Reference: (Edited 12 JUNE 2025) 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 biblical counter to this.

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.)

- Deut 1 - “I will do it all for you” in verse 30-31 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 is 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. (Yes, I am a military veteran, having enlisted after I left Armstrongism a quarter century ago.)

- 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.

- 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. That doesn’t mean you can’t be a guerrilla fighter resisting enemy occupation. 

- 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.” 

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. I will 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.

As for the “covenantal” theories I’m seeing coming from especially UCG, 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. Likewise, Deuteronomy 16:18ff and similar passages are addressed to the nation, not to a government institution. Armstrong’s focus on “government,” no doubt a key influence in those theories, is countered by this factor. And Romans 13 makes no provision at all for it.

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.

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