Marriage—Soon Obsolete?

Americans say yes, but they are wrong.
From the February 2011 Trumpet Print Edition

Is marriage on the way out? Is adultery still wrong? Are home and family life to disappear from society? How and when did the institution of marriage originate? Does it serve any necessary purpose? Herbert Armstrong asked those questions well over 40 years ago in his booklet Why Marriage! Soon Obsolete?

The title of that booklet flashed before my eyes when I read a recent Associated Press headline using the same terms. “Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete,” it said (emphasis mine). “[N]early one in three American children is living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never-married,” it said. “More people are accepting the view that wedding bells aren’t needed to have a family” (Nov. 18, 2010).

Those people couldn’t be more wrong! I know the negative statistics surrounding the families without monogamous marriages. And I have, over the years, worked with people whose lives have shattered as a result.

I know and have studied for years the figures surrounding the devastation caused by single-parent, broken families produced by couples without the courage nor the sense of responsibility to make a lifetime marriage commitment. Not to mention the terrible psychological damage done to those who deign to establish a “family” within a homosexual relationship.

But more, I know, from a lifetime’s experience, the very opposite—the unspeakable blessings, the peace, the happiness and the security that come from being bound in marriage to one wife for almost half a century, and the tremendous stability such a relationship produces in a second and on to a third generation!

I know because I’ve simply lived it!

I’ve heard every argument over the years from the feminists, the leftists, the so-called swingers of the ’70s, and the morally deprived generations produced from the beatnik to the rap generation. Most have argued against marriage as the ideal way to build healthy families and societies. And most used their argument to justify their own chosen immoral lifestyle.

Well, I’m thankful that, as a young person seeking after truth, I came across one who preached the truth, and who challenged his listeners to prove he was right!

I took the challenge and proved it!

As a young married parent of two 42 years ago, I read Herbert Armstrong’s booklet prophesying of a coming generation that would see marriage as largely obsolete. Now I read the headline that shows the fulfillment of that prophecy.

The sure thing about prophecy is that all you have to do is wait, and one day it will be fulfilled.

The Pew report that sparked the newspaper article revealed that around 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married—five times more than in 1960. Among these, about 15 percent have parents who are divorced or separated; the other 14 percent have parents who were never married. A notable chunk within those two groups—6 percent—have parents who live together, but decided to raise children without getting married.

When I attended elementary school from the mid-1940s to early 1950s, I did not know the meaning of the term divorce. I was the only child in my class from a single-parent home. My mother was widowed. I consciously felt my status diminished by not having a father like all my peers.

By the time my eldest son reached high school, half his peers came from either single-parent homes or homes that had suffered the identity trauma of divorce and remarriage.

We pride ourselves on just how we have “matured” as a highly developed, politically correct society. But in reality, our society is rapidly devolving back to the pre-Flood Noachian era of trashed moral standards, no absolutes, and popularized perversion in human relationships. The result was annihilation!

Your Bible prophesies of those times repeating themselves today, times of mass carousing, times when the God-given laws of marriage would be trashed as obsolete! (Matthew 24:37-38).

We live in this society today.

The Pew poll revealed that about 39 percent of Americans say marriage is becoming obsolete. As the Associated Press brought out, “that sentiment follows U.S. census data released in September that showed marriages hit an all-time low of 52 percent for adults 18 and over. In 1978, just 28 percent believed marriage was becoming obsolete” (ibid.).

But the deepest concern ought to be that our society has lost the definition, the meaning, and the vision of the term marriage as revealed in Scripture—applying to the monogamous relationship between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24).

“When asked what constitutes a family … four of five surveyed pointed … to an unmarried, opposite-sex couple with children or a single parent. Three of five people said a same-sex couple with children was a family” (ibid.).

What would happen within another lifetime? Could the marriage institution itself even survive? The reality is that if marriage as an institution does not survive, then civilization as we know it will collapse!

Thank the Eternal Creator of man and woman, the Creator of the institutions of marriage and family, that we will never reach that stage! The Son of God, the Savior of mankind, has declared that when we see society degenerate back to its pre-Flood condition, the Creator is about to intervene in the affairs of man! He will put a defining stop to humankind’s rebellious, anti-God ways, and usher in the establishment of His very own government on Earth!

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man …. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matthew 24:36-37).

One World Government: Impossible—Yet Inevitable!

One World Government: Impossible—Yet Inevitable!

Kena Betancur/Getty Images

The Philadelphia Trumpet, in conjunction with the Herbert W. Armstrong College Bible Correspondence Course, presents this brief excursion into the fascinating study of the Bible. Simply turn to and read in your Bible each verse given in answer to the questions. You will be amazed at the new understanding gained from this short study!
From the March 2011 Trumpet Print Edition

Five years after the close of World War ii, Winston Churchill declared in a speech in Copenhagen, “Unless some effective world supergovernment can be brought quickly into action, the proposals for peace and human progress are dark and doubtful.”

In the early 1960s, noted nuclear physicist Edward Teller, who helped develop the hydrogen bomb, warned, “We must work for the establishment of a world authority sustained by moral and physical force—a world government capable of enforcing worldwide law.”

Since then, an unprecedented number of international and regional bodies of all shapes and sizes—political and financial institutions, aid organizations, non-government organizations, judicial institutions—have emerged to play a role in global affairs. Today we have the Nuclear Energy Agency, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Chamber of Commerce, the G-8 and G-20, the Commonwealth, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Council of Europe, Greenpeace, Freedom House, Amnesty International, and the list goes on and on and on.

And of course, we have the United Nations. Despite its 60-year track record of malfunction and failure, the UN Commission on Global Governance in 1995 recommended far-reaching changes for the UN, including a system of global taxation, a standing UN army, an international criminal court, expanded authority for the secretary-general and the formation of a world parliament, among other things. Only the court was created—in 1998.

After World War ii, the call went out from many highly esteemed people for a world government to be set up to solve mankind’s problems. Serious-minded scientists and world leaders know that the solution to world ills and the establishment of world peace is possible only if all nations are brought together under a supreme, all-powerful, world-ruling government!

We have created many such institutions. Yet look at this world. International coalitions and organizations and government have not solved our problems. In fact, in many instances they have made problems worse.

Doesn’t it make you wonder …

Is World Government Possible?

