THE MISSING DIMENSION IN HERBERT’S AND GARNER TED’S SEXUAL TEACHINGS
How did many thousands of people come to regard the teachings of an incestuous pedophile and a serial adulterer on human sexuality as authoritative? That’s a good question, and one that is worthy of an answer or explanation! After all, most of us would expect someone who purports to be an expert on issues related to questions of morality surrounding human sexuality to be practitioners of what they preach.
The first point that should be made in answering our opening question is that the overwhelming majority of the folks who accepted the teachings of Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong in this regard were completely unaware of their personal moral failures in this realm when they were introduced to those teachings. In the light of subsequent revelations about the private sexual lives of both men, however, it becomes more problematic in attempting to explain why so many folks continue to accept their teachings in this area. Again, one would think that their failures would cause their followers to take another look at their teachings on a subject that is so important to most humans!
It is more than a little ironic that Herbert Armstrong had the temerity to write The Missing Dimension in Sex after years of sexually abusing his own young daughter. “That is an unproven and scurrilous accusation!” his defenders will shout. For me, the fact that his son (Garner Ted) believed that it had happened (and confronted his father with it) is sufficient reason to believe that it happened. Moreover, even if we were to dismiss this allegation as “unproven and scurrilous,” how do we explain the circumstances surrounding Herbert’s second marriage and divorce?
Likewise, Garner Ted had the audacity to write about Modern Dating before being kicked out of church for his philandering ways. After ignoring his son’s marital infidelity for years, the problem finally became so severe (and so widely known) that Herbert was forced to put his heir apparent out of the church! Years later, after starting his own church, Garner Ted was famously caught on tape sexually propositioning a masseuse!
“Their moral failures don’t negate the validity of the moral principles which they promoted in their writings!” some of their defenders will shout. That may or may not be true but doesn’t it (at the very least) warrant us taking a closer look at the principles they advanced?
Herbert Armstrong liked to criticize what he referred to as the “New Morality.” In fact, his original treatise on the subject was titled God Speaks Out on the New Morality (for our purposes, we will not address the arrogance involved in presuming to speak for God). He decried the fact that, although science has swept away much of the former ignorance regarding the technical/mechanical aspects of human sexuality, these learned men had failed to account for God’s purposes and will in human sexuality.
As with many other aspects of traditional Christianity, Herbert believed that Catholic and Protestant attitudes toward sex were directly borrowed from the pagans. He wrote: “Christianity, following its first generation, absorbed the pagan dualism of Greece, and pasted the label ‘sinful’ on sex. Through the centuries since, the moral standards of the Western world were regulated by the Roman Catholic Church.” (Chapter 1, The Missing Dimension) “What, then, was the real source of this attitude of shame?” he asked. “It flowed on the tide of the Babylonian Mystery religion into the Roman world,” he answered. “It reached the Roman world by way of Greece, but it flowed, at an earlier date, into Greece from Egypt,” Herbert explained.
Was Herbert right about the source of Christian shame about human sexuality? Interestingly, HistoryExtra (the official website for the BBC History Magazine) informs us that “To the ancient Greek mythologisers, sexuality, love and sex were inextricably connected with the creation of the earth, the heavens and the underworld. Greek myth was a theogony of incest, murder, polygamy and intermarriage in which eroticism and fertility were elemental; they were there right from the start, demonstrating woman’s essential reproductive role in securing the cosmos, extending the human race and ensuring the fecundity of nature.” (see the article “A brief history of sex and sexuality in Ancient Greece”) The article, along with many other reputable sources, does not leave us with the impression that the ancient Greeks were puritanical about sexual matters.
