Many years ago now, Herbert Armstrong wrote a booklet entitled What is the True Gospel? In this booklet, he called out mainstream Christians for preaching a gospel about Christ and ignoring his actual message about the Kingdom of God. Armstrong wrote: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT man's gospel ABOUT THE PERSON of Christ. It is CHRIST'S Gospel - the Gospel Jesus PREACHED - the Gospel God SENT by Him, and therefore it is also called, in Scripture, the Gospel of God. The Gospel of God is God's GOSPEL - His Message - His Good News which He sent by Jesus." He went on to say: "We hear a great deal today of the gospel of MEN about the PERSON of Jesus Christ - confining the message solely to the things ABOUT Jesus. As a result, millions believe on Christ, who do not BELIEVE CHRIST! But Jesus' Gospel IS HIS MESSAGE!" (For those interested in reading the entire booklet, you may do so here: Herbert W Armstrong Searchable Library - What is the True Gospel?
Unfortunately, however, Mr. Armstrong's insistence that the message and the messenger were distinctly different subjects does not hold up under closer scrutiny of the scriptures related to this topic. Indeed, when we examine those scriptures, we are left with the distinct impression that it is impossible to separate the two!
In the Gospel of Matthew, we read: "In those days John the Baptist came to the Judean wilderness and began preaching. His message was, 'Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.'" (Matthew 3:1-2) Interestingly, when Jesus heard that John had been arrested, we are informed that "From then on Jesus began to preach, 'Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.'" (Matthew 4:17) Likewise, we read in the first chapter of the Gospel According to Mark: "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (verses 14-15) Why was the kingdom of Heaven/God near/at hand? Is it possible that this had anything to do with Christ's presence? And why was repentance an essential component of the message if it was all about a kingdom?
What did Isaiah prophesy about the Messiah? In that book, we read: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." (Isaiah 9:6-7) So, according to Isaiah, the Messiah was to be the KING of the kingdom!
This was further reinforced by what Gabriel told Mary about the son which she was destined to give birth to. In the book of Luke, we read: "Don’t be afraid, Mary...for you have found favor with God! You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!” (Luke 1:30-33, NLT) This was clearly to be Christ's kingdom.
Perhaps that is why, when he was accused by the Pharisees of casting out demons by the power of Satan, Jesus is reported to have told them: "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." (see Matthew 12:28 and Luke 11:20)) Perhaps that is why, when Christ sent his disciples out to preach his message, he instructed them to "heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." (Luke 10:9) He also told them to tell any city which rejected their (his) message: "Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." (Luke 10:11) In other words, the kingdom of God had "come nigh unto" them just because the king of that kingdom had sent his disciples to preach his message to them! Perhaps that is why, in that same gospel, we read: "Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20-21, NIV) That same passage in the New Living Translation reads "For the Kingdom of God is already among you." In other words, THE KING IS INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED WITH HIS KINGDOM!
Hence, any distinction between the king and his kingdom is artificial and misleading. In other words, the king is an integral part of the message about the kingdom!
In the same booklet mentioned above, Herbert Armstrong also wrote: "Four things are necessary to constitute a KINGDOM: 1) The TERRITORY, with its specific location and definite boundary lines, with 2) a KING or Supreme Ruler or governing agent, ruling over 3) SUBJECTS or citizens within that territorial jurisdiction, with 4) LAWS and form of GOVERNMENT. If we leave out anyone of these vital requisites, we do not have, and cannot BELIEVE, the true GOSPEL for this time."
Armstrong was certainly not the first person to make this mistake - that is, imagining the kingdom in human terms (as a physical kingdom of this world). Some of Christ's own followers thought that he was going to literally and immediately revive David's kingdom. In fact, in the book of Luke, we read that he had to tell them a parable "because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear." (Luke 19:11) And, just before Christ ascended into heaven, they asked him "wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6)
Indeed, this misconception about Christ's kingdom was not confined to his followers. When Jesus was on trial for his life before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, we are informed that Pilate asked him if he was really claiming to be the king of the Jews (see John 18:33). In response, John informs us that Christ replied: “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36, NLT) Apparently, Pilate still didn't understand, because he repeated his question about Christ being a king (verse 37). We are told that Christ responded: “You say I am a king. Actually, I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.” (verse 37) And, even in the English translations which have Christ responding in the affirmative to Pilate's question, the sense that a significant part of Christ's mission was to bring truth into the world is clear. Hence, these scriptures clearly dispel the notion that the Kingdom of God is a kingdom in the traditional human sense!
