The Catholic Church, as its ancient name implies, makes no distinction between ethnicity and the races. Racism is unwelcome in God's house.On the other hand, it was taught in the house of the late Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, in which I was reared.
I've been reading the blog Shadows of WCG almost every day since it began a few months ago. Its young, prolific author "J.," an ex-WCG member, offers a daily critique of historical Armstrongism. I don't have the time or interest to delve into all that "J." does, but every morning I still like to see what's on his mind.
HWA's racism
Because of "J.'s" blog, I recently blew the dust off my copy of Mystery of the Ages, which HWA considered his finest work, and which his posthumous devotees revere. The Philadelphia Church of God, true to HWA's review of his own book, advertises the book this way on its home page:
Here are some choice quotes, with all emphases by the original author. Not all of them are blatantly racist on their own, but through them as a whole, in their context, HWA's racism is unveiled at last! (Does the "W" in HWA stand for "whitey"?)
There was rampant and universal interracial marriage -- so exceedingly universal that Noah, only, was unblemished or perfect in his generations -- his ancestry. He was of the original white strain. . . .The following quote is in the context of what the eschatological kingdom of God will be like, after the resurrection of the saints who will rule over humans on this earth. In other words, this is what paradise will be like:
It is evident that Adam and Eve were created white. God's chosen nation Israel was white. Jesus was white. . . .
The one man God chose to PRESERVE the human race alive after the Flood was perfect in his generations -- all his ancestry back to Adam was of the one strain, and undoubtedly that happened to be white -- not that white is in any sense superior. . . .
God intended to prevent racial intermarriages. But man has always wanted to violate God's laws, intentions and ways. . . . As mentioned before, God had set the bounds of the races, providing for geographical segregation, in peace and harmony but without discrimination. . . .
God had intended geographical segregation, not integration of the races. . . .
The probability is that these people [the ancient Hebrew nation] were all -- or nearly all -- of the white racial strain, unchanged since creation. . . .
Undoubtedly, one reason [one purpose for choosing Israel] was to preserve the original physical racial strain. . . .
God had chosen a nation of almost perfect original strain in its generations -- its ancestry. Also they had the quality heredity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). . . .
Here was a people of almost clear racial strain, and the God believing heredity of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. . . .
God started his chosen nation off -- even though brought out of slavery -- with all the natural advantages of a superior heredity. God pulled them out of slavery and gave them a new and fresh start. One might say they had everything God-given going for them. . . .
The nation Israel under Moses was ONE RACE -- very little interracial marriage had marred their racial nationality. . . .
The Promised Land was then called Canaan. Canaanites, racially dark, had settled in the land. . . .
GOD INTENDED TO KEEP THEM PHYSICALLY SEPARATE from other nations -- both nationally (racially) and religiously. . . .
Jesus Christ was born of the tribe of Judah, and it was necessary that HE be of the original pure racial strain, even as Noah was.
It seems evident that the resurrected Noah will head a vast project of the relocation of the races and nations, within the boundaries God has set, for their own best good, happiness and richest blessings. This will be a tremendous operation. It will require great and vast organization, reinforced with power to move whole nations and races. This time, peoples and nations will move where God has planned for them, and no defiance will be tolerated. . . .HWA just identified himself as the "Elijah to come" (whom John the Baptizer only foreshadowed), in addition to being the plain ol' end-time "apostle," before writing,
Also the indication is that the teaching of spiritual truth -- of the true gospel, the spiritual conversion of the world -- will be directed, worldwide, from this Headquarters Church, under Elijah and the overall direct supervision of Jesus Christ. . . .Jesus is in trouble if He appoints HWA in the kingdom to be the teacher of truth -- the same guy who wrote that the Israelites were white, "not that white is in any sense superior," and a few pages later wrote that God gave ancient Israel "all the natural advantages of a superior heredity."
Absurdity abounds in Mystery of the Ages, and it's sad that people still promote the book on television and in Wall Street Journal ads. I remember when the current leadership of the Worldwide Church of God (who now rejects HWA's teachings) first pulled the book out of circulation because of certain errors they had intended to edit. HWA's hardcore followers were outraged.
The continued arm hold of Armstrongism
Today, some moderate Armstrongites ("Reformed Armstrongites," as some like to be called) will admit that HWA had some few things wrong here and there -- that some of his teachings could have been explained a little differently, that his arguments could've been tighter, that he didn't have the theological sophistication to explain the "truth" in precise terms -- but they insist his main teachings were correct (Saturday Sabbathkeeping; avoidance of "unclean meat"; soul sleep; Trinitarianism is a satanic doctrine; Christmas and Easter are pagan abominations; Jesus' Second Coming has been imminent since at least 1934, and how much more imminent is it now!; man's destiny is to become Gods -- each person will become a God; etc.).
