Herbert Armstrong’s Dream of Dominion: Why His “Church of God” Article Is Theologically Rotten
In September 1980, Herbert W. Armstrong published a piece in Good News magazine titled “Shall We All Leave THE CHURCH OF GOD and join ‘THE CHURCH OF PEOPLE’?” It opens with a dream. Yes, a literal dream. Armstrong wakes up one morning convinced that God has personally revealed to him why dissenters are bad: they want democracy. They want a say. They want to vote on leaders and doctrine. How dare they?
If that sounds like a man clutching his throne a little too tightly, that’s because it is. The entire article is a masterclass in theological sleight-of-hand, Old Testament cosplay, and self-justifying authoritarianism. It’s not just bad theology—it’s the kind of bad theology that turns a spiritual body into a personality cult and calls it “God’s government.”
The Apostle Who Appointed Himself (And Jesus Was Apparently Cool With It)
Armstrong’s central claim is as bold as it is unbiblical: this is God’s Church, run exclusively through “His chosen apostle”—that is, Herbert W. Armstrong himself. Christ is the Head, sure, but only in theory. In practice, Jesus works through one specially prepared, divinely guided man at the top. Anyone who suggests that the people should have input is accused of trying to evict God from His own house and turn it into a “church of the people.”
Because nothing screams “humble servant leadership” like declaring yourself the modern Moses while everyone else is just a sheep who needs to stop bleating.
Armstrong’s central claim is as bold as it is unbiblical: this is God’s Church, run exclusively through “His chosen apostle”—that is, Herbert W. Armstrong himself. Christ is the Head, sure, but only in theory. In practice, Jesus works through one specially prepared, divinely guided man at the top. Anyone who suggests that the people should have input is accused of trying to evict God from His own house and turn it into a “church of the people.”
Because nothing screams “humble servant leadership” like declaring yourself the modern Moses while everyone else is just a sheep who needs to stop bleating.
The New Testament begs to differ—loudly. Christ alone is the Head of the church (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 5:23). The foundational apostles completed their unique, eyewitness role two thousand years ago; the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20; see also Acts 1:21-22; 1 Corinthians 9:1). There is no biblical category for a 20th-century “apostle” who gets to dictate doctrine worldwide while comparing himself to David and Moses in the same breath. New Testament churches were led by plural elders—local, accountable teams—not a single global potentate (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Peter called himself a “fellow elder,” not the CEO of Christ Inc. (1 Peter 5:1). Armstrong’s model isn’t apostolic; it’s imperial.
To prop up his pyramid scheme, Armstrong drags out the greatest hits of Old Testament hierarchy: God choosing David over Jesse’s strapping older sons (1 Samuel 16:6-13), Moses leading Israel through the Red Sea, and—his favorite—Korah’s rebellion (Numbers 16:1-3). Those 1974 ministers who wanted more accountability? Straight-up Korahs, apparently.
Old Testament Cosplay Meets New Covenant Reality
To prop up his pyramid scheme, Armstrong drags out the greatest hits of Old Testament hierarchy: God choosing David over Jesse’s strapping older sons (1 Samuel 16:6-13), Moses leading Israel through the Red Sea, and—his favorite—Korah’s rebellion (Numbers 16:1-3). Those 1974 ministers who wanted more accountability? Straight-up Korahs, apparently.
Covetous. Power-hungry. Doomed.
Here’s the problem: the church is not ancient Israel. The New Testament isn’t a reboot of the theocracy. We’re not under a national covenant with a human mediator standing between God and us. Every believer is a priest with direct access to the Father (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10). The Holy Spirit indwells the whole body, not just the guy at headquarters (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17). Even the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 involved “the whole church” weighing in alongside the apostles and elders (Acts 15:22). There’s accountability. There’s plurality. There’s—gasp—discussion. The church is to practice mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21) and test everything against Scripture (1 John 4:1; Isaiah 8:20).
Armstrong treats any hint of congregational input as rebellion against God Himself. That’s not theology; that’s a rhetorical kill switch. Disagree with the apostle? You’re not having a reasonable disagreement—you’re “leaving God out of the picture.” Classic move. Works great if your goal is control. Works terribly if your goal is actually following Scripture.
Here’s the problem: the church is not ancient Israel. The New Testament isn’t a reboot of the theocracy. We’re not under a national covenant with a human mediator standing between God and us. Every believer is a priest with direct access to the Father (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10). The Holy Spirit indwells the whole body, not just the guy at headquarters (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17). Even the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 involved “the whole church” weighing in alongside the apostles and elders (Acts 15:22). There’s accountability. There’s plurality. There’s—gasp—discussion. The church is to practice mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21) and test everything against Scripture (1 John 4:1; Isaiah 8:20).
Armstrong treats any hint of congregational input as rebellion against God Himself. That’s not theology; that’s a rhetorical kill switch. Disagree with the apostle? You’re not having a reasonable disagreement—you’re “leaving God out of the picture.” Classic move. Works great if your goal is control. Works terribly if your goal is actually following Scripture.
