In order to be honest to the historical record of Herbert W. Armstrong, no account would be complete without including some material that documents how those who succeeded him have related to his system of beliefs and to his legacy. The best way to do so is to permit these people to speak for themselves as to the pace and openness of doctrinal changes and to why some of them came to view Armstrong's teachings as heresy. The material on this page lets you read and hear for yourself what those people and those who assisted them have to say about Armstrong and his teachings.
Just prior to his death in January 1986, Herbert Armstrong appointed Joseph W. Tkach, Sr. as Pastor General. On the afternoon of Saturday December 17, 1994 Mr. Tkach gave a sermon in Atlanta, Georgia which would later be regarded as the turning point in the church's "official" teachings and mark the beginning of the open and rapid process of repudiating the teachings of Herbert Armstrong.
In May of 1995 while undergoing gall bladder surgery it was determined that Tkach had pervasive and inoperable cancer. He appointed his son, Joseph W. Tkach, Jr. to succeed him upon his death which occurred at 2:20 PM PST on the afternoon of Saturday September 23, 1995.
The astute reader will notice that from the day the senior Tkach publicly repudiated the belief system expounded by Armstrong until he died was exactly 40 weeks, indeed almost to the very hour, given allowance for the time zones. One correspondent said of Tkach's condition, "[h]e died a horrible death. In the end there were horrible sores on his body and legs that could not be stopped from bleeding. People who came in to see him burst into tears at the sight."
This same sermon was repeated at the Church's college in Big Sandy, Texas on December 24, 1994 (see below). Coincidently, it was given on the two dates that also mark the beginning and end of the ancient pagan religious festival of Saturnalia. The editors cannot help but be struck by this, for these dates make a very improbable coincidence especially combined with the coincidence of the exact timing of Tkach's death. Indeed, these events are so improbable as to appear to be pure random chance, except for the utmost seriousness of their spiritual implications.
This section concludes with a few articles from Armstrong's critics on the changes made after his passing
1991 Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Presentation
Click here to listen to a 35 minute presentation by David Hulme, as an official representative, explaining the doctrines of the Worldwide Church of God to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. In his own words, he was "invited to explain what our position is on a number of things and also to perhaps update you on a number of changes." (at 0:15) and wanted to "take you through some of the present thinking then, of the Worldwide Church of God..." (at 0:53) and "take you through some of the more important changes that have occurred in the past four to five years" (at 4:38). The audio has a rather high background noise level. The listener might carefully compare his explanations of church doctrines with Armstrong's own words and writings elsewhere on this Compendium.
Click here for the excerpt (3:20 long) of this presentation dealing with "some of the [recent official church] statements about the Trinity."
See Editor's Comments at bottom of the page.
Tkach's Atlanta Sermon given December 17, 1994
Click here to read Tkach's Atlanta sermon, where he introduced what came to be called the "new understanding", or "NU" of the church's fundamental doctrines. The editors downloaded this transcript from the WCG web site.
On December 24, 1994, Joseph W. Tkach, Sr. repeated his Atlanta sermon for church cameras and members at the church's college in Big Sandy, Texas. Starting at 5:04, this sermon matches the start of the official transcript of his Atlanta sermon, although the sermon appears to have been revised and expanded in places. The video of this sermon was then shown to many church congregations. The editors are pleased to have secured a copy of the soundtrack of this sermon.
1997 Bible Answer Man Interviews
Joseph Tkach, Jr. has appeared several times on the radio program, The Bible Answer Man, hosted by Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute and who is noted for his anti-cult preaching. Tkach was often accompanied by another WCG executive, Greg Albrecht.
Also mentioned during these interviews: The book Transformed by Truth by Joseph Tkach, Jr. At the time of this production, this book is still available on Amazon. It has an ISBN-13 of 978-1576731819. On Amazon, it has the sales rank of #12,537 in Protestantism. There are a large number available used.
1998 EMNR Conference
Joe Tkach, Jr. and Greg Albrecht spoke at the 1998 Annual Conference of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions. Comprising two sessions each lasting over an hour, this recording is the most comprehensive public statement available covering Post-Armstrong doctrinal decisions and church history.
