Gotta be honest, many of us were suspecting although not saying it loudly, that Mr. Armstrong might be a little bit of a sensationalist. A bit into getting his name out there. Although I want saints to be aware of pulpit pimps, it seems Mr. Armstrong is hurting the integrity of his own efforts.
If you recall in this previous post I included a mailing from Armstrong, where he said the following about being dumped from Streaming-no-faith.
…
Armstrong said that the conversation went well with both parties. Streaming Faith and Armstrong were able to make a mutual agreement: Since Streaming Faith is a religious based business and most of the ministries that are on Streaming Faith are defrauding and deceiving believers and non-believers, it would best that their business relationship ends. Armstrong wants to thank Streaming Faith for their support and understanding and all of his viewers that watched the show.
…
You would think he was thanking God he would be separated from the wolves.
Now he has gone from feeling the separation from Streaming-no-Faith was a good idea and mutual agreement, to filing a lawsuit. I just got a mailing from Armstrong which notes the following:
National Talk Show host Reuben Armstrong files multi million dollar law suit against Streaming Faith for Racial Discrimination and Breach of Contract
|
I can only say that I pray Armstrong reconsiders and takes the more saintly approach:
Matthew 5:43-48 (New King James Version)
|
If Reuben Armstrong had never said what he stated in his previous press release, I probably would have never made this post, or if I made this post it might be slightly more supportive of Armstrong. However, not only is Armstrong taking the road that is less saintly, his actions conflict with his own previous words.
I’m removing myself from his mailing list, so this will probably be my last post about Reuben Armstrong unless something changes.
I considered going to Armstrong in private about this and not making a post, but honestly since this is all playing out in public and there is really a play for book sales involved, I felt it best to speak openly. If you feel I’m wrong in my approach, please let me know. I never wanted to have to post this, but you need to know the truth and he’s been open about his actions, so I don’t feel bad commenting in the open about them.
Related post: Allegations of Non-Christian Leadership and Discrimination Against Christians at Streaming-no-faith (aka StreamingFaith.com)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
31 queries. 0.598 seconds
August 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I don’t believe that you’re wrong in your approach. He made his business public when he put it on youtube (can’t get more public than that). If he felt he was done wrong he should have said that in the beginning, but he didn’t. He made it sound like everything was ok and over with.
What does he mean he was discriminated against because of race? Just about every ministry on there is black. And what did he expect anyway? Doesn’t he know that the pimps that he talks about in his book are all on Streaming Faith? Did he actually believe that Streaming Faith would allow him to contradict the very people that support the site?
He now comes off as looking bitter and a liar considering his previous statements. This lawsuit makes it look like it’s about money, when it shouldn’t be. He should have left things the way they were and considered another way to get his message out. I believe he has visited your site before. It would be nice if he come back and explain what made him change his mind about the situation.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he DARE go to law before the UNRIGHTEOUS instead of the saints?
2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?
3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to THIS LIFE!
4 So if you have such cases, WHY DO YOU LAY THEM BEFORE THOSE WHO HAVE NO STANDING IN THE CHURCH ?
5 I say this to your SHAME. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers,
6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before UNBELIEVERS?
7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is ALREADY A DEFEAT FOR YOU. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! [fn1]
I have nothing else to add.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
In light of your post regarding the multi-million dollar lawsuit against streamingfaith.com by a former executive, I suspect Mr. Armstrong may have had a change of heart when he learned that streamingfaith.com is being run by folk who might not be Christians and that they may have wrongfully terminated/ousted Mr. Sampson. So, his decision to sue might not be a flip-flop per se.
I haven’t seen his lawsuit, but from the posting, it doesn’t seem like he is changing his position (i.e., mutual agreement to terminate the relationship) and wants back on streamingfaith.com. I think that Mr. Armstrong may have agreed to part ways with streamingfaith.com peacefully and amicably thinking he was resolving a conflict with Christian brothers and because he did not necessarily want to be affiliated with a broadcaster that streams the stuff he rails against. However, upon learning the facts outlined in Mr. Sampson’s suit, he may have checked with an attorney (and also allowed that attorney to hear the phone call Mr. Armstrong recorded of his conversation with the streamingfaith.com exec) to see whether or not he had a legitimate cause of action.
Furthermore, I would not be at all surprised if Mr. Armstrong received a call from the Sampson camp and that they shared some inside scoop and perhaps even “encouraged” him to pursue this to bolster their claim. I say this because the race card is being played in Mr. Armstrong’s cause of action as well as Mr. Sampson’s; and, nothing reinforces a discrimination claim like showing that there is a pattern or practice of discrimination involved.
