Comments on Ambassador Watch: French connections

Thanks for your endorsement of decency, Gavin. We...

2016-04-02T11:00:28.242+13:00

Thanks for your endorsement of decency, Gavin. We ought not to find it too demanding to be civil. Ian Boyne

@ Ian. Agreed. I guess you'd call it "int...

2016-04-02T09:04:41.752+13:00

@ Ian. Agreed. I guess you'd call it "intemperate". I thought Vance was very clear in expressing a well thought out position, and I think we can all respect that even when we see things differently. This comment is particularly jarring in that while Vance is completely open about his identity this response is anonymous. Not even a pseudonym. Seems a bit gutless.

I hope Vance does not dignify Anonymous 00:58 wit...

2016-04-02T08:09:57.862+13:00

I hope Vance does not dignify Anonymous 00:58 with a response. Someone has to take a stand on boorish behavior. Or at least excuse himself from engaging with it. Ian Boyne

Where do any laws/doctrine come from. "nature...

2016-04-02T03:46:27.398+13:00

Where do any laws/doctrine come from.
"nature", "the king (or God), "the contract between them"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

For "citizens" of the USA the outcome of this discussion should be "self evident" since the late 18 hundreds.

The problem here is you deem yourself citizens of "another realm" still.

Thank you for the discussion. It suddenly dawned on me why I personally was not hurt so much by hwa as a lot of people are. My legal training (inspired by Rader) made it abundantly clear what was persona/interpretation of Armstrong and what was "inalienable and "self evident" and thus law of nature / or God for that matter.

I never understood how a talented person like myself could be frowned upon by my YOU leader. It seems there was a conceptual rift there I didn't recognize at the time.

nck

00:58 By your comment to VS I'm sure you neit...

2016-04-02T03:09:03.363+13:00

00:58

By your comment to VS I'm sure you neither get the "inalienable right" concept of the Enlightenment.

nck

Then why, Vance, did you bring up the Founding Fat...

2016-04-02T00:58:39.614+13:00

Then why, Vance, did you bring up the Founding Fathers? Typical COG gibberish. Everything Armstrong sticks to you guys like a "Kick Me" sign at a frat party. But please, enlighten us some more on how you've got it right.

Anon 13:01: I think you’ve missed my point. Here i...

2016-04-01T06:13:24.498+13:00

Anon 13:01: I think you’ve missed my point. Here it is in a nutshell:

1. I understand where my friend Ian is coming from.
2. BUT, it is still legitimate to question HWA’s theology on the basis of HWA’s bad behavior.
3. HOWEVER, little of HWA’s theology was original with HWA.
4. THEREFORE, one should not judge HWA’s theology solely on the basis of HWA’s bad behavior.

That was my point. I was not defending the COG, any of its branches, or its theology. Please read the last paragraph for a summary of my main point.

Thanks,
VS

Just thought about this overnight, Ian, and have a...

2016-04-01T04:26:23.961+13:00

Just thought about this overnight, Ian, and have a bit more to add. Having "graduated" from WCG in 1975 (I call myself Class of '75), I had had 25 years to recover and adjust from Armstrongism by the time I first began posting comments on the internet. What happened was that most of the people whom I encountered in 2,000 were "Class of '95". Many of those folks were still reeling from the Tkach changes or corrections, which ever one prefers to call them, and some were angry for various reasons. Some were rationally restudying everything they had learned frim the WCG which they had assumed had been correct. It was remedial education for me, as some of the material they were discussing were the things which I had learned through my friendship with John Trechak back in the mid '70s as he was putting together the first Ambassador Reviews, which later became the Ambassador Reports. John, of course had passed away by that point in time, and I saw what was happening on the dissident blogs as more or less a contemporary effort which ran parallel to what John had tried to accomplish during his lifetime.

Armstrongism was simply one of those occasional powerful modifiers, one to which there could be no bland reaction. As in the case of a war, a depression, disease, or violent event in one's life, one could simply not go "oh well" or pretend there had been no after effects.
There was enough within 20 years of involvement to sustain many years of comments. It's how we humans deal with such things.

BB

Actually, Ian, my interest did not sustain itself ...