But even the moderate Armstrongites cannot escape the powerful psychological and spiritual grip of this man, this demonstrably false prophet. They prefer the comfort of being under the cool, dark "Shadows of WCG." They don't want to see the harsh light, because it would hurt too much. It would be too painful to admit that their years of sincere devotion to a belief system was in vain.
I say it was "in vain," but I don't mean to say it's unredeemable. While I let go of HWA's teachings as a fairly young adult, I grew up chin-deep in his church. I am thankful for the lessons and unique perspective that I have as a result. It may not sound like it sometimes when I rant, but I do have compassion for those who cannot leave. They really don't know any better. And sometimes when they almost do, they turn their head -- they turn back like Lot's wife.
They need the prayers of Catholics and all other Christians to find the strength that God has already given them to leave Armstrongism behind and to embrace the truth -- not the "plain truth," but the glorious Truth that is Jesus Christ.
It's clear to us now why the current WCG leadership could not merely edit HWA's book; it had to be abandoned. And its abandonment is no mystery for the ages. It was simply the right thing to do.
21 comments:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5479080
any comment?
I'm not sure on which aspect you wish for me to comment. But I can say a few things:
* All forms of sexual abuse are gravely sinful.
* Any sexual abuse perpetrated by a Catholic priest, Protestant pastor, or any other member of the clergy is extremely gravely sinful. Their position of authority compounds the harm due to scandal to the victim.
* My view is that any clergy guilty of this kind of sin should no longer be permitted to perform their clerical duties.
* While some in the secular media have reported that sexual abuse is far more rampant among U.S. school teachers, it is good, in one sense, that the Catholic Church has gotten smacked around about this. It will force reforms to be taken and enforced. Already, I believe, it has been said that men who are homosexually oriented (even those who commendably do not act on it and remain celibate) are not to be ordained to the priesthood. (I agree with this approach, even if God helps such men remain faithful.)
I'm not sure if you intend to discredit the Catholic Church by comparing their sins with the sins and false teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong, but I can comment on that, too, just in case.
HWA's sins certainly wipe out his credibility. Since he is the founder of his religion, and central to it, that pretty much wipes out his religion's credibility, too.
There can be unfaithful priests, but they are unfaithful to the teachings of the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). They need to be dealt with.
So many of HWA's teachings themselves are false -- at the core -- in addition to his being unfaithful. And central to his teaching was "the government of God," of which he was the head, end-time apostle through whom all doctrine must clear. When these things are shot to pieces, what's left to salvage out of a religion like that? (Some people necessarily eal with it by reforming Armstrongism, as if HWA didn't quite have a firm grasp on what Armstrongism was.)
Does this help any?
you did a good job there.
what about this one?
http://www.voanews.com/english/CR-CASTELFRANCO-POPE-CHURCH.cfm
any comment?
I don't know what to say about it. The premise that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus built is about 2000 years old.
B16 is just making sure that Catholic ecumenism doesn't blur the Church's identity in the eyes of non-Catholics (and Catholics alike). "Ecumenism" doesn't mean compromising or retracting Catholic dogma. It's just a promotion of understanding and unity as far as it can go. A form or degree of unity with non-Catholic Christians is better than direct opposition, acting like enemies.
I understood him to say that unless you are Catholic you are not a member of the true Church of Jesus. Did I missunderstand him? Then it mentions "non-Catholic Christians". This leads me to think that the Catholic Church teaches that one can be a Christian without being a member of the Church of Jesus. Is that how you understand it?
No, no. You may disagree with it, but here is the idea that is intended:
The Catholic Church is THE Church. It is the same institution as the one founded by the apostles and that we read about in Acts. The gates of hell will never prevail against it, and no other institution will take its place.
That said, it does not follow that there cannot be followers of Christ outside of that visible organization. When the apostles/disciples came to Jesus fussing about someone who was not of them, but was casting out devils in His name, Jesus said that "whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:39).
Those other people were doing good -- they were "for us" in a real sense -- but they were still not a part of the visible, organized Body that Jesus instituted. He gave only the apostles power to forgive sins (John 20:23). He gave only them (and Peter in a special way) the power of binding and loosing (Mathew 16,18). And He gave only them the power to conduct Mass (Last Supper).
