There is a time to call people out for their actions and their words (Lev 19:17; Jas 5:19-20). However, causing division unnecessarily is not something to play around with, either:
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
~ Pr 6:16-19
If Robert Thiel wants to vigorously promote LCG, let him have at it! However, it seems that his idea of promoting is much like the worldly idea of running for office. Make your “opponent” look bad in order to make yourself look good.
On 16 June 2009, he posted “UCG & LCG”, which was just generally negative overall. Then on 21 June 2009, he posted an article “UCG: Can the Dollar Fall?” nit-picking at the UCG article on “Could the Dollar Fall?” by Darris McNeely.
On the article on the dollar, Thiel writes:
UCG is correct that God will decide when the USA dollar will fall. But the dangerous tone of the article is that it only MAY happen, it will LIKELY NOT happen for a long time, and most likely it will be GRADUAL.
Granted, the UCG article indicated that it would take time. On the other hand, it also said, “Here is what would happen in the United States if we woke up one morning to find the dollar was no longer the number one world currency.”
I don’t think “gradual” is the word that comes to most people’s minds when someone writes in that manner.
Then, Thiel offers this illogical statement just 2 sentences after writing the above:
To start with, while some changes will be gradual, ultimately a quick fall will occur.
So, he’s now saying that it will be gradual, even though he just criticized UCG for saying that (even though they did not)? So, which is it?
Thiel also wrote:
Additionally, the EU’s euro is even now getting in place to be the replacement reserve currency for the world. And while most of the world still uses the USA dollar as the reserve currency, the euro has made great strides, which have been very quick by historical standards. And when various other disasters hit the USA–which WILL COME TO PASS–that did not hit the old British Empire–the change will happen much more quickly.
In the past, I would have thought that the Euro would overtake the dollar and become the de facto world reserve currency. However, that was not a certainty then, and it is less of a certainty now. As I have reported on this blog, China and Russia want to move to the fictitious IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).
The way technology is today, I am not even certain that real money will even exist in the future. It could all be like they have on Star Trek – a credit system controlled by computers. There are countries in the world right now where you can buy a soda from a vending machine using your cellphone. Even the money you have in the bank is basically a balance sheet on a computer system that interconnects with other banking computers.
The word “euro” or “eurodollar” is not in the Bible. Let’s not get so hung up on what we think might happen that we close our mind and miss events when they do happen.
His other article went to even greater lengths to maximize the differences between UCG and LCG, even calling them “offensive”:
Paul Kieffer and I have different opinions of the differences between UCG and LCG. While he seems to believe (correctly) that UCG members would generally not be offended by LCG doctrines other than governance, he does not realize that LCG members are offended by various doctrinal changes and compromises that have occurred within UCG. UCG’s leadership is aware that governance was an important doctrine according to the Bible and the late Herbert W. Armstrong that UCG has forsaken.
Now, I have personally spoken to some members of LCG, and they really do not seem to be the least bit offended because of governmental differences. In fact, they seem to have no problem worshiping with UCG when they are in the area. And, when it comes down to it, why they would be “offended” by it seems to be pretty charged language to begin with. Instead of being offended, it seems to make more sense to worship with the church that has the type of government you believe in. Just don’t expect everyone else to agree with you on topics that are not even in the Bible!
But, of course, Thiel covers himself quite nicely with the Laodicean clause. Using phrases like “excepting the Laodiceans who are in our midst” just to ensure that if we happen upon someone in LCG that disagrees with him, then they must be Laodicean.
I really had considered going through the Weinland list of beliefs, but he has proven himself a false prophet so many times that I would just be “preaching to the choir”. It honestly might be worthwhile to go through the list of “Some of the Differences between the Living Church of God and the United Church of God, ia”. Some of them just are not based in the Bible, but there are some that have valid points. When you get out your Bibles and compare them to the list, it becomes rather obvious that both have deviated from what the Bible really says.
I've called Thiel out before on my blog when he's left people with the impression that UCG was having a Halloween party or was celebrating xmas.
Without trashing him, he has a certain viewpoint and belief which I assume he is sincere in. Like you I'm not convinced the government issue is something most of the LCG members would go to the mat over but perhaps I'm wrong.
