Dissident Literature

Why does Gerald Flurry not want you to read any literature on the internet without the Philadelphia Church of God stamp of approval? Don't you have a right to receive answers to your questions? Why would it be wrong to question or to have sincere doubts?

Was Jesus Christ considered a dissident? Were the apostles considered dissidents? Were the first century Christians considered dissidents? To the religious authorities of that time they were.

Dissident (dis-apart + sedere- sit) "to sit apart" "disagree"

Are you going to be motivated by fear? Or are you going to prove all things and hold to that which is true?

Ask yourself a question (that is, rely on your own cognitive abilities instead of what another person tells you). If dissidents¹ are wrong, and Gerald Flurry is right, then what harm is done? Will not the truth triumph in any debate if conducted honestly? Will not your faith be strengthened by any such debate if you have the undeniable truth? Or are you "weak in the faith," unable to debate and reason regarding religious issues and have to rely on a minister, or Gerald Flurry, to handle it for you?

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, I am the only one that God is revealing His truth to."

Friends, it's time to realize that Gerald Flurry is a man, and as such can be fallible. You too can be fallible. You may think you know the truth, but as Mr. Armstrong was fond of saying, "What you don't know, you don't know you don't know." I thought I knew the truth too. I was shocked and dismayed to learn otherwise.

This knowledge of the truth will set you free, if you decide to be free. Some people consciously desire to be in bondage; they feel safe there, even as ancient Israel desired the safety and relative security they had even as slaves in Egypt. They knew what was expected of them, and they knew what was going to happen the next day, and the next. There were no surprises in their lives. They knew there would be food to eat the next day. They relied on what they could see and could not rely on what they could not see, namely God. That whole first generation, save Caleb, Joshua and Moses perished in the wilderness because of their disbelief; their faithlessness.

You can see Gerald Flurry, and you trust and believe in him. When you have lived your whole lives under a system or systems of government where one man rules from the top, it is difficult to perceive things any other way.

Why did Jesus call twelve disciples? Why did he train them? Why did the apostles appoint another to be an apostle after Judas killed himself, with one who was with them from the beginning?

Maybe Jesus Christ didn't want one man to rule unchallenged at the head of the church. Maybe He realized there would be greater safety in numbers regarding doctrinal matters instead of leaving decisions up to one fallible man who may well be tempted to think of himself more so than he should.

When the church had a doctrinal debate concerning Gentiles and circumcision and keeping the Law, the apostles came together to make a determination together. There was no "head" apostle. They came to a consensus on the issue. The one did not overrule the many. One did not disfellowship others that did not agree with him. There was no human head of the church: they acted together and they decided together.

Imagine now Gerald Flurry agreeing to this method of leading the church; a counsel where the members of the counsel each have equal say regarding matters of leading the church. Of course, though, it becomes possible that those within the counsel may try to form alliances and elect those that agree with them to positions within the counsel, but there are ways to make this difficult by allowing the lay membership to participate in the election of members of such a counsel.

Chances are, though, that the ministers would try and convince you that you don't have the spiritual discernment to make such decisions. So much for God being the One who gives different gifts of the Spirit according to His will to those He chooses.

Gerald Flurry no doubt claims that God works through one man, and has throughout history from ancient times. Is that why Jesus chose twelve then? So that they could vie amongst themselves as to who was the chief among them?

You may have been taught that Peter was the "head apostle." Is there evidence in Scripture that Peter or any of the other apostles directed Paul as to how he was to administer his preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles? On the contrary, there is an example where Paul corrects Peter concerning his hypocrisy and not acting according to the gospel when he was in the company of Gentiles.

Paul, in Galatians chapter 2, says he went up to Jerusalem after fourteen years and met with the other apostles. What did he have to say about the other apostles?

Verse 6-7: "But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter."

The text does not support the concept of one man over all the rest.

Imagine one arising within PCG and addressing Gerald Flurry in front of others like Paul did to Peter in Galatians 2:11-21 and saying to him, "You have not acted according to the gospel, in that you were drunk out in your car on the Sabbath. It does not set the proper example. Such an action of submitting to the carnal human nature is wrong and unchristian." I can just see one of you doing that. You would probably be shown the door quite quickly and learn that it swings outward to those who would "criticize God's Chosen One.

Well, Peter was one of God's Chosen also. Did Peter move to have Paul removed from the church?

Would Peter or Paul, or any apostle have gotten drunk thereby offending believers, even risking offending them to the point where they might reject the truth? Would such an action be demonstrating love toward others, or setting them up to stumble? Such a thing is not a fruit of the Spirit; it is a fruit of the flesh; the carnal nature true Christians do not give in to whereby their brother might stumble.

In the early years of the Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong spoke against the "Primacy of Peter" doctrine. He believed that there was no Bible authority for any super-government in the Church.² Local congregations were to handle matters, and co-operate with other churches. However, starting in 1978 he radically changed and claimed the "Primacy of Peter" doctrine was valid after all, and that he, as the Apostle, had absolute rule in the Church. Doesn't Gerald Flurry do the same?

Gerald Flurry doesn't want you to read or listen to "the dissidents." Is it any wonder?

By William Hohmann (former WCG member and graduate of Ambassador College) 

Note: Telling members not to read "dissident literature" is part of the milieu (environmental) control that totalistic groups use.

Footnotes by ESN:

¹ "Dissidents" is a disparaging label that exploitive, controlling groups place on former members who have tried to furnish critical information to members inside, or who are known to be exposing the group. It keeps present members afraid of questioning, or talking with, those who have left; thereby finding out the truth about the group. 

² Good News, February-April, 1939