 issue.
However, I need to point out two errors that were added during the editing of my article.
Whoever edited my article changed "Paul knew these two [Junia and Andronicus]" to "Paul knew Junia and Barabbas." The famous criminal Barabbas was never linked with Junia, nor was he ever in prison with Paul!
Where the second error appeared, I originally had written, "Both were Christians before Paul was," and this was edited to become "Junia and Barabbas were Christians before Paul was."
I realize that with an entire paper to edit it is easy to quickly put down the wrong name, but I want your readers to know that I don't think Junia and Barabbas were ever a team; it was Junia and Andronicus!
Again, I appreciate your hard work in getting out The Journal. We all need it!
Dianne D. McDonnell
Where God looks
I think it interesting that we have such bias in religion today toward women as qualified leaders of God's people when we are supposed to credit God with dwelling in those who lead.
Do we think He needs a man in order to mentally function?
Does He have to look tough, or just elitist?
Perhaps He can justify His use of any woman by the fact that, if women have the Holy Spirit and God sends them through that Spirit, what man is going to undo that?
In Luke 2:36-37 the prophetess Anna taught in the temple and prophesied through the Holy Spirit. I don't see any place where God negates her testimony. If God is there, who is that shepherd who will stand before Him and defy Him? (Jeremiah 49:19; 50:44).
Eve was not made subject to her husband because she was a woman but because she ate of the dragon's "tree" (Genesis 3:16). How many ministers do that same thing now on a daily basis?
Maybe God should make us subject to our wives when we reject His Word and follow men and organizations and seek political and monetary gain instead of promoting a relationship with God on an individual basis (1 John 2:27).
God says He looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), not the reproductive organs.
Via the Internet
I would like to offer this suggestion, for what it is worth, to Dan Cafourek, Ned Dancuo and those others who have been, or may one day be, allowed to become members of the brotherhood of free, unfettered, truth-seeking individuals:
Forget about trying to be reinstated or making appeals for further study into your particular situation, and instead use the time to locate a group where your thoughts and opinions will be welcome. You just might learn, as I and many others have, how stifling to new thoughts has been your prior association and how good it feels to be able to voice your opinions without fear of repercussions.
In time I feel sure you will be pleasantly surprised as to how much greater your spiritual growth has become.
Trick or treat from the UCG?
In my opinion the United Church of God has the best publications and booklets of any of the Church of God groups.
However, the UCG spoils it all by the attitude and actions of many of its leaders and ministers.
At times they are downright amusing. At other times they are sad and pathetic.
A couple of recent reports in The Journal will illustrate. I'm sure many, like me, got a chuckle out of the on-again, off-again apology from the UCG's Frank McCrady to the nearby Church of God Big Sandy as reported in your March issue. It's a safe bet Big Sandy pastor Dave Havir has had many sleepless nights over that one.
Your reports on Dan Cafourek's run-in with the UCG in your April and June issues bordered on pantomime. Someone put it well by saying, as you reported, "The UCG is up to its old tricks again."
Readers of The Journal and its predecessor, In Transition, cannot help but observe that the UCG has consistently pulled "old tricks" on its out-of-favor ministers and congregations since its inception in 1995. These old tricks are nothing more than a continuation of the old my-way-or-the-highway approach so prevalent among these same dudes when they were in the employ of the Worldwide Church of God.
Good old Melvin Rhodes can preach 100 sermons at the church's annual conference about the evils of trigger-happy disfellowshipping and Richard Pinelli and company simply will not get it.
I have an idea for Mr. Cafourek with which he might have some fun. It has been confirmed by a witness (a letter to The Journal) that Larry Greider, Dan's now-former regional pastor, did indeed say in a sermon that the UCG was the bride of Christ and that the other church groups are only bridesmaids.
That statement runs contrary to the UCG's official position on the status of other groups. I suggest Dan immediately contact Mr. Pinelli and all of the UCG's council of elders and allege that Larry Greider is out there preaching heresy and call for his removal pending his repentance and apology to the other Church of God groups for calling them only bridesmaids.
Really, folks, I have difficulty seeing Mr. Greider in a white dress.
The nail on the head
Brian Knowles' essay on doctrinal reform ["Here's Why Doctrinal Reform Won't Happen Anytime Soon," July 30] seems to have offended a few people who are incapable of thinking outside the box.
