UCOG On The New Sexual Revolution

A good friend sent me a link to an article which appeared in the July 2026 issue of United News and asked my opinion. The article, The New Sexual Revolution by Dr. Roy Fouch, offers a surprisingly kind and nuanced approach to dealing with people who experience pornography addiction, same-sex attraction, and gender dysphoria. This is a refreshing shift in one of the major splinters of the old Worldwide Church of God. After all, in times past, these folks were often ridiculed and condemned from the pulpits of that church. To be clear, this is a development to be noted and praised within ACOG culture. Nevertheless, the underlying foundation of the Church’s teaching remains the same – homosexuality and transgenderism are still looked upon as SIN! Indeed, we can still discern the outlines of Herbert Armstrong’s teachings about human sexuality based on a flawed understanding and interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

Dr. Fouch wrote: “The Bible categorizes sexual behavior outside of God’s design as sexual immorality. The world’s view of sex is contrary to what God defines as appropriate—and to violate what God has defined as appropriate sexual behavior is sin.  Scripture addresses the danger of promised freedom that actually leads to spiritual slavery: “They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for ‘people are slaves to whatever has mastered them’” (2 Peter 2:19, New International Version).” Fouch then went on to characterize Christ’s comments in Matthew 5:28 and 6:22-23 as condemning all sexual lust/attraction outside of the traditional marriage of one man and one woman as wrong or sinful. He continued: “Pornography is not harmless entertainment. It trains the mind to lust, objectify others and misuse the powerful gift of sexuality God created for marriage. A Christian must resist it, repent of it, and seek God’s help to overcome it.”

Actually, as with Mr. Armstrong before him, Dr. Fouch paints with too wide of a brush here in his interpretation of God’s will in this matter! First, in Matthew 5, Christ is clearly talking about adultery (sex outside of marriage). In other words, it was wrong for a married person to lust after someone who wasn’t his/her spouse. He was NOT talking about sexual attraction or lust outside of marriage! In fact, to make Christ’s statement into a blanket condemnation of all sexual attraction/lust is an example of a gross misinterpretation and application of Scripture! In the book of Genesis, we read that God surveyed everything that he had created (including the man and woman) and pronounced it very good (Genesis 1:31, ESV). Likewise, in the very next chapter we read that: “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:25, ESV) Indeed, we are informed in the very next chapter that the pair were not even aware of their nakedness until after they had eaten the forbidden fruit. (Genesis 3:6-7) Hence, we are forced to conclude that the sense of shame and dirtiness attached to their bodies was a product of Satan’s deception and the fall. In other words, this was clearly NOT consistent with God’s original design and intent!

Now, we know that the foundation/basis of God’s Law is LOVE (Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27, John 13:34-35, 15:12-13, 17, Romans 13:10, I Corinthians 1:1-3,13, 16:14, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8, I John 4:7-21). Indeed, the commandments against murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness are all founded on this principle. Hence, in the case of human sexuality, anything which physically or emotionally hurts and/or degrades a fellow human could be said to be sinful. With this principle in mind, we can see that almost any human sexual behavior could become sinful – heterosexual or homosexual. Thus, each and every one of us must grapple with his/her own conscience and the leadership of the Holy Spirit in determining what is and isn’t sinful in this instance. We must think about what we are doing! Am I doing this or that to satisfy my own appetites or needs? Do I really care whether or not the other person is benefiting from this behavior or enjoying it? Will this behavior hurt or humiliate anyone? Is the behavior more important than my obligation to love and honor Almighty God? Moreover, how we answer these kinds of questions within the privacy of our own minds is what reveals whether or not God’s Law is written on our hearts! Likewise, this allows us to see that almost anything can become a sin, an idol, an addiction. In other words, our own personal attitude toward this or that behavior is the determinative factor in this regard – evaluating the morality of this or that behavior (sexual or otherwise).