There is something to be said for apostolic succession and these privileges, and having the full teaching of Jesus.
So, yes, there are other Christians who will be saved, but they don't have the benefit of the full blessings of Jesus' Church and the sacraments He gave her for our spiritual benefit.
On the other hand, those who knowingly reject the Church are in a different category. That's not the same as someone who is ignorant or sincerely misinformed, but acting according to the light they have.
so, those "other Christians who will be saved" go to heaven when they die, even though they are not Catholic?
So there is no need to pay any attention to what the Pope says, right? And it is possible to be a Christian without being Catholic?
Yes, it is possible to be a Christian without a Catholic, but only in the same way it is possible for a non-Christian to be saved.
The first couple chapters of Paul's Epistle to the Romans shows that Gentiles who were not privy to the revelation that God gave to the Jews could still be saved if they acted according to their conscience, according to the light they had. If they were doers of "the law," even though they never knew the Law like the Jews did, they would be saved.
That is NOT to say that one therefore does not need to be a Christian to receive salvation, because anyone who is saved at the close of this life is saved by Jesus Christ, and by no other. It is through His grace, and no one else's. If a person learned of Jesus Christ and understood Him, but refused to follow Him, then that rejection would naturally cost him his salvation.
In the same way, a Christian who grows up as a Protestant and knows nothing else, and sincerely follows Christ the best He can -- Jesus can save that person, too. The good Protestant has gifts that have spilled over from the table of the Catholic Church, such as the gospel message itself, the Christian Scriptures, baptism, etc. All true teachings that Protestants have are anticipated and rooted in truth that the Catholic Church has always had. That is why the Catholic Church respects and acknowledges the faith of non-Catholics.
Of course, a Protestant today is in a much different situation from the one at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. To rebel against the Church and leave it is to leave the Body of Christ. That person is in grave danger of losing salvation -- just like the person who, once learning about Christ and truly confronting Him, decides to forsake Him. To do that is bad news.
Ok, then maybe you should not be preaching Christ to those who don't know of him, in case they hear of him and don't accept him. As long as they don't know, they can be saved.
If they hear of Christ and His message, and truly understand it, and then they reject it, it makes sense that they had not been truly, sincerely walking according to the light they already had.
Example: For discussion's sake, say Saddam Hussein had never heard the gospel. A Christian missionary comes by and explains it to him, and Saddam feels genuine conviction that what he hears is true. Yet, he chooses to reject it and continues his proud, murderous lifestyle. Unless he repents, he will be condemned after his earthly life.
Now assume that the Christian missionary never arrived, and Saddam died without even hearing a peep about the gospel. He was still an evil, murderous person. He did not act according to the law of his conscience. He still is to be condemned after his earthly life.
So in the first example, it wasn't that he was condemned because he heard the "plain truth" of the gospel and then rejected it. It's because his heart was not seeking truth -- not even in the first place. He was not acting according to what he understood to be true. His rejection of Christ and the gospel was merely symptomatic of that fact.
Now consider another case. A third-world, impoverished pagan-by-birth fellow does good to his neighbor. He realizes that there must be a higher power that is good and holy, but he has no way of knowing anything more than that. He wanders through life trying to live a life of service and integrity, and that's all he knows to do. This person can be saved.
Now if this same person receives instruction in the gospel and comes to know Jesus Christ by name, and learns authentic Christian teaching, then how blessed and how great is it for that man! He joyfully embraces it. He was seeking, and now sees; hungry, and now fed. Because of the explicit revelation of Christ, he is able to put life in greater perspective and focus his will toward the Truth. He has the potential to become holier and build a closer relationship with God than if he had continued wandering without clearer direction. And through love, he is able to spread the good news to others, to share the wonderful truth, thereby helping them as well.
Encountering Jesus tends to reveal what's already inside a person.
It really does come down to the matter of the heart, and whether there is "truth in the inward parts."
What if Saddam thought he was doing good by ridding the planet of people that disagreed with him? What if he genuinely thought that he knew what was best for all people, and needed to get rid of the "trouble makers", those who thought differently than him? He had no idea that he was doing wrong, so would that comdemn him?
And on the other note, as long as someone sincerely seeks truth they will be saved, no matter what they believe? That would mean the Hindus, American Indians, Buddists, and every other "religion" on the earth would be a safehaven, right?
Like I said, it's a matter of the heart, and thankfully I'm not one to judge that because I'm not able.
