The Hottest New Cult
Tara and I received a free subscription to “Plain Truth”, a Christian magazine. We had never heard of the magazine, but the articles were interesting. There were certain topics the editor seemed to like to constantly revisit, but the magazine as a whole had a reasonably broad, balanced and current coverage of topics.
In the last few issues, some of the articles started getting a little strange. They argued unconventional views more strongly than in the past. We began to look at Plain Truth Magazine as interesting, but possibly dangerous. Then we received a notice from the publisher that prompted me to do a bit more research…
In the 1930s, there was a man named Herbert W. Armstrong who had a popular radio ministry. He started as a member of the Church of God (Seventh Day) requiring observation of the Sabbath on Saturday. But his teachings went too far to stick with that church. He split from them and began calling for believers to observe the Jewish holidays, shunning doctors in favor of divine healing, teaching that Great Britain and the United States were the new Israel, anticipating the Tribulation by 1972, etc. Mr. Armstrong (calling himself an “apostle”) named his radio broadcast the “Radio Church of God” as he had started his own church (a cult), preaching over the airwaves. His sincerity and zeal attracted many to his “church”. His message expanded to print in a magazine titled “The Plain Truth”.
In 1968, the cult’s name was changed to the Worldwide Church of God. During the 1970s, the church survived the apparent rescheduling of the 1972 apocalypse, as well as moral and financial scandals. During the 1980s, the church enjoyed significant growth until Armstrong died in 1986. At its peak, there were 145,000 members worldwide.
After Armstrong’s death, Joseph W. Tkach took over his position. He and a few others from the leadership of the church (including the church’s Media Director, Greg Albrecht) began changing the church’s doctrines. Some of Armstrong’s works were removed from publication and others were edited. Over the next few years, they gradually cast off the extreme views and converted the cult into an evangelical church. 1 2 By Tkach’s death in 1995, the church had been accepted into the National Association of Evangelicals, and about half of its members and ministers left the “apostacy” of Tkach and his fellow leaders. Spin-off churches adhering to Armstrong’s teaching include the Philadelphia Church of God, the Living Church of God, and the United Church of God.
Armstrong’s magazine, “The Plain Truth” was handed over to an organization created by Greg Albrecht named “Plain Truth Ministries”. He also began broadcasting a radio program “Plain Truth Radio”. Albrecht preaches against legalism on the radio and in the magazine. He calls his message “Christianity without the Religion”. Albrecht seeks to help others scarred by religion.
It seems that for Greg Albrecht, the pendulum swung the other way. He went from following Armstrong’s unconventional legalistic doctrines to promoting his own unconventional anti-legalistic doctrines. Much as Armstrong’s ideas became the church’s doctrines, so Albrecht determines his ministry’s message. Greg Albrecht recently published a book “Revelation Revolution” which interprets Revelation as already fulfilled. Plain Truth magazine then included an article (by another writer) which used a little numerology and some well-chosen verses to advocate the same view.
Plain Truth Ministries recently announced that it will be starting a church, “Christianity Without Religion”. Its first 30-minute service debuts on February 19th. It is not merely a radio sermon, but a church intending to be the home for otherwise disenfranchised Christians, their worship, prayer, and tithes. This announcement of a new church is what prompted my research.
In the 1930s, you started a virtual church over the radio. In the 2000s, you do it over the internet. You can take the man out of the cult, but can you take the cult out of the man? Now thousands of people will be able to experience Albrecht’s version of the gospel, his interpretation of Scripture, and “attend” a church controlled by him.
This latest development seemed like the beginning of a cult. When I investigated Albrecht’s background, I learned all the above and found that it isn’t the beginning of a cult, but rather the re-birth of one.
26 Comments
- Tara replied:
Heading out now to do a little check-up research on another church: Christianity Without the Denomination (aka Plymouth Brethren). :)
February 13th, 2006 at 4:34 pm. Permalink.
- Shannon replied:
How do you define cult?
