|
WINDS OF CHANGE
IN THE
WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD
A Paper
Presented to the 45th Annual Meeting of
the Evangelical Theological Society
(Washington, DC)
by
Alan W. Gomes, Ph.D.
Talbot School of Theology
November, 1993
Distributed by COP-AID-
(Coalition of People Against Intentional Deception)
and extension of the Exit & Support Network
Serving the needs of those affiliated with the Worldwide
Church of God and its extension organizations.
Visit our WebPages at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/exit_support_network
Part I: introduction
In my study of heterodox religious movements I have observed a kind of "second
law of theological thermodynamics." Heresies go from bad to worse; into
a more, not less, chaotic state of doctrinal entropy. Thus, if Paul of Samosata's
dynamic monarchianism was bad, Arius' Christology was worse. Socinus' teaching
on the person and work of Christ was bad; Theodore Parker's was worse; and modem-day
Unitarians are less orthodox still. Unorthodox movements may indeed adjust their
course, though rarely for the better.
I and other evangelicals have tended to view groups ensnared in the quagmire
of theological error as irretrievably lost We readily acknowledge that individuals
might abandon a heretical sect and embrace orthodoxy, as happened with some
ranking Jehovah's Witnesses who left Bethel headquarters, the veritable Kremlin
of the Watchtower movement' But it is much harder to imagine an entire cultic
organization moving orthodox position. It is similar to the way we used to consider
countries fallen to communism: though a few might hop the barbed wire and escape
to freedom, once a country was in its grip it rarely was liberated.
Yet, "rarely" does not mean "never," as recent history
has shown us. Even so, we must remember that the Holy Spirit can work anywhere
and anytime he pleases, breaking the bonds of spiritual and political tyranny
alike. This may indeed be what is afoot in the cult founded by Herbert W. Armstrong
known as the Worldwide Church of God (WCG).
Winds of Change In the Worldwide Church
Since Armstrong's death in 1986, cult apologists have watched the 100,000-member
Worldwide Church move "tentatively in the direction of orthodoxy."(2)
The changes instituted thus far are without parallel for groups like the WCG.
As Ruth A. Tucker observes, "I can't recall a movement that has made change
from the top down in similar circumstances."(3) Though Christian apologists
to this point have not been "ready to issue a clean bill of theological
health"(4) to the WCG, that time may be soon approaching, if the present
trajectory of doctrinal change continues.
The WCG leadership has instituted changes on a wide range of issues, touching
matters both practical and theological. In the practical sphere, the church
no longer
prohibits the use of cosmetics;(5) celebrating birthdays and holidays;(6)
seeking medical treatment,(7) and interracial marriage.(8) Doctrinally, the
WCG has shifted away from Armstrong's obsession with prophecy, including his
penchant for date setting;(9) teaches a more evangelical view of faith and works;(10)
now affirms the bodily resurrection;(11) is reconsidering its position on British
Israelism, a pet doctrine of Armstrong's;(12) and continues to recraft its stance
on the Trinity, the person of Christ, and the nature of the Holy Spirit (l3)
In keeping with these changes, the WCG has removed from circulation some
of Armstrong's writings that are incompatible with the church's new positions.
(14)
In my opinion, of all the changes that have taken place or are still in process,
the WCG's newly reformulated position on the Godhead is by far the most remarkable.
Though I had originally intended to discuss changes in their theological system
as a whole, I believe the profound alterations on their view of the Trinity,
some only a few months old, demand concentrated discussion. But first it will
be helpful to summarize briefly some of the dialogue which has taken place between
evangelical Christians and the WCG, which may be responsible at least in part
for the current thinking.
Evangelical Dialogue,- with the worldwide Church of God
The WCG under Armstrong's reign polemicized virulently against the mainstream
denominations, both evangelical and liberal. Consequently, the WCG has traditionally
isolated itself from the larger world of Christendom. However, as noted in a
November 1992 Christianity Today news article, "In recent years,
the [WCG's] new leader has entered into dialogue with evangelical scholars,
hoping to create understanding.(5) According to James Walker of Watchman Fellowship,
a counter-cult apologetics ministry operating out of Arlington, TX, the "key
architects of the changes" are Joseph Tkach Jr. (son of the present leader);
K. J. Stavrinides (one of the church's top academics), and Michael Feazell (Executive
Assistant to Joseph Tkach, Pastor General). Feazell received an M.A. in Religion
from Azusa Pacific and is pursuing a doctorate in theology.(6)
Dr. Ruth Tucker may have been the first evangelical to observe the changes
taking place in the WCG. Dr. Tucker invited WCG representatives to give a presentation
at the February 1991 Tanner Lecture Series, an annual symposium on cults held
on the campus of Trinity Seminary in Deerfield, Illinois. The WCG representatives
delivered a paper, outlining the changes that had taken place in the movement
since Armstrong's death." Dr. Tucker, along with other theologians and
apologists, responded with questions. Some who attended the lectures were suspicious
and assumed ulterior motives. Others wanted to continue dialogue.(18)
Another significant opportunity for evangelical dialogue occurred one year
later. Michael A. Snvder, Assistant Director of Public Affairs for the WCG,
[and under the direction of David Hulme] contacted Here's Life Publishers
about the forthcoming publication of josh McDowell and Don Stewart's book The
Deceivers. (19) As this book included coverage of the WCG, Snyder invited
the publisher to investigate the recent changes in doctrine. The publisher dispatched
Kurt Van Gorden (head of Jude 3 Missions, an apologetics ministry) and me to
meet with the WCG representatives. The meeting took place on January 13, 1992
at the WCG headquarters in Pasadena, California. Michael A. Snyder, David
Hulme (Director of Communications and Public Affairs), and J. Michael Feazell
represented the WCG. Interestingly, the WCG had revised its doctrinal statement
just three weeks before we met (20) Our conclusion, in brief, was that some
genuine and significant changes had and were taking place on important issues
(e.g., grace, the bodily resurrection), while on other vital issues the WCG
remained unorthodox (e.g., the Trinity).
