|
4/19/75
Dear Mr. Hunting,
Thank you very much for your letter. Connie and I really appreciate you
thinking about us and taking the time to write us... Even though it has taken a
number of weeks to start this letter to you, I've thought about it nearly every day.
I've been jotting down notes to myself whenever I had a thought as to what to say to you,
or how to say it.
Connie and I began very intensive and serious study this past July or August
(1974). By the time the Feast came, we were reaching a number of conclusions.
A number of times since the Feast I've thought about talking with you.
(I'm not sure how many times you've been in Pasadena since then.)
I wanted to talk to you and I didn't want to talk with you; let me
explain. I felt closer to you than anyone else on the faculty. Connie and I
have always respected you (and Mrs. Hunting) very much. I was extremely pleased when
you said you would perform our marriage ceremony -- there was no one else we'd
rather have had do it. And, Mr. Hunting, next to my Dad and Mom, there is no one I
less wanted to disappoint than you. Yet, I knew that if we talked the questions I
would ask and the statements I'd make would probably upset and disappoint you. On
the other hand, in my enthusiasm and zeal, I really wanted to inform you of what I had
learned and concluded, and why -- the spiritual, emotional, and mental process we
have gone through. So, I'll try to give you a brief synopsis of the things we've
recently come to see, and how we came to see them.
Let me first say that my actions have been based solely on theology, and not
individual personalities, "rumors , real or imagined sins, etc., etc. You
mentioned looking at the fruits of those who've left the church. And I'll mention
this subject later, but the fruits of either those in or out of the church did not
influence my conclusions. Over a year ago I became aware of some of the
"personal problems" or sins of certain individuals high up in the Worldwide
Church of God, and yet clear through last July (1974) I would firmly and emphatically
defend the Worldwide Church of God and its leadership, though I was aware of certain
"problems." Anyway, please don’t think we found out about a sin,
heard a rumor, believed a slanderous tale, etc., and this caused us to leave Ambassador
College, because that just isn't true.
The first time I can remember having a question was in November, 1972. At
a Bible Study, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong announced changes in the tithing doctrine --
Ambassador College and Worldwide Church of God employees no longer had to pay third tithe,
and ministers had to pay second tithe. What alarmed me was that he didn't quote one
scripture or explain, biblically, the reasons we had been wrong and why we were
changing. He only referenced certain budgetary reasons such as insufficient excess
2nd Tithe, etc. Something I had been taught as being truth from His Word which
wasn't to be taken lightly, was casually changed without so much as a verse being
read. Interestingly, a couple of months later the decision regarding 2nd Tithe being
paid by ministers was quietly reversed because of a deluge of complaints from the
ministry. I only pondered this event for a short time, then dismissed it, but it did
make a small impression I would recall later.
The next time I can recall having certain questions and doubts was almost one
year later, right after the Feast in 1973. The Pentecost question was a large issue
among some at that time. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong was speaking at services, strongly
defending a Monday Pentecost, when he said that the day on which Pentecost was to be kept
was not a decision for us to consider or make, but "it is the church's
responsibility." Of course, he meant the church hierarchy and, more
specifically, himself. I immediately thought, the members are the church. The
church is not a building, and neither is it the top ministers, nor is it Mr. Herbert W.
Armstrong -- it is all of us. So here was an issue we were being told
didn't concern us -- we should simply do it the way "the church" (Mr.
Herbert W. Armstrong) told us. We were told God will not judge us on this matter,
but that those who make the decision are responsible. The simple inference was,
don't look into it, because if you reach a different conclusion than "the
church", you still must do as "the church" says.
Mr. Hunting, Jesus Christ worked awfully hard to remove the need for a physical
priesthood; the "veil was rent," and so each Christian has direct access to
God. But the approach I've related in the above paragraph re-invents the priesthood
and inserts it between God and the Christian.
Both Paul and Herbert W. Armstrong have said "Follow me as I follow
Christ," or in other words "as I follow the Bible." Yet these words
are rendered empty and meaningless when we are told we must leave certain decisions up to
"the church," and that if we don't think a decision constitutes "following
Christ," we must abide by it anyway, since "it is 'the church's'
responsibility."
These statements regarding Pentecost I also dismissed after a short while;
although they, too, made a lasting impression.
Next in my recollection was "the split" which occurred in February
and March of 1974. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s letter to all the members, dated
Feb. 25, 1974, contained a number of statements which bothered me.
On page two of this letter, he accused the dissenting ministers of one overall
thing -- greedily trying to get the tithes into their own pockets. I knew
this accusation wasn't true. These ministers were willing to give up their job
security, salaries, fleet cars, and in some cases their church-owned homes because of
their firm convictions and their unwillingness to compromise with God's Word as they saw
it. I'm not discussing at this point the truth or error of what they believed, but
simply the point that they didn't have greed and theft in their hearts. (Perhaps one
or two out of 40 or 50 were guilty; but Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong said this was the primary
motivation for all the dissidents.) Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s accusation was a
serious one, and he told 50,000+ people. I, of course, assume he honestly felt the
accusation to be a correct one. I have never heard him publicly before the
membership apologize for making the accusation. It is interesting that the very next
sentence in his letter said that the "one who accuses ... is always guilty
of the very thing of which he falsely accuses another."
On page 4 Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong explains why he "did not state the
specific details of the personal, emotional problems" of Garner Ted Armstrong which
led to his 1972 "leave of absence." He said he was afraid that the
specifics would "SEND THOUSANDS OF BABES IN CHRIST TO A LAKE OF FIRE." Mr.
Hunting, this attitude is a large part of what is wrong with the Worldwide Church of
God. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong (and, I think, much of the ministry) looks at the
members as poor, dumb sheep; innocent, helpless, babes who must be sheltered, spoon-fed,
kept in the dark, told nothing, never consulted, and guarded strictly lest they fall
helplessly away or are defenselessly led astray. This is the way the Catholic Church
looked at and treated its laity during the Dark Ages. Though perhaps the motive is
good, this modus operandi keeps the masses ignorant and blinded. What happened to
God's Holy Spirit? Many of these "babes" are spiritually mature adults,
and they should all be begotten with God's "Spirit of power, and of love, and of a
sound mind." When people are treated like children and animals (sheep), they
will act the part, and their minds and God's Spirit will be stifled and smothered.
Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong said on that same page, "The number of lives I might destroy
forever ... might be as many as ten thousand." As long as the Worldwide Church
of God ministry looks at the members as a gullible, vulnerable mass of people, the members
won't learn to stand on their own two Christian feet, and use the Holy Spirit to grow and
mature spiritually.
Before an individual becomes a member of the Worldwide Church of God, he is
encouraged "to prove all things, hold fast that which is true." The
ministry tells him, "Don't believe what we say -- check it out."
"If we teach contrary to God's Word, do not follow us." Etc.
Unfortunately, the opposite process begins once one is in the Worldwide Church of
God. The member is told that "Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is closer to God and has
more of His Holy Spirit than anyone else, which is the reason he is the leader of the
Church" or "Since Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is the leader of God's Church, he
must be closer to God and have more of His Holy Spirit than anyone else."
Therefore his opinions (re: scriptural or non-scriptural matters) are more godly than
anyone else's can be, so to do as he says must be the course of action which most pleases
God. This type of circular reasoning is taught to the members, and is applied to a
lesser degree to Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong, then the evangelists, then the pastors, then
the preaching elders, etc., etc. By the time you get to the lowly lay member, his
opinion is worthless, when compared with the hundreds of those who must be closer to God
since they have higher positions, or who have higher positions since they are closer to
God.