I thought it hit the nail on the head. For many years Church of God members were spoonfed the gospel according to Herbert W. Armstrong. His analysis of Scripture was final. A lowly lay member or Ambassador College student simply did not have a deep enough understanding of spiritual things to disagree with the apostle's interpretation of Scripture, never mind that we were constantly admonished to prove all things.
In recent years many "truths" we came to believe in became suspect by examining the Scriptures. Since we are products of what we are taught, we believe in these precepts and live our lives accordingly.
Ideas that are iconoclastic (destructive to cherished beliefs) rarely sit well in our psyche. Try to talk to an unreceptive mind about Christmas and Easter and what response do you get?
I want to state that I respected Mr. Armstrong as a great teacher, and he was the man who brought most of us into whatever level of understanding we have attained. It would be difficult to deny he was God's instrument to reveal knowledge to the Churches of God.
So do not think this is HWA bashing.
Some of the things I am about to say will offend someone, but if a person reacts this way he is simply not facing reality. Brainwashing 101 is an effective class.
My own experience with the church goes back 40 years. I attended the first SEP in 1962 and Ambassador College, Big Sandy, 1966-1970. For a young boy and young man, those were exciting times.
I believe HWA started out with a correct and humble attitude in seeking truth, and as he was led along that path much was revealed to him.
As time went by, he became corrupted by his own self-importance and the wealth and power at his command. He himself told us at least 1,000 times, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
He became a victim of his own ego and fell prey to the trappings of human nature. When he became ruler of the vast church empire with command of the financial resources and no human being to answer to, he became a dictator.
With money, power, control and minions to do his bidding, the similarities between him and Hitler, Napoleon and other despots is remarkable. He became obsessed with power and his own ironfisted rulership.
I remember HWA liked to recite one of his edicts that went like this:
"When I'm in Bricket Wood, who's in charge?"
"When I'm in Big Sandy, who's in charge?"
And so on. Funny how, when our president leaves the country or when a military leader leaves his base, someone else is in charge.
At this time many of the old beliefs are being questioned, and I hope great strides toward truth are being made.
I have talked with people who are mired in the old ways, in the keeping of the law as if that will earn salvation. I think it is time to look at what really matters, what Jesus and Paul taught about love and loving your neighbor.
This is the bottom line, the true Christianity. Love is not a license to sin, but a Christian shows love for his fellowman and God by not breaking God's commandments.
I never could figure out why HWA would always quote only the first part of Romans 6:23, "The wages of sin is death," and leave out "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
This was part of the concept of ironfisted rule, keeping control over the people, God's government, etc. Maybe I missed something in reading the New Testament, but the examples of Jesus and the early apostles seem to be quite different.
Canyon Lake, Texas, and
The Jews had two calendar choices
I had hoped we had seen an end to the wrangling over the holy-day calendar, but the recent articles by Steve Bruns and Theda Horton [July 30 issue] have kept the debate going.
Steve presents what would appear to be a strong case for the Karaite Jewish calendar, but he contradicts himself on at least one point. He insists the Bible alone can be used to determine the correct holy days, but he then proceeds to cite numerous lexicons and concordances to "prove" his point.
You cannot use the Bible alone to prove what is a new moon. You can get close, within a day or two, as most of the various calendars do.
Theda's article adequately explains the lunar cycle and the origin of crescent observance.
An observed calendar, such as the Karaites and some church members use, was never designed to be used on a worldwide basis because the new-moon crescent can appear anywhere on earth on any given month.
They insist that the new month cannot begin until the crescent is seen in the Jerusalem area. That means that people just west of Israel who see it first must wait another full day to begin the month.
That is nothing more than a postponement, which they so stridently condemn when it comes to the Jewish calendar.
Also, those east of Jerusalem to the international date line who see it first will have to begin the new month on the next day on the Roman calendar. Does that make sense?
Before the era of rapid communication, when the Jews were scattered around the world, how were they to know which days to observe?
There were only two choices:
Local observation, which meant some would be at least a day off from others in other parts of the world.
What Hillel and the Sanhedrin gave us: the calculated calendar.
Some Jews keep two days for each holy day, except for Atonement, just to be sure of getting one right. Can you find that in the Bible?
If it was okay to be a day off then, why not now?
If it were not permissible to be a day off the mark, then the calculated calendar was the only answer. If God were so concerned that each holy day be kept on the "right" day by everyone, He would have made the instruction as plain as He made the Sabbath command.
Car and driver
Just finished reading the Journal article about Buck Hammer ["Where Were You in the Fall of 1953?," July 30]. It mentioned that Herbert Armstrong had a 1948 Chrysler.
