Executive Summary
The Worldwide Church of God (WCG), founded under Herbert W. Armstrong, sought to restore biblical truth to a Christian world heavily shaped by tradition, denominationalism, and selective Scripture use. Its emphasis on the Sabbath, Holy Days, biblical law, the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and personal obedience to God’s commandments aligned in many respects with the plain meaning of Scripture. Yet while its core theology and much of its practice had solid biblical grounding, the WCG—like all human-led institutions—was not immune from the misuse of authority, personal failings of leadership, and policies that sometimes exceeded or contradicted the servant-leadership model Christ commanded.
This paper defends the biblical legitimacy of WCG’s theological distinctives and its mission, while calling for repentance and restitution where leaders or members, in the name of God’s government, exceeded their biblical authority and harmed others. It argues that repentance should be twofold: (1) an acknowledgment from critics that much of the theological framework WCG upheld is soundly rooted in the Bible and unfairly maligned; and (2) an acknowledgment from those within WCG and its successor churches who abused authority that they must apologize and make amends to those harmed.
I. The Biblical Foundations of the WCG Approach
1. Commitment to Biblical Authority
The WCG’s defining theological stance was that Scripture is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16–17) and should be the supreme authority for faith and practice. In contrast to many mainstream denominations, the WCG made deliberate efforts to reject unbiblical traditions (Mark 7:6–9) and return to practices rooted in the early Church.
Sabbath Keeping (Exodus 20:8–11; Isaiah 58:13–14; Hebrews 4:9) – WCG taught that the seventh-day Sabbath remains God’s holy time, sanctified at creation and reaffirmed in the Ten Commandments. Observance of God’s Holy Days (Leviticus 23; Zechariah 14:16–19) – WCG restored festivals that foreshadow the plan of God, aligning with the practice of the early Church (Acts 20:6, 16; 1 Corinthians 5:7–8). Kingdom of God Gospel (Mark 1:14–15) – WCG emphasized the true gospel as the message of God’s coming Kingdom and Christ’s reign on earth, correcting a widespread substitution of a gospel about Christ for the gospel Christ Himself preached.
These doctrinal positions were not invented by WCG but rediscovered through a serious study of Scripture. Such restoration work is consistent with Jude 3’s command to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered.”
2. Government of God in the Church
WCG taught that Christ is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22–23; Colossians 1:18) and that authority in the Church exists to serve (Mark 10:42–45). This is consistent with the New Testament model, where spiritual oversight exists not for personal gain or domination, but for nurturing the flock (1 Peter 5:1–4). The principle of church government—structured leadership under Christ—is biblically sound.
3. Call to Holy Living
WCG consistently taught repentance from sin (Acts 2:38), personal obedience to God’s commandments (1 John 5:3), and separation from the ways of the world (2 Corinthians 6:17–18). Such teaching reflects New Testament exhortations to live in holiness and to avoid compromise with ungodly values (Romans 12:1–2).
II. Where Critics Have Misrepresented WCG
Many criticisms of WCG have been rooted not in actual biblical evaluation but in discomfort with its rejection of mainstream Christian traditions. Charges of “legalism” often rested on the presumption that God’s law was abolished, despite Christ’s own statement that He came not to abolish but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17–19). The defense of Sabbath observance, Holy Day keeping, and the full gospel message is not legalism, but biblical fidelity.
Additionally, WCG’s emphasis on exclusivity—meaning that it saw itself as holding the restored truth—has parallels in Christ’s own warnings about the narrow way (Matthew 7:13–14). Such conviction is not inherently cultish but a normal byproduct of serious discipleship.
III. Acknowledging Real Abuses of Authority
While the biblical framework for church government is sound, in practice there were instances where leaders within WCG and successor organizations abused their authority. These abuses often manifested in:
Overreach into Personal Lives – Leaders or ministers dictating personal decisions beyond what Scripture authorizes (e.g., marriage choices, medical decisions, personal finances) without clear biblical mandate. Disproportionate Discipline – Applying church discipline inconsistently, harshly, or without adequate witness and due process (contrary to Matthew 18:15–17 and 1 Timothy 5:19–21). Suppression of Dissent – Treating legitimate questions as rebellion, thereby stifling Berean-style examination of Scripture (Acts 17:11). Spiritual Intimidation – Using the fear of disfellowshipment or loss of salvation as a means of enforcing compliance rather than persuasion through sound teaching (2 Timothy 2:24–25).
