Adam and Eve Were Mid-Brown Skinned

Remember this post from 2020? I had forgotten about it until I received an irate comment about how offensive the article is for claiming that Adam and Eve were not Caucasians. Ignoring the fact that Caucasians did not exist at that time, what it boils down to is that they were not white-skinned. Therefore, this creates an issue with British Israelism, which in Armstrongism means that all the people entitled to receive the blessings of British Israelism are white people. You can see that this obviously comes through in the very first comment that follows the article.

Below are excerpts from an article in Church of God Outreach Ministries New Horizons emagazine, Sept/Oct., 2020.

This will be sure to get the staunch British Israelite white Anglo-Saxon supporters into a tizzy when it states that there is "less than 0.012%" genetic difference between us (races). For some reason, it is vitally important that a pure white bloodline is in existence to ensure Jesus has a throne to come back and sit upon. It is important to those Armstrongite followers who demand that British Israelism be true, that white people be the savior of humanity, while the "gentiles" are the problem creators in society. This is the belief taught by the church for decades and which I heard preached in the Cincinnati and Dayton church often, particularly in the midst of some race-related issue happening in society.

Does God see us in colour? After all, He created us with the in-built potential through our genes to be born in a variety of ‘colours’. So that’s what we must discuss.

Difference

Variation in appearance is deceptive. The apostle Paul notes that ‘...[God] has made all nations of men of one blood [DNA] to dwell on all the face of the earth, ordaining fore-appointed seasons and boundaries of their dwell- ing’ (Acts 17:26) - a position backed by biology. (For example, ‘black’ and ‘white’ can exchange blood, given the usual medical precautions.)

Despite skin shading from albino white to purple-black, analysis determines that there is less than 0.012% difference genetically between any of us. And there is one major pigment to determine our skin shade. It is melanin, and the amount present in each of us provides our ‘colour’. The level present is genetically determined by a cluster of genes. It’s the same for our other features.

Science no longer believes that each ‘race’ derives from a different animal forebear but that all of us are from a single stock (dubbed ‘mitochondrial Eve’). Bible believers ascribe this to the creation of ‘man’, Adam—in whom was created the complete gene pool. Necessarily ‘Eve’ was created contemporaneously with Adam, and sharing his DNA.

Division

While not explicitly stated it is most likely that our first parents, median between ’black’ and ’white’ range, were of a mid-brown skin shade.

As the DNA in Adam’s offspring became randomly mixed down the generations there was potential, through natural selection, for a range of skin pigment and other features to manifest in populations. Over the centuries relationships between the like-minded would tend to form specific macro people groups and, ultimately, nations—Caucasoid (Semitic), Mongoloid, Hamitic and many other sub-groups, as indeed exist today. (The terms derive from Noah’s sons Shem, Japheth and Ham.)

Post-flood, Noah and his family carried the complete gene pool of three billion human genes into our present world system. The scattering by language subsequent to Babel coupled with environmental factors (eg light skinned occupying higher or lower latitudes) would reinforce familial characteristics. These characteristics are stated in the Scriptures to continue throughout the millennial reign of Jesus (Rev 20:8, Isaiah 19:23).

It is noteworthy that although we all share the same DNA yet God has also set—and controls— boundaries for our various geographical settlements (Acts 17:26).

The article ends with this:

In sum, God has enabled a variety of varied ‘people groups‘ to populate His special planet. The reality is that we are all different. By accident of our birth we become part of an established nation in which a specific skin colour and culture predominates; by in-born nature we are loyal to it, patriotic, submit to its laws and culture.

Christians are ‘...strangers and pilgrims’. As such we, too, are to emulate the Father and to be ‘colour blind’—in and out of ‘church’. 

Dominion Day/Independence Day Special: How to Celebrate Freedom by Joining a New Pyramid Scheme

Independence Day, Dominion Day, and the Curious Case of “You Can Be Free from the World… Just Not from Me”
Tomorrow Canada celebrates Dominion Day. Saturday the United States celebrates Independence Day. Many will wave flags, eat hot dogs, and feel a warm glow about national freedom.
Bob Thiel has a different kind of independence in mind.
In his latest post he begins with the familiar 1 John 2:15-17 warning against loving the world. Fair enough. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life really do pass away. But then, with the smoothness of a used-car salesman sliding from “freedom from the world” into “you really shouldn’t be independent from my church government,” he pivots hard.
The question he wants you asking is not “How do I live free in Christ?” but “Should I be independent from the Philadelphia portion of the Church of God?” And by “Philadelphia portion,” he means the Continuing Church of God — the one he leads.
To answer that question he reaches for the late Herbert W. Armstrong’s writings on the nature of the Church and, especially, on government. The quotes are long, repetitive, and very clear about what HWA believed:

• The Church is a hierarchical organization with government “from the top down.”
• God has always worked through “one man at a time.”
• Jesus restored that government through Herbert Armstrong.
• Anyone who wants to be a “loner” or “individual Christian” outside that structure is deceived.
• Rejecting this one-man rule is the mark of Laodiceanism.

