O Holy Night!

The spiritual meaning of Christmas is beautifully expressed in the lyrics of this beautiful song:

 [Verse 1]

O Holy night! The stars are brightly shining

It is the night of our dear Savior's birth

Long lay the world in sin and error pining

'Til He appeared and the soul felt its worth

A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices

For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn

Fall on your knees; O hear the Angel voices!

O night divine, O night when Christ was born

O night, O Holy night, O night divine!

[Verse 2]

Led by the light of Faith serenely beaming

With glowing hearts by His cradle we stand

So led by light of a star sweetly gleaming

Here come the Wise Men from Orient land

The King of kings lay thus in lowly manger

In all our trials born to be our friend

He knows our need, to our weakness is no stranger

Behold your King; before Him lowly bend

Behold your King; before Him lowly bend

[Verse 3]

Truly He taught us to love one another;

His law is love and His Gospel is Peace

Chains shall He break, for the slave is our brother

And in His name, all oppression shall cease

Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we

Let all within us Praise His Holy name

Christ is the Lord; O praise His name forever!

His power and glory evermore proclaim

His power and glory evermore proclaim

O Holy Night Lyrics

Listen:

O Holy Night by John Berry

Jesus Came to Save Us from Sin!

To hear Armstrongites and Jehovah's Witnesses tell it, Jesus came to this earth the first time with a message about a future Kingdom of God on this earth. Does that view, however, square with Scripture? Judge for yourself:

This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. Joseph, to whom she was engaged, was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her publicly, so he decided to break the engagement quietly. As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. “Joseph, son of David,” the angel said, “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Matthew 1:18-21, NLT

https://www.bible.com/bible

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

John 1:29, NLT

God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:17, NLT

https://www.biblegateway.com

This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”

I Timothy 1:15, NLT

https://www.biblegateway.com

I don't know about you, but it sure sounds to me like Scripture is clear that Jesus came to save us from our sins. What do you think?

Santa Claus: Christian or Pagan?

In his booklet The Plain Truth About Christmas, Herbert Armstrong wrote: "But surely dear old Santa Claus is not a creature of pagan birth? But he is, and his real character is not so benevolent and holy as many suppose!" He went on to say: "Is it Christian to teach children myths and falsehoods? God says, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness!' It may seem right, and be justified by human reason, but God says, 'There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death!' 'Old Nick' also is a term for the devil! Is there a connection? Satan appears as an 'angel of light,' to deceive! (II Cor. 11:14; Rev. 12:9.)"

Likewise, in the December 1985 edition of The Good News magazine, Clayton Steep wrote an article entitled "Christmas 2,000 Years Before Christ!" He began by speaking in very vague terms about "mythical visitors" associated with the "winter season." Steep continued: "We recognize them today in different nations as Santa Claus, Father Christmas, St. Nicholas, St. Martin, the Weihnachtsmann, Pere Noel. Whatever name is used, all these winter visitors fulfill a similar role. These fictional persons 'Christianizations' of the pagan Germanic deities - perpetuate certain folk rituals wherein varying degrees of rewards and punishments were dealt out to celebrants. Through the centuries these customs came to be centered around children. It is not hard to see a connection between Santa using the chimney, the shoes and stockings hung by the fireplace and the ancient superstitions about hearth spirits. The fireplace served as the natural entrance and exit of the gods of fire and solar gods when they visited homes. For thousands of years, especially among the Chinese, it was customary to sweep and scour the house in preparation for the visit of the hearth spirit. Each year, dressed in a pointed fiery red cap and red jacket, this fire-god traveled from the distant heavens to visit homes and distribute favors or punishments. Today he is welcomed in the Western world each Christmas season."

Unfortunately, most of what Armstrong and Steep had to say on this subject was a bunch of unsupported speculation which ignored a great deal of history and connected things that had no connection to the things with which they were associated. The "PLAIN TRUTH" is that Santa Claus was a development of the Christian era and had NOTHING to do with paganism!

