herbert armstrong

Against the Gates of Hell: A Short Review

The book purports to tell the story of a church’s fight for religious liberty. Specifically, it’s supposed to be an insider’s account of the State of California’s actions against the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), legal actions that began 3 January 1979 and concluded some months afterward. The state placed the church into receivership to investigate allegations of fiscal impropriety. That, of course, fed right into the church’s prophecy that it would be persecuted in the end times, and after reading the book and doing some research, I’m not convinced the state acted wisely at all.

Still, the book is supposed to be about that legal battle, and it does cover some of that. There are a couple of chapters that are virtually hour-by-hour accounts of what happened in the first days, but quickly enough, Rader veers off and spends a great deal of the book covering other things:

  1. The biography of WCG founder Herbert Armstrong
  2. An autobiographical sketch of the author
  3. An account of all the traveling Armstrong and Rader did in the name of the church
  4. The story of the building of Ambassador Auditorium and the performers who performed there

My rough estimation is that only a third of the book (at best) is about the actual legal action. That’s too bad, because it’s in the other portions of the book that Rader loses all credibility, presenting accounts that just read like fabrications.

He writes of visiting Jordan and spending time “with Prince Mohammed, the younger brother of King Hussein.” The prince was eager to play chess with someone, and Rader’s wife Niki volunteered to play him. The prince won the first game, and as they began the second game, he admitted that it was somewhat unfair. “You see, I am the president of the Jordanian Chess Federation,” he explained.

My wife said nothing. She merely pursed her lips and then proceeded to demolish Mohammed, not only capturing his queen but also giving it back to him. The prince looked astounded and the board was set up a third time. Niki destroyed him again.

Rader explained to the astonished prince, that what his “‘wife failed to tell you was that she plays all the time’ I paused just a split second — ‘with Bobby Fischer.’ Fischer, of course, is the former world chess champion with whom Niki does play, though he beats her consistently.” Fischer was, at that time, associated with the WCG, and it’s possible that she did play some chess with him, but the anecdote feels contrived.

When writing about the initial concerts in Ambassador Auditorium, which the arts community in Los Angeles supposedly jealously resisted, he writes,

Resistance came from yet another area. When the 1975 series was announced, a rabbi, noted for his radical stance on issues, charged that the Church and the foundation were launching a grave assault on Judaism! In radio broadcasts and newspaper interviews, he urged a Jewish boycott of the series. His reasoning, as I gather it, was as follows: Jewish parents attending the concerts with their children would see a lovely campus, have their cars parked by polite, well-groomed Ambassador College students, sit in a splendid hall and view all around them other well-spoken, well-dressed students. On the way home, the parents would turn to each other and ask: “Why can’t our kids be more like that? Maybe we ought to send them to Ambassador College.” Then, of course, they would be converted. The situation may sound funny but it was serious.

Again, it seems silly. Even if this unnamed rabbi said that in mock seriousness, he was surely joking. Anyone who knows the bizarre and silly teachings of the WCG would realize that Jewish children would be at no risk of converting to a little group that suggests that proof that Britain is one of the Lost Ten Tribes is the “fact” that “Saxon” comes from a shortened version of “Isaac’s sons.” Just drop the initial letter and we have “Sacc’s sons”! (Herbert Armstrong floated this theory in his largely-plagiarized “The United States and Britain in Prohephy” book.)

A final example: Armstrong and Rader were trying to get Herbert von Karajan to conduct the inagural concert. In their conversation, they had the following exchange:

Thinking back, I can see how wildly ludicrous it all must have seemed. Here we were in Germany, talking about bringing over a great conductor and a great orchestra to play in an auditorium that wasn’t there, and blandly asking him to set a date. Yet so total was Mr.

Armstrong’s confidence, so potent his persuasiveness, and so appealing the picture we painted of the great cultural center, that von Karajan became convinced. He studied his calendar, trying to shift dates. But when he was available, the orchestra was not, and when the orchestra had time, he did not. Regretfully, he informed us that it would be impossible for him to come.

“Maestro,” I asked, “in your opinion, who is second to you in the world as a maestro?”

“There is no question,” he replied at once. “Second to me is Giulini.”

“Oh,” I said, glancing at Mr. Armstrong. “Is that right?” I had never heard of Giulini and neither, I was certain, had Mr. Armstrong.

“Absolutely,” Von Karajan was saying. “He is a great artist.”

This seems a caricature of what a “great conductor” would say. Second to me?! Perhaps von Karajan was so arrogant, but it just doesn’t seem realistic at all.

Finally, there was a conversation with Arthur Rubinstein:

Looking up, he asked Mr. Armstrong sternly: “Sir, are you a professional?” Mr. Armstrong, beaming said: “No, I’m not, but you are and you will agree after you have had a chance to play them.” He explained they were Steinways, carefully selected by him and purchased in Hamburg.

Now Rubinstein became distinctly annoyed. “Sir,” he said, “I don’t like that kind of talk from nonprofessionals.” Mr. Armstrong said he understood, but once again repeated his assertion.

With the pianist continuing to bristle, I felt it wise to change the subject. “Would you like some champagne?” I asked them. Mr. Rubinstein brusquely declined but Mr. Armstrong accepted. When the waiter began pouring Dom Perignon, Rubinstein noticed the bottle and said, “I’ll have some, thank you.” To me he said: “That is all I drink; I was afraid you might order something else.” That broke the ice somewhat and for the rest of the evening the conversation became less strained.

Mr. Rubinstein agreed to perform. A couple of days before his concert, I met him in front of the auditorium and escorted him inside. While he was enormously impressed with the grounds, the building and the foyer, the moment he stepped through the doors into the theatre – catastrophe! “This is terrible!” he exclaimed. Startled, I asked what he meant. “The carpeting, the upholstery. It’s too plush. The sound will be absorbed. It will never do! Oh, I should never have come… How could you have good music with this!”

“Maestro,” I reassured him, “I know what you think, but please believe me. The acoustics are absolutely perfect. Please don’t worry about it.” I followed him down the aisle toward the stage, trying to calm him but his agitation grew as he progressed. I could see he didn’t believe a word.

“Let me see the pianos,” he grumbled and stormed up to the stage.

He ran his Fingers over the keys and the miracle happened.

He played chords on one piano, and then literally ran to the other. For many minutes he scurried between them, playing on each, his face mirroring wonderment and pleasure. He was like a child in a candy store, going from one delight to the other and unable to make up his mind which to choose. Finally he said to me: “It’s never happened in my whole life. Never have I heard two finer pianos!”

Again, it just reads like invented braggadocio

That’s the tone of the whole book: it’s more Rader bragging about himself than anything else.

Pool Thoughts

Today was a day focused in some ways on the Boy. He had his three best friends over for the day (the twins plus, you might say), and we decided to go to the pool for the afternoon. This was the pool in which we had a membership some years ago, the first (and only) year the Boy was on the swim team, so I was familiar with it had had all the appropriate expectations: lots of kids, lots of yelling, lots of chaos.

I had no desire to bob about in a crowded pool, and swimming laps would have been out of the question, so I took something to read and relaxed by the pool in a covered area. Taking a break from reading, I glanced up at a newly-installed support pole supporting the corner of the structure. I noticed there were no bolts at all securing the support to the concrete pool deck. “Surely there’s some kind of support at the top,” I thought. Nope. An entire corner of a structure bearing down on a completely unsecured support: seems safe enough.

I checked the other four supports: the one in the other corner of the open area had two bolts at the two and two at the bottom. Two at each end is certainly better than none, but not quite sufficient considering each end of the pole required four bolts. Of the other two supports, one had a single bolt in the top but none at the bottom (though there was a zip-tie through one of the lower bolt holes) and the other had no bolts whatsoever. So of the thirty-two bolts required for the four poles, there were in fact five bolts in place. Basically, whoever replaced the likely thoroughly rusted supports with these new, shiny poles is relying strictly on gravity to keep the structure safe.

Upon somewhat closer inspection, I realized even the older supports were lacking bolts.

This clear code violation is open view, impossible not to notice. How has it stayed this way so long? Is there a plan to remedy this? Has someone spoken to the local building inspector about it? Has anyone else even noticed?

For a brief moment, a scenario runs through my head: I decide to contact the local building inspector and report the condition. To make things clear, I decide to include photographs of the supports. As I snap pictures with my phone, someone notices what I’m doing and takes umbrage. “They might close down the pool!” the individual complains. A confrontation ensues.

In the conservative South, there seems to be a general distrust of anything that even hints of governmental control, and it’s often tied back to religion in some way or another. Environmental regulations are classified as government overreach and a violation of the divine mandate for humans to use the earth as they themselves see fit a la Genesis. Rumors of coming vaccination requirements during the pandemic had people speaking of apocalyptic visions and the antichrist. And the closing of churches during the pandemic? That was evil itself: Satan trying to bring the gates of hell against our freedom to worship our Lord and Savior. “We’re a freedom-loving people!” This all soon devolves into talk of the supposed Deep State and affirmations of the necessity to re-elect Trump to clean the swamp and defeat the fascists of the Deep State, not to mention fascist building building inspectors.

I am, of course, exaggerating, but just barely.

So to avoid such confrontations, I waited until just before we left to take the pictures that I will send to the neighborhood’s residential board members…


The reason I went down that rabbit hole, in part, has to do with my most recent reading, something I downloaded from an obscure website that specializes in materials from the sect I grew up in. The blurb on Good Reads:

On January 3, 1979, without warning, the attorney general’s office of the state of California struck a hard blow at the Worldwide Church of God. Responding to vague complaints from a few dissident former Church members, the attorney general, in the wake of the People’s Temple tragedy, rushed to court asking that the courts throw the Worldwide Church of God into receivership. It was almost like a military maneuver; the attorney general’s deputies charged onto the campus of Ambassador College in Pasadena, the Church’s headquarters, ordering employees out of the building, demanding church records and actually firing Church officials.

Within hours and then days, the campus swarmed with Church members who poured into Pasadena to fight back. They picketed, they surrounded the buildings, and they swore never to yield to an anti-constitutional assault; at the same time, their leadership was petitioning the courts for relief.

The Church, led for over one half-century by Herbert W. Armstrong, its Pastor General, has been a leader in spiritual affairs in the United States and throughout the world. From his home in Tucson, the 87-year-old Armstrong urged his followers to fight back. Eventually, the membership prevailed. The receiver and his assistants, costing thousands of dollars a day which the Church had been forced to pay, were removed by the courts.

The fight continued into the highest courts of the land. It is the traditional story of stave versus church and of the indignation that erupts whenever the state attempts to deny the rights of a legally constituted church.

This book is the dramatic story of that battle and with it, the story of the Pasadena-based Worldwide Church of God and of its patriarch, Herbert W. Armstrong. It is also the constitutional-issue account of a particular small, but determined, group fighting the powerful state which applies to all who care deeply about our civil liberties. For, had the state of California won its battle and destroyed the Worldwide Church of God, it would be open season for any state to do the same to any other church anywhere in the United States.

I was six when all that happened, and I remember Papa reading Rader’s book to the family on Friday nights. At the time, I viewed the church as a victim; as I grew older and more critical of the church, I took a different view, thinking perhaps the State’s move, while too much, was justified. After all, there was a lot of spiritual abuse going on, and the leaders of the church used that abuse to enrich themselves.

Reading Rader’s book, though, I see the whole thing was a mistake. Not because I don’t think the scrutiny was unjustified — it certainly was. But it galvanized a lot of people and helped reenforce the notion that churches are untouchable because of their constitutional protections.

As an aside, Rader appeared on Sixty Minutes opposite Mike Wallace during all this, and he got quite heated when Wallace played a taped conversation between an informant and Herbert Armstrong:

Gone Packing

Ever since the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), the church I grew up in, made the changes that led it out of near-cult status and into traditional Protestant-ville, I’ve been fascinated with the resulting organizations that broke off from it in order to hold fast to the original teachings. None has been more fascinating to me than David Pack’s Restored Church of God (RCG), a little group based in Wadsworth, Ohio, consisting of a few thousand members at most (they’re tight-lipped about their membership numbers, but I’d guess they have fewer than 5,000 regular attendees) that is certain it’s the only truly Christian organization on the planet. They believe that they will become God as God is God — that God is a family not just a trinity and that people can become part of that family, thereby becoming a god themselves.

It is, to say the least, a very heterodox group.

Yet in the world of WCG offshoots, it has insisted that it and it alone has remained true to the founder’s original teachings. Of course, every other group has maintained that, too, but the RCG has done it most vociferously. But no one can remain static forever, and the realities on the ground forced various doctrinal changes. Course corrections, Pack might call them.

Recently, a website published some letters from inside that church, though, that shows that all is not well in RCG-ville, that Pack is making changes that have to be seen to be believed. It starts with accusations that the bloke leaving, the whistleblower for lack of a better term, of course, had a bad attitude. Had problems with leadership. Did not know how to follow God’s government.

Church Administration

Sun 2020-09-20 5:46 PM

Dear brethren,

Greetings from Headquarters. We trust that you had a profitable day of Trumpets. The Work continues to surge forward despite a world growing darker.

Yesterday evening, some of you received an email from either Brian Kaidannek or his son Greg, stating they are no longer in agreement with the teachings of God’s Church. These emails came not long after Mr. Pack’s recent comments were posted. Sadly, it appears that Brian Kaidannek followed his son out of the Church. Both men chose to forsake the assembling of themselves together on Trumpets, using the Holy Day to send divisive letters to their pastorates.

As has been the case with several other former ministers, their emails were the first indications of any disagreement. They now claim disagreement with scores of teachings, several going back to the very beginning of the series. Greg Kaidannek says that he once believed that The Restored Church of God was God’s Church yet does not explain when it ceased to be or where His Church is currently (of course, a unified Church will always exist somewhere on Earth—Matthew 16:18Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

Brethren, it is sad for us to see any of God’s Sheep stray from the path. Your thoughts go out to the children who are now isolated. We serve a merciful God, but these divisive letters put these men on dangerous ground.

Though filled with error on even basic understanding, Greg Kaidannek’s letter is long and reasonably well written, proving much time and thought. He admitted thinking long and hard about writing it. Yet shocking to everyone here at Headquarters, he never uttered any concerns. The Headquarters’ contact for both of these men spoke with them biweekly. They had abundant opportunities to express disagreement or confusion but never did.