In this way the member is stripped of any confidence in himself or God's Spirit
in him. He places Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the rest of the ministry in the
position of defining what he must believe -- in place of Jesus Christ and the
Bible. The ministry carefully shows the lay members how to prove the beliefs of the
Worldwide Church of God from the Bible. The member thinks his belief is firmly
grounded in the Bible, but for him to prove it he must rely heavily on the proof-texts and
the explanations he has been given. I don't necessarily mean all these beliefs or
explanations are incorrect, but the member is being groomed into a spiritually dependent
person, and his primary dependency isn't on Christ or the Holy Spirit, but on Mr. Herbert
W. Armstrong and the ministry of the Worldwide Church of God.
Our most precious, God-given possession at birth is our mind -- our
ability to think independently, to question, to learn. Couple this with the Holy Spirit
and we have the most fantastic tool known to man -- a mind begotten with God's
Spirit. The approach of the Worldwide Church of God indicates that the lay member
needs the Holy Spirit only to help him overcome "personal problems" and help him
accept that which the ministry tells him the Bible says. The Holy Spirit isn't
simply to help us agree with the way the Worldwide Church of God explains it. In
this way, the "weak of the world" are being made weaker. It doesn't take a
spiritually strong person to merely accept exactly what the Worldwide Church of God
teaches and to obey it strictly. But it does require strength of character and
spirit to question, research, prove, and then abide by your convictions, regardless of
what the Worldwide Church of God or anyone else says.
In this way I think the members of the Worldwide Church of God are not being
helped. They know what they believe and how to "prove" it. If there
is a doctrinal change they are then taught what new thing they should believe and how to
"prove" it. But they are not encouraged to draw conclusions on their own,
to research through many "worldly" commentaries written by
"unconverted" men, to discuss with many the various options. I do not
think it can be said that the members of the Worldwide Church of God are allowed, let
alone encouraged, without fear of reprisal, to approach with intellectual freedom and
honesty and candor any scriptural issue on which Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the
"church" have ruled. And: of course they would be forbidden from remaining
"in the Church" if, based upon the results of their study and convictions, their
actions were contrary to the official Worldwide Church of God teachings.
So in these ways and others, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s letter of Feb. 25,
1974, to the membership, was very disturbing to Connie and me.
Continuing the chronological chain of events, David L. Antion, Albert J.
Portune, and many other ministers resigned or were fired, and some 3,000 members quit
attending. I was curious as to the reasons these men were quitting, but I did little
investigation -- I felt this was God's One True Church and He would take care of
the situation. I felt I should obediently follow Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong (although I
didn't totally agree with his tactics).
It was in April, 1974, that Connie and I found out that her parents in Missouri
were about to leave the Worldwide Church of God. By phone and letter we immediately
encouraged them to stay in the True Church, even though it wasn't perfect. We
sincerely felt they'd be making a serious mistake to leave, and if they had left at that
time, we would have flown out to discuss it with them.
Next came the May Ministerial Conference. Since I received "The
Bulletin," I was allowed to attend all the "plenary sessions," although I
attended none of the "workshops." I was very impressed and encouraged that
Armstrong seemed to be sincerely willing to examine any doctrine.
But Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong still took what seemed to me a less than candid
approach. He called our Divorce & Remarriage change "new light,"
"new truth" which God has (finally) shown us. In other words, he subtly
blamed our doctrinal error on God. He never once admitted that he had simply been
wrong. He never apologized to all the people whose lives and marriages he had
ruined. He gave God all the credit for wrecking and destroying thousands of
families.
In Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s May 14, 1974 letter to all the brethren he
said on page 10, "A strong and firm family structure is a basic building block of any
happy and stable society. " And yet for years we've been destroying thousands
of these "building blocks" of society. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong still
claims he has never made a major mistake in his guiding of this church, yet I can scarcely
think of a more serious and damaging theological blunder as far as the physical, day to
day lives of people are concerned.
Continuing in the May 14 letter (page 11): "No matter how much anguish is
caused, God's Church cannot depart from God's Laws or His Truth." In other
words, the Worldwide Church of God can't depart from its interpretation of what God says
on the matter.
Another quote from the same letter: "Brethren, this very experience (the
Divorce & Remarriage change) ought to teach all that loyalty to God and to His Church
must always be placed first, over supposed or real wrongs or personal
grievances." Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is saying loyalty to the Worldwide Church
of God must be placed above loyalty to God's Word! He's saying that it was right for
us to obey the Worldwide Church of God's unbiblical and anti-scriptural teaching on
Divorce & Remarriage all these years, because this is what he terms "loyalty to
God's Church." And he says this loyalty must "always be placed first, over
supposed or real wrongs or personal grievances." In other words, loyalty to the
dictates of an organization must be placed first over what the Bible really teaches (on
the subject of Divorce & Remarriage, for instance) if you personally come to see the
Bible and the Worldwide Church of God do not agree. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong goes on
to say (page 11), "God has given those of us who are loyal to Him and His Word the
relief we relied on Him to give us." In actual fact, the "relief" has
been there for 2,000 years, but it has taken the Worldwide Church of God this long to
discover and accept it. And those who were "loyal to Him and His Word" on
the subject of Divorce & Remarriage needed no relief since they refused to ever submit
to the Worldwide Church of God's incorrect teaching in the first place. Yet Mr.
Herbert W. Armstrong would consider those who ten years ago refused to obey the Worldwide
Church of God's teachings on Divorce & Remarriage, Pentecost, etc. to be disloyal,
even though they were being loyal to what God said in His Word.
Another quote, same letter (page 11): "I want all of you to know how happy
we are for the answer given by God Himself." Again, this makes it sound like
God has been responsible for our wrong teaching, and that now God has decided to clear up
the matter (which must make people wonder why it took God so long). Mr. Hunting, the
truth is that Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and everyone else who taught, supported, and
accepted (myself included) the disgraceful practice of breaking up marriages is
responsible - but one Being isn't responsible -- God. He had nothing to do
with the Worldwide Church of God being in error all these years in the matter of Divorce
& Remarriage. It is a giant cop-out to claim the only way out of the doctrinal
nightmare called Divorce & Remarriage was for God to provide "the relief we
relied on Him to give us."
Then Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong tells how much he and the other ministers
appreciate "the faithfulness of those of you who have endured this anguish in order
to be obedient to our God." Actually, they were obedient to Mr. Herbert W.
Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God rather than God every time they submitted to a
Worldwide Church of God command to break up a happy home. Anytime we obey men rather
than God, He is not pleased, regardless of the sincerity of the individuals
involved. Mr. Hunting, is it ever right to obey Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong rather than
the Eternal? Yet Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong commends the brethren for doing exactly
that, and then labels it faith in and obedience to God. Finally, Mr. Herbert W.
Armstrong says, "Loyalty and faithfulness always pays." And whether he
realizes it or not, he is saying that "loyalty and faithfulness" to himself
rather than to God (if they differ) "always pays." Why? Mr. Herbert
W. Armstrong feels if he is wrong it is God's fault, and God is responsible to provide
"the relief" through "new light," "new truth",
"revelation," etc.
I am not questioning the sincerity or dedication of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong or
anyone else. But back at the time of that Conference, what Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong
was saying and writing was not providing me with the reassurance that God agreed with his
approach or attitude.
So all of the things I've been relating to you finally led to perhaps the most
important question and a very pivotal issue for any member of the Worldwide Church of
God: Is the Worldwide Church of God the True Church? Is it the only True
Church? Are True Christians only found in the Worldwide Church of God?
I had not looked into the doctrinal issues facing the Worldwide Church of
God. I had not consulted with or read any literature from any of the
"dissidents." I felt this would be disloyal to Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong
and God's True Church. If the Worldwide Church of God was the only true church,
where else was there to go? Why go elsewhere anyway? And since God was totally
in charge of the Worldwide Church of God, wouldn't He take care of everything in time and
in His own way? And wasn't it showing both a lack of faith and insubordination to
question the way the Worldwide Church of God handled things and the way Mr. Herbert W.