In an article written by Connor and Graves for Christianity.com titled Who Was Saint Nicholas? The True Story Behind Santa Claus, we read: "St. Nicholas of Myra is a saint in liturgical Christian denominations. As with many Christian saints, he is the patron saint of a particular group. Most notably, he is a patron saint of children and sailors." Continuing, we read: "Nicholas is believed to have been born in Patara, a city in the province of Lycia (part of modern-day Turkey). After becoming a Christian, he became bishop of a church in Myra, another town in Lycia. Myra gets briefly mentioned in Acts 27:5 when Paul and his travelers visit the city enroute to Rome. Nicholas is believed to have been a bishop over the church in Myra during the third and fourth century. His traditional birth and death dates are 270-343 AD." The authors concluded: "Over the nearly two thousand years since St. Nicholas of Myra lived, many Christmas traditions arose around him in different countries. These traditions combined to create the American Santa Claus figure we know today."

Speaking of his life and character, they wrote: "As bishop of Myra, Nicholas resisted tyrants and taught the truth, especially rejecting the Arian heresy. His people loved him. Whereas before, he had done his acts of charity anonymously, he now realized that he must act openly, for he must be an example to his people. 'The doors of his house were open to all. He was kind and affable to all, to orphans he was a father, to the poor a merciful giver, to the weeping a comforter, to the wronged a helper, and to all a great benefactor.' He brought down a local temple of the goddess Diana, confronted unjust rulers, defended individuals who were falsely accused, and prayed for relief during a famine." Now, as this article also points out, there are also a great number of myths and legends associated with Saint Nicholas which may or may not have any basis in actual history.

In the Biography.com article on Saint Nicholas, we read: "There are many legends about Saint Nicholas of Myra. One story tells how he helped three poor sisters. Their father did not have enough money to pay their dowries and thought of selling them into servitude. Three times, Saint Nicholas secretly went to their house at night and put a bag of money inside. The man used the money so that one of his daughters could marry. On the third visit, the man saw Saint Nicholas and thanked him for his kindness. He also reportedly saved three men who were falsely imprisoned and sentenced to death." The same article went on to observe that: "Saint Nicholas went through many transformations in America: Sinterklaas became Santa Claus, and instead of giving gifts on December 6, he became a part of the Christmas holiday. In the 1820 poem 'An Account of a Visit from Saint Nicholas' by Clement Clarke Moore, he is described as a jolly, heavy man who comes down the chimney to leave presents for deserving children and drives a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. The cartoonist Thomas Nast added to the Saint Nicholas legend with an 1881 drawing of Santa as wearing a red suit with white fur trim. Once a kind, charitable bishop, Saint Nicholas had become the Santa Claus we know today."

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Saint Nicholas of Myra states that: "He is patron of mariners, merchants, bakers, travellers, children, etc. His representations in art are as various as his alleged miracles. In Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, they have the custom of making him the secret purveyor of gifts to children on 6 December, the day on which the Church celebrates his feast ; in the United States and some other countries St. Nicholas has become identified with Santa Claus who distributes gifts to children on Christmas eve. His relics are still preserved in the church of San Nicola in Bari ; up to the present day an oily substance , known as Manna di S. Nicola , which is highly valued for its medicinal powers, is said to flow from them." In other words, Nicholas was a real, flesh and blood person who served as a Christian Bishop, and his mortal remains are still with us in 2024! Originally, the sources quoted here all agree that his feast day memorialized the date of his death on the sixth of December (this was the common practice for honoring saints after their deaths).

This narrative may not appeal to Armstrongists or Jehovah's Witnesses, but it does represent the who/where/why of our modern Santa Claus. He is based on a real Christian - a good man who lived long ago and devoted himself to following the example of Jesus of Nazareth!

The Death of Whendy Hendrix

It's never good news when you get a phone call at 3 AM. My brother called this morning to tell me that his wife had just passed away. "Whendy's gone," he announced with a tired and emotion choked voice. She had been waging a very brave battle with cancer this past year and had been in a great deal of pain. Thankfully, that is all over. She is at rest.