Like Christ's First Century followers and Pilate, Herbert Armstrong couldn't understand the notion of a spiritual kingdom dependent on "TRUTH" with Christ at its helm. He also couldn't comprehend a limitless kingdom - one without borders. He couldn't understand a kingdom where the subjects of the kingdom would be spiritually reborn and eventually become co-priests and co-kings with THE king. And, finally, he couldn't understand the concept of a kingdom which was inextricably tied to salvation through Jesus Christ and was based on grace. In short, Herbert Armstrong's notions about what constitutes a kingdom were very human and limited and could not begin to encompass what the Kingdom of God actually was, is and will be in the future - a kingdom that is NOT defined in human terms!
Hence, the notion that the gospel was merely a message about government and a physical kingdom is just plain wrong. Scripture makes clear that gospel message included the messenger, salvation through him, grace, truth and so much more. In fact, by defining the gospel in such narrow terms, we can clearly see that Mr. Armstrong fundamentally misunderstood that message. Moreover, as a consequence of his lack of understanding, we can see that the booklet referenced in this post misrepresented both the scope and nature of the gospel (good news).
HWA preached to the world from the perspective that this age is not the only day of salvation. He believed that every human will have an opportunity for salvation through Jesus Christ, based on the time when God the Father decides to call that person into a spiritual awareness of God’s plan and purpose for mankind. Most of HWA readers were traditional mainstream Christians who assumed that people had immortal souls and that either "heaven or hell" was the destiny of the good or the bad people after death. HWA was writing to a readership largely familiar with the message about the person of Christ - but most had not heard about the literal coming rule of the Kingdom of God to be established on the earth. This is why HWA emphasized the good news about the coming rule of the Kingdom of God.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the WCG under HWA should have more broadly preached about the Kingdom of God in an all-inclusive spiritual paradigm proclaiming Jesus Christ as mankind's Savior along with the good news of Christ's coming direct rule, when the nations of the world will be ruled by the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ. (Rev. 11:15) Yes, the reality of Jesus Christ as mankind’s Savior and His being an inseparable part of the Kingdom of God is correct.
But I am disappointed to read your claims regarding HWA. You stated: Herbert Armstrong couldn't understand the notion of a spiritual kingdom dependent on "TRUTH" with Christ at its helm. He also couldn't comprehend a limitless kingdom - one without borders.” Your claim that HWA did not understand the nature of the Kingdom of God and that HWA did not understand that Jesus Christ was both the spiritual cornerstone - the King of kings - of the coming earth-ruling Kingdom of God is incorrect!
Yes, it is true that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom. The bible says that flesh and blood can’t inherit the Kingdom of God. It also explains that the Kingdom of God’s coming rule over the earth is a manifestation of that kingdom – not the kingdom itself. HWA clearly understood that! HWA taught within the WCG that Jesus Christ was mankind's Savior and that Jesus and was also going to return to this earth to rule as Kings of kings and Lord of lords over physical nations on earth! Yes, it is true that WCG should have presented to its readers the full message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God: Jesus Christ as our Savior leading up to Jesus Christ's coming divine rule on earth. That WCG emphasized the coming divine rule of Christ without also pointing out that Christ as Savior was necessary before the Kingdom could be established was a mistake that most of the Churches of God now realize.
But to state that HWA did not understand these things is flat-out wrong! I was in WCG from 1975 to 1995. I know what was taught within WCG. There certainly were some cultural issues with WCG that needed to be changed. However, your statement that HWA “couldn’t understand” what the nature and function of the Kingdom of God is in error.