“World government is still a long way off,” declared A. F. K. Organski in the book World Politics. “The creation of a world government through the voluntary agreement of existing nations is so unlikely that we can say flatly that it will never happen” (emphasis ours throughout).

Hans J. Morgenthau, in his book Politics Among Nations, asserted: “There is no shirking the conclusion that international peace cannot be permanent without a world state, and that a world state cannot be established under the present moral, social and political conditions of the world.”

What a paradox! World leaders realize that man’s most urgent need is world government. Yet others admit that such a government is a totalimpossibility under present world conditions!

Viewing the history of mankind, anyone can plainly see that men have utterly failed to bring about world peace and prosperity. Fear, hatred, disease, poverty, oppression and injustice have been rampant throughout history.

What about it? Is world government impossible—an idle pipe dream of unrealistic optimists? Is the idea of a soon-coming UTOPIA on Earth merely an absurd myth?

If our only hope lies in the efforts of men, then a utopia is NOT possible, and humanity is doomed!

How World Government Will Come

People today fail to recognize any power other than their own that could bring about a literal utopia on this war-torn, problem-filled Earth.

What great power can, and will, do this?

God Almighty! He has the power and the wisdom to make utopia a reality!

This is the very message God sent Jesus Christ to proclaim to the world. It is the “gospel”—the good news—that Christ will return with the power of God to bring us universal peace and prosperity!

Few today understand that God has allotted mankind 6,000 years in which to rule itself. During this time, God has kept hands off the affairs of men. He has allowed man to pursue the course that seems right to him (Proverbs 16:25). God has given man the opportunity to prove, by experience, the basic inadequacies of any form of human government.

God is allowing humanity to prove to itself that nohuman form of government can bring world peace!

Your Bible shows a literal utopia is ahead! It will be a time of spiritual and physical rejuvenation—1,000 years of boundless peace and prosperity! Let’s take a look into the future through the prophecies of the Bible, so you can know what that wonderful World Tomorrow will be like!

1. How will Christ need to begin His rule when He returns to Earth? Revelation 19:11-16.

comment: At His return, Christ will have to powerfully subdue the world and force mankind to submit to His rule. As verse 15 mentions, He will use a “rod of iron,” symbolizing absolute authority. He will rule with power, not hesitating to use it when necessary. A world that has been deceived and influenced by an invisible devil (Revelation 12:9) must be ruled rigidly until it learns the positive fruits of living God’s way!

Christ’s government will begin at Jerusalem, where His headquarters will be located (Jeremiah 3:17). As His rule spreads over the whole Earth, all rebellious nations will be brought into line.

2. How will Christ deal with those nations that refuse to come to Jerusalem to worship God the way He commands? Zechariah 14:16-19.

comment: It is true that God will rule with power and authority, but it is only human rebellion that necessitates harshness. God is not a stern, cruel monster as some have falsely implied. God wants man to bereally happy! But God knows that the only way to lasting happiness is obedience to His laws!

Gradually, as men obey God’s laws, they will wake up to the wisdom and justice of God’s rule and will submit gladly to His authority. A “rod of iron” will no longer be necessary.

God’s System for Reeducation

During the Millennium, God will teach mankind the laws that produce happiness. He will give each individual the choice, after learning His laws and seeing the happiness they produce, of whether to obey God’s laws or not. The vast majority of mankind will see God’s way is truly best and will voluntarily choose to obey Him.

But before men can really choose, they must clearly see the alternatives. They must be reeducated so they can see through old prejudices and discern true values.

1. In addition to ruling as supreme King over all nations, will Christ also be the supreme Educator? Isaiah 2:3; Psalm 25:8-10.

comment: Christ will unite these two functions in Himself. In God’s pattern for world rule, religion and government are not separate. They will be consolidated and harmonized in the World Tomorrow!

2. Who else will rule and teach with Christ in the World Tomorrow? Revelation 2:26; 5:10.

comment: The resurrected Christians mentioned in Revelation 5:10 are to be “priests” as well as kings, and one of the true functions of a priest is to teach (e.g. Leviticus 10:10-11; Deuteronomy 24:8; 33:10).

When God intervenes in human affairs, it will not be left up to the people to vote in their own rulers or choose their own teachers. In the World Tomorrow God will appoint His resurrected saints to be the rulers and educators. They will teach the people all of God’s laws and statutes, which are the way to peace, prosperity and happiness!

3. Will the resurrected saints be able to appear to humans at will? Isaiah 30:20-21. What will they do? Verse 21.

comment: In the World Tomorrow, those now qualifying to rule under Christ will be ever present and ready to speak or act, both to teach and to prevent potential criminal action.

Because they will be composed of spirit, they will be able to come and go as necessary and to pass through walls or simply disappear, just as Christ was able to do after His resurrection (John 20:19, 25-27; Luke 24:31).

Results of Universal Education

1. Will the whole world come to know God’s truth? Habakkuk 2:14; Jeremiah 31:34.

2. Will universal knowledge and obedience to God’s way lead to universal peace? Isaiah 11:9.

comment: God will soon halt this world’s mad plunge toward nuclear cosmocide. He will send Jesus Christ to intervene in world affairs and put down all rebellion. Then He and His saints will begin teaching the nations God’s truth and His laws—His ways that bring blessings, prosperity, peace and happiness.

The utopian paradise which mankind has always longed for will finally be ushered in. Men will at long last wake up! They will finally see through the veil of prejudices that have prevented them from following the way that would bring the fulfillment of their true desires.

The millennial world will be filled with happy people guided, helped, protected and ruled by Christ and the saints. And all human beings will be called by God to inherit everlasting life in supreme happiness and thrilling joy!

What a fabulous world that will be!

Although a utopian paradise is indeed impossible by the hands of men—none of this world’s governments can bring us true peace, prosperity and abundance—your Bible shows the greatGODof heaven and Earth can andWILL PRODUCEutopia on EarthSOON!

May God speed that glorious day!

Can You Trust the Truth?

Can You Trust the Truth?


If science can’t be trusted, what can?

Some high-profile scientists are making a startling assertion: Science isn’t really science at all. All too often it is more like a combination of voodoo statistics, snake-oil salesmanship and big business.

The implication is that much of what people think they know, is wrong. Claims repeated over and over in textbooks are actually unprovable. Even our understanding of basic fundamentals such as the law of gravity is now being questioned, if you can believe it.