Greg Kaidannek’s portrayal of his time at Headquarters is flat wrong. As one who has been in scores of meetings, there is always a chance to ask questions. His problem was not questions; it was attitude. Personal spiritual issues (not prophecy) led to him being demoted in rank (which rarely happens) and given a field assignment over a small congregation. God is patient and merciful, so we hoped that this correction and re-assignment would help him develop the heart of a shepherd and learn to focus on others. His letter made it evident that he chose not to address his problems, but instead justified his transfer and allowed bitterness to set in.

Brian Kaidannek was fully aware of his son’s issues. He agreed this was the right move to help him. In private discussions at Headquarters, we were concerned that if Greg Kaidannek left, his father would follow him. Again, sadly, this proved accurate.

Brethren, please understand that the ministry must walk a fine line when giving you details when someone leaves. People can repent, and we hope and pray they do. We share as little as possible to protect the flock. Much more could be said, but it should not be necessary. God’s Government works hard to help His flock (no matter their rank) to make it to the Kingdom. When someone leaves the Church, they are forced to make a choice: (1) Honestly admit they no longer wish to address their spiritual problems or (2) Invent a “righteous” justification for leaving God’s Church.

They said they were “standing for the truth,” but sat safely behind their computers and sent emails filled with error and confusion. Greg Kaidannek claims that men at Headquarters are “afraid” to speak up. Again, I can personally attest to men having various questions answered in each of these meetings. These men have had every opportunity to speak their minds, ask questions, bring up concerns and, based on the content of their emails, have disagreed with God’s Church for years.

These men claim that they believe God is in charge and that He is working out the final stages of His plan before Christ’s return. They also profess to believe there is not much time left in the age. Everyone here is at a loss about what so-called “plan” they believe God is working out. If it is not what we are learning, then what is it? They appear to indicate they are going back to the “big T.” That means the Kaidanneks are looking for ten kings to come together in an increasingly fracturing Europe—and it must happen soon to start a 3.5-year countdown.

It is hard to comprehend how anyone can be honest with the scriptures and return to what we once understood. These men lost focus on the big picture and allowed confusion and self-deception to take them out of God’s Church. They should be thankful that our Creator can still get their attention in the fire, and we may see them soon.

As the age comes to a close, we must fight allowing ourselves to “doze off.” The repeated warnings to not fall asleep are given for a reason! Stay vigilant, stay close to God and continue to make yourselves “ready” for Christ’s Return.

While we transition the pastorate, please feel free to reach out to Church Administration with any questions that arise.

Greg’s father, Brian Kaidannek, wrote a letter to members of the church (I guess members in his congregation?) in which he explained a few facts (emphasis mine):

From: Brian Kaidannek
Sent: September 19, 2020 9:05 PM

Subject: Hold Fast That Which is Good

Greetings brethren,

The time has come when I must speak. I am charged to protect the sheep from false teachings, and I can no more remain silent as the meaning of the Holydays comes under further attack. This is changing times and seasons. Leviticus 23 and Exodus 13 are plain scriptures which explain the spring Holydays and exactly when they occur. The Jews in Old Testament times confuse them, and that confusion remains to this day. Now we have followed suit. Mr. Pack has ignored what we all once knew that even is dusk or twilight, which is the time between sunset and darkness. There is only one even or evening in each day and it is at the beginning of the day. Look in Genesis where God says “… and the evening and the morning was the first day.” etc. Passover is completely separate from the NBTO. It is a violation of the rules of Bible study to go to an unclear scripture in Ezekiel and make a doctrine in the face of the clear scriptures mentioned above.

We have seen over the last few years how the teachings of a faithful apostle, who was the apostle to the Philadelphian era, an era which God had nothing bad to say about in Rev. 3, become destroyed and or altered. How could this era have been so wrong in it’s understanding? God’s Holydays have always been a map to God’s plan for mankind and we once clearly saw the meaning in each step of God’s plan reflected in each Holyday. Now the meaning of the fall holydays is muddied and therefore the understanding of God’s plan has been muddied. Ask yourself, what is the meaning of each of the 7 Holydays and Feasts. This is why we no longer have a Bible Introduction course to clearly explain them as we once did, because no one can!

We also now teach a Calvinistic type of predestination which was never taught in the previous era as this type of teaching will lead into even more heresy as time goes forward. Read our Predestination booklet, it still has it correct. Which leads me to a significant point. Our literature, in many cases, more closely reflects what we taught in the past and is far different from what is being taught in the church in sermons and so many come looking for a group that teaches what Mr. Armstrong taught and we now have a type of bait and switch going on. This is simply wrong!

One of the fundamental doctrines that only God’s church understood, different from all professing Christianity, was our knowledge of who the God of the Old Testament was: that God was the Word (Jesus Christ). This is why when Christ came as a man he came to reveal the Father. (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22) This lost truth has led to a mountain of error and confusion. Simply read Exodus 3:14: Moses is told the name of the God he was dealing with “I AM” and then read John 8:58: Where Christ says “… before Abraham was I AM”. Can it be any clearer. Don’t be deceived by clever manipulation of unclear scriptures, ignoring that which is most plain!

Mr. Pack, who declared last Feast of Tabernacles that he was a prophet and had been for some time then went on to make a plethora of predictions of when Christ would return, none of which obviously came to pass. Yes, he has said he had never claimed God spoke to him, that is true. But brethren do not ignore the clear warning in Deuteronomy 18:22: “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 hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” Many times, we have heard, “On God’s authority, I am right!” He HAS spoken Presumptuously! And then to say he was foretold to be wrong is just foolishness. We do not serve a God of confusion! Recently he has stated he is not a prophet. When one says they are a prophet they are either a true or false prophet and later claiming not to be a prophet becomes a mute point. Now again Mr. Pack claims to be Elijah and a whole plethora of other titles; and has once again predicted that we can’t go past Thursday, just before Trumpets. Again his prediction failed and he proved himself false. How can we sit at the feet of, and listen to, this false prophet?

Many have said, “This is a test of our faith”, and to a degree that is true. But brethren this is not the first apostacy that I have encountered. I have heard this all before. If one continues to listen to heresy, one will eventually begin to absorb it. Do you wish to be the proverbial frog in the water and wait to be boiled to death?

World conditions are deteriorating around us and yes, we should watch as these do seem to be the beginning of sorrows and we all wish that the return of Jesus Christ will be soon. We are told to hold fast that which is good. What we are hearing IS NOT GOOD!

I know that this letter will find its way to HQs, and there will be a story spun putting me in a bad light, it has happened to many others before me. But you brethren know me and know I have always been straight with you, regardless of what is said of me. I hold no malice and I care for you all. It is for this reason that I am compelled to try to protect you from false teaching, regardless of where it comes from.

Have no illusions, I could be marked, and you told not to contact me. But I cannot remain silent any longer! Much, much more could be said but you know me, I always head straight to the point, so this warning is sufficient. Beware false doctrine!

Brethren during this confusion, a book I have found most helpful to remain grounded in the truth once delivered is “The Mystery of The Ages” by Mr. Armstrong. I recommend you find a copy and read it.

I love you all.

P.S Attached to this email is a document written by my son to his congregation which I think you will find helpful.

What an odd feeling to read this letter and realize that each of the bolded sections has a history behind it that could fill several pages, and that the changes associated with those passages could also fill several more pages, and that all this understanding that flashes through my mind is dependant on having the same silly background knowledge that I have and that even the phrases themselves are meaningless. These people have created their own world, with vocabulary that befuddles the average outsider and a layered history that informs that vocabulary and theology which outsiders know nothing about. It’s like a portal to another universe where fundamental laws of physics are different, only here it’s fundamental laws of logic that hold no meaning.

In Greg Kaidannek’s letter that his father Greg mentions above, there is a list of doctrinal changes that Pack has introduced over the last few years. Some of the items include:

  • Apostles can’t get doctrine wrong – i.e. infallibility.
  • Christ is returning to Wadsworth (Joseph) not Jerusalem.
  • King David disqualified himself and lost his role in the Kingdom and David Pack will assume it.
  • That Prophet – Elijah – DCP vs Christ.
  • Doing the Work is the Campus FIRST – then preaching a Gospel.

As with the bolded portions of the letter, these are ideas that to me hold significance. These are enormous changes. They are changes to fundamental doctrines that Pack said he would never abandon. However, with the exception of the first two items, most of these ideas are completely meaningless to outsiders.

Just how much has this guy changed things? Not that much, it turns out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asgSSILBxA8

He’s predicting the end of the age before the “Feast of Trumpets” (don’t ask) next year, which, according to the RCG’s calendar, is Sept. 7, 2021. (Oddly, even though the world is supposed to end on Sept. 7, 2021, their calendar of events extends into 2023…)

Listeners Behind the Iron Curtain

They huddle around the radio, their attention fearfully divided as they listen both to the thundering voice on the radio and to every little sound outside their darkened hovel. They’re breaking the law, listening to illegal, anti-state programming, and in listening to Herbert Armstrong’s World Tomorrow broadcasts, they’re risking their lives for the truth of Biblical prophecy while those in the free world who have free access scoff.

“What was that!?” the mother whispers in a panic. “Quick, turn it down!” Her husband silences the radio as the teenage son peers into the darkness, straining to hear another sound. Could it be the secret police? If it were, they could be whisked away and put in prison camps in a matter of days.

The three of them remain motionless. No further sounds. Father decides it’s safe.

The broadcast above is, appropriately enough, “Russia in Prophecy.”

He turns the volume back up and the three family members continue listening to Herbert Armstrong’s prophetic teachings: German is going to rise again in a Fourth Reich, the revived Holy Roman Empire, which with the Pope as the anti-Christ will crush America and put the survivors into slavery. It’s all prophesied in the Bible if you realize that America and the countries of Western Europe, except Germany, are the Lost Tribes of Israel, while Germany is modern day Assyria. Or something like that.

It’s all silly when you really think about it, and it’s even sillier to think that people still believe that despite the fact that DNA testing has shown conclusively that the only people with Semitic backgrounds are — surprise — Jews and Arabs. But this was the fifties:  James Watson and Francis Crick had just discovered DNA’s double helix in 1953, and DNA testing was still a very long way in the future. In the meantime, the Cold War was in full swing, with Kruschev’s USSR just reaching the zenith of its optimism that a state-run economy could produce the paradise that seemed to elude — at least in Soviet propaganda — the capitalists.

But what of these listeners behind the Iron Curtain? The notion came from an illustration in 1956’s booklet 1975 in Prophecy, a digest-size title laying out a timetable for the end of the age. Jesus was to return in 1975, and so the time of trials so many Protestants see as preceding his return would be in 1972. The book purported to provide an “inside view” of the coming tribulation. Within the booklet were illustrations by Mad Magazine illustrator and Armstrong follower Basil Wolverton.

Fullscreen capture 1132013 63652 PM
Basil Wolverton’s illustration in 1975 in Prophecy.

The purpose of such an illustration in 1975 in Prophecy is simple: make listeners in the free, Western world feel guilty for not taking Armstrong’s message seriously. After all, people in Eastern Europe are risking their very lives to listen to The World Tomorrow, Armstrong’s prophecy radio show. But it also worked to create the illusion that the entire world was listening to Herbert Armstrong, further legitimizing his claims of being God’s chosen. World leaders, Armstrong liked to suggest, read his magazine and listened to his radio show, and so literally the whole world must be tuning in. To support Armstrong’s work, then, would be to support a Global Enterprise, and everyone knows that investing in a Global Enterprise is a wise investment indeed. Especially when such an investment could also ultimately help save your own hide.

hwa
Herbert Armstrong

Just how many listeners were there in Eastern Europe? How many could there be? Given the fact that Armstrong only transmitted in English in the 1950s, linguistic barriers reduce the potential audience significantly. I recall hearing that in all of Poland, for example, in a country of forty million, there was one official church member. Clearly, this was meant for a local audience, then.

Yet that raises a troubling question: is this a lie? For it to be a lie, Armstrong and the administrators of his church would have to know it to be untrue, would have to realize that few people indeed listen to his show in Eastern Europe.

But what if the nature of your self-delusion is such that you see yourself as God’s Apostle on the same level as the New Testament apostles? What if you see yourself as the leader of the one true church, with everyone else in the world deceived by Satan? What if you have surrounded yourself with people who support that delusion? In such a case, believing that people all around the world are listening to your little radio show is a self-delusion of almost insignificant proportions. Of course in the 1950’s, there would have been no metric for a radio audience listening in Eastern Europe, no way to prove or disprove the claim that people are tuning in at the peril of their own lives. And it creates a powerful layer of importance on top of all the other self-delusions: If I am the leader of the only true church (which in a sense would make me the most important person in the world), it only makes sense that people risk their lives to listen to me.

I’ve often wondered about stories I hear about this or that miraculous event, wondering if the individual is stretching the truth in the perceived service of God. Surely that’s unacceptable according to anyone’s moral compass. Yet Machiavellian thinking is dangerously seductive. Could something like that be going on here?


Herbert Armstrong died 30 years ago today. For several thousand in the world, it was an earth-shattering, previously-unthinkable event. For the majority of the world’s population, it was a non-event, just like the majority of other deaths. “Herbert Who?” my classmates and even teachers would have asked. Yet he was a significant-enough player that major news outlets wrote obituaries. The New York Times wrote the following:

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 16— Herbert W. Armstrong, the broadcasting evangelist who was founder and pastor general of the Worldwide Church of God, died today at his home in Pasadena, Calif. He was 93 years old. Church officials said no official cause of death had been established, but they added that Mr. Armstrong’s health had been declining about four months because of a heart ailment.

Mr. Armstrong presided as the ”Chosen Apostle” of God over the wealthy fundamentalist Christian church, as well as over the Ambassador College and the Ambassador International College Foundation, both in Pasadena. The Ambassador Auditorium on the campus is a lavish concert hall where famous musicians and artists have performed.

The church publishes Plain Truth magazine and broadcasts television programs on 374 stations around the world, David Hulme, a church spokesman, said.

Officials of the 80,000-member church announced last Tuesday that Mr. Armstrong had named Joseph Tkach, 59, as his successor. Ralph K. Helge, the church’s general counsel, said in a statement that Mr. Armstrong had felt it was time to ”pass the baton” and establish a new spiritual leader to avert dissent when he died. Advertising Career, Then Radio

Herbert Armstrong was born July 31, 1892, to Horace and Eva Armstrong in Des Moines. In 1934 the young Mr. Armstrong abandoned a career in advertising to found the Radio Church of God in 1934 with the first broadcast of his program, ”The World Tomorrow.”

