Twenty Years On

It just occurred to me that January 16, 2006, will mark the twentieth anniversary of Herbert W. Armstrong's death. I remember that day quite clearly. I was a sophomore at Ambassador College in Pasadena, California, and employed by Church Administration to assist the office in various functions (in the vernacular, I was a "gofer"). When I reported for work that morning at 8, there was a palpable feeling that something big had taken place, and it took me all of three seconds to find out that Mr. Armstrong had died earlier that morning.

His death was not unexpected, it being common knowledge that his health was rapidly declining. Joseph Tkach, the new Pastor General, quickly put a transition team into action, and plans were put into motion for announcing Mr. Armstrong's death to the church and the press, arranging his funeral, developing a tribute telecast, informing the students and employees on campus, making legal adjustments for the smooth operation of the church, and doing a host of other activities. Condolences began pouring into Pasadena from all over the world by telex and fax and phone; I remember being handed a thick stack of them and being impressed by all the "big names," both foreign and domestic, who took the trouble to relay their sympathy.

The next few days and weeks were, to me, a blur of activity, highlighted by specific events that loomed large at the time: Mr. Armstrong's funeral, the huge response figures for the tribute World Tomorrow program, the introduction of the new World Tomorrow presenters, the move "upstairs" by Joseph Tkach, the inaugural church visits around the country and the world (on one of which, to Chicago, I was permitted to go), the "We Are Family" campaign, etc. Those were heady days. The church appeared to have transitioned peacefully and prosperously to the new regime.

It did not take long for those exhilarating days to end.

Most people are unaware that the doctrinal changes began to be enacted almost immediately. It began with "little things" slipped into a Pastor General's Report or implemented without much fanfare as counsel in individual cases. The first may have been backpedaling on teaching that married women, especially those with children, should be homemakers. There were flip-flops on applauding special music and the wearing of makeup. Many of Herbert Armstrong's booklets were edited, demoted, or retired and replaced altogether. The church's teaching found in The United States and Britain in Prophecy was questioned, ridiculed, and subsequently dropped.

The first core doctrinal change—concerning faith, Christ's sacrifice, and healing—occurred in early 1987. Elements of this change were theologically correct, for instance, that sin is sin, no matter whether it is physical or spiritual in nature. However, the practical effect of the change was to remove faith from healing—and really, from anything else—to such an extent as to make it negligible. Once this major tenet of the church's teaching fell, others, like dominoes, were doomed also to fall. Soon, certain Sabbath teachings were loosened, hints of Trinitarianism began to bubble out of headquarters, and the gospel of the Kingdom of God was downgraded in favor of "the gospel of grace" and "the gospel of Jesus." All of this took place before 1992 began, and many more changes would follow.

In a relatively few years, then, the work of Herbert Armstrong, which had taken about sixty years to build, was dismantled. Certainly, a decade after his death, the Worldwide Church of God was essentially unrecognizable as the church God had raised up through him. Twenty years on, it is seeking not even to be called the "Worldwide Church of God" any longer because, in the words of Joseph Tkach, Jr., "Our current name does not properly represent us." He is right. His organization does not deserve the name!

Notwithstanding such praise, Herbert Armstrong was a fallible man, and some would argue that he made many mistakes. He was not always right, even on doctrine. His fixation on preaching the gospel, while commendable, blinded him to other areas that should have received his attention, particularly to many church members' desperate need of strong, deep instruction in God's way of life. In addition, his authoritarianism is legendary, but it was effective in promoting and accomplishing his vision of God's work on earth. A person cannot head a global evangelistic organization without these traits.

It is too bad that, for many people, his negatives overshadow his positives. He was a wonderful teacher, due in many respects to his advertising skills. He could bore right to the heart of an issue, collect what was necessary for understanding it, and explain it in simple terms so that a person of average intelligence could grasp it. Unlike many in these "nuanced" times, he was at times painfully, even offensively direct, but there was never any doubt where he stood on an issue. He was also doggedly stubborn, refusing to change a doctrine until he was absolutely convinced that the change was biblically correct. These qualities, combined with the sheer force of his charisma, kept the church's teaching relatively stable for many decades, which produced much good fruit.

William Shakespeare wrote, "The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together." The skein of Herbert Armstrong's life contained more good yarn than ill, and for that, we can praise God that He weaves the lives of such servants into ours. Would there were more of his fiber!