I've gone through his paper on the differences, read and listened to some of their material. Other than the government issue there is precious little difference in teachings and what there is ends up being semantics or administrative applications.
He would also say LCG spends a higher percentage of income "preaching the gospel" and likes to use telecast responses as proof of a more effective work. I'd contend that alone is not necessarily indicative.
I think both have strengths and weaknesses and I believe it is inevitable at some point there will be greater cooperation if not an outright combination of efforts and resources.
I've called Thiel out before on my blog when he's left people with the impression that UCG was having a Halloween party or was celebrating xmas.
Without trashing him, he has a certain viewpoint and belief which I assume he is sincere in. Like you I'm not convinced the government issue is something most of the LCG members would go to the mat over but perhaps I'm wrong.
I've gone through his paper on the differences, read and listened to some of their material. Other than the government issue there is precious little difference in teachings and what there is ends up being semantics or administrative applications.
He would also say LCG spends a higher percentage of income "preaching the gospel" and likes to use telecast responses as proof of a more effective work. I'd contend that alone is not necessarily indicative.
I think both have strengths and weaknesses and I believe it is inevitable at some point there will be greater cooperation if not an outright combination of efforts and resources.
I've called Thiel out before on my blog when he's left people with the impression that UCG was having a Halloween party or was celebrating xmas.
Without trashing him, he has a certain viewpoint and belief which I assume he is sincere in. Like you I'm not convinced the government issue is something most of the LCG members would go to the mat over but perhaps I'm wrong.
I've gone through his paper on the differences, read and listened to some of their material. Other than the government issue there is precious little difference in teachings and what there is ends up being semantics or administrative applications.
He would also say LCG spends a higher percentage of income "preaching the gospel" and likes to use telecast responses as proof of a more effective work. I'd contend that alone is not necessarily indicative.
I think both have strengths and weaknesses and I believe it is inevitable at some point there will be greater cooperation if not an outright combination of efforts and resources.
@buckblog: Thanks for taking the time to comment.
It certainly isn't my desire to "trash him" nor to give the appearance of doing so. Robert Thiel has written many excellent articles in spite of his bias. His research shows on many topics. After 2 articles in the same week containing inaccuracies, I just felt compelled to point a few of them out.
I have tried to concentrate more on the similarities in doctrine, except for a couple of the groups on the extreme fringe. Yet, it is a true saying that doctrine divides.
I knew sooner or later I would have to deal with some of the differences as well, and circumstances have led me to believe that it is time to start doing so. Whether or not the effort will be blessed by God and I can objectively do so remains to be seen, I suppose.
Yet, it is taking a chance to be viewed as bashing one organization or another, and I hope it doesn't become viewed that way. Frankly, I hope that through understanding and reading the Bible that people will feel more inclined to get along.
When I read the things that I read, and I hear the things that I hear, I sometimes wonder how many people took HWA's advice and blew the dust off of their Bibles? Obviously, a significant portion did not. They read and believed man-made materials that changed doctrine rather than actually reading the Bible. Maybe illuminating some of the differences in an objective way will get a remainder to really read their Bible, even if they don't agree with me. That, to me, would make this little project a "success". Maybe, just maybe, they will at least understand that some things in Scripture are still looking through the glass darkly and not be so critical of other groups.
It does tie directly into what I believe about why God scattered the Church to begin with. I pray that I've finally thought it through enough to be able to give it a logical and reasoned voice.
@buckblog: Thanks for taking the time to comment.
It certainly isn't my desire to "trash him" nor to give the appearance of doing so. Robert Thiel has written many excellent articles in spite of his bias. His research shows on many topics. After 2 articles in the same week containing inaccuracies, I just felt compelled to point a few of them out.
I have tried to concentrate more on the similarities in doctrine, except for a couple of the groups on the extreme fringe. Yet, it is a true saying that doctrine divides.
I knew sooner or later I would have to deal with some of the differences as well, and circumstances have led me to believe that it is time to start doing so. Whether or not the effort will be blessed by God and I can objectively do so remains to be seen, I suppose.
Yet, it is taking a chance to be viewed as bashing one organization or another, and I hope it doesn't become viewed that way. Frankly, I hope that through understanding and reading the Bible that people will feel more inclined to get along.
