Out of the Mainstream

Numerous posts and articles have wrestled with the phenomenon of religious and political extremism within Armstrongism, but many of us who have experienced/observed it firsthand continue to be dumbfounded by its imperviousness to reason or change. This post will explore that phenomenon and attempt to explain why it has been such a pervasive and persistent phenomenon among the followers of the teachings of Herbert W Armstrong.

Unfortunately, most of the discourse on this topic heretofore has focused on particular teachings/doctrines and why they are wrong/heretical/extreme. Now, while I myself have followed this formula in times past (and continue to see the value in challenging some of the more outrageous components of the ideology), I think that a better understanding of the phenomenon is possible only by focusing on Armstrong's attitudes toward traditional concepts of religion, science, history and education. In other words, if we can focus on what motivated some of those bizarre ideas/teachings, we have a much better chance of wrapping our minds around the phenomenon and coping with it.

What am I talking about? I'm thinking about Mr. Armstrong's contempt for traditional/mainstream notions and authorities. For HWA, traditional Christianity wasn't just wrong about a few of its teachings - those folks weren't really Christians! They had been deceived by Satan and corrupted by their acceptance of PAGAN notions and traditions. Scientists weren't just wrong about evolution - NONE of their findings could be trusted because they failed to accept "revealed" knowledge. Historians couldn't be trusted because they leaned on their own understanding of flawed human sources. In similar fashion, higher education had to be regarded with suspicion because of their humanist and liberal biases. In short, Armstrong wasn't just skeptical of mainstream authorities, ideas and traditions - For him, they were reliably wrong and flawed!

Indeed, what Armstrong and his followers never seemed to be able to acknowledge (or come to grips with) was the fact that: when you purposefully REJECT the mainstream, you place yourself outside of the mainstream! By definition, this makes them susceptible to extreme views. After all, extremism has been defined as "activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a person or group far removed from the ordinary." (see Beyond Intractability: Dealing with Extremists by Bartoli, Coleman and Burgess) In other words, you can claim that you're right and they're wrong, but it is impossible to claim that your views are ordinary or mainstream if they are not shared by the majority of the folks within the society of which you are ostensibly a part (e.g. if the majority of experts and people say that wearing face masks is appropriate in the face of a pandemic, then you can't claim to be in the mainstream if you refuse to wear one).

The article from which I lifted that definition of extremism also offers some great insights into understanding this phenomenon. The authors go on to point out that extremism is grown in the soil of "adverse conditions" (e.g. basic needs are not being met - whether those be physical, emotional or spiritual). They go on to show how extremism can be "constructed" by leaders (like HWA) who are willing to capitalize on those adverse conditions. Bertoli and Coleman also point out that extremists love to justify their extreme positions by underscoring the fact that they are right (they are on the side of God and righteousness), and everyone else is wrong (on the side of Satan and evil). In a related point, the authors underscore the fact that "extremism is a rational strategy in a game over power" (extremism is a great advertising/evangelizing tool and it unites your folks against the perceived enemy). And, in a point which anyone who is familiar with Armstrongism will especially appreciate, the authors point out that extremism is often a product of "apocalyptic, eschatological (end-of-life) ideologies" (the evil mainstream will be defeated and our group will be vindicated and glorified). Finally, Bertoli and Coleman make clear that "extremism is a pathological illness" which is self-reinforcing and tends to destroy one's humanity over time (the ability to empathize with outsiders and be compassionate toward them).

In conclusion, Mr. Armstrong's attack on mainstream institutions set the stage for the religious and political extremes adopted by his followers. His ridicule and wholesale rejection of Traditional Christianity made his followers particularly susceptible to the language of right-wing politicians about the "lamestream" media, and their aversion to science and the "liberal" institutions of higher learning. In short, it is clear to me that the foundation for the religious and political extremism of Armstrong's followers was laid long ago in his relentless attacks on the wisdom of humans (for him, wisdom in this context was an oxymoron). From my perspective, the fact that his followers swallowed this basic approach/attitude "hook, line and sinker" goes a long way toward explaining both the extremism and its imperviousness to reason. It also permits them to entertain the delusion that they are the sane/rational/mainstream folks, and the rest of us occupy the REAL extremes! What do you think?