February 15th, 2006 at 8:23 am. Permalink.
- Jeremy replied:
This may be too narrow to be a general definition, but I see a cult as a religion whose followers accept unconventional doctrine simply because the leader proclaims it so. This situation generally requires a leader with a certain attractive personality and members who believe that studying their leader’s words equates to thinking for themselves. I would expect such a cult to become gradually more bizarre in its doctrine, offer reasons why those with conventional beliefs are corrupt, and to further exalt and empower its leader.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:41 am. Permalink.
- Shannon replied:
How would you define “unconventional”?
February 16th, 2006 at 8:39 pm. Permalink.
- Jeremy replied:
Not conventional. How would you defined “exasperate”?A conventional doctrine or belief is one which has been widely debated and is held by many people who are well aware of the arguments of its detractors. Unconventional doctrines are created by one person (or group) and held only by the followers.
Conventional Unconventional Christ will return with his angels to take his faithful And he’ll do it in a UFO following a comet The world will end in 1972 We must repent to be saved We must repent from religion February 17th, 2006 at 12:10 pm. Permalink.
- Shannon replied:
I really like that definition. I would suggest “weird” as a synonym for unconventional…well, maybe not…the term has a rather hostile connotation.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:15 pm. Permalink.
- Shannon replied:
I should perhaps clarify that I really didn’t know how you would define unconventional…I was thinking of unconventional as “different from me or my group.” For example, I might say the Seventh Day Adventists are unconventional because they meet on Saturdays. I much prefer your definition!
February 18th, 2006 at 7:46 pm. Permalink.
- Jered replied:
Beware all the spinoffs from the WCG (Worldwide Church of God)! This is one of the most damaging cults around psychologically. They put on a lamb’s face but are wolves inside. I know as I have been in both the WCG and the PCG (Philadelphia Church of God) and my parents unfortunately still remain in the PCG. The PCG is also one of the very worst of the cults and is a prime candidate for a Jim Jones type event.
Luckily I got out but I still find myself automatically thinking the way they told us to on some matters and have to consciously clear my head and think it through. Since I was raised in the WCG I took almost everything they said for granted. Since my father was a highly educated man (doctorate, fisheries science, genetics and statistical modeling) I assumed he just couldn’t be suckered into something completely crazy, but he was. Now that I have perspective, I can see how crazy it was. But they play to peoples egos and fears to keep them in and it is very hard to break out even if you are intelligent and educated.
I just wanted to warn any of your readers to beware these cults. Look them up on the internet and you’ll see just how damaging and crazy they are. Pray for those who are stuck in them, too.
Thanks.
[Editor addition: Jered discusses his family's history with PCG on his blog]
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:54 pm. Permalink.
- Jeremy replied:
Thanks, Jered. There are many other stories on the web of people who left WCG. This one has the tag line “Losing Faith in Faith Since 1997″. Some contributors use strong language.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:44 pm. Permalink.
- Robert McNally replied:
I run the aforementioned Losing Faith in Faith Since 1997 site: Ex-WCG Non-Believers. My site deals specifically with people who both had experience in the WCG and who have found good reason to question religion in its entirety. A niche to be sure, but I’d like to point out that I commonly encounter the attitude of, “Boy, glad I didn’t grow up in that cult! I’m just a plain old Christian.” Sorry if this offends anyone, but to those of us who grew up in any flavor of Christianity and ultimately rejected it, it all looks like a historically destructive (and still potentially dangerous) cult, or at minimum a widespread (if amicable) lunacy. Perhaps it’s just a bit easier to see the lunacy when one has experienced its extremes.
My basic message is: You are your own ultimate authority. Accepting anything less is to abdicate your first and ultimate freedom: to think for yourself.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:36 pm. Permalink.
- Mark A. Hershberger replied:
Interesting developments here since I last checked.
Jeremy, I prefer the word “unorthodox” to “unconventional”. Do we exclude only the weirdos? There are core orthodox (and I use the little o here for broader meaning) that many mainstream churches don’t hold as inviolable.