Bible Answer Man Interview of Tom Lapacka
This was broadcast on January 24 and 25, 2002. Lapacka was interviewed by Hank Hanegraaff. Lapacka was a member of the WCG leadership and was the pastor of the headquarters' congregation in Pasadena during the period of massive doctrinal change. Subsequently, he left the WCG and at the time of this interview is an official of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.
This interview is included because it thoroughly illustrates the great gulf between followers of the "orthodox" Christian belief system, and that advanced by Armstrong. This gulf is so great the editors ask the listener to notice how often in these two programs that those who accepted what Armstrong taught are not even considered to be Christians. The unspoken implication being that they are damned. Lapacka felt this so strongly that after he left his job as a pastor, he was re-baptised as a Lutheran.
Christianity Today Article
Click here to read From the Fringe to the Fold, How the Worldwide Church of God discovered the plain truth of the gospel by Ruth Tucker. The article appeared in the July 15, 1996 issue of Christianity Today. Tucker is a leading figure in the "cult-watch" movement. This article is obviously endorsed by the WCG as it was reprinted in its offical member newspaper, the Worldwide News
The Worldwide Church of God: From Cult to Christianity
Click here, to read Appendix A from pages 471 to 473, of Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin (Bethany House Publishers, 1997). The late Dr. Martin was founder of the Christian Research Institute, and original host of The Bible Answer Man radio broadcast. He was succeeded by Hank Hanegraaff. This updated appendix replaces the 1985 edition's chapter 12, "Herbert W. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God--Anglo-Israelism."
Most telling quote from article (speaking of Joeseph Tkach, Sr.): "He reversed Armstrong's most damnable doctrines in full acceptance of the Trinity, Christ's divinity and humanity, the person and deity of the Holy Spirit, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and salvation by grace through faith alone.
The Worldwide Church of God: Acknowledging the 'Plain Truth' about the Trinity?
Click here, to read the article from page 29 of the Spring/Summer 1994 edition of the Christian Research Journal, a publication of Hank Hanegraaff's Christian Research Institute. This article describes the basis for the rejection of Armstrong's teachings about the nature of God.
Worldwide Church of God Update: Tkach Clarifies 'Sabbath' and 'True Church' Doctrines
Click here, to read the very detailed article from a 1995 edition of the cult-watch magazine, The Watchman Expositor about the history of doctrinal change.
Changes in WCG Doctrines of the Trinity and the Only True Church
Click here, to read another article on WCG doctrinal changes from The Watchman Expositor. Note the reference to correspondence dated August, 1992 which the Watchman called "a major shift from the teaching of the church's founder..." The Watchman dates the WCG's official acceptance of the Trinity from a September 23, 1993 letter from David Hunsberger, of the Personal Correspondence Department.
The Worldwide Church Of God: A Time for Sober Thought
Click here, to read an article by Phillip Arnn about the doctrinal changes of the Worldwide Church of God. The exact date of the article or its source are unknown, but it probably came from The Watchman Expositor.
Did WCG leaders have a doctrinal agenda?
Click here, to read the article Did WCG leaders have a doctrinal agenda? from the the Aug. 25, 1995, issue of In Transition, a publication that supports those who did not accept the doctrinal changes made by the WCG leadership after the death of Herbert W. Armstrong.
WCG joins National Association of Evangelicals
Click here, to read the short article from Christianity Today announcing that on May 7, 1997, the WCG was voted into membership by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). In this approval, the NAE indicated that the WCG had sufficiently rejected Armstrong's belief system to be considered "orthodox", meaning among other things, that the WCG fully accepted the doctrine of the Trinity.
Philadelphia Church of God Purchases Armstrong Copyrights
Click here, to read the article by Stephen Flurry describing the WCG's attempts to stop the Philadelphia Churh of God from printing and giving away Armstrong's book, Mystery of the Ages, and his ultimate surprise victory that was announced in March, 2003.
Church Sells Armstrong's Works
Click here (in PDF) This article from the July 2003 issue of Christianity Today. Subhead: Nineteen books by founder sold to Worldwide Church of God splinter group.