Armstrong directed things since that would be identical to questioning God?
But would God be upset at me for studying extensively into both sides of the
doctrinal questions? Would God really be upset if I dared to read some of Dr.
Martin's literature? Many in the Worldwide Church of God said we shouldn't even open
a piece of literature written by a "dissident."
When I first began attending the Radio Church of God, I was told this was the
true church because we did and taught exactly what the Bible said. Recently the
Worldwide Church of God has said we're the true church because we change our teachings
when they are wrong.
By July of 1974 the Worldwide Church of God had changed two of its teachings in
a short period of time. It was obvious the Worldwide Church of God didn't have the
Bible 100% correctly understood. Since there had been errors in the past, there
certainly would be errors in the future, so of course, it couldn't be said the Worldwide
Church of God was the true church "because we have 100% accurate
teachings." So what is it that would make the Worldwide Church of God the only
true church? Is there a certain percentage of correct doctrines necessary?
99%? 90%? 80%? Are there certain key doctrines which must be understood
correctly, whereas others are not as important?
I could more easily explain my conclusion and the reasons for it in person, but
it became clear to me that there is no such thing as one True Church the way the Worldwide
Church of God believes there is -- in other words there is not one true
organization. The Worldwide Church of God is not the True Church of God.
The one true Church of God certainly does exist, but it has no organizational
boundaries. The definition of a Christian, one who is a part of the body of Christ,
a member of the Church of God is one who has God's Holy Spirit in him (Rom. 8:9).
The same question with regard to an individual arose in my mind --
must an individual understand a certain percentage of doctrines correctly in order to be a
Christian (in order to comprise a part of the true Church of God)? 90%? 80%?
Mr. Hunting, God looks on the heart and the attitude of an individual, not on
how much they understand. We cannot draw lines and say a person must agree with a
certain view of a certain number of doctrines, or he cannot receive the Spirit of
God. People who are illiterate, elderly, blind, deaf, and/or low IQ, etc., can all
become Christians. They may understand very few of the Bible's doctrines, but if God
finds a receptive heart and attitude, God can give His Holy Spirit and so add another
member to the true Church of God.
I concluded the Worldwide Church of God has no corner on truth or
Christians. I feel most in the Worldwide Church of God are in the "True
Church," but the Worldwide Church of God isn't that "True Church."
Neither is any other organization on earth, although many of them also have members of the
"True Church" in their organization. The Body of Christ transcends
man-made organizational boundaries (such as the Worldwide Church of God) and comprises all
whom God has chosen to receive His Spirit.
Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong feels the Worldwide Church of God is the only True
Church. He feels he is an apostle -- God's one direct representative on
this earth. But after coming to grips with the "One True Church" issue, I
could no longer agree with Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong on these matters. I came to
realize that simply taking the word of Mr. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God would
displease God. I would be placing them above Him and His Word as the primary molders
of my beliefs.
Chronologically, I arrived at these conclusions in early August, 1974. It
was at this same time that Connie, 3-week-old Teddy, and I took a two-week vacation to
Seattle to visit Chuck and Carol. Chuck and Carol had, completely independent of
Connie and I, arrived at these same conclusions, and they had already begun studying all
sides of the issues. It was at Chuck's home that we first read some of Dr.
Martin’s literature and listened to his tapes. Many members in Seattle received
Dr. Martin's materials, so Chuck originally sent for it so he could study it, then
disprove Dr. Martin's teachings to any who raised questions regarding these
subjects. However, upon careful analysis, Chuck and Carol were surprised to discover
that much of what Dr. Martin said indeed appeared correct, and so they began to study more
and more.
I was very skeptical when Chuck declared that Dr. Martin was right on a number
of issues where he differed with the Worldwide Church of God, but I knew then I'd really
have to confront these issues.
When we returned from the Northwest, I visited Dr. Martin's Foundation for
Biblical Research. I discussed a few things with him, then took copies of his
writings and tapes. I studied what he had to say on a subject, what the Worldwide
Church of God had to say, what the Associated Churches said. The subjects we
researched were: Church government, old and new covenant, Sabbath, Holy Days, tithing,
healing, law and grace, etc, etc, as well as a number of areas of prophecy.
I will not even begin to try to relate my conclusions in these various
doctrinal areas. But by the Feast, 1974, we knew it would be our last with the
Worldwide Church of God -- the doctrinal gap between them and us was growing with
virtually every subject we looked into.
As soon as we returned to Pasadena following the Feast, I began looking for
another job. It was about this same time that Chuck and Carol, and Connie's folks
quit attending the Worldwide Church of God. Virtually independent of them, we were
nevertheless reaching very similar conclusions.
I perhaps reached the depth of my disappointment with the Worldwide Church of
God when I read a statement written by Mr. Armstrong appearing on page 631 of the December
3, 1974, Bulletin. It's implications are horrendous. He said,
"Christ has BOUND in heaven what His Church, even in unrealized error, has bound in
earth." The statement hit me like a lightning bolt. I am enclosing with
this letter a copy of my contribution to the "Open Forum" of the
"Bulletin." In it I explain why I feel nothing can be further from the
truth than the above statement by Mr. Armstrong. Needless to say, the Bulletin
would not print my opinion in the Open (?) Forum. Bob Kuhn refused it because it was
"too inflammatory."
The Worldwide Church of God cannot afford to openly present both sides of the
story, cannot allow its members to read the opinions of those who disagree with Mr.
Herbert W. Armstrong and the official stand of "the church." In the
ministerial meeting of March 4, 1974, Garner Ted Armstrong said he was just trying to hold
it together. He and Mr. Armstrong treat the effect and not the cause of the
Worldwide Church of God's problems. This is why disfellowshipment is such a bandy
tool for them. New, unapproved, "heretical" ideas and opinions can be
stopped by kicking the trouble-maker out of "the church" and then forbidding
anyone in "the church" from talking with him.
When it comes to controlling both the actions and minds of people, the
Worldwide Church of God has a lot in common with the Catholic Church of the Dark and
Middle Ages. That church used excommunication to rid itself of
"heretics." (They used even stronger tactics in the Spanish
Inquisition.) Galileo believed and was trying to disseminate facts regarding the
earth and the universe. "The church" threatened him with excommunication
if he would not recant. Rather than allow people to examine the facts and judge for
themselves, the pope felt he had to protect the "babes" of the church from
deception, and so shut-up Galileo. He may have even claimed Galileo was "in the
bonds of Satan" and greedily trying to get a following so he could get their tithes.
The Catholic Church had such absolute control over Europe for over 1000 years
that it was largely responsible for the Dark Ages. It was the "free
spirits" and rebels against the church who got the world back on the track of
progress. There was no dirth of sin during the Dark Ages, but there was complete
stagnation in the areas of learning, knowledge, invention -- the only progress
was backwards. I feel the members of the Worldwide Church of God are in their own
Dark Age. I'm sure that not everything Galileo believed was accurate, but he should
have been able to express his ideas for public evaluation. I definitely do not agree
with everything Dr. Martin teaches, but I thank God that at last he can express what he
believes and why without fear of reprisal. And I'm equally thankful that I can feel
free to study and evaluate for myself what he and everyone else says -- then I
can decide and act accordingly.
God does not today have any organization of men ordained to tell others what
the Bible says and what God wants them to do. The Worldwide Church of God is
inaccurate in many of its teachings -- so I know it isn't commissioned to enforce
beliefs on others.
