Executive Summary
The Churches of God that trace their lineage to the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) exhibit a marked pietism that often emphasizes private morality, personal Bible study, and Sabbath observance while avoiding engagement with political and governmental institutions. This white paper explores the paradox of such pietism in light of the public and diplomatic model set by Herbert W. Armstrong, the founder of the Worldwide Church of God, who actively met with world leaders, gave witness to heads of state, and positioned the church as a “voice in the wilderness” to the nations. It investigates how the transition from global witness to inward retreat occurred, why the pietistic model came to dominate, and what the consequences are for the mission, credibility, and influence of the Churches of God today.
I. Introduction: Two Models of Christian Engagement
The divergence between public witness and private pietism is one of the central tensions in the modern legacy of the Churches of God. On one hand, the Bible commands believers to be “the light of the world” and “a city set on a hill.” On the other, many Churches of God have come to view interaction with the political realm with suspicion or even as forbidden compromise with “Babylon.” This paper contrasts these models and considers how the legacy of Mr. Armstrong challenges prevailing assumptions within the Churches of God about the role of God’s people in public affairs.
II. Herbert W. Armstrong’s Example: Global Witness to Power
Herbert W. Armstrong believed that the Gospel of the Kingdom was not only about spiritual transformation but also about declaring the coming reign of Jesus Christ to today’s rulers. His model included:
Diplomatic engagement: Mr. Armstrong met with over 100 world leaders, including emperors, presidents, kings, and prime ministers, not to flatter them, but to bear witness to God’s government as the only hope for mankind. Educational and cultural outreach: Through Ambassador Foundation projects and cultural exchanges, the church supported humanitarian efforts and established credibility with governments. Media strategy: The World Tomorrow broadcast, The Plain Truth magazine, and public campaigns were designed to reach the world’s elite and its citizenry alike—not just the “called-out few,” but the nations.
His actions aligned with the biblical prophets who addressed kings, empires, and entire nations—not merely individual converts.
III. The Rise of Pietism in the Post-Armstrong Era
After Herbert Armstrong’s death in 1986, and especially following the doctrinal changes in the 1990s that led to the splintering of the Worldwide Church of God, most successor organizations adopted a markedly pietistic posture. This involved:
Withdrawal from global outreach: Most Churches of God ceased efforts to engage with political leaders or public institutions, seeing such engagement as worldly or presumptuous. Internal focus: Many groups prioritized church governance issues, doctrinal refinement, and internal purity over global witness. Suspicion of diplomacy: The idea of meeting world leaders was viewed as unnecessary, boastful, or irrelevant to the church’s core purpose.
This shift represents a theological and practical departure from Armstrong’s model of engagement. In effect, the church turned from a prophetic voice to a cloistered remnant.
IV. Theological Roots of Pietism
Pietism within the Churches of God has several sources:
Misapplication of “come out of her, My people” (Revelation 18:4): This call to reject Babylonian spiritual confusion is often interpreted as a blanket rejection of all secular authority, rather than discernment about false worship. Overreaction to apostasy: In fleeing the doctrinal collapse of WCG, many splinters overcorrected by doubling down on separation and avoiding “worldly” influence, equating visibility with compromise. Dispensational retreat: A belief that the world is destined for collapse and that evangelism is only for the “called now” has contributed to a resignation from public witness. The message becomes “why bother warning the world if only a few can respond now?” Anti-political bias: A general suspicion that all political or governmental engagement is corrupt or vain reinforces a retreat into the private sphere.
These interpretations often overlook the biblical precedent of God sending His messengers—including Daniel, Joseph, Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Paul—into courts, palaces, and political arenas.
