Independent Members of the COG: HWA's Comments, Plus Questions and Answers

By COGwriter

...the coming kingdom of God to the world… The 'loner'-the individual Christian' who wants to climb up into the kingdom some other way than by Christ and His way through His Church-is not being trained in Christ's manner of training, to rule and reign with Christ in his kingdom!… The person who says, 'I will get my salvation alone, outside of the Church' is totally deceived (Mystery of the Ages. 1985, p. 270).

HWA Asked

HWA asked,

Is the Church of God merely a scattered, isolated, number of professing Christians, each going his own way to get out the Gospel - or, as many believe, to get his personal salvation and eternal life? (The Incredible Human Potential. 1978. p.123).

Sadly, a lot of people today seem to think so. Of course, since we seem to be living in the time of the Laodicean Church era, this was expected.

HWA Answered

Here is how HWA answered that:

"The Church...It is not only a spiritual organism - it is a well-organized physical organization! Notice I Corinthians 12: ...brethren I would not have you ignorant (I Cor. 12:1). But now are they many members, yet but one body (verse 20.)

And it is a well-organized body (verses 4-6, 11-12): Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all... But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For the body is one--united, organized into cooperative team-work - not scattered individuals, each claiming to serve God in his own way!

Continuing: For... the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body... That there should be no schism [division] in the body; but that the members should have the same care [that is, outgoing concern and love] one for another (verses 12-13, 25).

Continuing: And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Now back to Ephesians. What about the member who goes out of the Church, to have his own relationship with Christ - to GET his own salvation? He is outside the body of Christ!

Notice, again, the "household of God" - the Church - is built upon a foundation. Would one build a building on a foundation of shifting sand? God's Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles [the New Testament], and prophets [Old Testament, whose prophecies are for us today (I Cor. 1O:11)], Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Eph. 2:19-20).

How well organized?

In whom all the building [the Church] fitly framed together, groweth into an holy temple in the Lord." (verse 21.)

Further: From the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love (Eph. 4:16).

Yes, Christ organized His Church.

And his gifts were, that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers (Eph.4:11, RSV) [continuing in KJV:] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:12-13).

What about a single member, "a joint, or part," going off by itself - or following a man instead of the Church of God that is in direct continuous succession from the apostolic Church founded by Christ, in A.D.31? He is like a joint or a piece of wood or stone, entirely outside of, and therefore no part of the body of Christ that shall marry Christ! (The Incredible Human Potential. 1978. pp.123,124-125). "

Thus it is clear that HWA did not believe members should be independent or part of small groups.

Why LCG?

That being the case, why should those scattered consider becoming part of LCG?

Notice what LCG teaches:

Mr. Armstrong wrote that he restored to the Church of God at least 18 truths that the previous era had lost (Mystery of the Ages, 1985. p. 251). Philadelphians are the ones who hold to those truths (as well as all other biblical truths)-including governance-and will be able to have a crown and to rule! Philadelphians have "kept My command to persevere" (Revelation 3:10). Holding fast to Truth, while putting a priority on proclaiming the Gospel, is what sets the Philadelphian Church apart...The Living Church of God cannot claim that all its members are Philadelphian, but we do believe we are a uniquely Philadelphian remnant. Can one find a larger or more effective "corporate body" which retains the Truth as taught by Mr. Armstrong, without adding non-biblical "revelations" or diverting its members from making their top priority the Great Commission of proclaiming the Gospel as established by Jesus Christ? No! One can expect that Philadelphians, who care about doing an effective Work and holding fast to the Truth, will naturally support the Living Church of God. Of course, simply attending with the Living Church of God does not make one a Philadelphian; individual members must do their part, and must not allow their lives to be cluttered by the cares of this world so that they themselves become lukewarm (Laodicean) (What is a Philadelphian?. Living Church News. July-August 2001, pp. 14-15). LCG teaches the 18 Truths that HWA Restored to the Church.

