Almost every denomination has some skeletons in their historical closet. 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 we 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. It seems that all these events are so recent that the emotional level is very high.
Some members suffered pain and loss 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 spiritually energizing 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 every week.
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. In most people, of course, 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 history as well as the history of the church.
Because of the wide range of emotions concerning Mr. Armstrong and our history, and the intensity of those emotions, we have found it difficult to discuss our history objectively.
For many matters, we have chosen to ignore it, since the truth of the matter does not rest on what we have done in the past. 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 all this, we strive to show errors in the teachings, not the persons who promoted the teachings.
Our article about the history of British-Israelism in the Feb. 27 Worldwide News discussed history much more than most of our articles have.
This was necessitated by the subject, of course, and we did not do it to criticize Mr. Armstrong. Rather, we traced the British-Israel idea well beyond Mr. Armstrong, putting him into his historical context.
First, we wanted to dispel the idea that the doctrine was revealed to Mr. Armstrong in a special vision or some other form of special revelation.
Instead, Mr. Armstrong 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. Armstrong. Others think it much better that Mr. Armstrong obtained this erroneous idea from someone else rather than having begun it himself.
We tried to keep the article objective, simply exploring the facts relevant to our history with the doctrine. One fact that we wanted to bring out is that the truth of a doctrine cannot be established merely on the basis of who taught it. It must be evaluated on its own merits.
Mr. Armstrong's acceptance of and promotion of British-Israelism involves both good and bad aspects. His zeal is commendable. He was 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 obedience seriously. These are good.
However, Mr. Armstrong 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 obey God. In his mind, this practical value helped substantiate the truth of the doctrine.
In other words, his zeal exceeded his ability to analyze the doctrine objectively. Some people find this too harsh, and others think it too lenient on Mr. Armstrong--and each person thinks himself to have the most balanced view! I hope you can see some of the difficulty we face in explaining or defending our history.
We see a praiseworthy willingness to obey God no matter whether it is convenient. This willingness is good. Our Savior was willing to die for us, and we were willing to make sacrifices to live for him.
But our precise understanding of which laws were relevant was faulty. We can rightly ask, which is most important? Is it head knowledge, or is it the heart?
As we have taught for many years, it is 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. We had that right, and we intend to keep it that way. Jesus does have something to say about the way we live. He has something to say about our hearts. And now, our heart has to respond to the changes he has given us in our understanding.
Our heart has to deal in love with Mr. Armstrong and all those who still believe his doctrinal package. Sometimes that love requires that we expose some errors. We find this difficult to do. We loved Mr. Armstrong, too. But our hearts are turned toward Jesus Christ, and we have an obligation to him to teach even the truths that hurt us.
I hope that this answers your question in a positive way. We are thankful that God used Mr. Armstrong in the way that he did; we are also willing to admit that Mr. Armstrong made some significant errors along the way.
Although we respect him for his virtues, he is not the foundation of the church. 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.
| WCG Home | Issues | Contents |
Copyright © Worldwide Church of God,1996