Dean,
ReplyDeleteThe quotes referenced in this post were lifted from HWA's booklet, "What is the True Gospel?" Hence, I think it's reasonable to assume that they reflect his views of the Gospel of the Kingdom.
He also wrote another booklet entitled "Just What Do You Mean - Kingdom of God?" Ostensibly, one would think that this booklet reflects his understandings of the subject. In that booklet, Herbert Armstrong said:
"Jesus Christ came preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Yet few preach about the Kingdom of God today, for they have lost all knowledge of what it is!"
He went on to say: "Some denominations proclaim a 'Gospel of
Grace'; some what they call a 'Gospel of Salvation'; some a gospel about Christ; some a social gospel; some the 'Science of Mind' or 'Religious Science.'
Some churches claim either that their particular denomination, or "Christianity" as a whole, constitutes the Kingdom of God.
Not one is right! Could anything seem more incredible? Yes, to the mind reared in this world's concepts, one thing is, indeed, still more incredible! And that is the PLAIN TRUTH about what the Kingdom of God really is!"
These clear statements make plain that HWA didn't think that the gospel was about Christ, grace or salvation! These are HIS words!
In the same booklet, after going through a series of prophecies, Mr. Armstrong concludes with this statement about what HE believes the Kingdom of God to be:
"Revelation 11:15 states it in these words: 'The kingdoms of this world are become THE KINGDOMS OF OUR LORD, AND OF HIS CHRIST; and He shall reign for ever and ever!'
This is THE KINGDOM OF GOD. It is the END of present governments - the governments that rule Russia, China, Japan, Italy, Germany - yes, and even the United States and the British nations. They then shall become the kingdoms - the GOVERNMENTS of the Lord JESUS CHRIST, then KING of kings over the entire earth.
This makes completely PLAIN the fact that the KINGDOM OF GOD is a literal GOVERNMENT. Even as the Chaldean Empire was a KINGDOM - even as the Roman Empire was a KINGDOM - so the KINGDOM OF GOD is a government. It is to take over the GOVERNMENT of the NATIONS of the world."
This is what was taught within the Worldwide Church of God. And, when we compare your remarks to those of Mr. Armstrong. it is clear that his understanding of the Kingdom of God was much narrower and more limited than your own.
As I stated before, HWA wrote his booklet from the perspective that this age is not the only day of salvation. Since most of his readers likely had heard about the person of Christ, HWA chose to emphasize the physical aspects of the rule of the Kingdom of God when he wrote "What is the True Gospel?" If one reads this booklet only, I can see how he might conclude that HWA taught that the Kingdom of God was only a physical kingdom ruling over the earth. However, HWA did not believe that Kingdom of God was a physical kingdom. He taught that the spirit-composed Kingdom of God will rule over the nations; and he taught that that rule will be a governmental administration of the Kingdom - not the Kingdom itself.
ReplyDeleteIf one reads HWA's booklet "Just what do you mean BORN AGAIN?" (also available from the hwalibrary.com link that you referenced) his teaching about the nature of the Kingdom of God is clear.
Excerpts from the booklet:
"A KINGDOM is a nation composed of people, as well as the GOVERNMENT of that nation. The Kingdom of GOD is composed of the divine FAMILY of God. The One Being we habitually think of as GOD is the FATHER of that Family. Christ is a Son of God — a member of that divine FAMILY, even as we may be!! That divine FAMILY is the Kingdom of God."
"...the Kingdom of God is not of this world — this time- -this age — but of the WORLD TOMORROW — a different and a following AGE. Not composed of humans, but of immortals — the GOD FAMILY! So Jesus said, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God' (John 3:3). Notice carefully, please — being 'born again' has a vital connection with the Kingdom of God — with THE FACT that it is not of this time — this age. And — I repeat — Jesus' Gospel — His Message — was the Kingdom of God."