That said, I am in agreement with you that even if he has a lawful cause of action here, to sue in this case does seem to be the “road less saintly”—given his earlier position. And, there is the publicity piece for the book and something else about Mr. Armstrong that isn’t quite right but I can’t seem to put my hands on it (maybe I’m still put off by the radio interview). While I wholeheartedly agree with his thesis regarding the pimps, I’m going to err on the side of caution and observe his work from the sideline but am not signing on as a cheerleader.
On another note, there is something else going on that concerns me–this business of Christendom. Here, it seems that some greedy business men/investors hooked-up with a Christian (I presume Mr. Sampson is Christian since he is alleging that the others are not) who had a good (i.e., lucrative) business idea, to stream “sermons” and that the investors pretended to be Christians in order to partner with Mr. Sampson so they could get in on this multi-billion dollar “Christian” market.
This sort of “Christian” co-opting isn’t new, see David Kuo’s book “Tempting Faith” on how right-wing conservatives have played evangelicals for suckers on the political front. Now, its happening on the business front.
I worked in the music business for a while, and once the greedy secular music biz execs saw that CCM and urban gospel was profitable, it was amazing to see how quickly many of them became “born-again”, learned Christianese and started Christian divisions and publishing companies. They have made an absolute mint selling so-called “Christian” music. In fact a high-ranking urban music exec at one of the big 4 labels told me last year that hip-hop profits were plummeting (thank God) and that the gospel divisions were the only group in the urban departments that were profitable and in the black.
Today, merchandising of “Christian” goods has sunk to an all time low and “Christian” industry is burgeoning. I thought the WWJD bracelets, key chains etc. 10 years ago were rather gauche, but the Jesus Rolex-clone watches, rims with crosses on them and dinnerware with religious symbols on it has taken it to a whole other low level. “Christianity” is now huge business and we have the pulpit pimps to thank.
The prosperity gospel has terribly seduced so-called Christians and they are so motivated by becoming rich that they ignore the fact that in business, the motives, objectives, strategies and tactics of Christians are in general diametrically opposed to that of non-Christians.
Prosperity pimps are telling sheeple that God wants them to have the wealth of the wicked and the sheeple have embraced this notion and ignore God’s warnings about going into business with non-believers (see 2 Corin 6:14 and Amos 3:3). So, greedy Christians are finding themselves in positions like Mr. Sampson’s, because they probably should not have been in these business relationships in the first place.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
GaryV - Given the statements in a lawsuit against Streaming-no-faith made by their former CEO Rodney Sampson, they may not claim to be saints at all. That’s the only reason I did not mention 1 Corinthians 6. Even still, filing a lawsuit after claiming things were smoothed over is not really a display of righteousness.
I’m wondering, how to you claim you’ve lost or deserve millions for being dumped by Streaming-no-faith? Don’t the people who broadcast there pay streaming-no-faith to webcast their programs? So it would seem Armstrong has not lost anything if they only charged him for the time they actually webcast his program.
Which leads me to suspect Armstrong is going to play off the book in the lawsuit. All he can claim in my opinion, unless other details come forward, is that he’s lost potential revenue. That would be potential revenue he expected he would receive from sales of the book and related fame and glory. If this is the case, you’ve got the guy who calls out the pimps fighting in court to maximize his take for exposing them. Which totally tarnishes the effort.
Armstrong said he taped the phone call. One can only wonder how it actually went. We don’t have the contract, we didn’t hear the call, but we know the guy filing the lawsuit previously said he thought it was best they part ways.
It really would have exposed Streaming-no-Faith as being bad businesspeople if Armstrong without filing a lawsuit, posted the portion of the contract noting the 90-day rule and called out Streaming-no-Faith while also exposing the pimps that broadcast there. Even if some legal issues prevented posting a portion of the contract, he could have stated it in a manner that would make the issue known and not expose the contract details.
It’s all just got me thinking, maybe it’s not all about “about getting SOULS SAVED” as he stated was the goal of his efforts back when they first dumped him.
