The Journal: News of the Churches of God

Some people wait for the telephone call

The writer pastors the Church of God Big Sandy and is a regular columnist for The Journal.

By Dave Havir

BIG SANDY, Texas--One of the ignominious events in the history of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) was the church's teaching that members would leave for the "place of safety" in 1972. The WCG taught that church leaders would contact members to travel to Petra, Jordan, in 1972 and await the return of Jesus Christ in 1975.

A huge problem was that church leaders claimed to speak for God.

Church leaders claimed to speak for God when they identified 1972 as the time to go somewhere.
Church leaders claimed to speak for God when they identified Petra as the destination.
Church leaders claimed they would speak for God when they made the telephone call telling people to leave their homes.

Thankfully, church leaders pulled back on the teaching, and families were not notified to move to the Middle East in 1972. Hence we do not know how many people would have followed those leaders on a wild-goose chase.

No longer waiting

What can people learn from the 1972 version of the place-of-safety theory?

One major conclusion about the theory cannot be denied: Church leaders were definitely not speaking for God when they identified 1972 as the time to leave.

How did that undeniable error affect people's view of the old place-of-safety theory?

Some said: Because church leaders did not speak for God about the 1972 date, I question whether they spoke for God about the location, and I question whether they will speak for God if they make a telephone call. I am not waiting for any telephone call from church leaders.

In other words, some people became less eager to heed the private opinions of church leaders.

However, I am saddened to say that 29 years after 1972 people are still out there waiting for that telephone call.

How about a date?

Some said: Even though church leaders did not speak for God about 1972 being the date, I believe they spoke for God about the place. Therefore I am waiting for a telephone call from a church leader to give me a new date so that I can go to Petra.

(For the record, theories about Petra are not secretive ideas limited to the Church of God movement. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins wrote about Petra and the end time in their best-selling Left Behind series. On page 77 of their latest book, Desecration, the ninth book in the series, the authors call Petra "the ideal cradle of refuge for the remnant of Israel." Do you realize how many people read these books?)

Dependence day

Some said: Because the church leaders did not speak for God about 1972 being the date, I question whether they spoke for God about the location. However, I believe God must speak through my church leaders. Therefore I am waiting for a telephone call from a church leader to give me a new date and new location.

Whether knowingly or inadvertently, church leaders used the old place-of-safety theory to make people dependent on men.

According to the theory, saints must depend on special church leaders to know when to go.

According to the theory, saints must depend on special church leaders to know where to go.

According to the theory, saints must depend on special church leaders to make the telephone call to invite them.

Whether church leaders understood the connection or not, the old place-of-safety theory and the theory about God's government on earth both influence people to be psychologically dependent on men.

At this time in the article, Iwant to pose a riddle to you. Later in the article I will give you the answer.

Question: How can church leaders promote dogmatic prophecy scenarios without the likelihood of being called false prophets?

Are leaders aware?

Various church leaders still promise physical protection to people if they will pledge allegiance to them.

Someone may ask: Are church leaders aware of how manipulative this kind of advertising is?

Let's notice a contrast.

Some sales managers and sales representatives in society know their products cannot produce what they promise. Yet they continue to misrepresent so they can make sales.
Other sales managers and sales representatives in society believe the hype about their products. In their naivete they can be quite convincing.

Let's compare these truthful scenarios to religious groups:

Some church leaders and church representatives use the theory of God's government on earth to maintain control and the flow of money. Other church leaders and church representatives believe the hype about their theories. They really believe that they are in the place of Jesus Christ and that people's salvation depends upon following their dominion. In their naivete they can be quite convincing.

Someone may ask: Are you encouraging people to blame church leaders?

Absolutely not! The truth is that church leaders influence people, but each person must take responsibility for his own actions.

If a salesman in society influences you to buy a bad product, you must take responsibility for your decision.
If a church leader influences you to accept a bad theory, you must take responsibility for your decision.

Sharing their opinions

Someone may ask: Is it wrong for church leaders to share their opinions?

My answer may surprise you: Church leaders who share their personal speculation can benefit other people--as long as they clearly identify their words as opinion and theory.

Someone may ask: Why are you so accepting of private interpretation when the Bible clearly denounces the private interpretation of prophecy?

My answer includes the following:

I understand that 2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. However, I do not view the personal opinions of church leaders as prophecy of the Scripture.
God spoke to the prophets and they passed on the message. From my perspective, God is not speaking to the church leaders as He spoke to the prophets of old.
When church leaders generally interpret Scripture, they speak imaginations of their own heart (Jeremiah 23:16-17).
My concern is church leaders claim to speak for God when they share their imaginations.

In nonprophets' clothing

As we begin to conclude, let me give the answer to the earlier riddle. As a reminder, the question was: How can church leaders promote dogmatic prophecy scenarios without the likelihood of being called false prophets?

Answer: Church leaders can boldly say they are not prophets. Therefore, when they are wrong, they remind people that they never claimed to be prophets and therefore they cannot be called false prophets.

What do you think? Does rejecting the title of prophet erase the actions of false prophets?

If people who give you bad medical advice remind you that they never claimed to be doctors, does that justify their bad medical advice?

If people who give you bad financial advice remind you that they never claimed to be financial experts, does that justify their bad financial advice?

Beware of false prophets who pretend not to be prophets at all.
Beware of people who say they are not prophets but claim to represent God when they regularly give you dogmatic prophecy scenarios.
Beware of people who say they are not prophets but say you reject God when you disagree with their prophecy scenarios.
Beware of people who say they are not prophets but say you will not have physical protection when you disagree with their prophecy scenarios.
Beware of people who say they are not prophets but say they will inform you when it is time to go to a place of safety.

Church Links - Addresses - Church Logos - Finances - Photos - Memorial

The Study Library - In Transition - Messages Online - Live Services

Back Issues - Subscribe - Email List - Ad Rates - Site Map