Are they cults or are they simply heretics? I’d say heretics because “cult” has the wider meaning of “a system or community of religious worship and ritual”.
Re: to those of us who grew up in any flavor of Christianity and ultimately rejected it, it all looks like a historically destructive (and still potentially dangerous) cult, or at minimum a widespread (if amicable) lunacy.
People who hold this view of Christianity haven’t thought it through very thoroughly. Think back over the 20th century. The most destructive movements from that period were specifically anti-religious and anti-Christian.
Does the Christian movement have black spots? It does! But Western Christianity has also been a driving force behind much of modern thought.
To claim that it is just dangerous or lunacy is to ignore the whole cloth of Christianity’s influence.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:35 am. Permalink.
- Robert McNally replied:
Re: To claim that it is just dangerous or lunacy is to ignore the whole cloth of Christianity’s influence.
I’m afraid you’re attacking a straw man here. I said “potentially dangerous”, and an “amicable lunacy.” You’re ignoring these qualifiers. There are certainly other dangerous ideas, communism and fascism for instance, and there are plenty of other lunacies. The fact of their existence does not excuse Christianity however, and it is Christianity we are discussing.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:13 pm. Permalink.
- Amicable Lunatic replied:
Mr. McNally, I might feel that you are not terribly well qualified to discuss Christianity, as it seems you have experienced only its extremes (and the opinions of admitted cynics).
Another thought — if Christianity as I understand it is True, you might stand to lose a lot as an atheist (whereas if it’s not a Christian doesn’t have anything to lose). Not a reason on which to base one’s entire philosophy but something to ponder, nonetheless?
March 1st, 2006 at 11:45 am. Permalink.
- Robert McNally replied:
Mr. or Ms. Amicable Lunatic,
I have known many Christians of many stripes over the years, some of whom remain my friends. I have also extensively studied mainstream Christian apologetics, and been a participant in many discussions and debates on the subject. Thus I can only take it as prejudice on your part to assume my lack of qualifications when it comes to discussing Christianity as a whole.
Your other thought is popularly known as Pascal’s Wager and is widely consider to be a quite amateurish argument for belief. It is well-covered here.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:46 pm. Permalink.
- Mark A. Hershberger replied:
Oh, come on! Straw men are fun to burn. They blaze brightly!
I’m taking issue with the statement that Christianity is at “minimum a widespread (if amicable) lunacy.” I understand that as meaning “whatever else Christianity is, it a madness — you can’t escape its insanity.” Please rephrase If I’m paraphrasing you incorrectly.
What does that mean? What makes Christianity Lunacy? What do you make of Christianity’s contributions to humanity? Or do you think it has made none?
For my part, I’m no fan of Pascal’s wager — it wants us to make a bet instead of having genuine faith.
March 4th, 2006 at 5:12 am. Permalink.
- Mark A. Hershberger replied:
Hmm… I feel I must add that I don’t think it is necessary for Christianity to have pragmatic value (”What do you make of Christianity’s contributions to humanity?”) Christianity would be worthwhile even if the act of following Christ doesn’t contribute to the progress of mankind.
Perhaps that is what you meant by lunacy?
March 4th, 2006 at 5:14 am. Permalink.
- Robert McNally replied:
Mark,
Re: What makes Christianity Lunacy?
I think your question is worthy of a thoughtful response. I have crafted one and posted it in my general topics blog. Sorry about the length– like Mark Twain, I didn’t have time to write anything shorter.
March 5th, 2006 at 6:49 am. Permalink.
- Barry Chase replied:
Isn’t Christianity without the Religion really what Herbert W. Armstrong promised? The WCG was supposed to be
“true” Christianity without the trappings of manmade religion.Is Greg promising on something he won’t be able to deliver, without religion? Sounds like he is turning HWA upside down and building a cult around himself and his own thoughts! Why should we listen to Greg or give him a nickle when he cannot be honest about his salary and the WCG’s millions of missing dollars? Now that’s Christianity without any money!