Some have claimed that LCG should not place its top priority on getting the Gospel out because we have no apostles and supposedly HWA finished the work. If you truly are interested in this subject, please carefully study the article, Should the Church's Top Priority be Proclaiming the Gospel or Did Herbert Armstrong Change that Priority? This article quotes the Bible and HWA to prove that the remnant of the Philadelphia era is to get the Gospel out and that it does not need an apostle to do this.

For those who have not yet read the article, I will simply comment here that 1) HWA never stopped proclaiming the Gospel through the medias of tv/radio/publications 2) that HWA had Richard Ames, Dibar Apartian, and others proclaiming it through those media 3) the New Testament shows that non-apostles preached the Gospel and 4) that the last three letters that HWA sent out said that the Church was organized to continue to get the Gospel out through tv, radio, and publications, even if he was no longer around.

An article of related interest would include There are Many COGs: Why Support the Living Church of God?

Falling Away from the Laodicean Church

by Sandy Kile

I’ve heard more excuses lately for not meeting on the Sabbath and for groups splitting up than you can shake a stick at. Some are splitting over doctrine, but quite often things so petty and silly it’s practically unbelievable! Like song books or even single words in songs! Some are starting to keep the Sabbath whenever they want, however they want—or not hosting Sabbath Services for troubling reasons that compel me to speak...

Excuses Overheard

Read the following examples of excuses of people not meeting on the Sabbath, of people pleasing themselves, doing what they please, as they please, and not pleasing God.

Remark: “It doesn’t feel like the Sabbath to me if I host Sabbath Services. It’s too much work.”
Answer: It’s not about how you feel, it’s about obeying the command that the Sabbath is a holy convocation (Lev. 23 & Heb. 10:25)... 

“Obeying God is always for our good and is part of how we show love to God,” states Don Haney (1) (Duet. 10:12-13). In other words, it’s our responsibility to obey God. I don’t see much responsibility in the Church these days, I see irresponsibility.

The Holy Days have been attacked with this “Do Your Own Thing Virus” as well, as in the following example: “We keep the Passover as the spirit moves us with whatever we have, including pop and pretzels. That’s not wrong, is it?” they ask. Answer: Yes, it is...

Squabbling over song books, making up excuses to not meet together, and generally making a mockery of the commitment we once had is not love! “We don’t have to agree with each other on every point of doctrine to love one another,” says Brian Knowles. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. We can agree to disagree and remain friends. We can grow up, and quit focusing on food, and picking at every little thing. If not, God may take us to the wood shed for a thrashing, and you can bet it’s not going to be as comfortable as if we disciplined ourselves.

The theme of Ron Dart’s recent CEM letter was also about sin being alive and well, and finding a comfy home in the church: “In something as small as Paul’s ‘a little leaven leavens the whole lump’, we are reminded that we are accountable for maintaining the integrity of the church. And if we don’t, the whole church can be corrupted by a very small matter tolerated over a long period of time.”...

While distant brethren faithfully and bravely suffer, the Church of: “God Is Too Much Trouble” is in danger of falling away from the Laodicean Church, the one Christ says He will spew out (Rev. 3:16).

Why? Because we can’t be bothered to even try reaching the “high”standards of the most lukewarm church in the Bible. We need to wake up and grow up before it’s too late. As Christ said, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent” (Rev. 3:19).

Norman Edward's (editor of Servants' News) made the following comments in an insert box next to the above article:

State of Independent Churches

This heartfelt article indicates some of the problems that are occurring in the church at this time. These specific problems seem to occur more frequently in independent groups than in hierarchical groups, where a certain standard of behavior is expected or enforced. Brethren in independent groups need to realize that the price of freedom from this enforcement is that each of them, as an individual, is now required to have a close relationship with God and to look to Him to “keep them on track”...

Are independent believers also spending too much to take care of themselves and not preaching the gospel or feeding the flock? Because they are independent, these groups cover the whole spectrum: Some are very diligent to serve our Father, doing much with little. Other groups, while they quote the scriptures continually, are such a poor example to the outside world that they are an embarrassment to our Father. Independence is of little value if it produces no fruit. 

