Saturday, 19 July 2008

"A Sound SPANKING of what she so brazenly displays"

My first real life encounter with the WCG was attending a mid-week Bible Study at the invitation of John Comino, then pastor of the Hamilton, NZ church. I was probably about 18. As I recollect it, the meeting was in a rented upstairs room in Victoria Street, the city's "golden mile." Comino was surprised by an unexpected standing room only attendance, which it turned out was the result of a mix-up with a local AA group. I can still recollect his off the cuff remarks about realizing his nose was a little red, but...

The other thing that remains with me about that first meeting, many years ago, was the dress code for women, who really stood out from the fashions of the time with their low hemlines.

Which leads me to this bit of history, recently mentioned on the WCG Alumni group: a GN article from the pen of Herbert W. Armstrong. Although it dates from the 1960s, it obviously had a half-life of at least ten years to still be normative in the mid-70s, and the legacy apparently still lingers even today in groups like Flurry's.

Here's that article, notable not only for the blatant misogyny, but also the reference to spanking of children, a church-mandated practice that produced much bitter fruit over the years ("Any and every child needs spankings. It is a vital, integral part of his positive teaching and training." GTA)

WHY does the Word of God confine His instruction regarding modest apparel, and the adorning of the person with clothes, to the WOMEN?

Did God desire to discriminate--to make women uncomfortable--to show partiality to men? Does God intend for men to show off themselves in ornamental and gay attire, while He commands women to make unsightly scarecrows of themselves?

Of course we know better than that. There is nothing in God's instruction to make women appear ugly, or to make them uncomfortable. On the contrary, many, if not most, women will suffer any amount of discomfort in their worship of the goddess Dame Fashion.

God's REASON

God never shows partiality. He never discriminates against individuals, sexes, races, or whoever. Yet God's Word does carry specific instruction for women to be modest in their dress--and no corresponding instruction for modesty in men's clothing is given. WHY?

There is a reason! I think, candidly, that the girls and women in God's Church know the answer. And for that very reason some of them seem to want to violate Gods' instruction!

What I am going to say applies only to a few. Women in God's Church are different from those of the world. But a very few need severe correction.

I do not mean that even these few go to the extremes of ridiculous fashion so commonly seen in the world. You won't see any member of God's Church wearing artificially striped hair, green eyelids, and a purple mouth, decked out in outlandish dress design and overdone wacky jewelry. But, in the category of too short and too tight skirts, and in excessively low-neck dresses, some of you women and girls need a sharp rebuke from God's ministers!

Now WHY does God's Instruction Book contain admonition regarding modesty in women's dress, and not regarding men's?

In both colleges--Pasadena and Bricket Wood, England,--I personally teach a class in Principles of Living. This class includes God's instruction in regard to sex and marriage. Sex responses operate in the mind, and the male mind does not react in the same manner as the female mind in relation to sex. Sex consciousness, and arousal, in the male, is brought about much more quickly than in the female, and is stimulated by sight, or even by imagination, in a manner that has little affect on females.

God made the female body to be attractive to the male. This attraction may be, and should be, one of sheer beauty. But also it may be, and under many circumstances often is, a stimulation of LUST. Especially when certain parts of the female figure are emphasized, such as the hips and buttocks by tight skirts, the low neckline exposing portions of breasts, or too-short skirts exposing more than is modest of the female leg.

I am quite aware that it is the current fashion, in the world, to wear short knee-length skirts extra tight around the hips. But the women in God's Church have come out of the world, and are different--or else they have not been put into His Church by God. God's daughters do not find it necessary to conform to this world, going along in its extremes of daring, or wrong, styles.

Candidly, when I see a female with a skirt tight enough to call attention to the shape of her hips, especially when tight below the hips and under the buttocks, I know that she is either careless and needs sharp admonishing or else she is wearing it deliberately to attract male eyes and arouse lust toward her in men's minds.

Do you want to know my personal reaction when I see such an example? It makes me feel that such a girl or WOMAN needs either a good lecture driven home by a sound SPANKING of what she so brazenly displays, or to be classed as a fallen woman and a common prostitute.

