Featured Post

The Christian Perspective on the Old Testament

Unfortunately, too many Christians have allowed themselves to harbor extreme views with regard to the role which they permit the Old Testame...

Sunday, January 17, 2021

Why Don't You Keep Your Mouth Shut?

Whenever I post something related to the Armstrong Churches of God, I'm inevitably asked: "Why must you criticize/challenge/attack your father's religion?" The clear implication being that, out of respect for my father, I should remain quiet. From my perspective, the obvious problem with this line of reasoning is that it completely ignores the fact that it was also MY religion once upon a time!

In times past, I've written about how my brother and I used to lie across our father's bed and listen with him to Garner Ted Armstrong on his little transistor radio in the mid to late 1960's. And, he even took us to Sabbath services on a couple of occasions thereafter. My father's circumstances (he was a divorced man with primary custody of two small boys and living with his parents), however, made him feel that he wasn't really able to make a commitment to the church at that time. Hence, while it was clear to him (and to us) that he had discovered "THE TRUTH," he NEVER formally affiliated himself with the old Worldwide Church of God.

Unfortunately, as an opinionated and sheltered adolescent, I did make the decision to attend the Worldwide Church and was baptized at the tender age of seventeen. I have also discussed in past posts how I was eventually disfellowshipped for dating outside of the church. And, although that was an extremely painful experience, it did force me to embark upon a reevaluation of everything I had believed and taken for granted. However, like many others before me, I made a pit stop in one of the splinters that emerged from the old Worldwide Church before severing all ties with the religion.

In the intervening years, my dad had remarried and had joined Garner Ted's Church of God International. At the time, it made sense to me to associate with a church that had held onto many of the "core" doctrines of my former church, but also seemed to have evolved into a more enlightened and expansive view of individual freedom and responsibility within that framework. It was, nevertheless, almost inevitable that there would come a day when my growth would render untenable any further association with any group which held onto Armstrong's teachings. The immediate cause of my final departure was the fact that CGI didn't appreciate some articles which I had penned for Dixon Cartwright's paper.

Over time, however, I had concluded that Herbert and Garner Ted were very flawed men who had taught many things that simply were not consistent with the "PLAIN TRUTH" which they claimed to be lifting from the pages of the Bible. With my new understanding, I was also made painfully aware of the fact that I had made many great personal sacrifices as a consequence of my association with Armstrongism. In short, my religious beliefs had profoundly and adversely impacted my educational, career, financial and relationship choices.

Hence, my personal awakening forced me to confront my feelings about my former affiliations. Would I allow bitterness and regret to rule my emotions and spoil my future? OR Would I try to keep growing and learning as a person and attempt to make better decisions and move forward with my life? I decided to move forward, but I was also confronted with the reality that I was leaving behind many friends and loved ones who continued to be ensnared by the deceptive teachings which I had escaped. What to do? Do you simply walk away and be thankful that you've saved your own skin? OR Do you attempt to pull the curtain back on what you've experienced and try to help others step into the light?

Unfortunately, I still have family and friends who are steeped in the religion founded by Herbert Armstrong - the religion which I have abandoned. And, I am sure that they and their associates would prefer that I slipped quietly away and not say anything about my own experiences or malign the teachings which they still hold dear. There is something within the psyche of the religion itself that expects those who are banished (or leave of their own accord) to magically disappear and never come to mind again. We are expected to hang our heads in shame and never dare to impugn "God's Church."

Nevertheless, I (like many others who have had similar experiences) feel compelled to share my experiences and help others to shake off the shackles of this flawed and harmful theology. And, while it's unfortunate that people whom I love and respect as individuals continue to choose to associate themselves with my former religion, I will continue to speak about my experiences and what I have learned. I do so in the hope that some of what I have shared may be of some use to others in their quest for peace, truth and fulfillment. I'm sorry that some see this as being disrespectful and hurtful, but that is certainly not my objective.

12 comments:

  1. Interesting Miller.

    At times, on different blogs, I do speak out in venemous (but 100 percent truthful) terms against one or more of the splinter abuses. (like false "prophecies" or putting limitations of the soaring of the spirit).

    Even if I have made the choice that truth is truth and untruth is untruth regardless the source, I feel "guilty" when I speak/lash out against my parents or siblings religious "life work/investment."

    For me personally it does not feel good to feel like I am betraying my kin. I am extremely loyal toward blood and siblings.