How is this possible? There is a vast, widespread, endemic problem within the scientific community, says the New Yorker. Even the scientific method—the foundation of all science—may be part of the problem.

Before you accuse me of being a liberal with a global-warming agenda, or an anti-evolution creationist on a rant, these are not my conclusions. They are recent findings of leading scientists published in peer-reviewed journals and most recently in Newsweek, the New Yorker and the Atlantic.

“It’s as if our facts [are] losing their truth,” reports the New Yorker’s Jonah Lehrer.

One of the fundamental defining characteristics separating science from opinion, rule from coincidence, fact from fiction, is replicability—whether or not the results can be reproduced. Yet according to experts, the lack of replicability is like a viral disease infesting whole disciplines of science today.

This should be startling.

In science, if you can’t replicate it, then you don’t understand it. It therefore isn’t science—it is guesswork. Accidents and happenstance happen all the time—but science is supposed to separate wheat from chaff. Now, however, the threshing instrument appears to be malfunctioning.

If we can’t trust science, the implications go far beyond anthropogenic global warming and the creation/evolution debate. And it is about more than just whether or not you can trust the recommendations of your well-intentioned doctor.

Ever since the world emerged from the Middle Ages, science has been held up as a beacon of light in a dark world—a messiah. The rigors of science and the scientific method claimed to remove the elements of politics, human bias and mythology. Cold, hard facts reigned supreme. Discovery and truth, backed by provable results, promised to eliminate society’s problems. Given enough knowledge and information, nothing seemed insurmountable.

In essence, science replaced God as the world’s religion.

What will people do if science is shown to be just as prone to perpetuating error as Roman Catholic Europe during the dark ages? What will be left to believe in?

Unfortunately, the scientific community—even science itself—seems to be in regression. The world threatens to move back toward a darker time when opinions as opposed to fact dominated the mainstream.

For people, it ultimately gets down to whether or not you can trust what the “experts” tell you. It is the age-old question: What is truth? And who has it?

In the medical industry especially, this answer is of paramount importance.

Out of all industries, most people would expect medicine to be based on hard scientific evidence. After all, people’s lives are on the line. Yet, almost 200 years after doctors stopped prescribing leech treatments, medicine remains a cauldron filled to the brim with popular treatments that have been debunked by evidence.

In 2005, Johan Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University, published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that is now attracting uncomfortable questions. He examined the 45 most-cited clinical-research studies in three major medical journals to see if their findings stood up to the test of time. These were all “gold standard”-type studies of medical evidence that had major impact on the medical industry. What he found shocked him. Of the studies that had later been put to the test of replication (in some cases long after the results had been incorporated into the mainstream), a whopping 41 percent were seriously downgraded in effect—or directly contradicted.

If a third to a half of the most highly trusted medical research can’t be trusted, where does that leave the whole industry?

Dr. David Eddy, a heart-surgeon-turned-mathematician and health-care economist, says the whole field desperately needs an “evidence-based medicine” revolution.

According to Dr. Eddy, only 15 percent of physicians’ decisions are supported by solid evidence. Other doctors and health-care-quality experts who have endorsed Eddy’s work say the percentage of medical treatments that have been proven effective is shockingly low, citing figures between 20 and 25 percent.

Stated another way, you must take the benefits of 75 to 80 percent of any medications, surgeries or treatments your doctor recommends on faith alone, because there is no solid proof showing their effectiveness. In fact, most drugs have negative side effects, so the treatments being prescribed will likely actually harm you in another way—possibly even more seriously.

And as the New Yorker brings out, when the subject is fashionable, the lack of evidence is even worse.

For example, studies linking genes to everything from hypertension and schizophrenia to proclivity to commit crime have become mainstream—and represent big money. But when Ioannidis and doctors at other colleges scrutinized 432 of these recent genetic studies, only a single one was found to be consistently replicable!

Only 0.23 percent passed the replication test—which defines a study as science as opposed to witch doctory. The vast majority of these “scientific” studies had serious flaws that should have been noticed, Ioannidis said. Yet they were published in highly esteemed, “peer reviewed” journals.

The “peer review” status is clearly overrated.

In the past two months alone, studies have shown that although statins (drugs like Lipitor and Crestor) are marketed as preventative medicine, there is no good evidence that they help people who have no history of heart disease. Vitamin D blood testing has also been shown to be pointless in determining bone health. These are big announcements that affect millions of people. Drug companies made $20 billion last year off statins—half of which was unnecessary, according to Newsweek.

The list of disproven truths goes on and on. Hormone replacement reduces the risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women—no longer true. Anti-depressants such as Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil can fix depression—not so. Do cell phones cause brain cancer? According to peer-reviewed studies the answer is no—and then yes. Does taking an aspirin a day save your life like the first studies showed, or cut it short as the subsequent ones found?

The truth of course is that none of these “truths” were true in the first place. They were scientific errors accepted as truth by the whole medical community.

“People are being hurt and even dying” because of false medical claims published in peer-reviewed journals, says Ioannidis.

Sadly, even when findings are refuted by more rigorous studies, the truth is often buried. According to Ioannidis, positive trials that show a treatment is effective take about a year to get published, but negative trials take an extra two to four years to make it into the journals: “Negative results sit in a file drawer, or the trial keeps going in hopes the results turn positive.”

Yet the problem of bad science goes far beyond just the medical industry.

In physics, selective reporting is also tarnishing reputations, reports Jonah Lehrer. In 1909, Robert Millikan first “accurately” measured the charge of an electron. His findings helped him win a Nobel Prize. For the next several decades, scientists found results that differed from Millikan’s, but since his was the accepted published number, scientists industry-wide massaged their results until they conformed to Millikan’s work.

“Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away?” asked Richard Feynman at Caltech’s 1974 commencement ceremonies. “It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan’s value, they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.”

It is a natural tendency of people: to want to conform—even if it means going out of their way to find excuses to do so. It is human nature. No one likes to have their work critiqued. And as non-conformers have found out, challenging the prevailing dogma is the easiest way to find your work lost in the dustbin of obscurity.

This has contributed to what Duke psychologist Joseph Banks Rhine called the “decline effect.” It is a curious phenomena plaguing everything from ecology to economics. Documented and published effects seem to become less measurable over time. When scientists try to replicate the results, mysteriously the findings tend to become less and less pronounced (often fading to statistical irrelevance) as the enthusiasm for the big discovery dulls over the years.