March 15th, 2006 at 6:48 am. Permalink.
- GCTS Guy replied:
Found you blog after Googleing Albrecht’s book. You’ve got a nice recap of the history of Plain Truth Ministries, but a couple things need clarification. Armstrong’s radio program was called “The World Tomorrow” (as was a later television version), although the parent “organization” (for lack of a better word) was, indeed, the Radio Church of God (later Worldwide Church of God). Another bit of information that may need clarification is that there is still a strong enough connection between PTM and the WCG (which has recently announced intent to change its name) to consider the two outfits as still one and the same. As (yet another!) who was there during “the changes”, I can state that the typical member has embraced a more orthodox Christianity, and even some of the newer field ministry have genuine, Biblical faith. Can’t say as I trust most of the upper leadership, though. Oh, they’re likeable enough, but I still question the sincerity of their belief.
April 8th, 2006 at 4:51 pm. Permalink.
- Bruno Gebarski replied:
Greetings,
Well it would be interesting to see if how a cult defines itself! Many professing Christians believe to be on the right side of things! Remember the scriptures?
1. Mat 24:5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. 2Co 11:14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Does large, popular or accepted means it is necessarily on the right track? Do we classify a religious organization as a cult because of its acceptance or because it does or does not follow the commandments of the bible?
Have you ever read in your bible God’s Holy days being presented in the old or new Testament as Jewish? Get a concordance and check it out for yourself! Your might be surprised! And if you do not have a concordance: here is a free site where you can download an electronic bible free of charge!
http://www.e-sword.net
Not only this program is free but it is outstanding! Now after you downloaded it! Check out JEWISH FEAST DAYS! Looking forward to any comments!Regards
Bruno Pierre Gebarski
April 15th, 2006 at 11:00 am. Permalink.
- Jeremy replied:
You’re right! I starting reviewing the Old Testament and I’ve found that none of God’s commands were presented as only for the Jews. I can’t believe I’ve lived so long in disobedience to His commands.
I need to make tassels for the corners of my clothes, bind scriptures to my hands and forehead, construct a parapet for my roof, throw out my wrinkle-free shirts, make considerable changes to my diet, and much more!
I hope I have enough vacation time to take off for all the festivals and holy days. I wonder whom I’ll celebrate with? Do you know any other Christians who have ignored the clear teaching of the New Testament?
April 17th, 2006 at 12:17 pm. Permalink.
- Bill Ferguson replied:
I am not surprised Greg wants to go after the great “unchurched”, a good 40,000 of them come from the WCG. But we won’t be paying him tithes anytime soon.
These guys continue to look to “new markets” as a way to justify their employment.
Unfortunately the evangelical community embraced the “reformed” WCG without demanding it change its abuse hierarchial structure. Its the structure of the organization that enables it to so effectively abuse funds and people without any accountability.
Shame on Christianity for thinking a cult consisted only of “incorrect” doctrines, and shame on Hank Hanegraaf for giving his seal of approval to a group of men with no observable conscience.
The WCG with a congregational structure would have simply been Seventh Day Adventist. The two are theological cousins.
Religion is all about control. Its unlikely Greg, or Joe Jr is going to give up any control of their organizations.
Can a leopard change its spots? Some of us would settle for just a little peer-reviewed defanging.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:14 pm. Permalink.
- Steve replied:
We were going through some very trying times these past couple of years. I was injured and couldn’t work for 3 months; we had a battle with a Christian school that has taken on a very legalistic view (more concerned about the outward behavior than the spiritual wellbeing of it’s staff and students from our prospective) that really left us hurting. Our daughter got caught up in the Word Faith Movement temporarily just to mention a few of our struggles.
During this time, my wife found the PTM website and has bought into their program hook, line and sinker. I realize that she was very vulnerable at the time and their message went right to her heart.