    Often weeks following such a lash out, which I couldn't resist because a so called "prophet" was obviously taking the stupid pills again, I defer to speaking about myself again and my personal experiences.

    It's kind of a compliment that my detractors than start calling me "Dos Equus" man. By then I know that I am still in posession of humor and self reflection while still insisting to stay as close to reality as I have experienced it.

    nck

    ReplyDelete
  2. Miller, I share some of your experiences and reactions concerning Armstrongism. That is the reason why I use a moniker instead of my real name. Of the dozen or so buddies from my old WCG days, all but a couple are long-haul Armstrongists.

    I found your account very interesting, an account that conduces to reflection.

    Note: And why is Nck so much more coherent on your blog?

    Neo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neo, I'm afraid that there are way too many of us who share some of these experiences. I understand about the use of the moniker - that's why I started out as Miller Jones. However, circumstances and challenges to my integrity compelled me to reveal my identity (sometimes I still long for those days of anonymity).
      Anyway, I wanted to say thanks for stopping by here and commenting. Most of us do this in an attempt to help other folks who have had similar experiences or are just searching for God, truth, peace and fulfillment. I have always appreciated your comments on Gary's blog, and I'm honored that you saw fit to make a contribution here.

      Lonnie

      Delete
  3. Hi NEO.

    Many reasons.

    The main reason is that a level of thought goes into Millers postings. It's no use answering a professor in snarky one liners is there.

    Then there's the cigar and whisky offered and other exchange of civilities, before even starting the conversation.

    I say conversation rather than discussion.

    There's a range of common interests Miller and I share. For instance the love of history which also challenges us to investigate why or how the commenter comes to a certain conclusion, different from, "its my experience so I'm entitled to this opinion."

    Part of it is answered in my answer to opinionated on the "christians sometimes don't behave thread/topic".

    I tend to answer "in kind".

    Perhaps I just seem more coherent because the readers brain is framed different after reading comments here or at Gary's place, which serves a different purpose.

    I mean a person might be overdressed at Gary's pub but underdressed here at Millers Cafe.

    I doesn't matter.
    Miller says hi, invites you/the weary traveller in anyway, offers you a drink and a tie to wear.

    Nck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a very kind and gracious comment. I knew that there was a reason I called you friend :)

      Delete
  4. Nck:

    I just did something that deleted my completed comment. Maybe it was predestined not be published. Maybe Calvin was right. Let's see if I can reconstitute what I said.

    I believe NO2HWA's more inclusive approach has its value. It permits the contributors to develop a perspective on issues. Armstrongists are accustomed to pulling out a little booklet an settling an issue for all time. This doesn't fly on "Banned." If someone puts forward a view that is not well thought out, someone will challenge them on it. The narrow aperture, opinionated view is more of a problem for the Armstrongist ministry than the people in the pews.

    My feeling, like yours, judging from Miller's writing is that he will run a class act. Less populism but more depth.

    ******* Click on my moniker to view my Disclaimer



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes NEO.

      I said "Banned" serves a different purpose.

      I heard some state "accountability" as a shared purpose.

      The Deleting
      Horrible.

      I once deleted my almost completed internship report.
      Since that happened I make backups my business.

      On another note I never leave my house without a handkerchief due to another accident at primary school.

      Since that time I spent a lot of time to acquire depth im thought.

      Unfortunately I must cut short this conversation. The little lady needs her tea and blanket as we are watching Meghan Markle in a Hallmarks movie.

      Being in total lockdown during a raging pandemic has its advantages now and then. So I'm not on the barricades today to defend democracy.

      I was thinking about you earlier since I also watched "Windriver".

      In this way I keep up my travels to the Mountains through Meghan in Denver and Windriver in Wyoming.

      Yeah yeah blanket is coming.....

      Nck

      Delete
  5. There is no disputing the fact that this blog is different from Gary's (his is focused exclusively on Armstrongism), but I think both blogs are motivated by a desire to help others deal with stuff and reach their own conclusions about the topics addressed. Likewise, I think that we (Gary, me, Neo and Nck) have all learned that the TRUTH isn't a neat little package of beliefs that only a select few individuals can access and assimilate.
    My experiences in Armstrongism have taught me to be less dogmatic, less judgmental and more open to different views/perspectives. I will admit that I like kindness, decorum and logic. Hence, I'm probably not as comfortable with the vox populi and unsupported opinions expressed in other forums. However, I do believe those other forums serve a legitimate purpose/function (and you may have noticed that, like both of you, I also engage on some of them from time to time). Again, thank you both for your participation here!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Miller:

    I tend to have more enthusiasm for the theological topics on Banned. I know that someone needs to call out the errant Millerite leaders but overall I do not like to respond to political issues as much as theological issues. Gary once used the phrase "God-haunted." That's where I find myself. I am intensely curious about God. And I don't think this will ever come to resolution. I will be curious about him forever. And I will be forever thankful that he is not the Armstrongist god.