Editor's comments on David Hulme's 1991 presentation and doctrinal changes.
After Herbert Armstrong's death in 1986, the church continued the appearance of doctrinal fidelity and stability under its new Pastor General, Joseph W. Tkach, Sr. However hints and rumors of impending doctrinal changes started to surface. As these rumors turned into fact, people left the church to fellowship elsewhere. In examining this history, the editors would ask the reader to remained focused on this one constant: that people left the Worldwide Church of God based upon what its leadership said and did at the time, not how someone might explain or justify those same events today.
The Hulme presentation is important because he was 1) an official church spokesman 2) invited to present church teachings 3) to a group of theologians who taught doctrines diametrically opposite those of Herbert Armstrong and 4) he states twice within the first three minutes of the presentation that what he has to say represents the "present thinking" of the church.
During his presentation, Hulme read from a paper written by "our Greek scholar, K. J. Stavrinides" and published in the January-February 1991 edition of Reviews You Can Use, an official WCG publication distributed only to its ministry. Since Hulme earlier makes reference to this paper by saying, "[w]e recently issued a new paper on the subject of the Trinity which was drafted by a senior church minister" and "we've published a fairly scholarly paper on the Trinity", there should be no doubt whatsoever that the paper represented the thinking of the senior church leadership and was published with their cooperation and approval.
After introducing a new section of his presentation with "[s]ome of the statements about the Trinity ...", Hulme quotes from Stavrinides' paper which includes this key passage, "[e]ven though the Worldwide Church of God considers some positions on the Trinity to be heretical, for example all forms of Arianism ..." The importance of this passage in the history of doctrinal change must be understood and should not be underestimated.
Suppose a farmer sells apples from a roadside stand for 10 cents each. If the farmer points to his only pile of apples and tells a customer, "Some of the apples in this pile are rotten, for example this really smelly one", by implication the customer knows that the remaining apples are still for sale. The farmer's simple and direct statement is about only some of the apples being considered, but not all. The problem is easily solved by picking through the pile and avoiding the rotten ones. But if all the apples in the pile were rotten, the farmer would tell the customer to come back another day when he has some saleable apples.
Likewise the passage that Hulme quotes makes a simple direct statement: some positions are in error. He even gives an extreme example. By its very construction, it also implies that some positions are not in error. If all the positions on the Trinity were considered to be in error, he would have said so instead.
Some may suggest that the word "trinity" was merely a substitution for the subject or concept of "the nature of God". That is contrary to Armstrong's teachings, the culture of the church and contrary to the definition of the words. It also impliles the passage was carelessly worded. On the contrary, the passage was painstakingly worded by its author, who was a college professor and scholar with several post-graduate degrees, one from the University of London, and who studied under Christopher Evens, Professor of the New Testament of King's College, University of London and whose web biography at one time stated that he "...made original contributions to the Catholic-Protestant dialogue..." Given the official context in which the passage was published, a context Hulme mentions at least twice, the wording can only indicate that the leadership of the chruch had already accepted the Trinity doctrine in general, even if they were still working through the specifics.
All this is beside the point that Hulme introduced this section of his presentation as being on the subject of "some of the statements about the Trinity". That is, statements by the church and its leadership that Hulme officially represents, on the Trinity.
Herbert Armstrong taught that the doctrine of the Trinity was false. The church taught it was false. The members believed it was false. Only a few months before Hulme's presentation (indeed probably about the time Stavrinides was working on his paper) the church published the following in the November/December 1990 edition of its members-oriented magazine The Good News:
"The concept of a Trinity is nowhere found in the Bible. it has been formulated by men under the influence of Satan. The Trinity hides from man God's plan of salvation. The Trinity doctrine maintains that the Godhead is a closed unit into which no one else can enter" (Good News Nov./Dec. 1990, p. 10).
Some six months after Stavrinides wrote about the Trinity in his article, the church published a list of church doctrines on page 4 of the July 22, 1991 issue of the Worldwide News, an official church publication for its members. (Click here to read entire list.) These doctrinal statements are in agreement with Armstrong's teachings and church member belief. Two doctrines relating to the Trinity are listed, "[w]e do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity." and "[w]e do not believe the Holy Spirit is a third person in the Godhead."