Theoretically, if your Saddam scenario was the case, then no, he would not be condemned to hell. But I have a next-to-impossible time believing that he sincerely thinks that murder, torture, and genocide are noble services to fellow man and to God. If he claimed such, his intentions would surely be perverted and twisted and he would be attempting to fool himself into thinking it. And "fooling oneself" does not decrease, but increases culpability.
Yes, even the Buddhist or Native American, if truly sincere, can be saved -- but saved by Jesus Christ alone, of course. It's what Paul wrote to the Romans, and it makes sense that God is not so unjust as to punish someone for eternity for something that was beyond his or her ability to control.
This does not in anywise diminish the singular role or importance of Jesus, Christianity, or evangelism. Instead it magnifies his grace -- like the thief on the cross.
I understand that HWA tried to get around this issue by coming up with a second resurrection for all those who did not or were not able to dial in after listening to the World Tomorrow program, but that's quite another topic.
To more directly and precisely answer your last question, No. There is no other religion that is a "safehaven." Not at all. Like I said, it does eventually boil down to whether there is, in the individual person, "truth in the inward parts" -- even if the person gets some external things wrong through no fault of his own. I'm still glad I'm not the judge.
"But I have a next-to-impossible time believing that he sincerely thinks that murder, torture, and genocide are noble services to fellow man and to God. "
I must ask, have you not read the history of your own Church?
To stick closely to the topic at hand (without getting into the specifics and history behind the Inquisitions, which is what I'm sure you're referring to), understand this: Anyone, whether an earthly leader or a leader in the Catholic Church or anyone else who "thinks that murder, torture, and genocide are noble services to fellow man and to God," commits damnable sin.
My previous explanations -- the teachings of the Church -- still stand. Abuses of authority and power do not negate Christian teaching. Peter's denials, Judas's betrayal that led to the death of our Lord, priests that have harmed the underaged, rulers who committed murders -- these are ugly pimples on the face of the Body of Christ, and they will all be cleared up at Jesus' Second Coming.
The truth stands in spite of anyone's infidelity to it.
Take a hard look at the teachings of the Catholic Church (click on the Catechism link, or look at any of the other official teaching documents of the Church from down the ages), and you will see the deposit of faith that was once delivered to the saints. You will see Jesus.
Sadly, there have been some (relatively few) popes in history who have been downright scoundrels. While they are infallible in their official teaching, they are not impeccable in their actions. None of us are.
You and many others have tried to negate the teaching of Armstrong by using his many imperfections to show that his teachings are false. I see the same thing, however, in your Popes, yet you stand by their teachings, even though their actions are equal to, or in some instances, exccede the gravity of the Armstrongs'.
While you get an "A" for effort, I sense that you are much more confused as a Catholic than you ever were as an Armstrongite.
I do thank you for your time and willingness to indulge me.
You and many others have tried to negate the teaching of Armstrong by using his many imperfections to show that his teachings are false.
No, he hasn't, he has examined his teachings to show that his teachings are false. We're all sinners, so Herbert Armstrong's sins could not alone be enough to disprove his teachings.
so, those "other Christians who will be saved" go to heaven when they die, even though they are not Catholic?
No, they go to heaven when they die because they were Catholic all along and didn't know it.
It's an interesting tactic that this Anonymous Armstrongist (?) used in response to an examination of Herbert Armstrong's doctrine of racism: change the subject to the bad behavior of Catholic priests, and then to the subject of the Catholic Church's doctrine that it is the Church but that it is possible for non-Catholics to be saved. So, he leaves uncontested the assertion that Herbert Armstrong taught racism . . . for how could that be contested? You can argue about whether or not racism is compatible with Christianity (it's not), but you can't argue that Armstrongism isn't racist.
You just don't get it. You just don't get it. Repent and GOD will forgive you. Satan tried to destroy HWA and that's all you have is some mistakes. Before HWA died he knew there were errors in some doctrines, but he also knew he was too old to do anymore researh. He (HWA) said prove me wrong and "I will change." Believe the BIBLE." and "not me."
HWA was a small voice in a vast wilderness, but the numbering of all Europe on their hand or Forehead has already begun. Read Rev. 12:11-12. Satan is on his way. I used to be a Catholic, and "The Great Whore" will be revealed and reviled.
Would you show me some evidence of HWA knowing there were errors in some of his doctrines? I don't recall anything like that, except for what Tkach said (I don't necessarily trust his statement).
What I do remember is HWA strongly promoting the book under discussion during the last year of his life.
Post a Comment