Category: Hoss Cartwright

Posted on

One-on-one with Atonement

Another Day of Atonement has now gone. This brought back memories… Atonement spelled “At-One-Ment” (like those little “proofs” HWA used that only worked in English), a slightly shorter afternoon service, the guy who says it’s his treat for after-service refreshments, a sermon about Satan, the minister shows his empty glass (normally filled with water) and his remarks about how we’re all thinking of a nice steak (when we’re really thinking of a beer) and the New Year’s Eve type countdown until sunset.

 

Behind this was another example of HWA’s flawed theology. The Day of Atonement (in the Hebrew, Yom HaKippurim) was not all about sticking it to Satan. It had to do with the annual atonement of the Temple, the Priesthood, and the Congregation of Israel. And as I have noted a few times before, COG theology is blissfully ignorant of the Levitical Priesthood and the Tabernacle/Temple system. Either the Portland Public Library didn’t have tomes like Eddersheim’s works on the Temple and First Century Palestine (written way before 1927) or HWA didn’t find anything he could use in them.

 

As I understand HWA theology (occasionally clarified by some convoluted explanations from Dr T) the Levitical system was a temporary addition (Plan C?) although it will be reinstituted in the Millenium (“for a short time”). The establishment of the Aaronic priesthood forever depends entirely on forever not really meaning, uh, forever. So, I understand, this misunderstanding allows COGs to dispense with “Levitical” laws at their discretion. In fact, CG7 apparently used that reason to dispense with the Holy Days (except Passover) – because they were described in Leviticus. But all COGs, and almost all churches, keep tithing (first tithe), which was specifically for the Levites.

But now, coming soon, another feast, and as always, it will be The Best Feast Ever!

Posted on

The Day Nothing Happened


August 31st 2013 was much like any other Sabbath day in Wadsworth and a small group of people, members of the RCG, sat through the service when they suddenly realized – nothing happened! The room was not overflowing with people. There was no crowded parking lot with hordes of members from other COGs begging to be let in the building. No “standing room only” sign hastily put at the door.

No announcements about the charred remains of three shepherds. No thinly veiled denials like “We don’t set dates”, no announcements about the approval for a newer auditorium that would one day be called the (Dale) Carnegie Hall of the Midwest, no euphoria over a contract for a massive advertising campaign with Readers Digest.

Nothing, not a sausage!

Posted on

Bethsaida Two-Step

In an episode of the Simpsons, Comic Book Guy questions Lucy Lawless about inconsistencies in episodes of Xena. Her repeated answer is “wizard”. When we question why we weren’t healed, why our faithful tithing didn’t solve our financial worries, why … The standard answer we get is that it’s our fault.

In Mark 8:22-26, Jesus was in Bethsaida and heals a blind man. But it was a two-step process – initially, vision was restored, but it was indistinct; then, it was fully restored. The man was told to go straight home.

An RCG Q&A deals with the “two-step” healing:

Christ could have healed the man by the simple touch of His hand, or even with His words. But He probably realized that the man’s faith was weak.
We find that even after Christ had been resurrected, His disciples’ faith was weak…
Christ healed the blind man in a “step-by-step” manner, rather than all at once, in order to increase the man’s faith, before totally healing him.

This is the type of response we’d expect, the old not enough faith boilerplate. Of course, the verses in question don’t say that.

Many years ago, I heard a talk by Dr Dorothy (Charles V. Dorothy, once a popular WCG minister, AC professor and researcher, several times was relieved of duty, and has a real PhD). The details are now fuzzy, but essentially the two-step healing process was what would be expected for the disease he believed had caused the blindness”.  This reminds me of adding a peripheral to a computer – get the hardware working, get the right driver; a two-step process. Regardless of one’s opinion about healing, I think it appears more acceptable than “not enough faith.

Either the RCG writer was unaware of this answer, or, dismissed it as being from a “liberal” minister (an independent thinker).