V. Consequences of the Pietistic Turn
The retreat into pietism has had serious consequences for the mission and vitality of the Churches of God:
Loss of public voice: The church is virtually invisible in political, cultural, and academic arenas. Few outside the membership even know of its existence or message. Neglect of the prophetic role: The church was meant to warn nations of judgment and declare the Kingdom to kings. That role has largely been abandoned. Insularity and stagnation: Many congregations are aging, shrinking, and disconnected from the world. Young people often see no compelling vision beyond rule-keeping. Failure to follow the founder’s model: Armstrong’s outreach was not accidental—it was central to his mission. To ignore it is to misrepresent the original ethos of the movement.
VI. Reclaiming a Prophetic and Public Role
A recovery of Herbert Armstrong’s legacy must include a reexamination of the role of the Church as a prophetic voice to nations. Practical steps include:
Developing relationships with leaders and institutions in a non-political, non-partisan manner to bear witness to the values of the coming Kingdom. Reengaging the media sphere with strong, culturally literate messages that show the relevance of the Bible to public life. Training ministers and members not just to keep doctrine privately, but to speak it publicly, with wisdom and humility, in a world seeking answers. Reviving the cultural diplomacy model, where service and cultural exchange are avenues of testimony. Affirming that the gospel is not only personal salvation but also global transformation. The Kingdom of God is a government—a reality Armstrong never let his audience forget.
VII. Conclusion: From Withdrawal to Witness
The Churches of God are at a crossroads. They can continue to retreat into a pietism that may preserve internal cohesion but fails to speak to the world. Or they can reclaim the boldness of their founder, whose ministry was both doctrinally conservative and publicly courageous. If God sent prophets to kings in the past—and will again in the future—why should the Church now refuse that role?
Herbert W. Armstrong believed he was “an unofficial ambassador for world peace,” bringing a message from the soon-coming King of Kings. That model is not obsolete—it is essential. A Church that bears the name of God must not only live set apart but also speak forth. Silence is not neutrality; it is disobedience. The call to witness to kings remains. The question is whether the Churches of God will answer it.
Prepared by:
[Nathan Albright]
[Torah University Press ]
[Date: June 28, 2025]
For internal distribution among Church leadership and members seeking renewed vision and mission engagement.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
It is a mistake to contrast Armstrong’s activities as contrasting with a distain for things earthly. You yourself said he saw himself as “an unofficial ambassador for world peace.” I believe it was the king of Belgium who labeled him an “ambassador without portfolio.” In a sense, he claimed to be ABOVE the system.
That said, in listening to things like what Stan Rader said in proclaiming himself Armstrong’s “secretary of state,” it wouldn’t take much to push that to the point of actually claiming an earthly political status that could run afoul of the law.
Post-1986 offshoot ACOGs (Armstrongist “Church of God”s) did not cease such activities based on some newfound “piety” or disdain of whatever, but rather shortage of funds, the loss of connections, and increased scrutiny by world intelligence and security organizations which would spot Rader-type bribes.
The focus on more internal things such as what you list is a result of attempting to draw (and hold) Armstrongists, be it from other groups or among the “Stay-At-Home COG.” The late Rod Meredith even described them as “all fishing in the same pond.” Outreach has largely been geared that way, sometimes simply being done in order to claim worthiness of support from pre-existing Armstrongists — “Come join ACOG X. We have a Work!”
ACOGs actually continue to do exactly what you suggest — as much as they are able to do much. They simply are not able. (I’ll save you some time and let you know that the more traditional Armstrong believers might credit this to Daniel 12:7. I personally have a different take.) CGI and ICG probably had the most substantive outreach to the outside at the time I left Armstrongist fellowship. They genuinely seemed to be trying to reach non-Armstrongists. After all, those people had almost many years’ head start, and did not feel obligated to uphold Herbert Armstrong.
And perhaps ironically, PCG has been doing some things that could be so construed. Their activities during the past Presidential campaign definitely targeted outsiders, both in an effort to fulfill Flurry’s prophecy about President Trump and as a bait-and-switch to draw in unsuspecting politically-minded people who get the false idea that they actually embrace Civic Duty. (It was this sort of false impression that drew me in in the mid-to-late 1980s.) Also, they have their “Celtic Throne” dance troupe going around the world (they were recently stuck in Israel when the 12-Day War broke out) doing public performances and preaching a veiled form of the Anglo-Israelist Jeremiah-went-to-Ireland story.
