Executive Summary
Contemporary life is unavoidably political. Questions of authority, justice, coercion, property, family, speech, education, war, and welfare permeate daily existence. Yet Scripture nowhere authorizes believers to subordinate moral reasoning to secular ideological systems—whether partisan, nationalist, revolutionary, technocratic, or utopian. This white paper presents a biblicist framework for political engagement that is non-partisan but not apolitical, grounded in the full counsel of Scripture rather than any extra-biblical political philosophy.
A biblicist approach does not deny the legitimacy of civil authority, public order, or political reasoning. Rather, it insists that political judgment must remain morally accountable to God, institutionally modest, theologically sober, and resistant to ideological totalization. This paper argues that the Bible provides categories sufficient to evaluate political life without baptizing modern ideologies, while also explaining why believers often feel pressure to do so—and why such pressure must be resisted.
I. The Problem: Political Totalization Without Biblical Anchoring
1. The Inescapability of the Political
Scripture recognizes politics as unavoidable. Human societies require:
Authority (Romans 13:1–4) Law and judgment (Exodus 18; Deuteronomy 16) Defense against violence (Nehemiah 4) Allocation of resources (Genesis 41) Adjudication of disputes (Acts 18)
The Bible does not imagine a world without governance. It does, however, refuse to absolutize any human system.
2. The Modern Temptation: Ideological Substitution
Modern political discourse pressures believers to:
Translate biblical ethics into partisan slogans Choose between competing secular moral narratives Reduce moral judgment to tribal loyalty Treat politics as a salvific arena
This substitution is subtle. Ideologies promise:
Moral clarity without repentance Justice without judgment Power without accountability Unity without truth
Biblicism rejects this exchange.
II. Defining a Biblicist Approach to Political Engagement
1. Biblicism Defined (in This Context)
A biblicist political posture holds that:
Scripture defines moral categories Scripture sets limits on authority Scripture names legitimate and illegitimate uses of power Scripture evaluates outcomes morally, not merely pragmatically Scripture refuses to identify the Kingdom of God with any state, party, or movement
This is not political quietism. It is political discipline.
2. Distinguishing Biblicism from Partisanship
Category
Biblicist Engagement
Partisan Engagement
Authority
Derived from God, limited, accountable
Derived from ideology or popular will
Loyalty
To God first
To party, movement, or coalition
Moral Language
Biblical categories (sin, justice, stewardship)
Ideological abstractions
Critique
Applies to all sides
Selective
Ultimate Hope
Kingdom of God
Political victory
III. Biblical Constraints on Political Thought
1. The Limits of Human Authority
Scripture consistently limits rulers:
Kings are warned, restrained, and judged (1 Samuel 8; Deuteronomy 17) Rulers are accountable to God (Psalm 82) Authority exists to punish evil, not redefine good (Romans 13)
No ideology may claim:
Total allegiance Moral infallibility Salvific necessity
2. The Reality of Sin in All Systems
Biblicism insists that:
Power corrupts (Ecclesiastes 8:9) Institutions magnify sin, not remove it Good intentions do not negate moral outcomes
Thus:
No party is righteous No reform is final No system is self-justifying
This alone disqualifies utopian politics.
IV. Biblical Categories for Political Evaluation (Without Ideology)
Rather than importing secular frameworks, Scripture provides its own evaluative lenses:
1. Justice (Mishpat)
Fair judgment Protection of the vulnerable Proportionate punishment Equal application of law
Biblicism asks: Is justice done?
Not: Does this advance our side?
2. Righteousness (Tzedakah)
Moral integrity Faithfulness to covenantal obligation Right ordering of relationships
Biblicism asks: Is this morally right before God?
3. Stewardship
Responsible use of authority Care for resources Accountability for outcomes
Biblicism asks: Who bears responsibility, and are they faithful?
4. Peace (Shalom)
Not mere absence of conflict Ordered harmony under God’s law Stability that allows righteousness to flourish
Biblicism rejects both chaos and coercive uniformity.
V. How Biblicism Avoids Partisan Capture
1. Refusal to Collapse Moral Judgment into Identity
Scripture judges actions, not tribes:
Prophets rebuked Israel as fiercely as foreign nations Jesus condemned religious elites more than pagans
Biblicism therefore:
Critiques allies Affirms truth spoken by opponents Refuses moral exemptions
2. Maintaining Eschatological Modesty
The Bible promises:
God’s Kingdom, not ours Judgment, not permanent reform Restoration by God, not policy
This prevents:
Panic politics Desperation ethics “Ends justify the means” reasoning
3. Separation of Moral Witness from Political Power
Believers may:
Speak truth Advocate justice Serve faithfully
But must never:
Sacralize political power Confuse influence with righteousness Trade truth for access
VI. Practical Implications for Contemporary Believers
1. Speaking Without Slogans
Biblicist engagement favors:
Scriptural language over partisan terminology Moral clarity without rhetorical excess Precision over outrage
2. Evaluating Policies Without Ideology
Ask:
Does this align with biblical justice? Does it respect the limits of authority? Does it punish evil without enabling new evils? Does it assume moral transformation or merely enforce compliance?