"...said Jesus plainly, when one is born of the Spirit HE WILL BE SPIRIT! Look at it! Read it in your own Bible. The Kingdom of God will be composed of SPIRIT BEINGS — not of humans! At birth of human flesh, one is delivered from his mother's womb into this world. When born of the Spirit one will be delivered from the CHURCH of God (physical) into the KINGDOM of God (a Kingdom of SPIRIT BEINGS!).
I agree with you that the WCG culture had its shortcomings and issues. However to me, it is very clear that HWA understood the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God.
Dean
Dean,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your willingness to participate in a conversation on this subject, and I have always regarded you as a seeker of truth and a brother in Christ. Seekers of truth and brothers in Christ, however, sometimes see things differently - from different perspectives. And, ironically, in this instance, I think that we are much closer in our thinking than either one of us is to the thinking of Herbert Armstrong (our fundamental disagreement is HIS level of understanding about the Kingdom of God).
Yes, I am aware of the fact that HWA believed that this life would not be the only opportunity for salvation (I still happen to share that view). Nevertheless, it appears to me that ALL of his writings suggest that he believed that the gospel was NOT about Christ, salvation through him or grace. Even in the booklet you referenced ("Just What Do You Mean Born Again") and "The Incredible Human Potential," it is clear that Armstrong emphasized the LITERAL nature of the Kingdom of God and its association with GOVERNMENT.
In the booklet you referenced, Armstrong wrote: "What did He mean - the Kingdom of God?
Jesus' whole Message - His Gospel - was about the KINGDOM OF GOD! Yet few know anything about it, today. A Kingdom is a), a NATION composed of people, and b), the GOVERNMENT of the nation."
And, yes, he did go on to talk about being "born again," and the fact that the Kingdom would be composed of spirit beings. Nevertheless, his preoccupation with the LITERAL nature of the Kingdom and GOVERNMENT is underscored by his reiteration of the fact that God's Kingdom will succeed the Babylonian, Persian, Graeco-Macedonian and Roman Empires; and recounting the tale of Lucifer's Government on Earth (which I believe goes further than what Scripture supports).
Now, although Herbert does reference salvation in this booklet, what he has to say about being "born again" makes clear that his understanding of the topic is once again subordinated to his notions of a literal government ruling the earth after Christ's return. In short, Mr. Armstrong's analysis of Christ's explanation to Nicodemus reflects his limited understanding of the topic. The Greek word "gennao" means to beget, be born, bear, gender, bring forth, etc. The more literal translation of John 3:3 is that we must be "born/begotten from above." Moreover, the context makes plain that upon baptism and receipt of God's Spirit, God regards this requirement for entrance into His Kingdom as having been met! (Compare this to Ephesians 1:9-14).
==continued below==
In "The Incredible Human Potential," Armstrong says that the gospel encompasses the entire plan of God, but he reiterates his criticism of the gospel message that other Christians preach. He wrote:
DeleteI have said that you hear many gospel programs today. One uses
the slogan, "Preaching Christ to the Nations." One might ask,
"Well, what's WRONG about preaching ABOUT Christ?" Or,
"What's wrong about preaching a gospel of grace?" Or, "What's
wrong about proclaiming a message about salvation?"
He went on to say:
So it's time we come to UNDERSTAND just what is the Kingdom of
God!
What is a kingdom? The Bible speaks of several kingdoms.
The first world empire - the Chaldean Empire often called
"Babylon" - was a kingdom. God inspired the prophet Daniel to
say to its king, Nebuchadnezzar, " .. . the God of heaven hath
given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory" (Dan.
2:37).
Then there was the kingdom of Israel - the family descended
from Israel, which became one of earth's nations or governments.
The kingdom of Israel was a forerunner of the Kingdom of
God. It will be composed of the Spirit-born children of God - the
Family of God, organized into a governing Kingdom.
Therefore the Kingdom of God will be dual:
(I) A GOVERNMENT. A government - or kingdom - is com-
posed of four things: (a) a KING, ruling over (b) people, subjects
or citizens within (c) a definite jurisdiction of territory, with (d)
laws and an organized system of administering them.
