Does the Living Church of God Teach British Israelism? A Critical Response to Dexter Wakefield

I recently read an article written by Dexter Wakefield entitled Does the Living Church of God Teach “British Israelism”? In it, Wakefield attempts to draw a sharp line between the Living Church of God (LCG) and the doctrine historically known as British Israelism. He argues that LCG teaches a biblical truth about the modern identity of Israel, while “British Israelism” is an incorrect theory that should not be associated with their church. He further emphasizes LCG’s rejection of racism and its openness to all ethnicities.

It is important to note that Mr. Wakefield is not an incidental commentator. He serves as a Pastor and the Vice President of Finance & Operations for the Living Church of God, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is a regular contributor to its Tomorrow’s World publications. His article, therefore, represents not merely a personal perspective but the official doctrinal position of LCG.

Like other Armstrong‑derived Church of God organizations, the Living Church of God avoids the term British Israelism, preferring instead to label its teaching as “America and Great Britain in Prophecy” or “The United States and Great Britain in Prophecy.” This rebranding, however, does not change the substance of the doctrine. The core claims remain identical to the British Israelism of the 19th and 20th centuries: that the Anglo‑Saxon peoples are the modern descendants of the “lost ten tribes” of Israel, and that this identity is the key to understanding biblical prophecy.

Yet when examined carefully, Wakefield’s argument does not hold. The distinctions he draws are rhetorical rather than substantive. The doctrine LCG teaches is, in fact, British Israelism in all but name, and the biblical, historical, linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and prophetic claims underlying it remain deeply flawed.

This article follows the structure of Wakefield’s own sections and evaluates each claim in turn — demonstrating that the doctrine he defends is neither biblically grounded nor historically credible, not to mention that its prophetic framework collapses under the weight of its own failed predictions. More importantly, it shows that British Israelism is a distraction from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

“The Peoples of the British Isles Are of Israelitish Origin”

Wakefield begins by asserting that the peoples of the British Isles are “of Israelitish origin,” and that the rise of the United States and Great Britain fulfills the birthright promises given to Ephraim and Manasseh. This is the foundational claim of Armstrongism, and it is also the foundational claim of British Israelism.

The problem is not merely that this claim lacks evidence — though it does — but that it contradicts both Scripture and the consensus of historical scholarship.

Biblically, the claim is unsupported

There is no passage in Scripture that:

• identifies Ephraim with Britain,

• identifies Manasseh with the United States,

• predicts the migration of the ten tribes into Europe, or

• transfers Old Covenant national blessings to future Gentile empires.

The New Testament, in fact, moves in the opposite direction. Paul teaches that:

• True Israel is defined by faith, not ethnicity (Romans 9:6–8),

• The children of Abraham are those who believe (Galatians 3:7),

• and Jew and Gentile are united in one new humanity in Christ (Ephesians 2:14–16).

The attempt to locate prophetic identity in Anglo‑Saxon lineage is a theological regression — a return to genealogical thinking that the gospel explicitly transcends.

Historically, the claim is indefensible

Modern research in genetics, linguistics, and archaeology shows:

• Anglo‑Saxon peoples descend from Germanic, Celtic, and Norse populations — not Israelites.¹

• English is a Germanic language with no Semitic ancestry.²

• No archaeological trail connects the Scythians, Cimmerians, Celts, or Saxons to ancient Israel in the way the theory requires.³

The “Israelitish origin” of the British Isles is not a historical conclusion; it is a 19th‑century myth created to support British imperial identity.⁴

Wakefield affirms the myth while denying the label.

“British Israelism” Is an Incorrect Theory

Wakefield argues that LCG’s teaching should not be confused with “British Israelism,” which he defines as the theory that all ten tribes migrated to the British Isles. He writes:

“This truth is sometimes confused by individuals with a different hypothesis, generally called ‘British Israelism’—a theory that the people of the British Isles are the descendants of all ten ‘lost tribes.’”

This is a misleading definition.