For example, biologists have long argued that the asymmetrical appearance of an organism is linked to the amount of mutation in its genes. The New Yorker reports that in 1991 a Danish scientist found that female barn swallows were far more likely to mate with males with long symmetrical feathers. This was presented as evidence that swallows were using symmetry to determine the quality of male genes.

The findings set off a frenzy of similar-type research. It hardly mattered what scientists observed—hairs on bugs, birds—there was barely a dissenting study. Over the years, the theory was applied to humans too. Apparently women preferred the smell of symmetrical men. Women had better sex with partners that were symmetrical. Women thought symmetrical men were better dancers.

Then the theory began to break down. The dissenting opinions began to get published. More and more studies found no correlation with symmetry. Worse, when scientists tried to replicate the findings of previous studies, many found no effect at all. And even in those studies that showed a positive correlation between symmetry and mating, the strength of the effect shrank by 80 percent!

What is going on? How could so many scientists, ostensibly using the most rigorous methods and statistical analysis, be producing so many results that later can’t be replicated?

Michael Jennions, a biologist at the Australian National University, admits that the findings are troublesome. “This is a very sensitive issue for scientists,” he says. “You know, we’re supposed to be dealing with hard facts, the stuff that is supposed to stand the test of time. But when you see these trends you become a little more skeptical of things.”

Some scientists aren’t helping the integrity of the field either. After the New Yorker highlighted these problems within the science industry, one scientist (from Wayne State Medical School) wrote in criticizing him for publicly exposing the scientific evidence epidemic:

Creationism and skepticism of climate change are popularly held opinions; Lehrer’s closing words play into the hands of those who want to deny evolution, global warming, and other realities. I fear that those who wish to persuade Americans that science is just one more pressure group, and that the scientific method is a matter of opinion, will be eager to use his conclusion to advance their cause.

But bringing truth to the masses should not be withheld by an academic elite. Much of the benefit of the Scientific Revolution was that it brought truths to millions of people previously shackled by pagan religious dogma.

Unfortunately, today we have a system that incentivizes error. Scientists are paid to produce results. Research money is contingent on making discoveries. Careers depend upon producing a stream of positive research. Drug makers only make a profit when they have products that claim to fix things. Journals mostly print the amazing and interesting breakthroughs, which tend to be the ones that are more susceptible to error. Textbooks enshrine the error.

The whole system is startlingly prone to perpetuating and masking error.

If the scientific community cannot find a better way to produce reliable results—results that can be observed, measured, tested and reproduced, it risks being relegated to a religion of faith.

Public trust in science—one of the pillars of modern society—is entering untested waters.

What can be done to fix this problem? Scientists propose more rigor, or more stringent statistical analysis. Better test designs are suggested by some. Others want a better review process, one that also caters more to studies that show negative results.

All these things might be good, but they miss the most fundamental, basic cause of the breakdown of science today.

According to Ioannidis, if people just stopped expecting scientists to be right it would go a long way to solving many of the problems. In science, being wrong is okay as long as you openly admit it as opposed to trying to disguise it as success.

As Ioannidis hinted at, the only way science will be able to truly solve its problems is by fixing the scientists. Like every other person on Earth, scientists are subject to human nature—the pulls of the flesh: envy, vanity, greed, selfishness, self-righteousness, etc. It is natural not to want to be wrong. And all too easy to emphasize the data that conforms to your ideas and reject that which does not. Unless human nature can be changed, error, purposeful or not, will continue to produce “truths” that will later have to be embarrassingly rejected.

If the scientific community is to rehabilitate its image, it needs to begin by being honest about the truth.

Unfortunately, science is becoming almost as discredited as religion. The archives of the world’s science journals have become more like junk drawers filled with amazing discoveries but cluttered with biased, incorrect and even fraudulent lies hiding under the tattered veneer of “truth.”

What is truth? And where can it be found? For the answer on where to look, read Mystery of the Ages by Herbert W. Armstrong.

The Hidden Nazi Underground

The Hidden Nazi Underground

The Trumpet

From the March 2011 Trumpet Print Edition

“We don’t understand German thoroughness,” said the founder of the Trumpet’s predecessor, the Plain Truth, Herbert W. Armstrong in May 1945. “From the very start of World War ii, they have considered the possibility of losing this second round, as they did the first—and they have carefully, methodically planned, in such eventuality, the third round—World War iii! Hitler has lost. This round of war, in Europe, is over. And the Nazis have now gone underground …. They plan to come back and to win on the third try.”

Mr. Armstrong said this while Germany was surrendering. He predicted Nazism would not be rooted out, and that many Nazis would have important roles in the new Germany that rose from the ashes of the old.

History has already proven Mr. Armstrong right. In 1956, he wrote, “The day that war ended, the Nazi organization went underground! Their plans for coming back have been proceeding, under cover, since 1945! Already Nazis are in many key positions—in German industry—in German education—in the new German Army!”

But the full extent of Nazi subterfuge has not been revealed until today. A slew of new studies and declassified reports show how thoroughly Nazis infiltrated the new German government.

Hiding Nazi Involvement

After the war ended, the German Foreign Ministry maintained its innocence. We didn’t help the Nazis, it protested. We didn’t like them. We simply did our jobs and nothing more.

It was a lie. In October last year, a commission of historians published an 880-page book detailing the Foreign Ministry’s cooperation with Nazism.

“The Foreign Ministry wasn’t just somehow involved in national socialism or even a hotbed of resistance, as was long claimed,” Prof. Eckart Conze, who chaired the study, told Spiegel. “From day one, it functioned as an institution of the Nazi regime and backed its politics of violence at all times. After 1945, there was a high degree of staffing continuity within the ministry, and some of its diplomats were seriously tainted.”

“The ministry contributed, as an institution, to the violent crimes of the Nazis, even including the murder of the Jews,” he continued. “In this sense, one can say that the Foreign Ministry was a criminal organization.”

Not only were these diplomats allowed to remain in office, but the German government worked to protect them from prosecution. The Foreign Ministry then went on to aid fellow Nazis; its legal team helped Germans avoid prosecution for war crimes overseas.

The Foreign Ministry’s civil servants were not the only ones to support the Nazis. The revelations about the Foreign Ministry prompted former Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück to open up the Finance Ministry’s records. The result: “The Reich’s Finance Ministry literally plundered the assets of the Jews,” said Steinbrück. “It was systematic. … The Jews were stripped of savings, assets, anything with a financial or material value.”