Of course, it’s much easier to make blanket statements like “all lust is sinful” or “any homosexual behavior is sinful.” When we rely on such statements/commandments, we don’t have to think – we can just coast along on autopilot and ignore the implications of our own behaviors. It is much easier to teach that Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27 condemn ALL homosexual behavior as sinful rather than understanding that they were meant to condemn things like temple prostitution, exploitation of slaves, and pederasty (the behaviors which actually confronted the Israelites of old). It’s much simpler to say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because everyone was a homosexual, than it is to talk about the lack of hospitality, the culture of violence which existed within those cities, and the obvious moral failure associated with wanting to gang rape and humiliate someone! In other words, the lack of nuance in addressing the morality of these behaviors is both lazy and intellectually dishonest. Moreover, the folks who advocate and espouse such a broad understanding of these statements/commandments remind us of the Pharisees of Christ’s day – exhibiting a clear preference for legalism and condemnation over justice and mercy!

Now, once again, we should all be willing to commend Dr. Fouch for his advocacy of kindness and respecting the humanity of folks dealing with homosexuality and transgenderism. However, we must also take him to task for his support of Armstrong’s understanding/interpretation of the morality associated with human sexuality. Likewise, while it was refreshing to have him admit that there may be a number of different environmental factors associated with these issues, the failure to account for the possible role of genetics in determining human sexuality was disappointing. In other words, the same old triumph of personal choice over any role played by nature or nurture was disconcerting to say the least. Once again, the personal experiences of these folks with gender dysphoria and homosexuality were once again ignored or made subservient to choice. These folks simply cannot bring themselves to admit that people do NOT make a conscious decision to be homosexual or transgender! In this connection, I’ve always wondered what these honorable heterosexuals would say when asked “When did you decide that breasts were more attractive than pecs (or vice versa)?

Finally, I was disappointed that gender dysphoria was again framed in terms of God creating male and female. Yes, he certainly did, but such statements do not allow for the reality that some of us are forced to deal with on a daily basis. The fact is that some folks are born with the characteristics of both sexes, some folks are born with hormone imbalances, some folks are reared by folks who are themselves ambiguous when it comes to gender, and some folks are exposed to chemicals which change the ways their brains and bodies function. What are these folks supposed to do? Forgive me for saying so, but it seems a little disingenuous and unhelpful to refer them to a Bible passage or an untrained minister for the resolution of their problems! Even so, Dr. Fouch concluded: “This [gender dysphoria] is certainly one of the major cultural issues of our time, but it is more than cultural—it has deep spiritual implications. Satan has always sought to distort what God has created, including marriage, family, sexuality and human identity. For that reason, rejecting one’s God-given sex and attempting to live as the opposite sex is contrary to God’s will.” Question: Didn’t God divide “his” attributes between both male and female when “he” created them? In the final analysis, who are we to decide which traits are masculine and which ones are feminine? Do males ever submit? Do females ever assert? What do you think?

 

Reeducation in the World Tomorrow?

Herbert Armstrong had a very low opinion of this world's education system, and the scholarly elite which it produced. In his book, Tomorrow - What It Will Be Like (Chapter 5: Education and Religion Tomorrow), he wrote: We covered a section on this world's paganized, agnostic, decadent education earlier in this book. The academic system was founded by the pagan philosopher Plato. It has always remained pagan. Injected into it, in more recent times, has been German rationalism, and the atheistic theory of evolution. He continued: Modern education has been based on a false, erroneous, untrue foundation. The supposedly educated of this world even the great minds-have absorbed false knowledge. They have been trained in a false approach to knowledge. Almost always, error is based on a false assumed premise or hypothesis, taken for granted, never questioned-and, of course, unproved. The "educated" minds have been filled with such false hypotheses. They have allowed a false sense of values to flood their minds. Armstrong reasoned that the whole concept of education had been perverted and twisted, and he concluded that a whole new system would have to be instituted when God's Kingdom was established on this earth!