3. Accepting Marginalization as a Cost of Faithfulness
A biblicist stance will often be:
Politically homeless Misunderstood Pressured from all sides
Scripture treats this not as failure, but fidelity.
VII. Conclusion: Faithful Presence Without Ideological Allegiance
The Bible does not call believers to withdraw from political life, nor to conquer it through ideology. It calls them to bear witness—to truth, justice, accountability, and hope—without surrendering moral independence to any earthly system.
A biblicist approach accepts the political nature of life while refusing to absolutize it. It speaks clearly without shouting, judges righteously without tribalism, and acts responsibly without imagining that salvation comes by policy.
In an age of ideological excess, biblicism offers something rarer and more demanding: faithful restraint under God’s authority, and moral seriousness without partisan captivity.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Just remember that the founder of your church tradition said, “Government is everything.”
Or was he preaching cultish adherence to him (and his successors) as the “human head of God’s one and only true Church”?
LikeLike
Please share the link to the message, article, letter or correspondence from HWA where the quote “government is everything” appears. I would like to know the context of this statement and learn more about how he intended it to be applied. My family came into the church in 1966 when it was still known as the Radio Church of God and I cannot recall that specific phraseology. However, I was just a schoolgirl at that time.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Please contact Gerald Flurry at PCG for that. That is a standard quote he attributes to Armstrong. Whatever is problems, I’m sure he has the citation. It certainly fits the first of the 18 Restored “Truths.”
LikeLike
It is a curiosity because several years ago I came into contact with a Plain Truth article written by HWA in 1955 which stated that a religious organization whose top leadership abandons true gospel, “the faith once delivered” should be considered apostate and the brethren’s duty would be to obey God rather than man, a scriptural tenet. This would mean abandoning the human government of said organization. But then, as Christ is the real Head of the Church, brethren aren’t really suborning government at all, are they? They are actually observing the righteous chain of command.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Of course, “true gospel” simply meant whatever he was preaching at any particular moment. He himself departed from what he taught in 1955. And his cult followers made and will always make up excuses for him. Remember the December 1980 “about rejecting him as “God’s apostle” if you ever find him “dishonest with the word of God.“ Yet, he has been found dishonest. He delayed the Pentecost change. And I have shown you the April 1979 article where he actually declares that, “Don’t believe me; believe your Bible” does NOT apply to members. Also, the 1960 article which sets that up by essentially forbidding members from listening to any teacher not in his church. And then there’s a lot of the things your son has written here on his blog.Yet you and your son have contorted his words in order to save him from his own condemnation, even as you fellowship with a church which has rejected his “God’s form of government.”
Every cult leader says something like what you said. But followers bend over backwards to save the leader or his movement whenever a problem arises. The very fact that the words of a man who passed away 40 years ago next month represent so much influence and authority that you feel the need to defend them in the context of your faith demonstrates what in law is called “undue influence.” It is why WCG member wills leaving exorbitant amounts to that church were routinely rejected when challenged in court. They can’t legally declare a given church a “cult,“ but they can do that.
So again, if you want to find out about the “government is everything” line, ask Flurry.
Links to 1960 and 1979 articles found here: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=1
LikeLike
Thank you for the links. The issue is analyzing the message itself. True gospel will stand on its own merits separate from the one preaching it. John 17:17 states that “God’s word is truth”, not any man’s interpretation of it. The meaning is clear; it is authoritative, not subjective. What you are describing is how HWA reacted to people who have supposedly proven that truth for themselves instead of simply taking his word for it. It turned out that many hadn’t really done so after all. I personally took that challenge seriously throughout my life and have continued to find the definitive source of knowledge and understanding in the Bible. I question everything, even now (just ask my husband). I don’t agree with everything HWA said, just as I don’t agree with everything UCG currently teaches either. Human beings are flawed, and HWA was the first to admit it. There are COGs that deify HWA and others that respect his religious legacy. Many lump us in the same category. However, doctrinal similarity can be deceptive. PCG, for example, doesn’t allow its members to have contact with anyone outside its organization, including family, even if they attend other COGs. It controls their activities, whether and to whom they can marry, and, according to former members, they must will their assets to the church. Now THAT seems to me actions of a cultist nature (one of the reasons why I decline to contact Flurry). So, I respectfully ask that, since you initiated the quote, you contact him for the source. Thank you.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
The problem there is that if you indeed “took up that challenge,” you have a problem with what Armstrong said in those two articles (and elsewhere). If you think he was right in those articles – that you are not taken in ideas from outside, and the “Don’t believe me, believe your Bible” line is not directed at members — and heeded that, then you haven’t really taken up the challenge. You are in fact taking his word for it, as the only information or education you are getting is from him or ministers working for him. But, if you don’t agree with him on that, then you need to realize he was trying to get you as a member to indeed take his word for it. Textbook cultism.
