Tkach WCG: The First Decade

James Malm has been running a series of posts on the history of Armstrongism, written through the lens that there was a strong undercurrent for decades to move away from Herbert Armstrong's teachings and into evangelicalism.  He has no kind words for Herman Hoeh and his Buddhist leanings and for his well known deviancy.

The entire post on the Tkach era can be found here: Tkach WCG: The First Decade  Others in the series are here:

WCG: Tkach Transition
Herbert W Armstrong: Part 4
Herbert W Armstrong: Part 3
Herbert W Armstrong: Part 2
Ministry of Herbert W Armstrong


Lest you think this is another snow job praising all things HWA, be warned that it is not.  Malm has a lot of criticism about HWA, so much so that some on other websites and blogs are calling James Malm an anti-HWA clone. Malm is critical of HWA's arrogance and pomposity.

Much of what Malm has posted is from research done by Richard Nickel's into the history of the church from it's formation with COG7thDAy and the corrupt actions of HWA towards that church when he was in the process of forming Radio Church of God.  Apparently Armstrong was less than truthful about how things went down when he was an ordained minister in CG7thDay. Of course, this should not surprise anyone, but many of the things written are unknown to most people in the church.  The story moves on through the years leading up to Tkach taking over and then into the dissolution of the church into hundreds of splinter cults.

A few tidbits today about the Tkach era are:

(Quoted from Nickel's writings) When the 74 split led by Earnest Martin took place, he had been teaching his errors for several years already and had convinced many of his positions. Then Ted’s adulteries were made known and many had had enough. The situation was ripe for the Liberal Evangelical types to stage a walk away with the 74 split.

At the same time some who had been convinced of these Liberal Evangelical heresies were loath to leave their exalted positions, high wages and personal power; and the esteem in which they were held by the brethren. They chose to stay in WCG and bide their time as they worked to establish a power base for the coming death of HWA. A substantial group were elevated to high positions through taking advantage of the Ted/Rader power struggles.

These people believed that much church doctrine was wrong and false, yet they remained within the organization preparing for the time that they would be in a position to make changes. One such person was Herman Hoeh who had bought into the intellectual sounding arguments of Martin and chose not to give up his “In with the boss” and the esteem that many brethren held for him.

While paying lip service to the church doctrines in public, it was an open secret that he disdained those same doctrines in private. It was well known that he was an Evangelical with a strong lean towards Buddhism, he was also an amateur photographer and his collection of personally taken “dirty pictures” was legendary. He especially enjoyed taking pictures of naked young men. These things were no secret in Pasadena. He wanted to “shut the lights and lock the door” on HWA teachings; and kept his personal views secret as he flattered HWA. He personally recommended Joseph Tkath to HWA for his successor.

Hoeh worked hard behind the scenes while keeping his personal views secret; to support Joe Tkach in his succession bid and assisted with the doctrinal changes taking place after 1986.

It took Joe Tkach a short time to fully consolidate his power and control and by 1989 the move to change the doctrine was underway.

The Tkach team worked together to change doctrine into the “love love” tolerance for sin of the Evangelical Movement, from the moment that Tkach took over; however Doctrinal Change did not fully get going until a new doctrinal Team called the “Doctrinal Manual Group” was set up in late 89. This was to be a new STP project hence the word “Manual”.

 Malm interjects:

I have searched but cannot find a complete list of Tkach’s doctrinal committee names. I have attached a list of names that were very much involved in his operation and there is a good chance most of these were on the committee.

It wasn’t that they just changed doctrine, they viciously went after anyone they thought might stand in their way by personally attacking them. While there were individuals that were attacked, there was a long list of department that was dissolved. I and others in the department were personally slandered. They made sure that the rumor mill spread the word of how evil those they attacked were before lowering the boom. It literally separated friends and families.

The words that I and others write cannot give anyone the real sense of what went on. I had nightmares for years. I know others did also. I was told by a friend in ministerial services to get out of HQ because it was filled with Jackals. I left and never regretted it for a second.
I hope this list helps. You have an uphill battle. The propaganda machine in WCG was very good. Most members and a lot of ministers had no idea what went on at HQ. They were taught all the time that they were in WCG that loyalty of HQ was loyalty to God. That became a part of them. So to them, when you say anything remotely critical of WCG, you were speaking against God. I use to be amazed that so many of the ministers that came in on sabbatical were so naive.