Steven had helped her wage that battle. He had supported her and helped her through it all, and he must now face life without her. My heart goes out to him, her mother, her son, and her grandson. May the God who is love, mercy, and comfort supply them with those things in abundance. May God welcome her into his kingdom whole, healthy, and surrounded by love. Amen.

Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal comfort and a wonderful hope, comfort you and strengthen you in every good thing you do and say. -- II Thessalonians 2:16-17, NLT

Christ on Trial: The Contrast Between Human and Divine Authority

All four of the canonical Gospels contain an account of Christ's trial before the Roman Governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. As such, Pilate served as the representative of Caesar's authority in that region. Now, in those days, Roman authority and control would have seemed both absolute and oppressive to the inhabitants of Judaea. After all, Roman soldiers had occupied the area for almost one hundred years by that time.

In the eighteenth chapter of the Gospel of John, we read:

28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”

30 “If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”

31 Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”

“But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. 32 This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.

33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

--The New International Version

Pilate, and the Jews under his authority, had a perspective on kingship that was based on years of real-world experience. Human kings exercised authority and control over people and territory. Kings were to be obeyed, feared, and respected. To these folks, someone claiming to be the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures to restore the Davidic Kingdom represented a challenge or threat to the powers that were then in place.

Jesus, on the other hand, did NOT fit their expectations about kingship. He offered something new and different. His kingdom was NOT of this world! He told them that his Kingdom came from a different place - that it wasn't of human origin or design. Jesus represented service and sacrifice, love and TRUTH. For folks in the First Century, this model of kingship did not make any sense to them - it was not something to which they could relate.

The Nativity: Human Authority VS Divine Service

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. - Isaiah 9:6-7, ESV

In the canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke, we find two narratives about the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus, the Messiah. Interestingly, although those narratives look at that event from different perspectives, both accounts clearly contrast God's notions about leadership with those of humankind. Unfortunately, most folks tend to exclusively focus their attention on the sentimental and emotional nature of the account - on the baby Jesus and his mother. Others rejoice at these accounts of Christ's first advent - his appearance on earth to make eternal life with God possible for humanity. Now, let's be clear, nothing we are about to say is intended to disparage or dismiss those perspectives on that blessed event. Even so, when we are finished, I hope that we will all be able to acknowledge that there was a lot more going on in these two narratives than either one of those important views indicate.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the narrative opens with Jesus being conceived outside of the institution of marriage, and Joseph quietly contemplating extracting himself from his betrothal to Mary (Matthew 1:18-25). Next, we are informed that King Herod learns about the birth of the "King of the Jews" from three wise men from the east. He then summoned all of the religious leaders in Jerusalem and asked them where the Messiah was prophesied to be born. Finally, we are informed that he summoned the wise men and demanded to know when the star which they were following had first appeared to them and instructed them to return to Jerusalem and report back to him when they had found the child (Matthew 2:1-8). Following the star, we are informed that the wise men soon found the child and presented to him gifts which they believed were fitting for a king (Matthew 2:9-11).

However, we are told that an angel warned them not to return to King Herod, and that they returned to their own homelands by another route (Matthew 2:12). Then, we read: "Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.' And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called my son.' Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men." (Matthew 2:13-16, ESV)

In this account, we see the human king (Herod) concerned about a report that a prophesied Messiah had been born. In short, the man felt threatened. HE was the king of the Jews, not this child who had just been born! What is his reaction? He ordered people to give him more information, and he lied to the wise men about his true intentions in inquiring about the child whom they were seeking. Clearly, Herod viewed this child as a potential existential threat to his authority and position. Then, when the wise men failed to return to Jerusalem after he had instructed them to do so, he flew into a rage and ordered his soldiers to kill all of the male children under two years of age in Bethlehem - trying to eliminate what he perceived to be a threat to his throne. Thus, the human king is portrayed as deceptive, full of self-interest, authoritarian, and ruthless. This is contrasted with the vulnerability of innocent children under his authority, and with what the angel had told Joseph about the child: "he will save his people from their sins."