He incorporated his California ministry in in 1947 as the Worldwide Church of God and began spreading his conservative beliefs with alternately fiery and folksy sermons. The religion is a blend of fundamental Christianity, non-belief in the trinity and some tenets of Judaism and Seventh-Day Sabbath doctrine.

Members pay the church at least 10 percent and as much as 20 to 30 percent of their income, and celebrate Passover and Yom Kippur as holy days rather than Easter and Christmas. Mr. Armstrong espoused creationism and enjoying material wealth as a sign of divine favor; he held that he was preparing his followers for a Utopia to be ruled by Jesus.

Controversy and Feud With Son

The church has been embroiled in controversy, ranging from the estrangement of Mr. Armstrong and his son, Garner Ted Armstrong, to lawsuits by former church members and an investigation by the state Attorney General of reports of mismanagement of church funds.

As membership swelled in the mid-1970’s, trouble arose between Mr. Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong, his youngest child and heir apparent. The son appeared weekly on 165 television stations across the country as the voice of ”The World Tomorrow” and was executive vice president of the church.

The church had a strict policy against remarriage for divorced people that required new church members to dissolve second marriages and remarry their original spouses. Garner Ted Armstrong vehemently opposed rescinding that order and his father’s subsequent marriage in 1977 to a second wife, Ramona, 44 years old and divorced. His first wife, Loma, died in 1967. He divorced the second in 1984.

Mr. Armstrong and his son also argued over control of the college, the auditorium, and other holdings. Herbert Armstrong excommunicated his son in 1978.

Case Led to Curb in Law

Garner Ted Armstrong, supported by some former church members, subsequently charged that his father and other officials had spent millions of the church’s estimated $60 million annual income on personal expenses. In 1979 the Attorney General’s office got a court order to place the church in receivership, saying the officials had ”looted” $1 million a year from tithed funds.

The case was dropped in 1980 after a new state law, prompted by the Armstrong case, prohibited the Attorney General from investigating the finances of religious groups for fraud and mismanagement.

The father-son rift was never healed. ”I tried repeatedly to contact my father up until two weeks ago, but it was all to no avail,” Garner Ted Armstrong said in an interview from the headquarters of his Church of God International at Tyler, Tex. ”He had a heart condition, and I knew his health was failing quite rapidly. My sister said he died quietly while sitting in a chair.”

Herbert Armstrong also leaves his daughters Beverly Gott and Dorothy Mattson, eight grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. Arrangements for private funeral services are pending. (Source)

Thirty years later, and it’s such a different world for everyone mentioned in the article. Armstrong’s successor, Joseph Tkach, is dead, and his successor, his son, is still running the original church, though it reformed twenty years ago and even changed its name.

There are still those who follow the man’s teachings, though. A few thousand scattered among a few dozen off-shoots. The leaders of several of those churches are now in their seventies or eighties, and the pattern will repeat itself.

Monday Afternoon

Yesterday was such a busy day that I didn’t even take the time to share everything that happened. The Christmas tree got a mention but little else, and the promise of the lights we put up around the house was about there was of the final product. So it would be tempting just to post those pictures and call it day. After all, there is continuity with the pictures and the day’s before.

“That tree is enormous” seemed to be the general consensus — certainly the biggest one we’ve ever brought into our house. “Remember that first tree stand we used?” K mused as she held the tree later that night while I, sprawled on the floor, loosened all the screws holding the tree in place and reinforced it with planks of wood. He might have held a tree half the size of the one we have in our living room now, but it would just laugh at the tree we brought home Sunday.

1-DSCF7437

But to leave today’s story at that would be leaving out the wonder of today. For example, a girl in my most challenging — and as a result, often most rewarding — class left the room without asking permission. It’s not the kind of thing I would have expected her to do. I went out to talk to her and determined that she’d removed herself from a stressful situation so that she wouldn’t say something she regretted. It turned out, she’d already kind of said that anyway, making a comment under her breath that probably shouldn’t have even been said at all. “But she was off task, and being distracting,” S protested. I suggested that she really didn’t need to say what she said, no matter what M was doing, and after some thought, she agreed. We went back into the room and I suggested that to be really mature, to take the situation to the next level, she might want to apologize to the girl in question. And she agreed. And in a few moments, the two of them were in the hall together, working out their problems like forty-year-olds instead of fourteen-year-olds. So to leave that out of the day’s story would be a minor tragedy.

But there was still the Boy and our time exploring before dinner.

As I was putting on my shoes, E pointed out that the giant ladder truck that had been mine at his age and which Nana and Papa had saved was in sad repair. “It’s not new and shiny like it was when you got it,” he observed rather philosophically. “Did you get that from Santa?” he asked after a pause, and I thought, “Well, here it is.” It’s a moment I knew was coming, was surprised that never came with L, and yet while dreading it in a way, paradoxically never really gave it too much thought.

But it reminded me of something I wrote on a blog I used to run, now almost ten years defunct, in which I dissected the statements of leaders of various religious groups that all clung to the same beliefs I grew up with after the church in which I grew up declared its own beliefs heretical and moved to Protestant orthodoxy. When L was born, I struggled to find the time and motivation to keep it up, so in August of 2007, I resigned:

I’ve been struggling—to find topics for this blog, to maintain my interest in all things Armstrong, to find time to care.

Truth be told, to care.

Jared said it best in a recent comment:

[A] moribund XCG is [not] entirely a bad thing either. After all, there’s only so much one can say about Armstrongism before you’ve said it all. (Source)

I don’t feel like I’ve said it all—there are thousands of words that could still be written about the phenomenon of Herbert Armstrong and the sect he formed. Yet, I really no longer have the interest or time to write anymore words about it.

I feel like Chicken Little, for our common XCG sky will continually fall. David Pack will talk about his web site statistics until the day he dies. Rod Meredith will provide critics with still more reasons to call him Spanky until the day he dies. Those in the upper echelons of the dwindling WCG will continue to talk about their amazing transformation until the day they die.

But I will not be commenting on them at that point, and I certainly won’t be commenting on them when I die.

About six months ago, I started preparing a final post, but I kept putting it off. I thought, “Maybe I’ll just write a little here, a little there,” for a while. Several have noticed and commented on this, and I have remained silent as to the cause of this dip in output.

My initial draft of this post might provide clarification:

Certain things in life force us to see things in a different perspective. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, conversions—these are the kinds of things that make us stop and reflect on where we are, what we are, and most importantly, what we’re doing with the short time we have on Earth.

We have twenty-four hours in a day. We work at least eight of them; we sleep six to eight of them; we wash, shave, cook, eat, clean, drive, exercise and a million other forms of maintenance for another three or four a day. That leaves us with precious few hours a day for ourselves.

What do we do with that time?

Until recently, I spent time looking at, analyzing, and even mocking the beliefs and actions of a group of people I no longer have anything in common with.

Recent developments in my life now make that a less-than-ideal way to spend my free time.

The “certain event” I was referring to was the birth of my first child.

Since then, I’ve been of thinking about what I want my daughter to know about my own religious past. Truth is, I want her to know as little as possible. Because of shame? Embarrassment? Certainly not. I don’t want her to know for the simple reason that it no longer impacts my life. I can’t see much positive coming from me ever going into any detail with her about what I used to believe, about what her grandparents used to believe, about the fact that a true handful of people in the world still believe it. I don’t believe it, and that’s that.

And so, to quote one of my favorite authors:

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.”

To talk of many things—but not the XCG. And not here.

I appreciate all the support I’ve received during this little two-and-a-half-year adventure. I thank all the fellow contributors who, throughout these last nearly thirty months, have helped to make the discussion here a little more balanced. I am grateful to all you regulars. You really kept the site going.

Most of all, I’m heartened by some of the comments of the past, folks telling me that I have helped them in some way. I appreciate you sharing those thoughts, for it gave me a certain joy that I will truly never forget.

But the time has come.

Best wishes to all, ill wishes to none, and I leave with the hope that if we ever meet again, we’ll have so much more to talk about than the XCG.

And since then, the Girl never once asked about Santa for me (for we didn’t celebrate such heathen festivals), and I’d really forgotten about it. Of course I still write about the phenomenon, as evidenced by a post earlier this week (and as the thirtieth anniversary of Herbert Armstrong’s death is just a little over a month away, I will likely write about it again in the near future). But I hadn’t thought about what I’d say to the Boy or the Girl about my religious upbringing. It just didn’t seem important at all in a way. Until E asked me if Santa had brought me the ladder truck. I thought about it for a moment, realizing that a philosophical/theological treatise was certainly not required, and simply answered, “No, buddy, Santa didn’t bring it to me.” Maybe some day, he’ll ask about it again. Probably not. We’ll cross that little relatively insignificant bridge when we come to it.

Forty Years Ago in Prophecy

“YOUR own future is laid bare, now, in prophecy!” Though intended as a compelling beginning, a startling call for readers to wake up and realize the cold reality they’re facing, almost sixty years later the opening sentence of Herbert Armstrong’s 1975 in Prophecy reads like the dating advertising copy it essentially was.

Written in 1956, it was a centerpiece booklet in his radio ministry. Claiming to have discovered — rather, to have received through divine inspiration — the key to unlocking Biblical prophecy, Armstrong claimed a certain clairvoyance unique among other religious figures. To his credit, he didn’t take credit for it: he was merely an instrument of God. Still, there is a certain headiness in being the one to whom has been revealed a startling truth that, for ages, no one knew.

Prophecies that were closed and sealed tight now stand REVEALED. This mystifying, neglected third of the Bible now becomes plain. Mysteries of God, never before understood, now become crystal-clear. God’s own time for this revealing has come. The KEYS that locked the future have been found.

Hidden prophecies seldom sell if they’re absolutely and completely good. Like those who slow down and crane their necks when passing the scene of an auto accident, we all have a touch of the morbid in us and a suggestion of how bad things are really going to get can be utterly fascinating. This could be even more true in the 1950s, when 1975 in Prophecy first appeared. As the Cold War continually escalated, nuclear war with the Soviet Union seemed a very real possibility. Indeed, it wasn’t so much a question of if it happened but rather when for most Americans. Catastrophe waited in the not-so-distant future, and it was this uncertainty upon which Armstrong built his ministry, and it was with this expected nuclear showdown with the Soviets that Armstrong created his catch, because of course, there was always a catch, according to Armstrong:

But what is actually going to happen is not what the world expects!

Today this world is changing – fast! Unprecedented events are shaking the world already. Yet what we have seen is mild compared to the catastrophic happenings that will rock this world in the near future!

You’ll have to live into these tremendous times. This is YOUR life! You live here, in this erupting world! It behooves you to know what the Creator-RULER of the Universe now makes known!

Armstrong claimed that the United States and Western Europe were in fact the original ten tribes of Israel, supposedly lost to the mists of time. (Jews were only of the two break-away tribes the formed the Kingdom of Judah.) The Germans, though, were an exception: they were the ancient Assyrians, forever battling the Israelites. This battle spilled into the twentieth century, and explained both world wars. It was to be the Germans, not the Soviets, who attacked and conquered America.

Before getting to the bad news, though, and perhaps in an effort to pad the manuscript, Armstrong rehearses all the technological advances of the mid-twentieth century.

Feverishly, science, technology and industry are working to produce a fantastic, push-button world of leisure by 1975. The emphasis today is on “saving steps.” Everything is to be done for us, by machines. Just push the magic button, and your work will be done automatically.

Already automobiles are equipped with push-buttons to shift the gears, raise or lower windows, move the seat forward, backward, up or down.

It’s difficult to look at our current reality, with in-dash GPS, smart phones, and loads of cheap Chinese imports, and not think the advances of the 1950s somehow quaint. In spite of the stresses of the Cold War, there was a certain naivety at the time, on both sides of the Communist-capitalist ideological spectrum. Both sides were sure that their economic model would produce a not-too-far-in-the-future utopia. Francis Spufford recently portrayed this in Red Plenty, a clever, well-researched novel about the hope in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev that the Soviet Union would soon be the envy of the West; Armstrong beat Spufford by fifty years with his visions in 1975 in Prophecy:

In the dream-world MAN is devising for tomorrow, it will no longer be necessary to cook food on stoves. Food is to be cooked by heat waves in packages. You’ll no longer bother taking a bath in a tub or shower. You’ll take an effortless and quicker waterless bath by using supersonic waves! When you pick up your telephone, you’ll see the party at the other end! The new automobiles, the new homes, the new schools are to be truly fantastic. The stores, hotels, and railroad trains will take your breath!

So far, surprisingly close to the reality we experience. Of course the waterless shower never took off — or appeared, as best I can remember — but we have had microwave dinners for over thirty years now while Skype and smart phones make land lines obsolete.

And air travel? Well, already leading air lines have placed multi-million dollar orders for still larger jet planes that will leave New York at 11 in the morning and arrive at Los Angeles by noon. These are under production, now. But what do you suppose air travel will be like by 1975?

For one thing, it is expected that many people will commute in their own private helicopters. Very probably these immense jets now being built will then be obsolete, and we’ll travel in rockets at two or three thousand miles per hour. Think of it! Elapsed flying-time, New York to Los Angeles reduced to one hour! Since it is only 9 A.M. in Los Angeles when it’s noon in New York, we may be flying across the continent, and arriving in Los Angeles two hours before we start! And elapsed flying-time from London to New York will be reduced to 1½ hours! As it is noon in London when it’s only 7 A.M. in New York, we may be flying across the Atlantic and arriving in New York 3½ hours before we start!

Yes, MAN is devising fantastic things!

Unfortunately for Armstrong and the other futurists of the 1950s, their own predictions were among the “fantastic” things, though in their case, it’s meant in the original adjectival form of “fantasy.”

It’s easy to look back on those predictions and mock them. We have the obvious advantage that it’s no longer prophecy but history.

Under Cover in Europe

While America has been focusing its sole attention on its clumsy effort to meet psychological cold-war with antiquated diplomacy and military might, the real number one enemy has been perfecting its plans SECRETLY, UNDER COVER, IN EUROPE!