To summarize Joe Sr, Joe Jr and Mike Feazel started the changes.

Schnippert, Albrecht and Ward were quickly on board.

Hoeh and Kelly supported Tkach from among the old WCG leaders and supported the new path.

Dave Albert and Gary Antion were AC instructors teaching the new doctrines especially hard.

David Hulme ran AICF under Tkach and was a well known Evangelical, as his subsequent history demonstrates.

In 40 years of doing business I have never seen the treachery and corruption that took place from the late 70′s to the late 80′s in the WCG.

Nickel's comments continue:

Kevin Dean – Was a Rader supporter until he turned against him, informing on him in 82; then supporting HWA and leaving after his death in 86.

Aaron Dean – Strongly supported HWA, and then his successor. He claims to have learned about the efforts to change core doctrine over time; and to have been fighting the changes; he left for UCG in 95.

Joe Jr. – Brought to HQ in 1987. Was raised from local elder to Pastor rank immediately. Was put in charge of the ministry. Larry Salyer then worked for him.

Mike Feazel – Personal assistant and ghost writer to Joe Jr. Lifelong friend of Joe Sr. Head of the Doctrinal Manual Group that made the doctrinal changes. Became Head of Theology and head of the new Doctrinal Manual Group in 89.

Robin Weber- Ministerial Services. Personal friend and constant companion of Joe Sr. A strong supporter and known for disfellowshipping resisters to heresy.

Greg Albrect – Dean of Students and Theology instructor (had a well know reputation of getting students to reveal their problems and then use it against them). Bernie brought him over to editorial to head the PT.

Bernie Schnippert – Brought back in 1987 by Joe Sr. – raised to Director of Media Operations very shortly after arriving; was the coordinator of the Systematic Theology Project in 1977 that HWA exploded over.

Herman Hoeh – You know the story.

Leroy Neff – Treasurer and in charge of all financial services – Accounting, Purchasing, Feast Site business offices. He went however the wind blew. Was staunch Armstrong supporter, and then a staunch Joe Sr. supporter.

Victor Kubic- In charge of Ministerial Services kept the field elders in line by firing those that did not agree with the new teachings

Ron Kelly – Long time minister, Festival coordinator, writer for magazines and TV presenter. Spoke often in Pasadena. became Controller of Tkach Team, strong Tkach man.

Dr. Stravanidies – Thought of as the best biblical scholar on campus. Often disagreed with HWA church teachings. played important role in changing them to the Evangelical Mainstream.

Don Ward –Worked on STP. Was the key person behind the accreditation of AC. HWA fired him as president of AC, Pasadena. Went to big Sandy and was reinstated under Leon Walker as academic dean . Joe Sr. brought him back to Pasadena in 1987 as vice chancellor of both campus’s. Liberal arts accreditation started once again. Sent promising elders off to Azusa Pentecostal college for indoctrination into Evangelicism.

NOTE: Accreditation was a euphemism for turning the school away from the HWA Theology and into a Evangelical school by emphasizing criticism of those doctrines in the name of open questioning by students. While I do believe in questioning to seek the truth; in this case the questioning was to move youth and future leaders into the Evangelical mold. The youth would ask a question and the instructor would then spout arguments so as to plant Evangelical ideas.
The youth and future leaders are again under attack through the various church education systems of several COGs.

Michael P Germano-Ambassador University was also Evangelically trained; completing post-graduate studies in anthropology, archaeology, and theology at Southern Methodist University and Texas A&M University at College Station. Involved in the Jordanian Archeological Project and highly critical of HWA teachings, strongly Evangelical.

Dave Albert – Instructor in theology. Degree in Psychology and was an advocate of pop “its not your fault” psychology. Norman Smith, Denny Luker and John Elliot also in the pop psychology attitude of “sin is not your fault; denial of personal responsibility” and “love love” toleramnce (sic)

David Hulme – TV presenter. Became AICF director in 1987, replacing Ellis LaRavia (Ellis was now out). Was strongly into Evangelicism and helped excise the teachings of HWA.

