Is Armstrongism the
only viable version of Christianity?
Lonnie Hendrix/Miller
Jones
Ian Boyne
recently made some interesting remarks in the comment thread for a post on the Banned
by HWA blog (“Is Rod Meredith The Most Uniquely Qualified Man To Write
About The Protestant Reformation?”). Mr. Boyne spoke of what he described as
Dr. James Tabor’s “benign assessment of Armstrongism” which appeared in the
most recent issue of Dixon Cartwright’s The Journal (see “I had a valid,
positive spiritual AC experience” at http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue192/jx022817.pdf). Mr. Boyne went on to say: “He gives a perspective that is radically
different from what one encounters on these blogs. In my view, he grasps some
strengths of Armstrongism which I have always felt should be acknowledged by
critics. It is refreshing to see that an ex-member can take this dispassionate
view of the movement, particularly vis-à-vis orthodox Christianity.”
As a former
Armstrongite, this brings a couple of questions to mind: Does Armstrongism have any strengths to be
acknowledged? and, Are Dr. Tabor’s and Mr. Boyne’s views of the movement truly
dispassionate?
We could say
that Herbert Armstrong’s questioning of the conclusions and traditions of
Catholic and Protestant Theology was a strength, but we would have to
immediately qualify such an assertion with a few addenda. Mr. Armstrong’s
questioning often turned into contemptuous dismissal and disdain for those
views – things to be ridiculed and mocked. Over time, this produced a
pronounced feeling of superiority among Armstrong and his followers. And, it
led to the same phenomenon among Armstrongites that Mr. Boyne is accusing their
critics of exhibiting on these blogs:
The careless dismissal of, and callous disregard for, anything perceived
as being a part of the rejected system.
We could say
that Herbert Armstrong’s emphasis on the Hebrew roots of Christianity was a
positive development and one of the strengths of his theology, but we would
once again be forced to qualify that assertion. As all serious students of
history understand, a story can be radically revised by emphasizing certain
facts over others. And, of course, this can lead to ignoring or denigrating
evidence which doesn’t support the new thesis. For instance, it would be a
gross distortion of both the historical and scriptural evidence to suggest that
all early Christians observed the dietary laws and kept the Sabbath and
Festivals outlined in the Torah.
We could say
that Herbert Armstrong’s understanding that there was a northern kingdom
(Israel) and southern kingdom (Judah) is critical to a proper understanding of
Scripture and is a strength. However, we would also have to point out that this
led to the theologically and historically inaccurate teaching about
Anglo-Israelism (which for Herbert and some of his followers led to racism).
We could say
that Herbert Armstrong’s teaching that God was not going to condemn the
majority of humanity to the fires of hell without first giving them an
opportunity to accept “His” truth was a great improvement over the traditional
model and a strength. Once again, however, we would have to point out that Armstrong’s
theology predicted that untold billions would eventually end up in the Lake of
Fire anyway. Sure, according to Armstrong, they would have their chance; but
many of them would reject that opportunity and suffer the consequences.
Armstrong’s God was angry, and he wasn’t going to tolerate one iota of
deviation from “His” expectations/plans.
We could say
that Herbert Armstrong’s teaching about man’s incredible potential (that man is
to become God, part of the Elohim family) was a strength; but even Ian Boyne
has seen fit to modify that teaching by publishing his own booklet on the
subject. After much study and consideration, many former Armstrongites have
concluded that to say that man will be God as God is God (In other words, full
equality) is blasphemous and not supported by Scripture. We also have to remind
ourselves that in both The Incredible Human Potential and Mystery
of the Ages Mr. Armstrong reasoned that man’s potential was the
consequence of the angels’ sin (that God was effectively working on “Plan B”).
We could say
that Armstrong’s understanding of Jesus as King was a grand improvement over
the Catholic/Protestant view of him as Messiah (the agent of salvation) and a
definite strength; but we also have to ask ourselves: Did that understanding come at the expense of
a full appreciation of Christ’s role as Savior for Armstrong and many of his
followers? Sure, a few of the offshoots from the old Worldwide Church of God
have “rediscovered” Jesus as Savior (but that is certainly a post Herbert
Armstrong development). We could certainly say with some justification that
Catholic/Protestant theology overlooked this important aspect of Christ’s work,
but couldn’t we also say that its rediscovery and emphasis by Armstrong and his
followers led to the de-emphasizing of Christ’s role as the Sacrificial Lamb?
In his
remarks, Ian Boyne went on to state: “It
is interesting that those who left Arnstrongism and have gone on to gain
recognition in the scholarly world---Tabor,Lester Grabbe,Phillip Arnold,Greg
Doudna and Robert Kuhn as a philosophical interlocutor---have a more nuanced, less
acerbic view of their religious past than those on these blogs. Could a wider
grasp of theology and philosophy actually lead one to recognize some of the
strengths of Armstrongism --certainly in comparison with orthodox
Christianity--while acknowledging its obvious and dastardly elements? When one
considers the grotesque nature of Calvinist theology, for example, how can one
not deeply appreciate Armstrong's teaching that a loving and just God could not
condemn people to an eternal hell fire just because of His decree? Those who
reject Armstrongism for atheism, deism or agnosticism I can certainly
understand, but not a smart fellow like Byker Bob who has gone to vacuous
orthodox Christianity. No version of
Christianity is any viable alternative to Armstrongism.”
Mr. Boyne
suggests that “a wider grasp of theology and philosophy” might actually lead to
a greater appreciation of “some of the strengths of Armstrongism.” It may come
as a surprise to Mr. Boyne, but it isn’t that many of us have an insufficient
grasp of these fields (theology and philosophy). We have simply reached
different conclusions about Armstrong’s theology than the ones Mr. Boyne has
reached. Moreover, I don’t think that it is too outlandish (or overly emotional)
to suggest that almost any version of Christianity would be a superior
alternative to Armstrongism. In my humble opinion, the real strength of
Christian theology is found in its teachings about love, forgiveness,
redemption and spiritual salvation.
For myself,
I do not regret my experience in Armstrongism – I wouldn’t be the person I am
today without having had that experience. I am willing to acknowledge that my
philosophical and theological views have benefited from my former exposure to
Armstrong and his teachings (in my view, a necessary step in the evolution of
those beliefs). I am also glad to acknowledge that I met many wonderful people
within that culture through the years who had a profound and positive impact on
my life. Nevertheless, as for any strengths inherent in that theology, I do not
see them.
