Surviving “Perilous Times”

Article Two -
Makeup: What Happened in the Church!

BY DAVID C. PACK

Many have asked about the story of Mr. Armstrong’s decision to disallow makeup in the Church. This was one of the first doctrines (November 1988) the WCG apostates changed. Lacking the facts—the real story—most of the splinters have unwittingly believed these false leaders instead of Mr. Armstrong. This article reveals what really happened in 1974, 1981 and 1988, now forgotten in the splinters.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This article was once the APPENDIX to our booklet The Truth Hidden Behind Makeup. While it is not directly part of that doctrinal teaching, that booklet originally seemed incomplete without this additional material. This is because some have attempted to rewrite Church history, even claiming what you will read here never happened.

Here are the facts—the truth—of what did happen in God’s Church.

1974, 1981 and 1988

In 1955, Mr. Armstrong wrote an article “Why the Church Ruled on Makeup” in The Good News magazine. This established the Church’s official doctrine on the subject and led to an extensive booklet, in 1964, TRUTH About MAKEUP. (Our booklet represents what his taught.) The teaching of the Worldwide Church of God did not change from 1955 until 1974.

In 1974, a controversy arose over a minor misunderstanding of a quote from Clarke’s Commentary, referencing Isaiah 3:16. Mr. Armstrong was presented with the evidence of this error. He acknowledged it, and wrote a brief note correcting it as he was boarding a plane for a trip overseas.

This is how he described what occurred: While he was gone, others added to what he wrote and formally changed the Church’s doctrine on makeup—essentially without his knowledge, but under his signature. He was away from headquarters most of the time (traveling around the world), and the rest of the time he lived in Tucson, Arizona. This, coupled with his diminished eyesight, caused this deception to escape his attention until November 1981.

When he saw what had happened, Mr. Armstrong roared to life and reversed the annulling of the Church’s long-standing and correct teaching on makeup. Apologizing, he did this on November 16, 1981, in an extensive article titled, “How subtly Satan used MAKEUP to start the Church off the track.” It appeared in The Worldwide News, the WCG’s member newspaper. (He simultaneously addressed makeup in numerous sermons and Bible studies, which are excerpted in the inset.)

Mr. Armstrong did not equivocate in his article. He explained what happened in 1974, apologized to the Church for his part in it, and forcefully corrected the last major doctrinal element of liberalism—that of the use of cosmetics—that had remained unaddressed in the Church from the mid-1970s.

World To Come on The True Church

Some now claim that Mr. Armstrong never actually reversed the change of late October 1974. You will see that he did. They do this because either the passing of time has dulled their memory of major events, or they need to be dishonest with history to suit a larger agenda, including a personal refusal to remove makeup.

Enter the Apostates

Mr. Armstrong died on January 16, 1986, four years and two months after correcting the Church’s error on use of makeup. Subsequently, false leaders were able to seize total control over the Worldwide Church of God and lead it into full-blown apostasy—eventually throwing out virtually every doctrine of the Bible, thus completely departing from the true God. True to the long pattern of Church history, most in the Church willingly, even eagerly, followed them away from God, copying—instead of learning from—the pattern of ancient Israel!

Exactly seven years later, in November 1988, the apostates, copying the liberals of 1974, again reversed the Church’s teaching on makeup. When this happened, having learned nothing from the past, most women in the Church were seduced as easily as they had been in 1974. Like Eve, they entered the trap of beauty and vanity and returned to the practice of painting their faces.

Here is part of how the new WCG leader deceived the Church:

“[Mr. Armstrong] relaxed that position in 1974, and reversed that relaxation in 1981. This helps us see that the answer does not rest on clearly defined biblical instruction.”

“But the Bible…certainly does not label cosmetics as sin. It is not the thing—cosmetics—that is sin, but the kind of use to which the thing may be put.”

“When a woman is focusing on her sexuality [Author’s note: He referenced Jezebel and other whores as proof of his premise] in an effort to attract a lover, she is likely to use makeup in an effort to enhance her appearance. (In our society this may also be true of men, though makeup for men is not yet commonplace.)”