2016-03-31T21:13:08.059+13:00

Actually, Ian, my interest did not sustain itself for 40 years. In 1975, I walked away from it all, and made it known that I didn't want to be associated with either church members, or ex-members. I ended up just gradually surrounding myself with a whole new circle and support group. Recovering, reading widely, a little therapy along the way, and just doing many of the things about which I was passionate. I had a young son to raise, and a career, plus hobbies like the old cars and always the motorcycles. And a couple of beautiful wives and girlfriends (not at the same time).

My last wife, sometime around 2,000, bought a PC from a lady she worked with, and they set it up on the internet. At that time, I had no knowledge of what had happened with the church, all of the splintering and infighting and such. Having heard that one could learn about the lives of old friends, I started inputting the names of some of them. At some point, I discovered that several of them were writing for the Painful Truth. I realized that they were blowing off some steam, and actually helping people, and with somewhat of a flair for writing, I began contributing some articles of my own, some of which were well received.

For the first couple years, I just wrote articles, while lurking on a couple of the forums, the primary one being Worldwide Church of God Alumni Forum. Basically, I made a lot of friends (and a few enemies) along the way, and different people invited me to other blogs and forums, and I'd add my two cents to each.

Chit chat was great. But the main things I found of interest were the very real facts that knowledgeable people began sharing regarding history, archaeology, nuances of the ancient languages, textual criticism, and the debunking of British Israelism. I also read the complete works of Josephus, Eusebius, and as many of the works of the Antenicene Fathers as I could find.

So the past 13-15 years is the actual time period during which I've endeavored to obtain some real answers, on my own, with the realization that nobody was standing over me insisting that I come to their carefully guided conclusions. By this point, I've done a total mop up so far as my own purposes are concerned, and just enjoy interacting with all the different people on the blogs and sites.

BB

It would take you,BB, to set things in perspectiv...

2016-03-31T19:22:14.263+13:00

It would take you,BB, to set things in perspective and put things in historical context.I I certainly share your hope that we are past the worst of the animosities. Certainly, I pledge to engage in no such duel. For those who find civility and good manners too demanding, there will be no exchange with me. I feel confident,BB, that there are persons on these blogs who are prepared to dialogue respectfully, even though we can have stirring exchange. That's part of the give and take .

I have deep respect for Gavin and Gary .I sense some people's patience with me wearing thin , but I can pull back rather than incite their full wrath. I can be content to just read rather than engage. I did so for years .I think it's you ,B B ,and the sheer insightfulness of your points, even when expressed pithily, who pulled me out.One major curiosity,though:How do you maintain such an intense interest in a movement you left some forty one years t now???? Multiple exclamation, required ,indeed! I couldn't imagine myself sustaining interest in a movement I left for so long .Just my curiosity, BB Ian Boyne

I just have to make an observation that the past s...

2016-03-31T18:41:02.527+13:00

I just have to make an observation that the past several weeks have presented a very unique set of circumstances in the history of Armstrong-dissident blogs and forums. There may have been comments posted from time to time in the past by active ministers in the movement, but if so, they were posted anonymously, and were just isolated comments, not full-on discussions. That there could even be open, and civilized discussion amongst current ministers and ex-members says much about both sides. It was not too long ago that forum participants even went rabid on ex-ministers who just wanted to be included in discussions with the regulars. Dennis Diehl endured a particularly difficult entry when he first began posting.

It is always good to indulge in a process of thinking and rethinking through all of the issues that caused us to come to our various conclusions. This can't help but cause higher levels of refinement, and sharing hopefully leads to better understanding. I believe we may finally be moving past the cliches, and some of the worst of the animosities.

BB

Anonymous 15:12,respectfully,your thinking is too ...

2016-03-31T18:27:19.096+13:00

Anonymous 15:12,respectfully,your thinking is too binary .You don't give any place to nuance. That's quite typical of the usual Armstrongite mentality. You seemed to have rejected Arnstrongism without casting off its simplistic either-or mindset .Old-style Armstrongism had no place for paradox .That is why so much of our objection to Trinitarianism was so simplistic and juvenile . For in our thinking, there can't be any mystery. So we ridiculed Trinitarians for saying God is a mystery,basking in our blissful ignorance .