Prof. Hans-Peter Ullmann, who chaired the Finance Ministry study, said that at one point 30 percent of the German government was financed by stolen Jewish assets. The New York Times commented, “Plundering Jewish assets could not have been possible without an efficient civil service” (Dec. 26, 2010).

Letting Criminals Go

The German Intelligence Service, which became the bnd in 1956, also hired Nazis. Last March, it admitted that it hired 200 Nazi criminals for 15 years after World War ii.

“Some had been involved in massacres in Poland and Russia, others were Gestapo torturers; all found a berth in the West German intelligence service,” wrote the London Times (March 10, 2010).

The German secret service wasn’t the only force recruiting Nazis. The United States also protected Nazi war criminals so they would spy for it. A report published by the U.S. National Archives on December 10 shows that America lost interest in hunting down Nazis after 1946 and states that it “went to some lengths to protect certain persons from justice.” A separate Justice Department history of the era says America created a “safe haven” for Nazis.

It is no wonder, then, that both the U.S. and German intelligence agencies covered up Nazi war criminals.

Intelligence files leaked to the German Bild newspaper in January show that the German intelligence services knew where the infamous Adolf Eichmann was hiding, eight years before Israeli agents captured him and brought him to trial. The German intelligence file said he was hiding in Argentina under the name Clement. “Eichmann’s address is known to the editor of the German newspaper Der Weg in Argentina,” it stated.

“With this information one could definitely have found Eichmann in 1952, and it would be an insult to any secret service to claim that the information wasn’t sufficient,” said historian Bettina Stangneth.

The Independent reported, “German intelligence is known to be reluctant to surrender all its Eichmann documents because of fears that full disclosure would prove beyond doubt that German and Vatican officials colluded in helping him to avoid trial for war crimes and escape to Argentina” (January 10).

Another example is the “Butcher of Lyons,” Klaus Barbie. Barbie cooperated with the Americans, so they helped him flee to South America. A French court sentenced him to death for his crimes in World War ii, in absentia.

Then, in 1960, the German foreign intelligence agency recruited him as an agent in Bolivia. Spiegel reported that it did this knowing his true identity.

Warnings Ignored

America ignored Herbert Armstrong’s warnings. Too focused on Russia to worry about a resurgent Germany, it did nothing, and in many cases worse than nothing, when it came to hunting down Nazi war criminals.

The same civil and diplomatic service that supported Hitler was allowed to keep functioning. The German government absorbed old Nazis.

Now that same government is at the head of Europe. That should be a major warning to the whole world.

Chinese Companies Set to Ramp Up Investment in the U.S.

Chinese Companies Set to Ramp Up Investment in the U.S.

Getty Images

Another troubling symptom of America’s debt-fueled disease.

Leading Chinese firms are angling for increased investments in American infrastructure, and Washington is giving them the green light to proceed. Despite U.S. requests for the Chinese investors to be sensitive in their approach and to consider taking minority stakes in significant infrastructure projects, some Westerners are concerned.

Powerful Chinese businessmen discussed the possibility for deeper U.S. investments at a meeting with President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao during Hu’s visit to the U.S. on January 19. “The United States is open for investment and would welcome it,” President Obama told the group of Chinese and American business leaders at the talks.

From the viewpoint of the U.S., foreign investment usually equates to the creation of jobs, so the Chinese offers come at a timely moment for the battered American economy.

“For China to invest in the U.S., in much the same way the Japanese did in the ’90s and beyond, to create jobs and manufacture products here, could be quite a constructive contribution to our growth and to better relations between our two countries,” said an unnamed official in Washington. “We see foreign investment as a key part of our effort to create jobs and growth.”

Chinese companies are already heavily invested in many areas of American industry, including the sensitive U.S. telecommunications sector. Earlier in January, the United States-China Congressional Committee (uscc) published a report titled “The National Security Implications of Investments and Products From the People’s Republic of China in the Telecommunications Sector” which highlights concerns specific to the telecom industry. “… China’s growing involvement and investment in U.S. telecommunications supply chains and companies, including the penetration of the U.S. marketplace by companies subject to ownership, control or influence by the People’s Republic of China, could eventually provide China with access to or control of vital U.S. and allied information networks, or segments of critical supply chains,” the uscc wrote.

The Obama administration has also acknowledged the risks surrounding Chinese ownership of key U.S. infrastructure projects, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, has requested that Chinese investors “be thoughtful about how they approach” ownership of major U.S. infrastructure and to “consider taking minority, passive stakes in larger projects.”

But such neutered requests made of egocentric China are unlikely to curtail any risks.

Washington’s move to yield strategic ground in these pivotal areas is designed to stave off the country’s demise, but it will only hasten America’s corrosion. Under the multiplying weight of debt, U.S. leaders are throwing open the nation’s doors for a Communist government to enter its borders and employ its citizens. America’s failure to control its spending is taking away its ability to control its course.

I Timothy 6:7-10 explain that a greed-fueled financial path is a snare ready to snap shut on the unwise who tread it. And the U.S. is rushing headlong for the jaws of this snare of debt.

But in spite of the tremendous turmoil on the horizon, protection is available to individuals who keep God’s laws and His ways and assist His work of warning a dying world (Luke 21:34-36).

To understand more about the future of the U.S. and its significance in your life, read our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

Where Is God?

Where Is God?

The Trumpet

Amid spectacular fracturing in what was once a strong, unified Church, this is a question all seekers of the truth should be asking.
From the March 2011 Trumpet Print Edition

Over the past year, the largest offshoot of Herbert W. Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, ironically named the United Church of God, has been rocked by internal division and contentious strife—much of it brought on by disgruntled ministers who are unhappy with the way the church is governed. It is also ironic that the church appears to be falling apart after the same manner it first broke away from the wcg in 1995—following a series of secret meetings and mass resignations.

The ucg’s first ministerial conference in May 1995 attracted 150 former elders of the Worldwide Church of God—a veritable who’s who of the wcg hierarchy. Former members of the wcg, fed up with Tkachism, fled for United in droves. Within weeks of its coordinated kickoff, the United Church of God became the largest splinter group to ever break away from the wcg. Approximately 6,000 members attended its first Sabbath service in 1995. By the end of 1996, its worldwide membership had swelled to about 20,000 people. Within seven years of its inception, the church had more than 200 congregations worldwide and well over 300 elders.