Watchman Fellowship's Jim Walker and Phillip Arnn have also been in discussion
with WCG leaders. They are the most up to date on the current state of WCG theology,
and have been able to provide helpful primary and secondary source materials
for anyone doing
research on the WCG. (21)
FOOTNOTES:
1. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, The Deceivers: Mat Cults Believe, How
7hey Lure Followers (San Bemardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1992), 277-8.
2. Randy Frame, "Worldwide Church of God Edges Toward Orthodoxy,"
Christianity Today (9 November 1992): 57-58. See also Alan W. Gomes and
Kurt Van Gorden, 'Special Report: The Worldwide Church of God in Transition,'
Christian Research Journal, vol. 14, no. 4 (Spring 1992): 6, 35; McDowell
and Stewart, 277-8; Ruth A. Tucker, Another Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1989), 215-216; Watchman Expositor, vol. 10, no. 7 (1993), the entire
issue, James Walker, 'Update on Worldwide Church of God,' Watchman Expositor,
vol. 1 0, no, 8 (I 993): 19-21, and James Walker, 'Doctrinal Changes at
the Worldwide Church of God,' Watchman Expositor, vol. 8, no. 5 (1991):
1, 5.
3. Mark A. Kellner, 'Mainstream Moves May Split Worldwide Church of God,"
Christianity Today (8 November 1993): 63.
4. Frame, 57-58.
5. Worldwide Church of God, Summary of Doctrinal Statements and Recent
Changes Within the Worldwide Church of God. Comments from Pastor General Joseph
W Tkach and Topics from Current Church Literature (Paper presented at the
1 991 Tanner Lecture Series, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1 991), p.
9, quoting The Worldwide News, November 14,1988.
6. Ibid., pp. 9-1 0; quoting The worldwide News (letter from Personal
Correspondence), July 17, 1 989.
7. . . to say that God always heals every true Christian contradicts
both Scripture and our own experiences.... Throughout this booklet (i.e., 7he
Plain Truth About Healing) we have dealt with the question of whether
it is a sin or a lack of faith to seek professional aid. The clear answer is
no, it is not a sin nor a lack of faith.... Since seeking medical aid is not
a sin and may help a person, under many circumstances a person indeed should
seek professional help. Not doing so could be spiritually negligent.' Ibid.,
pp. 6-7; quoting The Plain Truth About Heating, Joseph W. Tkach (with
co-author Bemie Schnippert).
8. James K. Walker, 'Worldwide Church of God Accepts Trinity Doctrine,' Watchman
Expositor, vol. IO, no. 7 (1993): 3.
9. Mr. Tkach said that the Plain Truth (while under Armstrong's direction)
was "overly enthusiastic ... speculative and narrow ... the mistake that
has been made so often before - crying wolf . . .' (Plain Truth (March,
1991): 1, 25. This far more chaste attitude toward eschatology is interestingly
contrasted with the approach of two splinter groups that formed in opposition
to the main Pasadena-based WCG. See Rick Branch, "Global Church of God:
Meredith's Prophetic Traditions,' Watchman Expositor, vol. 10, no. 7
(1993), 21-22: and Phillip Arnn, with Bill Cline and Donald Hudgel, 'Philadelphia
Church of God: Teachings of a False Prophet," Watchman Expositor, vol.
10, no. 7 (1993):19-20.
10. 1t salvation is the gift of God, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ,
not earned by personal merit or good works.... Grace is the free, unmerited
favor God bestows an a sinner who repents.... By grace. a person comes to know
God, is justified, and is saved. Through faith, the Christian remains always
under grace" (Statement of Beliefs of the Worldwide Church of God, Fall
1992 edition).
11. On January 13, 1992 Kurt Van Gorden and I met with Worldwide Church leaders
Michael A. Snyder, David Hulme (Director of Communications and Public Affairs),
and J. Michael Feazell (Executive Assistant to Joseph Tkach, Pastor General).
Concerning the bodily resurrection we asked, "Do you believe that the same
body of Jesus Christ that hung on the cross was raised to life in a glorified
immortal state? Did he have a physical bodily resurrection or was it a spiritual
resurrection?' Mike Feazell answered yes to the first issue. He, and the others,
affirmed the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. David Hulme referred to
Luke 24-39, that His body was flesh and bone.
12. Phillip Arnn of Watchman Fellowship refers to a letter sent to him by
Michael Snyder (dated 19 April I 99 1), in which Snyder refers to a major reevaluation
of the British lsrselism doctrine. He said it is a two-year research project.
Hesaidtheywilleithercomeupwithevidenceforthebelief,,Mliclarifythebelief,orwill
abandon it altogether, depending on what comes out of the study. His letter
went an to state that in any case the church does not regard the doctrine as
essential to salvation. See Phillip Arnn, 'Leaked WCG Memo Questions British
Israelism,' Watchman Expositor, vol. 10, no. 7 (1993): S. According to
this article, although the question is still under review, it appears that for
all practical purposes the church is moving away from Armstrong's position.
Kellner (59) states that the WCG has already jettisoned' the British Israelism
teaching. As far as I know, it has not been repudiated officially but is still
an open issue, at least technically .13. This doctrine is discussed in considerable
detail later in the paper.
14. E.g., Mystery of the Ages (discontinued and withdrawn from circulation
in June, 1988); The Incredible Human Potential (discontinued and withdrawn
from circulation in April, 1987); 7he United States and Britain in Prophecy
(discontinued and withdrawn in November, 1990); Just "at Do You Mean-Born
Again? (Temporarily withdrawn for edits to reflect current doctrinal position.