Now, it didn't say whether it was a Windsor, Royal, New Yorker or Imperial. All four models were classy chassis. My dad and I owned several Chryslers of the 1946-48 vintage, Windsors and New Yorkers. They weren't new like Herbert's, but the big eights were modified enough to feel their oats.
My dad's rod was a 1948 New Yorker four-door painted polo green, with an Imperial engine in it and with a milled head and the big carburetor.
Mine was a New Yorker convertible, black with an interior I put in myself. Had pearl-white buttons and tufts in three-tone white, red and black.
The transmission in all Chryslers was an M6 four-speed semiautomatic. It was connected to the engine by a fluid coupling and clutch. (Fluid coupling = torque converter for you younguns.) I was working as a engine-and-chassis specialist at a Chrysler dealership just out of high school and did a few tricks with the timing, etc., that made it a real sleeper: a 5,000-pound 20-foot-long charger.
I remember one day on the way to work running by a 1956 Ford convert with Fordomatic and leaving him in the dust.
"What you got in there?" he asked in amazement. An old-timer like that ain't supposed to go like it went.
I gave him a big knowing smile. Just an oldie but goodie. The trick was, you started out in first gear (compound low that could pull stumps or jump that 5,000-pound beast off the line like a mule getting branded with a hot poker). Then let up on the gas and depress the clutch.
As fast as you could do that maneuver the car shifted itself into second gear. Third was obtained by manually going to high range, clutch in and out in a split second and gas to the floor. Fourth was attained like you did second. Shifting was faster than a normal manual or automatic, and the ratios were very close.
How could such a thing happen in the days of yore? The M6 was wired and had a governor that engaged a solenoid.
When the gas pedal was raised and the engine RPM dropped, the governor points closed and charged the solenoid, which was waiting for the right RPM to shift to the next range. Two in low and two in high.
By depressing the gas pedal above 10 miles per hour, you had the equivalent of today's passing gear. It closed manually; the contacts and the solenoid did their thing.
With a tenth of an inch milled off the head for higher compression and a larger carburetor, the big cruiser moved out smartly and saw 105 at the top end with room to spare. (Don't try this today, but back in the late '50s early '60s you could still find roads to unwind on.)
Yes, the old '48 Chrysler was a real automobile. HWA picked a winner there.
Even the Big Four, which was a term of endearment for the flying squad of Detroit's finest, could not touch our Chryslers. They had '57 De Sotos, and we used to race down Charlevoix in the heart of Detroit. We had about a mile stretch of road in front of the Bud Co., and Sunday races between me and the police were always exciting, especially if I had a newbie on board for the ride.
They were great guys, those detectives. Used to stop and frisk me in front of my friends, in gas stations, in restaurants or at a street corner just for kicks, saying things like, Aha, we got you now!
My mom missed their humor when they stopped me in front of my house one day and she saw them going through their routine. They gave me quite a reputation in the hood. The neighbors had all kinds of gossip about what was I involved in to get such special treatment.
Bet The Journal never knew it would bring back such fond memories. Keep up the good work!
Shelby W. Davis
La Follette, Tenn.
Protect the weak in the faith
Thanks for your newspaper. It's a needed service.
I do have a concern, though. There are some crackpots out there. Giving them so much space in the paper isn't good, in my opinion.
Knowing others' beliefs can strengthen our own, but some are weak in the faith and can't discern very well. I do wish and pray for articles by Ray Wooten and David Antion and other men who have balance.
I think balance is the word The Journal needs to strive for.
Dave Havir is a breath of fresh air for sure.
Clay City, Ky.
The enticement of makeup
In regard to the article by Jan Young in the July 30 issue of The Journal, there are several points in contrast to that submission that need to be made.
The author constantly contends that women who wear makeup wear it only for sexual enticement and to conform to the world' standards.
She implies it is immoral and hypocritical to wear makeup. She states that women who wear it are as "addicts, needing a fix," and women are copying Jezebel.
I agree that prostitutes wear makeup to sexually entice men. This is wrong and obviously sinful, but to suggest that all women wear makeup for these immoral reasons of sex and self-promotion above others is wrong!
Throughout the article I noticed comments referring to beauty pageants as being sexist and racist, that bras may cause cancer by heat buildup and the restriction of the lymph system.
The author specifically writes: "I hate makeup because it's one of the most unfair double standards that exists. It's required for women but not men in Western society."