Wherever: there are thinking, questioning, probing, seeking inquisitive
curious, independent, intelligent, free people, there will be differences of opinion and
interpretation, and I don't mean only regarding obscure, relatively unimportant scriptures
dealing with seven thunders or why eagles gather around carcasses. God intended this
-- He gave each of us individual minds and He gave us His Word which in parts is
anything but perfectly clear. God is concerned with our heart and our attitude, and
not with our ability to, like programmed computers, all profess the same point of view on
a specified number of doctrines. Individuals can differ significantly in both their
beliefs regarding and their application of the scriptures, and yet all be brothers in
Christ and members of His Body
But whenever someone who used to be a loyal supporter and member of the
Worldwide Church of God begins to believe and teach something different, Mr. Herbert W.
Armstrong declares them to be "in the bonds of Satan." In his letter of
February 25, 1974, he makes such statements as: "These deceived ministers (are)
allowing Satan to use them," "Satan is the real author," "these
Deceived men (are) now allowing Satan to turn them the wrong way," "this thing
is of SATAN." It is one thing for Mr. Armstrong to disagree with them, but when
he dogmatically declares them to be agents of Satan he is making a serious
accusation. And when I began to see that many of the things these "deceived
ministers" were saying were true, and that many of the actions they were taking were
the only courses they could follow and still be loyal to God, I began to recall Matt. 12
wherein the Pharisees accused Jesus of acting "by Beelzebub the prince of the
devils," although Jesus said His actions were "by the Spirit of God."
If God through His Holy Spirit is motivating and guiding certain individuals, He will not
look lightly on accusers who claim the Spirit-led individuals are actually motivated by
and in the bonds of Satan (see verses 31 and 32).
I would like to quote from The General Catalog of Ambassador College
--1973-74:
The entire curriculum in religion and theology is
designed from a fresh viewpoint and approach...
(The student is) under continual caution to lay all preconceived ideas and religious bias
on the shelf... All difficult verses are studied not only in relation to other
Scriptures, but also in connection with Hebrew and Greek texts, historical and
archaeological facts, expositions of commentaries and recognized authorities, and the
processes of careful study and specialized research. Students are taught to approach
the Bible with open-mindedness and with due respect for the results of past research, but
accepting only that which is proved true, regardless of previously accepted or universally
approved theories or doctrines. Nothing is accepted unless proved, and every student
is emphatically encouraged to think for himself in the realization that his salvation is a
personal matter between him and God.
Mr. Hunting, the above quote is a misrepresentation of the facts. As students
we were not encouraged to think for ourselves. Careful re-evaluation of one's
thought system and the admonition "to lay all preconceived ideas and religious bias
on the shelf" were urged if one had other than a Worldwide Church of God
upbringing. However, once one accepted the Worldwide Church of God theology, all
serious, and especially vocal, re-evaluation was expected to cease. One is then
expected to proxy all "important" re-evaluation to Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and,
perhaps, Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong. Dr. Hoeh and others have often made the
statement, "We shouldn't try to cross the Red Sea before 'God's Apostle'," --
meaning that, just as the Red Sea wouldn't open up for anyone except Moses and only Moses
knew the proper time and method for crossing it, understanding in "important"
doctrinal areas will not open up until Mr. Armstrong puts his mind to it and decides the
matter. As one faculty member expressed it, "I've just had to come to accept
the fact that we can never grow any faster than the two men at the top."
The selection I quoted from the college catalog is an example of the artfully
developed technique used by the Worldwide Church of God and Ambassador College to
advertise their indoctrination as "education." I realize this is a strong
statement, Mr. Hunting, but were we ever encouraged to challenge and question the
doctrines of the Worldwide Church of God? Back when I was in Ambassador College,
suppose that during an Old Testament Survey class a student had seriously questioned the
reasoning behind a "Monday Pentecost." Would such inquisitiveness and
open-minded re-evaluation have been welcomed? Would the student have been encouraged
to continue researching until he satisfied himself with a logical, proven
conclusion? Suppose during an Epistles class a student had expressed disagreement
with the instructor's explanation of Gal. 4:10? Suppose the student felt this
indicated that Paul was opposed to the Galatians observing the Holy Days, and that they
were not to be kept by the Christian today? Would the instructor have applauded this
student's intellectual curiosity? Would the instructor have encouraged the student
to conduct "careful study and specialized research," including the
"expositions of commentaries and recognized authorities"? Would the
student have been warned to put no more emphasis on what the Worldwide Church of God says
than other theologians, but rather to prove it for himself? And would he have been
allowed to present to the class his research and his conclusions, regardless of the
outcome of his study?
We know what would have happened if a student would have been so daring and
bold as to have asked such questions. There would have been gasps of horror in the
classroom. The instructor might have taken the time to repeat the Worldwide Church
of God's official explanation of the question. If the student seemed unwavering in
his point of view, he would have been "called in, counseled," told not to
question "God's Apostle," told God is in charge, told this is the only true
church, he must repent and change his attitude, "the doors swing both way,"
asked if he was really converted, told he was disloyal and would never make it into the
field, etc., etc. The college catalog's glowing description of intellectual freedom
and honesty as an exemplary specimen of higher education is very different than the
real-life approach taken by Ambassador College and the Worldwide Church of God towards
those who question and disagree with official church dogma.
Probably no college instructor at Ambassador College has ever had to face such
a situation, because it is doubtful whether any truly inquisitive, questioning,
open-minded individuals still actively possess these traits by their third year of
college. Almost everything about Ambassador College teaches one to accept what he is
taught without question. Unquestioning acceptance and unfailing obedience prove ones
loyalty to "God’s Church." Ambassador College is not a 'liberal arts
college"; it isn't an "educational institution." At most Ambassador
College is a theological seminary where a person can go to learn what the Worldwide Church
of God denomination believes and how to instruct others in those beliefs. I vividly
remember attending, in my freshman year, Pasadena Bible Studies conducted by Mr. Herbert
W. Armstrong. He was always getting upset at people who sent up questions during the
Bible Study. If any question expressed even slight disagreement with him, what he
had said, a belief of the Worldwide Church of God, etc., Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong became
very irate. He would scold the questioner for "his attitude," his lack of
respect, disloyalty, and so on. Mr. Hunting, I'm not exaggerating. He made it
quite clear he does not want to be questioned. He was very defensive and constantly
felt the questions to be a challenge to his authority. He made it clear to all of us
that he was responsible to no one but God (and the more people who believed that, the more
powerful he became). At first it bothered me when he responded so defensively and
antagonistically to the honest, open questions sent up by people in the audience.
However, as the months went by and I attended many Friday night sessions conducted by Mr.
Herbert W. Armstrong, I began to look at it the way he did. When he chewed someone
out because they asked a certain question, I agreed with his appraisal of their
"wrong attitude." Slowly my outlook was being warped until I concurred
with his belief that no one had the right to seriously challenge or question him or the
Worldwide Church of God.
The above is only one example of the Worldwide Church of God intolerance of
beliefs contrary to theirs, or even of those who merely have questions about the church's
doctrines. Being a student at Ambassador College, and to a lesser extent a lay
member in the Worldwide Church of God, is to experience a type of brainwashing. The
indoctrination results in a form of mental castration; theologically the individual will
not or cannot think for himself. He will blindly accept, believe, and obey whatever
Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong says. He will loyally support and uphold the Worldwide
Church of God's castigation of those who question, doubt, or criticize.
Primarily theologically, and oftentimes in many other facets of life, the
Worldwide Church of God has turned thinking, reflective, inquisitive, analytical, seeking,
free people into a dependent, unconfident, gullible, easily led and manipulated
group. Obviously there are a wide range of degrees of how individuals were before
entering the Worldwide Church of God and how they are ending up, but I feel the above
trend represents the vast majority of cases. II Cor. 10:5 does not say,
"bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong
and the Worldwide Church of God."
Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has done what he has accused so many other churches of
doing -- taking one small Biblical point, and making it the central point of a
religion. Mr. Armstrong claims there's only one reason we've been called today --
to get the gospel of the Kingdom to the world as a witness. This extremely limited
and incomplete interpretation of the real meaning, intent, and fullness of the gospel is
crippling when it comes to understanding the New Testament and what real Christianity is
all about. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has often said, "Jesus Christ is not the
gospel." Well, He most certainly is! Christ is the good
news. Paul in I Cor. 15:1-4 sums up the gospel as: "Christ died for our
sins... He was buried He rose again the third day." Rom. 1:16 says the
gospel is "the power of God unto salvation."
I've read Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s booklet, What is the True Gospel.
He only quotes five or six of the New Testament scriptures which mention
"gospel." Three or four of the quotes serve as his "proof-texts"
-- and he proceeds to draw dogmatic conclusions, ignoring both the immediate
context and the rest of the New Testament. If he'd examine the other 95 places where
"gospel" is mentioned, the meaning would be quite clear, although very
different. This booklet is typical of the research and "open-mindedness"
which has gone into most Worldwide Church of God publications and conclusions. Mr.
Herbert W. Armstrong’s concept of the gospel is similar to the blind man who got hold
of the elephant's tail and quickly concluded that an elephant resembled a piece of rope.
So, instead of spreading the real gospel, Mr. Armstrong is delivering his
gospel message to political figures and dignitaries around the world. It is also
interesting to examine the scriptural support for these activities. In the October,
1956, Plain Truth, page 22, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong said, "The popular
churches of Christendom nearly all take active, vigorous part in the world's affairs and
its politics... They are part and parcel of THIS WORLD, and they serve only THE GOD
OF THIS WORLD, Satan the Devil. They are deceived. They do not even know they
are doing wrong -- they ARE DECEIVED."
Although God has personally given Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong no commission, he
nevertheless feels that virtually every commission God has ever given is his. Mr.
Herbert W. Armstrong either thinks he is, or is to do the job given to: Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, the "watchman," the "inkhorn," the one who "cries aloud
and spares not," Elijah to come, a type of John the Baptist, either Joshua or
Zerubbabel, one of the two witnesses, an apostle, a "messenger" one who
"prepares the way," Hosea, Malachi, Moses (anyone who disdains Mr. Herbert W.
Armstrong’s authority or position is immediately compared to Korah), Daniel, Joel,
Amos, etc., etc., etc. And, of course, he primarily feels he is to fulfill Matt.
24:14 -- see Rev. 14:6 for the most likely individual to take care of that
job. When I examined Mr. Armstrong’s "United States and British
Commonwealth in Prophecy" belief and found it to be not only scripturally and
historically unprovable, but untrue, I realized that virtually my entire concept of Bible
prophecy was built on sand; not necessarily the what, but certainly the where, when, and
to whom.
Mr. Rodrick C. Meredith said that Dr. C. Paul Meredith had "always been a
student, and he took careful notes on Mr. Armstrong's prophetic sermons. As time
went on, he compared these notes to the events that were taking place -- and to
what other preachers had said -- and soon came to realize that Mr. (Herbert W.)
Armstrong was the only one who actually knew what was going to happen BEFORE it
happened." (The Inside Story of The World Tomorrow Broadcast, p.
12) "This is the ONLY Work on earth that really understands ... the specific
meaning of present-day world events, and the exact time schedule of prophecy!"
(Ibid, p. 17)
To see how inspired and Godly this supposed "understanding" has been,
I would like to quote from just a few of the writings of Mr. Armstrong and others in the
Worldwide Church of God.
I would first like to refer to one of the original issues of the Plain
Truth, June, 1934. On page 3 Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has drawn a chronological
chart of "end-time events." In this chart the "tribulation" is
diagrammed as ending in 1936. 1936 is also labeled "End of Age."
Immediately thereafter are the "heavenly signs" and then the "Day of the
Lord." Now to quote Mr. Armstrong in the May/June, 1941 issue of the Plain
Truth:
Since the last issue many things have occurred, every one
in accordance with prophecy!... War events thunder on, rapidly approaching the
prophesied climax!... Hitler now emerges as the "BEAST" of
Revelation! Bible prophecy shows the Roman Axis forces will take Egypt, Suez,
Palestine, -- even Gibraltar. Britain will go down. And, unless we
turn as a nation to God our beloved United States will have to go under... We lack
space for more detailed comment on specific prophesied events in this number.
Without (a spiritual turnaround) we (USA) lack TOTAL Defense, without which we shall never
win. We are at the END of the present order. ARMAGEDDON is now just a short
way off.
Now to quote Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, September/October, 1941 issue of the Plain
Truth, page 7:
What does Hitler's invasion of Russia mean? What
does BIBLE PROPHECY say about it? As usual, there are many ideas. So FEW, it
seems, have a right understanding of the Bible and its prophecies. [You can say that
again!] Plain Truth readers know world events, before they occur....
Hitler MUST BE THE VICTOR in his present Russian invasion! A settlement will be
reached, giving Hitler the supplies and resources he must have and undoubtedly part of
Western Siberia. The terms will give Hitler assurance that the Red army is unable to
attack him, as Hitler turns his wrecking machine to the British Isles, the United States,
and Palestine. Hitler will emerge from this Russian campaign stronger than ever,
free to turn the entire might of his forces against Britain -- and AMERICA!
Plain Truth, May, 1950, page 5, Herbert W. Armstrong:
Most certainly it is easily possible the thing (US of
Europe) will be fully developed and ready to strike in seven years! Yes, time is
running out on us... One third of our people will die from starvation ... and in the
next FEW YEARS!
Plain Truth, Aug., 1952, page 10, Herbert W. Armstrong:
Thus it has been proved conclusively and beyond doubt, that
Hitler did not die -- his body was not there -- HE HAD ESCAPED!...
The next Pope will be a professed miracle worker, as supposed proof that God is using him
to order and pacify the world!
Plain Truth, April, 1956, pages 3, 23, 24, Herman L. Hoeh:
PLAGUES are coming --and, according to this
prophetic warning, in about two years from now. ... For seven long and frightful
years we are going to suffer as never before -- until we are left few in
number!
We have about reached our population peak, despite the guesses of our political
and industrial planners. In another ten years for fear of Communist terrorism it
won't be safe to live in Asia or in Africa.... This most important Work will in all
probability be completed in 1972: The coming Fascist-religious revival of Europe will
conquer us within a prophetically indicated 17 years!
1975 in Prophecy! 1956, pages 10, 12, 20, Herbert W. Armstrong:
Indications of prophecy are that this drought ... will strike
sooner than 1975 -- probably between 1965 and 1972! At the outset of
article I stated that the KEYS that had kept prophetic doors locked and closed from human
understanding have now been found -- or, more properly, been given to us by
God... Yes, millions of lukewarm inactive professing Christians will suffer
MARTYRDOM -- and that before the anticipated push-button leisure-year of 1975
dawns upon us!
Plain Truth, August, 1957, page 5, Rodrick C. Meredith:
We will soon find that hoof-and-mouth disease will spread
COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL! These things are not far off. They are here and
NOW! DISEASE EPIDEMICS are prophesied to begin soon! America, WAKE UP!
After 1965, we are destined to run into increased trouble with the Gentile nations.
America and Britain will begin to suffer from trade embargoes.... We will begin to
experience the pangs of starvation and of scarcity of goods!
A True History of the True Church, 1959, page 27, Hoeh:
God has given His Church -- THIS CHURCH --
just two nineteen year cycles... The first cycle passed. Then God suddenly
opened the door for the second cycle in January, 1953.
