Would-be Scholars

Since the early 1950s, the Church had steadily grown under the guidance and leadership of ministers and assistants who had been trained and had graduated from Ambassador College. There was a genuine wholehearted love for the truth.

Just as had happened in the 1950s and 1960s, there were the occasional “austerity years,” during which a temporary financial crunch, often related to economic conditions in the world, required the Church to undergo a “belt-tightening.” Two of these occurred at the beginning of the 1970s, in mid-1970 and mid-1972. In each case, with Mr. Armstrong leading the way, the Church sought God, examined itself and times improved.

But, as the Church entered the 1970s, complacency also had set in among many members. Many thought that the fulfillment of prophecy was “dragging out” longer than they believed it would—or felt that they had been told it would.

Also, around 1971, some brethren got caught up in the “sacred names” movement, believing that God and Christ should only be referred to in the Hebrew language.

Mr. Armstrong commissioned a doctrinal team to do an in-depth study into the use of God’s name. The team reaffirmed that the Church had been teaching the right doctrine. As a result, some few left to join this false movement, believing that God could show individual members important truths that the Church could be unwilling or unable to see. People began to believe that there could be “good reason” to leave the Church of God.

Also, quietly in the background, a few ministers, along with a handful of Ambassador College graduates who had enrolled in other universities in pursuit of higher degrees, were seeking to become Bible “scholars.” They forgot about Ambassador’s purpose in developing the whole person, and began to see the college as intellectually and academically inferior. Many of them came together as a kind of “doctrinal committee,” eventually seeking to disprove the basic doctrines that had been restored to God’s Church over the years.

This occurred when Mr. Armstrong had been away from headquarters as many as 300 days out of the year. This had forced him to delegate leadership responsibilities to those under him, largely leaving the television and radio programs, the magazines, the college and the Church in their hands.

A One-track Mind

Mr. Armstrong was a man of incredible insight. He had been blessed with the tremendous gift of understanding the truths of the Bible. Even well-known preachers who saw him as a competitor admitted that he understood biblical prophecy like no one else.

Mr. Armstrong often described himself as having a one-track mind. He had the amazing ability to focus his attention on something and give it his all. When having a discussion with someone, that person had his full, undivided attention.

Due to his one-track mind, by his own admission, he could generally only focus well on one thing at a time. When it came to studying God’s Word, giving sermons, writing articles, etc., this was a crucial asset.

But it also had its drawbacks. Certain people who worked with Mr. Armstrong took advantage of this proclivity by passing things by him either quickly or at the last minute, without giving him the time to fully digest whatever he was reading. Believing the best in people, he trusted them to give him all the information he needed to make an informed decision. And, as his eyesight (and hearing) grew worse with age, he had to trust others to read the fine print for him, regarding contracts and other important documents.

Like a U.S. president or the top executive of a Fortune-500 company, if one is surrounded by dedicated team players, things will generally run smoothly. But, if certain players only provide enough data to influence matters or decisions according to their own agendas, this is a formula for trouble.

During the 1970s, the latter was the case for Mr. Armstrong. He worked with, and was surrounded by, a number of key people who had the opportunity to either help in a positive way—or undermine. Some were loyal, dedicated and converted—others were politicians, opportunists, rebels, power-hungry climbers, would-be handlers and flatterers.
Desiring to give people the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Armstrong was often blinded—and blindsided—by their flattery.

While he was away visiting dignitaries, the would-be “scholars” suppressed those at headquarters who were loyal to Mr. Armstrong, and gradually demoted and removed them, usually sending them away to either pastor local U.S. congregations or to pastor in other countries.

In Mr. Armstrong’s words, “So much of what was going on in Pasadena was kept from me that I did not realize…the Church was actually traveling into controversy, liberalism and either Protestantism or total secularism” (“Recent History of the Philadelphia Era of the Worldwide Church of God,”Worldwide News, June 24, 1985).

A Breeding Ground for Liberalism

These liberals pushed for Ambassador College to be accredited just like the colleges and universities of the world. But this meant that the school would come under the rules, policies and curricula of secular forces. The liberals got their way, and Ambassador College became more like the world. The student body, which Mr. Armstrong had limited to a maximum of 550 per campus, was increased to 1,400.

The true values that students had been taught since the school’s founding were soon replaced by the “anything goes” spirit of the 1970s. Men let their hair grow long. Students were no longer responsible for maintaining their dorms, and maids took care of this responsibility instead. Poor classroom attendance became the norm. Immorality and drugs soon appeared, as respect for authority and the truth of God virtually disappeared. Human nature, without rules and regulations, was allowed to roam free across the campus.

This same liberal attitude of permissiveness had permeated the Church. Referenced earlier, one such example is how some in the Church interpreted Mr. Armstrong’s booklet (published in 1956) titled1975 in Prophecy. In it, he wrote that man’s world had very little time left, and that it would soon be replaced by the kingdom of God, and addressed this in terms of “a few years.” Sadly, some “hung their hat” on this timeframe.

Many members (and even a few ministers) erroneously believed that Jesus Christ would return in 1975. They had ignored Mr. Armstrong’s repeated statements that no one should set concrete dates and that God could allow more time to elapse before establishing His kingdom. They were convinced that they had “figured out” and “deciphered” when Christ would return (despite scriptures such as Matthew 24:36, 42, 44 and 50).