I am having trouble with some of their teachings, but can’t put my finger on what it is that is troubling me. I do feel that Albrecht is using his “church without walls” to keep people from looking elsewhere, thus questioning his teachings. It seems that he casts doubt on any other point of view before it is even expressed. When he is questioned, he just points back to his earlier comments and says “see, I told you so”.
Can anyone help me out with more solid information I can use to try to reason with my wife. She has a tendency to go to extremes in her beliefs. She generaly is very critical of anyone who doesn’t see things her way, and goes to great lengths to discredit their beliefs.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:53 pm. Permalink.
- Bill replied:
The WCG, both its conservative and later more conventional incarnations like PTM, have never been very accepting of ministries outside their own. They pay lip service to the evangelical community but don’t really tolerate those they consider “their flock” visiting other groups. That is considered “poaching”. In other words “they own you” and your search for truth.
The problem with all these groups is they still cling to the misguided view that God cares more about doctrine than about people. It simply seems to escape their minds that one can disagree with interpretations of scripture and still respect other human beings as equals in God’s sight.
Despite a professed belief that the body of Christ is the people of the Church, these men have never known participatory democracy and don’t practice it. The body of Christ may be Jesus, but He doesn’t get to vote.
They openly profess a love for the “historical faith” yet not so privately call The Roman Catholic church “a cult”. They tend to fall back into their old ways of using very clever and intimidating arguments to enforce their particular brand of orthodoxy. To them doctine is everything. Not having any firm convictions of their own, they turned to the likes of Hank Hanegraaf to define for them a new orthodoxy and to remove their cultic stink gland.
The WCG reformation has to be first reformation in history where their doctrinal premise came after the revolution. The reformers who had real convictions were fired or driven off by insiders.
For all their new found enthusiasm for the New Covenant, they tightly embraced tithing scriptures meant for Old Covenant Temple maintenance. American evangelicals were the only “market” in American tithe paying religion that was expanding. Its easy to understand the confusion of conservatives and why they formed their own organizations.
While they professed for years to follow truth where it led them, they in fact sought to mine the fertile grounds of mainstream evangelicals for new members to replace a demographically doomed older system of belief. PTM and the WCG are more about “market share” and ratings than conscience.
I do not know if Greg has “expanded” his views, but I tend to doubt his sermons are anymore enlightened than his famous penchant for quoting Janice Joplin.
They’d all quite gladly sacrifice friends and family (more likely yours than theirs) in the name of their professed beliefs. They are among the most closed minded individuals on earth, and they insist on perpetuating organization structures with tight cult like hierarchial control.
I was a member of the WCG for 37 years. There were two things wrong with the WCG, its beliefs, and its structure. Only half of that equation has been addressed and even then half heartedly.
The only positive trend I can see in PTM is a decidedly LESS apocalyptic view on the world. But one can’t help by wonder if nuts like John Hagee didn’t pick up the Apocalyptic mind virus from Herbert W Armstrong. Millions werer spent propagating that message over 50 years. Just like his son Garner Ted did much to start the pseudo-religious meme of environmental doom. The Armstrongs knew how to market ideas!
PTM and the WCG are Chesire cats. There’s nothing “real” about them. Most of us still hope they simply fade away.
August 16th, 2006 at 6:58 pm. Permalink.
- Jeremy replied:
Steve,
There is a lot about what Greg Albrecht preaches that is true. If you or someone else (like myself) slam him as a dangerous cult leader teaching lies, your wife will tune out. I suggest you emphasize the common ground first and then gently point out areas where PTM differs from the Bible or from mainstream Christianity. Perhaps your wife would be willing to also listen to a good non-combative preacher who holds to a more traditional interpretation of the Bible.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:17 am. Permalink.
- Douglas Becker replied:
There were two things wrong with the WCG, its beliefs, and its structure.
Actually, three: Its beliefs, its structure and its example.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pm. Permalink.
Stein Home
Family Notes
Jeremy's Journal