Belief and Salvation in Armstrongism

 

The Relationship between Truth and Belief (Fair Use)

Belief and Salvation in Armstrongism

An Example of the Autocratic Model of Belief Management

By Scout

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

– A common view of belief in mainstream Christianity

 

There are some beliefs that I hold that are not held by the denomination I belong to. One of my personal beliefs has scriptural support in the New Testament and was common among the Patristics but has fallen into obscurity in modern day Christianity. Further, there are some things in Christian belief that I hold without reserve. Then there are others where I permit myself some reserve. While I subscribe to the idea of the Eternal Generation of the Son because it effectively reflects Biblical data, I have reservations about it because it is so arcane, therefore, I am not going to fall on my sword over it.

If you are an Armstrongist, you will be uneasy with what I have written in the paragraph above. Because in your world there is a sharply different model of belief. Your belief model does not allow, for instance, “personal beliefs” as I mentioned. You do not believe in having reservations about some points in Armstrongist theology. If you do have points of dissension, you are certainly not going to socialize them. Your beliefs are, in effect, the totality of the little booklet theology written by Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA). And if you stray into dissension unwittingly because you do not understand an Armstrongist belief precisely, you will always capitulate to little booklet theology when questioned. This essay is about how belief is articulated with salvation in Armstrongism and a comparison with Christianity. When I refer to Armstrongism, I am referring to classical, pre-1995 Armstrongism.

The Armstrongist Model of Belief

HWA styled himself as an Apostle who set the doctrine in the Armstrongist church (and hence all of “Christianity” from his viewpoint) and was the defender of “the faith.” His writing was thought by his followers to be inspired by God and God does not make mistakes. This was supported by a putative church history in which “the truth” was lost to apostasy in the early centuries of the church and was again revealed to HWA eighteen and a half centuries later. And the Bible is a coded book and only HWA can decode it. And if you did not agree with HWA’s declared theology, you were in a state of rebellion against God himself. In this model of belief, HWA spoke Ex Cathedra with infallibility. This is reconstructed from memory reaching back to the Twentieth Century. I did not do a literature search, but I would be surprised if this recollection were not accurate.

The Case of Belief in “Soul Sleep”

A case in point. Do you really need to believe in “soul sleep,” an old Adventist viewpoint, in order to receive salvation? Christianity does not have heartburn over soul sleep. Roger Olson, a theologian at Baylor University, does not regard soul sleep even as a heresy. He feels it is really just an opinion. My guess is that if you openly state that you do not believe in soul sleep in an Armstrongist denomination, you will eventually be disfellowshipped. First, you will be counseled and if you remain recalcitrant you will be cast out as a rebel against the government of God. An issue of belief is transformed into an issue of governance. This is because you do not have the liberty under denominational governance to believe anything outside the boundaries of little booklet theology.

In truth, I don’t know how thoroughly these boundaries have been tested. Maybe you could believe that Zebulon is really only part of Holland but not all of it. Maybe nobody would care about that. But I doubt that you could decide not to unleaven your house one year and yet remain a member in good standing. Such issues of belief might even pivot on the autocratic proclivities of your local Armstrongist minister more than anything else. Maybe he would insist on your fealty to the body of church belief exactly as it is written up in the little booklets. No quarter given. This approach might even be couched as “bound in heaven.”

I believe soul sleep is a non-essential. However, I don’t believe that Armstrongist theology sorts beliefs into essential and non-essential categories. When I was an Armstrongist, I was always rigorous about belief in little booklet theology. So, I did not have the occasion to collect much empirical evidence on how some assertion of personal belief might be handled by the Armstrongist ministry. I had no personal beliefs. I don’t now have a big commitment to the intermediate state as opposed to soul sleep. If I arrived in the next life and someone told me that soul sleep was actually true, I would not go so far as to yawn but it would not disturb my equanimity. It is non-essential to salvation.

The Case for Viewpoint

The Bible implicitly permits viewpoint by not being exhaustive on every subject. For instance, consider the subject of what happens to a person immediately after death. There is an exegesis that points to soul sleep. And there is also an exegesis for the intermediate state. The Biblical authors do not treat this topic exhaustively so there is naturally divergence in viewpoint among readers. I happen to believe that the intermediate state belief has more supportive data in scripture. Yet, the fact is, we do not find incontrovertible clarity in scripture on the topic of soul sleep.

I do believe there are principles of Christianity that are incontrovertible. Christianity is, after all, a thing. It has boundaries within which core essentials reside. You can get so far away from the core, like the Circumcision Party did, that Paul says that Christ no longer has an effect for you and you are fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). I also believe that we are intended to grow in knowledge as the Holy Spirit provides (John 14:26, 2 Peter 3:18). Only brothers that are a little naïve would assert that we know pretty much all that there is to know about God and his Way – that knowledge is no static.

Some might say that no understanding can happen outside the leadership of the church. But if the leadership of the church says that Pentecost is on Monday, does that make it so? And what is the status of those people in the pews who recognized it as being on Sunday before the pulpit recognized it was on Sunday? Belief may not correspond to truth as the graphic at the top shows. Is it possible in this system that someone could have been disfellowshipped for keeping Pentecost on the right day? I believe the suppression of viewpoint by church leadership is not an issue of correct belief but of denominational discipline. It is an issue of governance. If the church preaches error, you as a follower must believe error until the church reforms its position, if ever.

The Upshot

Armstrongism brooks no disagreement on theology. Since the Bible is not exhaustive on every topic and translating ancient language is somewhat elastic because modern word definitions may be just consensus definitions, a better approach would be to recognize the division between essential and non-essential beliefs. And the autocratic approach to belief does not play well with salvation. It burdens salvation with conditions that could be classed as denominational interpretations. This topic is non-trivial. I cannot do it justice in a few words. I am interested in what others think.