People in the Church thought that Mr. Armstrong was setting a definite date for Christ’s Return. Of course, he did not, but that did not keep them from accusing him of such. Many became disillusioned and spiritually lethargic. They allowed their zeal to grow cold. But, due to various other internal issues, the Church was also becoming a liberal breeding ground, and, for the first time in decades, the Work stopped growing. From 1973 to 1978, the Church of God decreased in size, and this could be seen occurring on an annual basis.

Like Paul nearly 2,000 years before him, Mr. Armstrong looked forward to God’s kingdom finally being established on earth, believing and hoping that Christ would return in his lifetime. And, again like Paul, he had to come to realize that this event would probably occur after his death. But, some still blamed Mr. Armstrong anyway for “being wrong” about Christ’s supposed 1975 return, even though he never set this date.

When the expectation of Christ’s Return did not come to pass “on time,” some were disappointed. Their disappointment soured into resentment—which ignited a rebellion largely centered on otherissues.

In 1974, the Church experienced its first serious, organized revolt against Mr. Armstrong and the administration in Pasadena. A small but sizeable number of liberal dissidents, including ministers, departed from the Church, unhappy with the way the Church was being administered. Another group, this time of “conservative” ministers, with a smaller number of brethren following, left as well. These were upset by changes to the doctrines of divorce and remarriage, and the new, correct Sunday observance of Pentecost, despite the fact that Mr. Armstrong, with much input, had given thorough examination to both subjects.

Tragically, these misguided people had let themselves become locked into believing that everyprevious action taken, and every belief previously accepted, by the Church had to be a virtual decree from God—and thus, never to be changed. Yet, God revealed His truth to Mr. Armstrong, and thus the Church, one truth at a time, not all at once. Many forgot that Mr. Armstrong often stated that God’s apostle must be willing to “grow in the grace, and in the knowledge” of Christ (II Pet. 3:18)—not to assume that, at any single snapshot in time, he had all the truth, with no room for improvement—for growth in knowledge.

Regarding the doctrine of divorce and remarriage, Mr. Armstrong wrote the following in his February 22, 1974 letter to the ministry:

“…I not only carefully studied all reports given me from the doctrinal committee, I showed their papers to some of our best scholars on the British campus…

“I have always tried to follow the Biblical admonition that in a multitude of counselors there is safety. I have always tried to follow the principle that I learned as far back as 1915, to get ALL the facts before a decision. God called and chose me to get HIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM TO THE WORLD, and to be used in raising up His Church for our time to HELP get that Great Commission DONE!”

“I am sending word to Headquarters to WITHDRAW the booklet from circulation until I may have opportunity to study the position of those opposed to the present booklet. That is not to say I will agree with them—it IS to say I will study their position and facts in the scriptures WITH A COMPLETELY OPEN MIND. If there are errors in the booklet, I will CORRECT them. I want GOD’S TRUTH, and I must assume you Ministers do too! I would like to take a more liberal view—if it is God’s TRUTH.

“If there is any reason I can account for, as to why God chose me and put me in the position I occupy, it is because I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN COMPLETELY FAITHFUL WITH HIS WORD as He gives me to UNDERSTAND!”

These dissidents were also upset by the handling of certain leaders. Instead of trusting God to work out various problems, they blamed Mr. Armstrong—just as the ancient Israelites blamed Moses for everything that went wrong.

It was at this time that a small number of people left the Church, moving to the “right” as part of the almost simultaneous (1975) “ultra-right-wing” rebellion led by older ministers who went on to form an offshoot that eventually fragmented and largely disappeared.

Incredibly, many people expected Mr. Armstrong to know every detail of what went on in every congregation—just like U.S. citizens who expect their President to know intimate details of every facet of the nation.

After the 1974 rebellion, and the 1975 departure of the “conservatives,” things appeared to stabilize in the Church. The troublesome dissidents seemed to be gone. Mr. Armstrong continued to carry the gospel message to world leaders. His son, Garner Ted, had gradually assumed most of the broadcast responsibilities in the early 1960s. By the middle of that decade, he had become experienced as a publicly acclaimed speaker.

He had been offered various high-paying positions as a secular radio/TV commentator. By 1974,The World Tomorrow radio program covered the globe. His clarity reflected the same qualities of his father. Interestingly, at the age of two, Garner Ted Armstrong had been healed from a condition in which he could not speak—his voice seemed to be a gift from God.

Yet, the attention and notoriety he received seemed to have an effect on how he perceived himself.

Meanwhile, an underground movement, seeking to water down the doctrines that God established in the Church through Mr. Armstrong, was slowly gaining momentum. It was primarily led by a variety of liberal intellectuals who did not want the Church to appear as a cult in the eyes of their respected associates in the world. Some of these men held key positions in the Church. They befriended and influenced Garner Ted, to whom had been delegated growing authority during Mr. Armstrong’s long absences from Pasadena. As a result, through the mid-1970s, these liberals were promoted to increasingly greater positions of power. Meanwhile, those loyal to Herbert W. Armstrong were transferred to remote areas or given minor assignments.

Times grew darker for the Church, especially when Mr. Armstrong had a heart attack in late 1977. For several minutes, he was clinically dead—but God revived him and he returned full-force to lead the Work once again. God still had more work for him to do.

Next Part Confronting Conspirators

Back to Herbert W. Armstrong