It goes to why we have the First Amendment in this country.
Remember: your son would’ve been disfellowshipped and marked for what he’s doing on this blog. If you’re honest with yourself, you know this is true.
As for inquiring for the citation, that’s something you can do — unless you believe you are not to interact with teachers outside of your own church.
LikeLike
I really don’t agree because I believe what Christ told the disciples first and foremost, “If they are not against Me they are for Me.” You read from a jaundiced lens; I read from one which followed HWA’s initial advice; instruction I’ve found useful throughout my life. Nothing in my son’s blogs are against scripture, the church or doctrine. I once told a Worldwide minister to his face that I felt like the poor widow standing before the unjust judge, yet I wasn’t disfellowshipped or even suspended for it. Conversely, Headquarters forced him to do his job.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Armstrong would’ve asserted the other one: “He who is not with me is against me.” And having been “God to us,” to be against Armstrong and to be against God or essentially the same thing. Don’t deny it. I am drawing this from the rhetoric which I know you yourself must’ve heard even more than I did.
No, I read things from perspective of somebody who was once a true believer, and who probably knew more about Armstrongist doctrine and spirituality than you (cf I Cor 14:34-35/1 Tim 2). I have discussed some of this confidentially with your son.
Nathan’s blog runs counter to much of traditional Armstrongist doctrine and practice. As for “agreeing with the Bible,” that evaluation just depends on your take on the Bible at any given moment. In 1955, if he had said, Pentecost was on the first day of the week, he would’ve been disfellowshipped. He writes against traditional church governance and doctrines on things like civic involvement, even countering black-letter UCG statements on those matters. It’s why I would often tell him to defect to CGI. The only reason he is not put out and marked is the free market competition of the ACOGs, and UCG’s own looseness which is not reflective of your church tradition’s founder.
I would be curious about that incident you mentioned: Was that under Armstrong or Tkach? I had an incident myself in 1994 when I confronted a minister over the phone about something that was happening to a woman in our congregation being put upon by her husband during their split. The minister mentioned this to the woman later, saying that a few years before he probably would have disfellowshipped me. My incident is much more probative into the situation.
But also consider this: you felt like you were suffering from an unjust judge. We are talking about a minister in a church. Most people would look at your statement and wonder what the problem could be. He’s just a minister. If you disagree with him, do what you think is right.If he’s treating you that way, don’t attend his church! It’s not like he has the authority to order you to divorce your spouse or move your business… Or not listen to or read material from other religious teachers. The very fact that an Armstrongist minister was viewed as having the authority to so interfere with your life demonstrates the cultism.
Before I left fellowship, I spoke to Ron Dart personally and asked him about a minister’s authority to do things like check your medicine cabinet. He spoke of having established his “independence in Christ” long before. He also left me with a neat line he would give to a minister trying that: “If you want to look in my medicine cabinet, you’re gonna have to get a search warrant.“
You can say things are different now, at least in UCG. That doesn’t change the cult origin of your faith tradition. It doesn’t change what Armstrong was and did. If you look back on those days through the lens you have now, you will plainly see it.
It’s a church faith tradition. That’s it. It’s not some “True Church,” as it claims. I have shown you that. The very fact that people had so much angst in 1995 is proof positive of the cult control that it held and often still holds over members. Look back at that situation you were in, and think about why you would’ve felt that minister had the ability to put you into that feeling. “Undue influence” is an understatement.
LikeLike
I disobeyed this minister’s initial edict and was told that I was “on my own” during the HWA era. However, I was neither suspended nor disfellowshipped. I attended in another church area under the agreement to continue seeking counseling with this minister. His remark and subsequent action by Headquarters were also made during the HWA era. My experience with the local ministry coincided with what I found to be the case at Ambassador College in the mid 1970s; HWA’s trusted advisors and top tier leaders were two-faced. They gave lip service and followed the rules when he was around, but blatantly ignored them when he was away. This carefully concealed agenda was passed down through the many levels of authority, with each fiercely guarding his private fiefdom. That’s why the local ministry was often harsh and controlling with the membership. They were able to flex their authority and power, because they simply followed the lead of those in their immediate command. HWA was oblivious until very late in life. He believed what he was told and was nearly sold down the river for it. It took a near fatal heart attack to begin the internal healing process—but extensive damage was done, and the cancer within the church would take over after his death. CGI recently disbanded. Their former leader started a new group with the same acronym and I really enjoy his messages (yes I listen to them). Our viewpoints obviously clash but I deeply appreciate the level of respect you have shown me. Thank you for this.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
You: “I disobeyed this minister’s initial edict and was told that I was ‘on my own’ during the HWA era. However, I was neither suspended nor disfellowshipped. I attended in another church area under the agreement to continue seeking counseling with this minister.” People will look at that and see nothing but cultism. The minister was wrong, and so YOU have to be inconvenienced to go to a different area, but still confide in him about whatever issue was going on. They were hiding the problem from the congregation, and then punishing you for confronting it. Your only defense of them is that they didn’t suspend or disfellowship you.
