THE WORLDWIDE CHURCH OFGOD’S “ORTHODOX” BANDWAGON In the decade following the death of Herbert W.Armstrong in 1986, the church he founded made an amazingtransformation of doctrine into what it regards as a conversionfrom cult teaching to orthodox belief. Many, including prominentChristian apologetic and countercult ministries and respectedChristian periodicals, have acclaimed this group’s secedingfrom a state of heterodoxy into a mainline — and evenevangelical — faith. Yet during the time others have beenapplauding the changeover, Personal Freedom Outreach remainedcautious and restrained in hopping onto the bandwagon of thoseproclaiming the Worldwide Church of God to be orthodox. Personal Freedom Outreach’s lack of praisefor this sect’s transformation does not keep it fromrejoicing and thanking God for the men and women set free fromthe bondage of false doctrine and spiritual abuse. PFO isenthusiastic and truly grateful for the members of this group whoare now justified through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christalone. The sect’s current leadership inherited theconsequences of a half-century of Armstrong’s falsedoctrine, false prophecy and spiritual abuse of his followers.And while it is typical for the new leadership of a cult to makeextensive changes in doctrine and practice when the founder dies,we acknowledge that it is unparalleled for the changes made tomove a cult into a state of orthodoxy. These changes, therefore,are significant, necessary and welcomed. Yet despite the changes, countless souls continueto be left without hope and others remain hurting, lost andwandering in the wilderness of confusion. The church’sleaders attribute the division and frustration among members,along with the enormous financial deficits it is experiencing, tothe repercussions of its transformation to orthodoxy. While thisin one sense is true, it is also merely the consequence of falsedoctrine. False doctrine is indeed costly as lives are physicallyand spiritually crippled by its effects. Early in the transformation, the Worldwide Churchof God’s “Public Affairs” department sought andsometimes succeeded in getting the endorsement of Christian mediaand evangelical ministries. Even with the efficacious dialoguewhich began to be realized, some like “Truths ThatTransform” (the nationally syndicated radio broadcast of Dr.James Kennedy) expressed optimism but remained guarded andcautious about the changes. Kennedy’s ministry noted,“Those changes are welcome; however, we must be cautious inaccepting their statements at face value. They have announcedastounding changes before, but church doctrine was notsignificantly altered. This church places public image at apremium.” The latter observation of the “Truths ThatTransform Action Sheet” was indeed insightful as in theearly evangelical congresses in which the Pasadena-based churchparticipated, members of its Public Affairs department, not itstheologians, were the sect’s representatives at thesemeetings. Moreover, throughout the transformation —and even now in its wake — an issue that needs carefulconsideration is: Are the changes mere external representationsor true internal persuasions? Robert L. Sumner astutely noted that theWorldwide Church of God’s “changes seem moreconvenience than conviction!” In his recent article “IsArmstrong’s Cult Now Orthodox?” he writes: “While going through their alleged metamorphose from a worm to a butterfly, the leaders repeatedly changed and modified their statements to please their ‘guides.’ For example, in the matter of the Trinity, especially as it related to the Holy Spirit, they would agree among themselves as to a position, then go to those whom they were trying to please, and say, ‘How is this?’ The latter would reply, ‘It doesn’t go far enough.’ So they would go back to the drawing board and make suggested changes, then return and ask, ‘Now what do you think?’ That kind of ‘doctoring doctrine’ is not the stuff of which true Bible believers are made” (The Biblical Evangelist, Nov.-Dec. 1997, pg. 7). Early in the Worldwide Church of God’stransformation process, PFO itself was asked by the sect’sPasadena headquarters to update literature to “reflectaccurate information” as to the changes being made. Becausethe official theological positions of the Worldwide Church of Godwere in an unpredictable state of flux at that time, PFO was lessthan eager to make immediate changes. In 1991, PFO responded to the request by saying,“If we update our article today, there is no guarantee thatin a few months you would not be writing again asking for furtherrevisions.” A few years later, starting in 1995, PFO beganto evaluate the Worldwide Church of God’s move from cultismto orthodoxy in a series of articles. However, PFO’s wordsto Worldwide Church of God leadership in its 1991 letter provedto be prophetic. Late last year, the leadership of the churchagain wrote to PFO, this time asserting that PFO’s revised“material is at best one-sided, containing half-truths,assumptions, and subjective judgments that are followed by a longlist of somewhat dubious footnotes.” The church’scomments strongly propose that the PFO articles are greatlyimprecise and in no way convey an accurate representation of itspresent conduct. Yet at the very time PFO was receiving theWorldwide Church of God’s censure, former members of thechurch were writing PFO and saying just the opposite —comments such as: “Thank you for addressing the issue ofaccepting the WCG as ‘mainstream’ based on‘surface changes.’ ... We are the forgotten abused. Weare now accused of being ‘unforgiving and angry’ forleaving the ‘Church’” and “Bravo! As a soonto exit member of the Worldwide Church of God, I can vouch foreverything you wrote in your article. Although the abusive culticpractices now in use are not nearly as oppressive as they werewhen I joined the WCG in 1980, they still exist and areused.” The defensive and pushy tone of the WorldwideChurch of God’s new round of communication showed littleimprovement from the arrogant and combative spirit the church haddirected against both Christian ministries and individuals who,in recent years, did not express wholesale approval or still hadconcerns and criticism. For a church and people who claim to betransformed by a miracle of God, little, if any, of the fruit ofthe Spirit are readily evident — at least not in its lettersto PFO. Beyond the church’s aggressiveness, otherimportant matters encountered in the current dialogue caused evenmore reservations. The sect’s “Director of ChurchRelations” charged that PFO must “feel” that ithas “all of the information” it “need[s] toaccurately