THAT IS PLAIN LANGUAGE! I mean it to be plain, and I want the women in God's Church to know it is coming from God's Minister, who speaks by Christ's authority!

Recently some of our girls and women have been wearing skirts that are entirely TOO SHORT! Often I have felt I ought to speak personally to some of you. If this article does not quickly correct this evil--AND IT IS AN EVIL!--God's ministers will be instructed to begin speaking personally and in a manner that ought to cause a deep sense of shame and produce a very red face on any girl or woman who invites such sharp rebuke from a Minister of God!

When many of you women wear skirts as high as the knee, and which completely expose the knees when sitting, your skirts are an abomination in GOD'S eyes. I wonder, frankly, if God doesn't blush when HE sees you! Are you women who do this, deliberately trying to tempt men into breaking the spirit of God's law against adultery? Are you trying to make yourselves adulteresses? Are you not breaking the very spirit of that law, yourselves?

In our instruction to parents in proper child rearing we teach that when you spank your child, it must be sufficiently severe to impress the lesson painful enough that he will not want to cause it to be repeated very soon. In this instruction to the spiritual children in God's Church, your Pastor is making this correction to those who need it, I sincerely hope, plain enough and painful enough that it shall not need repeating!

Neither Extreme

God's Church does not teach, nor does God's Word when rightly understood, that women should go to the opposite extreme of wearing ill-fitting, overly loose skirts that drag the dust and pick up germs. I am not saying that your neckline must be so high that all the neck is covered. God is not the author of UGLINESS, any more than of confusion or evil. God is the Great Artist who has designed all the beauty of nature.

Consequently, in conformity with the Word of God, God's Church encourages women to dress neatly, pleasingly, attractively within the bounds of proper modesty and good taste, and even with sufficient becoming style to express personality and individuality. God Himself expressed perfect artistry in beautiful design in nature--in the lily--the rose--beautiful trees, shrubs and plants--in prize-winning livestock--and even in the beautiful human body, when healthy and not degenerated.

For women to dress becomingly yet modestly, there is no need to disguise the human figure by grotesque ultramodern styles that make them look like lampshades, T-squares, or triangles. The world goes either to that extreme, or to the extreme of undue emphasis on breast, hips, and legs.

But it is in this latter category that some--yes, too many--or our women offend.

More than once I have seen a few of our women, in evening dress, exposing entirely too much female breast--with neckline cut so low as to show a goodly portion of breasts, with a crease in the middle. On one or two occasions, I have instructed Mrs. Armstrong to speak to such women, telling them plainly that their necklines are too low.

Women's breasts, in plain language, were designed by God to nurse babies--not to be flaunted immodestly to arouse lust in men.

In the matter of too-tight skirts around the hips, the excuse often is that the girl has taken on weight--and she protests that she cannot help it. But she can help it, and if she is to remain in God's Church or enter God's Kingdom, she must--one of two ways: either don't remain overweight (fasting and proper diet will cure that quickly), or let out the seam.

We want our women to be beautiful--naturally beautiful, pleasingly attractive, in good style, well groomed--but not artificially so, and this may be accomplished WITH FULL MODESTY.

It is the over-emphasis of lust arousing portions of the female body that MUST BE CORRECTED.

Friday, 18 July 2008

Grabbe in BAR

Former AC professor Lester L. Grabbe makes the columns of the current Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) with a critique of that publication. He is described in BAR as "a leading English scholar" (in his post-WCG incarnation he teaches at the University of Hull) and describes himself in the article as "an ex-fundamentalist." Grabbe taught at Pasadena until the "cultural revolution" of 1978 that brought AC - temporarily reorganized as a Bible College - under the control of extremist leaders following the departure of Garner Ted Armstrong.

The COG world has produced a great many loud but less-than-expert, self-made Bible commentators, ranging from Bob Thiel to Art Mokarow. Grabbe has the advantage of actually doing the hard yards in the academic world, and of not being seduced by the dark arts of apologetics: as a result he has enormous credibility in the field of biblical studies, particularly intertestamental Judaism. He is the brother of the late J. Orlin Grabbe.

Thursday, 17 July 2008

Wiener off menu in Pakistan

At last, someone has paid attention to Ron (We're in the Tribulation) Weinland.