“The point is that we strive to see that any use of cosmetics fits within the biblical principles we have outlined.”

“Now I know that a few may find great fault with me for this decision. That is one of the burdens I have to carry in the job God has placed upon my shoulders. But I do not believe that God would have us continue to place this unnecessary stumbling block (and that is what it is to many new converts) before His people.”

“Personal from Joseph W. Tkach,” WN, Nov. 14, 1988

The psychology and reasoning in this article were wonderfully smooth and seductive—and most effective. The only thing lacking was the final soothing reassurance to women about returning to use of makeup that “thou shalt not surely die!”

There is no excuse for any to claim ignorance of what the Bible, the Church and Mr. Armstrong always taught. I include myself, because, like Mr. Armstrong, I also fell into the trap and had to admit it later.

It is silly to assert that Mr. Armstrong never corrected the Church’s error in 1981. If this is true, why did the apostates reverse his decision in 1988? Certainly no thinking person would believe that they reversed a position that did not exist! This assertion is either born of fantasy or outright dishonesty, hoping for mass amnesia among the membership.

During the early 1990s, as the apostasy developed and worsened, certain leaders left the WCG and formed various splinters—each adhering to its own combination of truths taught by Mr. Armstrong, mixed with seductive doctrinal lies taught to them by the apostates. Forgetting the message of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, every group selected its own mixture of truth and lies.

As with other doctrines, the question arose among the splinters regarding what to do about makeup. Ignoring the facts—what really happened—most conveniently decided that Mr. Armstrong “went back and forth on it,” or “kept changing his mind on it,” or “never really reversed 1974, anyway.” This allowed women to resume using makeup without guilt. That so many were willing to quickly return to the pattern of the world and harlotry made it more comfortable for others to follow suit.

Splinters Appease Women

Over 95 percent of the women who were in the WCG now seem completely unconcerned that they follow a doctrine taught to them by false leaders who are agents of Satan! Of course, the leaders of the splinters were only too happy to accommodate the desire of women, and participated in the apostates’ seduction by telling women exactly what they wanted to hear!

In this way, the splinter leaders directly assisted the apostates—they still do, in many regards!—who originally guided the Church and those same leaders into this abominable practice!

An additional problem is that these leaders either fear their wives, who have notified them that they will not remove their makeup—or they fear the many women who will leave their organizations for the same reason, taking large amounts of tithes with them. Weakness and compromise—almost invariably a by-product of cowardice—are terrible things!

Here is why. Some of these same leaders recognize that Mr. Armstrong did, in fact, make the change, but suggest that he did it with ulterior motives. This is ludicrous and they know it!

The reality is that those who claim this have ulterior motives—and God tells you what they are, if you will believe him. They do it to either retain or obtain the tithes that they would lose if they told women to take off their makeup. II Peter 2:2-3 is your proof!

There is no doubt that some women sincerely believe the leaders who are deceiving them about the history of this doctrine. I can only hope that they will awaken to the practice that they have returned to after reading the facts.

The Facts From Mr. Armstrong

What follows is a series of key quotes from Mr. Armstrong’s already-referenced 1981 Worldwide News article. I hope all who were once in the Worldwide Church of God, and who still care about the truth, will find and read this article in its entirety.

I have carefully excerpted portions of it, relating Mr. Armstrong’s statements in the story flow of how he wrote them. They require little additional comment. There is a space between separate quotes and all emphasis is his.

“Do you think that same wily Satan could not deceive people in God’s Church today? Of all the people on earth, we are the very ones he wants most to deceive. He has the rest of the world deceived already. And remember a deceived person does not know he is deceived—else he would not BE deceived!

“Yet Satan did get to our wives today! They certainly had no evil motives, even as mother Eve had none. Had they not repented and accepted Christ, and come into the Church? There were no evil motives or intentions. They, too, saw ‘no harm in it.’ They, themselves, would ‘look good’ to the world. Makeup on the face would be ‘pleasant to the eyes.’

“And it was intellectual to follow intellectual liberals in the ministry (no longer) who reasoned that this little detail and that little point could be interpreted to see ‘no harm in it’—and after all, if we don’t see any harm in it, isn’t it all right to do what the world does?”