This attitude from the author, to sum it up, appears to me to be one of a strict feminist view. She not only is against makeup but against anything that separates men and women.
I just wonder if the author has a problem with the man being the head of the household.
But, again, I am not judging. That is between her and God. It is not my job or anyone else's to judge her, just as she should not be doing so with women who choose to use makeup moderately.
She is equating makeup with sex, and that is not accurate.
Personally, I feel the subject is old baggage that is revived time and time again. As the people of God, we should not be so worried with these unimportant, even trivial matters. With the state the world is in and prophecies closer to being fulfilled, we should be doing as God commands and preach the gospel unto the end.
In regards to the makeup issue, we have more important things to do.
Sherry L. Haney
A note of clarification about Jan Aaron Young's essay in the July 30 issue: Mr. Young's three-page article, "Why God Is Against Makeup," appeared as a paid announcement, part of Connections, the advertising section of The Journal.
Also, for the writer's information, Jan Aaron Young is a he, not a she.
I read the article by Brian Knowles in the May issue and was finally driven to voice concern for seeing some of God's people drifting toward false religion and calling it good enough.
Let's be realistic. It is the world's idea to have the great ecumenical collection of all religions under one roof and believe that we are all worshiping the same God.
I have noticed the trend for some of God's people to move in the direction of traditional Christianity and their churches and away from the sound doctrines that were delivered to and received by us.
This is the same mind-set the world has: seeing all "Christianity" as under the same roof and equal in God's eyes.
Some say traditional Christians just haven't been given as much as we have in knowledge from God, but they are still true Christians.
This, of course, makes it easy to justify our differences, even to minimize or eliminate the obvious differences by believing that false doctrine is really God's fault. We don't want to offend, so let's just all get along and not be concerned about the differences, right?
I have no problem with sharing our beliefs with others, but to climb into the same church traditions and practices that are obviously contrary to God's Word is a dangerous practice, even if we think we are holding fast to God's truth.
Brian writes that "all" (who attend traditional Christian or other services), in some ways, are finding their spiritual needs met in these "churches."
Could it be that their spiritual weaknesses are being met and supported instead? Are we going to now believe that God's truth is being preached and believed in these churches?
The apologists within the Churches of God want us to be one big happy Christian family and have lost sight of the obvious difference God Himself places on such traditions and flagrant misuse of Scripture. The Laodicean attitude shows clearly in those who believe they are being spiritually fed by false religion disguised as Christ's church.
How could the very elect be deceived simply by signs and wonders unless their very foundation and discernment between that which is true and godly and that which is Satan's counterfeit religious system has been compromised?
Yes, they are nice people. Yes, they are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong, and this approach is an abomination to God (1 Corinthians 10:10-21).
Compromise is so easy, yet it simply weakens God's people. If we cast aside the truths of God for fellowship with false Christianity, we deny the true Jesus Christ.
If we believe our light is stronger than Satan's deceptions, and that we can flirt with false Christianity and not be affected, we deceive ourselves and are being lulled to sleep.
God help us to wake up.
Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Israel's loss is the beast's gain
Herbert W. Armstrong predicted: Israel's loss of four sea gates will allow the beast to rise.
What Mr. Armstrong predicted about strategic sea gates, just before World War II (which was fulfilled shortly afterwards in type), again demands our attention.
The apostle John predicted the "beast [will] rise up out of the sea" (Revelation 13:1). Once Britain and America entirely lose their grip on these four sea gates, which give access to the beast's underbelly, the Mediterranean Sea, the beast will be free to rise.
The other three sea gates Mr. Armstrong was doubtless referring to are the Bosporus and the Dardanelles Strait, running through Turkey, and the Strait of Gibraltar.
As of 2002 Britain has decided to share Gibraltar with Spain, which will definitely be part of the final resurrected Roman Empire.
Turkey--through which the Bosporus and Dardanelles pass--is currently friendly with America and Britain. She is also trying to become a full member of the European Union and showing signs of reverting to an Islamic state. Either way, those conflicting loyalties are bound to strip America and Britain of the use of these sea gates.
The Turkish people are the modern descendants of Esau, the older twin brother of Jacob (who was renamed Israel). Their conflict started even in the womb of their mother, as Genesis 25:20-28 explains. Jacob later bought the birthright from Esau (verses 29-34) and tricked their father into giving it to him. God allowed this because Esau disdained the birthright, not appreciating its great value.
