This is the fourth article in our series on differences between
ourselves and The Family
A Family leader recently said, "We believe the Bible is the complete,
infallible Word of God... but it has some mistakes in it and God is still
adding to it!" This somewhat facetious comment sums up both The Family's and
our own paradoxical attitude towards the Bible.
So what is the difference between ourselves and The Family" Our differences
are also paradoxical, in that The Family seems to be both more literal
than us and less literal at the same time.
They are more literal when it comes to "proof texting", i.e. they are more
inclined to build major teachings on isolated bits of scripture. Examples of
this are their belief in astrology, and belief in the spirits of such people as
Ivan the Terrible, Rasputin, Anne Boleyn, and Lord Byron speaking through their
leaders. They take the fact that Daniel was put in charge of the Babylonian
astrologers when he was being held prisoner (Daniel 5:11), as support for
astrology. And they quote a reference to seven spirits of God (Revelation 4:5)
to support their conviction that the familiar spirits that regularly possessed
David Berg were "good" spirits.
Our own position would be that the "proof texts" are less reliable than the
warnings against the practices that they claim the passages support. The word
translated as "astrologers" in Daniel literally meant "enchanters", and
enchanters are condemned along with "observers of times" and "consulters with
familiar spirits" in Deuteronomy 18:9-14. At the very least, we would regard
astrology as an ignorant superstition with absolutely no scientific basis.
However, we have not found it necessary to cut ourselves off from The
Family, for several reasons: (1) As far as we know, the practice of consulting
familiar spirits died out with their leader. No one in the group today has
shown evidene of possession by any spirit other than the Holy Spirit; (2)
Although they talk freely of astrological star signs, they teach that God is
more powerful than whatever power the "stars" might have over their personality
and/or destiny; (3) They seem to be moving farther away from the occult
practices of the New Age Movement; (4) The fables told by David Berg's "spirit
helpers" do not form a significant part of Family's teaching, and could easily
be dropped without affecting anything else that they do or teach; (5) Because
we are not officially linked with them, we feel that ultimately all we must
answer for is our own behaviour; and we will trust God to deal with them as he
sees fit; and (6) There is no one in the churches who will have anything to do
with us, so we're not likely to turn loose of the best friends we have in order
to satisfy our worst enemies.
We have said that The Family is more literal than us when it comes to "proof
texting". However, they are much less literal than us when it comes to
the teachings of Christ. While we agree that God continues to inspire and
speak through people today, we believe the teachings of Christ are the
Cornerstone by which we must test every other teaching.
In The Word- New and Old, David Berg writes, "You had better read
what God said today in preferene to what he said 2,000 ...years ago! Then when
you've gotten done reading the latest Mo Letters, you can go back to reading
the Bible..." (|P40)
To be fair, Berg does teach that present-day teaching must conform with the
Bible (|P22), and he says that the teachings of Christ are timeless (|P38).
But our experience has been that attempts to criticise Family teaching on the
basis of Christ's teachings are often seen as signs of disloyalty. For
example, it is Family practice to refer to Berg as "Father David" (or the more
familiar Dad). The fact that Christ clearly commands us not to call anyone
"Father" doesn't seem to matter.
It is not uncommon for Family members to remind us that "Dad wrote against
playing chess", or "Father David was against immunising babies," etc. Yet if
we bring up the teachings of Christ, we usually get a cool reception on the
grounds that we are being too legalistic. We find it difficult not to believe
that The Family is more loyal to brother David than to Christ under these
circumstances.