Such actions went beyond the servant-leadership model Christ taught. The misuse of “government of God” language to justify authoritarianism directly contradicts the explicit warning of Christ in Matthew 20:25–26.
IV. The Biblical Mandate for Apology and Restoration
Scripture is clear that those in positions of leadership are held to a higher standard (James 3:1; Ezekiel 34:1–10). Where leaders have sinned against the flock, repentance is not optional—it is commanded (Luke 17:3–4).
Biblical restitution includes:
Confession (1 John 1:9) – Acknowledging before God and those wronged the specific nature of the wrongdoing. Restoration (Galatians 6:1) – Working to heal relationships and rebuild trust. Repayment Where Possible (Luke 19:8–9) – If harm was material, making amends in tangible ways.
Failure to address past abuses harms both the victims and the credibility of the Church’s witness (Romans 2:23–24).
V. The Call to Both Sides
For Critics of WCG
Critics must acknowledge that the WCG’s core doctrines were and are rooted in Scripture. To dismiss the entire legacy of WCG as aberrant is to ignore the biblical evidence supporting its teachings. Apologies are due for slandering the Church in ways that misrepresented its actual biblical foundation.
For WCG and Successor Churches
Where authority was abused, apologies are due. This does not negate the truth of WCG’s teachings, but it does require humility to admit that human leaders sometimes misused the authority entrusted to them. The model of leadership Christ set demands nothing less.
Conclusion
The Worldwide Church of God was a sincere attempt to return to the faith once delivered to the saints. Its theological distinctives have strong biblical support, and its work helped thousands rediscover core biblical truths lost in mainstream Christianity. Yet like Israel’s judges and kings, it was also subject to the weaknesses of human nature, and some in leadership strayed from the servant model of Christ.
A balanced biblical assessment requires two responses:
A defense of the biblical legitimacy of WCG’s core message and mission. A candid acknowledgment and repentance for abuses of authority.
Only by holding to both truth and humility can WCG’s successor bodies, and the broader Body of Christ, honor God and be a faithful witness to the world.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
OPENING MONOLOGUE: One key point, perhaps above all else: “Critics must acknowledge that the WCG’s core doctrines were and are rooted in Scripture.”
–
Nonstarter, to say the least. You’re telling critics that they have to agree with you before you will talk to them. Most of the reason they are critics is that they disagree with you and that statement. Probably in part due to your having been raised in Armstrongism, its theology is such a given to you that you see it and “scriptural doctrines” as effectively synonymous. The truth is, there is life out there. There are people, “truly converted” or not, who disagree and take different lessons from the same Bible, but take it just as sincerely and seriously. And they will be critical of you, just as you are of them. Complain about misstatements of your faith tradition’s beliefs. But don’t equate correcting those misstatements with adopting your beliefs.
–
MAIN FEATURE: Try to recognize your own biases and unconscious bases, and I believe you will better understand some of your critics, even as you continue to disagree with them.
=======
–
The core sin of Armstrongism — I.e., WCG and (most) splinters — is the “True Church” (TC) claim, wherein WCG was held to be the “ONE AND ONLY” true fellowship of the Body of Christ, and us, having exclusive authority in the faith over “true Christians.” This concept was inherited from Andrew Dugger and others in CG7, and did not even exist as a theory in that faith tradition until the 1920s. It was actually spawned by a rather bizarre meeting of Dugger with a SDB minister and a man, claiming to be a prince from Ethiopia. (I question the latter man’s story on the basis of him supposedly giving demonstrably false information about his claimed country.) Armstrong intensified this teaching during the 1950s.
