Reflections on Raising the Ruins

We will get back to the biographical sketch later, but right now I wish to share some of my thoughts concerning Stephen Flurry's book, Raising the Ruins. Now anyone deciding to get in contact with this book needs to be aware of of its flaws, such as claiming PCG won the court case with WCG when in reality they lost and than bought the copyrights for $3 million, and the hypocritical attitude it was produced in, namely, trying to lure sympathizers of Armstrongism into PCG while PCG forbids members from contacting such people. Critiques of it are available at Exit and Support Network and PCG Information.

I read some of this book length recruitment pamphlet. Although I was aware of some of the concerning facts about the book I must say I am honestly surprised at my impression of the book. I am not entirely sure what I was expecting, but I did not expect to reach this conclusion when I started reading. The main thought I had of reading it is this: the author, Stephen Flurry, is not very bright. Exit and Support Network has this fascinating story in which Stephen Flurry 'could not open email attachments or operate a fax machine' and so he relied on some poor old man to do it for him. I am embarrassed to say that after reading this book I can actually imagine that situation occurring even better than before. I honestly thought I would come away from the book and say, 'Sure he's in a cult that bans medicine, woman's makeup, and contact with 'Laodiceans' no matter how close they are to you and also demands you pay over 30% of your money in a PCG approved way, but he's a clever guy.' Instead I am inclined to think, 'He is not very bright. Any intelligence he does possess I do not see in this book. How can PCG entrust the education of their students to him?' Let me try to explain why I feel this way.

In much of Chapter One he complains that Tkach has complete power in WCG. He is so adamant about this that one who does not know better might think that PCG is not authoritarian but democratic. Of course PCG has exactly the same authoritarian undemocratic government as WCG has. The only reason Stephen Flurry is angry against WCG is that they used their absolute power to renounce Armstrongism, he simply wishes they used their power to enforce Armstrongism. He wishes that he could wield the club they used. In one place he writes, 'He [Feazell-one of the leaders of the Tkach changes] knows--he's admitting--that without total power, their transformation would have never happened! The church membership simply would not have allowed it!' But in Stephen Flurry's church members are absolutely powerless to influence the affairs of PCG. PCG has exactly the same sort of despotism that SF complains against. The only difference is WCG renounced Armstrongism, SF wishes he had their power to enforce Armstrongism. SF does not hate the club, he wishes to uses in his own way.

In Chapter Two he glorifies Ambassador Auditorium and tells us how it was so beautiful, it had so many good performers on it. He tries to induce nostalgia in readers so that they might join his church. I hope readers will not fall for that. After trying to induce nostalgia he ends that thought with the following sentence: 'Yet another legacy that was neither heavy nor burdensome.' Is this accurate? That jolly building cost $24 million! In the early 1970s! If he really thinks Ambassador Auditorium wasn't burdensome he should read what Ambassador Report had to say about it. He should read their article on the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation. The inaugural concert alone cost WCG $500,000! In the 1970s! In reality Ambassador Auditorium was a huge burden to bear, and it was only used to make HWA look more respectable in the eyes of the world leaders he wanted to impress. Now I know how PCG can embark on its ridiculous plan to construct the $15 million Armstrong Auditorium. He thinks it won't be burdensome! We will see how long he continues to think that. Is he not aware that projects of that sort almost always cost much more then expected? I am not impressed with his analytical skills in regards to how burdensome(less) Ambassador Auditorium was.

In Chapter Two he says Reagan endorsed HWA. He compares Tkach, Jr.'s apologies on HWA. In response SF says, 'President Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, said we should take pride in Herbert Armstrong's legacy. I'm going with President Reagan's endorsement.' But he was a member of the Disciples of Christ, a church that keeps Sunday, so (according to Armstrongite theology) he bears the Mark of the Beast! How can such a man endorse HWA? Would President Reagan have endorsed him if HWA said to him, 'You have the Mark of the Beast upon you!' a statement that would have been perfectly honest in Armstrongite theology? The truth is HWA presented one face to world leaders and another to his hapless and eternally abused flock. (Addition: Reagan's statements were made on the occasion of HWA's death. It was just a courtesy and therefore should not be used to promote Armstrongism as it is quite clear that Reagan never accepted Armstrongism in the slightest. Yet such facts do not stop PCG from deceitfully using that statement for their recruitment, such as in this ad here.)

Also I find it annoying how he speaks in Chapter One against calling conversion to Armstrongism spiritual rape. Only for an Armstrongite is that understandable. He gives no acknowledgment here to the fact that that expression is used by many former Armstrongites, not just Tkach. Maybe he will discover why it's called spiritual rape if he just read some XCOG web sites out there. Though perhaps I hope too much.

Anyway those are my thoughts from what I have read of that book. I am honestly surprised at the many times I was amazed by what was lacking in the book. I hope those looking for the truth will not be fooled by this book. May the Lord save those that PCG are trying to ensnare.

More on Raising the Ruins may be read here.