Paul Kroll – Was disfellowshipped by Mr Armstrong for his ultra-liberal views, he was brought back in to write articles for the literature

Larry Salyer – Appointed Director of Church Administration. He left to join Global and then fell out with Rod Meredith joining UCG, then COGWA. Here is a very interesting interview concerning the period when Larry was over the Doctrinal Committee from 86 to 89. The committee was reconstituted in 89 with Larry leaving and Mike Faezel becoming head of Theology at AC; and as such head of the new “Doctrinal Manual Group”.

NOTE: This may be a good account of that time frame and the developing situation. When the interviews of any leader of the period come into play; consider that these folks are consummate politicians and spin experts, with a genuine interest in glossing over their personal involvement. They pill state points in their favour and not mention anything else; making the WHOLE truth very difficult to discover.

Check out the above link for more from Malm's posting.

Part of the reason Malm is on this subject is that he is attempting to prove that UCG is a den of corruption that is seeking to turn it's self into another 'evangelical' COG similar to the new WCGGCI.  Malm points out that the men in charge of UCG and COGWA are the very same men who helped Tkach institute many of the changes.  These men worked in collusion with Tkach by disfellowshipping and kicking members out of the church who disagree with the new directions.

Then in their continuing path of corruption these men then went and formed UCG where they secretly carried many of the new WCG understandings with them where they are attempting to institute them today.

Obviously when you read Malm's postings you will quickly see that there is "nothing new under the sun" in regards to the corruption that is rife within Armstrongism. The entire church system and its leadership is rotten to the core.

Prophet Thiel Is Not Happy With "Christianity Today" Magazine

God's greatest gift to the Church of God and particularly the Living Church of God is NOT happy that another cross is being forced upon him that offends his delicate LCG beliefs. He is not happy that a "cross" from the World Trade Center support beams is being placed in the WTC Memorial site.

Prophet Thiel points out that an atheist group has filed suit to stop it's display.  Prophet Thiel is kind of glad they did, but for reasons other than what you would think.

Thiel despises crosses.  Remember when the LCG shootings happened and sympathetic citizens in Milwaukee erected a few small crosses in the snow bank in sympathy for the people killed?  Thiel went ballistic over that and made a complete ass of himself and brought more ridicule on the Living Church of God and it's aberrant non biblical beliefs.

Thiel wrote:

While I am sure that Greg Zanis (the man who made the crosses) must have meant well, all need to understand that since we in the Living Church of God do not use crosses for worship in anyway, that we would prefer they not be used to honor our dead. All of the victims would have agreed. Flowers, prayers on behalf of the survivors, etc. would be considered appropriate.

 Christianity Today magazine had this to say about Thiel tirade:

"At the same time, believers in the midst of tragedy should be patient with the media and the world at large. One member of the Meredith organization, on a website to which I will not link, takes great issue with the erection of memorial "crosses" outside the hotel where the shooting took place. Why? Because Meredith and his followers do not believe the "cross" is anything other than a pagan invention; they assert that Christ was crucified on an upright stake or tree, and that crosses were introduced later. Another objection was to the view that the deceased are, at this moment, "in a better place," i.e., heaven. The Meredith-supporting writer emphasized his church's view that the dead are "asleep" and unconscious until the resurrection, casting aspersions on a heartfelt expression from people who are presumably of good will. Neither the symbolism of the cross nor the question of the state of the dead is a debate I wish to enter here. Nor do I wish to disparage the sincerity of the other writer's convictions. However, it could easily be viewed by the general public as ungracious at best for people in one church to disavow a kind gesture from another, different church because those other people didn't know the etiquette that the first church follows. In a time of tragedy, when emotions are raw and hearts are wounded, I believe it is better for all concerned to merely accept whatever condolences are offered with the words, "Thank you," and then move on. This isn't the time for an "educational message" about paganism, so-called "soul sleep" or anything else. It's a time to accept what is offered with thanks, and in so doing perhaps opening the door to further discussion at a later time.

Thiel responds:

But I did, and still, feel that the public should understand that the use of crosses is not something that the deceased would have preferred. I consider that for proper respect for the dead, as well as the survivors, most of whom are members of the Living Church of God, our position was a good thing to point out--especially BEFORE the funerals. My comments were not intended to be ungracious. I considered my comments to be the courteous thing to do for those unfamiliar with our beliefs.

And now, yet again, we get to see the Prophet angry again at a cross.