The fact is that the price of being independent is NOT what Norman Edwards indicates.  Being "independent" means that you are not truly supporting the Philadelphia work of getting the gospel of the kingdom out to the world as a witness so that the end may come (Matthew 24:14).  Because of failing to "hold fast" (Revelation 3) but thinking that your own "people decide" governance (which is basically what the two Greek words that make up the term Laodicea literally mean), Jesus says He will spue the Laodiceans out.

And furthermore, as the writers above even admit, the independent Laodiceans are having major problems simply hosting church services or even attending Holy Day services.

FWIW, my wife and I have been hosting church services in our home for nearly 12 years now.  It does take a certain amount of work and is a bit of a hassle at times, but so was driving nearly an hour to WCG services many years ago.

In addition, as readers of this page are aware, we are not "independent" Christians as we are part of the Living Church of God.  The COG group that I am aware of that comes close to meeting Jesus' standards for being "Philadelphian".

Zephaniah 2:1-2 warns God's people to "Gather yourselves together...Before the LORD's fierce anger comes upon you. Before the day of the LORD's anger comes upon you!".  Unless independents wake up, they will go through the Great Tribulation (for more information, please read the article There is a Place of Safety for the Philadelphians. Why it May Be Petra).

I am spiritually fed by various ministries and COGs, why should I restrict myself to supporting LCG?
You may wish to consider the previous answers, HWA's quotes above, as well as the following,

"Philadelphians love others, not just themselves."

"This era of the Church was to produce fruit" (Mystery of the Ages, p. 290).

As Jesus taught: "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it" (Mark 8:35).

Philadelphians will give their all to proclaim the Gospel. Philadelphians have "a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name" (Revelation 3:8). They are not part of an especially strong church (or a large church by the world's standards). They have kept God's word without watering it down. They have not denied Christ's authority (which is essentially how Strong's defines the word translated as "name"). The Philadelphians accept that "Christ is head of the church" (Ephesians 5:23), and accept authority within the Church: "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-15).

As Mr. Armstrong wrote: "The government of the kingdom of God is of necessity government from the top down. It cannot be 'government by the consent of those being governed'… Revelation 3:12 indicates that those of the 'Philadelphia era' will be pillars in the Headquarters Church… What I am showing you here is that Christ's gospel of the kingdom actually includes all this knowledge here revealed-even the whole universe will be ruled by us, who, with God the Father and Christ, become the kingdom of God" (Mystery of the Ages, pp. 49, 347, 362)...

The Laodicean Church is the last one mentioned in the book of Revelation (Revelation 3:14-22). As the last, it is the one that will be the most dominant at the time of the end. The word "Laodicea" can be rendered "the people rule", "judgment of the people" or the "people decide." Laodicea is characterized by a rejection of the governance accepted by the Philadelphians, and by a general lukewarm attitude. Laodicea places emphasis on self (as opposed to proclaiming the Gospel), thus it also waters down the Truth-and so is "rebuked and chastened" and counseled "to buy from Me gold refined in the fire" (Revelation 3:18-19)" (What is a Philadelphian?. Living Church News. July-August 2001, pp. 11,14)

The United Church of God is larger, shouldn't I go there?
You can attend and support whomever you wish. But the truth is that UCG does not officially teach most of the 18 Truths that HWA Restored to the Church. For detailed proof, you may wish to read UCG's Fundamental Beliefs (found at its website) or the highly detailed article, Differences Between the United Church of God and the Living Church of God. I believe those who are Philadelphian will eventually conclude that they should be in LCG.

The Philadelphia Church of God claims to be the Philadelphia era of the Church, why not support them instead of LCG?
Simply calling oneself (or one's church) "Philadelphian" does not guarantee that one actually is Philadelphian (e.g. Revelation 3:9). Some who claim to be Philadelphian are not. PCG has departed from the truth by adding non-biblical teachings and requirements. For some details, please read the article Teachings Unique to the Philadelphia Church of God.

