Answer: Almost all denominations have some skeletons in their historical closets. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Augustine and many others made mistakes in their personal lives and in their practical theology. This generally does not detract from the positive things they contributed to the church.

In our recent history, we have both good things and bad things, and many people have found it difficult to deal with this mixture. When we mention the good, some members get angry. When we mention the bad, others get angry. These events are so recent that the emotional level is very high.

Some members suffered because of the church's doctrinal errors. These people often have an emotional desire to emphasize the bad so that it not be done again. Other members found the church to be a helpful fellowship despite our doctrinal errors. These people often do not like it when the problems are mentioned. We receive letters from both kinds of people. It is helpful for each group to know that the other exists: not everyone had the same kind of experiences in the same church, even in the same congregation.

Many members had a few negative experiences and hundreds of positive experiences with the church. For many people, it takes dozens of good experiences to outweigh each hurtful experience. As doctrines and practices are changed, people react with mixed emotions. They may rejoice at one change and be irritated by another. They may be happy one day and discouraged the next. Many members have mixed feelings about their own personal history as well as the history of the church.

Because of the wide range of emotions concerning our founder and our history, and the intensity of those emotions, we have found it difficult to discuss our history. For many matters, we have chosen to ignore our history, since the truth of a matter does not rest on what we have done in the past, or who taught it. We have attempted to analyze issues based on Scripture and our present circumstances. Yet, in order to effectively explain a doctrinal change, we sometimes have to deal with some of the reasons why we used to believe something different. In this, we strive to show errors in the teachings, not the persons who promoted the teachings.

Our article about the history of Anglo-Israelism discussed some details of our history more than most of our articles have. This was necessitated by the subject, and we did not do it to criticize Mr.
A r mstrong. Rather, we traced the British-Israel idea well beyond him, putting him into his historical context.

First, we wanted to dispel the idea that the doctrine was revealed to Mr. A r mstrong in a special vision or some other form of special revelation. Instead, he found the idea in books that other people had written. He was persuaded by their writings and repackaged it for the churches of God. Some people think that this reflects negatively on Mr. A r mstrong. Others think it much better that he obtained this erroneous idea from someone else rather than invent it himself. We tried to keep the article objective, simply stating the facts relevant to our history with the idea. One fact we wanted to bring out is that the truth of a doctrine cannot be established simply on the basis of who taught it. It must be evaluated on its own merits.

Mr. A r mstrong's acceptance of various erroneous teachings involves both good and bad aspects. His zeal is commendable. He was very eager to defend the historical reliability of the Scriptures. He was eager to make prophecy meaningful to the American people. He wanted people to take the Bible seriously, to take their lives seriously, to take God seriously. These are good goals.

However, Mr. A r mstrong did not have training in history or in biblical studies. He did not have the evidence against British-Israelism. Rather, he saw it as supporting the Bible, and supporting the need for people to believe God. In his mind, this practical value probably helped substantiate the truth of the doctrine. In other words, his enthusiasm was greater than his ability to analyze the doctrine objectively. Some people find this a harsh assessment, and others think it too lenient — and each person thinks himself to have the most balanced view!

We see a praiseworthy willingness to obey God no matter whether it is convenient. Our Savior was willing to die for us, and we were willing to make sacrifices to live for him. But our understanding of which laws were relevant was faulty — just as all denominations have taught erroneous doctrines in the past.

Which is most important: head knowledge, or the heart? As we have taught for many years, God looks on the heart. If we had Christ in our hearts, we had the most important thing right. Of course, that didn't always translate correctly into people's lives, just as it doesn't in any Christian group.

Christianity involves much more than going to church once a week, as we have taught for decades. Jesus has something to say about our hearts, and about the way we live. Now, our hearts have to respond to the changes he has given us in our understanding. Our hearts have to deal in love with Mr. A r mstrong and with those who still believe his teachings. Sometimes love requires that we expose some errors, and this can be emotionally difficult. But our hearts are turned toward Jesus Christ, and we have an obligation to him to teach even the truths that hurt our feelings.

We are thankful that God used Mr. A r mstrong in the way he did; we are also willing to admit that Mr. A r mstrong made some significant errors along the way. Although we respect him for his virtues, he is not the foundation of the church, nor the standard of comparison. Jesus Christ is the basis of all truth, and it is to him that we look for measuring all things. We owe all praise and glory and honor to him.

Copyright 1996