Plain Truth, December, 1962, page 42, Herman L. Hoeh:
Russia and China Will NOT Split ... Russia and
China are to remain allies!
Plain Truth, Jan., 1963, page 21, Herbert W. Armstrong:
Somewhere along about seven to ten years from now the REVOLUTION
IN THE WEATHER will become a national and international calamity. Drought, epidemics
of disease, will reap a mounting harvest of death across North America -- and in
Britain. Economic depression will strike... And the time will be right for the new
United Europe to strike!
Plain Truth, June, 1963, page 46, Rodrick C. Meredith:
This coming, revived Holy Roman Empire which is
prophesied to arise in Europe and CONQUER America and Britain within the next ten to
twelve years...
Plain Truth, May 1965, Page 21, Raymond F.. McNair:
The greatest proof that the "times of the
Gentiles" have not yet ended is the simple fact that the Gentile Arabs are still in
possession of the old city of Jerusalem. They will remain in control of this city until
the second coming of Christ.
Plain Truth, Feb. 1967, page 47, Herbert W. Armstrong:
The "Day of the Eternal" ... is going to strike
between 5 and 10 years from now!
The United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy, 1967,
pages XI-XII, Herbert W. Armstrong:
The events prophesied to strike the American and British peoples
in the next four to seven years are SURE! That is why the events of the next four to
seven years may prove this to be the most significant book of this century. These
colossal world events, shrinking the first two world wars into insignificance, WILL COME,
on schedule.
I have given you about twenty quotes out of about one hundred which I have
collected -- predictions made by Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and others which did
not materialize. The Worldwide Church of God always tries to speak with dogmatic
assurity; however in the case of prophecy, their absolute-ism has been quite reckless.
In the Feb., 1972, Tomorrow's World, pages 30-31, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong
tries to claim they never really made specific predictions:
It has never been our intention to SET DATES! Yet,
in our human zeal and enthusiasm we have a few times come close to it or appeared
to... Yet, in our zeal, we have used "possibles" and "probablys"
and even appeared to set dates we really didn't intend to set.
Mr. Hunting, I sincerely feel that is a cop-out. After all, Dr. C. Paul
Meredith said Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong "knew what was going to happen BEFORE it
happened!" Mr. R. C. Meredith claimed "Truth after truth, prophecy after
prophecy has come to be clearly REVEALED by Almighty God to His servants in this
Work." ("The Inside Story of the World Tomorrow Broadcast", p.
17). He also declared that the Worldwide Church of God understood "the exact
time schedule of prophecy!" Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed to have been given
by God the key that had kept prophetic doors locked and closed from human understanding
and he claimed on page one of 1975 in Prophecy that these prophecies were now
"crystal clear." Not only has the Worldwide Church of God set specific
dates and placed clear time limits on its prophecies, but time and again it has been in
error -- prognosticating that a certain thing will not occur and it does, or that
something else will occur which doesn't. Certainly a few of the forecasts have been
correct, but when so many are made a few are bound to come to pass.
In that Feb., 1972 Tomorrow's World editorial Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong claims
that this entire subject is "of MOST MINOR consequence." To get another
view on this subject I would like to quote God in Deut. 18:20-22:
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name,
which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods,
even that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the
word which the Lord has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord,
if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not
spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously: you shall not be afraid of him.
The Worldwide Church of God specializes in "Self-Fulfilled
Prophecy." The News Bureau or writers choose those sections of newspapers, news
releases, news magazines, etc. which they believe fulfill prophecy, and then ignore much
of what might modify or contradict those selections. Eventually sufficient clippings
have been amassed to prove that severe drought, crop failure, upset weather conditions,
etc. are going to sweep the country next year. But when hoof-and-mouth disease fails
to envelop the intended target, or when Russia and Red China do indeed split, does the
Worldwide Church of God admit error and print retractions? No. They continue
to interpret world news. They do not analyze the news, but rather force it to fit
into their pre-conceived prophetic super-structure. The Worldwide Church of God
often makes conditions seem worse than they really are in an attempt to "help"
God fulfill prophecy sooner and according to their interpretation of it.
Soon after Rohan's attempted Mosque burning Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong began
saying that neither he nor anyone else in the Worldwide Church of God had ever proclaimed
that a literal temple had to be built in Jerusalem. When I heard him say it, I
believed it -- unquestioningly. After all, it would be virtually a sin to
question Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong.
Could Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s denials represent a possible credibility
problem? situation ethics? expedience? deception? The following quotes helped me
decide:
Plain Truth, Oct., 1958, page 4, column 31 paragraph 4, Herman L.
Hoeh: "A temple or sanctuary is yet to be built by the Jews in Jerusalem. It
shall happen in less than 14 years from now." Plain Truth, June, 1967,
page 2, column 2, paragraph 6, Herbert W. Armstrong: "There will very soon be a
Temple in Jerusalem with daily sacrifices once again being offered." Page 4,
column 2, paragraph 3, Herbert W. Armstrong: "So there will have to be a temple
there." Page 5, column 1, paragraph 4, Herbert W. Armstrong: "So there
will be a temple built on the spot of the old temple in Jerusalem." Page 5,
column 2, paragraph 4, Herbert W. Armstrong: "Then Revelation 11 shows there will be
a temple in Jerusalem."
Why did no one in the Worldwide Church of God speak out against Mr. Herbert W.
Armstrong’s denial of the above statements?
The Worldwide Church of God's apocalyptic predictions, of course, are not
unique in the field of religion. The Montanists set a date for the return of Christ
in the second half of the second century. The Anabaptists predicted the return of
Christ in 1533. Prevalent among European Jews was the belief that the Messiah would
come in the year 1648. The Millerites expected the second coming of Christ in
1843. The Worldwide Church of God expected to flee in 1972, with the Second Coming
in 1975 (Sept. 6th, to be exact). And the same thing happened when all these dates
failed: the delay of the second advent failed to put an end to any of these movements;
quite to the contrary it gave them new life and vitality. The failure was always
followed by greater efforts to expand their work.
Perhaps the most poignant illustration of this is the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have set dates of 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918, 1925, and
1975. I think you would find it interesting and informative to read the article:
"Prophetic Failure and Chiliastic Identity: The case of Jehovah's Witnesses," in
the American Journal of Sociology, 1970, pages 926-948. I will not take the
time to quote from it here, but the parallels between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the
Worldwide Church of God are unmistakable. There is an incredible similarity between
their reaction to repeated prophetic failures and the Worldwide Church of God's.
In Jan., 1972 Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed the gospel had gone to all the
world, whereas it had not before that time; many in the Worldwide Church of God felt 'God
had "given the world more time to repent"; Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong claims God
has "delayed the return of Christ: so Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong can finish witnessing,
so he can finish the job God gave him; Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed that something of
divine significance did happen on Jan. 7, 1972 -- the greatest door ever opened
to the Work -- Reader's Digest ads -- thus justifying the long-awaited
Jan 7th date, ending the second 19-year time cycle (Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has
conveniently failed to ever refer back to the Reader's Digest ads "door" because
they failed utterly); Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong pointed out the approval of the auditorium
contract as another significant event in Jan., 1972.
These five examples of the Worldwide Church of God's reaction to the failure of
its 1972 prediction are very similar to the reactions of the Jehovah’s Witnesses over
the years. There are other similarities I won't take time to cite. Suffice it
to say that, as the above article described the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Worldwide
Church of God also represents a case of the process of "self-fulfilling
prophecy." That is, these two groups fulfill their own prophecies in two
methods:
1) By interpreting news events to fulfill prophecy, whether the news is doing
that or not, and 2) By reinterpreting prophecies in terms of their own particular
organizational circumstances and activities.
