Reference: (Edited 21 AUGUST 2026) Counter to traditional Armstrongist eschewance of Civic Duty.

Armstrongists and others wishing to challenge me may contact me on TruthSocial at @LTWalker03

Though sometimes — actually often — covered up in outreach, original Armstrongist doctrine prohibits members from politics (including voting), military service, and personally bearing arms “for use against humans.” Below is a counter to  The traditional Armstrongist scriptural approaches and takes on the matter..

Basic OT Law stands: Deut 4:1-2; 12:32-ch13; 30:1-10 - No adding to or taking from the Law, to which the New Covenant (“circumcision of the heart”) is identical. NT must be read in this context, or NT is false. 

Application to matter of Civic Duty (aka, “military service and war”/civil politics): 

- Gen 9:5-6 - Foundation of civil government, and the only positive command in most Noachide codifications.

-Gen 14 - No divine disapproval of Abraham’s actions, and no rejection by Melchizedek of the spoils.

- Ex 17 - Contrary to Armstrong’s reading, it is a straightforward account of Moses preparing the nation to defend itself, with no explicit divine command to do so. And there is no indication of divine disapproval.

- Ex 22:2-3a - Lethal home/personal defense is not a sin. (Yes, I privately bear arms here in the Land of the Second Amendment.) 

(Personal point of logic: If you can defend your home, you can defend your homeland.)

- Deut 1 -

    :9-18 - Moses told people to select leaders for him to authorize (1:13).

    :30-31 -  “I will do it all for you” in verse is only in Moffett version. It is not in the text, period. Plus, God’s promise there to defend Israel as he had done during a certain time frame yields the result that the only military confrontation during that time was Exodus 17. So God will defend Israel the way he did in Exodus 17. Israel was expected to fight.

- Deut 16:18-ch 17 - The nation – “all Israel” (5:1) – commanded to appoint leaders, with no specific means commanded. No “God’s form of government.”

- Deut 20 - Military service matter-of-factly provided for, with no “conscientious objector” exemption. The discussion explicitly includes military activity outside of the country’s borders and outside of the promised Holy Land. (Yes, I am a military veteran, having enlisted after I left Armstrongism a quarter century ago.)

- Psalm 144:1 (NRSV) - “Blessed be the LORD, my rock,  

who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle;”

- Ecclesiastes 3 (NRSV) –

     :3 - “a time to kill, and a time to heal;

     a time to break down, and a time to build up;”

     :8 - “a  time to love, and a time to hate;

     a time for war, and a time for peace.”

- Luke 3:14 - Soldiers told to refrain from robbing and extorting (“violence” in KJV is literally “shake down” in Greek — and it had the same meaning as it does today). NOT told to stand down from defending the Empire from the Parthians.

- John 17:15 - Christians are not taken out of the political system. (See also discussion later of John 18:36.)

- Acts 10 - Cornelius. 

- Rom 13 - Law enforcement and bearing arms as service to God.

As for traditional Armstrongist objections:

- 1 Chron 22:6-10; 28:2-3 - Geopolitical consideration, not moral condemnation. David had made a number of enemies, foreign and domestic, and such an association would have made the Temple a particular target. 1 Kings 5:1-5 -

“When Hiram king of Tyre heard that Solomon had been anointed king to succeed his father David, he sent his envoys to Solomon, because he had always been on friendly terms with David. 2 Solomon sent back this message to Hiram:

3 “You know that because of the warswaged against my father David from all sides, he could not build a temple for the Name of the Lord his God until the Lord put his enemies under his feet. 4 But now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side, and there is no adversary or disaster. 5 I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the Lord my God, as the Lord told my father David, when he said, ‘Your son whom I will put on the throne in your place will build the temple for my Name.’”

This is not to deny the PR aspect: Associating the Temple with David like that would’ve been like having “The George S Patton Institute for Peace.”

(Personal observation: Samuel/Kings and Chronicles are very much copies of one another. However, a distinct difference I’ve noted is that while Samuel/Kings goes heavily into the moral consequences of actions, Chronicles — where we find the passages Armstrong used in this regard – is much more of an academic rendition. In other words, where Chronicles might say that a given person did something, Samuel/Kings might say that the person did something – and it was wrong. Not a hard and fast rule, but a distinct pattern. Thus, I would find it surprising for Chronicles to have moral condemnation which Samuel/Kings does not [cf 2 Samuel 7].)