“How cleverly, without our suspecting it, did Satan influence leading ministers to derail the Church in many ways!

“Some of us have weakened. Some of us have been caught off guard. I am human like all of you, and I was caught off guard and without at the time realizing it, allowed this liberalism to creep stealthily into God’s flock! I now repent of that and the living Christ leads me to do what He inspires me to do to correct it and get this holy Body of Christ back completely on the track. For we have not been fully back on the track even yet!”

“But the Church in the 1950s, still growing in knowledge as well as in numbers, ruled on makeup based on specific scriptural ‘do’s and don’ts’—as we then interpreted them. Actually we came to the same right ruling. A very few women argued a bit, but I remember specifically of none who rebelled and left the Church. As near as I could observe our women were happy to leave their faces as the Master Designer made them.”

“In early fall of 1974, my son caught me on the run as I was leaving for Tokyo and Manila, where I held a big campaign. It was a time when certain ‘scholars’ among our leaders were engaged in ‘doctrinal research.’ I had not realized until later that most of them were actually researching to try to prove Church teachings were in error, rather than to discover truth. I admit now and repent of the fact that, not realizing the real motive, I approved this doctrinal research team.

What Mr. Armstrong Taught About Makeup in Sermons and Bible Studies

After Mr. Armstrong corrected the Church’s teaching on makeup in 1981, he consistently preached that he meant exactly what he said. For those who wish to believe that his Worldwide News article of November 16, 1981 did not “really” reverse the Church’s error on use of cosmetics, we have included just five subsequent sermon and Bible study quotes as additional proof of what he taught.

Read each quote carefully, and ask yourself if Mr. Armstrong was serious or did not really believe what he wrote in his 1964 booklet, or his 1981 decision. By itself, the first quote removes all doubt about where he stood. This sermon contains his once-famous statement that makeup will return to the Church “over my dead body.” I only wish that his transcribed words could carry the same thunder with which he delivered them:

“[Satan] has deceived a lot of the women in this Church. They couldn’t see anything wrong with it [makeup]. Well, ‘to him that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin.’ So some of our women just have not known.

“Well, I want to make it plain. And it isn’t something that I am going to study and research more. That’s already been done and this is a decision. And this is final! And it isn’t going to be watered down any further in this Church! Unless it’s over my dead body, let me tell you that.

“You know, God could have compromised. He didn’t have to sacrifice His Son. He had the power to forgive our sins without Christ’s sacrifice. You know that? But we would never have had character and we never would have become God…He could have given us eternal life and let us go our own way and we’d have been unhappy and miserable forever and ever and ever. But God so loved the world He GAVE His only begotten Son rather than compromise one ten trillionth, millionth of an inch with His Law and with sin. He just didn’t do it.”

Sermon, “What God Expects From Us,” Nov. 7, 1981

“I want to wake you up! I want to get you back on the track—on God’s track! Because we’ve been off on Satan’s track…I’m going to spend what little time I have trying to get you people back on the track…

“I myself made a mistake along the way, and I let that subject be the one that started Satan’s ball rolling to get liberalism into God’s Church. After that came a falling away in such things as divine healing, the keeping of the Sabbath and how we keep it, and any number of other very important things. We began to get liberal, we wanted to compromise these things…

“…I don’t think any woman with paint on her face is going to rise to meet Christ in the air…

“…Why do women do it? They think it makes them more pretty. Lust of the eyes—they like to see themselves in the mirror. And they think other people are going to think they are more beautiful than God made them. Vanity, pure and simple—wanting to be like the world…

“…Now this thing all has to do with an attitude. Sin is the transgression of…love toward God—exalting God instead of the person…A woman paints herself up to exalt herself. Don’t tell me she doesn’t! She does it because she wants to be like the world. She wants to go along—sheep instinct…

“…The paint on a woman’s face is going to pass away. It isn’t going to last. You’ll never get into God’s kingdom with it. No one in God’s kingdom is going to have to paint a face.

“I’ll tell you why.