As with the Hulme quote of the January Stavrinides paper, the July Worldwide News statement says one thing directly: we do not believe in the Trinity. That necessarily implies that all positions on the Trinity are rejected. There is no qualification or exception- all forms of the Trinity are in error or else the statement would have been phrased differently.
In Armstrong's full length book, The Missing Dimension In Sex, a book offered free of charge for many years in the Plain Truth and on his radio program, Armstrong wrote: "God is not merely one Person, nor even limited to a `Trinity,' but God is FAMILY. The doctrine of the Trinity is false" (page 37).
In the predecessor to this book, God Speaks Out on The New Morality, Armstrong wrote,
"So the Eternal Father is a Person, and is God. Jesus Christ is a different Person- and is God. They are two separate and individual Persons (Rev. 4:2; 5:1, 6-7). The Father is the Supreme Head of the God Falmily- the Lawgiver. Christ is the Word- the divine Spokesman. But when Jesus was begotten within His human mother Mary, He was not, as all other men, begotten of a human father, but of God, by the agency of the God's Spirit. He became the Son of God. He called God His Father. He prayed to His Father. So we have a Father-and-Son relationship. It is a FAMILY relationship!" (page 124, 1964 edition)
Just before his death, Herbert Armstrong wrote the Mystery of the Ages, a book that Joseph Tkach, Sr. called "probabaly the greatest work that he has accomplished" in the Tribute to Herbert Armstrong telecast that was shown the week after Armstrong's death. Under the subject of "Trinity", the index of the 1985 hardback edition published by Dodd, Mead and Company lists:
"Many think God is a single individual supreme Personage. Some thought he was a spirit. But the generally accepted teaching of traditional Christianity is that God is a Trinity - God in 3 Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which they call a Ghost. The word trinity is not found in the Bible, nor does the Bible teach this doctrine." (page 40)
"No third person is mentioned -no "Ghost". Is God then limited to only 2 Persons? The false Trinity teaching does limit God to 3 Persons. But God is not limited. As God repeatedly reveals, his purpose is to reproduce himself into what may well become billions of God persons. It is the false Trinity teaching that limits God, denies God's purpose and has palpably deceived the whole Christian world. Both God and the Word themselves are spirit and project their spirit." (page 44)
"The Trinity doctrine limits God to a supposed 3 Persons. It destroys the very gospel of Jesus Christ! His gospel is the good news of the now soon coming Kingdom of God -the only hope of this world and its mixed up mankind!" (page 51)
[See: Editor's Note at bottom of this page for comment on withdrawing of Mystery of the Ages.]
In reality, not only did Armstrong and the church teach that the Trinity was a false doctrine, but in the culture of the church, in WCG-Speak, the Trinity was always talked about as a false doctrine. It was never mentioned as being anything else but false. In almost 30 years of membership, the editors had never once heard the word "trinity" used favorably by either members or ministers. So, it can only be a signal event when this subject is officially treated in a church publication in a manner that states that only some forms of it are in error.
When Hulme was preparing his presentation to the Trinitarians, he had to choose what he would say and what he would not say, the words he would quote and those he wouldn't. You can expect that at the very least he asked for guidance from his management and was operating under their guidance if not directly, then indirectly through his knowledge of the general management philosophy. He was certainly not speaking as on his own, as a private person, who just happened to be fellowshipping on Saturday over at Worldwide, for at no time during his presentation did he note that anything he said was his own personal position as opposed to the church's position. The audio record shows Hulme chose to quote a then recent Stavrinides paper the church had published for its ministers, but not made available to church membership. He did not quote a single passage of any of Armstrong's widely available writings on the nature of God (such as from the Chapter 1 of Mystery of the Ages, or lesson 20 of the 58 lesson Bible Correspondence Course) or a single passage on the nature of God from any of his over 50 years of daily radio broadcasts (since the first Sunday of 1934), sermons or Bible Studies.