First off, he gets a dig in at Christianity Today magazine.  According to him the magazine is falsely labeled because everyone knows there are no REAL Christians outside the Living Church of God!!!!!!!!!!  How dare they pretend to be Christians!

The improperly named publication Christianity Today (CT) currently has the following headline and subheadline at its website:

 He goes on to write:

No Christian in the New Testament is ever described as having or wearing a cross. This is not to say that all who own a cross are active idolators, but that the historical facts should give people pause to ask themselves if they should own or wear one.

The Bible simply does not teach that Jesus had to have been killed on a cross

If the cross is a symbol of the future Antichrist/Beast power as Roman Catholic Priest P. Huchedé indicates it will be (and it is in a book with an official imprimatur), perhaps those who come from faiths descended from Emperor Constantine should be concerned about their religion now–before it becomes even further removed from the original faith. The Bible indicates that the true Christians will NOT have the symbol/mark needed to buy or sell when the two beasts of Revelation 13 are in power, but only those that will follow those beasts will (Revelation 13:16-17)–and while crosses may not necessarily be required everywhere, other Catholic writings suggest that in certain places, they will be.

CT is correct that all should be offended about using the cross as a 9/11 symbol.  Idolatry is a serious problem and many today do not realize that most who profess Christianity practice it.  Some type of cross possibly could be related to the mark of the beast.  All of this was all left out of the CT article, so I thought that those interested in the truth may find this of value.

This is part of what Christianity Today said:

The Book of Acts records that upon hearing this indictment for the first time, many of Peter's listeners were "cut to the heart." Understandably so—the charge is enough to turn the stomach, darken the mind, and plunge the heart into despair. Or, in other words, Peter's words were enough to cause "dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish." The atheist litigants have called the 9/11 cross "an ugly piece of wreckage," arguing that it speaks of "horror and death." On the basis of the New Testament, these statements are difficult to contradict.

But if the image of the cross represents humanity's greatest collective failure, why would a nation cling to it as a sign of hope in the days after 9/11? The exchange that follows Peter's sermon sheds some further light.

When asked to suggest a course of action, Peter advised his hearers, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"—advice which makes little sense unless one assumes certain premises. These premises, implicit in the Christian religion from day one, were intricately explored over the next several decades in the writings of St. Paul, who advanced what would become the best-known but least-understood tenet of Christian theology: that somehow the death of the perfectly sinless Christ was itself the event which atoned for all the wrongdoing of the sinful human race.

If true, this turns the cross into a profound paradox. The same event that condemns humanity also justifies it, standing at once as damning evidence of guilt and a doorway to forgiveness and innocence. What's more, the very episode that shows humanity at its worst shows God at his best, as he transforms an act of wickedness into a display of mercy and love. It is difficult to imagine themes more relevant to the attacks of September 11. 

Suppose God himself has suffered and died at the hands of evil men. Suppose God himself has shown the capacity for taking what was intended for harm and using it for good. Might this affect the way we ourselves face evil and suffering? Might this be a source of strength to someone who is waist-deep in ash and rubble, trying to loosen bodies from steel and concrete?

For the person who accepts this narrative, the cross is the only thing that makes sense in the face of a senseless tragedy. But for the person who rejects it, the cross serves as a reminder of an offensive and seemingly absurd accusation, adding insult to injury. The trouble with the cross is that it refuses to be the universal symbol of beauty that some would make it out to be—it speaks life to those who believe, but death to those who do not.

No wonder people disagree about where it should be displayed.

Thiel is not happy because of the above excerpts.  He seems to still be bitter that CT nailed his ass years ago with his "cross" comments.  That is why the above comments from CT  stick a knife into the heart of everything Thiel writes.  It damns him and he is not happy!  How dare pagan "Christians" expose him for what he is! Satan is at work in the world condemning the COG.

Paypal Accepted

WCG United Kingdom has moved into the electronic age and now makes it possible for you to use your Paypal account to send in tithes and offerings. Whip out that plastic and go to town!

Many churches are using Paypal and credit cards for offerings and donations.  However, many people are really leery in using it.  Some don't trust it as a safe transaction. Paypal also takes a 3% cut from the donation. Many others see it is a greedy and gives the impression of being"money hungry."