Ministers have misled me before and I don't want that to happen again, so aren't I better being independent?
You are better off if you do not believe you need to support the major work of God or if you do not believe you need to follow the Bible.

Like HWA and Paul taught, Roderick Meredith teaches, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (I Corinthians 11:1). Dr. Meredith has specifically taught that we are not to follow him in the unlikely event he commits some type of major apostasy. Although some false statements have been made about him, Dr. Meredith has never committed any major apostasy. Yes, it is true he has made mistakes and publicly repented of them, but the same is true of HWA and many other leaders in the Bible--just because someone makes mistakes does not mean that God is not using him/her.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Romans 13:4). "Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel (I Corinthians 9:13-14).

Aren't you writing this because you are a paid minister or because LCG told you to, if not doesn't that make you an 'independent'?
No. I am not ordained and have never received any income from LCG. No one in LCG even knows that I am writing this article (though many from LCG will undoubtedly read it from this website). But that does not make me an independent either--all my articles are supportive of LCG and none contradict any of its teachings (though LCG may not have taken positions on many of the subjects I have written on, nor would it necessarily word its positions the way I have written my articles, most of which are unedited--pretty much all official LCG articles go through an editing process).

The scriptural reason to write this article is, "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:1). LCG expects individual members to do their part as their talents/abilities allow. It is probably wise of me to add that I did not begin to write Church articles nor have a Church website until ministers in the Global Church of God (later the Living Church of God) asked me to (and no, even though there have been some suggestions--which I normally follow, they have not tried to 'control' it).

From a biblical point of view, the Elijah question is not a major issue...I am not that Elijah...It will probably be a younger, better looking, man...Herbert Armstrong died over fifteen years ago...Malachi 4 teaches...vs. 5, 'Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD'... Mr. Armstrong himself went back and forth on this issue...Elijah may be one of the two witnesses. He (Herbert Armstrong) told Dibar Apartian that he (Mr. Armstrong) was not the Elijah...He (Mr. Armstrong) did not change any major doctrines, such as the Sabbath...but did change positions on other matters...Our policy and practice in the Living Church of God is to honor Herbert W. Armstrong as a teacher, minister, and as an Apostle..., raising up an era of the Church...The greatest minister, perhaps, in the past 1800 years...Mr. Armstrong certainly did do the greatest work in radio, television, and all that...We feel he did an Elijah-like work...We are to follow him as he followed Christ...I feel that the Living Church of God is carrying on the teachings and practices, that is religious not personal practices, of Herbert Armstrong more than any other group on earth...He could have been the Elijah to come, but I don't think we should be dogmatic and appoint him...They (the two witnesses) have power to shut up heaven, like the original Elijah did...These two men are a definite type of Elijah and Moses. And one of them may be the end-time Elijah (Meredith, Roderick C. The Elijah Question. VTE 131, May 19, 2001).

Here is an interesting quote from Herbert Armstrong on this subject,

Also Malachi 4:5-6 pictures the Elijah to come at the very end of the Church age" (Mystery of the Ages. 1985, p. 349).

I agree with that, which is part of why I disagree with Charles Groce.

All should understand that since the Church age has not ended, that HWA's own writings are completely consistent with Living's position on this matter. LCG' s position then, is that HWA may have been Elijah, that he did an Elijah-like work, that he was an Apostle God used to raise up the Philadelphia era of the Church of God, but that it is possible that God will raise up another to fill the Elijah role. I publicly admit that HWA often said/wrote that he was the Elijah, but having communicated with many that HWA knew well for years, it is clear that HWA was not totally sure (otherwise he would have not told Dibar Apartian that he was not sure about it). Teaching that HWA did an Elijah-like work and allowing that God MIGHT have another Elijah in mind as the absolute end has not yet come (and HWA died over 18 years ago) is not inaccurate or wrong. Furthermore, while HWA claimed to restore at least 18 truths, I never recall reading or hearing him say that he 'restore all things', which is the requirement from Malachi.