With reference to the first method, I will take one quote from that article
about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, page 935: "The most frequently used device
has been the selective interpretation of emerging historical events as confirming signs of
the approaching end. The group's negative and pessimistic world view sensitized it
to perceive virtually every major and minor social disturbance and natural catastrophe as
an indicator of the impending collapse of the earthly system." This accurately
describes the Worldwide Church of God's News Bureau and most of its writings on current
world events.
With reference to the second method, I will again quote from the same paragraph
on page 935: "A related device has been the effort to interpret the experience
and achievements of the movement itself as confirming signs of the approaching climax and
as validation of the sect's conception of itself as an agency of prophetic
fulfillment." To illustrate the second method, I will quote from Mr. Herbert W.
Armstrong’s co-worker letter of April 27, 1975, page 3: "Do you realize
WHY God has held world events up, delaying the coming of Christ (Matt. 24:48??), of the
GREAT TRIBULATION, and the DAY OF THE LORD? God is now holding back the world events
heading toward the final climax of the GREAT TRIBULATION and the DAY OF THE LORD until we
get the message of the KINGDOM OF GOD to the leaders and rulers of East Asia."
So the actions and strategies of the Worldwide Church of God are not new.
One of the most meaningful and thought-provoking things I have ever read I completed this
past May. The author is Eric Hoffer. The book was first published in
1951. It is called The True Believer; its subtitle is "Thoughts on the
Nature of Mass Movements." He begins the Preface by saying: "This book
deals with some peculiarities common to all mass movements, be they religious movements,
social revolutions or nationalist movements."
I strongly urge you to read it. No member, past or present, of the
Worldwide Church of God should be without it. On nearly every page I found one or
more statements which were applicable to Ambassador College and the Worldwide Church of
God. His perception and incisiveness were so uncanny, I found it hard to believe
that The True Believer was written clear back in 1951 and that Mr. Hoffer had no
knowledge of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God at the time.
Because there are a few lengthy quotations I want you to read, I decided to
simply send you a copy of The True Believer. I will refer to the pages on
which they are found, and they will be marked for your easy reference.
Inside the front cover of the book I have listed the pages on which are found
the selections which I have marked for you. Of course, I hope you'll read the entire
book, but please at least read those I've marked.
Many of the selections I have marked, but especially pages 21-24 describe the
type of people, in general, who become ardent members of mass movements. Pages 55-61
discuss how a mass movement wins and holds its followers; in short, this is done through
its ability "to foster, perfect and perpetuate a facility for united action and
self-sacrifice" (pg. 57).
Pages 75-79 are superb; virtually every sentence is uncanny in its incisive
perception into the Worldwide Church of God's approach to doctrine, dogmatism,
absolute-ism, hereby, reason, close-mindedness, fanaticism, etc., etc. "Mass
movements ... interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the
world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied
in their doctrine..." (pg. 75). True believers ''refuse to believe any
unfavorable report or evidence. about their movement... It is the true believer's
ability to 'shut his eyes and stop his ears' to facts that do not deserve to be either
seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy."
Mass movements are "stripping each human entity of its distinctness and autonomy and
turning it into an anonymous particle with no will and no judgment of its own. The
result is not only a compact and fearless following but also a homogeneous plastic mass
that can be kneaded at will" (pg. 79).
Pages 105-110 discuss the qualifications of the leader of a mass movement, and
Eric Hoffer's description bears a striking resemblance to Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong.
On these pages he also discusses the subject of obedience. Mass movements are
"inculcating and extolling the habit of blind obedience... All mass movements
rank obedience with the highest virtues and put it on a level with faith... 'Not to
reason why' is considered the mark of a strong and generous spirit" (Pg. 108).
On that same page he quotes Pope Leo XIII as saying that there must be "complete
submission and obedience of will to the Church and the Roman Pontiff as to God
Himself."
Regarding effective leadership in a mass movement: "There can be no mass
movement without some deliberate misrepresentation of facts" (Pg. 107).
On page 118 he discusses what a mass movement does to its followers:
"people raised in the atmosphere of a mass movement are fashioned into incomplete and
dependent human beings."
On page 115 "the indispensable devil of every mass movement" is
discussed. "It is his voice that speaks through the mouth of the dissenter...
If anything goes wrong within the movement, it is his doing."
You can read these and many other quotes I have marked in the book itself, so I
will site only one more. I consider this final quote to be the most profound and
important statement made in The True Believer. It sums up concisely why I
feel that church organizations in general, and the Worldwide Church of God in particular,
by their very existence and perpetuation, are missing the entire essence and one of the
great meanings of Christianity:
"Collective unity is not the result of the brotherly love of the
faithful for each other. The loyalty (love) of the true believer is to the whole --
the church, party, nation -- and not to his fellow true believer.
True loyalty (love) between individuals is possible only in a loose and
relatively free society." (Pg. 115, emphasis mine) And "a loose and
relatively free society" the Worldwide Church of God is not!
At the beginning of this letter I affirmed that the actions taken by Connie and
I were not the result of individual personalities, dastardly rumors, real or imagined
sins, slanderous tales, etc. Yet, we have not been deaf and blind, and when this
subject, loosely categorized as "fruits" is examined, it only lends credence to
our decision to leave the Worldwide Church of God.
Mr. Hunting, in your letter to us you said: "What about the fruits of
those who have left the Church? Examine carefully the lives of those who have
already left." We know scores of people personally who've left the Worldwide
Church of God, and I've run into none of the "very tragic stories" you alluded
to. Those we know are Christians exuding the qualities of Gal. 5:22-23. They
are not in "the bonds of Satan," and have not suddenly displayed the traits
described in Gal. 5:19-21. They are excited and enthused with the freedom and
liberty Paul describes in Gal. 5:1. There has been nothing alarming in "the
fruits of the scores of people we know well who have left the Worldwide Church of
God. And even more exciting is the fact that we have met scores of people who've
never been in the Worldwide Church of God, and in most cases have never even heard of it,
who are Spirit-begotten Christians and members of the Body of Christ!
You asked me to "examine carefully the lives of those who have already
left." Therefore, I am sure you also want me to examine carefully the lives of
those who have stayed in the Worldwide Church of God. This I have done in the case
of some of its leaders, and it was a very startling and disappointing exercise.
You asked us: "What about the fruits of those who have left the
Church?" Mr. Hunting, what about the fruits of the two top men in the Worldwide
Church of God? Do they meet the high standards set by God in I Tim. 3 and Titus
1? I don't think so. (These qualifications are required, not optional; they
are not to be treated lightly or applied only when expedient!) Since you are
acquainted with this issue of ministerial qualifications and are no doubt aware of the
unacceptable "fruits" which I question, I will not go into specific
events. But I think it is fair to say that all the facts about the actions of the
top two men, plus certain behavior by a number of other individuals in the upper echelon
of "the Work," would severely shock and stun the essentially naive laity.
Unfortunately the Worldwide Church of God must live under a weighty, self-imposed
"sword of Damocles."
And yet Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong claims, without basis, biblical or otherwise,
to occupy the office of an apostle and to be the physical head of God's only true
Christians on the earth today. II Cor. 11:13 warns of false apostles, and Rev. 2:2
commends those who "tried them which say they are apostles, and are
not..." I am sure that some who have left the Worldwide Church of God have had
problems, have not always produced "good fruit," and since you say there are
"some very tragic stories," then I'm sure there are. But there have been
some extremely tragic stories -- true ones -- involving far too many of
those who are leading and directing various aspects of the Worldwide Church of God.
Good or bad fruits do not necessarily either validate or discredit the beliefs held by the
bearer yet when those producing "bad fruits" attempt to govern others with their
interpretation of God's Word, then their self-proclaimed authority should not be
tolerated.