(2) A FAMILY (as the kingdom of Israel was a family of the
children of Israel) - in this case the Family of God - a family
into which humans may be born, which shall be a GOVERNING or
RULING family that shall have jurisdiction over ALL NATIONS - that
is, the WHOLE EARTH - and, later, the entire universe.
I understand your willingness to give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt and insist that he was only emphasizing these things because other folks had "missed" them. Even so, Mr. Armstrong's actual language in these various writings of his don't offer any confirmation of this deeper understanding.
I'm happy that we can have a civil conversation while agreeing to disagree regarding our perceptions of what HWA did or did not understand about the nature of the Kingdom of God.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply.
Dean
Pro HWA:
ReplyDeleteModern Christianity does not see the Kingdom of God as it is present in the NT. It is seldom mentioned and in some cases it is equated to a denomination. HWA rightly spoke of a literal, spiritual kingdom that would reign on earth. It is good news that such a kingdom is coming to revolutionize the earth. But the kingdom does not occupy the full scope of this good news. If it were just talk about a kingdom in the political sense, who would really care? As HWA would say "what does it have to do with the price of putty?"
Con HWA:
Paul spoke of what he did in his missionary work as preaching the gospel. This message is reflected in his epistles. And his epistles, more than anything else, focus on salvation. He does not talk about a king and territory and subjects. So one must conclude that it is the good news of the kingdom of god in the sense that the values being preached are heavenly and not earthly. It is not so much about a world government as it is about what such a world government is going to do for you spiritually. The kingdom of god is a means to an end and not an end in itself. If you believe it is just about a king and territory and subjects, you just have a theocracy with perfect policies. An the gospel would be a truncated message.
It is difficult to understand how HWA's view of the Kingdom could be so truncated. He developed the idea of the great human potential. He even had a form of theosis and erroneously asserted that people would become God literally. Yet, he clung to "beating swords into ploughshares." Tanks converted to tractors for farming.
The first time I encountered the gospel either in word or writing in the WCG was in a column in the "Worldwide News" newspaper written by Joe Tkach, Sr. He explained it was about our salvation. (HWA had always condemned WCG members for wanting "to get salvation". Salvation became a shameful thing.) In Tkach's writing, the message was transformed from a governmental hierarchy with HWA serving "directly" under Abraham, or whatever, and became really good news to me personally.
Neo
From Herbert Armstrong's magnum opus, "Mystery of the Ages" (1985):
ReplyDeleteWhy do the churches disagree on what actually is “the gospel of Jesus Christ”? During the first twenty or thirty years after the founding of the Church in A.D. 31 a violent controversy arose over the very question of what is “the gospel of Jesus Christ.” There ensued a hundred years in which all history of the New Testament Church was destroyed. It has been called “the lost century of Church history.” When the curtain lifted, about the middle of the second century, there appeared an entirely different type of church calling itself Christian, but in the main preaching its own gospel ABOUT Christ, not the gospel OF Christ. The gospel OF Christ was the gospel Christ proclaimed. Jesus was a Messenger sent from God with a message, and that message was THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Christ’s message was Christ’s gospel-the gospel OF Christ. It had not been proclaimed to the world until the first week in 1953, when for the first time in about 1,900 years-a century of time cycles-it went out on the world‘s most powerful radio station, Radio Luxembourg in Europe.
It seems that today all churches have lost the gospel of Jesus Christ. They preach primarily their gospel ABOUT Jesus Christ.
Later, in the same chapter, we read:
When Christ comes, he is coming as KING of kings, ruling the whole earth (Rev. 19:ll-16); and HIS KINGDOM-the KINGDOM OF GOD-said Daniel, is to CONSUME all these worldly kingdoms.
Revelation 11:15 states it in these words: “The kingdoms of this world are become THE KINGDOMS OF OUR LORD, AND OF HIS CHRIST; and he shall reign for ever and ever”!
