There has always been something remarkably contradictory about Armstrongism. For decades, its leaders have proclaimed that Herbert W. Armstrong restored lost biblical truths, that their particular organization represents God's true Church, and that mainstream Christianity has been deceived. Yet, despite all those claims of possessing exclusive truth, Armstrongism has developed an almost embarrassing fascination with outside personalities, religious commentators, prophetic sensationalists, and organizations that have little or nothing to do with the Church of God movement.
Apparently, possessing the supposedly restored truth isn't quite enough. Armstrongism must continually seek out credibility from people outside its own movement.
Consider Mark Armstrong, United Church of God, Living Church of God, and Bob Thiel's fascination with WorldNetDaily (WND), its personalities and contributors, individuals such as Joe Kovacs, Jonathan Cahn and his The Harbinger phenomenon, and various other religious and political commentators whose teachings and prophetic interpretations appeal to Armstrongite audiences. These personalities become useful allies whenever they reinforce the movement's worldview, particularly its obsession with America's supposed prophetic destiny, national judgment, biblical numerology, end-time catastrophes, and the impending collapse of civilization.
The irony is extraordinary. Armstrongism condemns mainstream Christianity for allegedly abandoning biblical truth, yet readily embraces outside voices when those voices happen to echo its own theological prejudices. Suddenly, people who would otherwise have little connection to the Church of God movement become valuable sources of prophetic insight and religious validation.
But why should a Christian embrace someone's teaching simply because it reinforces what he already believes?
The Harbinger and the fascination with prophetic sensationalism
Jonathan Cahn's The Harbinger became particularly attractive to audiences already conditioned to interpret contemporary American events through an Old Testament prophetic framework. Its central premise draws parallels between ancient Israel's judgment and the circumstances of modern America.
That approach should immediately raise questions for anyone who understands the distinction between the Old and New Covenants. God's covenant relationship with ancient Israel was unique. America is not ancient Israel, nor does the United States occupy Israel's covenant position simply because a religious commentator discovers similarities between contemporary events and passages in Isaiah.
The New Testament does not authorize Christians to manufacture national prophecies by transferring Israel's covenant warnings to modern political circumstances.
Yet this is precisely the sort of material that appeals to Armstrongism. Having spent decades teaching that biblical prophecy revolves around modern national identities, national punishment, and geopolitical speculation, Armstrongite audiences naturally gravitate toward anyone who supplies another supposed confirmation of their prophetic expectations.
The problem isn't merely that such interpretations may be questionable. It is that they encourage Christians to look for hidden messages, prophetic patterns, and mysterious warnings rather than concentrating on the finished work of Jesus Christ and the responsibilities of living under the New Covenant.
The Berean Call itself published criticism of The Harbinger, questioning its handling of Scripture and its application of Israel's covenant warnings to America. The controversy surrounding WND's promotion of Cahn demonstrates just how easily religious personalities and organizations become entangled in competing claims of prophetic authority.
The WND problem: Borrowing credibility from questionable religious alliances
WND and its associated personalities have also provided a convenient platform for religious ideas that appeal to Armstrongite thinking. When an organization promotes a personality or interpretation that supports their existing worldview, many Armstrongites seem perfectly willing to overlook doctrinal differences they would otherwise condemn.
This creates a peculiar double standard. A mainstream Christian teacher can be dismissed as deceived because he disagrees with Armstrongism, while an outside commentator can be enthusiastically embraced because he happens to promote a theory about national judgment, biblical prophecy, or the end of the age.
That is not biblical discernment. It is confirmation bias dressed up in Armstrongite hypocrisy.
A Christian's responsibility is not to find personalities who reinforce his preferred prophetic narrative. It is to examine every teaching in light of Scripture, including teachings coming from people he admires.
Paul's warning in Colossians 2:8 remains particularly relevant: believers must beware of being taken captive through human philosophy and traditions rather than remaining rooted in Christ.
The deeper problem: Armstrongism never really left the Old Covenant
Here is where the entire discussion becomes considerably more important.
Armstrongism's attraction to these outside personalities is not accidental. It grows out of a theological system that continually returns believers to an Old Covenant framework. Its obsession with national identities, physical blessings and curses, Sabbath enforcement, ceremonial observances, prophetic calculations, and national punishment creates an environment in which modern-day prophetic interpreters become especially appealing.
The movement may speak frequently about Christ, but its theological instincts repeatedly direct attention elsewhere: to Herbert Armstrong, organizational authorities, prophetic personalities, Old Testament national identities, and the latest supposedly significant world event.
The New Covenant, however, establishes something fundamentally different.
Jesus Christ is not merely another personality in a succession of religious authorities. He is the fulfillment of God's promises and the mediator of a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6). The believer's standing before God is not determined by attachment to a religious organization, acceptance of a modern prophet's interpretations, or participation in somebody's prophetic timetable.
The New Testament repeatedly directs believers toward Christ, not toward an endless succession of religious personalities claiming special insight.
Hebrews 1:1-2 establishes the significance of God's revelation through His Son. Colossians 2:16-17 explains that the Old Covenant shadows find their fulfillment in Christ. Galatians 3:24-25 explains that believers are no longer under the former arrangement as their governing covenant authority.
These passages should be enough to make any New Covenant Christian cautious about religious movements that continually attempt to resurrect the authority and obligations of the former covenant.
Why would a New Covenant Christian follow these personalities?
A Christian is certainly free to read books, examine commentary, listen to teachers, and consider different perspectives. Nobody should be expected to accept every statement made by a particular ministry or denomination. But there is an enormous difference between examining someone's material and treating that person as a trusted spiritual authority.
A New Covenant Christian does not need WND, Jonathan Cahn, Kovacs, Herbert Armstrong, Mark Armstrong, Bob Thiel, or any other religious personality to explain why Christ is sufficient. Nor does he need somebody's interpretation of America's political circumstances to establish his relationship with God.
The standard is Scripture, understood through the revelation of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.
That means rejecting sensationalist prophecy when it goes beyond what Scripture actually teaches, questioning interpretations that transfer Israel's covenant promises and judgments indiscriminately to modern nations, and refusing to give religious personalities an authority that belongs to Christ.
It also means recognizing that somebody can occasionally say something correct without being a reliable guide to Christian doctrine. Agreement on a particular political or prophetic issue does not establish theological credibility.
Conclusion: Armstrongism's borrowed authorities
Perhaps the greatest irony is that a movement claiming to have restored the truths of the Bible appears so dependent upon outside personalities to keep its prophetic imagination alive. One day it is Herbert Armstrong, another day it is some modern prophetic commentator, another day it is WND, and another day it is the latest book promising to uncover some mysterious biblical warning about America.
The personalities change, the sensational headlines change, and the supposed prophetic discoveries change, but the underlying obsession remains.
Meanwhile, the New Covenant continues to point believers in an entirely different direction.
Christ does not need Herbert Armstrong to complete His work. He does not need Jonathan Cahn to uncover hidden warnings in Isaiah. He does not need WND to explain the destiny of America, nor does He need another self-appointed interpreter to reveal some supposedly forgotten biblical mystery.
The finished work of Christ is sufficient.
Perhaps Armstrongism should spend less time collecting borrowed prophets, political commentators, and prophetic celebrities and considerably more time understanding the covenant established through Jesus Christ.
After all, if Christ is truly sufficient, why does Armstrongism continually need somebody else to tell its followers what God supposedly meant?