Saying God can use badly flawed men is NOT calling evil good or an example of "twisted reasoning". I don't know how you deal with His working out His purposes through the machinations of such a con man and schemer as Jacob.You would no doubt be perplexed as to how Rahab could make it in the list of heroes of faith. Peter's obdurate racism and hypocrisy and God's not casting him off ;and Paul's obvious continued irascibility and deep struggle with failure long after his conversion as evidenced in Romans 7 would obviously be deeply problematic for you. Classic Arnstrongism damaged many far more than they realise ,and its effects continue long after people stop attending Armstrongite services.

Emotions have a way of choking reason. The hurts and abuses many suffered in Armstrongism make it nigh impossible for them to reason clearly .The emotional baggage always gets in the way .Hume was right :"Reason is slave of the passions".
Sometimes I think the greatest damage done by the Armstrong Experience is not the specific harms people suffered. It is how those harms continue to distort their emotions and capacity to reason.The hurts and the painful experiences cast a long shadow over victims' lives. I try never to give any abuser that power over me .Ian Boyne

Over on Banned, Ian said that if he had been Herbe...

2016-03-31T15:37:33.192+13:00

Over on Banned, Ian said that if he had been Herbert Armstrong's pastor in the first 10 years of HWA's ministry, he would have disfellowshipped him. Yet he claims here that God stooped to use him.

The mind reels. Boyneism, indeed.

"He stooped to use corrupt men like HWA and G...

2016-03-31T15:12:05.050+13:00

"He stooped to use corrupt men like HWA and GTA, who did considerable harm."

This kind of double-talk is so beyond the pale that it cannot be attributed to a loving God. Ian, from some of your posts I actually thought there was hope for constructive dialogue. But there is none so blind...

Your head is too far into the sand. There is a clear admonition in scripture about calling evil good. You've crossed that line. I feel sorry for the unsuspecting people of Jamaica who are buying into such twisted reasoning.

Ian, I think you're mistaken. A God doesn'...

2016-03-31T15:05:05.510+13:00

Ian, I think you're mistaken. A God doesn't "stoop". He doesn't need to. Furthermore he doesn't need to work through men. And he doesn't require a death in order to forgive sin. He's all-powerful, he can forgive sin at will.

Byker Bob is dead wrong: The views of the "...

2016-03-31T13:43:08.745+13:00

Byker Bob is dead wrong: The views of the "old biker" can't be dismissed as mere "opinions and perspectives" not amounting to a hill of beans. They are, frequently, priceless gems, mined from a fertile and fecund mind. I skip from anti-Armstrongite blog to blog to retrieve his treasures. Oh, yes, there is the rubble there, too, but that I discard for the worth of the gems.

This morning in my bathroom I remembered some of his poignant points made recently, and it came to me(again) that we have lost a fine mind; an indictment on a movement that tramples on its best and brightest.

And, no Bob, you were not correct that my efforts here are designed to bring back any to the fold. I have no illusions that you who have left have any regrets and are open to even the possibility that Armstrongism could be true, after all. I know you are settled in your assurance that we are wrong and that you are not open to rethinking. Instead I know you pity me for my delusions. I read these blogs because I can be reinforced in what I should not do. Reading these bogs is Lesson 101 on How Not to Do Ministry. I dialogue with you because I enjoy the exchange. Whenever I am met with incivility, I simply ignore it. I never dignity it by responding.

I thank my long-time and very dear friend and ministerial supervisor, Vance Stinson, the biggest hidden treasure in the movement today. Vance would never describe himself as an Armstrongite, but he is the sharpest theological mind occupying any position in any COG-related group which I know of. I often am amazed at his theological sophistication and exposure for a person not formally schooled in theology. His depth as a teacher is unsurpassed in our movement. Ron Dart was a better preacher in terms of sheer homiletical skills, but he was no match for Vance in terms of theological rigor and sophistication. And Dart was my man. It is my privilege to have Vance as supervisor over the CGI.I thank him for putting me in perspective here.