These plans were laid by Adolph Hitler, during World War II. The methodical Germans took into consideration the possibility they might lose, even as they had lost World War I. This time their plans for coming back and launching World War III were carefully laid before the close of World War II.

The day that war ended, the Nazi organization went underground! Their plans for coming back have been proceeding, under cover, since 1945!

Already Nazis are in many key positions-in German industry – in German education-in the new German ARMY!

In World War I, the Kaiser, allied with Austria, sought to conquer France, Britain and America. American Industry finally beat him. In World War II, Hitler tried to conquer the world, first by taking Austria and the Sudetenland thru diplomatic gangsterism; then second, with lightning-quick war, taking Poland, Denmark and Norway, Holland, Belgium and France; and third, while holding these nations by the throat with his Gestapo, and allied with his junior partner Mussolini, to conquer Russia on the east and Britain on the west. But again, American Industry, three Acts of God, at Dunkirk, El Alamein, and the destruction of the German hydrogen-bomb plant at Peenemuende defeated Hitler.

But this time the Nazis plan to side step the causes of past defeats. Instead of exhausting their own strength by holding European nations as captives at the expense of vital Gestapo man-power, they plan to head and dominate a UNITED STATES OF EUROPE — and add the man-power of those nations to their own military divisions. And secondly, they plan to strike their first blow, NOT at France or Poland in Europe, but with hydrogen bombs by surprise attack on the centers of AMERICAN INDUSTRY!

I suppose with enough imagination, one could imagine in the mid-fifties, only ten years on from World War Two, that the Nazis had somehow managed to regroup and were planning a horrific third attempt at world domination. Such a theory certainly would work well with those still dealing with the consequences of the war, with so many people still dealing with the loss of life and property in the war.

It was this coming cataclysmic doom — famines and pandemics would also accompany the military defeat — that 1975 in Prophecy was using to sell Armstrong’s theology. The booklet came complete with graphic, violent images depicting the coming horrors, called the Great Tribulation in Armstrongian theology.
Fullscreen capture 1132013 64012 PM

The man-made horrors would not be enough to cause humanity to repent, Armstrong reasoned, so the natural world would add to the world’s misery with great earthquakes, tidal waves, famines, and pandemics.

Fullscreen capture 1132013 64018 PM

Armstrong had Basil Wolverton, a cartoonist who joined Armstrong’s church in 1941, used his typical over-the-top comic style, creating images that disturb not only because of their content but also their style.

When I flipped through the booklet as a kid, I found these images repulsive and fascinating at the same time, not to mention confusing. They were supposed to be depictions of the coming holocaust, but by the time I was flipping through the booklet, it was the mid-eighties and all of this was supposed to have already taken place.

Fullscreen capture 1132013 64022 PM

It will be, yet it was supposed to have already been.

And now, forty years later, there are still religious groups that believe Germany at the head of the EU will rise again and conquer the United States. The Philadelphia Church of God, the Restored Church of God, the United Church of God, and the Living Church of God are the three biggest groups holding such beliefs, with dozens of smaller groups professing the same thing. They all insist that this is coming, that Armstrong was ultimately correct, and that these pictures are legitimate depictions of the coming horrors.

I find it difficult to believe that people could be so naive, given the fact that so much of what Armstrong taught has been shown to be false. Most significantly, Armstrongists are in the same situation as Mormons due to advances in DNA testing, which show that both groups’ claims about the ultimate destiny of the so-called Lost Tribes of Israel are radically wrong: there are no Semitic markers in the European population (except, surprisingly, the Jews), thus discounting Armstrong’s theory, and the Native Americans similarly lack such markers, thus disproving Joseph Smith’s theory. Still, these organizations pull in members and money.

Long ago I wrote a letter to one of these organizations only to find out later that my letter was read to the entire church as an example of the horrendous persecution that awaits the leader.

I regret that letter in a sense: it seems like I’m saying at the end that I look forward to the death of the group’s leader, David Pack. Not at all. Even in my most skeptical periods, I would have never have wished death upon someone. What I meant was that I was looking forward to seeing the scramble for power and more interesting the desperate attempt to remold Pack’s statements that he would live to see these prophecies come to pass as something less prophetic than they were, just as Armstrong apologists do with Armstrong’s assurances that it would all be over by 1975. Perhaps I should write again and apologize?

A Tragedy in the Making

hwa
Herbert Armstrong

It had to happen. From the morning of January 16, 1986, it became an inevitability. When the charismatic leader of a religious organization dies, change is inevitable. I suppose it doesn’t have to be a particularly charismatic leader to necessitate change when he dies, but the more charismatic, the harder it is to maintain the same arch of theological development because so much of the theology is grounded in the leader’s personality, whether or not followers admit or even are aware of it.

When Herbert Armstrong (HWA) died in 1986, there was no way things could go on as they had before. The most basic reason was simple: everyone believed, implicitly or explicitly, that Armstrong would be alive until the end of time as we know it, until Jesus’s second coming. When he passed in his sleep without a single trumpet blast from heaven, without a chorus of angels announcing the return of God incarnate to Earth, it was the first of several inevitable changes in theology. When the new leadership began changing doctrinal distinctives like British-Israelism and the nature of God, the changes were simply too much for some who longed to return to the age of Armstrong. They removed themselves from fellowship and formed an offshoot. More like a hundred-and-some offshoots, but three or four main ones.

Each of these offshoots were in competition for new members as they left the parent organization for the dozens of newly-forming off-shoots, and for many, the medium for measuring the acceptability of this or that splinter group (as they came to be called) when considering membership became the group’s faithfulness to Armstrong’s teachings, which constituted true Christianity restored again. But slowly, inevitably, these groups began tinkering around the edges of Armstrong’s theology. This point was “clarified,” and that one “elucidated.” Nothing ever really changed — it was all euphemistically described to the followers, just as it had been in the original group after Armstrong’s death.

Press-2
David Pack

David Pack, though, founded a group called the Restored Church of God that built its whole membership on the solemn promise that nothing about HWA’s teachings would change. But reality tends to get in the way of such far-reaching promises, and one of the earliest dilemmas for the church was the appropriate use of the Internet in spreading Pack’s (and by extension, HWA’s) theological musings. After all, Mr. Armstrong didn’t use the Internet: he used radio and television. For the outsider, this seems like a simple issue: Herbert Armstrong didn’t use the Internet because it didn’t exist, and so it wasn’t any kind of doctrinal issue, just an administrative decision. Still, Pack took a whole sermon to explain to his small flock that, even though it looked like he was making a change, he wasn’t making a doctrinal change.

But further challenges waited.

As Pack was only ordained a pastor in Armstrong’s church before the breakup, and as he recognized only Armstrong as an authority, he had another problem: He wasn’t doing a pastor’s job. He was preaching the Armstrongite Gospel to the world, which Herbert Armstrong always taught is an apostle’s job. Armstrong was, in the eyes of his followers (which is really all that matters), an apostle on the same standing as the New Testament apostles, and for a pastor to step out of his assigned roll like that seemed mutinous. It was change. So in 2004, Pack declared himself an apostle as well. Problem solved.

But a door opened.

Once a leader who has sworn not to change a single teaching of his claimed predecessor, all doctrines become open for review. This is what happened in the Worldwide Church of God that ultimately led to its turn to orthodoxy and the thousands upon thousands of members who fled to other splinter groups to hold on to the faith once delivered. Pack would have to be very careful not to make changes that seem too drastic, too far-reaching. The solution: add doctrines. Don’t change any existing ones — just add. “These weren’t revealed to Herbert Armstrong because he didn’t need to know it, but now I can restore this truth.”

He has criticized other leaders for doing this, but it was of course inevitable that he do it himself. But how far could he go? He declared himself an apostle in 2004 shortly after declaring himself to be the prophesied “Watchman.” It’s been over ten years since he made a major change that he’s revealed to the public. In his most recent sermon, though, Pack makes the biggest and most dramatic change of his career, arguably of just about any of the splinter leaders.

In short, he makes the claim that if “you were called by God, and you are to participate in his work and walk in his ways, you have to turn over your assets to God’s church” and that “salvation is attached to [this new doctrine].” He calls this doctrine “Common,” and roots it in the observation that the New Testament church apparently shared a lot of things.”Not even Armstrong went that far,” a friend and fellow cult-watching enthusiast commented, and that’s about right: it is such a drastic change from Armstrong’s simple requirement of a 10% tithe on pre-tax income figures that it amounts a wholesale theological change. After all, how can you tithe 10% when you’ve already contributed all your assets?

This change reveals a megalomaniac mindset of literally historic proportions, a cult of personality that is simply dangerous.

Yet how could this happen? How could he go so much further than Herbert Armstrong ever dared, demanding more fiscally from his followers than Armstrong even dreamed of requiring? It is in part because I believe Armstrong was more mentally stable. Armstrong declared himself to be prophesied in the Bible, but he claimed no supernatural powers for himself. Pack has done just that.

Just what these extraordinary powers might be remains unanswered. But clearly there’s a disconnect between reality and how Pack sees reality. But when you see yourself literally in the Bible — well, when you see yourself in the Bible after using some horrible interpretative techniques — there’s almost no limit to what you can attribute to yourself. It’s not too hard to see how far reality has taken leave from Pack.

To suggest that because one Greek word appears to be pronounced like the man’s hometown — that shows just how little Pack understands basic exegetical concepts. But it gets worse:

Moses’s “strong hand” equals Armstrong? It would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that so many people are allowing themselves to be duped with this nonsense.

One would think that after the long history of false predictions, both in the Armstrong community and in the general Christian prophecy-loving population, that a leader of a group in 2015 would have learned some lessons. If he hadn’t learned from others, one would think that Pack at least learned from himself. In 2004, for example, he stated the following, playfully edited:

It is now 2015, so apparently we did have ten years remaining until the end of the world as we know it, and I would wager that, come 2019, we still won’t have seen the end of the world. And yet, on and on he will go until the day that he dies continually proclaiming that “time is short,” just like Armstrong did.

Autumn Ritual

In years past, last Tuesday night’s gathering would have filled a large-capacity auditorium, or even a civic center, like the Scope Arena in Norfolk, Virginia. They would have sat in dozens of rows on the floor, up risers, into the balcony area, and walking into the arena that first night would have produced an excitement in everyone that was audible.

Norfolk_Scope2

Thousands of people, gathering for eight days, in locations all over the world. It would look something like this, except for more formal attire.

8654388381_328f47d1aa_k

Part of my past that I haven’t experienced in almost twenty years as best I can remember. Ninety-five was the last time, I think. Those gatherings have continued through those years, but my trajectory has gone in the opposite direction before veering back to something more like an eighty-degree angle: not quite the same beliefs, but certainly not a denial of all the beliefs.

Those gatherings have continued for the last twenty years, though the single, monolithic church organization that originally held it has splintered into almost countless pieces, with the organization itself changing its name and completely reversing most of its old doctrines — like the required eight-day Old Testament festival observance — so that it is indistinguishable from other mainline Protestant groups. The splinters that fell away have been keeping up the tradition, though, and last Tuesday night, in Bend, Oregon, a pastor opened the gathering with a message that has been repeated every fall with the regularity of the changing leaves.

They’ve been starting like that for decades now — I still wonder every autumn how many more decades it will continue. When will a group that proclaims definitive prophetic events within our generation and has been proclaiming it in vain for something like seventy years (Germany will rise again, don’t you know?) — when will such a group (or in this case, groups) disappear for good? For how long can someone declare that “time is short” and warn people that a great confederation of European nations with Germany and the Vatican at the head will rise up and utterly decimate the United States? At which point does the hypothesis — no, the sure prophecy — become just too ridiculously and obviously wrong for anyone to take seriously?

G Has Left the Building

For just short of three years, I ran a web site that was highly popular with a very small demographic, writing about something that the vast majority of Americans and an even larger majority of potential international readers — we’re talking the 99.9999999% range — would have never even heard of. That topic was the various offshoots of a small Christian group, the Worldwide Church of God, with a peak membership of no more than 150,000, that imploded in the mid-1990’s when it changed all its distinctive, heterodox doctrines and began moving to mainstream, Evangelical Christianity. With that change, which the church leadership enacted in what many considered to be an underhanded, deceptive manner, the church membership dropped to roughly sixty thousand within a couple of years, then to thirty thousand in a few more years, as members sought newly-formed organizations that still clung to the Worldwide Church of God’s original teachings, left for mainstream Christian groups, or dropped out of religion altogether.

hwa
Herbert W. Armstrong

In the early years, there was a great deal of bickering and sniping among the splinter organizations about which group most faithfully adhered to the teachings of Herbert Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God. It provided fascinating, sometimes amusing reading, and having grown up in the organization and just dropped out of a philosophy of religion graduate program, I was hooked.

I started a web site, recruited fellow writers, developed a readership, and wrote almost daily about this or that church’s latest proclamation, declaration, or whine. As an atheist, I took a particularly smug tone, resorting often to heavy sarcasm and occasionally to outright mockery. Still, my pseudo-academic background led me to write several serious analyses of this or that organization’s claims and arguments, and I occasionally got comments about how the site helped this or that individual.

Then L was born, and I suddenly had no time. For some period before that my interest had been waning, but I hung on, convinced that what I was doing was somehow significant but doubting it was. Then, about eight months after L was born, after steadily decreasing posting, I called it quits with the following post.


I’ve been struggling–to find topics for this blog, to maintain my interest in all things Armstrong, to find time to care.

Truth be told, to care.

Jared said it best in a recent comment:

[A] moribund XCG is [not] entirely a bad thing either. After all, there’s only so much one can say about Armstrongism before you’ve said it all.

I don’t feel like I’ve said it all–there are thousands of words that could still be written about the phenomenon of Herbert Armstrong and the sect he formed. Yet, I really no longer have the interest or time to write anymore words about it.

I feel like Chicken Little, for our common XCG sky will continually fall. David Pack will talk about his web site statistics until the day he dies. Rod Meredith will provide critics with still more reasons to call him Spanky until the day he dies. Those in the upper echelons of the dwindling WCG will continue to talk about their amazing transformation until the day they die.

But I will not be commenting on them at that point, and I certainly won’t be commenting on them when I die.

About six months ago, I started preparing a final post, but I kept putting it off. I thought, “Maybe I’ll just write a little here, a little there,” for a while. Several have noticed and commented on this, and I have remained silent as to the cause of this dip in output.