report about what has happened in the Worldwide Churchof God.” In response to his charge and the allegations thatour articles are “one sided” and contained“half-truths, assumptions, subjective judgments” and“somewhat dubious footnotes,” PFO offered that it isnot above correction in the articles it publishes. Although such general and sweeping comments aretroubling, PFO asked for clear examples of subjectivity andpromised, where valid, to duly note and correct inaccuracies.This offer was extended in three separate letters. Yet the onlyresponse to each has been a blatant disregard of PFO’srequest combined with the implication that PFO is not concernedwith the truth. Another disturbing issue is the church’sattempt to question the integrity of former Worldwide Church ofGod members who are openly critical of the sect. Thechurch’s letter to PFO challenged “the veracity ofcharges ... coming from a small group of former members andministers.” It further stated that this group’s“allegations are far from the truth, and so go beyond simplemisrepresentation.” PFO was told that: “Perhaps you are notaware, but we know that at least one reputable, independent thirdparty source has asked one of your sources to be accountable forsuch misrepresentations.” When PFO told the church of itsaversion to such an indiscriminate “third party”unnamed accusation, it produced a copy of a letter from aminister in California addressed to former Worldwide Church ofGod staff member David W. Covington. However, this letter and the subsequent inquiriesit produced, in PFO’s evaluation, did more to demonstratemisrepresentation on the church’s part than it did to disarmthe trustworthiness of David Covington. The letter from thisminister suggested that Covington could be charged with“defamation, slander and/or libel.” This stemmed from acomment made by Covington and posted on his web site which,according to the minister, “claimed that Mr. Joe Tkach Jr.is the sole owner of the Pasadena [church headquarters]property.” Despite such a stern legal threat from thisminister, his warning was not based upon firsthand knowledge ordetails as to what Covington actually said. He wrote to Covingtonthat he “recently heard some disturbing news” and thenissued his unwarranted comment that “If you are wrong, andyou probably are, I think you could be charged with eitherdefamation, slander and/or libel. I do not know for sure, sinceI’m neither an attorney, nor have I seen what youwrote.” Such remarks are indeed ambiguous. In PFO’sopinion, this certainly demonstrates a lack of wisdom on theminister’s part. Before sending a letter issuing suchaccusations, it would be prudent to check out what was orwasn’t said. Moreover, Covington, upon receipt of theminister’s letter, immediately deactivated hisministry’s web site because his remarks had the potential ofconveying misinformation. According to Covington, when hereactivated his web site “two weeks later it contained anapology and restatement regarding Joseph Tkach’srelationship to the organization.” Yet Covington’s responsive and correctiveaction was never mentioned or even alluded to by the WorldwideChurch of God leadership in any of its letters to PFO. So it isapparent, despite all its appeals to PFO to be responsive withthe “plain truth,” they are above holding themselves tothe same standard. Two more unsettling specifics are closelyinterwoven and further give us pause: The church’s continuedkinship to its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong, and its convictionthat its past doctrine and practice did not separate it from ofthe Body of Christ. Concerning the former, much is being made by thechurch’s hierarchy that critics will not be satisfied untilthe bones of Herbert W. Armstrong are exhumed and burned. This isa grave overstatement, to say the least. PFO is, however, deeplyconcerned by the continued claims and allusions to Armstrong“as a minister of Jesus Christ.” It is inconceivable tous as to the amount of false doctrine, false prophecy and abusivepractices of this man which has had to be altered and/orcamouflaged, and for this organization to continue to promote himwith such reverence. (For additional insight on the HWA/WCGrelationship, see Peter Ditzel’s article in this Journal.) And then there’s the declaration that thischurch really has been “Christian” all along. Arecently released “Fact Sheet” discloses “TheWorldwide Church of God, a Christian ministry [was] establishedin Eugene, Oregon, in 1933” (emphasis added). One currentmember of the sect, in a letter to PFO, offered a similar opinionwhen he wrote: “I think one of the greatest abuses of theformer WCG was the denial of the breadth of the body of Christ— that there were indeed Christians outside the WCG.” Thus, in this member’s view, whatloom’s large is not the doctrinal transformation, but a movefrom the exclusivist attitude of the church to a realization thatthere are members of Christ’s body in addition to theWorldwide Church of God. All of this then begs the question: If the churchhas made such a transformation by the grace of God, why havethere been such concerted efforts to adopt a revisionist positionas to its founder and history and maintain a“Christian” heritage? Yet, despite all the above, the most importantreason for caution is Matthew 7:15-20. Jesus identified culticand aberrational groups as “false prophets.” He said wewould know them by their fruit (v. 16) and that a rotten treedoes not produce good fruit (v. 18). Yet the leadership today istelling us that the Worldwide Church of God is capable ofproducing good fruit. It has had to rework and relegate its“bad tree” history into a “good tree” imagewhich just needs a little care and some pruning and fertilizer.Yet Jesus said, “Every tree that does not bear good fruit iscut down and thrown into the fire” (v. 19). He did not tellus to coddle, prune and nurture it. If for no other reason, the words of Christrequire that Christians do not uncritically accept thischurch’s image transformation. Nevertheless, PFO rejoicesand thanks God for the individuals who are being set free fromthe bondage of false doctrine and spiritual abuse — notbecause of this sect’s claim of the “plain truth,”but because of the atoning work of the Savior on Calvary’scross. © 1998 - PFO. All rights reserved by Personal FreedomOutreach. This article may not be stored on BBS or Internet siteswithout permission. Reproduction is prohibited, except forportions intended for personal use and non-commercial purposes.For reproduction permission contact: Personal Freedom Outreach,P.O. Box 26062, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136.
|