Bob then adds his own commentary: most people who were in the old Worldwide Church of God rejected this teaching after HWA died, and that’s why they became Laodicean. The solution? Submit to the one man God is supposedly using today — which, conveniently, turns out to be Bob himself.
Here’s where the New Covenant makes this entire construction collapse.
Under the New Covenant, Jesus is the one and only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). There is no longer a human high priest, no continuing line of Moses-figures, no single man through whom God must work. The veil was torn. Every believer now has direct access to the Father through Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16; 10:19-22). The Spirit was poured out on all flesh at Pentecost, not funneled through one designated human leader.
HWA’s claim that “the whole thing was government” and that Christ raised him up specifically “to restore government in His Church” is not a New Covenant idea. It is a retrofitted Old Covenant theocracy dressed in New Testament language. The New Testament never presents the Church as a restored version of ancient Israel’s political structure with a single human ruler at the top. Instead it presents the Church as:

• The body of Christ with Christ as the only Head (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18).
• A royal priesthood in which every believer has direct access to God (1 Peter 2:9).
• A community where leadership is plural, local, and servant-hearted, not a global pyramid (Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23; 1 Peter 5:1-3).

When Jesus corrected His disciples about authority, He explicitly rejected the Gentile model of “lording it over” others and told them the greatest would be the servant of all (Mark 10:42-45). HWA’s model does the exact opposite: it makes submission to the top man the central test of faithfulness.
Several fallacies run through the HWA quotes Bob recycles:

1. Selective Old Testament proof-texting.
   Yes, God often worked through one prominent individual in the Old Testament. He also worked through judges, prophets, and kings who frequently failed. The New Testament pattern is different. After the resurrection we see multiple apostles, elders in every city, and a council in Acts 15 where Peter, Paul, James, and others all speak. No single man silences the rest by divine right.
2. Circular authority.
   HWA declares that God raised him up to restore government, therefore anyone who questions his government is resisting God. Bob repeats the same move: God works through one man; that man is me (or whoever currently claims the title); therefore questioning me is Laodicean rebellion. This is self-authenticating reasoning that cannot be falsified from within the system.
3. Redefining Laodicea.
   The letter to Laodicea in Revelation 3 rebukes self-sufficiency, lukewarmness, and spiritual blindness. Bob (and HWA before him) redefines “Laodicean” as “anyone who rejects our particular form of hierarchical government.” That is not what the text says. It is a rhetorical move designed to make dissent itself proof of spiritual failure.
4. The “you can’t join” bait-and-switch.
   HWA correctly notes that only God adds people to the true Church through the Spirit. He then uses that truth to argue that you must therefore submit to his organization and its government. The sleight of hand is obvious: the universal body of Christ (all true believers) is confused with one particular human organization. You can be genuinely regenerated by the Spirit and still refuse to submit to any self-appointed “one man” hierarchy without ceasing to be part of Christ’s Church.

The most glaring problem is staring everyone in the face. If God’s government is so essential, so hierarchical, and so dependent on one man at a time, why has that very system produced decades of fragmentation, power struggles, and new “restored” churches every time the current leader dies or is challenged? The model HWA insisted was divinely mandated has proven spectacularly unable to maintain unity. 
The endless splinters are not a bug in the system — they are the predictable result of concentrating so much authority in fallible human leaders who then demand absolute loyalty.
Bob’s post tries to sell independence from the world while demanding dependence on his version of “Philadelphia” governance. That is not New Covenant freedom. That is trading one form of bondage for another.
In the New Covenant you are free from the world’s values. You are also free from the need to find the one correct human organization with the one correct human leader at the top. You are free to follow Christ as Head, to serve one another in love, and to gather with other believers wherever the Spirit leads — without having to pledge loyalty to a self-appointed apostle who claims Christ raised him up to restore government.
The real test is not whether you submit to the right flowchart. The real test is whether you abide in Christ, walk in the Spirit, and love the brothers and sisters He has given you — even the ones who don’t fit neatly into anyone’s hierarchy.
So celebrate your national independence if you like. But the deeper freedom on offer is independence from both the world’s systems and the religious systems that try to replace Christ’s direct headship with human chains of command.
That freedom is available right now. It doesn’t require signing up with any particular splinter group or submitting to any self-appointed “one man.” It only requires turning to the One who actually tore the veil and invited us to come boldly to the throne of grace.