Will ultimately be replaced by a new work.); Ambassador College Bible Correspondence
Course Lessons 13-32 have been discontinued (other lessons will be revised
pending complete replacement). Letter from Michael Snyder to Josh McDowell,
29 April 1991. See also Worldwide Church of God, Summary of Doctrinal Statements
and Recent Changes, p. 1 0; quoting The Worldwide News, May 21, 1990.
15. Frame, 57.6. Walker, 'Worldwide Church of God Accepts Trinity Doctrine,"
18.
17. Worldwide Church of God, Summary of Doctrinal Statements and Recent
Changes, cited earlier.
18.'McDowell and Stewart, 281. The 1991 Tanner Lecture is also discussed
by James K. Walker, 'Worldwide Church of God Accepts Trinity Doctrine,' 18.
19. McDowell and Stewart, 282.
2O.The topics discussed at this meeting are recounted in Alan W. Gomes and
Kurt Van Gorden, 'Special Report: The Worldwide Church of God in Transition,'
6, 35; and McDowell and Stewart, 277-8.
21 Watchman Fellowship may be contacted at P.O. Box 13251, Arlington, TX
76094-0251. Note that the relationship between the WCG and Watchman Fellowship
is presently quite strained, especially because the Watchman Expositor has
published testimonies of ex-members claiming 'spiritual abuse" on the part
of the WCG. Walker states, 'Evangelical Christians should be encouraged by more
evidence of real and substantive doctrinal improvements on the part of the Worldwide
Church of God. That encouragement should be tempered, however, by continued
and widespread reports received by Watchman Fellowship and others, or spiritual
abuse. In all, Watchman has received over 100 letters and telephone calls from
current and former Worldwide members reporting unwarranted shunning, manipulation,
intimidation, or other forms of abuse from their church superiors" (Walker,
'Worldwide Church of God Accepts Trinity Doctrine,' 18). On the subject of alleged
spiritual abuse in the WCG see also Robert Collins, "Worldwide Church of
God Abuse: Testimony of a Former Member,' The Watchman Expositor, vol. 10,
no. 8 (1993): 20-21; Craig Branch, "Editorial: A Worldwide Dilemma.' Watchman
Expositor, vol. 10, no. 7 (1993): 6; Robert Collins, "Former Ministries
Parting Comment,' Watchman Expositor, vol. 1 0, no. 7 (1993): 8; and
Phillip Arnn, "Studies from Scripture: Jesus and the Law,' Watchman
Expositor, vol. 10, no. 7 (1993):16-17
In response, WCG spokesman David Hulme has charged that Watchman's reporting
on changes in their doctrine of the Trinity was 'simplistic' and 'hearsay.'
He also called the reports of spiritual abuse 'blatant untruths." The WCG
has threatened Watchman with possible legal action. See James Walker, 'Watchman
Threatened with Lawsuit: Update on Worldwide Church of God." The Watchman
Expositor, vol. 1 0, no. 8 (1 993): 19. Watchman has responded to the charges
and is willing to make the relevant correspondence available to interested parties.
They have also offered the WCG space to present their side in an upcoming issue
of the Watchman Expositor.
While I am not in a position to corroborate the spiritual abuse charges,
in my estimation Watchman Fellowship has not misunderstood the WCG on the doctrinal
issues. It is certainly true that Watchman's presentation of the current WCG
view of the Trinity is simplified-and appropriately so for their general readership.
However, it does not appear to me that they have distorted any of the essential
features of the WCG position.
Part 11:
The Doctrine of the Trinity and the
Deity of Christ (including Christology and Pneumatology) in
the Worldwide Church of God
Of all the changes taking place in the WCG, the most remarkable and earthshaking
is their new position on the Trinity.(22) This is especially so when one considers
that the WCG historically has claimed that "the heretical and false doctrine
[of the Trinity was] introduced by pagan false prophets who crept in"
to the church.(23) To appreciate fully the magnitude of the changes, it will
first be helpful to provide a cursory glance at Armstrong's position on the
Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the incarnation. This will provide a baseline
for assessing the differences.
Trinity and Christology in Herbert Armstrong: A Brief Overview
In attacking the Trinity as a pagan-inspired doctrine, Armstrong sounds much
like the Jehovah's Witnesses, from whom some have claimed Armstrong derived
Ms own doctrine.(24) Actually, Armstrong's positive teaching has little in common
with the Watchtower doctrine. Armstrong seems to start out on a much more orthodox
footing ascribing both deity and eternity to Christ Speaking of Christ as the
Word in John 1:1, Armstrong states:
The Greek word [in John 1:11 is 'Lagos.' It means 'Word,' or 'Spokesman.'
This is referring to the One who co-existed with the Father from eternity-who
always existed-who is one with the Father, . . . Notice the 'WORD,' who was
the ETERNAL ... the very GOD Himself-HE WAS MADE FLESH.... That is, He who had
existed from eternity ... He who was GOD-He was made flesh'
Indeed, in direct contradiction to the Watchtower position, Armstrong even
applies the title
"Yahweh" to Jesus. (26)
The 'Family of God"-Armstrong Style
From this ostensibly good beginning Armstrong quickly dashes our hopes when
he introduces the odd notion that the Godhead is a "family." Armstrong
states, "Christ is our Maker and a member of the Godhead-the God Family.(27)'
In classic WCG theology, this "family" was described as "open,"
and not "intractably closed" like the Trinity.(28) In eternity past
there were only two members of this family: the Father and the Son. During the
three days Jesus was dead, there was only one member. After Christ was raised
there were again two. At the resurrection, when Christians become God (more
on that in a moment), they are added to the "God family." There is
but one family (i.e., God), but the family can have many members.(29)
All true Christians will be "born again" at the resurrection, when
they will become God. The Christian will actually be God, "even as Jesus
was and is God, and His Father, a different person, also is God. (30) Armstrong's
doctrine should be distinguished, at least semantically, from the Mormon doctrine
of plurality of gods. Unlike Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, Armstrong does not
speak of more than one God, but of many members in the one God Family. That
is, Christians will not be Gods, but they will be God. Yet, the
differences between this and polytheism appear more semantic than real.(31)
What about the Holy Spirit? Is he a third member of the "God Family"?
