TIME FOR ME TO GO
by Richard Burkard
At the 1992 Democratic convention, Albert Gore accepted the Vice Presidential nomination with a speech that had one recurring theme. After 12 years of Republicans in the White House, he declared, it was "time for them to go." It was a phrase Dick Cheney repeated three times at the 2000 Republican convention - leaving it to the TV networks to note he "borrowed" it from a Democrat.
On July 15, 2000, it was time for me to go - time to leave the Worldwide Church of God, which had been my spiritual home for the bulk of my adult life. I began attending in November 1982, at age 24; I was baptized on the Feast of Trumpets 1984. (Don't ask me what day and month; I only remember which Holy Day it was.)
A lot happened to the WCG in those 18 years, as well as to me. People who have followed the WCG at all know about what's changed there. This article will detail some of that, as well as how they affected me.
The WCG's doctrinal changes of the 1990s produced a lot of "new seekers" -- and I don't mean the old singing group. It seems thousands of members have tested the pews and chairs of other congregations and denominations. Some have regularly attended the WCG on Saturdays, then another church on Sundays. (One man even told me he visited a third different congregation on Sunday nights!) WCG leaders even told religious TV host and Plain Truth columnist Steve Brown that members are occasionally counseled to do this. The old demand to "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve" in church attendance (Josh. 24:15) became as outdated as 1975 in Prophecy.
I honestly never expected to join this group. The WCG's long-standing doctrines and teachings made a lot of scriptural and intellectual sense. Yet I also became a seeker, shopping for a new congregation -- but for a different reason than the ones listed above. My search stemmed from what my eyes see as inconsistent church teaching -- and a doctrinal trend that's heavy on theory and rationalization, but lacking certainly and absolutes.
The breaking point for me came when Pastor General Joseph Tkach gave a video sermon called, "Got Milk?" in March 1997. Some people wrote to a WCG opinion and debate web site complaining about his statements on church government. But the words that caught my attention involved another issue: the matter of going to heaven.
I suspected a change on this doctrine was coming, after my District Superintendent talked about it somewhat ambiguously with prayer group facilitators. When The Plain Truth of March-April 1997 printed Billy Graham's quote about "going to heaven because of God's grace and mercy" (pg. 8), along with other articles indirectly mentioning heavenly entrance, I knew the WCG would have to explain itself. The teaching that we DON'T go to heaven immediately after death was the first big point that pulled me away from the United Methodists toward the WCG as a teen. It was also the last major "wild card" the WCG had not played, in reforming its "doctrinal distinctives."
In his sermon, Mr. Tkach called the entire debate over what happens after death "secondary." The milk of the gospel consists of other things, he said. He focused on Hebrews 5 and 6, where several keys to salvation are mentioned, such as repentance and faith in God. Mr. Tkach cited concepts of various groups, such as "soul sleeping" and "annihilationism." But he never directly addressed scriptures that clearly indicate we DON'T go to heaven as immortal souls at death; instead, he called this subject and related ones "obscure."
"It's not a cop-out. We're being fair and honest," he stated, claiming many Bible passages about death are symbolic. Yet several verses are direct and to the point:
"No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man," said Jesus -- who ought to know. (John 3:13, KJV)
During his foundational Pentecost sermon on the resurrected Christ, Peter declared David "did not ascend to heaven." (Acts 2:32, 34, 36) Yet Mr. Tkach said it was OK to believe people enter "the immediate presence of God" at death.