From the outset, ucg ministers made no secret of their intent to try out a new approach to government—a bottom-up format where the general assembly of ministers would regularly vote for a council of elders. They even went so far as to use the term home office when referring to the church’s office complex in Arcadia, California, rather than headquarters, which sounds too hierarchical.

The interim council set up in 1995 chose David Hulme, a well-known wcg evangelist and presenter on the World Tomorrow television program, to serve as the church’s first president. After his appointment, Hulme made these candid remarks about the ucg’s “new” government format: “It’s not a hierarchical structure anymore. It’s a collaborative process, and it should be seen as that” (In Transition, May 5, 1995; emphasis mine throughout). He admitted this was a radically different approach to what Mr. Armstrong used, but was convinced that “God’s hand” was behind the establishment of the ucg. The brethren, he said, just needed to give the new government a chance—“give it time,” he said.

As it turns out, Hulme gave it less than three years. After a contentious and protracted struggle with the council of elders, he was removed from office in early 1998 and left the church soon after. “I could no longer support a governance structure that I believe has failed,” Hulme wrote to those who followed him out of the ucg. “I have had to admit that Herbert W. Armstrong was right in Mystery of the Ages, especially Chapter Six, where he describes a proven form of government for the Church.”

It took 20 years of service as a minister in the Worldwide Church of God and three years as president of the United Church of God for Hulme to finally conclude that Mr. Armstrong was right. But instead of searching for a worldwide work that was backed by God’s family government, Hulme opted to start another church—an offshoot of the offshoot.

Rod Meredith is another prominent wcg evangelist who got burned by the “collaborative” scheme. When he broke free from the wcg in 1993 to form the Global Church of God, he claimed to be following in the footsteps of Mr. Armstrong. Yet the very first doctrine he changed was the principle of God’s government that Mr. Armstrong used throughout his ministry.

“If we look into the New Testament with an open mind, we find a totally different approach to government than what has developed in the Church,” Meredith wrote in Church Government and Church Unity. On the most important matter of all, in other words, Mr. Armstrong had it all wrong. The right kind of government, Meredith later wrote in his 1993 booklet, should be “collegial” in form. It should include “a broad representation of all the elders” in the church, he believed.

Five years later, after the church’s board of directors terminated Meredith’s employment at the Global Church of God, he quickly changed his tune on the subject of church governance. After starting another offshoot of the offshoot, Meredith handpicked his board of directors and charged them with the responsibility of advising the president, rather than ruling the church.

It took Mr. Meredith 40 years of service as an evangelist in the Worldwide Church of God and five years as president of Global to figure out that Mr. Armstrong got it right on the principle formation of God’s government in the Church.

Given these much-publicized, embarrassing failures, you would think these men would wonder, Where was God during the three years I served as president of United? Or, Where was God when I founded Global?

Prior to the first ucg conference in 1995, David Hulme said he was “skeptical” that a large group of ministers could ever reach a consensus on church governance. After he came out on top, however, he was convinced that “God’s hand” was behind it.

Rod Meredith was equally sure that God was behind his “collegial” experiment back in 1993. He claimed to be “faithfully preaching” everything Mr. Armstrong taught—assuming, of course, that everything does not include his radically different approach to church government and his rejection of Mr. Armstrong as the end-time type of Elijah (Matthew 17:11).

Today, both Meredith and Hulme head up two spin-offs of wcg offshoots. All totaled, there must be at least 100 offshoots of what once was the Worldwide Church of God.

It makes you wonder: How many failed experiments with collaborative government will it take for former members of the Worldwide Church of God to wake up and figure out where God is working today?

The Evils of 300-Man Rule

Since firing David Hulme in 1998, the United Church of God has tried out four other presidents. Les McCullough agreed to fill the post for three years after Hulme was ousted. After McCullough’s three-year term expired in 2002, he asked the board for another three years. Instead, it gave him one additional year and then voted to replace him with Roy Holladay in 2002. Three years after that, in 2005, council members gave Holladay the boot and selected Clyde Kilough as his replacement.

Last year, amid swirling controversies about a proposal to move the “home office,” complaints of politicized bloc voting within the general conference of elders and charges of unethical behavior and financial mismanagement aimed at board members, Kilough decided to give up his chair on the council, but continue on serving as president.

Against this backdrop, the council distributed an eight-page heart-to-heart letter to all the elders in the church. In it, board members maintained that God was still leading United, but that the ucg ministry had become deeply divided and the atmosphere in the church had become toxic.

The council wrote, “Due to this negative spiritual incursion into our fellowship, for more than two years we have been forced to focus our church’s time, energy and resources inwardly ….” Later, board members expressed grave concern about the “preservation” of the United Church of God.

The church, we now know, was teetering on the brink of total collapse.

We predicted this would happen way back at the start, when the former wcg ministers gathered themselves together to experiment with a new government format. On May 6, 1995, for example, my father said this about the newly established United Church: “It absolutely will fail because it’s a new form of government, and not the one that Herbert Armstrong taught us, inspired by God.”

He issued the very same warning in response to Meredith’s collegial experiment in 1993: “You can’t do God’s work without God’s government. Mr. Meredith will have that proved to him by God—since he has shamefully failed to learn that most important lesson of all while he ‘sat at the feet’ of Mr. Armstrong!” (Trumpet, April 1993).

It’s so simple—if you’re submitted to God’s family government. If not, then—as we have seen—history simply repeats itself.

Last year, on April 9, the ucg council of elders terminated Clyde Kilough’s presidency and outlined a new process for selecting a president whereby the general conference of elders would submit nominations to the council. The council would then determine which nominee should be president.

Toward the end of June, the ucg council settled on Dennis Luker as the church’s fifth different president in just 15 years.

Since then, Luker has been desperately working to keep the sinking ucg ship afloat. The worst of it started about the same time Luker was voted in as president. That same week, the council terminated the employment of Leon Walker, who had served as regional coordinator for Latin America. Firing Walker triggered a mass exodus of Spanish-speaking brethren and ministers from the ucg and resulted in the establishment of another offshoot—the Church of God, Latin America.