“Your face is going to shine like the sun. Why dull it with a lot of paint? No, they won’t do it, no, or want to…

“But some people want to say, ‘Isn’t is alright?’—‘Isn’t it okay under this circumstance?’—‘Can’t we get away with it?’—‘How close can we go to Satan’s way? Isn’t Satan’s way better, after all, than God’s way?’

“Now painting your face is Satan’s way, brethren. No getting around it. Don’t tell me it’s God’s way. God never told anybody to do it. You think Satan’s way is better?”

“…Some say, ‘Well but, what is the husband going to think? An unconverted husband—we have to consider what he thinks. Maybe the wife should wear makeup if he wants her to.’ I can’t understand why any man would want his wife to wear makeup. But some do. I don’t understand it. I never did—I never did. I don’t see how paint on a face makes that face any more beautiful. And when I kiss, I don’t want to kiss a lot of paint or lipstick. Either one. I just don’t.”

Bible Study, “Philippians 1 and 2,” Oct. 1981

“In the 3rd chapter of Isaiah, it talks about women painting their eyes and their faces. They tried to tell me, when we had some liberals in the Church about four years ago, that some of them had researched that and the original Hebrew didn’t say what I thought it did. So, it was ‘all right for women to wear. Can’t we just fudge a little bit, and let the women wear a little makeup?’ And I actually yielded to that and I’m ashamed of it.

“I apologize before you now that I did. And I wrote…that if you would use it modestly you women could use a little bit of makeup.

“I’m sorry that I did that. I repented.

“God is not in that and God was not speaking through me when I said that. Now I correct it.”

“…It isn’t God that puts makeup on your face, women.”

Bible Study, “The Sin Question,” Nov. 26, 1981

“I’ve had some things to say about makeup lately…I’ve had some letters [that] say, ‘Well, Mr. Armstrong I want to show you a woman’s point of view on this.’ You know my reply to that?

“I am interested not in a woman’s point of view. I’m interested in God’s point of view. Now if a woman’s point of view is different from God’s point of view, THE WOMAN HAD BETTER CHANGE HER POINT OF VIEW! Do you agree with me or don’t you? Or do you think the woman’s point of view is better? Or the man’s point of view? Or the child’s point of view? Oh no, I want God’s point of view. It’s quite different.”

Bible Study, “Philippians 3,” Nov. 1981

“Women can’t see what’s wrong with painting their faces.

“Women won’t admit [that] it’s vanity that makes them do it. They won’t admit it’s because they want to be like the world and want to look like other people. They won’t admit that. [They say] ‘Oh no, I don’t want to be like the world.’ Oh yes they do, or they wouldn’t do it. She’s ashamed not to be like the other women in the world. That’s why she puts it on her…”

“…Brethren, I won’t compromise. If you want to compromise, go join one of these factions that have gone off from us, that are liberal…if you want to go Satan’s way instead of God’s way and pretend that you’ll be in the kingdom of God—pretend you are in God’s Church…”

“…Is this a little thing? Yes, but it’s a great big thing in principle. It’s a big thing in principle, and there are many of you women sitting right here that are keeping paint off your faces just because I said you have to, and your heart isn’t in it. And you better get your hearts right with God. You call me God’s apostle, you better listen to what I have to say. And you better quit kidding yourself, because time is short.”

Sermon, First Day of Unleavened Bread, April 16, 1985

This final quote shows Mr. Armstrong’s view of doctrinal compromise. Others could be included to show the same thing in different words.

Of course, some will say that the issue of wearing makeup is too small to be of consequence to God. Therefore, one final quote has been added here to confirm Mr. Armstrong’s view of compromise on those matters some wish to call “twigs.”

I am not suggesting that makeup is a small matter, because it clearly is not! Recall that Mr. Armstrong said, “Is this a little thing? Yes, but it’s a great big thing in principle.” You must decide if you agree with Mr. Armstrong’s assessment of wearing makeup.

In the end, those who seek to ignore the correct teaching must first reduce its importance by calling it a “twig” or “non-basic” or “non-fundamental” or “not essential for salvation,” etc., before they can take the second step of dismissing it altogether.