It's true that some scriptures describe a spirit that returns to God after death. (Ecc. 12:7, etc.) But Paul makes it plain that it is NOT a "spiritual BODY," for that body is not raised until the resurrection. (I Cor. 15:23-24, 44, 52) Paul further wrote that God/Jesus "ALONE" is immortal." (I Tim. 6:14, 16)
The latest published version of the WCG Statement of Beliefs, in the September 1998 Worldwide News, has newly-added sections on "Heaven" and "The Intermediate State." (It's Alabama, you know. HA HA HA HA - just kidding!) Yet the verses cited above are somehow left out; instead, we're told, "The Worldwide Church of God holds no dogmatic position on whether humans are conscious between death and the resurrection of the body." (pg. 17) The references for heaven, however, DO include one passage mentioned in years past: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (Matt. 5:5)
The message the WCG is sending seems to be: we're not sure WHAT our understanding is -- and besides, the issue is not worth arguing about. It would seem on many matters, members or attendees can now believe anything they wish, whether the Bible backs it or not. Another example of this trend is, "A Balanced Approach to the Millennium," in the WN of April 1997. It actually offers four approaches to the 1,000-year reign of Jesus on earth -- and allows ministers to preach and/or believe any of them.
It's at this point that Church inconsistency becomes apparent. If the WCG accepts the first tenet of the National Association of Evangelicals, that the Bible is "the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative word of God," (Transformed By Truth, last page) then why does the WCG suggest the Bible is NOT authoritative on the matter of going to heaven -- as well as other issues?
Contradictions occur in other doctrines that the WCG has changed. Years of wiggling, combined with a "shifting of the bar" for a standard of belief, grew increasingly annoying for me. To borrow an old church phrase, how can we "know that we know that we know" if the WCG isn't sure exactly WHAT it knows -- or at least is reluctant to take a clear stand?
Ironically, WCG ally Hank Hanegraaff discusses this very point in the March-April 1997 Plain Truth cited above:
"We cannot communicate what we believe and why we believe what we believe. So when we are asked questions and can't give answers, why should we wonder that the secular world or even those who are anti-Christian would use that to characterize Christianity as the religion of the ignorant?" (pg. 26)
Mr. Hanegraaff declares prior to this that Christians "have to demonstrate that heaven is a reality...." (pg. 25) Yet Mr. Tkach's video sermon claimed belief in a literal heaven is NOT central to entering the Kingdom of God!
Paul wrote that he tried to "become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some." (I Cor. 9:22) I sometimes wonder if this is the WCG's goal: attempt to appeal to believers who say we DO go to heaven, as well as those who disagree, to gain as many worshippers as possible. Some speculated to me that the goal is really to gain acceptance from "Sunday churches," so they'll open buildings for Saturday WCG services. But am I the only one who sees this doctrinal "uncertainty" as a sign of desperation?
To state differing views on theological questions, then shove them all aside as "secondary," would seem to invite congregational schism and divisions. And it goes against Paul's admonition to "agree with one another.... no divisions among you.... be perfectly united in mind and thought...." (I Cor. 1:10; see also Eph. 4:13) It could be argued that splits have already occurred; one that didn't receive much publicity in the WCG occurred in Mississippi, over whether believers must be "slain in the Spirit."
An elder told a congregation I once attended that "God is love -- He's not doctrine." Yes, God is love. (I Jhn. 4:8) But does that mean doctrine doesn't matter? To borrow a Bill Clinton phrase, to pit love and doctrine against each other is a "false choice." Paul wrote, "Sound doctrine.... conforms to the glorious gospel of God.... (I Tim. 1:10-11) He instructed Timothy to both "set an example for the believers.... in love" AND "Devote yourself.... to teaching," or "doctrine" in the KJV. (4:12-13) It was doctrine that upset the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, not love. (Acts 5:28; we'll look more closely at this in an upcoming article)
It comes down to how we are to "make disciples." (Mt. 28:19) One WN article said Jesus "didn't train [His disciples] in theology. He entered into an eternal relationship of love with them (John 14:23)." (7/22/97, pg. 12) But wait a minute. What does Jesus SAY in that verse? "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching." He later notes the Holy Spirit will "teach you all things." (v. 26) How are disciples, based on the Greek word for learner or pupil, to learn if they're not trained in anything?
Some might conclude from this that the WCG is becoming a "know-nothing" Church, but that probably goes too far. After all, there's much about the new core doctrine: "Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (I Cor. 2:2) Yet even here, some members are left unfulfilled -- because day-to-day practical applications for living, including some mentioned by Jesus, seem to take second place. Many topics that appeared very clear now are considered vague. Admittedly, adjustments were needed on some issues. But others really weren't, given a fair examination of Scripture.