In classic WCG theology, the Holy Spirit is not a person but is variously described
as a "force," a "power," the "mind," or the "very
essence" of God. However, it is denied that the Holy Spirit is "a
distinct person as is the Father or Christ." (32) The Holy Spirit is equated
with God's being; it is of what God is composed.
The Kenosis in Armstrong's Teaching
As previously noted, Armstrong affirmed the eternality and deity of Christ-taking
into account, of course, Armstrong's peculiar view of deity. In the incarnation,
however, Jesus lost his divinity and was converted (Armstrong's word) into a
human being.(33) In other words, Armstrong takes the expression "the Word
became flesh" in the sense of conversion into flesh, not in
the sense of the Word assuming an additional, human nature. The
Word, now fully and exclusively human, could die on the cross and make redemption
for our sins.' Though the Word experienced metamorphosis into human flesh, he
can still be called God because he is the same person-the same will-simply transformed
from a spirit nature into corporeal humanity. In this doctrine Armstrong realized
Eutyches' worst nightmare.
When Christ died, he literally ceased to exist Armstrong regarded death as
the cessation of existence; he-like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day
Adventists-denied the existence of an entity called the soul that survives the
death of the body. But in a bizarre way, Armstrong's "God family"
view allows him to answer the common Watchtower objection, "if Jesus is
God, then who ran the universe while God was dead for three days?" His
answer: God the Father-God in the First Person-still reigned in His Heaven-and
HE RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD....(35)' "If there was no FATHER in heaven
while
then all life everywhere had come to an end! (36)
Summary of the Classic Armstrong Position
Current WCG president Joseph Tkach, in repudiating the classic position of
his church, provides this helpful summary:
So, let me summarize, and I hope to make this crystal clear. Our old literature
taught that there are two God Beings in one God Family, each composed of Holy
Spirit. That teaching, which implied that there are two Gods, is not biblical.
The Bible teaches that there is one God, not two.
The Bible does not teach that God is a family name, with two Go d Beings
in that family right now, and billions to come later. The Bible teaches that
the one and same God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'
Changes from Approximately 1990 to the End of 1 992
The WCG continued to maintain its polemical stance against the doctrine of
the Trinity for some time after Armstrong's death. As late as 1990, official
WCG publications still described the Trinity doctrine as "Satanic."
(38) Yet, in early 1991 the WCG began to reverse this attitude. For example,
at the 1991 Tanner Lecture series, church representatives read a paper which
included statements such as the following: -
Even though the Worldwide Church of God considers some positions on the Trinity
to be heretical (for example, all forms of Arianism), it sees the Eastern, Western,
Protestant, and modernist views of the nature of God as genuine attempts to
reach a deeper understanding of God's nature. . .(39)
In a letter to James Walker (7 March 1991), Michael Snyder repudiated the
Good News article that described the doctrine of the Trinity as Satanic.
Especially interesting is the following statement presented at the Tanner
Lectures which, on the face of it, seems to affirm Trinitarianism unblushingly:
"The Worldwide Church of God teaches the full divinity of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit-the biblical foundation for all Trinitarian
discussions…" (40) Michael Snyder also expressed this in his letter to
josh McDowell (29 April 1991): "The Church has published a new paper on
the Trinity ... The Worldwide Church of God teaches the full divinity of the
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and affirms the oneness of God."
Does this mean the Worldwide Church had become Trinitarian?
When Kurt Van Gorden and I met with WCG leaders in January of 1992 we were
intrigued by this seemingly radical shift of position on the Trinity. The WCG
leaders made it quite clear to us that they had completely abandoned the "God
is a Family" teaching," denied utterly that man can become God, and
affirmed the unique deity of Christ" Three weeks before our meeting they
had published a revised doctrinal statement which, among other changes, now
affirmed the "full divinity" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
(43) Though the word "divinity" can be interpreted in a weak sense
(e.g., "Godlike"), it appeared to us that they were using it in the
sense of "full, essential deity." Yet, it seemed to us that clarification
was still needed. Neither the revised doctrinal statement nor the paper presented
at the Tanner Lectures said anything about the personhood of the Holy Spirit
When pressed on this point, the WCG leaders admitted that they were not yet
ready to affirm the personhood of the Holy Spirit, though they admitted this
was open to further consideration.(44) We asked about their present position
on the Holy Spirit and we were told variously that the Holy Spirit is the mind,
the power, or the essence of God. Note that this is no different from the church's
former position.(45) I asked if it would be fair to say that the Father and
Son are two persons who subsist in the essence of the one God; they agreed in
principle. I pointed out that it would be more accurate to describe their position
as a kind of binitarianism-a two-person God sharing the same divine substance.
They did not particularly care for this term, though as the discussion progressed
it was clear to me that this in fact was their position.
After failing to persuade them of the Holy Spirits personhood, I pointed
out that their newly revised doctrinal statement could give the false impression
that they are Trinitarian when in fact they are not. The average reader encountering
the statement "The Church affirms ... the full divinity of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit" would certainly think, "this is a Trinitarian
church." Michael Feazell agreed, saying "In our next printing we can
make it plain."