If you hear makeup referred to as a “twig” or “inconsequential,” remember that God never called it a twig or inconsequential. Neither did Mr. Armstrong:

“Forty-three years ago, the living Christ committed to me His great commission.

“But during these 43 years, I have frequently been pressured to compromise—‘just a little’—with God’s truth.

“[God] entrusted me with this precious truth.

“But honestly, now, what do you think?

“Wouldn’t it be all right to compromise, ‘just a little,’ on some ‘unimportant minor point’? Especially on some ostensibly unimportant point where we appear ‘crazy’ to the world.

“Nevertheless, if we begin to compromise with God’s truth, even in smallest, slightest manner, we have allowed Satan to get a foot into the door of the Church, and soon he will push open the door (he is stronger than we) and take over the whole Church.

“A little leaven leavens the whole lump!…I have been charged with the commission of keeping God’s word. Keeping it inviolate—no compromise! I have never compromised with God’s truth—regardless of the cost or the circumstances. I never shall!

“Satan is the chief of terrorists. He hates God’s holy, sacred Word.

“I will change whenever proved wrong. I will accept new truth as often as proved to be new truth to me or to the Church.

“But I will not compromise with the truth! I never have!

“I won’t compromise—not even ‘just a little.’”

“Personal,” GN, Dec. 1976

“My son said this team had found we had the wrong meaning on four such detailed specific scriptures, and the use of makeup was OK.

“Those who know me best know I have a single track mind. That is, I can concentrate deeply on one subject at a time, but when my mind is on one subject, I often do not really ‘get’ something said to me.”

“Satan masterminded this in such manner that it all appeared under my signature, as if I fully approved all that followed my signature—when in fact I never saw it until the day before yesterday. It was subtly handled and kept from me.

“I did not, and never would have approved of what Mr. [name] without my knowledge published under my signature.”

“But by this maneuver of Satan, the people of God’s Church started off the track.”

“I say ‘started off.’ For watering down of God’s truth on healing, the Sabbath, many more vital doctrines followed in its wake.

“But, as Satan maneuvered to start all humanity off the track in the garden of Eden, so in these latter days, he maneuvered to use the women of God’s Church to start the end-time Church off the track. And the whole Church was deceived! [Author’s note: It was, in fact, the changing of makeup, in 1988, which was one of the earliest changes that started the Church back off the track the second time!]

“At the time my son came to me with the report that the Adam Clarke commentary was in error on Isaiah 3:16, my mind was primarily on other things, and I made a hasty decision without fully weighing the matter. I have come to realize this. I have deeply repented of it. I now correct it before the entire Church.

“Brethren, let’s get one thing straight at this point. Jesus Christ chose and has been using a human instrument to lead you. Will you blame Jesus Christ for that? He is infallible. He makes no mistakes. But who among you could He choose as His instrument to lead you who is already supernaturally divine and unable to make mistakes?…He has used me, in spite of a few mistakes, in bringing all you into His Body, the Church. He revealed His truth to me and through me to you! And now He is using me in correcting a mistake…”

“Jesus Christ through me has been getting us all back on the track, ready for His return to earth as the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords. The Church, as His Bride to be spiritually married to Him, is to rise to meet Him in the air as He descends. Women of the Church, do you think Jesus Christ will say to me, ‘Send a proclamation to all women in the Church to prepare for My coming. Tell them to go to their dressing tables, pluck out their eyebrows, paint in new ones higher on their foreheads, and use cosmetics to make up their faces to meet Me in the air’?

“No, dear people, I don’t think He will have me make such a proclamation. But rather: Wash the dirt off your faces! Clean up your faces!

“Now Jesus Christ, through His chosen apostle, is going to rule on this question once and for all!”

“Now apply God’s Law to makeup. Why do women use makeup? To please and glorify God? No. God is Master Designer as well as Creator. The world seems to think God did not design women’s faces properly, and they try to do a better job of making up their faces than God did. Does makeup please God? His Spirit says to me, it is displeasing to Him! (And, like the apostle Paul, I think I have the ‘mind of Christ.’) To exalt God? No, rather to exalt self, which debases God.”