Let's hope it doesn't go to his head.

Tuesday, 15 July 2008

Trouble in LCG?

From the Yahoo LCG Board:

Dana Glatz, an elder in the Montana area, left LCG and formed his own tiny group. That is sad. We met the Glatz's at the Feast in Malaysia years ago and are sorry that they have taken this step. Thus, unless he repents, he has apparently decided against being part of the major work to proclaim the gospel for his own priorities. I have heard that there will be something called the Associated Churches of God, but its website is not yet up (as of 11:55 a.m. PDT) it states: "Coming Soon..."

This follows reports of other recent ructions in Dallas, Texas and Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Update: Douglas Winnail's comments (re-posted to the comments section) -

I am writing to inform you that Dana Glatz, an elder serving in the Helena, Montana congregation, has notified us that he no longer desires to be part of the Living Church of God. Mr. Glatz has some different ideas about how to understand and apply the instructions in Matthew 18 for dealing with interpersonal differences within the congregation. It is not clear at this time what Mr. Glatz’s plans are for the future. Several other couples may depart with him, but that also is not clear at this time. Mr. Glatz was asked to come to Charlotte recently to discuss issues related to resolving interpersonal differences within a congregation, however, no details of his doctrinal differences with the Church were mentioned at that time.

Dr. Fall, the Regional Pastor for the Western Region, and his wife were in Helena last Sabbath with 23 in attendance. The Fall’s have visited with members in the Helena area over the weekend—including the Glatz’s and several couples who appear to share their views. I have also been in contact with some of these individuals. Mr. Arnie Lallum, an elder in Great Falls, will work with Dr. Fall in serving the Helena and Great Falls congregations. Your prayers for all concerned will be appreciated.
** This memo is not for public announcement in your congregation—it is merely to inform you of the situation so you can deal with questions or rumors that may circulate.

Friday, 11 July 2008

Pack web collapse?

The following observations come from a correspondent and have been slightly edited:

Traffic growth on the Packinator's site is now in the red. If the 30% growth ostensibly represented God Almighty's seal of approval - does the negative growth indicate that approval has been withdrawn? Here we are in the 3rd quarter of 2008 and theRCG.org is still prominently featuring Internet growth through the end of 2007! Gone are ever increasing counters depicting current downloads (AKA hits). Gone are the estimates for 2008 downloads. Gone are are any monthly or quarterly updates bragging about actual numbers being higher than estimated for the year to date. No mention is made of hard numbers because downloads fell through the floor earlier this year and the slide has continued unabated until this day.

The graphics comes from Alexa: click for a larger version. Alexa currently ranks realtruth.org around 355,000 (Quantcast 656,000). The other Pack site, thercg.org, comes in at 214,000 (Quantcast 40,000). How does this compare with, for example, ucg.org ?

Alexa: 132,000
Quantcast: 17,000

(Alexa measures worldwide exposure, Quantcast has a myopic focus on the US market.)

By either measure Big Dave is in humble pie territory. How are the mighty fallen.

Thursday, 10 July 2008

Alright my fellow Philistines...

... time for some culture. Mix J.S. Bach's prelude from his violin partitia #3 with the down-home sound of the banjo and, well, see for yourself.

Monday, 7 July 2008

Journal on UCG changes

The latest issue of The Journal is on its way to subscribers, and as usual the front and back pages are available to interested persons as a free PDF download.

Recent developments in the governance of the United Church of God get detailed treatment: UCG members may find this a "not-to-be-missed" issue. There is also a report on the bizarre re-disfellowshipment of Fred Coulter by septuagenarian LCG presiding-guru Roderick C. Meredith.

Darlene Warren appears to be back in the editorial chair of the Connections section. Dennis Diehl again provides a stimulating column, this time on a church member's "bill of rights" (for another dose of Den check out Bible Roulette.) A tribute to the late J. Orlin Grabbe provides background on this colorful character.

Thursday, 3 July 2008

Rod of Authority

Bare breasted lictors gather unto Rod. Rod of God. Wicked William Ferguson has uploaded prime cuts of oral Meredith to Ekklesia. Head over there now and click on the 1997 Rod of Authority Parody link at the bottom of the page... of the page... of the page.