Some, sadly will not support LCG because of its position on this subject. There are many in LCG who believe HWA was Elijah (I basically do, within the parameters listed), but there are none outside of LCG that I am aware of that are part of the major work to proclaim the Gospel and who's group teaches the 18 truths that HWA said God used him to restore to the Philadelphia era of the Church of God. Please understand that the calendar groups, sacred name groups, etc. all make the same intellectual argument that those who insist that God could not possibly raise up another Elijah do. More information is included in the article The Elijah Heresies.

Laodicea means 'the people decide', and sadly each has decided what is more important than proclaiming the Gospel. As you know, Jesus taught Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven...Now everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand" (Matthew 7:21,26). Jesus and HWA taught that the Philadelphia Church's top priority was to proclaim the Gospel. That is what LCG does. Calling HWA Elijah and not doing what he taught (fulfilling the remaining mission of the Philadelphia era church to proclaim the Gospel), is, as Jesus suggested, foolish.

I feel that the fact that LCG allows make-up disqualifies it from being a unique remnant of the Philadelphia era of the Church, so aren't I better off not being part of it?
Interestingly, it is this make-up issue which I believe separates many of independents that claim to be Philadelphians from LCG. If you read the article What is a Philadelphian? you will see what HWA and the Bible says defines the Philadelphia era--I do not believe HWA ever indicated that make-up was one of the 18 restored truths. Actually HWA wrote that the make-up position "would be changed over my dead body", and, and I do not mean this disrespectfully, he is dead, (I attended his funeral); thus LCG's change is consistent with HWA's statement. And yes, I do believe God inspired that particular statement to allow this position to be once again changed.

I recently read an article HWA wrote about make-up in the 1960s. He essentially wrote that women wear make-up to fit into the world. While that may have been true then, the world has changed; Western culture has changed. Women now often have tattoos, weird body piercings, bare midriffs, etc. For the Church woman of the 21st century to wear moderate amounts of make-up really does not make her look worldly, nor like a hooker.

The fact is that HWA must have considered make-up somewhat of an administrative and cultural matter, as he changed his position on it at least two times while he was alive (I am fairly sure it is at least three times with one of those times restricted to Ambassador College students). In addition, the last time he ruled against it, he allowed make-up to be worn in areas he felt it was appropriate for the culture. LCG teaches that vanity is a sin. LCG teaches that wearing make-up out of vanity is a sin. I do not wear make-up, and LCG does not require anyone to wear make-up--you can be a member of LCG and not endorse make-up. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to be independent or a member of an extremely small COG and place the top priority on proclaiming the Gospel.

If you are a man who is highly concerned about the make-up issue, please ask yourself, are you female? Did you ever wear make-up? Thus, if you are male, is it truly relevant for you or does this subject simply make you possibly judgmental? Was HWA wrong the various times he allowed it? Did not HWA always try to get the gospel out? Vanity is the problem. Every man at his best state is altogether vanity (Ecclesiastes). Vanity is the problem related to make-up. Sometimes for the wearers, sometimes for the judgmental.

Make-up is a twig, pharisaical argument, often used by those who do not place there priority on getting the Gospel out. In his November 19, 1976 letter Herbert Armstrong wrote,

It is true that Baptists, fundamental Methodists, and other Protestant denominations, do teach some things as we do--but they have the branches and twigs of the tree--NOT ONE OF THEM has the real TRUNK of the tree--with its MAIN BRANCHES. In other words, not one of them knows what spiritual salvation really is, what the KINGDOM OF GOD (Christ's whole Gospel) really is, WHY God put humanity here on earth: WHAT is our real ultimate human POTENTIAL, or HOW we shall reach it. They know not God's PURPOSE, nor His MASTER PLAN for working it out. They do not know why we are here, where we are going, or THE WAY. Those are the BIG, MAIN branches of the tree of knowledge. They are the MISSING DIMENSION in knowledge...But we in this Philadelphia era have too much of that fault, also. When first TRULY converted, it is like a ROMANCE, but we too soon cool down in our LOVE for Christ and HIS WORK...But Christ said to His Philadelphia era Church, that because we have but little strength, He would OPEN THOSE DOORS TO US (Rev. 3:8).