My initial draft of this post might provide clarification:

Certain things in life force us to see things in a different perspective. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, conversions–these are the kinds of things that make us stop and reflect on where we are, what we are, and most importantly, what we’re doing with the short time we have on Earth.

We have twenty-four hours in a day. We work at least eight of them; we sleep six to eight of them; we wash, shave, cook, eat, clean, drive, exercise and a million other forms of maintenance for another three or four a day. That leaves us with precious few hours a day for ourselves.

What do we do with that time?

Until recently, I spent time looking at, analyzing, and even mocking the beliefs and actions of a group of people I no longer have anything in common with.

Recent developments in my life now make that a less-than-ideal way to spend my free time.

The “certain event” I was referring to was the birth of my first child.

Since then, I’ve been of thinking about what I want my daughter to know about my own religious past. Truth is, I want her to know as little as possible. Because of shame? Embarrassment? Certainly not. I don’t want her to know for the simple reason that it no longer impacts my life. I can’t see much positive coming from me ever going into any detail with her about what I used to believe, about what her grandparents used to believe, about the fact that a true handful of people in the world still believe it. I don’t believe it, and that’s that.

And so, to quote one of my favorite authors:

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”

To talk of many things–but not the XCG. And not here.

Some might be wondering whether this signals the end of my presence on the XCG scene. It does. In fact, I doubt very much that I will even “lurk.” As a famous, oft-misquoted teacher once said, “It is finished.”

I appreciate all the support I’ve received during this little two-and-a-half-year adventure. I thank all the fellow contributors who, throughout these last nearly thirty months, have helped to make the discussion here a little more balanced. I am grateful to all you regulars. You really kept the site going.

Most of all, I’m heartened by some of the comments of the past, folks telling me that I have helped them in some way. I appreciate you sharing those thoughts, for it gave me a certain joy that I will truly never forget.

But the time has come.

Best wishes to all, ill wishes to none, and I leave with the hope that if we ever meet again, we’ll have so much more to talk about than the XCG.


What had I accomplished?

I’d made several people mad: some sent me nasty emails or left malicious comments. Still, what could I expect? Wasn’t I doing the exact same thing with others’ beliefs? Some people threatened my web host with a lawsuit, but since the group in question was outside my scope of interest and never directly or indirectly mentioned on my web site, even a libel claim was ridiculous.

I’d inspired others to start their own web sites, and I’d provided apologists with plenty of material in turn for their own writing. What could I expect? With me criticizing them, they were right to criticize me, and since no leader or group was going officially to deal with a puny little hen like me, individual members took on the responsibility, inasmuch as the various churches officially allowed such activities.

But what about helping people? I’d always assumed that I must be doing that, that I must be helping others see the errors in logic that the various groups committed. Still, I only had a couple of emails. The comments to my farewell post provided a bit more information.


Comments

exrcg 08/22/2007 11:12 PM

thank you G — your site certainly helped me when i transitioned out of the cog world a couple years ago — it was a comment i made at that time, and i echo it again here. your efforts have been appreciated.

Jared Olar 08/22/2007 11:16 PM

I’ve been wondering when you were going to wrap it up here. Of course you told me before, after your daughter’s birth, that you were going to bow out soon. You hung on longer than I thought you were going to.

So long, and thanks for letting me have rather too much fun with Bob Thiel. Now go raise that little girl of yours and kiss [K]. Real Life is calling . . .

Lao Li 08/22/2007 11:41 PM

Thanks for all the work G.

The void between postings was a sign that time is short, we were in the gun lap!

Keeping something like this going can be the same as problems facing the COGs. Sometimes there’s some new input, but otherwise it’s just moving bones from one grave to another.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Church Corporate Critic 08/23/2007 12:12 AM

My thanks as well.

We wish you well.

You will be a much healthier person mentally.

Church Corporate Critic 08/23/2007 12:20 AM

I have a going away present:

gods

The peer review team liked it more than is customary for such articles.

It too may the last of its kind.

Robert 08/23/2007 01:19 AM

So, I’m going to take this opportunity to plug my own blog, and I hope you won’t mind. It’s a little different than XGC for a couple reasons: 1) It feature the stories of people who were in or around WCG and who now have given up faith entirely, and 2) I pretty much let them write it, so I have had no problem keeping it going since 1997– Wow, 10 years!

Non-Believer Former Members of the WCG
http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/exwcg/

Dennis 08/23/2007 09:21 AM

Excellent job G and yes, there is a time to move on as I know you have. The world will little note, nor long remember what you have done here…but I’m glad you’re in the neighborhood so we can have lunch and a good laugh from time to time!

And..for a limited time, if you act now, a free opportunity to finally be rubbed the right way by a former minister of WCG! Call now for a free assesment to see if you are sane enough to come to the office.
Best of all things to you and your family. I have a third little girl coming to the planet compliments of my son and daughther in law today, even as we speak.

charlie kieran 08/23/2007 10:30 AM

Best wishes G for you and your family. Congratulations on that little girl! This blog and a few others were a big help for me. My folks are still under the armstrongist thumb so I’ll continue to work on them in the meantime I just tell my kids not to pay any attention to what Pop-Pop says about God. For the most part I’ll be moving on as well although I’ll check in from time to time on Gavin’s site just to see what is going on. I just don’t have the time anymore and my fourth child is due in February.

Dennis: Congratulations on another grandchild and best wishes to your son and daughter in law.

It has been great reading posts from everyone!

Byker Bob 08/23/2007 11:23 AM

Well, G, we’re on the same page! I’ve recently found myself either satiated, or undergoing waning interest in all things ACOG, and have been visiting all the regular sites less and less over the past several months. That’s probably a good thing, because it indicates that everything is processed.

I really don’t know if there are any answers to all of the great philosophical and religious questions mankind has asked himself over the centuries. About all a person can do is to be kind to fellow man, and indulge in the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you for all of the thought provoking materials presented here, and the work that went into them. Best wishes for a good life for you and your family. It’s been fun being part of the xCG community and making some friends here.

BB

paul 08/23/2007 05:29 PM

My daughter was born this year, and between that and graduate school, time is short. I understand your position; it would be impossible for me to do what you have been doing. It’s been a good time!

But as far as the XCG’s and my daughter go, it is my duty to protect her from such garbage. I have to shield her from the apocolyptic-paranoid-fearful-slave mindset of the in-laws who are in the LCG. I don’t want my girl’s mind poisoned. I don’t even want her exposed to the XCG Lite mindset of my mother. I’m an atheist now, and I won’t hide it from my daughter…but then again I don’t mind if my wife wants to raise her as a Christian, so long as she hears both sides and gets to make up her own mind. But XCGdom? Forget it. I don’t want that filth near her. In this vein, I still have an interest in the XCG’s. Keep an eye on the enemy.

Paul

Gavin 08/24/2007 01:50 AM

Shucks G, what can I say? You’ve been a much appreciated kindred spirit, and flown the flag for the power of free-thinking in a community known for a lack of just that. I understand the need to let it go. Thanks for everything you’ve done: XCG has been an empowering venture with a distinctive voice of its own.

Kia kaha: strength to your arm

Gavin

Buffalo 08/24/2007 02:20 AM

:)

Anonymous 666 08/24/2007 09:47 AM

G,

How long do we have?

boston blackie 08/24/2007 11:20 AM

Or you could announce your retirement, pop back in from time to time as a guest blogger on Gavin’s other “Coast to Coast” site and then surprise us all with a new format — just like some folks we know. =)

“Wanna take a ride?”

Best wishes there G, whatever you choose to do!

Mario 08/24/2007 01:31 PM

Thanks for being instrumental in our exodus from an (x)CoG G.

Congrats on your new arrival. Enjoy the moments, they go by so fast…

Peace to you and yours

John 08/24/2007 09:05 PM

Thanks so much G. Your site played a very important role in helping me exit the cult, and in convincing me that suicide was not the best path.

You and Gavin literally saved my life.

My best wishes to you and I hope life brings you many, many bountiful joys.

Frenchie 08/25/2007 09:22 AM

Congratulations on the birth of your first child … it is indeed a life-changing event.
You did say one thing that has total truth in it in your “good-bye” .

the fact that a true handful of people in the world still believe it

I know that you meant “just a few”
But it is the TRUE people of God who still believe and will continue to believe.

May you find your way.

Byker Bob 08/26/2007 01:50 PM

Oh, Man! What a cheap shot, Frenchie!

Actually, I hope that one day you and the rest of the deceived Armstrongites find your way!

BB

Lao Li 08/26/2007 10:18 PM

My last posting… promise…

The winding down of this site was noted with apparent glee by Dr T, who to me implied sic semper infidelis. Au contraire, I found this to be a very balanced and temperately moderated site. On other sites, the moderator beat me to a jellied pulp at the sniff of my appearing positive about anything that eminated from a COG. As I may have said already, this site is open, COG-related discussion; most of the “correction” I’ve received has been empirical rather than imperial.

FWIW, at my remote roost in Manchuria, I encountered students from a remnant Sabbatarian community. Their little congregation was perhaps the work of a (COGspeak) Sardis-era missionary, with whom their ancestors would have lost touch two or so revolutions ago. What a coincidence to be the first westerner ever encountered since then… Their first question was about the Sabbath being on Saturday, as in China the first day of the week is Monday…

Jared Olar 08/27/2007 10:27 PM

Yeah, I fliggered Bob Thiel would be sure to comment on G’s announcement. He says:

I thought that G was planning on phasing his anti-COG site out. I have long thought that those who are against the COGs would realize the truth, as in the last two sentences that he wrote above.

He means G’s comments, “Until recently, I spent time looking at, analyzing, and even mocking the beliefs and actions of a group of people I no longer have anything in common with. Recent developments in my life now make that a less-than-ideal way to spend my free time.”

But as usual Bob doesn’t see things correctly. If G were among “those who are against the COGs,” then he’d be motivated to continue this project. But he’s not “against the COGs.” He’s just in favor of things that are more important and necessary to life and happiness than the COGs have ever been or will ever be.

Then Bob says:

On the other hand, there are those of us who ARE COMMITTED to learning, growing in grace and knowledge, trying to get the good news of the Kingdom of God to the world, and wish to be part of the Church of God. So, the COGwriter site has no intentions of shutting down.

Oh goody. We were so worried that the Cooge Writer was going to shut down.

But since Bob is committed to learning, growing in grace and knowledge, trying to get the good news of the Kingdom of God to the world, and wishing to be part of the Church of God, that means there’s still hope that he’ll eventually see the light and leave the COOGEs behind.

Not that we’re holding our breath or anything . . . .

Lao Li 08/29/2007 06:32 AM

can’t resist… must respond…

Once during an episode of Batman, an Australian friend generalized that Americans overuse the prefix anti. Did you ever notice (like Seinfeld, perhaps) that Dr T usually puts in the anti when mentioning COG criticism or another COG that has a doctrine that doesn’t match with one of the LCG? Yet the comments appear fairly warming when it is noticed that some non-COG group has a doctrine that shows some similarity? The similarity should be no surprise, as it has been widely stated that HWA was revealled those doctrines when reading their literature… or the works of Allen, or Rupert, or Adolph…

Someone, somewhere posted that Bob’s site is not really different from this one; the difference is that when making comparisons, his metric is the LCG, and ours is reality.

Okay, resistance was futile. My last post, I promise…

See you next year in Beijing.

I’ll go help my Sardis students with their English…

Buffalo 08/29/2007 10:55 PM

G Scott wrote,

”[with]ill wishes to none”

Well, that’s great. What brought about the conversion?

Jared Olar 08/30/2007 10:06 AM

What brought about the conversion?

And what will bring about yours, Mr. Snark?

Buffalo 08/30/2007 04:08 PM

Ah, Mr Olar, by engaging in name-calling you prove my point while trying to make one of your own. Thanks. That means I need say no more.

Heather Ramsdell 08/30/2007 07:33 PM

Please get off MR. Pack’s back. Leave the Apostle alone.

Dr S 08/30/2007 08:26 PM

Please get off Mr. Pack’s back

Clever! Back. Pack.

Back! Back!

Do not attack the back of Pack!

I’ve heard that before. Do all you guys plagiarize?

Now to think up something to honor Olar the Scholar.

Jared Olar 08/31/2007 12:03 AM

Ah, Mr Olar, by engaging in name-calling you prove my point while trying to make one of your own.

My snarkily observing that your comment is snarky proves your allegation that G Scott has ill will toward . . . somebody? Oooookay.

Thanks. That means I need say no more.

Indeed, it doesn’t appear that you needed to say anything at all.

Byker Bob 08/31/2007 09:24 PM

I can’t believe that the zombies have finally gotten up the courage to attack just because G has stated that xCG has become a spent force.

What a bunch of tail gunners, just like their idol AMR.

BB

Stinger 08/31/2007 10:11 PM

It’s good to see you going out on top, G.

So don’t let the religious bastards and other assorted spiritual clowns & bible freaks get you down. You’ve done a great work in exposing Armstrongism and the stupid self-righteousness that it breeds in these Pharisee clones that have that big A stamped on their foreheads (and their own little black book tucked away somewhere).

Best2U,
— Stinger

Heather Ramsdell 09/01/2007 10:09 PM

“Don’t let the religious bastards and other assorted spiritual clowns & bible freaks get you down”.

Venom spued from a moron. Leave Mr. Pack alone. Idiots

Dr S 09/01/2007 10:45 PM

Ms Ramsdell

Remember the prime directive: avoid ad hominem arguments

We only comment on what is said. Take it as brutally frank feedback.

“Feedback is the breakfast of champions” — Denis Waitley

Besides, Mr Pack loves it! He believes it’s persecution, one of his proofs that he is on the right track! (From one of his World to Come “broadcasts”.)

Jared Olar 09/02/2007 09:26 AM

Heather, how do you know David Pack is “the Apostle”? Did he receive laying on of hands from Jesus? Did Jesus tell him, “Feed my sheep”? Has his shadow healed the lame or the sick? Has he raised the dead?

What is it exactly, apart from David Pack’s say-so, that makes him “the Apostle”?

Big Red 09/02/2007 04:28 PM

G is doing the right thing. Raising a child is the hardest, most rewarding job a person can know.

I want to address some comments to Frenchie, Buffalo, Heather, AMR and the like.

First, the comment about you being tail gunners is true. You hear the website is discontinued, so you want to toss in some venal cheap shots at the very last moment. Doesn’t sound very Christian to me.