- “Turn the other cheek“ - Allusion to Lamentations 3 and many other OT passages about not retaliating in vain when under captivity. That is, don’t slap an abusive police officer in an everyday setting. It is not speaking of beinga guerrilla fighter resisting enemy occupationy. 

- “Love your enemy” - The following true story explains everything.

At Basic Training, we were shown a video from Iraq filmed by the spotter for an enemy sniper. We see an American soldier standing next to his Humvee and we see the sniper’s round impact on him dead center. The soldier is knocked down and then scrambles to his feet to get behind the Humvee for cover. The idea is to show us just how good our body armor is.

But then the drill sergeant told us the rest of the story. The wounded man’s unit chased after these two, and in the ensuing firefight, the spotter was killed, and the shooter was wounded. The unit’s own medic treated the wounded shooter and saved his life.

The medic was the man who was wounded.

THAT is “love your enemy.”

- John 18:36 - Jesus is saying his messianic kingship does not hold civil authority now, thus rejecting any claims that he was a threat to Caesar or the local authorities, as evidenced by how he doesn’t have his “Secret Service” fighting to prevent his deliverance to those local authorities. In a sense, he is rejecting any claims of “sovereign/diplomatic immunity.” He is not somehow denying whatever part he and his followers would hold in that society’s political existence (cf John 17:15).

People like Phil Yancey, who push for a “separateness” attitude of Christianity, are often actually liberal political activists merely attempting to break down conservatives from their political engagement. I remember in 2016 Yancey doing some sort of writeup, “Why Christians cannot vote for Donald Trump.” There was no corresponding, “Why Christians cannot vote for Hillary Clinton.” His theology on the matter is really simply liberal anti-Western civilization/heritage.

- Other supposed NT objections are false choices and broad, out-of-context distortions. Perhaps the best example is the statement in Philippians 3:20 that the Christian’s “citizenship is in heaven.” To counter the idea that this somehow nullifies a person’s national citizenship, should be noted that it was written by a man who himself held and used Roman citizenship. More directly, That reference to citizenship is run in contrast to those who “are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things” (verse 19, KJV). It is not in contrast to those “whose President is in the White House, whose legislature is on Capitol Hill, whose pride is in their country, who mind the civic duty laid out to the descendants of Noah.” Civic status is simply not in sight.

Also, if you go back to verse 17 (KJV has versus 18 and 19 as parenthetical), you find Paul saying to follow his example. Paul was, as noted before a holder and user (for better or worse) of Roman civil citizenship. His “citizenship in heaven“ did not nullify his “earthly” one.

I will also say that 1 Cor 7’s issue about “bonded servitude” is inapplicable to military enlistment if for only two reasons (actually more): 1. Deut 20 preempts; 2. Military service is service to God (Rom 13), and you can be a slave of God. 

(Plus, as an aside: Barring policy prohibitions of a given fellowship, members have traditionally been viewed as being bound to Armstrongist ministers on performance matters such as mowing the ministers’ lawns. Apparently, bondage to a “minister of God” is permitted.)

Sabbath issue: Military/first responder/medical service is all derivative of Genesis 9. And even as labor not normally considered acceptable for the Sabbath is done in the context of Armstrongist church services, similar allowance would fit in those contexts. Readiness is a 24/7/365 and a quarter thing, and those in authority make those sorts of decisions.

(Here is a comedic story touching on this, involving security at the Ambassador campus. It seems that security volunteers on the Sabbath were given a technical consideration of being “spiritual Levites” in order to justify their work on the Sabbath. True or not, all good satire is based in truth.)

At this point, I should note that difficulty of Sabbath observance in the military is held by many to be the actual reason Armstrong forbade military service. The “pacifist” interpretation of certain passages was, by this theory, a falsified cover to obtain conscientious-objector status for men. While the young men facing the issue believed it, Armstrong and some of his ministers knew better.