Notice HWA that said the doors would be open to US (not just him) and not to be that concerned about twigs of truth; some on this make-up issue are ignoring this important concept. For further information, please read the article Makeup and the Philadelphia Era of the COG.

Speaking of twigs, many small groups believe they have a few twigs that justifies their separate existence. They can be separate, but being separate means being part of the 'people decide' COG.

Semi-Independents

Since there have been a variety of confederations among those who once had some affiliation with the old WCG, perhaps this should be discussed here. Essentially the "semi-independents" (my term) believe that they are fully capable of learning and growing without a church hierarchy and can cooperate on a variety of matters (normally Feast sites, conferences, and sometimes gospel proclaiming efforts) when they believe it is appropriate.

One leader of such a confederation is CEM's Ronald Dart. Notice some of his comments:

Mr. Dart drew an analogy between a literally pacifist stance —traditional in the old Worldwide Church of God and its derivatives—and a metaphorically pacifist stance that keeps people from taking active steps to protect brethren from dangerous doctrines and leaders.

“We have inherited spiritual pacifism unthinkingly,” he said. “I have a 12-gauge and a 9-mm handgun in my house, and, if some guy breaks into our home and threatens my wife and me, he will go back down those stairs head over heels. I’m not a pacifist. I believe I have every right to protect myself and my family”...

Mr. Dart criticized the concept of “one man” as leader of a church. “Now, maybe he’ll be a good guy, a benign despot,” he said, “but the fact of the matter is that, when you leave the task of protecting the church to one man, you are taking a risk on autocracy and authoritarianism.” Mr. Dart praised Mr. O’Brien’s mention, in the introduction to the conference, of a “free church.”

“The idea of a free church is so powerful, so meaningful,” the CEM leader said, “but we haven’t gotten down to understanding what it means to be free”...

“Doctrine has been kicked around this church for too long,” he said. “I don’t know why it’s such a big problem. We tend to use the word in a sense of the word dogma. Now, does a church have the right to establish what we teach?” (Cartwright D. Conference of Church Leaders convenes to talk
about the diversity and defense of congregations. The Journal. Jan-Feb 2007).

Look at some of what the Apostle Paul wrote about the church:

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ-- from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love (Ephesians 4:11-16).

Having watched DVD presentations previously by at least two the leaders at this conference, I will simply state that "the semi-independents" do have a real problem with doctrine, getting the Gospel message out, and remaining a coherent body (these type of confederations have never seemed ideal in meeting the mission of the Church of God as far as HWA and others have been concerned).

Perhaps I should add that Ron Dart left WCG in 1978 to support Garner Ted Armstrong who was put out of WCG at that time for sexual impropriety. Ron Dart also endorses military service for those in the COGs.

Thus, I feel that semi-independents, like him, should not be supported at this time. I believe that they are truly a source of division and simply are not doing the Philadelphia work to proclaim the true gospel to the world as a witness (Matthew 24:14). Even though CEM currently has the biggest media presence of any of the semi-independents, I believe the message being proclaimed deviates too much from the message that Jesus would want His Church to proclaim.

Conclusion

In conclusion, HWA said members are not to be independent nor should they be part of real small groups. HWA said to keep getting the Gospel out. HWA taught that he restored at least 18 truths to the Philadelphia era of the COG, all of which LCG teaches.

LCG currently proclaims the Gospel on 200 television stations and 18 radio stations around the world--it has the largest media presence of any COG. It teaches all the major truths that HWA restored, including governance.

Jesus taught, "You will know them by their fruits".

So, if you have been independent (or part of a small or single minister group), isn't it now time to support LCG?

Back to home page

B. Thiel, 2001,2002,2006,2007 0908