Phillip Arnn, writing in the cult-watch magazine "Watchman Expositor", in an article titled, "Changes in WCG Doctrines of the Trinity and the Only True Church" (see above) after quoting from the same Stavrinides paper, wrote:
"Although the church now viewed the Trinity doctrine as a "genuine attempt" to describe God, they did accept the doctrine."
How clear can the situation be? A third party reports that the leadership had accepted the Trinity, thus rejecting Armstrong's teaching on the subject. In a Spring, 1998 interview on The 700 Club, an Evangelical Christian television talk show hosted by Pat Robertson, Joe Tkach, Jr. said that the church leadership had accepted the Trinity in 1989. Why then did that same management publish a clearly contradictory doctrinal statement to its members nonetheless in the Julyl 1991 Worldwide News?. These seeming contradictions of doctrine, public statements and action by the church leadership became the hallmark of this era of the Church of God. But in the opinion of the editors, these contradictions are easily explained if the issue before the church leadership was not whether to accept the Trinity, but how and when to best introduce it to the membership.
As of this writing, some nine years later in early 2000, the WCG states in "A Brief History of the Worldwide Church of God", "[i]n 1993, the church accepted the doctrine of the Trinity." Also as of this writing, from its Statement of Beliefs, the WCG states that "God ... is one divine being in three eternal co-essential, yet distinct Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit ..."
Given these facts, it is natural to conclude that by 1991 the church was giving its critics clear signals of the doctrinal changes that had already been accepted by the church leadership, all the while speaking in a manner designed to not alarm those who held to the beliefs that Armstrong expounded. Several years later the validity of the editor's conclusion about this approach to the introduction of significant doctrinal changes is born out in an August 3, 1993 letter from David Hulme, then Director of Communications and Public Affairs, to James K. Walker, Director, Watchman Fellowship (a cult-watch organization, publisher of the Watchman Expositor and critic of Armstrong), in which Hulme worries to Walker about how WCG members would react to a forthcoming Expositor article on WCG doctrinal changes:
"If they get a misrepresentation from you ..., some might run to the splinter groups. You already know that, because you name some of them in your lay-out. Even so, you are prepared to circumvent our ability to make a wise announcement and presentation to the members. You are topedoing the efforts of the Church to present the truth in the right way."Walker responds in a letter dated August 5,1993:
"It is amazing. We are criticized for reporting information about the church that is outdated and "too old". Now we are criticized for publishing information that is "too new". "... If your concern on this issue was the timing of our article, why were you not upfront with me when I called you? When I first discussed this with you, you should have said, "James, ... we are in the process of sharing this with our members. Would you hold off on this story for a month or two to give us a chance to better explain it to our people?..." Only "after the fact" did you introduce the idea that the timing of our article may cause some problem for the church."Yet more validation is evidenced even later when Pastor General Joe Tkach, Jr. complained during his October 1998 presentation at the EMNR conference (see above, especially sound bites) about the problems of "leading our people out of the error [of Armstrongism]" without causing them to bolt for the exits.
The editors have been awestruck by the pattern and practice of the church leadership of making doctrinal changes while at the same time vigorously denying to the membership that any changes had really taken place, or were being planned. (See "denial rap", above). At best, they follow the same practice of the Clinton Administration's spinmeisters of "telling the truth slowly". (For example, it took nine years to find out when the Trinity doctrine was accepted.) The editors have speculated this is the WCG idea of "progressive revelation". This barren forthrightness has lead many members to accuse the leadership and their supporters of either expediency (for gradually repudiating Armstrong's teachings while not trying to alienate the dwindling number of members still faithful to those very teachings- who were still faithfully tithing and providing the bulk of the church income), duplicity (for having a doctrinal agenda they refused to disclose), or violating their fiduciary responsibilities (for making doctrinal changes while not responsibly anticpating the consequences of those changes). In any case, the vast majority of church members left to fellowship elsewhere, and they took their wallets with them, an exodus that one ex-member fittingly called The Great Worldwide Crackup. At the beginning of his presentation, Hulme noted that the church had 145,000 people meeting in 780 congregations in 120 countries. As of this writing, the church has less than 20,000 members and is in the process of selling all its major capital assets.