Indeed, Mr. Armstrong later acknowledges that, according to the Bible, the ultimate source of human attitudes with regard to shame about our bodies and their functions was Satan. In the first chapter of Genesis, we read that God pronounced everything that “He” had created (including both genders of humans and their reproductive systems) as being “very good!” (see Genesis 1:36-31) In fact, the very next chapter concludes with the statement: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (see Genesis 2:25) It was only after they ate the forbidden fruit that “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.” (see Genesis 3:1-7)
Although Herbert delighted in denigrating and dismissing scientific notions about evolution and the interrelatedness of all life on this planet, the fact is that human reproduction shares a great many similarities with plant reproductive systems and even more with those of the animal life that shares this planet with us. Indeed, all sexual reproduction is characterized by a male gamete fertilizing a female gamete to produce a zygote – which then eventually develops into a mature form of whatever plant, animal or human we’re talking about. From a theist’s perspective, God has designed a wonderful system for the perpetuation of life on this planet (a system of which we humans have our own version). And, when we think of human reproduction in these terms, it seems absurd to characterize any part of that system/process as shameful, evil or unnatural!
Finally, Herbert had a great deal to say about the application of God’s law to the proper uses of human sexuality. In the end, his basic formula was that all sex outside of the institution of marriage is sinful. Was he correct? How should God’s law be applied to the phenomenon of human sexuality?
Of course, we are speaking here of God’s great fundamental law known to most of us a “The Ten Commandments.” But doesn’t one of those commandments specifically address the subject of human sexuality? Yes, the seventh commandment states “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (see Exodus 20:14) So, here we have a direct command from Almighty God that “He” expects us to be sexually faithful to the person we marry – that God expects us to honor the commitment which we have made to that person. Christ expanded on this when he told his disciples “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (see Matthew 5:28) Notice too that this cannot be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of all sexual desire (which the Creator had to place within us, if “He” indeed created us), because marriage is implicit in the very concept of adultery!
“What about all of those scriptures that deal with fornication?” my Armstrong inspired friends will ask. Just a little checking with Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (either online or in the printed form) will quickly demonstrate that both the Hebrew and Greek words which are translated thus into English encompass any sexual behavior which is considered deviant (and the Hebrew word also implies idolatry in the sense of God considering Israel to be married to Him). Many Christians are surprised to learn that it is human reasoning that has made this word mean premarital sex – that there is no specific condemnation in all of Scripture regarding human sexual behavior prior to that commitment being made to another human being!
As for procreation in marriage being the only justification for human sexual intercourse, Mr. Armstrong himself blasts that notion. According to him, there are three God-ordained purposes for sex: marriage, reproduction and “the expression of marital love and companionship.” (see Chapter 11) And, although Herbert doesn’t directly quote Scripture to back up his conclusion in this instance, common sense and experience inform us that there is much more motivating human sexuality than the desire to produce offspring.
And remember the Greeks mentioned early on in Herbert’s treatise as being responsible for traditional Christian prudery about things sexual? The article referenced earlier in this post tells us that “To the ancient Greeks, masturbation was a normal and healthy substitute for other sexual pleasures – a handy ‘safety valve’ against destructive sexual frustration. This may explain why there are so few references to it in the literature: it was common practice and did not merit much attention.” Continuing, we are informed that “Other ancient civilizations celebrated masturbation too. For example, a clay figurine of the 4th millennium BC from Malta shows a woman masturbating. In ancient Sumer [the first ancient urban civilization in the historical region of southern Mesopotamia, modern-day southern Iraq] masturbation – either solitary or with a partner – was thought to enhance potency. In ancient Egypt male masturbation when performed by a god was considered a creative or magical act: Atum was said to have created the universe by masturbating, and the ebb and flow of the Nile was attributed to the frequency of his ejaculations. Egyptian Pharaohs were required to masturbate ceremonially into the Nile.” (see HistoryExtra)
Can we begin to see that Herbert Armstrong’s notions about human sexuality were flawed and can hardly be said to be authoritative? Can we see that many of the very principles which he expounded upon in his treatise were based on flawed human reasoning and have little or NO basis in Scripture?
Think about the harm that these teachings have caused – especially among the young people of the church. I’m reminded of Christ’s admonishment of the Scribes and Pharisees “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” (see Matthew 23:4) Can you imagine trying to live up to these standards as a young person who has begun dating? How ironic! Mr. Armstrong expected them to deny the very desires, appetites and hormones which God had placed within them! Yeah, I’m thinking a reevaluation of the acceptance of these Armstrong notions about human sexuality is long overdue!
Miller Jones