When I read the things that I read, and I hear the things that I hear, I sometimes wonder how many people took HWA's advice and blew the dust off of their Bibles? Obviously, a significant portion did not. They read and believed man-made materials that changed doctrine rather than actually reading the Bible. Maybe illuminating some of the differences in an objective way will get a remainder to really read their Bible, even if they don't agree with me. That, to me, would make this little project a "success". Maybe, just maybe, they will at least understand that some things in Scripture are still looking through the glass darkly and not be so critical of other groups.
It does tie directly into what I believe about why God scattered the Church to begin with. I pray that I've finally thought it through enough to be able to give it a logical and reasoned voice.
@buckblog: Thanks for taking the time to comment.
It certainly isn't my desire to "trash him" nor to give the appearance of doing so. Robert Thiel has written many excellent articles in spite of his bias. His research shows on many topics. After 2 articles in the same week containing inaccuracies, I just felt compelled to point a few of them out.
I have tried to concentrate more on the similarities in doctrine, except for a couple of the groups on the extreme fringe. Yet, it is a true saying that doctrine divides.
I knew sooner or later I would have to deal with some of the differences as well, and circumstances have led me to believe that it is time to start doing so. Whether or not the effort will be blessed by God and I can objectively do so remains to be seen, I suppose.
Yet, it is taking a chance to be viewed as bashing one organization or another, and I hope it doesn't become viewed that way. Frankly, I hope that through understanding and reading the Bible that people will feel more inclined to get along.
When I read the things that I read, and I hear the things that I hear, I sometimes wonder how many people took HWA's advice and blew the dust off of their Bibles? Obviously, a significant portion did not. They read and believed man-made materials that changed doctrine rather than actually reading the Bible. Maybe illuminating some of the differences in an objective way will get a remainder to really read their Bible, even if they don't agree with me. That, to me, would make this little project a "success". Maybe, just maybe, they will at least understand that some things in Scripture are still looking through the glass darkly and not be so critical of other groups.
It does tie directly into what I believe about why God scattered the Church to begin with. I pray that I've finally thought it through enough to be able to give it a logical and reasoned voice.
In the classic words of Rodney King — "Can we all get along?"
Sometimes I wish I could ask all Church of God ministers (because that's where I hear and read this most often) to take a 21-day challenge. For 21 days, focus your words and writings completely on God, Jesus and the Bible — and NOT put down any other religious group, COG or otherwise.
Yes, I know — some would recall the words of Jesus that He came to bring a sword, not peace. But too often, I fear COG's become better known for what they're against than the things they're for.
In the classic words of Rodney King — "Can we all get along?"
Sometimes I wish I could ask all Church of God ministers (because that's where I hear and read this most often) to take a 21-day challenge. For 21 days, focus your words and writings completely on God, Jesus and the Bible — and NOT put down any other religious group, COG or otherwise.
Yes, I know — some would recall the words of Jesus that He came to bring a sword, not peace. But too often, I fear COG's become better known for what they're against than the things they're for.
In the classic words of Rodney King — "Can we all get along?"
Sometimes I wish I could ask all Church of God ministers (because that's where I hear and read this most often) to take a 21-day challenge. For 21 days, focus your words and writings completely on God, Jesus and the Bible — and NOT put down any other religious group, COG or otherwise.
Yes, I know — some would recall the words of Jesus that He came to bring a sword, not peace. But too often, I fear COG's become better known for what they're against than the things they're for.
@Richard: That would be excellent if it could be made to happen!
I have to admit, though, I don't know that it wouldn't quickly revert back. Perhaps that is why we have 1,000 years with Christ before the second resurrection? I mean, you would hope that after 1,000 years, it would be an instant reflex to be nice!
@Richard: That would be excellent if it could be made to happen!
I have to admit, though, I don't know that it wouldn't quickly revert back. Perhaps that is why we have 1,000 years with Christ before the second resurrection? I mean, you would hope that after 1,000 years, it would be an instant reflex to be nice!
@Richard: That would be excellent if it could be made to happen!
I have to admit, though, I don't know that it wouldn't quickly revert back. Perhaps that is why we have 1,000 years with Christ before the second resurrection? I mean, you would hope that after 1,000 years, it would be an instant reflex to be nice!