Same goes for refraining from voting. The idea was that not voting would help with the conscientious objector status. Armstrong, having been reared a Quaker, would have known this to be incorrect. Quakers have a rich history of being conscientious objectors AND political activists. I honestly suspect the ultimate reason was Armstrong’s sense of “government“ over his members. Armstrong wanted his church to occupy the place in members’ lives that ordinary political and civic institutions and concerns otherwise would. WCG was to be their “politics.“

Fuller discussion in Addendum.*

As for the “covenantal” theories I’m seeing coming from especially UCG as a reason that “true Christians“ are exempt from civic duty, they seem to be simply Armstrongist adaptations of Jehovah’s Witness “theocracy” concepts with a Sabbatarian focus. The big hole in the approach is the basic passages on the matter: Genesis 9 and Romans 13. Genesis is a command to Noah and his descendants, period. That means ALL of his descendants. Christians are not exempt. Likewise, Deuteronomy 16:18ff and similar passages are addressed to the nation, not to a government institution. Armstrong’s focus on “government,” as stated before no doubt a key influence in those theories, is countered by this factor. He wanted his followers to believe that HE was their government. And Romans 13 makes no provision at all for Christians being exempted.

Ironically, perhaps, one time when Armstrong had the perfect opportunity to present a “covenantal” concept to a developing government — his 1977 speech to a constitutional convention in South West Africa — he made no such reference or suggestion. The idea is an overplay with a number of post-1995 motivations.

But what is actually in that speech from 1977 is this little gem (Armstrong speaking):

“You gentlemen are faced with the solemn task of trying to hammer out another new government in the kind of world we live in today. In such a world you have to deal with other nations, and you will not be able to form a government based on God's law, for you would be a lamb among wolves. But you can try to form a government that gives equal justice, opportunity, protection and concern for the welfare of your own people in your domestic policies. And the nearer you can come to forming foreign policies and pursuing dealings with other nations as nearly like God's way as possible, the more you will be specially blessed by the God who is Creator and supreme Ruler over all.”

Quite expressly Armstrong admitted that his “God’s way” on these matters simply does not work. He said that it leads to failure. He actually yields to telling them that they need to get “as nearly… as possible,“ but not go for complete adherence of his doctrine. This happens a lot with people who issue extreme directives, only to be faced with reality. As with Pentecost in the couple of years leading up to the 1974, Herbert Armstrong knew he was wrong, but did not change it with his members.

And now you know as well.

Bottom line: Genesis 9 and Romans 13 (with some help from Exodus 22:2-3a; Deuteronomy 16:18ff, and ch 20). That is civic duty.

==================

* ADDENDUM:

Sabbath and Civic duty, and the real story behind the connection in ArmstrongIsm

There is the long-standing semi-official unofficial reason for so much of this denial of Civic duty. It involves a number of intersecting errors and deceptions. The basic story is that the reason Armstrong forbade military service for his members was due to interference with smAabbath observance. In short, don’t go to the military or agree to be drafted, because they will make you work on the Sabbath.

The problem here is that if that is indeed a person‘s reason for seeking conscientious-objector status in a conscription situation, that does not qualify as a legitimate reason under American law. And so, Armstrong engineered doctrinal readings of various “peaceful“ passages of scripture to forbid lethal or injurious violence against other humans. Some of the Ministry actually knew better, but they knew they had to say it and get their members to believe it in order to spare young men from the draft. And while those young men believed it, it was still false.

It is not unlike Armstrong to offer members advice on less than forthright explanations for behaviors. Any Armstrongist going way back knows the “Fight Club” rule of WCG – “Don’t talk about WCG!” time from work or school for Leviticus 23 observance being called “family situation.“ Avoiding unclean meats described as allergies or sensitive stomachs. And of course, the period of excuses offered for not voting. The first WN I received after my baptism had an article with several options on how to explain it, including “One vote doesn’t really make a difference.” in other words, anything but the real reason.

One case involving potential legalities was Armstrong‘s repeated practice of urging members to take out loans and mortgages, to send him the money. At least one occasion, in a 1970 member letter, he actually suggested that people could tell bankers that the money was for income tax payments or to cover a cash shortage. 

And I can remember other less than forthright explanations being suggested. For some reason, the term “bank fraud” comes to mind.

So Armstrong creating a theological schematic to cover the real reason for something is not an extreme stretch.

This of course constitutes “dishonesty with the word of God,” thereby disqualifying Armstrong as an “apostle“ per his 01 December 1980 sermon in Tucson, Arizona. Those who went through the 1995 events in WCG will likely have heard or at least read the transcript of that quote: “If you ever find me dishonest with the word of God, you reject me as God’s apostle.” 