Now, before we move on to Luke's account of these events, this is probably as good a place as any to address some of the scholarly criticisms of both of these narratives. In summary, these criticisms generally focus on reliability and the origins of the material. Some scholars see problems with the historicity of these narratives (how closely they line up with what actually happened), while others point to the existence of similar narratives found in pagan traditions. For some folks, these facts present insurmountable challenges to these narratives.

From my perspective, it is obvious that neither Matthew nor Luke was concerned with giving a scrupulously accurate biographical or historical account (which would have been both unexpected from them and unknown to the authors of that day and time). Instead, it is very clear to me that both of them were more interested in conveying just how mundane and extraordinary Christ's birth really was in relation to the grander scheme of things.

In the Gospel of Luke, we are informed that the angel Gabriel announced Christ's birth to his mother, Mary. We read: "you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:26-33, ESV) Notice, that Luke makes very clear that Jesus was destined to be a KING - to inherit the throne of David and to NEVER relinquish it!

In the second chapter, Luke revealed that Joseph and Mary were required to register in his ancestral town of Bethlehem because Caesar Augustus had issued a decree to that effect (Luke 2:1-5). While the couple was there, Luke wrote: "the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. And the angel said to them, 'Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.'" (Luke 2:6-12, ESV) Of course, this is a very familiar narrative, especially at this time of the year; but I have to wonder if most folks are picking up on the contrast between this king (Jesus), and the Roman emperor and other kings of the earth that Luke intended.

Notice, in this account of Christ's birth, that the great king is born in the usual manner, but in very humble circumstances. There is no palace or mansion - there isn't even any room for them at the local inn in the very backwater village of Bethlehem! Indeed, the child is born in a stable and laid in a livestock trough! Then, the angels announce the event to a group of lowly shepherds, NOT to emperors, kings, or the religious leaders of that day. Moreover, Luke portrays these circumstances as being an intentional sign of the one who would be their Savior!

This child/king had arrived to serve them, NOT to be served by them, and this message is reinforced in the other Gospel accounts of Christ's life (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, John 13:1-17). In stark contrast to these circumstances, the great human emperor was remote, lived in rarified splendor, and issued authoritative decrees requiring his subject to do this or that for him. Moreover, this contrast between human notions about leadership and the Divine model were later reiterated in Christ's own teachings on the subject (Matthew 18:1-5, 20:20-28, Mark 9:33-34, 10:35-45, Luke 22:24-30). Hence, we can see that both of the canonical accounts of Christ's nativity were carefully crafted to reflect the stark contrast between human notions about leadership and the kind of leadership reflected in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. This King was very different!

Are You Paying Lip Service to God?

The phrase "paying lip service" arises from an insincere expression of loyalty, respect, or support for something or someone. In this connection, it is interesting to note something that Jesus once observed about the religious leaders of that day. In the Gospel of Matthew, we read: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:8-9, ESV)

Now, Christ drew this expression from a passage in Isaiah. We read there: "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men..." (Isaiah 29:13, ESV) In other words, these folks were all about appearances! They appeared to honor and be worshipful of God, but their hearts just weren't really in it.

Do we see any parallels with what we see and experience in our own time? The United States proclaims on its money "In God we trust," but do we really? Many Americans also like to proclaim: "God, family, country" - implying that God is the priority in their lives. Even so, in a 2015 article for RNS titled "Americans don't cite 'God, family, country' quite like the cliche goes" by Cathy Lynn Grossman, we read: "'God, family and country' might make for a good country music tune, but that’s not really how most Americans see the strongest influences on their personal identity. The real order is family first (62 percent), followed by “being an American” (52 percent). 'Religious faith' lolls way down in third place (38 percent) — if it’s mentioned at all, according to a survey released Thursday (March 19) by The Barna Group."

How about you? Are you paying lip service to God? 

 

Some Political Questions for U.S. Christians?

Do you believe that the founding documents (e.g. Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution) were Divinely inspired? Does that make those documents inerrant and/or the founding fathers infallible?

If so, do you believe that the United States is God's nation? Do you believe that the political system of the United States is the most perfect system of human governance ever created by man?