He is right and Anonymous captured it perfectly in that parody of me on this thread by defining "Boyneism" as saying of HWA: "He was reprehensible. But he was RIGHT". That's exactly my view. And, Vance, that issue about HWA's views not being uniquely his is precisely my point: God used him to restore that package of doctrines which He revealed to the early New Testament Church. GG Rupert had some important truths. The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Adventists, the COG 7th Day had important truths. There were always fragments scattered over the place. God brought them together in HWA and led him to find them all over the place.

The argument that he read this or that and pierced together his system of stolen ideas in no way militates against the view that he was divinely guided into truth. I don't care who had what before HWA taught it: Indeed, it HAD TO BE there for our claim to be true that HWA was a restorationist! As a system, you show me as a student of comparative religion which contemporary of Armstrong had the package now associated with his name. Show me.

I challenge the unquestioned assumption that because HWA was corrupt he could not have been used by God . My doctrine of justification by faith and of human sinfulness, irrespective of status, forbids that naïve view. That human sinfulness obliterates the possibility of Divine mission is an affront to the majesty and glory of the Sovereign God.

The Sovereign God stooped not only to be Incarnated. He stooped to use corrupt men like HWA and GTA, who did considerable harm. We can't gloss over their sins. But neither should we put so much emphaisis on that that we lose sight of God's glorious work through earthen vessels. Whenever we are tempted to say of HWA or GTA, "look what he has done!!" I ask that you gaze at the Cross of Christ and say, "Look what He has done!!!" To GOD be the glory. Ian Boyne

Non-sequitur alert! Morally uninhibited fellows w...

2016-03-31T13:01:55.541+13:00

Non-sequitur alert!

Morally uninhibited fellows writing a nation's constitution and morally uninhibited, self-appointed end-time messengers boinking in pell mell fashion are two completely different things.

Typical COG defense, Vance, but time-tested and found to be lacking. Sure, your church's founder might have made a lively founding father for a fledgling nation (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), but for a fledgling church? Eeeeew. The general COG community scoffed at his nerve back in the day, and rightly so. Those whose lives and families had been scarred by his serial womanizing were outright indignant. Outsiders? They found his shenanigans as entertaining as they did shocking. Ian clearly has more than Herbert Armstrong to run from as he reps for his GTA-founded organization. Nice of y'all to come around after, what, Ted's 300th violation of the biblical qualifications for the ministry? But a tad late, nonethelss.

Ironically, the CG7 that those fellows discredited in their typical bellicose fashion turned out, in the long run, to to be far more credible. Frustrating for you, I'm sure, but historically accurate.

Ian Boyne has been a good friend of mine for quite...

2016-03-31T12:15:11.433+13:00

Ian Boyne has been a good friend of mine for quite a few years. We have spoken on the phone and exchanged literally hundreds of emails over the years (yes, his typing has always been atrocious :-)). I have also had the privilege and pleasure of visiting with him and the wonderful people of the Jamaican CGI on several occasions.

The debate here is similar to the friendly debate that has been going on between Ian and me for quite a few years. He has criticized me for "knocking" HWA in public, not because he disagrees with anything I have said, but because he believes my well-intentioned criticisms are disastrous from a PR standpoint. He once chastised me for something of mine that was posted on AW about a decade or so ago. And that's okay; he was probably right. I’m glad our relationship is such that we can have an open and honest exchange on differences without jeopardizing our friendship.

I understand where Ian is coming from. It is quite true that some great ideas have come from folks of questionable character. Some have pointed to the alleged moral weaknesses and hypocrisies of America's founding fathers while, at the same time, acknowledging that these men came up with some wonderful ideas for which all Americans should be grateful. No serious student of history will deny that some flawed, sinful human beings have done some exceptionally good things, and that they are now remembered for the good things they did. Ian's point is that HWA's narcissism and reprehensible behavior do not necessarily mean that all the components of his belief system are bad. He has concluded that some of the key features of HWA's belief system are worth salvaging and refining. They should be evaluated, but we must be careful to avoid letting our feelings about the one who taught them warp our commitment to objectivity.