Esau was also called Edom (Genesis 25:30). Mr. Armstrong showed that the prophet Obadiah predicted that in the end time Edom--that is, modern-day Turkey--would terribly betray the Israelites. This would include Britain and America losing access to the Bosporus and the Dardanelles Strait sea gates.
Mr. Armstrong showed that later, in the Day of the Lord, God would dry up the daughter of Babylon's sea; that is, the Mediterranean Sea of the end-time descendant of Babylon (see Jeremiah 51:33, 36).
Herbert Armstrong's Bible-based prediction that Britain and America would lose control of the Suez Canal and the Bosporus, Dardanelles and Gibraltar--before the final "Holy" Roman Empire fully emerged--is now a lot easier to see than it was in 1934 or 1939.
It also means we are on the verge of seeing the rise of that beast power of Revelation 13: the seventh revival of the Roman Empire.
Mr. Armstrong further prophesied that the power base in Europe, including the dried-up Mediterranean Sea, of the final Roman Empire--whose religion is really Babylonian--will be uninhabited during the Millennium (see Jeremiah 51; Revelation 17-19). That's how great the devastation will be that God brings on the enemies of America, Britain and the Jewish state after the Great Tribulation.
Geoffrey R. Neilson
Fish Hoek, South Africa
This week the first of my four new books on the migrations, empires and modern locations of the tribes of Israel goes to the printer. The other three books will shortly follow.
There will also be a considerable amount of new information about the history of the tribes of Israel.
The books will reprint photographs of important artifacts, now located in American museums, which confirm the presence of Hebrew-speaking explorers and colonists in ancient America.
The titles of the four new books:
Origins and Empire of Ancient Israel.
Israel's Lost Colonies.
Parthia: The Forgotten Ancient Superpower.
Israel's Lost Tribes Today.
Each book will be 250-280 pages long, with the material divided to follow logical divisions in the history of the Israelites.
My first book had so much material that it required small print, small margins, etc. The volume of new material made it impossible to consider placing all the new pages in one book. The division of the material into four books will make them more readable than my first book.
The new book series begins with the calling of Abraham instead of the reign of King David (as did my first book). This will result in the new books covering the entire history of the Abrahamic covenant and the entire history of the blessings given to his "birthright" descendants.
In covering about eight centuries more than my first book, such topics as the unusual dynamics of Jacob's family, the true location of Mount Sinai, the Exodus and new evidence about the presence of the Israelites in ancient Egypt and in the Promised Land will be covered.
As a teaser, one piece of new evidence confirms that one group of Israelites in the postexilic period actually began using a modern technology about 18 centuries before it was reinvented in the modern era.
Prices are not yet set but will be given to The Journal as soon as possible.
When the new books are ready, some of the first copies off the press will go The Journal for review.
I wish to thank everyone interested in these books for their patience in waiting for their release.
Steven M. Collins
Sioux Falls, S.D.
The Russians aren't coming!
Steven Collins' alternative view of end-time events, which sees a Russian-led Asiatic alliance as the threat to a united EuropeanNorth AmericanBritish alliance ["COG Author Presents a New View of Prophecy," The Journal, March 25], needs to be briefly critiqued.
The most interesting result of Mr. Collins' revisionism:
"We're the beast!" That is, if the United States, Britain, Canada and the German-led European Union (through NATO) stand united against Russia and the Asiatic hordes led by her, we're the king of the north of Daniel 11:40-45.
Further, this means we're Babylon the Great as well, and the false prophet would hold just as much sway in the United States, Britain and Canada as he would on the Continent.
The underlying mistake in Mr. Collins' revisionism is the rejection of duality in prophecy. As the cases of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14-19 (see also 8:3-4) and the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 (see also Matthew 24:15) show, a prophecy can be dual without its explicitly claiming duality.
There is no requirement for a prophecy to mention the phrase "in the latter days" for it to be applicable to eschatological concerns.
The context of a prophecy, such as about Israel and Judah's return to the Holy Land (such as Jeremiah 50:4-5, 19-20) has to be examined to see if its specific conditions were totally fulfilled in the past or not before being rejected as a candidate for end-time events.
Mr. Collins is much too restrictive in his procedure by insisting that some formula like "in the latter days" must appear in a prophecy for it to apply to then.
Duality, such as what happened to Joseph vis a vis his brothers (most of whose descendants, besides Judah's, are or will be in the EU) being repeated (that is, captivity followed by a revelation of actual identity), doesn't have to be announced explicitly for it to become true.