This is how Mr. Armstrong concluded his article:

“Women do not use makeup to please God today—for I can tell you on His authority it is not pleasing to him!

“Satan used human reason and makeup and women to start the ball of liberalism away from God and toward sin to rolling in the Church beginning October, 1974.

“Finally, I repeat, sin, spiritually, is self-centeredness, self-exaltation, desire to be beautiful, vanity, coveting, desire to get and take, to exalt the self, jealousy and envy, competition, oft-resulting violence and war, resentment and rebellion against authority. These are the principles of spiritual sin. Christ is getting us back on the track!”

Amazing Human Nature

Human nature is amazing, and sometimes even a little humorous to observe—if it were not so tragic. Referring to Mr. Armstrong’s statement that makeup would only return to the Church “over my dead body,” I have had two different women tell me, “Since Mr. Armstrong is now dead, I can wear makeup.” Incredible! Truly, as Jeremiah said, “The heart is deceitful above all things.”

Such human reasoning certainly does prove that if a woman is determined to wear cosmetics, she will find a way to sell the idea to herself.

However, no person who truly wants to please and obey God can doubt the facts of this article. They CAN reject, ignore or twist those facts to suit their own purpose, but they cannot deny them.

Be prepared for persecution if you have the courage to take off your makeup. It will take even more courage to tell others, or for leaders to teach their organizations (Dan. 11:32-35). This is because few issues seem to bring out the hate and murderous slander in people more than does telling them that the use of cosmetics is a sin. I have more than once seen and felt the wrath of women confronted with this decision.

In addition, just the thought of our original booklet’s arrival several years ago brought an attack from one man. He was so angry at what he thought it might contain that he did not even wait to read it. Incredibly, he found a way to label as “Laodicean” (lukewarm and lacking zeal) those who have the courage and zeal that he and the leaders of his splinter lack. God help him and others like him, because Proverbs 18:13 applies.

What Will You Do?

But what will you do? When Christ told some who “believed on Him” (John 8:30) truth that they did not want to hear, they got angry and sought to kill Him. Christ responded, “But now you seek to kill Me, a Man that has told you the truth…” (vs. 40). Will you attack either Mr. Armstrong or me because this article and our booklet have told you the truth? If you do, you will only hurt yourself, now and eternally. It is your crown that is now at stake, not mine. Very carefully think through your reaction.

Will you dismiss, forget, ignore or twist the plain proofs that you have read here?

Will you allow dishonest, deceitful ministers to seduce you into continuing the habit of painting your face and the attitude of pride and vanity that accompanies it?

Will you permit your pastor, like Satan, or your human nature, from Satan, to deceive you into believing that you owe it to yourself to be more beautiful than God made you?

Will you fulfill the similar proverbs of George Santana and George Hegel—that “Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it,” and “We learn from history that we do not learn from history”?—or will you be a rare exception, no matter what your friends, relatives and associates think?

The Church has reached the Laodicean age. The reason this is the dominant attitude at the end is that most start with the assumption that Laodicea is “somebody else—somewhere else.”

Are you certain it does not include you?

Are you certain that using makeup is not one of the tests of whether it does, since the dominant number now ignore what all once practiced in regard to this teaching?

Are you certain you want to follow leaders Mr. Armstrong would obviously disfellowship?

Are you certain there is safety in numbers?

Are you so certain that God’s great end-time servant was wrong that you will not “hold fast” (Rev. 3:11) what you once believed?

Will you follow the ways of this world, the mistakes of ancient Israel, the methods of Egyptian prostitutes, the lead of the apostates and the splinter “leaders” who taught you to return to wearing makeup?

would you stake your crown on your decision?

For the past decade, the theory that the “wedding supper” is in heaven has become popular and widely accepted among many of God’s people. Yet, contrary to what some may teach, the Bible does not say this. Here is the proof.

Continue to: Article Three – THE WEDDING SUPPER GROWING CONFUSION—WHERE AND WHEN?

070212
PT

RELATED LITERATURE

RELATED LITERATURE