Do you believe that the United States is a "Christian" nation? If so, does that mean that all other religions should not be tolerated? Should we ensure that any contributions to our system by people of other faiths should not be permitted/tolerated?

Do you believe that the founding fathers were righteous individuals? If so, why did some of them own slaves and/or engage in extramarital affairs? Likewise, do you believe that the United States is/was a righteous nation? If so, how do you explain the way land was taken away from Native Americans? How do you explain the toleration and support of the institution of slavery? How do you explain the exploitation of natural resources, extermination of species, and pollution of our air and waterways?

Do you believe that human political leaders can and/or should be Christians? Do you believe that it is possible or practical for secular leaders to strictly adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ in the performance of their duties within the current system and/or on the world stage?

Do you believe that God intended for Christians to improve the human political systems of this earth? Do you believe that Christians have a responsibility/duty to impose Christian moral standards on the larger society? If so, which denomination's beliefs should we employ as our standard? Also, does that mean that the rights of some groups of citizens should be denied (like homosexuals, atheists, or adulterers)? Should Christians support the public execution of sinners/criminals? If so, do we have any responsibility to encourage repentance, forgive, or show mercy to such individuals? How would that be managed/administered?

If God truly directs the affairs of humankind and is working out some design/plan, what happens if we support or vote for a candidate whom He didn't choose? Do we bear any responsibility for the failure of policy choices that we help to make? Do we bear any responsibility before God for unintended consequences of the choices we make at the ballot box? How do we maintain a clear conscience before God when we support someone who clearly does not live up to God's standard of behavior? Does the end justify the means?

Do you believe that the United States is a democratic republic? If so, how do you explain the fact that blacks and women were only allowed to participate in the political process in just the last century? How do we justify a minority being able to thwart the will of the majority or impose its beliefs/policies on the majority? How do we justify the practice of gerrymandering or the practice of partisanship?

Why do you think that Jesus said that his Kingdom was NOT of this world? Why do you think that Jesus instructed his disciples to pray that God's Kingdom come to this earth? Why do you believe that he also instructed them to pray for God's will to be done on earth as it currently is in heaven? Does that imply that human leaders are NOT doing God's will? Why did the Apostle Paul instruct the saints to NOT get entangled in civilian affairs? What did he mean by that? Why did John refer to human governance as Babylon and "Beast"? What do you think it meant when he wrote for God's saints to come out of her and NOT participate in her sins?

I'm truly interested in hearing some responses to these questions - especially for those who answered yes to the first few questions! Did any of the above questions prompt you to reconsider your political views or better understand why some Christians choose not to involve themselves in secular politics?

CGI's Vance Stinson's Response to Bill's Sermon

As with many of my relationships with my former associates in the Armstrong Churches of God, my once cordial and friendly relationship with CGI's Vance Stinson has deteriorated over time. Why? Because I am seen as an adversary - a disgruntled former member with a "bad attitude." Unfortunately, most of the folks who are still there have zero interest in growing in grace and knowledge. They've found the "truth," and they're only interested in protecting and defending that "truth." What I formerly would have considered private correspondence, I now regard as evidence of my contention that these folks are NOT interested in growth, change, or repentance. Hence, what follows is email correspondence between myself and Vance Stinson over my last post. I am happy to allow my readers to evaluate our respective views of the scriptural responsibilities of Church leadership on these questions:

From: Lonnie Clayton Hendrix [mailto:lc.hendrix@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, December 02, 2024 11:45 PM

To: Vance Stinson

Cc: Mike James; Jeffrey Reed

Subject: Unbelievable

You publish a fantastic article by Mike James and follow it up by posting a message from Bill which totally contradicts it. If you really can't see the dissonance, then CGI is in even worse shape than I thought it was!

Lonnie

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024 at 02:01:19 PM CST, Vance Stinson <vancestinson@cgi.org> wrote:

Well, Lonnie, I reckon we just think it’s good to try to keep our diverse little membership happy. The folks that don’t care for Bill’s stuff don’t watch it; they’re content with all the other material available to them. The ones who rush home after Sabbath services to watch the replay from Medina (when they know Bill is speaking) would be upset if it wasn’t there—yet those same folks think articles like the one from Mike (which, I agree, was excellent) are just fine and dandy. So it would seem that you’re about the only viewer who even notices the contradiction (if that’s what it is). Besides, does it really matter that Bill thinks Trump may turn out to be some kind of temporary “restrainer of lawlessness”? I hope he’s right. I don’t like lawlessness.