I don’t have the same antagonism towards Armstrong as some do. My experience in the old WCG was generally positive. I know that some people did get burned, however. I saw it happen.

During a FOT, Mr Armstrong said “so many of you people don’t get it.” Then he added “a lot of you ministers don’t get it.” That comment hit my brain like a thunder bolt.

After that comment, I stopped kissing the minister’s foot. I stopped looking for assurance from other people.

So many people were burned by bad pastors. So many people were burned by the people around them. Like Jonathon Livinston Seagull, I became free of that stuff. Thank you Mr Armstrong!

Heather? You want to call people morons and idiots? Then you still don’t get it! You’re still “in the flesh.”

Where were you when God created the universe? Where were you when God created life on this earth? Can you set the sun or moon in its orbit?

Yet you feel free to pronounce judgements on people that you’ve never met? Whom are you to presume such things? You better look at your own life, and take care of your own sins.

And the same goes for Bob Thiel. He thinks highly of himself, but he’s going to face a big surprise.

Dr S 09/02/2007 09:13 PM

Well said, Big Red!

There’re so many splinters, with so much to hide —
When we assess, they return and deride.

With AMR and Heather, with us their beef
Is that we choose not to hail to their chief.

That said, Big Red,
it’s time to go to sleep…


The comments show the nature of the web site, indeed all sites: topic X soon morphs to topic Y in the comment section. One post, in fact, had well over a hundred comments that were mostly about something entirely different. Still, there they are, the comments that still bring a smile when I consider them:

  • your site certainly helped me when i transitioned out of the cog world a couple years ago
  • Thanks for being instrumental in our exodus from an (x)CoG G.
  • Thanks so much G. Your site played a very important role in helping me exit the cult, and in convincing me that suicide was not the best path.
    You and Gavin[, author of a similar site,] literally saved my life.

All those hours of work for three comments? To help three people? One could of course make the argument that only three people replied but that perhaps many more felt the same way.

Looking Back, Looking Forward

Herbert W. Armstrong

Twenty-five years ago today there was a death that only a few thousand true believers and former true believers even remember, let alone know anything about. There are of course a few specialists — historians of religion and theologians — that would remember this man or know anything about it.

Herbert Armstrong died on January 19, 1986. He was the founder and leader of the church I grew up in, and his death came both as a shock and an expected consequence of age: he was 93 years old.

I remember his death; I remember his life; I find myself compelled to mention it. In that regard, I am hardly alone: there are dozens of bloggers writing about the same thing today. They’re rehearsing for the millionth time how he made false predictions (Armageddon was scheduled to begin during World War II, in 1972, and by 2005), how he lived in a palatial mansion and wore hand-tailored while his followers gave ridiculous amounts of their income (minimum of 10% of one’s gross salary plus offerings) to his church, how he was accused of some fairly awful things (which are certainly unprovable but highly suspect given the amount of circumstantial evidence).

Yet what strikes me about today — yet again — is how quickly time has passed since then, how insignificantly short twenty-five years can be.

This is most noticeable when thinking about music. I think of the music I grew up on, the music that was freshly released while I was in junior high and high school:

  • Boston’s Third Stage
  • U2’s Joshua Tree
  • REM’s Green
  • Pink Floyd’s Momentary Lapse of Reason

This is music that today’s teens consider “old music.” I think of how little time seems to have passed between the release of those albums and the present moment. It doesn’t feel like two and a half decades; the music doesn’t sound that old. And yet.

During high school, I was much more interested in “old” music myself:

  • Genesis’s albums when Peter Gabriel was still fronting the band.
  • The Grateful Dead
  • Pink Floyd
  • The Beatles

Now I stand in the same relationship to the music I grew up with as my teachers stood to Pink Floyd and the Beatles: twenty-plus years in the past (“It was twenty years ago today…”) yet feeling like yesterday (fill in the Beatles allusion for yourself).

And so I look back at the death of Herbert Armstrong realizing that it was an insignificant blink of time ago. Less than the flit of an eyelash in the grand scale of time. And not such a big chunk of time as twenty-five years seemed when I was thirteen and Armstrong died.

Behind the Scenes: The Wisconsin Shooting Tragedy

This is not the first time that someone associated with the ideology behind the Living Church of God committed such a vile act.

The Living Church of God (LCG) split from the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) in the mid-90’s over doctrinal differences. The founder of the WCG, Herbert Armstrong, died in 1986, and his successor, Joseph Tkach, began dismantling the doctrinal distinctives of the WCG. Those who wanted to remain faithful to Armstrong’s teachings left in droves in 1995, and one of the organizations formed was the Global Church of God (GCG), which eventually transmuted into the LCG, both led by Roderick Meredith.

Before Tkach made the drastic doctrinal changes, the WCG was a cult, pure and simple. Distinctive theological elements included

  • Rejection of the Trinity.
  • Observance of Jewish, Old Testament holy days.
  • Rejection of “worldly holidays,” including Christmas and Easter.
  • The teaching that the WCG alone was the true and undeceived church of God, and that all other Christians were merely “professing” Christians, deceived by (and ultimately worshiping) the devil.
  • The belief that the United States and England are peopled by the descendants of the original Ten Tribes of Israel.
  • The belief that Germany will rise again and defeat America in a nuclear World War Three.

The Living Church of God still holds to all these doctrines.

Precedent

Herbert Armstrong wrote his heretical theology up in many books and smaller booklets.

One of them was 1975 in Prophecy written in the 1950’s and predicting Jesus’ return in 1975.

The book had a violent effect on one Michael Dennis Rohan.

In an effort to hasten the building of the temple and resumption of Jewish cultic sacrifices in Jerusalem, Rohan set fire to the Al Aksa mosque in 1969. No one was killed, but there was significant material damage. The ripples of the attack continued through the years: fourteen years later, Hamas began a series of terrorist attacks scheduled to coincide with the Al Aksa attack.

Trying desperately to distance himself from the bad publicity the act generated, Herbert Armstrong responded by denying any connection between Rohan and his church:

Every effort, it seems, is being made to link us with it in a way to discredit the Work of God. The man, Rohan being held as the arsonist, the dispatches say, claims to be identified with us. This claim is TOTALLY FALSE. The first any of us at Pasadena ever heard of this man was when the press dispatches began coming over the Teletypes in our News Bureau. Checkups revealed that this man had sent in for and received a number of our Correspondence Course lessons. Last December he had sent in a subscription to The PLAIN TRUTH. But any claim to any further connection or association with us is an absolute lie.

Rohan claims he’d been in contact with a WCG minister, and that, combined with the fact that Rohan not only had subscription to the Plain Truth but also had received church literature, makes Rohan a “P.M.” – prospective member.

According to a Wikipedia article, Armstrong stopped claiming that a physical temple would have to be built

because at the time he was trying to establish a relationship with the government of Israel. He had previously developed a relationship with King Hussein of Jordan prior to the Six Day War and had actually signed a contract to go on the AM and shortwave [sic] Jordanian transmitters located in the West Bank with his daily radio program called The World Tomorrow. When Israel gained control of the West Bank it also voided Armstrong’s contract and as a result he then courted the favors of the government of Israel by becoming involved with such projects as the archeological digs in the area of the Temple Mount.

Practicalities won out over “God’s truth!”

Armstrong had a choice, it would seem, and in this case, continuing to preach “God’s truth!” as it had been “cried aloud” before would have been tantamount to Armstrong shooting himself in the theological/fiscal foot.

Unfortunately, Armstrong was not an idiot. He chose to tone it down.

Funny how “God’s truth” can be so self-defeating in some contexts.

The End of [Herbert Armstrong’s] World

The end of the world came for Herbert Armstrong nineteen years ago today.

He’d been predicting the end of the world for some time, starting back in the thirties. World War Two, he declared, would end with “the Second Coming of Christ!” It ended with the Iron Curtain, but never mind.

He then updated his prediction: 1975. He even wrote a “book,” for lack of a better term, called 1975 in Prophecy. Once again, Jesus was late for his own party.

Armstrong, founder of the now-evangelical, then-cultic Worldwide Church of God, had a fondness for the number nineteen. It was somehow of some Biblical significance. “Nineteen-year time cycles” and such. So here it is, nineteen years after the end of his world, and we’re still bumbling along.

The fact that Armstrong never got it right, and in fact failed in two predictions of Jesus’ return (not to mention a host of other failed predictions), hasn’t killed the hydra of Armstrongism. There are still true believers out there, waiting eagerly for the end of the world that’s supposed to come any day now. Men like Roderick Meredith, Gerald Flurry, and David Pack make the most of them, convincing their followers (“sheep,” as they like to call them) to donate thousands of dollars to their sects in return for a guarantee of personal safety when “the Tribulation” begins in “five to fifteen years.”

The Philadelphia Church of God published a year ago its own thoughts about the legacy of Herbert Armstrong.

It’s been “five to fifteen years” for forty years. Armstrong’s been dead an entire “19-year time cycle.” But cultic thinking and the need for security create a seeming perpetual motion machine out of Herbert Armstrong’s teachings. The world is a better place without Armstrong, but his ignorance continue to haunt.

The question of just who Armstrong was used to haunt me a great deal. The question of identity was the question of sincerity. In other words, did he really believe his own heresy? In still other words, was he consciously fleecing his believers? This simple question — was he a True Believer — affects all other aspects of how we view him. It’s makes it a question of either being an uneducated but sincere man who got caught up in his own growing power and wealth, or being callously manipulative and evil.

Everyone who’s ever been affected by Armstrong and come to reject his heresy has to answer that question. I’m not sure I’ve worked out my own answer. I probably never will. Unfortunately, I’ll probably never stop trying to work it out — the obsession factor.

The legacy, if it can even be called that, of Armstrong is dying outside the circles of people who were directly affected by his heresy. Before he died, Armstrong managed to visit with all sorts of kings and dignitaries. Supporters say it’s because he was such a great, noble man; critics charge that he bought these audiences.

At his death, letters of condolence from leaders around the world:

Teddy Kollek, mayor of Jerusalem at the time, wrote, “One could only be deeply impressed by his vast efforts to promote understanding and peace among peoples. His good deeds were felt in many corners of the world.” The mayor of Pasadena called him “a giant of a man.” The Israeli ambassador to the U.S. called him “an inspiring religious and public and educational personality.” The king of Thailand considered him a “close and valuable friend.” The king of Nepal said he was “dedicated to the cause of serving humanity.” (Philadelphia Trumpet)

“He was a great man,” everyone in his church thought when he died, “And the whole world shares in our grief.” The letters from leaders (even Reagan sent a letter) were proof of Armstrong’s worldwide impact. They knew him; they met with him; they sought his advice — the world reeled from the loss.

And now? How many know of him? If I were to stand at a street corner and take a poll in downtown Manhattan, who would know whom I’m talking about?

Virtually none, I would imagine.

The Churches of God–A Sociological Examination

Herbert W. Armstrong

Since the doctrinal changes in the Worldwide Church of God (WCG hereafter) in the 1980s and 1990s and its subsequent division into the numerous “splinter groups,” there has not been much genuine communication between those who stayed (whom in this essay I will call “assenters,” for they give their assent to the new doctrines) and those who left (whom I will call “dissenters,” for they withhold their assent to the new doctrines).[1] When there is communication, it can generally be described as nothing less than a hateful argument, of which both assenters and dissenters are guilty. Assenters declare that dissenters are not really examining scripture “objectively” (a term which I will deal with shortly), indicating that accepting the WCG’s new doctrines is simply a matter of logic; dissenters declare that assenters are betraying everything they were taught under Herbert Armstrong and that they are hopelessly deceived by Satan. With such divergent presuppositions held firmly, assenters and dissenters often verbally bash each other over the head until one or the other (or both) realizes the futility of the “discourse,” and then communication ceases altogether.

At a WCG-related web site, John Bowers explains this lack of communication this lack of communication in, “Why Christians Hate.” He claims it is simply because of fear: “To be a member of an unpopular religious cult, such as the Worldwide Church of God, is to live in fear.” To some degree, I feel Bowers was on track in this assessment, but it doesn’t go deep enough. It offers a somewhat superficial explanation as to why members of sectarian cults “fear.” The purpose of this essay is to use sociology (specifically sociology of knowledge) to locate a little more precisely the source of this “fear” in Bowers’ essay and to a lesser degree.

The World through Sociology’s Eyes

From the moment of our birth, the world is mediated to us. Usually this is done by our parents, whose job it is to teach us “the ways of the world.” This involves teaching us very simple, physical things, like the fact that touching a hot stove is a bad idea. We could, of course, figure these simple things out for ourselves, and very often we do. That is how we learn to walk, for example.

Yet our parents’ responsibility doesn’t stop with teaching us to keep our fingers away form hot stoves and out of electrical outlets. It also involves teaching us things that we wouldn’t be able to figure out for ourselves – at least not immediately. For example, it is from our parents that we learn our ethnic and national heritage. The average 18-month-old French girl has no idea that she is a French girl. Indeed, she probably has no idea what France is at that point. If she’s born into a Catholic family, she also has no idea what Catholicism is. Nor would she easily figure these things out on her own. Instead, her parents explain these things to her – things that later in her life will appear as normal, everyday reality.

Our parents introduce us to a very specific world that has many facets: social standing, race, religious orientation, ethnicity, etc. As our parents expose us to these aspects of their world, we come to accept it as our world too. In short, our parents define reality for us as we are growing up. This is called socialization, or more specific, primary socialization.

The things we learn in primary socialization are the things that later we take for granted as “everyday knowledge.” They form the basis of what we think “normal” people do. The end result is that within a given culture where certain groups of people undergo a very similar primary socialization process, these people define reality in almost identical ways.

Rules of etiquette provide a good example of this: In the Western world we generally do not slurp our soup, flatulate in a crowded train, make rude comments about our boss’s hair, urinate in a public park, or any number of things, all because we have been taught not to – most often by our parents. The things described above are the “basics” of polite behavior – they constitute the foundation of how everyone knows they should behave.

Yet in and of themselves, these basics that “everyone knows” are arbitrary. Nothing physical will happen to us if we break taboo and do any of the preceding things things. We won’t die if we slurp our soup, or relieve ourselves in the middle of Central Park. We will, however, get glares at the dinner table for our noisy soup eating or be carted off by the police if we duck behind a tree in Central Park.