I'm certain for some it would be a convenience, but it seems to appear so very money hungry. How difficult it is to remember to write a check...

Scripture again and again demonstrates that being in financial debt is akin to slavery. Churches need to ensure they are not facilitating this. If someone is writing a check or dropping cash into a plate, at the least, it is not borrowed money .

Other churches are using online giving because of the number of Baby-boomers returning to church after staying away for decades.  Many had stopped attending church because they got sick of the constant money begging.

Doug Murren, in his classic book, Baby Boomerang: Catching the Boomer Generation As They Return to Church, identified one of the reasons baby boomers didn't go to church was they felt churches were always asking for money. So a lot of seeker-sensitive churches as a result went out of their way to avoid offending visitors during the offering part of the service.

I am sure this is not the only WCG/GCI church or splinter COG group that does this.  Armstrongism has always been about the money.  The more money they can bring in the better.

True Ramblings

One of the great feelings, which really was only a feeling and probably not based in any genuine reality, was that when in WCG, we could take comfort in the fact that we "all speak the same thing."   We were not divided, all one body we for sure.  We sang it, we (I) preached it.  It was very comfortable and made me, at least from my view, feel safe and protected. 

 

Now I know I had my issues with the Church, or specifically the Armstrongs and various other human beings who seemed this way or that which made me chuckle a bit at how full of themselves they could be. I ignored a lot of things I didn't like, like "to be played in all the Churches" tapes and still survived years!  But that was just  people and people come and go.  I held it close to my chest just how much I hated the visits of one traveling evangelist who just knew the answer to everything and what God was thinking everyday about us.  I never promoted his visits much, tolerated having to hear it two or three times depending on the number of churches I was responsible for and believed virtually none of it.  The voice in my head kept saying...'well what are you going to do when HWA dies?"   I should have put that in a question for him but he never took questions. 

 

I reflect on all the men in the ministry I know and wonder where they went.  Some, of course, went on to promote themselves in their own versions of their astounding Bible reading skills.  But, in fact, most have just faded away and are doing their best doing whatever and neither want contact nor have a public need to process their experience.  To date, not one former full time minister has been in touch with me and none other write on this site openly.

 

Those of us who are here growing through are an interesting bunch.  There are those of us who always comment, those who sometimes comment and most who never comment but I assume think about these things.

 

My own buzzwords that identify me here are, "Apostle Paul," "Birth stories,"  "Resurrection accounts,"  "Adam and Eve,"  "Mythology,"  "Quantum physics,"  "Acceptance,"  "astrotheology,"  "never quotes Jesus,"  "contradict each other,"  "Neanderthal,"  "Paleontology"  "Snarky,"  and so on.  if I did not sign my name , you'd still know it was probably me writing. 

 

And yes, I am "M.T.Hall" but have always assumed that was no secret either.  I sign that at times to honor and remember my dad who used it first when he wrote Joe Tkach Sr. about the effect his leadership was having on my dad's local church.  It was emptying the hall.  Dad is still around at 96, was a WCG elder and now sits back in the very same pew we all grew up in up the street in the Presbyterian Church of his youth.  I deeply love and respect my dad. He is a quiet man who just goes with the flow it seems.  I am not like him but have always wanted to be.  My counselor however reminds me that each of us are on our own journey.  His is his and mine is mine.  That came up when I mentioned they had been married 72 years and I still felt badly about my failed circumstances for which i take full responsibility.

 

At any rate, if I use the words,  "narcissists,"  "snakes in suits,"  "Armstrongists," "British Israelism, "  , we know who this is commenting even without the name.  If we say, "rebel", "used to think,"  " bike,"  "full circle,"  "former atheist," etc, we know who this is.

 

If I hear, "Dennis, you're an idiot,"  "You and your minister buddies,"  "I hope you end up in a refrigerator box," etc...you...well at least I know who that is...ha.  

 

We all are processing a human experience and the topic is religion, faith, trust, hope and life after death,  which is one of the most sensitive of our human needs to explore once we show up on the planet.  