–
This, of course, falls apart when given serious scrutiny. What about CG7, which is held as a sort of “legacy church” used as an historical element in their TC claim — and, perhaps ironically, a way of dispensing with critics accusing Armstrongism of teaching, well, exactly what it is teaching? Isn’t it possible there are “true Christians” in, say, Ghana who simply have/had never come into contact with Armstrongism? And are there ministers “true”? The problems go on and on. But that claim was pushed on members and prospective members to hold their support as a matter of faith. John 6:44, et al, accepting arguendo the Armstrong “selective calling” interpretation, was weaponized to essentially equate “drawing/calling to Christ” as drawing/calling to Armstrongism/WCG.
–
The core thread of this claim lies in the assertion of a specific and narrow “apostolic succession” of ordained Sabbatarian ministry from the original apostles. Most Armstrongist-type fellowships and churches will not recognize as “true” a minister whom they feel cannot demonstrate such a succession in their own background. Yet, they themselves cannot track their succession back before 1931. Their whole claim is demonstrated as invalid, and its consequences for their TC assertion explained, here: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=1
–
(Wouldn’t it be funny if an ACOG refused recognition of some ministers, and it turns out that they could trace their non-CG7 Sabbatarian organizational lineage back before that date? Actually, of course, they have. They did it explicitly with the SDBs.)
–
Your final sentence references the “broader Body of Christ,” which if including anything beyond CG7, is an acknowledgment of this core sin.
–
Regarding doctrinal or biblical foundation, virtually EVERY Christian church SAYS their beliefs are somehow biblically based. Doctrinal critics are simply people who disagree with a targeted church or faith tradition. While some Armstrongism critics can go overboard, most do not write off hundreds of millions of professing Christians, including tens of millions of Sabbatarians, on the basis of their own doctrinal conclusions. (Some few, though, do right off Adventists — including, even especially, Armstrongists — JW’s, and Mormons in exactly that way. Goose and gander, I suppose.)
–
This factor is largely lost on traditional Armstrongists by the use of the John 6:44-centered belief that a true Christian will have his or her “mind opened” to understandings that others simply cannot obtain. This was and is used to careate a bandwagon approach to indoctrination, wherein members were led to believe that if they disagreed on the matter, it might mean they are not being “called,” or that they were “not truly converted.” The pressure there to conform is obvious. The flipside is that more devout Armstrongists become arrogant and self-assured in their doctrinal positions. They “know, and know that they know,” that they are right, and thus see no need for humility or charity when dealing with doctrinal critics. Contrast Proverbs 3:7. What they need to remember is the lesson of Jeremiah 17:9 — “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (KJV, primarily because it was handy.)
–
Regarding your claim of biblical foundation for old WCG/Armstrongist beliefs, I will counter with a single area that fundamentally influences its culture: its “traditional” eschewance of Civic Duty, a position contrary to the Noachide Code (Gen 9:5-6 — see https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/06/reference-counter-to-traditional.html?m=1 ). You have written positively of Noachide, and in fact agreed with me to a large extent on this matter. Such a fundamental biblical violation ought to count against your claim of a seemingly unique categorical biblical foundation claim.
–
One particular aspect of your defense must be addressed. At least twice you asserted that the Armstrong faith tradition “rediscovered” doctrines or truths. This, of course, is a takeoff on the “restored” concept found in Armstrongism’s fostering of the idea of Armstrong, HW the man being the fulfillment of the “End Time Elijah.” The reality is that very little Armstrongist was “rediscovered.” Most of it came from CG7, of course. Even some of the “restored” doctrines came from them — e.g., “begotten, not born” was actually found in CG7 thinking in the living memory of some members. (CG7 had much more diversity of thought than most Armstrongists can’t even fathom.) Other such doctrines were taken from other churches, perhaps most notably “Godmaking” taken from the Mormons. The John 6:44 take discussed earlier stands out as something seemingly unique in Christianity to Armstrong — thus bringing to mind the adage that “a broken clock is right twice a day.”