On August 4, 1992, I received a letter from Michael Snyder with a newly revised
doctrinal statement. The letter indicated that the doctrinal statement had been
revised to more accurately describe the beliefs of the Church. The revised statement
added the following sentence: "The Church does not believe the Scriptures
teach the Holy Spirit to be a person, but to be divine, eternal and co-essential
with God, yet distinct from the Father and the Son."(46)
1993 Revisions in the Worldwide Church's Teaching on the Trinity
As reported in the Watchman Expositor, "reliable sources outside
of and within the church" reported that a landmark meeting took place in
June 1993 at the Church headquarters in Pasadena, California. James Walker states,
The meeting was reportedly held. in three parts with the Regional Directors,
Evangelists, and editorial staff and Ambassador College faculty each attending
different meetings with the same agenda. Joseph Tkach Jr. presided over the
meeting and K. J. Stavrinides, known as one of the church's leading scholars,
served as the main presenter. He is said to have presented a biblical defense
for the doctrine of the Personality of the Holy Spirit, which in recent months
had been a final obstacle separating the church's view of God from the view
of traditional Christian churches that hold to a Trinitarian view. This doctrine
was said to have been presented to those in attendance as the new position of
the church. But it is not known how long it will take this new position to filter
down to the local churches and ministers."(47)
The truth of Walker's unofficial report was confirmed in the 3 August 1993
issue of the Worldwide News. In Tkach's "personal" column,
he mentions the "three successful, thought-provoking and inspiring conferences
on the question of the nature of God." He also confirmed that "These
conferences involved all regional directors, headquarters evangelists, regional
pastors, the ministerial faculty of Ambassador College, key administrators,
and most researchers and writers who contribute to the publications."(48)
In this issue and in the following two, Tkach explained the newly reformulated
teaching on the Godhead. It should be noted that the Worldwide News is
not a public relations piece but is intended for members only.
Some of the issues raised in Tkach's series of three articles did not break
any new ground, but did firmly reiterate positions arrived at within the last
few years. For example, there was an emphatic repudiation of the "God family"
doctrine." Tkach compares "the idea of more than one being in a family
or hierarchy of gods" to "the concept that the polytheistic nations
surrounding Israel taught,(50)'-more than a little ironic when one considers
past charges that it was the doctrine of the Trinity that had its roots in paganism!(51)
Since the WCG had already moved two-thirds of the way toward the Trinity,
the personhood of the Holy Spirit remained the final stumbling block. The WCG
appears to have finally removed this stumbling block, though they are quite
sensitive about their mode of statement On the one hand, Tkach unambiguously
states that "the Holy Spirit is personal."(52) Tkach provides a catena
of citations-ones often cited by Trinitarians-to demonstrate the personality
of the Holy Spirit These passages show that the Holy Spirit speaks, wills, sends,
etc.(53) Yet, the WCG still does "not use the pronoun 'he' when speaking
of the Holy Spirit'; they continue to use the pronoun "it." (54) Not
only that, but even though the members of the Godhead are personal, the WCG
is reluctant to use the term person in reference to the three, preferring
instead the term hypostasis.
Worry over "Person," and "Being" Language
Tkach identifies a problem with the word "person" as applied to
the Godhead. It most naturally suggests three separate beings. ". . . The
ordinary meaning of the word 'Person' is misleading when it is applied
to God. It gives the impression that God has limits, and that his threeness
lies in his being three separate individuals-which is not the case .... (55)
Thus, the term "person" is unsuitable for the members of the Godhead,
since the word "is easily misunderstood by the average person when referring
to God, unless it is accompanied by an explanation that' Persons' in the Godhead
should not be thought of in the same way as 'persons' like you and me ....(56)
Tkach points out that the original Latin word persona did not have
the same connotation as the English word "person." The Latin persona
carried the sense of a "mask" worn by the actors in a play.(57)
This concept, though not subject to the tritheistic interpretation suggested
by the English understanding nevertheless is misleading, but in a different
way: "It is misleading because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
are not mere roles being played by God, and because an actor can play only one
role at a time, quite unlike God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all the
time......(58)
Yet, God is certainly personal. It would be a serious error to describe
God as impersonal. Tkach states: "On the other hand, God does interact
with us in a personal way. It is wrong, therefore, to say that God is impersonal."-(59)
Thus, even though God is a personal God, and even though the Holy Spirit
is likewise personal (as are the Father and the Son), the "extra baggage"(60)
carried by the term "person" makes it necessary to seek other vocabulary
to express the position.
The Holy Spirit-. "He" or "It"?
Granting that the Holy Spirit is personal, Tkach asks, "why do we not
use the pronoun 'he' when speaking of the Holy Spirit?"(61) Tkach's response:
"The answer is a matter of grammar, not a matter of whether the Spirit
is personal."(62) He cites the example of a baby, which may be called an
"it" without denying personality to the baby.(63) Tkach enters an
extended discussion of grammatical gender and its relevance to the question
of the Holy Spirit, which requires quoting in full:
The choice of pronouns is based on grammatical gender, not on the basis of
whether the object itself is male or female. For example, in Spanish, mesa,
or table, is feminine--a she. Yet a table is not a person. In German,
Madchen, or girl, is neuter--an it-even though a girl is female.
Let's look at John 14:16-17. The word 'another,' because it is referring
back to Jesus, is masculine, and takes the pronoun 'he.' The word 'Comforter'
is masculine and takes the pronoun 'he.' The word 'Spirit' is neuter and takes
the pronoun 'it.' These are questions of the grammar of the language, not questions
of theology.
In John 15:26, John uses 'he' of the Comforter and 'it' of the Spirit-because
of the correct grammar, not because of personality. The Holy Spirit is personal,
but the word 'Spirit' takes the pronoun 'it.' The word 'Comforter' takes the
pronoun 'he.'
Since it is correct to use 'he' of the Comforter, and since the Holy Spirit
is the Comforter, some have reasoned that it is acceptable to use 'he' of the
Holy Spirit. However, it is not grammatically correct to refer to the Holy Spirit
as 'he,' because 'Spirit' is a neuter word, both in Greek and English.