    ******* Click on my moniker to view my Disclaimer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not like having to address political issues on this blog (I have another blog for political commentary). Nevertheless, I find that the preoccupation of Armstrongites and Evangelicals with the topic demand an answer. I agree with you and Gary about being "God-haunted." The majority of the posts here reflect that preoccupation (hence, the title), and it is an endless topic!

      Delete
    2. And then Miller follows up the conversation with a posting on "The KINGDOM of God" as proclaimed by a PRINCE of Judah.

      I do understand that some long for the day that only ONE blog will suffice.

      I'll go with the "separation of blog and blog" :-) as long as we humans have to organize ourselves.

      I don't think I will respond to the "Kingdom" thread since I'm overwhelmed by a million questions and possible comments.

      I revealed parts of some of my personal "mystical" position regarding the Christian life and Kingdom on the political blog on the topic of insurection and a Christian response to the occurence.

      My personal journey resonates with the example Count Von Stauffenberg set.

      A journey that constitutes, searching for the "INNER nobility of the soul", regardless of social class.

      (Although at the Temple (young) Prince Jesus also showed broad education in philosopical and ethical topics can be of help asking the right questions.) In my opinion living next to neighboring cosmopolitan Sephoris was a bonus but not a prerequisite.)

      A philosophical/christian journey constitutes a continual struggle against the power and attraction of the "Easy" or the "path that is light."

      (Herein lies/lay the danger for those who saw HWA's short essays or marketing booklets as the final, definitive and closed answer to every question, while even HWA made very clear that his exceptional talent as a copywriter had prepared him to ENTHUSE people for a soon coming Kingdom, and his booklets were just a small stepping stone toward such lofty goal.

      Yet combined with a closed/or censored mind, the booklets might constitute the danger of pursuing the Easy Path. (as copywriting is intended to do)).

      Somewhere else I commented.

      "Religion is for those who Fear hell. Spirituality us for those who have seen hell."

      For me this does not necessarily mean that like large part of the WCG congregation I was raised in or my extended family, one should have been IN Hell as constituted by Nazi Death Camps, jungle railroads or Hellships being torpedoed by British while 3000 crammed prisoners are dying of dysenteria.

      No.
      It would suffice that one just grasps an understanding of one's own mortality and temporary existence to be spend wisely.

      This grasping must not lead to depression, but may lead to a life of (Christian) ACTION.

      I cited the example of Von Stauffenberg. Although my grandfather used to continually cite the example of Count Wallenberg in Hungary.

      In the Kingdom thread Miller cites scripture, where Jesus says his Kingdom is for the poor.

      So the examples of heroism, philosophy and action that resonate with me personally might not resonate with others in the same way.

      It is therefore truly the simplicity and trueness of a reformed heart and a changed mind that touches the soul and makes the spirit soar. Why else did generations die in battle with pictures of innocent maidens clamped to their breasts from Troy till Ypres?

      The poor black man in an overall sitting at the porch of the gas station with his son, eating an icecream, sharing the sight of the setting sun. The native american girl, trying to do good to her addicted family, striving to finish school and leave for a better place somewhere out there beyond the rainbow, the American worker seeing his production plant moved to other nations for all the logical reasons, being reduced to "a failure" by his very own culture and all the beliefs that are left to him being ridiculed on his old tv when he sees men in new york dancing in ladies clothing.

      The Kingdom of God.
      As in heaven so on earth.

      If only able, keep striving to add some bricks to the Kings castle, that it may shield the weak from evil, protect ourselves from temptation, to be content with just the Easy moat and serve those that may benefit from the treasure hidden within.

      Nck

      Delete
    3. Nck,

      For one who decided not to comment on the following post, I think your commentary here is an excellent beginning for that one! Your comment reflects why I enjoy doing these blogs - the places our minds wander. It demonstrates how we all approach things from different perspectives. When I penned the post that follows this one, I did not have a single political thought on my mind. My principal thesis: We tend to bring a lot with us when we read and interpret anything.

      Delete