When a Dream Becomes Doctrine
The whole piece kicks off with Armstrong’s vivid dream about young men lobbying against him. He wakes up “considerably impressed,” convinced God is showing him that too many members secretly want to run things their way. From there, it’s off to the races: proof-texts, historical revisionism, and dire warnings about “liberalism.”
Look, dreams can be memorable. They can even be meaningful. But when a leader’s nocturnal brain activity becomes the launchpad for an article on church government, you’ve officially left “sola scriptura” in the dust. The Bible is supposed to be sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6—“Do not go beyond what is written”). Not “Scripture plus whatever Herbert dreamed last Tuesday.” This is how cults get their operating manual—personal revelation dressed up as divine insight that just so happens to affirm the leader’s power.
The whole piece kicks off with Armstrong’s vivid dream about young men lobbying against him. He wakes up “considerably impressed,” convinced God is showing him that too many members secretly want to run things their way. From there, it’s off to the races: proof-texts, historical revisionism, and dire warnings about “liberalism.”
Look, dreams can be memorable. They can even be meaningful. But when a leader’s nocturnal brain activity becomes the launchpad for an article on church government, you’ve officially left “sola scriptura” in the dust. The Bible is supposed to be sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6—“Do not go beyond what is written”). Not “Scripture plus whatever Herbert dreamed last Tuesday.” This is how cults get their operating manual—personal revelation dressed up as divine insight that just so happens to affirm the leader’s power.
The Great Purge and the Peace That Followed (According to Him)
Armstrong gleefully recounts how the 1974 “men of renown” who tried to take over were booted out. The offshoots they started? All doomed to fail because “except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain” (Psalm 127:1). The troublemakers left? Peace at last! The remaining members? Finally free of those pesky dissenters.
Translation: If you question the apostle, you’re bitter, revenge-seeking, and probably going to hell in a handbasket. If you stay loyal, you get peace, growth, and God’s blessing. It’s spiritual gaslighting wrapped in a Psalm 127 bow—while conveniently ignoring Jesus’ actual instructions for church discipline: private confrontation, then witnesses, then the whole church (Matthew 18:15-17), not mass excommunication for questioning authority.
History, of course, had other plans. The Worldwide Church of God eventually repudiated much of Armstrong’s theology after his death. The “liberals” weren’t the problem; the rigid, extra-biblical system was. But in 1980, none of that mattered. Loyalty to the man trumped loyalty to the text.
Armstrong gleefully recounts how the 1974 “men of renown” who tried to take over were booted out. The offshoots they started? All doomed to fail because “except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain” (Psalm 127:1). The troublemakers left? Peace at last! The remaining members? Finally free of those pesky dissenters.
Translation: If you question the apostle, you’re bitter, revenge-seeking, and probably going to hell in a handbasket. If you stay loyal, you get peace, growth, and God’s blessing. It’s spiritual gaslighting wrapped in a Psalm 127 bow—while conveniently ignoring Jesus’ actual instructions for church discipline: private confrontation, then witnesses, then the whole church (Matthew 18:15-17), not mass excommunication for questioning authority.
History, of course, had other plans. The Worldwide Church of God eventually repudiated much of Armstrong’s theology after his death. The “liberals” weren’t the problem; the rigid, extra-biblical system was. But in 1980, none of that mattered. Loyalty to the man trumped loyalty to the text.
The Real Theological Crime
At its core, Armstrong’s article defends a closed system: one true church, one true apostle, one true set of doctrines (many of which were novel inventions). Any move toward grace, accountability, or biblical nuance was labeled “watering down God’s truth.” The result? A church that looked less like the vibrant, Spirit-led body in Acts and more like a tightly controlled corporation with a prophet at the top.
Jesus warned against this exact spirit: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… It shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:25-28; see also Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-26). Elders are to shepherd willingly, not as overlords (1 Peter 5:2-3). Armstrong’s article doesn’t just miss that verse. It drives a truck over it while shouting, “But I’m the apostle!”
So yes, the piece is theologically bad. Not mildly misguided—catastrophically so. It replaces Christ’s headship with a man’s (Colossians 2:19), Scripture’s authority with a dream’s, and servant leadership with top-down dominion. It’s the kind of writing that makes you wonder if the real question isn’t “Shall we all leave the Church of God?” but rather, “When did the Church of God start looking so much like the Church of Herbert?”
Thankfully, the real church of God—the one Jesus actually built—has always been bigger than any one man’s dream. It survives bad articles, bad governance, and even worse theology. Because at the end of the day, the vine is Christ (John 15:5). The branches are us. And no self-appointed apostle gets to prune that.
Silent Pilgrim
At its core, Armstrong’s article defends a closed system: one true church, one true apostle, one true set of doctrines (many of which were novel inventions). Any move toward grace, accountability, or biblical nuance was labeled “watering down God’s truth.” The result? A church that looked less like the vibrant, Spirit-led body in Acts and more like a tightly controlled corporation with a prophet at the top.