... The use of 'he' in reference to God is a matter of grammar, not a matter
of attributing sex to God. (64)
I shall comment momentarily on the validity of this argument At this point,
it is sufficient to note that the ascription of "it" to the Holy Spirit
is not meant to imply what it formerly did in WCG theology--that the Holy Spirit
is impersonal. Though Tkach did not draw the parallel, it is a bit like the
King James translators who rendered the neuter pronoun "it" in reference
to the Holy Spirit, though they themselves did not mean to undermine the personhood
of the Holy Spirit, rightly understood. Also, note that when the Holy Spirit
is described by the term "Counselor," then the WCG does indeed use
the pronoun "he" to refer to him.(65)
Hypostasis Language to be Preferred
The Worldwide Church now uses the Greek term hypostasis in preference
to the English word "person." Tkach states, "Our teaching is
that God is one Being, existing eternally in three hypostases: Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit"(66) Unlike the term "person," which has no biblical
precedent, the word hypostasis does. Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son is the
"brightness of his [God's] glory and the express image of his person/being"
(Greek: ).(67) Tkach explains that the relationship between the Son and the
Father expressed in verse is as the relationship between brightness and glory.
In good Patristic fashion (though without mentioning any such writers), Tkach
says, "One cannot simply have radiance without the source of radiance,
or a source of radiance without the radiance itself. Yet we distinguish between
God's glory and the radiance of that glory. They are distinct, without being
separate. . . .(68)
Now, what of the word hypostasis itself? How is it to be translated?
Tkach observes that some versions translate this as "being," while
others render it as "person." He defines hypostasis as follows:
The word means 'standing under' in literal terms. It refers to that which
'stands under,' or that which makes something what it is. Here's a good definition
of hypostasis: 'That without which something cannot be.' It could be
called 'the ground of being. (69)
In the next paragraph Tkach concludes:
This is the word we have chosen to use of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. It is a biblical term and it does not confuse God's nature with the
created order. Our teaching is that God is one Being existing eternally in three
hypostases: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.(70)
FOOTNOTES:
22. James Walker of Watchman Fellowship agrees: "But 1993 may
mark the most significant change to date-a major new position concerning the
doctrine of the Trinity" ("Worldwide Church of God Accepts
Trinity Doctrine," 4).
23. Herbert W. Armstrong, Just Mat Do You Mean-Born Again? (Pasadena,
CA: Ambassador Press, n.d.), 13.
24. E.g., Walter R. Martin, Kingdom of the Cults. Revised and expanded
edition (Minneapolis: Bethany
Fellowship, 1985), 305.
25. Herbert W. Armstrong, 'Why Christ Died-and Rose Again!' 7he Plain
Truth (April 1963): 9-1 0. Note Armstrong's habit of frequent use of capitals
and italics for emphasis. These are in the original and have not been added.
26. @ Ibid., 1 0.
27. Herbert W. Armstrong, "Millions Do Not Know What Christ Really Was!'
The Plain Truth (November, 1963): 11-12; cited in Paul N. Benware, Ambassadors
of Armstrongism: An Analysis of the History and Teachings of the Worldwide Church
of God (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975), 45.
25. B. McDowell, "Is the Holy Spirit a Person?" Tomorrow's World,
September 1970, p. 31
29. Just What Do You Mean-Born Again?, pp. 16-21. Among other arguments
Armstrong uses to justify this position is the fact that the Hebrew word for
God, elohim, is plural. This plurality, Armstrong tells us, demonstrates
that God is one entity composed of many members, just as we speak of one true
church with many members.
Note that the revised editions of the book have been abridged to reflect
amended WCG teaching. Thus, some of these quotes may not appear in recently
reprinted editions of the work.
30.'Do you really grasp it? The purpose of your being alive is that
finally you be born into the Kingdom of God, when you will actually be
God, even as Jesus was and is God, and His Father, a different Person, also
is God! You are setting out on a training to become creator-to become God"
(My Were You Born?, 21-22.)
31. Walter Martin (325) notes the similarities between the Mormon teaching
and Armstrong's, but observes a kind of "pantheistic unity' in which 'all
the members of the 'family' participate.' Also, Rick Branch states, "While
it is true that the Worldwide Church of God never taught that men can become
gods (in the sense that Mormonism teaches), they have, throughout their
early history, taught that men were to become God" (Rick Branch, "To
Be or Not to Be ... God?" Watchman Expositor, vol. 1 0, no. 7 [1993]:
7). Yet, for all of Armstrong's protests that there is only one God (family),
this semantic evasion of polytheism is more apparent than real.
32. David J. Hill, 'Why is God the Father Called a Father?' Tomorrow's
World (September 1970): 28:
cited in Benware, 43.
33. That is, He who had existed from eternity-He by whom God created the
worlds and all things therein-He who was and is LIFE-He who was GOD-He was made
flesh-converted INTO flesh, until He then became flesh-and then He
WAS flesh! ... (Herbert W. Armstrong, "Why Christ Died-and
Rose Again!" 10.)
34. "We may argue that God is immortal and could not die. But the Scriptures
reveal... [that] The Eternal, the Logos, who was with God and who was God in
the Second Person, -permitted Himself voluntarily to be CHANGED INTO a flesh
and blood MAN, until He BECAME a human who could and did DIE." Ibid., 40.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., 1 0.
37. Joseph W. Tkach, "Personal from ... Joseph W. Tkach: Why We Believe
in One God." The Worldwide News, vol. 21, no. 15 (3 August 1993):
6.
38. James Walker ("Worldwide Church of God Accepts Trinity Doctrine,"
4, 18) states, "Even as late as 1 990 in the article 'Who Was Jesus' Father?,'
the Good News declared, 'The concept of a Trinity is nowhere found in
the Bible.... it has been formulated by men under the influence of Satan....
