Historical Revisionism in Armstrongism

 

Historical Revisionism in Armstrongism 

One of the most significant criticisms leveled against Armstrongism is its reliance on historical revisionism, particularly through the doctrine of British-Israelism, which forms a cornerstone of Herbert W. Armstrong’s teachings. British-Israelism posits that the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain and the United States are the direct descendants of the “lost ten tribes” of Israel, a claim Armstrong used to assert that these nations held a special role in biblical prophecy. This doctrine, while appealing to national pride and a sense of divine election, has been thoroughly debunked by historians, archaeologists, and biblical scholars, revealing it as a deceptive fabrication that misled followers and shaped the Worldwide Church of God’s (WCG) identity.

British-Israelism traces its roots to 19th-century pseudo-historical theories, notably those of John Wilson and Edward Hine, who speculated that the British were descended from the tribe of Ephraim and Americans from Manasseh. Armstrong adopted and popularized this idea, claiming it was divinely revealed to him during his study of the Bible. In his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, Armstrong argued that biblical promises to Abraham’s descendants were fulfilled in the modern Anglo-Saxon nations, positioning them as God’s chosen people. This narrative was bolstered by selective historical claims, such as alleged connections between British royalty and the Davidic line, drawn from discredited sources like J.H. Allen’s Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright.

Critics, such as Roger R. Chambers in Plain Truth About Armstrongism, have demonstrated that British-Israelism lacks any credible historical or archaeological evidence. Modern scholarship confirms that the ten tribes of Israel, dispersed after the Assyrian conquest in 722 BCE, were likely assimilated into other cultures, with no traceable lineage to modern Western nations. Genetic studies further refute claims of a unique Israelite heritage among Anglo-Saxon peoples. Armstrong’s reliance on outdated and speculative works, such as those by Herman Hoeh, a WCG scholar who accessed rare books to craft elaborate but unverifiable histories, compounded the deception. Hoeh’s narratives, often presented as scholarly, were inaccessible to the average member, who lacked the resources or permission to question them. This created a closed system where fabricated histories were accepted as truth, exploiting the low-information environment of the mid-20th century.

The appeal of British-Israelism lay in its ability to give followers a sense of exclusivity and purpose, positioning them as God’s chosen remnant in a world facing apocalyptic judgment. This resonated particularly in the post-World War II era, when national pride and fears of global instability were high. However, the doctrine’s deceptive nature became apparent as information became more accessible. The internet, particularly in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, exposed the historical inaccuracies of British-Israelism, with websites like herbertwarmstrong.com providing detailed refutations. Former members, such as those contributing to Escaping Armstrongism, describe the disillusionment of discovering that the doctrine they had accepted as divine truth was based on fabrication.

Armstrong’s historical revisionism extended beyond British-Israelism to his broader narrative of church history. He claimed that the WCG was the sole inheritor of “true Christianity,” preserved through a hidden lineage of Sabbath-keeping groups, while mainstream Christianity had been corrupted by paganism. This narrative dismissed centuries of Christian scholarship and relied on selective proof-texting, ignoring the complexity of early church history. For example, Armstrong’s rejection of the Trinity and traditional holidays like Christmas as “pagan” oversimplified the syncretic development of Christian practices, presenting a black-and-white view that demonized other denominations. Critics argue that this approach not only distorted history but also fostered an “us vs. them” mentality, isolating members from broader Christian dialogue and reinforcing the WCG’s cult-like control.

The deceptive nature of Armstrong’s historical claims was exacerbated by the WCG’s strict control over information. Members were discouraged from reading outside sources or questioning leadership, under threat of disfellowshipping. This ensured that fabricated histories, such as those supporting British-Israelism, went unchallenged within the church. The reliance on pseudo-scholarship and the suppression of dissent created a system where deception thrived, as members were taught to trust Armstrong’s “divinely revealed” interpretations over verifiable evidence.

The historical revisionism of Armstrongism, particularly through British-Israelism and its narrative of church history, represents a core deception that misled followers by presenting fabricated claims as divine truth. The lack of empirical support, combined with the WCG’s authoritarian structure, prevented members from critically evaluating these teachings, perpetuating a cycle of misinformation that has since been exposed by modern scholarship and former members.

David D.