Unfortunately, like many Fundamentalists and Literalists before him, Armstrong viewed the findings of science as an attack on God and religion. This caused him to reject any evidence which he felt contradicted the Bible or his belief system. In his mind, they simply had to be wrong! Armstrong reasoned that - if they were right, then he and God would be wrong - and that could NEVER be. If this reasoning is beginning to sound circular to you, then you may be on to something! For Herbert Armstrong and his followers, the Genesis account of creation explained the mechanics of how life in all of its varied forms came to exist on this planet. Instead of seeing those chapters as an emphatic statement about God's role as Creator, they see it as the ONLY valid scientific explanation of how the earth and universe began! In other words, they turn spiritual/supernatural revelation into a scientific text. In reality, the Theory of Evolution provides a well-documented explanation for the diversity of life that we see all around us. It is evidence-based, and it has absolutely NOTHING to say on the subject of God and/or "his" role in creation!

At any rate, all of his angst about the educated of this world served as the basis for Armstrong's speculation about education in "The World Tomorrow." Armstrong wrote: In God's millennial civilization, the basis of all knowledge dissemination will be revelation. Light will replace darkness-truth will replace error. Understanding will replace crass materialism. True knowledge will replace intellectual ignorance. (Tomorrow - What It Will Be Like) Likewise, Herbert reasoned that this world's educated elite would be the toughest nut to crack when Christ returns. He wrote: Yes, indeed, the educating and reeducating of the world will be one of the most important tasks the Kingdom of God will face, after Christ returns to rule. Today people follow the false and deceptive values. Their entire thinking will require a reorientation-a change of direction. Now, while Mr. Armstrong's reasoning appears reasonable and progressive at first glance, we can clearly discern that it is extra-biblical when we take a second look. Armstrong identified a problem (education and the educated of this world) and then reasoned that it will have to be resolved in "The World Tomorrow," without referencing any scriptures to back up his reasoning! Moreover, Armstrong then proceeded to offer what he felt would be a reasonable solution to the problem: Christ would use his (Armstrong's) folks to reeducate the world!

In support of this conclusion, Armstrong turned to one of his favorite passages about the future Kingdom. However, before we address his interpretation of the passage, I'd like to quote it for our readers without prejudice. In the fourth chapter of the prophet Micah, we read: It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and it shall be lifted up above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it, and many nations shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide disputes for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore... (Micah 4:1-3, ESV) Now, in response to this passage, Armstrong wrote: This knowledge-this teaching-and even knowledge of God's Law-shall go forth from the Church-and from Jerusalem, the new world capital. The problem, of course, is that this passage does NOT mention the Church anywhere - Armstrong injected this into the passage! Notice also that it is the nations themselves who will be seeking God's help - "that HE may teach us his ways." Notice too that there would not be any opportunities for them to learn about war anymore. In other words, Micah has absolutely NOTHING to say about ACOG folks reeducating the rest of the world!

Talk about a leap in logic. Herbert Armstrong went on to write: This Headquarters Church, at Christ's own world capital of Jerusalem, then, undoubtedly will be given the administration of the world's new system of education. Did you notice that word "undoubtedly"? In other words, this is the only reasonable conclusion for us to reach! Is that, however, true? Even so, the speculation didn't stop there. Armstrong went on to conclude: Also the indication is that the teaching of spiritual truth-of the true gospel, the spiritual conversion of the world-will be directed, worldwide, from this Headquarters Church, under Elijah and the overall direct supervision of Jesus Christ. Now, laying aside the fact that all of this is unsupported by scripture and is based entirely on Armstrong's reasoning out the "problem," how likely do you think that it would be for God to use a group of educators to retrain the world whose own teachings have been so thoroughly discredited by reputable sources? Indeed, Mr. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God doesn't even exist today - some forty years after the death of its founder!

At this point, I think that it would be appropriate to actually examine some of the appropriate prophetic scriptures dealing with the dissemination of spiritual knowledge in God's Kingdom. In the book of Jeremiah, we read: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34, ESV) Notice that God intends to put his law within them and write it on their hearts. Moreover, we are informed that it will no longer be necessary to instruct people to "Know the Lord, for they shall ALL know me." Finally, this passage seems to imply that spiritual knowledge is inextricably linked to forgiveness of sins! In other words, no teachers appear to be necessary in this passage!