The Trinity hides from man God's plan of salvation. The Trinity doctrine maintains
that the Godhead is a closed unit into which no one else can enter" (Good
News, Nov./Dec. 1 990, p. IO).
Worldwide Church of God, Summary of Doctrinal Statements and Recent Changes,
7-8; quoting K. J. Stavrinides, Reviews You Can Use, January-February
1991.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. At our meeting Michael Feazell stated, "He [Armstrong] called God
a family. It was more like Two gods,' but he would never say there are two gods,
there is one God as a family. God engenders, through the Holy Spirit, all of
us to become part of the family.... The whole concept is something we do not
accept.' When asked if the Godhead is an open entity, Mr. Feazell answered "No."
(Notes taken by Kurt Van Gorden at our meeting at WCG headquarters on Jan. 13,
1992.)
42. We asked Mr. Feazell if man can become God, to which he replied, 'The
whole concept is something we do not accept. A Christian is one who is sanctified
and saved." Our follow up question whether they regarded Jesus' sonship
as qualitatively different from ours. Feazell answered, 'Jesus is the unique,
eternal Son of God by nature and by right. We become sons of God by grace. We
will, by grace, not by right, become like Christ. We will receive the
communicable attributes of God, such as glorification and love. We will never
receive any of God's incommunicable and unique attributes.' Ibid.
43. Worldwide Church of God, Statement of Beliefs of the Worldwide Church
of God, December 1991 edition.
44. Feazell stated, 'We do not accept the formula of the person of the Holy
Spirit. That is as far as we go now. Two years from now we may change this when
members feel ready."
45 See page 11.
46. "Michael A. Snyder, Letter to Kurt Van Gordon (cc. Alan Gomes),
dated 4 August 1992. The relevant portions of the letter state:
The Worldwide Church of God recently reprinted its Statement of
Belief5. As Alan Games suggested during our January meeting the previous
statement concerning the Holy Spirit may not have been sufficient in describing
the beliefs of the Church. Please note that the following statement has been
added in all new editions:
"The Church does not believe the Scriptures teach the Holy Spirit to
be a person, but to be divine, eternal and co-essential with God, yet distinct
from the Father and the Son."
A new booklet describing the Church's beliefs concerning the disclosure of
God to humanity is scheduled to be published sometime this fall. I win forward
a copy once it is published.
47.'James K. Walker, 'Worldwide Church of God Accepts Trinity Doctrine,"
4.
48. Tkach, "Why We Believe in One God," 1.
49."When the Bible says that God is one, the word one does not refer
to a 'God Family' but to one God... In this light, the expression 'children
of God' was taken to suggest that one day there would be billions of God beings-all
in the one God Family!" Tkach, Why We Believe in One God,* 3. "The
idea of one 'God" 3. The idea of one 'God family' with more than one divine
member of the family-that is also simple to understand. But the God of the Bible
is not what we would have expected if we had simply sat down, with no revelation,
to figure it out for ourselves.' Joseph W. Tkach, 'Personal from ... Joseph
W. Tkach: The Biblical Teaching on the Holy Spirit,' The Worldwide News,
vol. 21, no. 16 (17 August 1993): 3-4. See also Stavrinides's article denying
that the term "Elohim" lends any support to the notion of a 'God Family."
K. J. Staviinides, 'Does Elohim Refer to a Family of Divine Beings?'
The Worldwide News, vol. 21, no. 15 (3 August 1993): 4.
50. Tkach, "Why We Believe in One God," 3.
51. See discussion on p. 9.
- Joseph W. Tkach, 'Personal from . . . Joseph W. Tkach: One God."
The Worldwide News, vol. 21, no. 16 (31 August 1993): 3
- Tkach, "The Biblical Teaching on the Holy Spirit," 5.
- 54. Ibid.
55. Tkach, "The Biblical Teaching on the Holy Spirit," 3.
56. Ibid.
57. Tkach would be more accurate if he said that the word could have
this connotation. The range of meaning for the word allowed other variations.
See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1985), 223.
58. Ibid.
59. Tkach, "One God,' 3.
- Tkach, "Why We Believe in One God," 6.
- Ibid.
62. 1bid.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65. E.g., "Jesus told the apostles, 'I will ask the Father, and
he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of truth.
The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor
knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you
and will be in you" (John 14:16-17) [emphasis added). Tkach, "The
Biblical Teaching on the Holy Spirit," 5
66. Tkach, "One God," 1.
67. Emphasis added.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid
Part III: Evaluation of the Worldwide
Church of God's New Position on the Trinity
There is certainly much to like in the new doctrinal position of the WCG.
I believe the Worldwide Church is to be commended for producing an explanation
of the Trinity which, in the main, addresses the concerns of thoughtful trinitarians.
Indeed, it is thoroughly Patristic in vocabulary (though not by design), and
apparently in intent, affirming one God who exists eternally in three hypostases:
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, a few critical observations are in
order.
The Suitability of Hebrew 1:3 as a Basis for
Trinitarian '"Hypostasis" Language
While Tkach has rightly understood the meaning of ( Hebrew) in Hebrews 1:3,
he has missed the obvious fact that hypostasis so defined does not provide
him with the linguistic handle he needs to speak of the personal distinctions
in the Godhead. Tkach defines hypostasis as "that which makes something
what it is."(70) This is one of the correct definitions of the word hypostasis,
and is the one to be adopted in executing Hebrews 1:3.(72) But hypostasis
thus defined describes the divine being, not the personal distinctions within
that being. In the final form of the churchly Trinitarian formula, which affirms
"one ousia, three hypostases," the word hypostasis carries
the sense of an individual instance (or, more properly, "mode of subsistence")
of an ousia. The definition Tkach gives--"that which makes something
what it is"-is the equivalent of ousia (Hebrew) or substantia
(Hebrew) as used in the ecclesiastical trinitarian formula, not the equivalent
of hypostasis as used in that same formula. Yet, contrary to his definition,
and to its use in Hebrews 1:3, Tkach wishes to press the word into service for
distinguishing the Trinitarian persons.