Here is a brief sample of a more general medley performance they gave a few years ago at the Lincoln Memorial ( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BH7uVZM20Jc&pp=ygUeQ2VsdGljIHRocm93biBMaW5jb2xuIE1lbW9yaWFs — they actually do a dance to “Girls Just Want To Have Fun”). I posted this comment congratulating their performance despite my disagreement with their faith tradition. They are currently hiding it:
“I stand in disagreement with the Armstrong faith tradition, particularly your eschewing of Civic Duty. And I hope you will reevaluate at least that latter point. That said, this is an impressive performance. I give credit where credit is due.”
“Training ministers and members not just to keep doctrine privately, but to speak it publicly, with wisdom and humility, in a world seeking answers.” — Tkach referred to this as “personal evangelism.” I saw some of this retained in the old GCG. The truth is, Armstrong left a legacy of members and field ministry NOT doing that sort of thing. Quite the opposite. HE was the ambassador.
Executive Conclusion: The supposed change in approach that you note by ACOGs has nothing to do with philosophy or piety. It is simply a matter of capability and focus. They can’t really, so they don’t really. And it is easier to draw in “the converted.” And while attitudes toward it did indeed seemed to have softened by the time I left, “personal evangelism” or however you characterize it is most definitely not the Armstrong legacy.
LikeLike
I don’t think you quite understood what I was saying but in general there was always a great distance between the behavior of Mr Armstrong in world affairs and what was seen as the more passive role of members in local congregations and it is that distance that I am exploring.
LikeLike
Your entire paper is written as a then-vs-now comparison of corporate outreach, expressly asserting a fundamental change in operational, models occurred. It’s all about transition and changes having occurred since the death of the one you actually acknowledge as your “founder,” and an effort to “reclaim” a supposedly lost model. Only one singular sentence even touches on the “great distance” between leadership behavior and local roles that has “always” existed in Armstrongism, and I directly addressed that. Perhaps you simply intended to use this paper as a vehicle to get in that shot. But it is virtually lost in what is actually a discussion of corporate business models.
=====
Now I will make the mistake of giving you all some advice: Armstrong made a lot of his inroads through the Foundation. Doing cultural and charity work contributed to him getting those photo-op encounters with noted leaders, as well as occasionally addressing African constitutional conventions, the Knights of Columbus, and other civic organizations (I remember his address to the Athens, Greece Rotary Club being a World Tomorrow episode). Bribes were part of it, but not all of it. David Hulme was criticized for asserting that helping renovate the Globe Theatre in London actually was preaching the Gospel. This was probably part of his line of thinking.
As for your “personal evangelism” interest, ACOGs could learn in this regard from the example of the World Mission Society Church of God, a non-Armstrongist outfit out of Korea. Their members are engaged in Civic Duty. One of the relatively few Caucasian members was a Marine Corps drill instructor on Camp Pendleton (yes, while a member). They posted video of members taking Passover while deployed in Iraq. They train their people to assist in disaster relief. I believe they even trained some with that outfit that bought the Big Sandy campus. That sort of service got them a shout-out from Governor Chris Christie for helping after the hurricane in New Jersey. And all while observing a Leviticus 23 liturgy. (They might even vote, too.)
Such a change would give your people individual credibility to speak about the religion that traditional Armstrongism fundamentally blocks from its members. Just a thought.
One more thing: You talk about how very few people have heard of Armstrongism now. The truth is, not a lot of people had heard of it even when Armstrong was around. And when they did, it was usually in the context of receiverships and divorces. At least, it got them a veiled mention on the old TV show “Quincy, M.E.” (“Mode of Death,” S5E7).
LikeLike