 

We run the gamut from very sincere to now skeptical, very sincere and more sincere, very sincere to cynical,  sorta sincere to very sincere,  not sincere-supposed to be sincere-ok I'm sincere-WTF-atheist-back to sincere and so on.  i think I am stuck a bit at WTF. But no matter, it's all ok.  As that great philosopher once said..."I ams what i ams and that's all that I ams."  Popeye

 

I guess I keep a mental count in my head of how many comment on this blog to various topics.  The postings that highlight some past abuse , situation or now perceived goofy or harmful belief or idea in the past get the most comments.  These are the topics that bring out the hurt and the many personal examples in our experience we can come up.  We comment not unlike men get to telling jokes in a group.  Each joke gets a little better than the last until someone "wins."  You know the ,  "oh yeah, well listen to this one..."  I guess you all know my views on painbodies. 

 

On the other side of the scale are the topics that bring virtually no comments.  In two years not ONE person has comment on my own observations about the contradictory nature of the Birth stories of Jesus (usually around Xmas) or the Resurrection accounts, (usually around Easter/Passover)   Not one person of any persuasion has defended the accounts as without error or historically accurate, which they are not IMHO.  No comments my view that the Apostle Paul hijacked the Jesus movement and the original Apostles did not like the man nor taught what he taught.  No comments on why Paul never quotes Jesus etc or the reality that Paul was the first to write the Jesus/Gentile story before the Gospels ever saw the light of day. I'd love to hear just one rebuttal as to why it is a good thing that Paul presents himself as "all things to all men...to the Jew a Jew, to the Gentile a Gentile.." etc and not wonder what the hell the real Paul really believed.  Or was lying and playing head games just the way to go?  

 

I have been scorned for noting that the Apostle Paul, as did Matthew and others, often misquoted the OT to promote their own agendas.  The Hebrew of the Hebrew quotes the Greek version of the OT to make points that would make a real Pharisee gag.  He even makes the same mistakes in doing so that the version contains as if he doesn't know the OT does not really say that.  I use the phrase, "you can't make a scripture mean what it never meant," but actually you can and it is called Midrash.  However, it is dishonest to reality and while a then acceptable way of writing about something you have little hard evidence for and would get you flunked out of seminary today, was ok then.    Matthew's birth account, as well as Lukes, which do not agree were made up by cobbling OT scriptures together and are not based in any reality of Jesus birth they knew about.  But I spare you.  My point is that these kinds of observations bring little if no comment.  

 

One very sincere literalist here on the blog challenged me to show him where Paul made the OT mean what it never meant or misquoted the OT to make his points.  I sent the man several classics from which i got no response or a better explanation for Paul's practice.   I don't blame him for not responding but I have to assume the examples were a bit enlightening in ways that cause conflict in the mind. 

 

The origins of everything seem to fascinate me.  From the origins of the earth, the universe, humans, consciousness and religion, it is all fascinating.  I just ever, as I suspect we all would say, no matter our current views, wanted to know the truth.  Handling the truth, as we know, can be divisive, scary and a lifelong experience with others in head banging over who is right.   

 

Recently I was listening to a very dynamic, yet goofy radio type trying his best to show the story of Jonah and the Great Fish literally happened and a man can survive in the belly of a whale etc.  He uses the example, now understood to be one of America's oldest urban legends, of a man swallowed by a whale on an 18th century whaling encounter.  He was cut out of the fish two days later, a bit digested but alive blah blah.   I wrote him with backup that any 15 year old in his audience with a Internet connection could debunk it before he finished the story.  His response was less than kind.  He "noticed" my source had an ad for Barack Obama and so that source was suspect.  He "noticed" the source was from the "secular web," which means he has access to the "religious web" which promotes the story as true so it must be true.  In short, he did not want me raining on his parade.  Yesterday, I was listening again and darn it if he did not use the story again!   I sent him better documentation this time but it just pissed him off. 

 

Well, just Sunday morning ramblings here.  Biz is a bit slow. The school I teach at reminds me at times of WCG drama at the Administrative level and getting stuck between crazy "policies" and the students who suffer from them.  Someone told me to "not listen to the students" and all I heard in my head was "don't listen to the members."  Ugh.  I opted for defending the students as usual.  I don't take a lot of BS this time around and speak up quickly no matter the cost.  I know i suffer from the classic underachiever thing at this point in life. 