Herbert Armstrong never claimed to have "invented" the belief system he expounded. He stated over and over that he was attempting to teach the very same belief system expounded by The Savior Jesus Christ and the original Apostles. As quoted from his book, Mystery of the Ages, he rejected and debunked the doctrine of the Trinity and taught that the Holy Spirit is God's power or essence, and not a separate self-aware "person" with its own perception, thoughts, knowledge and free will. (Also see the articles, Satan's Great Deception and Is God a "Trinity"? in the Booklets and Articles section.) Further, the beliefs that Armstrong expounded taught that God was an open ended family, while the Trinity doctrine pictures God as a closed "hypostasis". Thus, acceptance of the Trinity subsequently necessitates rejection of the teaching that God is reproducing himself as well as the view of God's plan of salvation that mankind would become heirs with Christ.
The Trinitarian belief system developed by the Catholic Church and adopted by Protestant Christianity holds that God is not a family that humans can be born into. In its place, the belief system teaches that all humans have an immoral soul from birth, if not from conception. When a person dies, their immortal soul continues to exist for all eternity. The only question is where that eternity will be spent, in heaven or in hell? If even the most unbelieving and evil sinner already has eternal life because his soul is immortal, even if it is immortal in hell, what is the role of The Savior, Jesus Christ? Conversely, what does The Savior do for a person who accepted Him during his lifetime and lead an exemplary life of sacrifice and obedience? What is the meaning of the "hope of the resurrection" for a person who already has an immortal soul? How can you bring someone back to life who does not die?
And what of the infant who was murdered a few days after being born on some South Sea island hundreds of years before Christ lived? Does this person need a savior or not? Scripture says that Christ is humanity's only Savior. (Acts 4:12). Trinitarians always find some way to excuse and permit the granting of salvation to these people despite the impossibility of their having accepted Christ due to the circumstances of their lives. Else, through no fault of their own, by this theology, these hapless and unsaved humans must spend all eternity suffering and being punished in hell. Under this doctrine, whole races and nations can never achieve salvation. Objectively, this is the cruelest doctrine ever devised, for the majority of mankind has never had a real chance to know Christ, let alone accept Him and thus are automatically damned forever.
Yet Luke records that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah's God-inspired prophesy that all flesh would see salvation. (Luke 3:6). The entire 37th chapter of Ezekiel pictures a future time when people who have been long dead will be given life in the breathing flesh once again (verse 6), and they will "observe my statutes and do them." (verse 24). These two citations directly contradict the doctrine that humans have an immortal soul. The belief system expounded by Herbert Armstrong can explain these apparent puzzles and it shows how all humans who ever lived will have the opportunity to consider God's offer of salvation through Christ. Trinitaritans cannot. The best Trinitarians can come up with is to say they believe in "God's righteous judgement", whatever that means for the fate of the otherwise automatically damned person and whatever that means in relationship to God's written word, whose author Himself said "cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
Trinitarians thus have an entirely different view on the issues of the necessity of receiving the Holy Spirit after baptism, God's judgement, the need for a resurrection, the reward of the saved, the reward of those not saved, of the role of the saved in God's future, of the role of God in the future of those saved. Indeed, a entirely different view even of the very nature of humans and the necessity for Christ's sacrifice, for if humans already possess an immortal soul how does Christ facilitate the granting of eternal life? In short, a totally different view on the entirety of God's relationship with mankind. Therefore, the issue of whether the Holy Spirit is a self-aware "person" and whether God is a Trinity or not was and will forever continue to be at the heart and core of the differences between Armstrong's teachings and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as adopted by Protestant Christianity.
Lastly, as surely as night follows day, adoption of the Trinity quickly leads to the rejection of God's Law, and thus the knowledge of what is sin (Romans 3:20, 1 John 3:4), which is what separates man from God (Isaiah 59:2). So, despite Tkach's that they were planning to "do away with the law", once the Trinity was accepted by the WCG leadership, that is exactly what happened.