Religion and Politics

Two events occurred this morning to prime the old thinking pump: the funeral of Pope John Paul II in Vatican City and receiving the February 28, 2005, issue of The Journal: News of the Churches of God in the church's mailbox. I have not read through an issue of that publication for a long while, so I skimmed through it before passing it on. It did not surprise me one bit to read a litany of complaints, criticisms, and controversies from one end of it to the other. I usually do not read The Journal for this very reason. It depresses me, and I take that as a cue to continue to avoid it.

Regarding the Catholic Church, I have read and heard a great deal—especially over the last few weeks—about the deals, schemes, plots, and machinations among the members of the College of Cardinals when it is time to elect a new Pope. My essay of March 4, 2005, "John Paul II's Successor," summarizes some of the latest speculation about who will emerge as the next Roman Pontiff due to the various blocs that already exist among the electors. Between now and the first sign of white smoke over the Sistine Chapel, the media will carry blow-by-blow accounts of the cardinals' politicking.

Closer to home, right on the fold of The Journal's first page is the languid headline, "The United Church of God's council of elders chooses not to affirm Roy Holladay as president." Page 3 carries a commentary, "The UCG turns 10: It's now or never," in which the author advocates a grassroots push to make "ordinary members'" desires for the next president known. The next page is top to bottom on speculation about how the council will align itself to elect a certain man as president, as well as the tumultuous history of UCG's presidency. The rest of the issue was every Tom, Dick, and Mary's opinions on doctrinal issues ranging from Passover to church eras to the nature of God.

Intriguingly, the page-4 predictive article, "Here is how council will select Jim Franks as UCG president," by Dave Havir, devotes its last handful of paragraphs to a comparison between the College of Cardinals' and the UCG council's processes for selecting a new head. Havir writes, "Whether loyal Catholics like to admit it or not, political maneuvering behind the scenes by the well-entrenched College of Cardinals is going on. . . . The same is true with an organization like United." The entire article illustrates step by step the wheeling and dealing that has already been done among the council members.

Is this surprising?

It should not be. When United decided to adopt a quasi-democratic, corporate governmental structure, politicking became an instant by-product. But this is not confined to United. When other churches chose their forms of government—hierarchy, presbyterianism, congregationalism—politics resulted for them as well because it is not a product of government but of human nature. It is essentially a human approach to accrue power or to end up on the winning side of a dispute.

A survey of the New Testament on the subject of politics proves to be an interesting study. We discover that those who stoop to politics or other devious means to get their own way are the bad guys. The ones in white hats are the apostles, evangelists, and other saints who submit to the will of God concerning His delegation of authority. Did our Savior once condescend to become involved in the political maneuverings of the Jewish sects of His day? Did he try to make an under-the-table deal with Pilate? In the church council at Jerusalem, do we find evidence of back-room "discussions" to push through the apostles' agenda? Do Paul and James take pot shots at each other over law and grace, pitting church members against one another?

No. They are all shown to be men and women who "walk[ed] by faith, not by sight" (II Corinthians 5:7). Sure, they disagreed at times—Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch is the best known (Galatians 2:11-16), as well as Paul's dispute with Barnabas over Mark (Acts 15:36-41)—but they never took the road to factions and voting blocs to get their way. They exercised the fruit of the Spirit to work in accord, or at the very least not to get in each other's way (II Corinthians 10:13-18).

While attending Ambassador College in Pasadena during the mid-1980s, I had the opportunity to work as an "Office Assistant" in Church Administration (August 1985-August 1987, that incredible period during the last half-year of Herbert Armstrong's life and the first years of Joseph Tkach's tenure). However, even from my lowly position, I could see politics at work in the corporate environment of the Worldwide Church of God. Running errands to every department on campus, where corporate intrigue thrived, I grew to abhor church politics because its worldliness and destructiveness were plain to see.

My brush with church politics nearly twenty years ago brings back frustration and sadness when I see it happening again within the churches of God. It does not bode well for the organizations that practice it because, frankly, they are exposing before the church and the world their works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21) rather than godly fruits of the Holy Spirit working in them (verses 22-23). The apostle Paul warns in a preceding verse, "But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another" (verse 15).

If this is symptomatic of the majority of the converted membership, the whole church of God has a great deal yet to overcome. We still have not shaken off from ourselves the ways of this world. We have a frightfully long way to go before we recapture the "one accord" of the early church (Acts 2:1, 42-47). Let us contemplate this as Passover approaches (II Corinthians 13:5).