 

But Fall comes soon and it has always been my favorite time of year.  May you all have the best Feast ever....no wait....sorry...that just slipped out.  :)

 

Dennis C. Diehl

DenniscDiehl@aol.com

 

Grace In The Dark Places: Conquering the Cultic Mindset (Part 1)

Grace in the Dark Places: Conquering the Cultic Mindset

by  Jim Turner

Xulon Press

2010

337 pages

Following are some excepts from Jim Turners book on his life as a youth growing up in Armstrongism.  His part as a minister in the church and his escape from the cultic mindset of Armstrongism.  He has done extensive research into the psychology of why people join cults and remain in them.  Almost all of his experiences were like mine growing up in Armstrongism in the Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Dayton Ohio area in the 60's and 70's.  It still amazes me that people in various of the splinter groups deny to this day that any of this ever happened.

From the back cover:

Why are people drawn to alternative religions that deviate from the norm of Christian belief?  Why do they stay? What compels them to cling to false dogma, even in the face of evidence that their beliefs are in error?  Why do they engage in scriptural gymnastics in defense of beliefs that have no grounding in Christian theology?  Why do they tolerate abusiveness from charismatic leaders and cede personal freedom?  Why are they willing to defend these leaders and their institutions to the bitter end?

After a lifetime of spiritual incarceration, Jim Turner began studying the cult mentality in order to better understand his actions.  He researched religious cults and their practices and traced their teachings throughout history as they found their way into the 'New Religions." His studies have convinced him that there is indeed "nothing new under the sun."  New Religions offer amended ideas that identified past cults. Modern cults have extracted beliefs from past groups and added a spin that presents them as original and, of course, inspired.

Psychological manipulation plays a significant role in the development and continuation of modern cults, but Jim Turner has presented a convincing argument that the psychological condition and willingness of cultists to surrender their freedom to cult leaders and their irrational tendencies to elevate a revered leader to a semi-divine level are equally responsible for the advancement of cults.

Follow the author through the early stages of cult indoctrination, the personal abuses he experienced at the hands of the cult, his personal choices as he rose through the ranks of the cult and his eventual enlightenment to eh deceptiveness of the cult led by Herbert Armstrong.  Walk with him out of the darkness of cultic deception into the glorious light of the Grace of God through Jesus Christ.

Preface

(pg. xviii) From the time of that ignoble birth, my mind developed along a singular path of religion mixed with superstition and fear, for my mother, notwithstanding her poverty and lack of education, was determined to leave her children a legacy of religions instructions.  The earliest memories I have involve the elements of the pietism that drove her to focus all her maternal energies toward that end. She swaddled her children in a tight cocoon of biblical mishmash, intended to protect them from the corruption of the world around having the collateral effect of restricting them from social and intellectual development.  Sabbath keeping, observance of the Jewish holy days, adherence to biblical dietary laws – including no pork, catfish, rabbits, squirrels, or lard, along with other taboos from Herbert Armstrong’s theology – ruled our home.

We ate no white bread and no white sugar (brown sugar processed with awful-tasting molasses was substituted), took regular doses of cod liver oil, ate prunes to keep us regular, and took no medicines, not even aspirin for headaches.  Mom taught us that the girls in the neighborhood who wore shorts were sinful, that women were to wear dresses and occasionally long pants if working in the fields.  In her religious fervor, she itemized sinful behavior to include virtually every action of everyone around us.

As I began to investigate the chain of circumstances that led to the twists and turns in my life, I came to realize that others would benefit from my experience through recognition of similar traits and influences that brought them to a similar place in life.  I was deceived.  (pg. xix) I was conscripted into a clever collusion, to which I eventually consigned my body and soul.  The torturous and serpentine journey into spiritual confusion that describes my life is complex and indistinct, even perplexing at times.

There came a time when my subjugation expired and I willingly reenlisted, accepting the consequences of my actions. I elected to ascend through the ranks, disregarding the abuse and compromise that attended such advancement.  There were vague crossroads, times when circumstances dictated my decisions as well as times when, clearly, I acted according to the fortuitous winds of personal advantage.  There were moments of uncertainty when I opted to follow the crowd rather than taking the moral high road that my conscience futilely prescribed.  Guilt played a huge role in my actions, a contentious double-edged guilt that often implied that I must follow the dictates of the man whom I had come to believe was the true servant of God while at the same time suggesting that I must buck the crowd and openly acknowledge the abuses.