–
Indeed, the whole idea of a doctrine being “restored” by Armstrong is predicated on the TC Claim. If the doctrine exists in the thinking of somebody elsewhere, then it is not “rediscovered” or “restored” when found or adopted by a given faith tradition, save in the perspective of that specific faith tradition. And that faith tradition should not take credit for such an astounding theological development. It would be like, say, a Presbyterian offshoot adopting the Armstrong John 6:44 take word for word, and then claiming to have “restored” it to their own supposed TC. Indeed, such an action would be rapidly called out by Armstrongists.
–
It’s like how some point out that Columbus did not “discover” America, because previous explorers and the American Indians already knew it was here. Setting aside previous explorers like the Vikings, the traditional Colombian view is a Eurocentric view of history. I actually have no problem with this, seeing validity in such a view by virtue of Euro/Anglo-American dominance of world history. The difference is that, as demonstrated by me and acknowledged by you, there is not the valid objective/historical basis for an Armstrong(ism)-centric view of Christianity or the Body of Christ.
–
Yet the “18 Restored Truths,” several of which you and your fellowship have actually rejected or deprecated, were held out as reinforcement of the TC claim. It was circular reasoning: Something is “restored” because it is put (back) into the (supposed) TC faith tradition, and then that restoration is held to be theological evidence of the faith tradition’s TC claim.
–
Armstrongism’s most virulent critics will often go overboard. Okay, not cool. Yet “first blood” was indeed drawn by Armstrong. The abuses and sins you mention in general hurt a lot of people. Families destroyed. Careers lost. Impoverishment. Social isolation over and above any scriptural mandate. Armstrong and his ministers deceived a lot of people. You have acknowledged many of those. And they continue in various forms to do so both within the Armstrong fellowships and to a much lesser degree than in decades past outsiders by ACOG outreach. Glass houses.
–
To the degree which an opposing sinner impacts on ones on duty to repent, WHICH IT SHOULDN’T, it is the Armstrong faith tradition which holds the burden of first repentance. It must pull the redwood tree out of its own eye before it pulls the splinters out of its critic’s eyes. It must drop its TC claim and acknowledge it for the fraud that it was and continues to be.
–
And it needs to answer its critics. Snide remarks are common in every human dispute. Cf Judges 5:20 and its mocking of Sisera’s astrology. Mudthrowing is likewise common — and sometimes accurate. And Armstrongism has engaged in its share, both internally and externally. Such is no reason not to answer a critic. If the Armstrong faith tradition wants charitable treatment from critics, it needs to show them charity.
–
I have responded to you, despite your presumption of your own religious correctness. You can respond to me.
LikeLike
If you can’t recognize a biblicist view of scripture as appropriate you really have no business engaging in conversation about the Bible as you aren’t taking scripture seriously enough. All of your logical fallacies spring from a refusal to take the Bible seriously for what it says. How do we recognize other groups of believers? If they take the Bible at its word without added human tradition and take it as wholly valid and applicable you will come up with a pretty standard and similar set of beliefs and practices that will mark the “true church”. By those beliefs and practices we recognize kinship across time and space. When groups depart from that view and start copying corrupt worldly practices we no longer recognize them as kin. Until you get this point it is pointless to talk.
LikeLike
As I said: “Probably in part due to your having been raised in Armstrongism, its theology is such a given to you that you see it and ‘scriptural doctrines’ as effectively synonymous.”
…
“[Armstrongists use] the John 6:44-centered belief that a true Christian will have his or her ‘mind opened’ to understandings that others simply cannot obtain… [T]he more devout Armstrongists become arrogant and self-assured in their doctrinal positions. They ‘know, and know that they know,’ that they are right, and thus see no need for humility or charity when dealing with doctrinal critics. Contrast Proverbs 3:7. What they need to remember is the lesson of Jeremiah 17:9 — ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?’ (KJV, primarily because it was handy.)”
Thank you, Nathan, for proving my point.
You: “If [other groups] take the Bible at its word without added human tradition and take it as wholly valid and applicable you will come up with a pretty standard and similar set of beliefs and practices that will mark the ‘true Church’.”