I still believe that the question, "How much good fruit can an evil tree produce?" is a valid one, especially in consideration of Matt 7:15-20. But the question loses some of its punch once we realize that most of HWA's belief system was in place within the Adventist movement before HWA arrived on the scene. He didn't put it all together, doctrine by doctrine; he simply stole it from others--and a major portion of it came in a single package, not as separate items--and then he claimed he came up with it himself through much blood, sweat, and tears. Apparently, even his ditheistic "God family" doctrine was created by someone else within the Adventist movement. He may have added to it, but I doubt that he did anything without significant input from others.

My intent here is not to affirm or deny COG theology or any particular aspect of it, but simply to say that perhaps both sides (represented by Ian on one side, and the angry and hurt ex-COGers on the other) attribute too much to HWA (whether credit or blame). His theology may have had some features that were uniquely his, but it appears that he discovered, not invented, the greater portion of it, and that doctrinal developments that emerged over time came mostly from other people within this relatively new splinter of the fragmented Adventist movement.

Vance Stinson

Well, Ian, I'll just observe from the distance...

2016-03-31T08:50:01.099+13:00

Well, Ian, I'll just observe from the distance as your work is tested in accordance with the wisdom of Gamaliel.

Armstrongism has been described as being a personality cult. The problem with the vast majority of the ministers trained at Ambassador College is that years ago they shed their own personalities in favor of adopting the Universal Ambassador Personality, and that has proven not to be powerful enough to actually allow one to run a thriving personality cult. This is why many splinters are on a negative growth trajectory. The U.A.P. was designed and crafted to keep them subservient to the expansive personality (HWA), who had originated that cult.

I believe that people are most inclined to receive from the people whom they know and trust. A journalist and television personality who has been a mainstay in their homes for decades would certainly have earned a high degree of this sort of trust. And, of course there is a corresponding high degree of media savy which goes along with those years of experience. No denying that.

There can be such a thing as regional success. Sometimes it spills into other markets, sometimes not. A basic package, if franchised, will often yield varying results in the hands of different franchisees. In the case of a doctrinal package, one school of thought would be that if God were endorsing it, the measurable results would be more uniformly successful.

Time will tell. Although our opinions are like Yelp is for consumers, or as exit interviews are for the corporate world, in the long term scheme of things, the opinions of some old biker really don't amount to a hill of beans. They are just that. Opinions and perspectives.

BB

Ha ha ha! Lol I love it, Anonymous 06:37 Ian Boy...

2016-03-31T06:41:05.002+13:00

Ha ha ha! Lol I love it, Anonymous 06:37 Ian Boyne

Boyneism: "Herbert Armstrong was a reprehensi...

2016-03-31T06:37:02.557+13:00

Boyneism: "Herbert Armstrong was a reprehensible human being. But he was RIGHT."

That's what you're really teaching, Ian: Boyneism. Keep at it and you might get your own Wikipedia page someday.

"The vast majority (COG leaders) don't ha...

2016-03-31T05:59:04.975+13:00

"The vast majority (COG leaders) don't have the intellectual and theological resources to properly critique alternatives to Armstrongism."

Couldn't have said it any better. And what a perfect example of being 'hoist with his own petard', Mr. Boyne.

Byker Bob, you need to study the Jamaican model of...

2016-03-31T05:38:49.776+13:00

Byker Bob, you need to study the Jamaican model of marketing Armstrongism. The leading scholar on Armstrongism today, David Barrett, in his authoritative book on the movement published just a couple of years ago, "Fragmentation of a Sect", mentions the Jamaican church. Even super-exclusivist Bob Thiel has singled out the Jamaican CGI for its exceptional growth.

We have whole congregations(Church of God 7th Day) coming over now to feast-keeping as a result of my presentations to their leadership and membership. Just last Sabbath I spoke to about 180 persons at a Church of God 7th Day group, preparing them to observe their very first Feast of Unleavened Bread. That group has four churches in the island and the pastor will travel for the next few Sabbaths taking essentially the same message I brought, to those other congregations. After my presentation, the pastor gave an impassioned talk about how he used to actively oppose feast-keeping, "and you now how I told you they were nailed to the Cross. But now I see the light. We thank God for Pastor Boyne for coming to enlighten us today".