No one will find, in my exact footsteps, the exact path of his own life.  I believe we will find that notwithstanding the deviations in our course, we crossed the Rubicon together and arrived at the same destination. We became members of a cult.  We sacrificed our vision through acceptance of that of a charismatic figure to whom we pledged undying loyalty.  Inherent to that sacrifice came a willingness to separate ourselves from others, including family and friends, who failed to see the privileged status to which we had subscribed. We became spiritual elitists.  Parasitically, we attached ourselves to the one and only true servant of God in hopes of obtaining exclusive positions in the divine appointment.

(pg. xx)  From early on, I subscribed to the belief that Herbert Armstrong was the man of God that he purported to be.  I was willing to blindly follow him, sometimes not knowing which way I was moving, going up or going down, upright or upside down – it mattered not as long as I was keeping my eyes on the leader. His vision was my vision.  As I matured, there were times when I entertained doubts, still willing to follow his lead, but subconsciously strapping on a parachute so that if a crash seemed imminent, I could bail out.

Ultimately, slowly at first, more rapidly toward the end of my career as a minister in Armstrong’s church, I came to the realization that I must assume control of my life, utilize the instruments available to me as a child of God and abandon the passive acceptance of his leadership.  As I swerved away from his superintendence, I experienced fear and hesitancy, doubtful of my ability to navigate the ship of my life.  For a while, I was free-falling, spinning out of control, lacking the confidence to grab hold of the yoke that controlled the flight of my life.  Myriad emotions racked my mind.  I felt angry, abandoned, deceived, betrayed, and, most frighteningly, cut off from God.

Into this chaotic and befuddled state, the light of Jesus Christ began to penetrate the darkness, and fragmentary and ever so slowly, I began to walk in the freedom that had eluded me for most of my life.

Thankfully I escaped the clutches of the cultic establishment of Herbert Armstrong before I became so languorously entangles (pg. xxi) within them that I lost the courage to walk away.  This was not the case with many of his followers. Numerous splinter groups of the Worldwide Church of God emerged, beginning even before his death and prodigiously after he passed away.  These groups consist of people who ardently and desperately seep to perpetuate Armstrong’s beliefs.  I am certain that many of these schismatic groups cling to their beliefs, fearful that to abandon them is tantamount to apostasy.  I am equally certain that some of them egotistically nurture the idea that they are the divinely appointed heirs of the truth that grants them the same power and authority that Armstrong enjoyed.

I am under no illusions that my story will bring about change in the beliefs of those who are content to maintain the delusion of their own superiority in the spiritual realm.  Nor will it change the minds of those who happily trudge down the road to deception, doggedly guarding the beliefs to which they have adhered for most of their lives.  A system to which they have ceded so much control over life cannot be a lie.  To acknowledge such requires personal honesty and scrupulous confession that many are unable to muster.

While I know that these people cannot be contrarily convinced, I am nevertheless hopeful that I can embolden some of those who struggle with their position and to begin to make the course corrections that will allow them to experience the true freedom in Jesus Christ.  I have discovered that road and somehow found the courage to renounce former beliefs that held me captive.  I was as entrenched into the etchings of Herbert Armstrong as one could possibly be. It was all I knew. Spurning those beliefs required deep soul searching and complete surrender to God and a generous amount of guidance from the Holy Spirit.

(pg. xxii) My story is an invitation to walk in the shoes of a common ordinary person who has been there and done that when it comes to the cult experience. I will attempt to describe the conditions in my early life that set the stage for my induction into a cult and to tale you with me on a bizarre journey into the depths of oppression, and finally through my escape from such darkness into the light of freedom.  I sincerely hope that through sharing some of my studies on the psychology of cultism and reflections upon grace that enabled me to surrender to it, I can impart some practical information that will serve others on their journey.

I find that many of my friends and peers who traveled this journey with me are afraid to honestly admit to the wrongdoings of this misguided institution.  It seems that inherent in all of us is a need to justify decisions we have made, especially those that have influenced the direction of our lives for years. Perhaps through my coming forth with candidness’, others might be encouraged to also acknowledge (pg. xxiii) the truth.  It is not my intent to vent anger toward those who were instrumental in fashioning my experience, but rather to openly acknowledge the fact that I was deceived.  To that end and with a prayer toward that outcome, I offer my story.