Incredibly, when responding to the crisis, President Luker pinned the blame for the split on hierarchical government, rather than the collaborative form that has repeatedly failed inside his own church! Walker’s rebellion, Luker wrote in a letter to ucg members, “represents the very reason that hundreds of ministers collectively chose some 15 years ago to embrace and refine the administrative structure that we now have. We have seen the destructive outcomes that ‘one man rule’ in a Church of God organization can wreak, and this current experience in Latin America underscores the reason we changed our model of governance 15 years ago to include safeguards from this happening again.”

In looking at the fruits, one would think he would at least acknowledge how destructive 300-man rule has been over the past 15 years. In the eight months after the ucg council relieved Mr. Walker of his ministerial duties, at least 150 moreucg elders either resigned or were removed from the ministry.

That can only mean that many more offshoots are on the way.

Meanwhile, the one organization that actually started the right way—as a tiny mustard seed planted in 1989, without any of the best-known former ministers of the wcg or their many thousands of supporters, but with God’s government—continues to grow and prosper as it fulfills its God-given commission to prophesy again before all the world and to raise up the ruins of a work God established and built through His servant Herbert W. Armstrong.

Anywhere But the PCG

After joining the United Church of God in 1995, one former minister of the Worldwide Church of God outlined four choices for disgruntled members of the wcg: 1) Stay with the Worldwide Church of God; 2) join the United Church; 3) go with Rod Meredith’s Global Church of God; or 4) wait on God to clearly reveal where to go.

In his mind, the Philadelphia Church of God wasn’t even worthy of consideration!

We, after all, were nobodies who started with nothing. Our work began in 1989 with two unemployed, relatively unknown field ministers from Oklahoma, two used automobiles, an old desktop computer, $80 in the “church” account, a typewritten manuscript known as Malachi’s Message to God’s Church Today and about 400 names and addresses of wcg members.

Added to that, the tiny church, made up of just four families at the start, had a hierarchical form of church government. And hierarchy, as noted above, had become a dirty word to former members of the wcg in the early 1990s.

So these ministers, after supporting and even encouraging many of the Tkach changes for years, had finally had enough by the mid-1990s. They left the wcg en masse and encouraged others to leave too.

Back then, it wasn’t so much where you went, you just needed to get out of the Worldwide Church of God. There were plenty of “branches” you could join. Any of them would work—as long as it wasn’t the Philadelphia Church of God. We, after all, had that oldauthoritative government. It was much too harsh and austere, Laodicean ministers would tell prospective members if they inquired about the pcg.

Publicly, however—because we were never considered a viable option—these ministers simply ignored the work of the Philadelphia Church of God—even as it became more and more difficult to overlook.

Neutral in War

By the time the ucg got started in 1995, the pcg had been in existence for more than five years. We had 52 ministers worldwide, serving more than 4,000 brethren. The church’s annual income was over $5 million. Our Trumpet magazine circulation was around 50,000. And our weekly Key of David television program could be seen nationally on several cable stations, including wgn, as well as over the air in the 22 largest markets in America. We also had nationwide television coverage in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Two years later, while Global was on life support and David Hulme was duking it out with board members at United, we entered into an exciting new phase of God’s work: printing and distributing what Mr. Armstrong considered the “best work” of his life, Mystery of the Ages. Shortly before he died, he said he wanted the book to reach the largest audience possible—a mission quickly aborted by the Tkach administration.

Soon after we printed the book, a grueling, six-year copyright battle ensued in which we went head to head with the Worldwide Church of God over its avowed “Christian duty” to bury the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong. In the end, we not only won the rights to Mystery of the Ages, we obtained ownership of 18 other works of Mr. Armstrong, including The Incredible Human Potential, The United States and Britain in Prophecy and the 58-lesson Bible correspondence course.

Through it all, ministers from United and Global did absolutely nothing to help us fight for Mr. Armstrong’s printed works. They carefully maintained their position of neutrality, sitting idly by on the sidelines— silent and inactive.

“That court battle revealed so much about God’s people,” my father wrote in The Last Hour. Remaining neutral at such a critical hour, he said, might be their most condemning failure of all in these latter days.

Now that the lawsuit is over and we own the literature, many brethren from other churches have contacted us for copies, since we offer it freely to anyone who makes a request. In private, some ministers from other groups have even encouraged their members to come to us for personal copies of Mr. Armstrong’s books.

Publicly, though, we were still the elephant in the room.

Raising the Ruins

Reprinting Mr. Armstrong’s works really helped to crystallize my father’s vision for our work. With the addition of Mystery of the Ages, he wrote in early 1997, we now had a message for billions of people. In support of that worldwide mission, he firmly believed we had to raise the ruins of everything the Tkaches had destroyed (Amos 9:11-12). This began in earnest during the summer of 2000 with the purchase of 158 acres in northern Edmond, Oklahoma. It accelerated the following year with the opening of Herbert W. Armstrong College.

As Mr. Armstrong learned early on in his ministry, the work of preaching the gospel to the world directly paralleled the growth of Ambassador College. “It was the development of the college in Pasadena that made possible the growth of the whole gospel work,” he wrote in his autobiography.

In like manner, our college has provided the means for this work to exert a powerful influence worldwide. In terms of membership figures, this church is still incredibly small. But the size and scope of this work testifies loudly to what Almighty God can do through a small group of dedicated servants.

With the college and the headquarters building program now well into their 10th year, here is a quick snapshot of where we are in God’s work: Worldwide attendance stands at about 5,500. Serving those brethren, we have 72 ordained ministers—41 of them employed by the Church. Counting ministers and employees, 115 people work for the Church full-time. Another 60 are on payroll as part-timers. We’ve added 55 employees just since 2006, when the college first started turning out four-year graduates.

Our total worldwide income in 2010 amounted to $20.6 million—a solid 5 percent increase over 2009. Seventy-two percent of that revenue is donated by members of the Philadelphia Church of God. The other 28 percent comes from co-workers and donors who voluntarily offer their financial support.

Our beautiful 170-acre headquarters campus—which features the magnificent Armstrong Auditorium, a 22,825-square-foot Hall of Administration, a huge mail processing and literature storage facility, a state-of-the-art television studio and numerous structures for the college, grade school and high school—is valued at about $50 million. Since we still owe $9 million on the auditorium, the total value of all our tangible assets is over $40 million.

As for the message going out to this world via television, the Internet and the massive amounts of printed matter—including all of Mr. Armstrong’s major works and a storehouse of additional material we’ve produced since 1989—all of that pretty much speaks for itself.