Last year another COG 7th Day group with four congregations also opened its doors for feast-keeping for the very first time after I had made presentations to them showing why feast-keeping is necessary and why the Sabbath and feast days stand or fall together (as taught by HWA, but backing that up by quoting scholarly sources.) A smaller COG 7th Day was officially incorporated into CGI last year.
This evening I am having baptisimal counselling with two persons who are to be baptized before Passover. We baptized 15 persons last Feast of Tabernacles and I think 13 at Passover . The decline of Armstrongism is not universal. Our COG leaders have been very backward and uncreative in their marketing, and their church services are too staid and dull. They are in a time warp. The vast majority don't have the intellectual and theological resources to properly critique alternatives to Armstrongism.

You can't compare the growth of CGI's version of Armstrongism in Jamaica to either Wade Cox or Bob Thiel's "growth" of their African churches. You and I suspect the motives of these groups linking up with an overseas group. (Incidentally, CGI USA does not send one dollar to support us and we don't require it. People don't join for social welfare.) People are abandoning Seventh-Day Adventism, the COG 7th Day and traditional Christianity for Armstrongism in Jamaica. And it's not just because they have not read about the work of you guys who are whistle blowers. They take Peter's attitude: "Where else can I go...".

They see it absolutely proven from Scripture that this is not the only day of salvation, that the feast days must be kept, that the kingdom of God is the true Gospel and will be set up on this earth and that God is reproducing Himself. They can find no other group which has this package. And hence they choose reformed Armstrongism. Don't be ethnocentric, guys, believing North America and Europe constitute the world. Ian Boyne

I'm thinking Armstrongism is a PR and marketin...

2016-03-31T03:48:20.315+13:00

I'm thinking Armstrongism is a PR and marketing disaster more than just in terms of labeling. We've watched the major splinter groups throw a lot of money into cookie cutter versions of the same basic types of programs which HWA had pioneered and used successfully, and these groups have had less than stellar results. At best they might be able to claim to be feeding their own flocks until "the end" comes, and the ways in which some of them have used the disfellowship "tool", they are not even maintaining their membership levels.

BB

Thanks for taking the time, Pam, to further share ...

2016-03-30T15:38:11.745+13:00

Thanks for taking the time, Pam, to further share your thoughts. Just to make it clear that when I am speaking to people and am explaining my particular belief system, I don't say I am Armstrongite. I say I am a Judeo-Christian whose religious tenets involve some Jewish practices(I usually name them), along with standard Christian beliefs like the Deity of Christ, lest they think I don't accept Jesus as Messiah and God. I usually also name "Christian" beliefs and practices(Christmas, Easter, Trinity) that I reject.

On some occasions, depending on whom I am speaking to, I might go on to mention that I follow the teachings of an American preacher called Herbert W. Armstrong. (The Armstrongs have very strong name recognition in Jamaica, incidentally.)
I use "Armstrongism" and "Reformed Armstrongism" on these blogs to identify that unlike almost everyone who posts, I am still involved in "the cult". I am not a complete fool and could not survive so long in journalism if I did not know anything about communicating in context, Pam. You think I go around generally identifying myself as "an Armstrongite"?

But I am not diffident about using the term, nor do I hold the simplistic and silly view that self-identifying as an Armstrongite signals that I am "following a mere man". No more than serious theologians and philosophers are ashamed to label themselves Lutherans, Augustinians, Calvinists, Socinians, Thomists, Kantians, Humeans, Marxists etc. That Armstrong was corrupt does not take away from the unalterable fact that he is objectively identified in the comparative religious literature with a distinctive set of beliefs. One does not have to embrace everything in that system to be classified as an adherent, I put it to you.

While saying I am Armstrongite even on these blogs is still imprecise, it is not so imprecise as to communicate nothing. And I have already distanced myself from certain teachings in classic Armstrongism to give people a fair idea of what I reject. If you are providing me with public relations advice, Pam, fine you are on point. Armstrongism is a PR disaster in terms of labeling. But I am not engaging in PR here, where I know Armstrongism is despised. Ian Boyne