Analysis of classical Armstronism by that standard: “Apostolic succession” (doctrinal [according to you] and pseudo-historical); the traditional Armstrongist view on circumcision; the old Correspondence Course “Ceremonial Law” teaching on Galatians 3:19; judgment of “true church/Christian” legitimacy by “days and diet” conclusions, in contrast to Romans 14 (I know we disagree there); blanket prohibition what came to be called “outside literature,” in contrast to Philippians 1:15-18 (the 1960 article — taken so far by some people as to condemn me as a then-paralegal for looking at “The Religious Freedom Reporter,” a publication actually edited by then-pre-1995 WCG lawyer and member Ralph Helge, and reading about numerous court cases where WCG wills were invalidated by virtue of “undue influence” by the church); looking at Armstrong HW insisting on adherence to “deep-rooted CHURCH teachings” (the 1979 article — emphasis added, to contrast from “biblical”); and one on which we agree: eschewance of Genesis 9 duty (link in my original reply). All of these went heavily to building the traditional WCG/Armstrongist religion and church culture.
Conclusion: Your own church doesn’t meet your own standard for a/the “True Church.”
I reiterate my basic advice to you: “Try to recognize your own biases and unconscious bases, and I believe you will better understand some of your critics, even as you continue to disagree with them.”
And one additional suggestion: In a discussion of something like repentance from church overeach, censoring your opponents doesn’t look good. Sometimes it is best to allow even statements you find ridiculous, and enabled the “third man in the fight” to judge. He might even agree with you about the statements.
LikeLike
You know, I feel like this Congresschick when trying to get answers from Armstrongist defenders: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VWQMr54Lrfk&pp=ygUeTmFuY3kgbWFjZSB0cnVtcCBhc3Nhc3NpbmF0aW9u
LikeLike
Just imagine how we feel trying to get you not to engage in logical fallacies, goalpost shifting, or false accusations.
LikeLike
A “logical fallacy” would be something like the continuous circular reasoning you use: “We’re the true Church, so we must be right, and thus we are the true Church.” A fallacy is so identified because it fails a rational test. Speculations and conclusions are rational parts of a rational discussion. “I believe because I believe” ain’t.
Goalpost shifting is like how your church will talk about the Holy Spirit defining the “True Church,” then add more and more specific doctrinal positions that must be held — to where ultimately having an organized body only be “true” if the minister can trace his ordinational lineage back to Herbert Armstrong. You see, the only other lineage they would even think about recognizing would be CG7, and then they would point out that the minister never had LOOH for receipt of the Holy Spirit. Then, just to speculate, they could use the occasion of doing that to add an ordination statement so that he was indeed of the Armstrong lineage. I’d be very surprised if the Ghanan “pastors” didn’t have it combined exactly like that. On my end, why should I shift the post when you never even come close in the first place? You all still cannot tell me who ordained Armstrong HW!
And now for the fun one: Much of the time with my “accusations” I’m actually agreeing with you. Your post here is an acknowledgment of them as a pattern. And “stealth-edit,” if you recall. You questioned my assertion that that had happened, when you yourself are the one who used that term to describe it. That double-talk kinda kills your credit on the topic.
Armstrongism has a long history of quashing any internal dissent (and sometimes more recently, external questioning) with a nebulous at best accusation of “bad attitude” — to the point of Armstrong himself using that sort of accusation to remove his own wife for insisting on wearing makeup. Ministers could and technically still can badmouth disfellowshipped members while other members were literally forbidden to hear the other side of the case.* See that 1960 article.
The big lesson here can be summed up in three word: “Show, don’t tell.” The proper way to deal with logical fallacy is to point out the fallacy, not simply accuse the party of using one. The proper way to combat goalpost shifting is to point it out and bring the discussion back to the original goalpost location, not simply use that label when somebody presses you for details. And the proper way to deal with a supposedly false accusation is to counter and debunk it, not just label it false because it accuses some sacred cow and/or if true endangers your entire religion. But in doing so, give the accused a chance to be heard.** Even if they disagree with you.