Why Do Laodiceans Refuse To Submit To Church Government i.e. Bob Thiel?

It has always fascinated me how all these splinter groups remain utterly obsessed with getting their followers to “freely submit” to whatever hierarchical power structure they’ve cobbled together this month. When the Mother Church imploded into an endless parade of splinters that then splintered again (and again, and again), you’d think someone might have noticed that the entire model was rotten. But no—HWA once declared it, so it must be bound in heaven as it is on earth. Some of these groups even privately admit their church government is unbiblical, yet they cling to it anyway. Admitting it’s wrong would force them to tell their members, “Hey, if we were dead wrong on this, we might also be wrong about a few other things we’ve been yelling about for decades.”
Our favorite self-appointed crackpot prophet is back at it, once again lecturing the rest of us on the sacred duty of submitting to “proper church government”—especially those of us rebellious Laodicean heretics who have the audacity to laugh and snicker at the whole circus.
Crackpot Bob has dropped yet another brain dump of epic banality, this time wringing his hands over Laodiceans who refuse to bow to the one true (his) form of church government. The only question worth asking is: Which version? Every splinter has its own sacred flowchart of authority, and none of them agree with each other. It doesn’t even hold together inside their own groups—people keep walking out the back door to start yet another “restored” version. The insanity is truly without end.
One detail I’d almost forgotten is that Herbert Armstrong himself once declared that church government wasn’t just important—it was the central issue of the entire age. Not leading people to Christ. Not resting in His finished work and grace. Just making sure everyone submits to the self-appointed jackasses who know better than you.
Crackpot Bob, naturally, trots out the sacred quote to prove it:

“KEY ISSUE IS GOVERNMENT … THE WHOLE THING WAS GOVERNMENT! THE THING THAT SATAN TOOK AWAY WAS GOVERNMENT. THE THING THAT CHRIST IS COMING TO RESTORE IS GOVERNMENT. AND WHAT HE RAISED ME UP FOR WAS TO RESTORE GOVERNMENT IN HIS CHURCH. And the whole test, the challenge in the first place …, was a point of government.”

(Armstrong HW. Rely (sic) God. Sermon, April 6, 1985)

There it is, in all its glory. According to HWA (and therefore, by sacred inheritance, according to Bob), the entire cosmic drama—Satan’s rebellion, Christ’s return, and the reason God supposedly hand-picked Herbert Armstrong—was never really about sin, redemption, or the New Covenant. It was about restoring the right chain of command so that a man at the top could tell everyone else what to do.
How delightfully Old Covenant of them.
In the New Covenant, the whole “government” obsession collapses under its own weight. Jesus didn’t come to reinstall a top-down hierarchy with Himself as CEO and a string of vice-presidents beneath Him. He came as the one Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), the one High Priest who doesn’t need a human replacement, and the Head of a body where every member has direct access to the Father. The New Covenant promise wasn’t “I will give you better rulers”; it was “I will put My laws in their minds and write them on their hearts” (Hebrews 8:10). No middle management required.
The early church had elders and deacons, sure—but they were local, plural, and accountable, not a global pyramid with one man at the apex claiming he alone was raised up to restore “government.” Jesus was quite clear about what He thought of Gentile-style lording it over people (Mark 10:42-45). He told His disciples the greatest among them would be the servant of all. HWA’s version flipped that on its head: the greatest would be the one everyone else had to submit to, or else they were Laodicean rebels.
So when Bob and his fellow government enthusiasts keep screaming that the real test of the age is whether you submit to their particular flavor of hierarchy, they’re not defending the New Covenant. They’re desperately trying to drag everyone back under the Old one—complete with human mediators, external rules enforced by fear of disfellowshipment, and a man at the top who gets to decide what “government” looks like this week.
The tragic comedy, of course, is that the very system they insist is divinely mandated has produced nothing but endless division, power struggles, and new splinters every time the current “government” gets too heavy-handed. If this was truly the government Christ died to restore, you’d think it might have lasted longer than a few decades before everyone started running for the exits.
But hey—what do I know? I’m just another rebellious Laodicean who prefers resting in Christ’s finished work over submitting to whichever self-appointed apostle is currently claiming the keys to the kingdom.