Jesus warned against this exact spirit: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… It shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:25-28; see also Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-26). Elders are to shepherd willingly, not as overlords (1 Peter 5:2-3). Armstrong’s article doesn’t just miss that verse. It drives a truck over it while shouting, “But I’m the apostle!”
So yes, the piece is theologically bad. Not mildly misguided—catastrophically so. It replaces Christ’s headship with a man’s (Colossians 2:19), Scripture’s authority with a dream’s, and servant leadership with top-down dominion. It’s the kind of writing that makes you wonder if the real question isn’t “Shall we all leave the Church of God?” but rather, “When did the Church of God start looking so much like the Church of Herbert?”
Thankfully, the real church of God—the one Jesus actually built—has always been bigger than any one man’s dream. It survives bad articles, bad governance, and even worse theology. Because at the end of the day, the vine is Christ (John 15:5). The branches are us. And no self-appointed apostle gets to prune that.
Silent Pilgrim
7 comments:
The church was really weakened in 1974 when many of the ministers left. They were some of the best ones, the ones who actually still had their consciences intact, and not what HWA had replaced it with.
So Mr. Armstrong had dreams about the church. Thus, Robert Thiel's dreams must be justified. Right?
Another solid SP,
Isaiah 8:16 Bind up the testimony, Seal the law among my disciples.
And that’s just what they did after Peter, James, Paul and John wrote. It was sealed. HWA wasn’t a part of that. To consider oneself an apostle is pride, and I don’t think God accepted.
Another thing splinters ministers like to use when discussing church government is the Phillip and Stephen scenario is that while they mention that those two are not apostles in church government, they say after Samaria got the word then the apostles came down to lay hands (as if to use a top down approach). But what we find is the power of the holy spirit being used by men who weren’t in the highest position.
Even Ananias who was a regular disciple baptized Saul (Paul). Not the original twelve. It’s not about one man at the top lording it over everybody.
We're told that dreams have a processing role, and occur during R.E.M. sleep. Since processing often involves the things about which we are thinking, it would not be unusual for a person who started a church to be dreaming about it, and dreaming about God's participation, whether they even had that or not. Dreams are sometimes realistic, and other times surreal distortions. Even if one were to experience a vision during waking hours, there is mental health to consider, stress, or possibly even poisoning, before taking it all too seriously, and making huge life decisions.
Can we use our dreams to support our own vanity and ego? That is not exactly an uncommon human response.
Is there even such a thing as a calling, or are callings largely imaginary or contaminated by bias confirmstion? In many peoples' lives, one's
calling is that at which one is successful. We know the area in which HWA found success. All these little Herbie Jr's walking around out there? Not so much.
If that sounds like a man clutching his throne a little too tightly, that’s because it is. The entire article is a masterclass in theological sleight-of-hand, Old Testament cosplay, and self-justifying authoritarianism. It’s not just bad theology—it’s the kind of bad theology that turns a spiritual body into a personality cult and calls it “God’s government.”>>
one wonders what fate awaits the false apostle and many others like him given Jesus's stern warning about being not too many teachers, for there be a harsher judgement.
With slow transportation and communication, I wonder whether central control was even possible at the time of the apostles. Could that be the reason why there were 12 apostles rather than one.
Btw, most of the apostles spent time in prison, which would have given them first hand experience of how oppressive it is to have one's rights violated, plus they would have been forced to deal with morally challenged inmates. A big difference to today's ACOGs ministers who only know their comfortable Marie Antoinette lifestyles. The pussy ministers.
The thing is, 11:41, because of those communication and travel factors, there may not have even been completely uniform rules amongst the different congregations of those 12 apostles. Members would have followed the edicts of their particular leader. You might make the argument that those in "the way" could have compared notes at the commanded feast assemblies in Jerusalem, but that would likely have ended in 69 AD. The Talmud was developed by Jewish leaders as a way to preserve the faith given at Sinai as the diaspora grew following the sequential wars and destructions which rendered Jerusalem non-viable as the center of worship. Most of that no longer applied to the Christians, because circumstances and different beliefs caused separation. In fact, primary activity for Christians shifted to Rome and Asia Minor.
I don't recall many conversations during my Armstrong experience regarding life of typical Christians during first century history. Certainly not deep or detailed ones. We got what was in the Bible, and then there were conspiracy theories about Simon Magus, and the lost century and birth of the Catholic Church. We were certainly aware of the Roman Emperors, persecution and martyrdom, but mostly in a way that bolstered the model presented by HWA. Chief speculator Gerald Waterhouse didn't even really speculate on first century Christian life. He spoke mainly about the millenium. It's possible that most WCG and ACOG members think of first century Jerusalem as being kind of like Pasadena, and the Gentile churches as similar to HWA's overseas offices. Frequent ministerial conferences and periodic edicts from James. Typical members have not have read Eusebius, Irenaeus, or the works of other of the antenicene church leaders, so would not know any different.
But, they believe that if HG Wells were in the church today, and sent members back to the first century in a time machine, COGlodytes would be right at home
in Jerusalem, Ephesis, Galatia, or Rome! Seems silly, but I guess it all makes perfect sense to Flurry, Pack, or whomever.
Post a Comment