Aside from a brief hiatus in 2002 when we concentrated many of our resources on winning the court case, the Key of David program has been on the air for 18 years now. At present, the program airs nationally on wgn and also covers much of America on the cw-Plus and Ion networks. Of the more than 150 tv stations we are on, five reach New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Washington, d.c., over the air.

The print version of the Trumpet magazine has a circulation of 300,000 each month. We also mail our Christian-living magazine, Royal Vision to anyone who requests it, and the Philadelphia News to Church members. Outside of that, our mail processing facility distributed an additional 534,000 pieces of literature in 2010—our most popular being Mystery of the Ages.

God has blessed this work of raising the ruins immensely over the past 21 years! He started by giving us His family government. He pointed us in the right direction with Malachi’s Message. Added to that, we now own every major work of Herbert W. Armstrong. God also gave us all the lawsuit documents turned over through discovery—a behind-the-scenes look at the wcg’s sinister attempt to destroy God’s work. That story is told in Raising the Ruins—another book we offer for free upon request.

We have the public appearance campaigns, the television program, the Web presence, hundreds of online videos, two magazines and dozens and dozens of books, booklets and reprint articles, as well as a 36-lesson Bible correspondence course.

On campus, just as in the days of old under Mr. Armstrong, we have a grade school, a high school and a four-year college. We’ve revived the international cultural foundation, the concert series, the Jerusalem dig, the Young Ambassadors. And over the last three years, we raised up God’s house.

It’s an incredible story, much of it recounted in Raising the Ruins. But at the same time, isn’t this what you would expect of a work God does through men? As Mr. Armstrong wrote in his autobiography, when God does something through humans, it must start in the smallest of ways. But like the tiny mustard seed, the smallest of herbs, it continually grows until it becomes the biggest!

Judge by Fruits

In stark contrast to the way the Philadelphia Church of God began, all the other offshoots started strong with a large number of high-powered personalities and a sizable following and comfortable income soon after. But none of them had God’s government. And so Rod Meredith got fired. Global went under. David Hulme bolted from United. And United cycled through four other presidents. Now, the largest offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God is in complete and total disarray.

Even before the most recent turmoil obliterated the ucg, one could easily identify a stark difference between its work (or lack thereof) and that of the Philadelphia Church of God. The ucg had about 20,000 people attend its fall festival in September—roughly four times the amount we had at our sites. Yet its overall income for 2010 was only 16 percent more than the pcg’s—$23.9 million.

Judging by its lack of television coverage, the net worth of its property and equipment ($5.8 million) and the much larger number of ministers it had on salary (91), much of its financial expenditures were obviously aimed inward—supporting congregations, paying salaries, setting aside money for pensions, etc.

And now that the church has been rocked by controversy, resulting in mass resignations and firings within the ministry, the reset button has been punched. Everything starts over at zero. And like in 1995, there is an attractive assortment of offshoots to consider.

Some disgruntled members might take this as their cue to evaluate Rod Meredith’s Living Church of God—the organization he raised up after getting fired by Global’s council of elders. Mr. Meredith’s group has been around for about 12 years. He has about 8,000 people attending services and in 2009, his church had a worldwide income of about $13.5 million.

Since getting burned by the collegial experiment, Meredith has been singing a different tune on church government. And lately, with the ucg falling apart around him, he’s been turning the volume way up. In the November-December 2010 Living Church News, for example, he said that one of the three issues that clearly identifies his organization as God’s true Church is that he has the right government, as it was taught by Herbert W. Armstrong.

“Frankly,” he wrote, “I feel very sorry for the pitiful state of so many of our ‘separated brethren’ who somehow hope to be kings and priests in a few years, yet refuse now to practice the very form of government that the true saints will be called upon to teach and to practice in Christ’s Kingdom! A number of such individuals, as leaders in their various groups, have insisted that ‘Christ led us’ to form some type of ‘democratic’ government, following the secular pattern—including voting, politicking, posturing and positioning for support from each other and the brethren.”

That statement, of course, is aimed primarily at members and former members of the United Church of God. Of course, in 1993, Meredith himself insisted that Christ led him to correct the misconceptions Mr. Armstrong had about government and to set up the Global Church on a collegial foundation.

In his most recent edition of the Living Church News, in stark contrast to his 1993 booklet, Mr. Meredith said both the Old and New Testaments are consistent in their overall instruction on government—that it should be hierarchical in form. “There is no exception to this God-ordained form of government in all the Bible,” he now says (January-February 2011).

He then added this helpful qualifier for anyone who might take note of the elephant in the room: “Even though some in other groups have misused the hierarchical form of government in a cruel, harsh, even ‘Hitlerian’ way, we must learn never to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater.’”

Thus, the options he presents for disgruntled Church of God members are as follows: 1) The hierarchical government of the Living Church of God; 2) the “pitiful and very sad” forms of democratic church government; and 3) the cruel, harsh, Hitlerian way of other hierarchical groups.

He associates us with Adolf Hitler of all things. When I first read that, I couldn’t help but remember what Mr. Armstrong wrote to Mr. Meredith back in 1980, when he asked him to serve a six-month sabbatical in Hawaii. “You are a harsh taskmaster over those under you,” he wrote to Mr. Meredith. “That is your record!”

And after Mr. Armstrong died, not counting the ministers who stayed with the Tkach administration, you would be hard-pressed to find another high-ranking minister more outspoken in his criticism of Mr. Armstrong’s government than Roderick Meredith. Though he didn’t leave the wcg until three years after the pcg started, Mr. Meredith was, nevertheless, the first high-ranking minister to come out in opposition to the Tkaches. Problem is, in rejecting Tkachism, he also trashed the government of God in the process.

He threw out the baby with the bathwater. That is his record.

Today, he talks as if hierarchical government is the strongest proof he has that his group is God’s true Church—and he has the audacity to lump us in with all the other “Hitlerian” groups, whoever the others might be.

Thank God for the plain and sure word of His inspired truth! As it says in Jeremiah 17:5, Cursed be the man who trusts in man. Our only hope is in God, it says in verse 7: “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.”

God, of course, still works through men. This is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:1, Follow me as I follow Christ.

How, then, can you know if that man is humbly submitted to the government of God and is faithfully following Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church? You shall know, Jesus said, by their fruits.