So, to conclude my comments on "fruits," I don't feel that everyone
who left the Worldwide Church of God is a blameless "good guy;" nor do I believe
that there are only "bad guys" in the Worldwide Church of God. I do feel,
however, that there have been very few "tragic stories" among those who left the
Worldwide Church of God, and I think a number of the leaders of the Worldwide Church of
God, including the two at the top, have disqualified themselves by their
"fruits."
In this letter I have not really addressed most of the major doctrines of the
Worldwide Church of God, nor because of the length of this letter will I. However,
Connie and I have come to disagree with much of what the Worldwide Church of God
teaches. One key to our new beliefs regarding the Sabbath, Holy Days, grace, new and
old covenant, tithing, etc. was acquiring an understanding of the old covenant. When
I graduated from Ambassador College, I had no real understanding of the old covenant, and
why we kept and followed certain things, and ignored others. Much of the Bible
became crystal clear when we realized and accepted that the covenant was made with Ancient
Israel, and no one else. Also, we saw that God plainly states that the covenant was
to be kept in its entirety, completely, and no place in either the New or Old Testaments
are Christians told to keep whatever they feel like keeping. Yet, Mr. Hunting, this
is what the Worldwide Church of God does!
Please read the covenant to which Israel agreed in Exodus 20-23. How much
of that does the Worldwide Church of God obey? I don't mean partially, but exactly
as God stated it. The Worldwide Church of God would say that certain portions of the
covenant aren't applicable today, or can't be followed because of changed
circumstances. However, there is no biblical authority for obeying only part of that
covenant. Take Lev. 23 -- where in the NT does it say the Holy Days can be
kept apart from the sacrifices which were an integral, if not focal, part of each holy day
observance? Why does the Worldwide Church of God, completely arbitrarily, not
enforce the blowing of trumpets portion of the Feast of Trumpets (Lev. 23:24), but does
enforce the removal of leavening and eating of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:6) during the
Feast of Unleavened Bread, but does not enforce God's command to build of branches booths
which are to be lived in (Lev. 23:40-42) during the Feast of Tabernacles, does enforce
fasting (Lev 23:27, 29, 32) on the Day of Atonement, does not enforce the waving of a
sheaf of first fruits during the Days of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:10-11), etc., etc.?
There is no biblical authority for such haphazard, fragmented, and selective
obedience to God. The entire Day of Atonement observance (as commanded by God in the
OT and modified nowhere in the NT) revolved around the goat ceremony, and the Worldwide
Church of God is kidding (pardon the pun) itself if it thinks it can observe the Day of
Atonement, almost totally disregarding God's instructions for said observance, and then
claim to be uncompromising in its obedience to God.
But the problems mentioned above are unavoidable when Christians today try to
put themselves in a system God never intended for them. If we offend God's laws
regarding the Sabbath, Holy Days, tithing, etc., "in one point," we are
"guilty of all," and that is exactly what the Worldwide Church of God is doing
as long as it professes to obey portions of God’s Word which were never intended to
be followed today.
Anyway, we have come to research many of the Worldwide Church of God's
doctrines, and a close examination shows most of them to be in part, if not completely
incorrect. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong always claimed that he "let the Bible
interpret itself." However, the truth of the matter is that his beliefs and
teachings embody a plethora of "private interpretation." I could write
hundreds of pages and not do justice to the doctrinal questions which have arisen in my
mind in the last year and a half, but that is not my purpose in this letter. Many
people have told me they see problems throughout "the Work" but they continue to
be a part of and support it because it's "getting the gospel message to the
world." Mr. Hunting, I hope you will look at what Mr. Armstrong writes and says
about "the gospel," and then contrast that to what the New Testament says.
Look at the approximately 100 places in the NT where the word "gospel" is found;
read the context. Please read Acts 17:3; I Cor. 1:23; 2:~2; II Cor. 4:5; Gal. 1:16 --
you will see Paul emphasized Christ, and didn't merely allude to Him in a way which would
prevent embarrassment. When Paul preached Christ, the listeners knew Christ had been
preached to them, whereas Mr. Armstrong prides himself in being able to preach the
"gospel" in a way that no one realizes it has been preached. In Rom. 1:16
Paul says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ." This year, in the Bulletin,
page 293, Mr. Armstrong says, "One thing has been a serious handicap, and caused me
and my touring team NO LITTLE EMBARRASSMENT. We have had to say that we REPRESENT
either Ambassador College, or the Worldwide Church of God."
Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has frequently quoted Gal. 1:6-9, wherein Paul warns
against those who "pervert the gospel OF CHRIST" and preach "another
gospel." Well, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is a victim of his own quotation --
he indeed perverts the gospel of Christ and preaches another gospel -- the gospel
of Herbert Armstrong. The Worldwide Church of God is not preaching the gospel of
Christ to the world. I think Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong himself sums it up best on
page 15 of the October, 1975, Good News: "What we proclaim ... in reality is
outside the field of religion."
After beginning to examine many of the Worldwide Church of God's teachings in
detail, I began to realize they had their own complex Talmud -- do's and don'ts,
many of which were not mentioned in the Bible one way or the other. When Mr. Herbert
W. Armstrong left the Church of God, 7th Day, he did not retain their teachings against
dancing, card-playing, movie-going, etc. Yet, over the years the Worldwide Church of
God has experienced similarly biblically unfounded rules and regulations.
Since starting his Church Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has been making ex-cathedra
pronouncements on everything from music to voting, dating to farming doctors to hair
lengths, investments to pierced ears, holding public offices to skirt lengths, adoption to
beards, smoking to jewelry, wigs to pantsuits, medicine to customs of the land, dancing to
make-up, types of employment to birthdays, business arrangements to stained-glass windows,
sideburns to participation in dramatic productions, sex to nursery rhymes, bikinis to
space travel, etc., etc., etc. I do not necessarily take issue with the Worldwide
Church of God's teachings on all of the above subjects, but I do take issue with Mr.
Herbert W. Armstrong’s belief that he has the authority to enforce his personal
private opinions on thousands of others. Although God is silent on many of the
topics mentioned in this paragraph, that does not seem to stop the Worldwide Church of God
from speaking for God when the subject arises. Such flagrant examples of
"private interpretation" are wrong!
Mr. Hunting, thanks for taking the time to write us last March, and especially
thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to read my letter. It has taken me
over six months to research and write this letter, and it hasn't been easy. I
certainly have not intended it to be offensive, but rather to be honest, sincere, and
"straight from the shoulder" -- qualities I have long admired in you.
I am more than happy to have spent hundreds of hours of time on this letter,
because these are all things I've wanted to tell you. The purpose of this letter was
to show you some of the major steps Connie and I went through leading to our decision to
resign from my job at Ambassador College and leave the Worldwide Church of God. If
nothing else, this letter should show you that our actions, though you may not agree with
them, were undertaken only after much thought, prayer, and study. We have not taken
this matter lightly or casually, but rather we have tried to seriously, logically, and
systematically consider all the factors.
Connie and I are very happy, blessed, and excited about the future. We
get infinite enjoyment out of Teddy, and our second child is due in December. We
certainly love you and everyone in the Worldwide Church of God, including the man most
accountable, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. We do not question sincerity -- only
God can do that. We have no hate or bitterness towards anyone, although I would not
be completely candid if I claimed there wasn't a great deal of disappointment we have
experienced in the last year and a half. But the blessings we have received and are
receiving far overshadow any negative experiences.
Connie and I would really like to see you next time you're in Pasadena.
In fact, we bought our home over one and a half years ago and you've never seen it.
We'd love to have you up for dinner, so just give us a call next time you're in
town. Also, if you choose to answer this letter, I'll strive to answer it much more
quickly and with a great deal more brevity.
Please give our regards to Chris, Denise, and Charles Freeman.
All our love,
Bob & Connie
|