British Israelism has never required that all ten tribes settled in Britain

Historian Tudor Parfitt — the leading academic authority on the subject — defines British Israelism as:

“the belief that the Anglo‑Saxon peoples are the literal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.”⁵

This includes:

• Ephraim and Manasseh becoming Britain and America,

• the “lost tribes” migrating into Europe,

• and biblical prophecy applying primarily to Anglo‑Saxon nations.

LCG teaches every one of these points.

Wakefield’s attempt to redefine British Israelism as a fringe version requiring all ten tribes to settle in Britain is historically inaccurate and strategically convenient. It allows LCG to reject a caricature while retaining the doctrine itself.

LCG’s version is simply British Israelism with updated branding

The core Armstrongite claims — preserved by LCG — are identical to the classic British Israelite framework:

• The U.S. and U.K. are modern Israel.

• Their national blessings fulfill the Abrahamic birthright.

• Their decline fulfills covenant curses.

• Their future captivity is prophesied in Scripture.

• Understanding their identity is essential for interpreting prophecy.

Changing the label does not change the theology.

“Racism Is Sin”

Wakefield devotes a section to condemning racism and distancing LCG from extremist groups such as Christian Identity. This is morally commendable and theologically correct. Racism is sin, and the gospel is for all nations.

However, this section functions rhetorically to shield the doctrine from criticism. The question is not whether LCG is racist — even though that is a debatable issue, Wakefield is clear that it is not — but whether the doctrine itself is rooted in a nationalist framework that cannot be separated from its origins.

The doctrine’s origins are inseparable from Anglo‑Saxon exceptionalism

British Israelism emerged in the 19th century as a theological justification for British imperial expansion.⁶ It was designed to elevate the British Empire as the chosen instrument of God in the modern world.

Even when stripped of overt racism, the doctrine still:

• centers Anglo‑American nations as God’s prophetic focus,

• assigns them a privileged role in salvation history,

• and interprets world events through the lens of their national destiny.

This is not the New Testament vision of the multi‑ethnic people of God gathered around the Lamb (Revelation 5:9).

Rejecting racism does not rescue the doctrine

Wakefield’s moral stance is correct, but it does not fix the theological problem. A doctrine can be non‑racist in application and still be rooted in a flawed, ethnocentric framework.

The issue is not hatred of other races — it is the elevation of one.

“The Church of God Is Open to All Races and Ethnicities”

Wakefield concludes by emphasizing that LCG welcomes all people and that salvation is open to every ethnicity. Although this statement sounds good, it is true only to a certain extent (the part about LCG welcoming all people). However, it does not address the central issue.

The problem is not who may join their church — it is who the doctrine centers

LCG teaches that:

• God’s prophetic attention is focused primarily on the U.S. and U.K.,

• These nations are the modern tribes of Israel,

• and their national fortunes are the key to understanding end‑time prophecy.

This creates a theological hierarchy of nations, even if unintentionally. The gospel, however, does not operate on national hierarchies.

Paul writes:

• “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek” (Romans 10:12).

• “In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith” (Galatians 3:26).

• “From every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

The New Testament’s prophetic focus is Jesus Christ — not Anglo‑American geopolitics.

Conclusion

Dexter Wakefield’s article attempts to preserve Armstrongism’s Anglo‑Israel identity doctrine while distancing LCG from the term British Israelism and its racist associations. But the effort fails. The doctrine remains British Israelism in substance, even if the organization prefers a different name.

A biblically faithful alternative is not to rebrand the doctrine but to abandon it — embracing instead the New Testament vision of one multi‑ethnic people of God in Christ, where boasting in national lineage is replaced by boasting only in the cross (Galatians 6:14–16).

References

1. Stephen Oppenheimer, The Origins of the British (Constable & Robinson, 2006).

2. David Crystal, The Stories of English (Overlook Press, 2004).

3. Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People (Verso, 2009).

4. Michael Barkun, Religion and the Racist Right (University of North Carolina Press, 1997).

5. Tudor Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel: The History of a Myth (Phoenix Press, 2003).

6. Colin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

7. Wakefield, Dexter. “Does the Living Church of God Teach ‘British Israelism’?” Living Church of God, 2020. https://www.lcg.org/articles/does-living-church-god-teach-british-israelism.