Were he alive, he should consider himself so found.

However, this action had a ripple effect. Because of the perceived need to help young male members avoid the draft, members in general were discouraged/forbidden to take part in civil politics – i.e. vote. While I certainly understand the logic – “If you’re not gonna throw a bullet, what right do you have to throw a ballot?” – that is not at all how conscription law works. That is not what a draft board looks at. Armstrong, as one reared a Quaker, would have known this. Quakers are known for political activism and common, though not universal, pacifism. Indeed, Armstrong himself in his autobiography expressed that he had been willing to serve in World War I, and positively contrasted himself from people who refused to serve. (Yes, even then I couldn’t help think of the hypocrisy.)

And so, passages were construed and interpreted to discourage or forbid political involvement, even something as simple as casting a ballot. Exceptions were made, however, when it suited Armstrong‘s agenda. For instance, in Big Sandy, Texas, where half the town were Armstrong followers, members voted, supposedly to avoid “offense.” WCG members sometimes actually served in offices, including mayor, when local circumstances, such as an unexpected vacancy, might warrant such an action. So when it benefited Armstrong, he allowed civic/political involvement.

The truth is of course, many Sabbatarians do serve in military service, some probably using variations of what is laid out above. One non-CG7-derived “Church of God,” the World Mission Society Church of God, a Korean outfit, is actually known for its active civic duty. They do serve in the military. I’ve seen interviews with Caucasian member in the Marine Corps in San Diego, apparently a drill instructor at the training base there. There was cell phone video in 2005 of American members of the church taking Passover while serving in Iraq. Its civilian members often train for disaster relief. Perhaps ironically, some even trained some years back at the International ALERT Academy on the former Big Sandy AC/AU campus. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, New Jersey governor Chris Christie gave that church a public shoutout for their assistance in the cleanup. All this, despite their Leviticus 23 observance.

So, it does beg the question why Herbert Armstrong would not carve out a civic duty allowance for military/1st responder employment. He loved positive publicity. He would find a way to make it all about him. But, he didn’t. 

The truth is, his use of the seventh day Sabbath doctrine does not yield much room to do so. Remember, it is supposed to the focus of persecution in the end times. “Mark of the Beast,” and all that. If such an exemption or loophole or recognized, then how could such persecution ever occur? Members would then – and probably now – primarily seek employment in those fields. Their jobs will never be in danger from Sabbath discrimination, because their jobs would essentially be “civic Levites.” the doctrine is of course derived from SDA. However, SDA has expanded on their view of the Mark to include facets of every point of the Decalogue. They aren’t (as) reliant on Sabbath discrimination for their eschatology. But classic Armstrongism is.

And so, more traditional Armstrong churches continue to put out the same false facts and exegeses. And I know from personal experience that at least a few are rather cognizant of the truth.

Ultimately, probably the true reason for the policy avoiding civic duty was (and probably is) the whole concept of “authority.” Armstrong shaped his cult in such a way as to make him the essential political power in the minds of his members. All authority flowed through him. He and his ministers could control a member’s business, family life, marriage, and even socializing. Had members been recognized as having an independently existing political right or power or authority per Romans, 13 and Genesis 9 (cf Deuteronomy 16:18ff), it would mean they held an authority from God that did not pass through him. He would not be able to regulate how they voted. And that might get members thinking that there were other issues – other powers from God – of which Armstrong helped no control for them. 

I do not believe Armstrong’s ego or agenda could have borne such a reality. Political involvement would have shown members that “there is life out there,” so to speak. It would’ve broken down the cloistered element of an Armstrongist’s life. They would have an independent identification with family and countryman. And all biblically based.

(I also believe this is why Armstrong would often teach of THREE Greek words for love, but leave out a FOURTH one, “storge” – referring to love of kindred or fellow countrymen 

– despite CS Louis including it in his famed 1962 book, “The Four Loves.” Armstrong would include “eros,” which is not in the Bible, but ignore this fourth one which actually is found several times. Armstrong didn’t want people feeling a natural duty to those outside of his control.)

Hence, we see a deeper background to this most unfortunate trait of the Armstrong religion. Indeed, many members and even some Armstrongist churches have effectively dispensed with the traditional eschewance. (Hence my ICG attendance my last year of attendance.) Let all of this factor into your evaluation of this issue.