Hence such prophecies as Hosea 5:1-15; 12:1-2, 8-14 concerning the wars between Assyria and the house of Israel need not be automatically dismissed from having future fulfillments.
The claim that Israel (and Judah) will be triumphant by the force of their own arms by God's power against this Russian-Asiatic alliance runs into a hard rock such as Jeremiah 30:7-11.
In this text, after the great tribulation of "Jacob's trouble," Israel has to be delivered from bondage and slavery after being punished by God.
Similarly, it's hard to see the regathering after Israel's punishment for its sins as described in Ezekiel 39:23-29 to be fulfilled in the events of the Babylonian captivity and the return of the exiles under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah or in the diaspora caused by Rome's crushing of the two Jewish revolts in Palestine (A.D. 66-73 and 132-35) being reversed by the Zionist movement of the 20th century.
Another major of mistake of Mr. Collins is to assume all the mistaken predictions of timing Mr. Armstrong and other Worldwide Church of God leaders have made down through the decades were the result of believing that a German-led European attack on the descendants of Joseph would occur.
These, rather, were the results of desiring Jesus' return, God's government and eternal life so intensely that errors of timing were made.
During the Cold War years (1945-91), the church could have proclaimed, "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" But then we would have ended up with an equal amount of egg on our faces.
To date, HWA's old article (originally published in 1948) "Why Russia Will Not Attack America?" has proven completely correct. Indeed, with the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union's breakup, Russia's fall to economic ruin and demographic implosion, and the increasing political and economic unity of the European Union (as most dramatically shown through the introduction of the euro), it appears Mr. Collins is giving up on the church's traditional view of the house of Israel's main enemy just as current events make it more possible than ever!
Some may find it of value to track down The Philadelphia Trumpet [published by the Philadelphia Church of God, Edmond, Okla.] of February 2000 ("He Was Right! Remember Five Decades of Accurate Forecasting by Herbert W. Armstrong") to get the rest of the story that many in the various COGs tend to forget these days.
Therefore there are good reasons to reconsider Mr. Collins' revisionist prophetic scenario that the houses of Israel and Judah will be united with a German-led Europe against Russian-led Asiatic hordes.
It's still better for the church to proclaim to our nations, spiritually practicing the principle found in the watchman's duty of Ezekiel 33: "The Germans are coming! The Germans are coming!"
Who owns the 18 truths?
Certain questions need to be asked and answered about the so-called "18 restored truths" of Herbert W. Armstrong as listed in Robert and Joyce Thiel's article in the July 30 issue.
First, are they indeed truths? Second, were they indeed restored?
And what of the ethics of editing HWA's writings after he's gone?
Is it possible that those who hold the copyright to them may believe that by disseminating them they are doing more harm than good?
Has anyone actually talked to Joe Tkach about how he feels about HWA's writings?
Whose property are they?
Do they belong under the stewardship of Joe Tkach?
Should they have been inherited by HWA's son, Garner Ted?
Should they have been given to Gerald Flurry or Rod Meredith?
Was it ethical to edit HWA's words posthumously?
There are many ethical, theological and philosophical issues surrounding the preservation and dissemination of HWA's writings. Someone should work them through before decisions are made.
More important, each of these 18 teachings needs to be reexamined against the background of Hebrew-roots studies.
The early church for the first decade of its existence was entirely Jewish. What needs to be understood here is how the Jewish believers viewed their incoming gentile associates in terms of Torah.
Each doctrine needs to be detached from the baggage of HWA's mystique and surrounding traditions and viewed critically in its own right, applying the principles of sound exegesis and hermeneutics.
I would also challenge the whole nonsensical discussion about the "Philadelphian" and "Sardis" "eras."
Years ago Ted Armstrong produced an excellent article disproving this bogus notion. I'm not sure whether it's still available through his current organization or not.
One wonders if the authors of this article have read any of the voluminous Journal copy on the subjects listed as "truths." Many of these topics have been treated critically in the pages of The Journal over the years. Do any of the HWA hardliners read any of these articles?
HWA's teachings are only "orthodox" for those who view them as normative. For the rest of us, many of his teachings are simply erroneous.
This article, though undoubtedly well-intentioned and loyal in tone, perpetuates the growing cult of personality that surrounds the figure of Herbert W. Armstrong.
The August 2002 issue of The Journal includes many photos and several other graphics, besides the Connections advertising section. Don't forget to subscribe to the print version of The Journal to read all the news and features previewed here.
© The Journal: News of the Churches of God