Herbert Armstrong was right, the Trinity doctrine destroys the gospel message of Jesus Christ. And it was the doctrine of the Trinity that Satan used to destroy the most significant organization in 1900 years to preach the same gospel that was preached by Jesus Christ, the good news of the soon-coming Kingdom of God.
Approximately two years after Armstrong's death, his Mystery of the Ages (MOA) was quietly withdrawn from distribution. This would be around 1988, or one year before Joe Tkach, Jr. later admitted the church accepted the Trinity. It was also just after the church hired Dr. Greg Walburn, to conduct extensive demographic research into the impact on chuch membership and finances in light of possible WCG doctrinal changes (see "Did WCG leaders have a doctrinal agenda?" above).
Herbert Armstrong himself informed the Church of the purpose and seriousness of the book in a member letter dated February 25, 1985:
I am now hard ar work on a new book. It probably will be the largest and most important book I have ever written. The title is MYSTERY OF THE AGES. It is being written as a textbook for the second year Theology class at Ambassador College. It will be published before the fall new school year begins. school year begins. Copies will be made available to you.The public reason for withdrawing the MOA after Armstrong's death was that Armstrong had stated the book contained some errors. Aside from how inconceivable it would be that a book personally written by Armstrong as a theology textbook to completely explain his teachings would incorrectly explain them, the claim of error is not consistent with Tkach's laudataury inclusion of the book in the Tribute broadcast, a broadcast in which a softcover edition of the book was offered free to any listener or viewer. (Some 1.24 million copies of the book were given away over time, not to mention how many millions of people read the serialized version in the Plain Truth magazine.) Nor did Armstrong himself find it necessary to mention the issue of errors during his own ten minute discussion of the book during the sermon he gave on April 16, 1985. Other sources say Armstrong told them that the errors could be addressed by making a few notes in the margins of their copies of the book, implying minor errors of typography rather than content. That is a far cry from a level of error requiring withdrawal. Most publishers just issue an errata sheet.
Joe Tkach, Jr. sheds more light on this issue during his presentation on October 4, 1988 at the EMNR conference (see above), as well as during his spring 1998 interview on Pat Roberson's 700 Club television talk show. There he said that the only doctrine Armstrong mentioned specifically by name that needed changing was the one about healing and the use of medicine and doctors. It is obvious that the issue of minor errors was used by the church leadership as a cover for their major disagreement with the theological concepts Armstrong expressed in the book. In court documents filed on December 6, 1999 in support of its legal action against a church found copying the MOA, the WCG stated it was its "Christian duty" to keep the book out of circulation.
The following is an excerpt from Judge Brunetti's dissenting opinion in United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cicuit, Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God. Argued and Submitted December 6, 1999, Pasadena, California. Filed September 18, 2000.
... WCG, on the other hand, has renounced many of Armstrong's teachings since shortly after his death in 1986. Although it had previously distributed approximately 1.25 million copies of MOA in book form and 8 million copies in serial form, WCG ceased publication and distribution of MOA in 1988. WCG then destroyed all excess copies of MOA in its inventory, retaining only archival and research copies. WCG has not printed or distributed any copies of MOA since 1988 and has no plans for publication or distribution of the work as originally written.
WCG took this course of action, at least in part, because it believes that MOA contains historical, doctrinal and social errors. Armstrong's successor at WCG explained that WCG has kept MOA out of print based on a "Christian duty" to keep Armstrong's doctrinal errors out of circulation. WCG has described MOA as "not in conformity with biblical teaching" and "racist." Although WCG claims that it plans to publish an annotated version of MOA, as of 1998, a decade after it ceased publishing MOA, testimony of WCG leaders demonstrates that the annotation of MOA is "not something that is going to be decided or happen any time soon." Apart from determining whether an annotation is financially feasible, WCG would need to take surveys of its membership, assess its priorities, determine the format, hire an author and researcher, and secure a publisher before any such annotation of MOA could be published.
... In this lawsuit, WCG appears less interested in protecting its rights to exploit MOA than in suppressing Armstrong's ideas which now run counter to church doctrine.