This is THE KINGDOM OF GOD. It is the END of present governments-yes, and even the United States and the British nations. They then shall become the kingdoms-the GOVERNMENTS-Of the Lord JESUS CHRIST, then KING of kings over the entire earth.
This makes completely PLAIN the fact that the KINGDOM OF GOD is a literal GOVERNMENT. Even as the Chaldean Empire was a KINGDOM-even as the Roman Empire was a KINGDOM-SO the KINGDOM OF GOD is a government. It is to take over the GOVERNMENT of the NATIONS of the world.
Jesus Christ was BORN to be a KING-a RULER!
And MOST of the remainder of this chapter in "Mystery of the Ages" is devoted to describing the changes which this Kingdom will effect ON THE EARTH and the STUCTURE OF ITS GOVERNMENT. There is NO mistaking the very literal nature of Armstrong's understanding of the topic!
ReplyDeleteNotice some of the subject headings for the sections which follow the excerpts quoted above:
How Nations Will Submit
The Population Explosion Solved
Pure Water - Fertile Deserts
Land Beneath Sea Reclaimed
Happiness in Health
Total Literacy
What About the Economic Structure?
The Tithing System
The Weather Patterns
Economy of the World Healed
Tomorrow's World Governmental Structure
The Perfect Government
Government Planned from Beginning
The Pattern of Government Organization
Both Church and State
On the National Level
The International Level
Education and Religion Tomorrow
These are from Mr. Armstrong's own pen - these are HIS words, NOT my perception or characterization of them! And, yes, he does mention HIS version of salvation through Christ, resurrected saints and HIS version of the "incredible human potential," BUT HIS EMPHASIS IS CLEAR from the excerpts I've shared from the book which he considered to be the definitive statement on his teachings.
I believe that HWA saw the future as a physical landscape rather than a spiritual one. Armstrongism is rooted in the Millerite "Age to Come" movement which differed from general Adventist eschatology. I have been able to find little, so far, about their beliefs. But from what I have found, it does not seem like it would pre-dispose HWA to primarily physical conclusions.
ReplyDeleteOne will find in HWA's writings discussions about the coming hierarchical government of God and who will do what and have what authority and where HWA is likely to fit into the leadership class. (He used to say he was going to be "directly" under Abraham or Moses or Noah or some such. I think Waterhouse placed him under Noah because Noah was about racial segregation. I doubt that any of this can be documented. It falls within the vaporous oral tradition of the WCG.) You will not find any discussions, for example, about the implications of the Hypostatic Union in salvation. Armstrongism did not grow in that direction.
My perception is that HWA's theological views were shaped by his persona. He was a salesman who knew the value of advertising. Some ideas in the Millerite inventory sold well and others didn't. Finding helicopters in the Book of Revelation catches the interest of a certain class of people. A detailed discussion on the phases of salvation or a detailed inquiry into the relationship of God to time does not lend itself to the sound bite approach of snappy salesmanship. So his theology tended to become selective based on an accommodation to advertising effectiveness. And this made it easy for GTA to get on the radio and talk these ideas up. It made it possible to map the beliefs into little booklets. While some will claim that he applied good advertising principles to the gospel, I think the reverse is true also - he, consciously or subconsciously, selected those topics that conduced to good advertising copy. This built a bias into his theology.
If I may borrow a term from theology, this resulted in a kind of kenosis in the narrow aperture theology that HWA developed. In this kenosis he diminished the divine in the various topics he addressed.
This leitmotif is easily identifiable. His God was not necessary but contingent. His God was much like a human being with super powers. He departed from monotheism into polytheism. Some ceremonial laws from the OT needed to be carried over to NT praxis. He saw human authoritarianism in the governance of the church. And, it is no surprise, his gospel was a gospel about a hierarchical government being established on earth.
HWA seemed to have a personal selective affinity for the term "kingdom of god." This became the principal internal strut of his gospel. It makes you wonder what might have changed if he had focused as well on the term "kingdom of heaven."