The abused upholding the abuser because he didn’t punish you as much as he could have for exposing the abuse. And you still stay loyal to that abuser.
Cultism and Stockholm Syndrome. You say it, and you don’t even see it.
“If the Czar knew.” That was a common mentality among Russian peasants back in the day. They were oppressed by the lower tier of leadership, but genuinely believed if the Nicholas knew what was going on, he would change it. It continues today among some regarding Putin and the bad conditions experienced by Russian soldiers in the war in Ukraine. (Families are literally having to buy military gear, including body armor, off the civilian market to send to their loved ones deployed there. And I don’t even get me started about issuing Mosin-Nagants to militias.)
The problem with this in Armstrong‘s caseis that he took upon himself so much power and status — “Apostle,” “True Church,” “Elijah,” etc. — that he also took upon himself a heightened responsibility. Even accepting arguendo that he didn’t know, the blood is on his hands. He built the culture of his invalid “True Church,” and then, when according to you he realized the situation I have, he did nothing to expose and correct it. One video played in all the churches would’ve done it. If you say Tkach and company prevented it, then you are running contrary to your son’s living hero (and Samuel Kitchen’s “God to him”) Aaron Dean’s account of the situation in those last days.
Of course, there are rumors that Armstrong did indeed record such a video. Tkach a time or two spoke of Armstrong almost recording something about all the changes he would want his successor to make. Tkach claimed he changed his mind, but maybe that Russian was actually letting the cat out of the bag. I personally hope there is such a video, and the upcoming Heritage Day being the 40th anniversary of his death would be the perfect time for whoever is holding it to release it. We will see.
LikeLike
EDIT: “he realized the situation I have, he did nothing to expose and correct it.”
Sorry about that.
LikeLike
EDIT: ”…he realized the situation [DISREGARD “I have”], he did nothing to expose and correct it.”
Sorry about that.
LikeLike
I wasn’t wrong by staying because I was adhering to precepts that go beyond basic human understanding. There was unfinished business in resolving the matter in-house, for one thing. There is also the issue of submitting to an unjust overseerers, recognizing that our deliverance comes from a just God and Christ is the true Head of the church. If I had been a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, I would never have left Worldwide at all. Further discussion is pointless because, as stated before, we have viewpoints that will probably not be reconciled at this point in time. I do wish you well.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
“There is also the issue of submitting to an unjust overseerers, recognizing that our deliverance comes from a just God and Christ is the true Head of the church.” Yep. Full cultism. Willingly submitting to an unjust person simply because they claim to be a “true” minister. They owned you completely then, and their legacy owns you now. You relied then and are relying now on the idea that WCG/the Armstrong faith tradition was indeed exclusively the “True Church.” Your son disregards that claim, even overtly attempting to incorporate the Seventh Day Baptists into the church’s view of the Body of Christ. According to him, you could’ve gone SDB, no problem. You’d just have to put up with a little Trinity talk, like most original UCG members did for a couple years in WCG. You two really need to talk about all of this.
It really is Stockholm Syndrome. The WCG you left was hardly the Armstrongist entity of its founder. Leaving it when you did proves nothing. You are still owned by the spirit and legacy of that man and his ministers, despite the facts of their succession history and the cult bondage of their fraud.
As I said before, you say it, but you can’t even see it.
LikeLike
I should add one thing: There are at least two ways I can win such a discussion with an Armstrong faith tradition follower. Either I can convince them of the error of the Armstrong “True Church,” or I can get an Armstrongist to say something incriminating about the faith.
By acknowledging the endorsement of ministerial abuse in your ideology — “submitting to an unjust overseerers (sic)” — it illustrates to anyone remotely interested in a post-1986 WCG split just what the religion of Armstrong really was and is. Unlike most of us did, they will know what they are getting into. And they won’t get into it. The bait-and-switch will fail.
It will also help families of deceased Armstrongists have members’ wills overturned. Your statement is clear evidence of a general practice within the faith tradition that constitutes “undue influence.” You will say, as a minister said to me early on about such things, “It IS what God wants.” But courts won’t see it that way.
And honestly, neither will God.
LikeLike