The range of meaning for the word hypostasis posed challenges to the
early Fathers who used it in Trinitarian discussions. The Nicene Creed of 325
explicitly anathematizes those who speak of the Son as a "different hypostasis
or ousia" from the Father. Here the terms are precisely synonymous.
Note that the Creed of 325 provides no word to express the distinctions in the
Godhead. In this sense the Nicene Creed of 325 is a bit of a "theological
half-way house," awaiting further refinements.(73) The Cappadocian Fathers
employed the word hypostasis to express the distinctions in the Godhead.(74)
Thus, the standard formula now became "one ousia, three hypostases."
Tkach is hamstrung by his insistence on using purely "biblical language"
(that is, words found explicitly in the Bible) to describe the Trinity. He wishes
to avoid "unbiblical," technical, philosophical language. Therefore,
he has seized on hypostasis as an explicitly biblical word. Unfortunately,
its biblical use does not serve the purpose he requires. Indeed, in Hebrews
1:3, it is the words (HEBREW) and ((HEBREW)) , not ((HEBREW)), which more properly
express the relationship the Son sustains as a modus subsistendi in the
Godhead. If we were to hold Tkach to his "biblical" definition
of hypostasis, then he has certainly taught tritheism in affirming three
hypostases in the Godhead. However, his specific statements to the contrary
absolutely rule out this interpretation. Therefore, it seems to be a case of
imprecise thinking rather than of tritheistic intent
Thus, Tkach has affirmed the correct formula but for the wrong reason; he
has arrived at the right destination but through a questionable route. He could
easily avoid this problem by recognizing that the issue is not whether the words
used are "biblical," but whether the thing expressed by them is. Recall
that the Arians (whom Tkach regards as heretical) attacked the orthodox for
using unbiblical expressions such as "homoousios," while they-the
"biblical" Arians-referred to Christ by biblical phrase "only
begotten." Yet, which party reflected faithfully the teaching of Scripture?
Personal Pronouns and the Holy 5pirit
There are several difficulties with Tkach's excursus on the linguistic factors
which, in his mind, compel him to refer to the Holy Spirit as "it"
I shall here mention only a few of the most obvious problems for his view.
Let us leave aside the fact that his examples from Spanish and German harm
rather than help his case, and also the fact that (Hebrew) in John 14:16 actually
refers to(Hebrew) (i.e., "Comforter"), and not to Jesus, as Tkach
erroneously states in his example. Let us also grant his thesis that we should
translate pronouns precisely according to their gender. What then of John 16:13-14,
which Tkach passes over in silence? The relevant portions of this text
read, "(Hebrew translation) " (emphasis added). Note that the masculine
pronoun (Hebrew) is used with the neuter noun(Hebrew), here stressing the
personality of the Holy Spirit. As Leon Morris cogently observes, "The
conjunction, (Hebrew), is noteworthy, with the masculine pronoun in immediate
juxtaposition to the neuter noun. It emphasizes the fact that John thought of
the Spirit as personal."(75) It would seem that John was willing at times
to bend the rules of Greek grammar to make the point that the Holy Spirit is
a person.
Their decision to continue referring to the Holy Spirit as "it"
rather than "he" will certainly engender misunderstanding. Since the
word "it" in English connotes impersonality, the WCG will give
the impression Tkach explicitly says they wish to avoid. Indeed, if "the
ordinary meaning of the word 'Person' is misleading when applied to God,"(76)
is it not equally misleading to speak of the personal Holy Spirit as "it"?
Will WCG writers provide a tortuous (and linguistically flawed) discussion
of grammatical gender at the beginning of every publication referring to the
Holy Spirit as "it"'.?
Concluding Comments on the
Revised WCG Statement on the Trinity
The newly revised statement on the Trinity is certainly a step forward. They
have adopted the proper and well-established Trinitarian formula: one God in
three hypostases. In using the term hypostases to denote the persons
in the Godhead they stand in the centuries-old tradition of historic Christian
orthodoxy. Unfortunately, while their use of hypostasis is fine, their
attempt to base it on Hebrews 1:3 involves difficulties. Also, they now affirm
the personhood of the Holy Spirit, which is a vast improvement, even if they
are overly solicitous about their choice of pronouns. These are problems which
may be overcome if there is a willingness to continue additional refinement
Should the WCG now be considered another orthodox denomination within the
pale of Christendom? I believe it is too soon to tell. I think it best to wait
while the WCG leadership continues to "debug" its position on the
Godhead. Also, a detailed statement on the two natures of Christ would be helpful,
once they have ironed out the final kinks in their Trinitarian statement. Granting
Armstrong's peculiar view of the kenosis, an emphatic assertion of Chalcedonian
Christology would go a long way to allay any lurking fears.
FOOTNOTES:
71. Ibid.
72 . See Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1957 ed., s.v. "hypostasis."
73. Note that some signers of the creed worried that the homoousios language
opened the door to modalism. Marcellus of Ancyra did his part to fuel those
fears, writing a modalistic treatise on the Godhead, based--as he thought--squarely
on the Nicene formula. Had there been a handy, unambiguous technical term to
express adequately the distinctions in persons, it might have been used and
thereby avoided significant misunderstandings.
74. Thus, they spoke of "Peter, James, and John" as one ousia
(i.e., human nature, generically considered) but three hypostases (i.e.,
individual instances of human nature). Of course, they carefully qualified the
fact that the members of the Godhead are not generically the same--as
are three men--but share one and the same, numerically identical essence in
its entirety. Accordingly, the anathemas were removed from the creed.
75. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), footnote 26, p. 699.
- "Tkach, "The Biblical Teaching on the Holy Spirit," 3.
|