==========================
NOTE:
NOTE, THE FIRST: Btw, speaking of questionable allegations, did I tell you that I was “marked” when I left UCG? I left in October 2000 just before Tabernacles. The sabbath after the November election, the local elder — one of the first people to be ordained in UCG — said from the pulpit that they had lost a member because, the elder accused, “he became absorbed (or something like that) in the politics of this world.” He followed up that he wouldn’t want to associate was such a person. Coded and colored, but it was a marking. How many of those people simply believed the allegation, because they have just been for bidden to contact me? Fortunately, certain members with integrity and a memory of 1995 ignored that bravo sierra, and they informed me of what that fellow said. The truth, of course, was that I simply went to ICG due largely to that issue. Yet he was apparently never disciplined for his “accusation” against me.
** NOTE, THE SECOND: Hey, seriously, this all points to an idea for your next post. You have put down the priestly view of ministry and advocated much more laymember involvement in church operations. Imagine what would happen if the Matthew 18 “tell it to the church” provision was actually applied with “church” meaning the actual church! Not simply synonymous with “ministry.” For disfellowshipment, you would have public trials — you know, like we do in our civil constitutional system. People would not face the risk of suspension, disfellowshipment, or other disciplinary action simply by the announcement of a minister of some nebulous “said something bad.” Everybody would know what they said — which would kind of defeat the whole purpose of the disciplinary action! Imagine if WCG people who knew things prior to 1995 had been heard. (And yes, the same for the late 1970s.)
Work that up. Call for public ACOG trials of accused members. I remember raising the issue with a then-UCG/now-COGaWA minister. If you look at the passage in Matthew 18, you can create a flow chart of interpretations that really does point to “church” as being something other than “(just) the ministry.” If the accused is that bad, they can still be removed. But people would hear what they had to say. Wouldn’t that be awesome?!
–
LikeLike
As for the first comment, it’s a pretty tired and repetitive and unproductive line of gaslighting, but as for the second, that is far better and an area where I agree with you as it happens. Far too much is said and done behind closed doors with no accountability and no scrutiny and no evidentiary protections for the accused. That is a proposal worth working on.
LikeLike
“Tired and repetitive” I can accept. “Gaslighting” is a false accusation. The term refers to spreading a false narrative to fuel a specific errant perception. Russia-Russia-Russia. “Many fine people.” “Suckers.”A better example in Armstrongism of gaslighting would be telling people that the reason former members may not remember all the doctrines is that they “lost the Holy Spirit.” The purpose is to scare members having issues into staying in a place where they can continue to be — I’ll say it — programmed. The more valid reason, of course, is that the former members left Armstrongism for a reason, and they just didn’t care to remember certain things (right or wrong, good or bad). And then there’s me, who left a quarter century ago, yet probably remembers or can easily bring back to memory more about the religion than most members ever knew.
It’s a bit off topic, but let me ask you something based on what your mother said. How can you yourself believe that the true Body of Christ is not inherently and officially centered on a specific denomination (pre-1995 WCG) or church tradition (the community of ACOGs), and yet believe that Revelation 3 has a major prophecy specifically about some guy in Oregon the vast majority of people in his own country had barely heard of, leading a break-off from a small denomination, said breakup NOT being — according to you, and despite its claims — the “(one) true Church”? Craig White does the same thing. He tears up the traditional historical “True Church” (TC) narrative (which was all about the alleged Succession), acknowledges the idea of true Christians outside of the Armstrong tradition, and then turns right around and takes the same view of that chapter. At least Dugger and Dodd interpreted “Philadelphia” as referring to a major historical development recognized universally — namely, the religious freedom of America starting in the late 1700s (Philadelphia=“Liberty Town,” per Huey Lewis), coupled with Napoleon insulting the Pope. It wasn’t so parochially focused, despite their pushing their TC theory. Did you believe based on the information you had, but now you believe despite the facts? Some of your people don’t like this term because Tkach people used it, but it’s the proper term: “cognitive dissonance.”
And of course, here’s Huey Lewis: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7JVlpm0eRs&pp=ygUlaGVhcnQgb2Ygcm9jayDigJhu4oCZIHJvbGwgaHVleSBsZXdpcw%3D%3D –
Text warning: Among other typos, there seems to be a wandering “D” I can’t find.R
LikeLike