VS

Vance Stinson

From: Lonnie Clayton Hendrix [mailto:lc.hendrix@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2024 4:50 PM

To: Vance Stinson

Subject: Re: Unbelievable

Vance,

Thank you for replying. Yes, by all means, keep the little group of old folks happy and oblivious to what they are doing! As you know, the elders in the ekklesia who are doing God's work were placed there to nourish the spiritual life of the saints and help them to grow in grace and knowledge. You folks are NOT there to keep them happy and feed them what they want to hear (and I know that you know this - I shouldn't even have to say it). Christ's message was NOT meant to keep folks content and satisfied. His message is one of reflection, confrontation, and change. Is CGI preparing saints to be kings and priests in the Kingdom, or babysitting a bunch of geriatrics and feeding them pablum?

Diversity is a good thing - making everyone feel welcome is an imperative for the Church, but it should NEVER be employed as an excuse for confronting people with unpleasant truths (You folks don't seem to have any hesitation on that front when it comes to your beliefs about human sexuality). While it is certainly permissible and advisable to allow for the operation of each person's conscience in drawing the boundaries between spiritual and secular (as in let each person be fully persuaded in his/her own mind), it is, however, your responsibility as someone who claims to be a minister of Jesus Christ to remind your flock that they are citizens of the Kingdom first and foremost; and that it is dangerous for saints to become too involved and/or dependent upon any human system of governance.

Finally, I will admit that Bill is in good company in this regard. There are a great many ACOG folks who view Donald Trump as God's servant to make America great again and/or to buy them more time to preach the Gospel (Gerald Flurry being another proponent of the view which Bill subscribes to). Theologically, the problem with this should be apparent to you - Donald Trump is God's servant only in the same sense that Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Vladimir Putin, or any other secular leader is! Donald Trump is NOT in the Bible any more than Herbert Armstrong was a part of those writings. Once again, I know that you know these things (which makes your cavalier and dismissive attitude even worse). Yes, this headline prophecy stuff has always proven to be titillating to some folks, but it has done irreparable damage to the credibility of the Church and has led to unending speculation and disappointment over the years.

In short, turning a blind eye to this behavior or pretending that these positions do not contradict each other will come back to bite you in the hind parts. Think of how much easier all of this would have been to deal with twenty years ago if anyone had taken the initiative to do so back then. Instead, the objective has NOT been the spiritual health of the body, it has been to not piss off anyone - to keep everyone content! Let me ask you something, do you honestly believe that Bill and his supporters are happy/satisfied with the status quo? Do you honestly believe that Bill's detractors are happy/satisfied with this mealy-mouthed, lukewarm, fence-straddling course that CGI leadership has pursued. How many times has CGI experienced splits and very public catastrophes over the course of its brief existence on this planet? Some folks have observed that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome (I think they may be right).

I will await your reply. If I don't receive one, I'll assume that the above will serve as your reply to my post. Vance, in my estimation, you are a smart and sincere person, and you know the truth of what I have been saying. I am NOT and NEVER have been your enemy. Nevertheless, from where I'm sitting, you do very clearly have some enemies who are actively working against you.

Lonnie

From:

vancestinson@cgi.org

To:

'Lonnie Clayton Hendrix'

Wed, Dec 4 at 1:12 PM

Yes, I do well know that the elders’ job is to nourish the spiritual life of the saints and help them grow in grace and knowledge, and I think that’s exactly what the CGI ministry in general is trying to do, and most do a pretty good job of it. At the same time, I don’t see how keeping Bill’s fans happy interferes with the ministries of the rest of the elders. I might add that it’s a bit more than just keeping them happy; it’s also about preventing conflicts that will ultimately adversely affect the people we’re trying to serve.

VS