The more two people agree on things, the deeper their bond of companionship should be -- whether in religion, politics, marriage or anything else. While some WCG members and ministers say the Holy Spirit is uniting the Church to grow in the love of Jesus, I fear years of change have left many personal relationships more shallow. It could even be argued that relationships have been pushed to the breaking point, such as couples divorcing. Several people have told me they're afraid to discuss ideas with fellow brethren, because they might "step on toes" or cause offense.
"Shallow" may indeed be the key word -- in bonding among brethren, as well as Church doctrines. A search for something deeper led me to join the seekers in the spring of 1997. A new job in a different city made the transition easier, and less emotionally painful. Besides, to quote a former co-worker -- who was a youth minister and also considered changing congregations -- if I cannot agree with what the ministry teaches, I don't want to cause dissension.
Yet in my new hometown's small WCG congregation, I made an amazing discovery: most members still believed in the "old-style" tenets of the Church -- from Sabbath-keeping to prophecy to baptism by immersion. My Pastor was more conservative than the ministry in my former home -- and as a result, I felt much more at home. And the members were so glad to have me that without even trying, I was selected to the Church Advisory Committee after only four months of attendance!
But just when I thought the Worldwide Church of God was developing many "assorted flavors," with diversity of beliefs and styles, some members apparently complained to Church leaders that the "New Covenant theology" was not being taught. The Pastor was warned in December 1998 that changes had to be made within three months. Then in May 2000, the District Superintendent returned to town and took charge of services -- with the Pastor effectively suspended. The last straw apparently came when the Pastor wrote WCG Headquarters to ask why Church literature gave so much ink to Christmas and Easter -- and practically none to "Old Testament holy days" such as Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Tabernacles.
I sat down at the computer and listed dozens of doctrinal and theological points, then compared where I stood with the WCG's current position. In several key areas, I found myself at opposite poles with the Church. God willing, items at this web site will examine some of those areas -- such as:
The funny thing was, I thought the WCG was being less dictatorial now -- and there was more room for disagreement in the Church. In private, that may be true. But in public, I've concluded it's not.
Let me emphasize that my concern and frustrations with WCG changes is not really directed toward individuals -- but at differences in doctrine and belief. While some may have problems separating the teacher from the teaching (similar to the idea of hating sin but loving the sinner), I strive to do this.
I happened to be Worship Leader at my last WCG service, and went out of my way not to make a big event over my departure. Instead of reading an angry diatribe, stomping out the door and shaking the dust off my shoes, I planned to conclude with a short "thank you" message to the congregation - then leading everyone in the song, "God Be With You till we meet again.... till we meet at Jesus' feet." But that gentle ending never happened, because two District Superintendents announced after the sermon that our Pastor "would not be retained." They explained it in terms of the burdens the Pastor faced from a part-time job, a Christian school he and his wife have started, and the nine children they have. But those in position to know knew the real reason for the change - the Pastor's resistance to abandoning holy days.
(If you'd like a tape of this announcement -- sorry. We learned later at lunch that the District Superintendents ordered all tapes of the service erased, except for the original which apparently will go to Headquarters. Isn't "freedom of worship" a wonderful thing?)
The "My Utmost for His Highest" album has a Twila Paris song that moves me to tears every time I play it. It describes my spiritual journey -- first from "established Christianity" to the WCG, and now from WCG to another denomination. "Where He Leads Me" includes these words:
There is a great, broad road to nowhere - and so many travel there.
But I have a gentle Shepherd I would follow anywhere.
Though the journey take me far away from the place I call my home,
To be ever in His presence - where He leads me I will go,
Where He leads me, I will go.
I choose to let God lead me, as a spiritual "new seeker." My prayer is that you allow God to do the same for you -- wherever you wind up worshipping Him.
To respond to this article, e-mail: wwwcg
© 2000-02 Richard Burkard/www.LaughLine.com. All rights reserved.