******* Click on moniker for Disclaimer
NEO,
DeleteThanks for your comments. A couple of friends who are familiar with what was taught at Ambassador College privately confirmed my impressions of the myopic nature of what Armstrong taught on this subject. Both of them appeared to agree with us that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is inclusive of all of the other elements we've discussed, and one of them is in agreement with Ladd's view that the kingdom has both a present and future application. Thanks again for contributing - hopefully this post and attendant thread will provoke some thought and help others to arrive at their own conclusions about what constituted the gospel message of Christ and his apostles.
I just read a couple of postings.
ReplyDeleteDean is absolutely right.
Miller when did you loose contact with WCG?
You COMPLETELY mix up HWA's teaching on the Millenium and the Kingdom of God which would encompass an expanding Universe as spiritual Creator beings would expand the Glory of God into a creative process eternally.
And I am doing this by heart after decades and months of absence from the blogs.
Yes the golden emerald city that would be the seat of God would ve the new Jerusalem.
Exactly like Star Fleet Academy from Star Trek.
Nck
Hey Nck,
DeleteGlad your back - missed you. In this instance, however, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think HWA's writings speak for themselves.
Neo mixes it up too. Ploughshares thing is about the millenium where humans would be alive.
DeleteIn the seventies we had the IBM movie "Powers of 10" shown in Church. To show us our expanding Universe as inheritance as Spirit Creator beings etc.
Not many understand what HWA meant with Government and why HWA was both an honorary professor of Constitutional Law and Philosophy. Of course those titles were conferred after substantial gifts detractors would say, but non understand why the gifts were done and what the Rule of Law means.
It is a principle of Self Rule "character" as HWA labelled character. Of Sovereign Independence under Universal Principles. A Foundatiin for Creative Activity, summarized in the WORD LAW. (Word being the Creator). I could prove it real easy from decades of WCG literature.
Perhaps its even in the STP. Which initself was blasted by HWA because the Written version undermined HWA's Dominion and Creative Sovereignty.......... but not mine!
Nck
Nck,
DeleteAre you suggesting that HWA didn't teach that the Kingdom of God would be reigning on earth during the millennium? Yes, after the millennium and Lake of Fire, when the new heavens and earth were established, HWA definitely did teach that the Kingdom of God would expand to encompass the entire universe. To be clear, I'm NOT disputing that he taught that.
My thesis is that HWA's insistence that the Gospel of the Kingdom was NOT a message about the messenger was wrongheaded. His focus on the message being about a literal kingdom and government was way too narrow. The fact is that the Gospel of the Kingdom was about Christ, salvation through him, grace, the work of the Holy Spirit, the Church and some of the things that Mr. Armstrong taught. Moreover, Mr. Armstrong's emphasis on the future overlooked the fact that the Kingdom of God began with Christ's FIRST coming.
Ah, I see what you mean.
DeleteAs Dean alluded to, differences of emphasis as to Ends and Means. Past and modern audiences.
It reminds me a bit of when the (biblical) apostles quote Roman and Greek literature, poetry and legal customs. Assuming their audiences to immediately understand what they are talking about within an existing body of (common) knowledge. Albeit leaving us modern people wondering on a million interpretations about their "vague" allusions on plays that everybody knew like the next episode of Grey's anatomy, but causing us to endlessly debate "mystery" religion.
Love you man.
Nck
I just listened to 5 minutes from Sermon: Why the Church- Herbert W Armstrong Video van
DeleteThe Real Elijah TV youtube
From minute 57 HWA defines the Kingdom of God as the Spiritual ruling Body and Principle of the World Tomorrow.
(they are based in jerusalem on the renewed earth)
Then he goes out of his way, yelling that.... "the carnal mind is enmity toward God" and that we better get to the point of at least attempting to get 51 percent spiritual, as only Jesus so far is the first heir........a lofty position we could all "inherit" as "sons of God" if we would TOTALLY separate from carnality as many in the church DID GET DOCTRINE, but not SPIRITUAL knowledge.
Heavy dualism there as only the Kathars of southern France preached, or "the Sons of Light" in their Essene pre Christ monastry.
Nck