Finally, there is that other Armstrong favorite passage from the book of Isaiah. Anyone with any background whatsoever in one of the ACOGs will remember the often-quoted passage from the eleventh chapter of Isaiah. After talking about the shoot which emerges from the stump of Jesse (Jesus Christ) and the nature of his person and reign (Isaiah 11:1-5), we are treated to a vision of his Kingdom. We read: The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious. (Isaiah 11:6-10, ESV) Once again, we notice that the nations will seek him. Also, we are told that "They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be FULL of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." Universal knowledge of God and "his" ways, but no mention of ACOG teachers reeducating people!

Bottom line - the world will be reeducated in a sense, but it won't be as Herbert Armstrong imagined it. Scripture indicates that it will be accomplished by a Divine miracle, and the willingness of the people of all nations to learn about God and his will for us. Moreover, as with our own experience, it appears that this will be accomplished by believing in Jesus Christ and accepting what he has done for us. In other words, no crash course in Torah will be necessary! What do you think?

Conversion to Judaism or Christianity?

Unfortunately, the Armstrong Churches of God have confused Christian conversion with conversion to Judaism. In his booklet Just What Do You Mean...Conversion?, Herbert Armstrong wrote: I repeat: 'A Christian (a truly converted person) is one who has received, and in whose mind dwells the Holy Spirit of God.' But how does one receive the Spirit of God? On the day the Church of God was started, the Apostle Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized ... in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Repent of what? Of sin. And what is sin? "Sin is the transgression of the law" (I John 3:4). What law? The law that the carnal mind, hostile to God, is not subject to the Law of God (Rom. 8:7). Again, we read of "the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him" (Acts 5:32). In other words, for Armstrong and his followers, a truly converted Christian MUST obey the commandments of Torah!

This, of course, calls to mind what some of the Jewish Christians of the First Century were saying about conversion to Christianity. In the book of Acts, we read: And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:1-5, NKJV)

Now, even from the distance of almost two thousand years, that sure sounds to me like these Jewish Christians were advocating conversion to JUDAISM, NOT CHRISTIANITY! Remember, God commanded circumcision for all of the male descendants of Abraham as a sign that they would OBEY him (Genesis 17:9-14). In Torah, we also read: And Moses called all Israel, and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them." (Deuteronomy 5:1) Even so, the Israelites were told that any Gentile who wanted to obey God and observe his Passover MUST be circumcised! (Exodus 12:43-49) In other words, males had to be circumcised before they could participate in obeying the commandments of Torah - ONLY then could they become real Israelites!

Interestingly, even in 2026, Jews still regard this as the proper formula for conversion to Judaism! In the article How to Convert to Judaism, CHABAD.org informs its readers that conversion makes the person fully Jewish - a part of the tribe. They go on to list four components of this conversion: (1) Accepting the yoke of the commandments. When you convert, you must verbalize your commitment to live in accordance with all of the Torah’s commandments as they are explained in Torah law. It is not enough to commit to some or even most of the precepts; a convert must commit to every single one of them. Also, this needs to be done out of a sincere desire to serve G‑d as a Jew, not because of any other motive, such as the desire to marry a Jewish man or woman. (2) Immersion in the mikvah. A mikvah is a pool of natural water, usually rainwater. At your conversion, you will dunk into this spiritually cleansing bath. It is at this moment that you will accept the Torah upon yourself. (3) Circumcision. If you are a male, you will need to be circumcised. If you were circumcised as a baby, a symbolic drawing of blood is all that will be done at this point. (4) When the Temple stood in Jerusalem, a convert would bring a special sacrifice to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. When the Temple is rebuilt—may it be speedily in our days—converts will again bring sacrifices.

Now, in terms of Christian conversion, Scripture informs us that belief or faith in Jesus Christ is the essential first step (John 3:16, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9, etc.). On that first Pentecost after Christ had ascended to heaven, Peter told the crowd to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). Likewise, after  Philip preached to a certain Ethiopian about Jesus, we are informed that the eunuch declared "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 8:26-37) The account continued: So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Notice please, that there is NOTHING in any of these accounts about first converting to Judaism! Indeed, many years later the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christian converts of Galatia that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Galatians 2:16) 

What about you? Are you a Christian or a Jew?