Monday, 30 June 2008

Ahem, um...

The following is a totally fictional dialogue, inspired by the news that Ronald Weinland has put the returning Christ in a parking orbit till 2012. It's bound to be less entertaining than any real interview Ron gives.

Interviewer (I): It is our pleasure to have Ronald Weinland back with us today. Welcome Ronald.

RW: Thank you Chuck, it's great to be back.

I: Last time we spoke with you The Great Tribulation was about to begin. Did that happen?

RW: Well Chuck, it's important to understand just how must misinformation there is out there. It makes it very hard for Christ's true ministers to...

I: Yes, but you were very definite Ronald. The Great Tribulation was to begin this year, in fact back in April wasn't it?

RW: Well, we need to back up a bit here Chuck. You see...

I: And wasn't there supposed to be nuclear war within ninety days of that? Isn't that what you said?

RW: Some people may have, unfortunately, understood, ah, misunderstood it and...

I: There is also the matter of the Two Witnesses Ronald. You were one of them, right?

RW: Well, yes, in a manner of...

I: And your wife Lulu-belle was to be the other?

RW: Laura, Mrs. Weinland, is indeed, as far as we have been given to understand...

I: Have either of you have been preaching in sackcloth over in Jerusalem yet?

RW: Well, we have been to Jerusalem, and I did give a very nice sermon for our people there, and we did stay in a pretty swanky hotel before coming back to the United States.

I: But aren't the Two Witnesses supposed to stay there and finish the job?

RW: The problem here is that false religion gets in the way Chuck. It creates false expectations. As Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong said many times, first you have to unlearn...

I: But Ronald, let me quote what you said...

RW: No, no, no Chuck. The truth is that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation. Satan has been very active. To put things as simply as I can, God has cleared up a lot of the details as He has continued to reveal His will to me, and I can now confidently state that Christ is indeed returning in 2012.

I: 2012?

RW: Yes, 2012.

I: Not 2008?

RW: Not 2008. That was an unfortunate misunderstanding.

I: Whose misunderstanding Ronald?

RW: I believe the church was unprepared, unready. They needed to pray and fast more.

I: So, if your church fails to pray and fast again in 2012 the date may get put back again then too?

RW: No, 2012 is definite, and I stake my reputation on it.

I: But you already staked your reputation on 2008.

RW: We're just moving forward as the Holy Spirit directs us Chuck, malicious accusations notwithstanding.

I: Ronald you said you'd quit preaching if you were wrong.

RW: I wasn't wrong Chuck. Some of the details needed clarifying, but I've been absolutely consistent all the way through.

I: There's no contradiction between 2008 and now 2012?

RW: Only among the carnally minded Chuck, and bear in mind that the scoffers are under God's curse and are being eaten alive by blood-sucking worms and tumors even as we speak.

I: Frankly Ronald, all this backtracking is giving me a headache.

RW: See!

Sunday, 29 June 2008

Larry's answer

Larry finally came clean and offered his answer to the question he posed.

I have been to many other churches and my wife is a devout Catholic. The level of true ignorance in these other churches is beyond description. All of this is not coincidence.

Apart from pointing out that Larry's views seem at odds with those of WCG's leadership, who nowadays sing a song of ecumenism in an evangelical key, there's a bigger point at stake here.

True ignorance describes those who've never bothered to actually understand why other churches believe what they do.

The two-dimensional cardboard cut-out characterizations of other traditions are usually just that.

In Worldwide - at least in the Armstrong era - the members knew an awful lot about everything, and had an avalanche of booklets to prove it. That spirit still characterizes the splinters: blow-hard leaders with starry-eyed followers.

Free yourself from the delusion and you realize just how little you really know. Forget Philadelphian fantasies... this is the mark of Laodicea:

For you say, 'I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.' You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. (Rev.3:17)

Wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, naked. The status of all those who sit in their self-imposed ghettos and cast imprecations on those who live lives of integrity beyond their walls.

The problem isn't in living within a specific culture or tradition: we all do that. The problem is when you build walls instead of bridges. Larry's Laodicean views belong to the unreconstructed Armstrongism of a past generation.