I know lots of folks had concerns about Armstrong. I made sure to note that I really did not go along with some of his other work in my prior posts related to his latest efforts. Of course we know when ABC News exposes a pimp it’s got nothing to do with trying to be a saint for them. But given Armstrong claimed it’s about souls and their salvation he upped expectations. I just see statements being made and contradiction in his actions. Which is why I’ve decided to say openly there might not be any more posts made about him here. If the secular media does the work they’re being upfront with me that they have secular goals. But if I see a guy flip-flopping, I don’t know what I’m getting from him that can honestly be trusted.
And of course his open ended statements about God without ever noting salvation via the Lord Jesus has always been a matter I’ve remained mindful of and caused me to remain more watchful. He always sounded like a guy really out to simply sell books.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
IC, this whole escapade with Armstrong makes me beleive he is just as crooked and self-promotional as the pimps he claims to be “exposing”. So far I have little faith in his campaign is righteous. You did well to get off his mailing list and post this. Enough of him already.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
spark - The press release for Sampson’s claim notes that he is “African American”, however that press release never states that Streaming-no-faith discriminates based on race. It’s cleverly worded to toss out race bait without actually making claims of racism. I would not be surprised if MOST of the people streaming-no-faith works in webcasting contracts with are Black, so claiming racism at that level…gotta come with some solid proof to make that claim and Armstrong has that burden of providing proof on his shoulders now. (Of course Sampson’s at a different level, but he never actually claims there is racism.) But Armstrong is a guy who seems to be close with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson… Do I really need to say more?
Now you really are going to make the sheeple angry by claiming they should think and act differently
. They’re trying to compete against and defeat the big business tycoons 
.
As far as saints entering business with unsaved folks. I think we know most saints work regular jobs with unsaved people. I think your point was that when a saint starts a business that is actually an effort towards ministry we definitely and obviously should seek to work with other saints.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:05 am
I think I first heard of Mr. Armstrong after a link was left over at P-P.org. I visited the site, and like Spark, something about him did not sit well with me. I felt more uneasy about him, once I looked at his associations (proudly displayed photos), with the likes of the political pimps.
I surmise that he, indeed, has realized the false gospel that Eddie, Creflo, and the others teach; however, I believe that Mr. Armstrong, also, wants to fleece those who know it, as well. Couple this with the information you have provided here, and I smell something foul.
Not only would I think that he would want to disassociate himself with those in which he “exposes”; I would also think that, a truth of such magnitude would be presented free of charge. I understand the cost of such an undertaking, but I also, and to an even greater degree, understand that what the Lord wills, He will provide a way. He could very well upload this book to his website, as so many others have done. In light of all things, it would certainly make a more sincere statement of his true intent.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:47 am
The Bible does say that the law is for the lawless. So, with Reuben losing money by being booted, I believe him to be rightfully suing Streaming. He had to have known by calling out Cash Flow Dollar, Tricky Dexter, Fast Eddie, and Doe (money) O’Steen, that it was not exactly going to be favorable actions going on. I commend him on his reaction, however, I wish that he would have thoroughly thought this through before making a statement because he opens himself up for posts like this.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:10 am
1 Timothy 1 is speaking of Mosaic law and the need to adhere to sound doctrine. It was not about laws in a secular government.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Prisca said:
That’s a reflection of what we see in scripture. People freely giving the information related to the gospel. They sold and traded other things, but not the gospel. And if they needed financial support they took donations. Uploading a book online without charge and accepting donations if needed is a nice way to do it.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
IC, it says a lot about your integrity that you voiced your suspicions about Armstrong’s motives even though you tend to agree with his conclusions. Way too often we conveniently ignore things like that if someone is making our point for us, so to speak. That can come back to bite you later on… just ask CBS and Dan Rather about their source for the fake Bush National Guard documents!
Armstrong is obviously a shameless self-promoter who is using this as his gimmick to sell books and promote his “talk show”. I don’t see how his exaggerations and distortions aimed at promoting himself and selling books are any different than that which he is seeking to expose.
I’m on Armstrong’s mailing list, too, and he sent out several “press releases” saying he was ‘ATTACKED’ or ‘THREATENED’ (all caps his) but refuses to give even the slightest detail of the attack or threat (saying “Armstrong and his staff declined to go into details…) Those statements didn’t pass the giggle test, either. Anyone who would call someone a ‘pimptress’ in a press release would surely spill *all* the beans if he had actually been threatened or attacked.
I would suspect that both lawsuits are similar in that both suers (pun intended) are shameless self promoters trying to generate publicity.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
smiley said:
Yea. I would get those messages and wonder what was the point of saying anything if you’re refusing to offer the full details. It showed there was really a promotional effort in play.