Thus is the world into which we are born. The rights and the wrongs have already been decided, even though in most cases the decisions made are, from a purely biological point of view, arbitrary. They are not based on universal human needs (like eating or sleeping) and as such they are open to a wide range of interpretation. This fact is most vividly illustrated when you go to a foreign country and find a man standing against a wall in broad daylight, his back to the street, urinating – for all to see. Clearly, you and the man relieving himself define reality in a different manner. Indeed, you define reality in a way different from the man urinating and all the other people walking by him without so much as a second glance. For you it is decidedly disgusting and unnatural; for them, it’s the norm.

The “norm” we receive from our parents during primary socialization is initially not in competition with any other definitions, and we come accept our parents’ reality as reality in its totality. For example, a child raised by Muslim parents in a Muslim community will initially assume that the entire world is Muslim. It’s possible to imagine a grown man who clings to this definition of reality as normative throughout his life. How would such a feat be possible? Simple. If he never encounters anyone who is not Muslim, he will never have any reason to doubt that the entire world is Muslim. However, given the proliferation of mass communication and the ease of contemporary travel, he probably will encounter someone (via television or tourism) who is not a Muslim, and this encounter will constitute a competing claim about the nature of reality.

In a pluralistic society such as America, such primary socialization that excludes all other definitions of reality is simply impossible. We usually become aware of different points of view at a fairly early age, but such alternative points of view can be easily dismissed as “different” or even “abnormal.” Our parents at first do this dismissing. For example, when we’re traveling to Florida for vacation and we encounter a group of punks at a rest area, our father mutters derisively, “Freaks.” We incorporate this into our own worldview and for us, as 5-year-old children, these individuals become “freaks” as well. We don’t question whether our father is right or wrong in his assessment – we simply accept it. He was correct when he taught us “right” and “left” and how to tie our shoes – why wouldn’t he be right here as well? This points out the simple fact that to the extent that our parents are our primary mediators to the world around us for our entire early childhood, they are infallible.

It is from such encounters with people who define reality differently that the “us-them” view of the world comes into play. While this paradigm is often (and rightly) criticized as being “narrow-minded,” it is unavoidable in a sense. As long as there are cultures that define reality different, these different views will have to be sensibly incorporated into our own worldview. As seen above, in can be done in a somewhat flippant manner, writing off the legitimacy of a whole worldview with a pshaw and flick of the wrist.

There are other ways to deal with differing worldviews, though, that don’t amount to an ideological annihilation. The father in the above example could have just as easily explained the punks’ spiked hair and leather in such a way that doesn’t completely debase them. He could have just explained that they’re different and left it at that.

However, there are some things about which even the most liberal-minded and socially tolerant parent will make will have make normative. Incest, for example, is a fairly universal taboo[2] and even those who are willing to accept punks or bikers will be unwilling to condone incest – or murder, stealing, or any number of semi-universal norms.

Primary socialization, then, simply involves our acceptance as children of certain subjective ideas as being objectively true. As a sort of negative example, imagine the following: as a cruel experiment, parents decide to teach their child that everything is the opposite of what it “actually” is. So they teach this child that “up” is “down,” “blue” is “green,” “left” is “right,” and so on. On what basis will this child initially know that her parents are lying to her? Initially, none. Only when she begins interacting with others and makes a comment about how blue the grass is and sees their reactions will she be able to understand that her reality is different than everyone else’s.

We might even ask, “On what basis are the parent lying to the child?” When we encounter this child calling the sky green and the grass blue, on what authority to we exclaim, “Why, you’ve got it wrong – exactly opposite, in fact!” In other words, why is blue blue? Because some omnipotent force decreed that light within a certain range of wavelengths will be called blue? Perhaps, but we have no evidence of that. From our point of view we must accept that blue is blue because that’s how speakers of English define that particular wavelength of color.[3]

All if this is simply to say that reality is a construction. It is something we learn from our parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from theirs – ad infinitum. And what’s more, this reality we learn from our parents is all encompassing. It is not simply a matter of colors and direction – it is a matter of what it means to be a good father, or how a man behaves and how a woman behaves, and so on.

To put it bluntly, the things we think of as “objective” really aren’t. Certain things are given objective status simply because everyone around us agrees that they have objective status. Nothing comes from an infallible fount of wisdom; everything we know, we know things because someone else told us – in the case of primary socialization, that someone is our parents. And the simple fact is, they could have just as easily socialized us in any number of ways. The reason they did as they did is simply because that was how they were socialized.

There are many different ways for parents to define reality to their children. What it means to be a man or a woman, for example, is a product of primary socialization and it differs greatly from culture to culture. In Western society, for instance, hand-holding has romantic and even sexual connotations in our society, and we learn these connotations during primary socialization. We also learn (generally speaking) that such romantic connections should not exist between two men. Therefore, it is culturally wrong for two men to hold hands in our society, unless of course they are lovers and are bold enough to show their affection in public. However, in other cultures, hand-holding is not a sign of romantic or sexual attraction, and while homosexuality might be generally socially condemned in that country just as it is in our own, two men holding hands doesn’t even get a second glance. Why? Because just in our society we “know” that hand-holding is a sign of romantic involvement, members of other cultures “know” that hand-holding is a symbol of intimacy and closeness but not sexuality. These two cultures might agree on the point that “men shouldn’t have sexual attractions for other men,” but still disagree on whether or not it is acceptable for me to hold hands as the stroll. Therefore, to be a man means slightly different things in these cultures.

Of course we can push this even further by pointing out that this notion of homosexuality being acceptable or not is something we learn during our primary socialization. From a biological point of view, the only drawback to homosexuality is its inability to produce offspring.[4] The fact that our culture defines reality in such a way that homosexuality is deemed offensive makes more of a statement about our culture than it does about homosexuality.

Not all of our knowledge comes from our parents and peers, though. Some of it comes from teachers, ministers, and counselors and constitutes secondary socialization. While similar in many ways to primary socialization, though, secondary socialization is much more fluid. Both teach us particular realities and provide knowledge about the world around us, but they do so in different ways and to different ends.

While the “knowledge” we learn during primary socialization is general – the taken-for-granted information that everyone in our culture accepts – what we learn in secondary socialization is much more specific. In addition, knowledge from secondary socialization tends to be less objective from a cultural point of view.

One of the things we learn in secondary socialization is how to perform the actions required of us by our jobs. If one is a chemist, these are the things one learned during many hours in the chemistry classroom and lab in college. If one is a garbage collector, these are the things one learned from the “old hands” at work. It doesn’t take long to realize that this knowledge is considered subjective. Not everyone agrees one the best way to keep warm while collecting garbage during the winter, and not everyone agrees on the best way to explain the behavior of certain chemicals under certain conditions. These are “matters of opinion,” we like to say.

It’s also clear from these examples that secondary socialization is much more specific – it is connected to roles that not everyone plays. Not everyone is a chemist, and so not everyone can even begin to explain why chemical x acts this way at time y. And since only a very few of us have collected garbage (in the summer or winter), we won’t all be able to keep warm simply because we’ve never been taught how.

Plausibility

Up to this point we have dealt with two kinds of knowledge – that which “everyone knows” (given to us through primary socialization) and that which a few people know (from secondary socialization). What both these kinds of knowledge have in common, though, is their source: they both come from other people. Other people not only are responsible for giving us knowledge; they are also responsible for making it possible to accept this knowledge as knowledge and not opinion. In short, the reason we can continue to believe most of the things we learned in primary socialization and secondary socialization is that people around us make us feel it is reasonable to believe. The fact that they believe something makes it easier for us to believe it; their belief in it makes the belief itself more plausible.

For example, the reason it is difficult in our modern Western society to hold that sticking pins in a doll will have an affect on a given person is in part because no one else believes it. If we do go around talking about voodoo dolls as if they were as effective as two aspirin, we would be labeled a lunatic, or at the very least, strangely out of touch with reality. If we were plopped down in the middle of a community where voodoo is plausible, we would have quite another situation on our hands. In fact, our insistence that voodoo is nothing but rubbish would have the same effect in this culture as our insistence on voodoo’s efficacy would have in our modern Western culture. In either case, we would constitute a cognitive minority – a group of people (or a single person in this case) who believe something radically different than what the majority of people believe.

If we are a cognitive minority, we have two alternatives. We can sell-out, so to say, and accept the definition of reality of the cognitive majority. If we decide not to sell out but to hold fast to the truth as we see it, we face an uphill battle. To everyone else’s “Yes!” we will always be saying, “No!” Everyone else’s black will be our white. To keep this up indefinitely will be exhausting unless we get some support. As long as someone else is saying, “That’s okay – I believe what you believe and I don’t think you’re a lunatic for doing so,” it will be more bearable to be the cognitive minority. What will happen, then, is we will find that we spend more time with those who believe as we do (after all, we can relax and stop justifying our beliefs to them) than with those who think we’re somewhat off our rockers for our crazy views. Put differently, we eventually will create for ourselves a community that serves to make the reality we take for granted seem more plausible. In doing so, we will implement what sociologists refer to as plausibility structures.

Plausibility structures help determine what is believable and what is not. The more support an idea gets from those around us, the easier it is to believe. In yet simpler terms, it is easier to be a Catholic in Rome than in Mecca. Peter Berger expresses it thus: “The strength of [an idea’s plausibility], ranging from unquestioned certitude through firm probability to mere opinion, will be directly dependent upon the strength of the supporting structure” (A Rumor of Angels, 40).

It is now time to return to John Bowers’ comment, “To be a member of an unpopular religious cult, such as the Worldwide Church of God, is to live in fear.” This really is an empty statement because we all live in a certain fear that the world constructed around us – the world into which we have been socialized and accept as “normal” – will turn out to be contrary to fact. A lie, to be blunt. To return to an earlier image, we’re always a little worried when we sit down at the table that those around us will begin slurping their soup as if it’s just the most natural thing in the world to do.[5]

We have all sorts of mechanisms – from psychotherapy to Mass – that ensure that we keep this fear under control, so much so that it’s almost unconscious. If it were not for these mechanisms, in fact, we would be unable to operate “normally” in our daily lives. Indeed, it is rare that someone is so overcome with the fear that the world she sees around her is somehow “wrong.” Such individuals are usually considered prime candidates for a psychiatrist’s couch – or, if radically different enough, for a straight jacket. This is because we’ve been “shown” (i.e., taught) – and we’ve accepted – the world around us as somehow corresponding to some normative “truth,” and the fact that everyone else around us behaves as if it’s true reassures us. Cars stop at red lights because we drivers have agreed to halt our cars at red lights and because it was somehow ordained at the beginning of time that such should be the case. People don’t slurp their soup because that’s how it’s always been done and it was ordained from the beginning that such should be the case. Or so it feels to us on a normal, everyday basis.

So to a degree, I take issue with Bower’s statement. We’re all a little frightened that what we believe to be reality is not reality. Proof of this is easily found in that disturbing limbo we inhabit immediately after waking up from a bizarre dream. For a moment the ontological status of the dream is unclear, and we’re just a little worried that the dream might be reality and vice versa. This last only for a few moments, however, and as the fog of sleep lifts, we see clearly that it was just a dream–and we are reassured.

Roles and Our Ever-Changing Biography

A convenient way to think about reality through the eyes of sociology is through roles. We all have particular roles we play, and each of these different roles – mother, lawyer, aunt, and sister – comes with built-in cultural expectations. A good aunt if is someone whose behavior conforms to the general cultural expectations of the role of “aunt.”

Some of the roles are defined by primary socialization, such as “mother” or “uncle” while others are delineated during secondary socialization, such as “professor” or “colonel.” Generally these roles coexist rather peacefully so that we have an “office self” that is not radically different from our “home self.” If there is a great deal of difference between these two roles, though, one or the other will have to give. Which one actually does give will depend on which one is more important, which in turn depends on any number of cultural and personal factors. To add to the confusion, a choice we make today to subsume a professional role (perhaps “lawyer”) to a personal role (maybe “mother”) because family life is deteriorating might have been drastically different five years ago when, say, there was rumors that one might be promoted to partner in the law firm.

Peter Berger points out one intriguing aspect of all this role-playing that makes up our lives: our biographies are in fact largely influenced by the various roles we play in our lives. Berger discusses this at length in Invitation to Sociology and it will be helpful here to outline his ideas in this regard.

Most of us like to think that the act of writing our autobiographies would be a fairly simple act. After all, we would simply need to record in chronological fashion a description of what we did in our lives. I was born on this date; I went to this school; I married this person; I had these children; I worked at these places. Yet we obviously can’t include everything in our autobiography, else it would be thousands of pages long. Therefore we have to select some things to include and others to leave out. How do we do this? Simple – it depends on what is important to us at the time of our writing. But here is the interesting catch: were we to write this at a different time – earlier or later – different parts of our lives would stand out as more important than they would now. More abstractly, our autobiography is an interpretation of our lives, not purely a description. What we see as important in our past depends on what is important in our present. Not only that, but we can re-interpret portions of our lives, giving them drastically different meanings than whatever meaning we attached to the moment as we were living it, or at some other point in our lives.

For example, imagine a woman who, after attending rallies and reading books, becomes a Communist. Her life to that point will need to be re-interpreted. What was once a happy, fiscally secure middle-class life will be viewed as an empty, bourgeois false consciousness. A Catholic convert might come to see a series of personal misfortunes as events God was using to bring him into the Mother Church.

It becomes clear, then, that such biographical reinterpretation is critical when one role conflicts with an earlier role. Some kind of explanation must be provided as to how the same individual could have been two seemingly different people, ideologically speaking. To do this, we reinterpret our biography.

Religion and Conversion

One of the most significant acts of secondary socialization is religious conversion. When one converts from one religion to another, it means altering how one defines reality, and very often, accepting one set of religious beliefs involves denying the set of religious beliefs we received from our parents. This type of secondary socialization can be more radical than any another because it often involves drastic changes in how we live our lives, how we explain the world around us, how we interpret our past, and so on.

In a sense, religious conversion is similar to primary socialization. Indeed, one might say it is a second primary socialization since “true” religious conversion results in a complete change of one’s course of life.[6] The primary difference is that this “second” primary socialization within religious conversion does not create a reality ex nihilo (“from nothing”) as one’s true primary socialization did many years earlier. We are not learning and interpreting reality; we are re-learning and re-interpreting reality.

Since it doesn’t create reality ex nihilo necessitates, conversion is one of the biggest stimuli for reconstituting one’s personal biography. That which transpired before conversion must be re-interpreted in order to maintain consistency with one’s current standards.

Frequently this includes the retrojection into the past of present interpretative schemas (the formula for this being, “I already knew then, though in an unclear manner . . .”) and motives that were not present in the past but that are now necessary for the reinterpretation of what took place then (the formula being, “I really did this because . . .”).[7]

This “then-and-now” biography creates a certain internal “us-them” mentality. “Before conversion, I was among the blind; now I can see.” One is no longer among “them,” the blind. Instead, one is among “us,” the enlightened.

Additionally, the conflicts that can arise between our pre-conversional selves and our post-conversional selves are not always easily resolved, and they can sometimes be destructive to relationships of our life that no longer conform to our new definition of reality. This radical new view of one’s past can, of course, necessitate a distance between the friends of the “former me” and the “new me.” This reality-twisting that we engage in when converting necessitates relationship-twisting that some relationships cannot bear. Something will have to give –our new interpretation of reality, our relationship, or both.

Sociology of Religion and the Churches of God

When we put all this together and use it as a tool of examination for the various Churches of God[8] it all seems to make sense – the distancing from non-members, the rigid instance on doctrinal purity and complete acquiescence, the virtual impossibility of assenter/dissenter friendships, etc. Indeed, one gets the uncanny feeling that authors writing general descriptions of sociology of knowledge and religion used the Churches of God as a model. And in fact, sociologists did just that, for the WCG and its sister churches are textbook examples (sometimes literally) of the processes described above.

To begin with, until the recent changes, members of the WCG had been a cognitive minority in the religious community in particular and in society in general. This was certainly not something the leadership and members of the WCG tried to deny. The knowledge Herbert Armstrong shared was special – esoteric knowledge available only to the select few that God has called out. It was not a source of shame. Indeed, the “cult” badge was worn with pride for many years, and still is by various splinter groups.

Armstrong would not even deny that the fact that WCG members constitute a cognitive minority was the reason it formed such a tight community in the local churches. The theological reasoning was simple: don’t be unequally yoked with nonbelievers.[9] The sociological reason for this, though, should now be obvious: since it’s easier to believe something when all your friends and acquaintances believe the same thing, it’s best to stay among one’s own kind. They back you up; they make belief in something plausible.

Herbert Armstrong certainly realized the importance of creating strong plausibility structures (though he never would have used such a term) and in essence, he created an alternative universe within the WCG. Armstrong’s WCG had its separate rules, regulations, and definitions of reality, and the individual churches served to provide social support for believers in time of “doubt.” This is not to say that WCG leaders or congregations nurtured people who had doubts, helping them find resolution to various problems. In fact, they often did quite the opposite and criticized fellow believers for their lack of faith. Instead what I am talking about here is plausibility support for a cognitive minority that the cognitive majority could describe as bizarre. Local congregations provided a community that made it easier to hold these beliefs that flew in the face of most other Christian theologies. Spouting off about the Great Tribulation on any street corner will immediately get one labeled, “Lunatic.” Doing so in the local COG congregation might possibly earn a promotion to deacon.

Sociology also helps explain why it was necessary to quarantine prospective members instead of inviting them to Sabbath services the next Saturday. Perspective members still hadn’t redefined their pre-Armstrongian biography and their new WCG socialization process had only begun. They still had in their heads alternative, “heretical” definitions of reality, and introduction of such an unsocialized element into the local congregation could lead others to adopt these heretical points of view.[10] More succinctly, the new member might re-socialize an established member or two if things are not handled carefully.[11]

It is clear now why Mr. Armstrong taught that sociology (among other “worldly” sciences) was to be avoided. When someone can explain anything from a non-theological point of view, it threatens the authority of those who explain the same thing from a theological point of view. Mr. Armstrong taught members to avoid close contact with people of “the world” because they were just that – the world, deceived by Satan and inherently dangerous from an ideological perspective. Members were called out, set apart, different in every way. This is the theological explanation. The sociological explanation is simply that associating with “the world” would tend to weaken rather than to support WCG members’ beliefs and the authority of Mr. Armstrong by providing alternatives to his explanations. Reading and studying sociology shows Armstrongian reality to be one of several alternative worldviews, and in such a fundamentalist sect such as the WCG, choice – heresy – is a dangerous thing. It also explains the mechanisms by which Armstrong tried to bracket out competing realities. It showed the man behind the curtain.  Again, not a good thing for a fundamentalist sect such as the WCG.

Armstrong and the other leaders of the WCG were of course aware of the various alternative definitions of reality swirling about outside the WCG, but in a sense they had nothing to worry about because they had mechanisms already in place to deal with them. Just as our father in an earlier example “nihiliated”[12] the punks’ worldview with the single word, “Freak,” so Armstrong nihiliated competing worldviews with a single word: Satan. The notion of worldwide satanic deception was convenient for two reasons. First, a different solution does not have to be proposed for each problematic worldview. All can be subsumed under the simple heading of “satanic deception.” Hinduism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Protestantism,[13] and even atheism all have the same flaw: Satan. Second, it helped highlight the lack of satanic deception in the WCG. In strengthened the us-them mentality by simultaneously pointing out their error and WCG’s correctness.[14]

The reinterpretation of one’s pre-conversional biography within the WCG also provided a nice way of setting members apart from the rest of the world, reinforcing the “us-them” mentality. “I was deceivedas the rest of the world is now!” And as pointed out earlier, this tends to force one to internalize the “us-them” view. In addition, the Armstrongian sorteriology provided a strong “us-them” mentality, with WCG members destined to be the leaders while the deceived world were to be subjects.

Whether or not Herbert Armstrong deliberately planned all of this is open to debate, but I for one think it is highly doubtful. While such a book could be written, there does not exist (to my knowledge) a monograph entitled How to Start a Sect.[15] Even to say that Armstrong envisioned a church approaching the scope of the WCG at its height seems to credit Armstrong with much more cunning than he actually possessed. It was all, to some degree, an accident. Armstrong was at the cliché right place at the right time with the right message that appealed to certain people. Once he gained a small following, the process of institutionalization followed its somewhat natural course and a sect formed.[16]

The Split

As the WCG’s initially slight theological changes became more pronounced in the late 1980s and the early 90s, the resulting splintering was hardly avoidable. There was initially an attempt to keep everyone together with assurances that “we can all live together in peace even if we have slightly different theological views.”[17] But as the scope of the changes broadened, expanding beyond make-up and healing, this became increasingly unrealistic for a simple reason: the local church communities, which, once united in a common belief, had served as plausibility structures, no longer provided this sociological necessity for everyone. People became “unequally yoked.”

Not only did individuals’ worldviews cease to support each other but as the changes dug deeper into the fundamentals of Armstrongian theology, individuals’ worldviews began to contradict each other. No institution can survive very long when members hold conflicting views, and so the divisions became not only theologically but also sociologically and psychologically necessary.

This is also the reason assenters and dissenters are hard-pressed to sustain meaningful relationships – their definitions of reality challenge each other. To remain in contact with those who no longer share the same beliefs would produce threats to one’s own worldview. Those for whom common religious beliefs were the defining aspect of their relationship could not long remain close friends with those who no longer share the common beliefs because of a lack of mutual support. If, however, there were other bonds in the relationship – either familial bonds, or perhaps even a strong personal friendship – the relationship might continue, but it’s doubtful that religion will be a frequent topic of conversation.

The Current, Post-Armstrongian WCG Reality

Where does all this leave the WCG today, almost fifteen years after Herbert Armstrong’s death? The future of this church is now questionable and those who were unable to acquiesce to the new teachings (the dissenters, as I originally named them) have formed many churches, which have themselves split (sometimes many times over). Armstrong’s once-great empire is now a fragmented mass of various churches with significant numbers attending no church at all. What are the implications of all this?

Both assenters and dissenters have had to re-think their definitions of reality. No one predicted such a cataclysmic event as what happened in the late 80s and early 90s. No one was prepared, ideologically speaking. Suddenly, a huge event had to be explained from worldviews that were not equipped to do so. An Armstrongian worldview could explain lots of things – why everyone looks at you like a freak when you talk about the Place of Safety, why Europe was moving toward increasing unity – but it couldn’t explain this. It couldn’t make sense of how so many people could turn their backs on the truth delivered through Mr. Armstrong; or, conversely, how so many people could fail to see the mistakes in Armstrong’s theology once they had been pointed out and prayerfully studied.

For each group this had somewhat different consequences. The dissenters had to come up with a way of explaining how God could allow so many “true Christians” to be deceived. Gerald Flurry, of the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG), uses 2 Thessalonians 2.10—11[18] as an explanation, explaining that God is separating the true Christian minority from the deceived WCG majority by sending a “strong delusion.”[19] Other splinter groups explain it in a variety of ways, but most of them deal involve the idea of Satanic deception in one way or another. From the point of view of the dissenters, the assenters have now joined the ranks of the “deceived,” and as such the assenters’ new worldviews have long been nihiliated.

In a way, the predicament of the assenters is more interesting. To some degree those who accepted the new teachings have had to go through yet another socialization process when they came to accept once again the ideas they’d rejected upon conversion to Armstrongian theology. When they joined the WCG, they had to re-evaluate many of the simple facts of their lives, like what it means to be a Christian, what humanity’s potential and destiny are, etc. They had to reject “the world’s ideas” and accept Armstrong’s ideas. Once the changes were made, they essentially rejected Armstrong’s ideas and returned to “the world’s ideas.”

Not only that, but the assenters had to reformulate their worldviews in such a way that could account for the massive number of people who abandoned Armstrong’s teachings. This could be a particularly traumatic experience for some if they come to the conclusion that the reason their friends went with one of the other Churches of God was because their friends were (and are) still in the grip of cultic control. And that, by default, means they themselves were “in the grip of cultic control” – not something one likes to admit to oneself. Such a drastic explanation is not inevitable, though. Another possibility is to say that those who remain with Armstrongian Churches of God do so because they fulfill some basic need in their lives – a need they themselves once fulfilled with Armstrongian theology but now fill with “the grace of Christ.”

Whatever the explanation, one thing is certain – all involved must make some attempt to explain how such drastic changes occurred and further, to explain why John Doe assented to the changes while Susan Jones didn’t. Not to do so would be to leave a huge section of one’s life an enormous question mark – and that’s something very few people can live with.

Notes


[1] I do not mean “dissenter” to be a pejorative word, certainly not in the sense that it was used in the WCG (and is still used in other organizations) as grounds for disfellowshipment. Additionally, I am not implying that they are dissenting from a universal norm. In as much as the WCG’s doctrinal authority was once the norm for them, they are “dissenters.” Still, I am hesitant to use these words for they create an unavoidable polarity that I would actually like to avoid. Indeed, it is simply a matter of perspective: The “dissenters” could have just as easily been called “assenters” since they continue to subscribe to and support Armstrongian theology.

Further, I do not wish to describe them as “Tkach-ites” and “Armstrong-ites” for several reasons. To begin with, it’s grammatically clumsy and it sounds ridiculous. More importantly, the term “Armstrongites” has already been used and it is always used in a pejorative manner, something I hope to avoid like the cliché plague in this essay.

[2] This is true even in ancient Egypt when the pharaoh married his own sister. The difference lies in how various cultures define incest. What is incest in our culture is not in others, and vice versa.

[3] This illustrates that one of the most important aspects of primary socialization and one of the most subjective is language. While it is a fascinating topic, it is not a diversion I will make in this essay.

[4] One might point to sexually transmitted diseases as an example of another biological drawback, but this argument is rendered ineffective by the fact that no sexually transmitted disease is transmitted exclusively through homosexual encounters. Thus sexually transmitted diseases might be seen as a biological drawback to promiscuity, whether homo- or heterosexual.

[5]The fact that it is not natural is because of our primary socialization. There are a great many things that we are socialized into believing are not “natural” when in fact “nature” tells us nothing about these things.

[6] The apostle Paul in the New Testament speaks of conversion in terms that underscore this: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways“ (1Cor 13.11).

[7] Peter Berger, The Social Construction of Reality, 160

[8] Worldwide, Philadelphia, International, Living, Global, United, etc.

[9] “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” King James Version – Armstrong’s preferred translation.

[10] It is useful to recall that “heresy” is derived from the Greek for “choice.”

[11] Gerald Flurry, leader of the Philadelphia Church of God, explains it thus: “God’s Church has the responsibility to PROTECT its members. WITH AN OPEN DOOR POLICY, THE WCG IS BEING DESTROYED SPIRITUALLY BY SATAN!” (Worldwide Church of God Doctrinal Changes and the Tragic Results, 74)

[12] The term is used in Peter Beger’s Invitation to Sociology.

[13] It has always amused me that Armstrong differentiated himself and his church from Protestants (using that term in a derogate fashion) while at the same time failing to realize that his church, by default, was itself Protestant. It was not Orthodox (Greek, Eastern, or Russian), Coptic, or Catholic, and the only other option (denominationally speaking) was Protestant.

[14] This simple dualistic view (us-them, Satan-vs-God, black-white) is common in fringe sects and fundamentalist denominations, and it serves as an easy way to deal with all competing worldviews. Not only did this dualism annihilate any possibility of an alternative reality having any validity, but it also strengthened the sense of inner-church community by fostering an “us-them” attitude.

[15] Some have labeled the WCG a “cult,” but from a sociological point of view, I would hold this is not quite correct. A cult by most sociological accounts is a new religion (such as UFO worship) whereas a sect is just a marginal interpretation of an established religion.

[16] For a more detailed discussion of the relationship between a charismatic leader and the subsequent formation of a religion, see Max Weber’s The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.

[17] I attended a WCG First Day of Unleavened Bread service in the early 90s at which the minister said, in effect, “If you think this is a holy and binding day, we welcome you. If you think this is not, we welcome you.” Such an attempt at tolerance was greeted with applause. Months later, though, the minister left the WCG for the United Church of God and many of the likeminded members, unable to survive in such a divided environment, followed.

[18] “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (The quote is from the King James Version, the preferred translation of the PCG.)

[19] This theological argument is questionable at best and creates certain negative connotations in the PCG explanation of God’s nature. For more on this see my “God as Represented in Malachi’s Message.”