"Except the Lord Build the House…” — Unless Herbert’s the One Holding the Hammer

Herbert Armstrong’s Dream of Dominion: Why His “Church of God” Article Is Theologically Rotten 

In September 1980, Herbert W. Armstrong published a piece in Good News magazine titled “Shall We All Leave THE CHURCH OF GOD and join ‘THE CHURCH OF PEOPLE’?” It opens with a dream. Yes, a literal dream. Armstrong wakes up one morning convinced that God has personally revealed to him why dissenters are bad: they want democracy. They want a say. They want to vote on leaders and doctrine. How dare they?

If that sounds like a man clutching his throne a little too tightly, that’s because it is. The entire article is a masterclass in theological sleight-of-hand, Old Testament cosplay, and self-justifying authoritarianism. It’s not just bad theology—it’s the kind of bad theology that turns a spiritual body into a personality cult and calls it “God’s government.” 

The Apostle Who Appointed Himself (And Jesus Was Apparently Cool With It)

Armstrong’s central claim is as bold as it is unbiblical: this is God’s Church, run exclusively through “His chosen apostle”—that is, Herbert W. Armstrong himself. Christ is the Head, sure, but only in theory. In practice, Jesus works through one specially prepared, divinely guided man at the top. Anyone who suggests that the people should have input is accused of trying to evict God from His own house and turn it into a “church of the people.”

Because nothing screams “humble servant leadership” like declaring yourself the modern Moses while everyone else is just a sheep who needs to stop bleating.

The New Testament begs to differ—loudly. Christ alone is the Head of the church (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 5:23). The foundational apostles completed their unique, eyewitness role two thousand years ago; the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20; see also Acts 1:21-22; 1 Corinthians 9:1). There is no biblical category for a 20th-century “apostle” who gets to dictate doctrine worldwide while comparing himself to David and Moses in the same breath. New Testament churches were led by plural elders—local, accountable teams—not a single global potentate (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Peter called himself a “fellow elder,” not the CEO of Christ Inc. (1 Peter 5:1). Armstrong’s model isn’t apostolic; it’s imperial.

Old Testament Cosplay Meets New Covenant Reality

To prop up his pyramid scheme, Armstrong drags out the greatest hits of Old Testament hierarchy: God choosing David over Jesse’s strapping older sons (1 Samuel 16:6-13), Moses leading Israel through the Red Sea, and—his favorite—Korah’s rebellion (Numbers 16:1-3). Those 1974 ministers who wanted more accountability? Straight-up Korahs, apparently. 

Covetous. Power-hungry. Doomed.

Here’s the problem: the church is not ancient Israel. The New Testament isn’t a reboot of the theocracy. We’re not under a national covenant with a human mediator standing between God and us. Every believer is a priest with direct access to the Father (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10). The Holy Spirit indwells the whole body, not just the guy at headquarters (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17). Even the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 involved “the whole church” weighing in alongside the apostles and elders (Acts 15:22). There’s accountability. There’s plurality. There’s—gasp—discussion. The church is to practice mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21) and test everything against Scripture (1 John 4:1; Isaiah 8:20).

Armstrong treats any hint of congregational input as rebellion against God Himself. That’s not theology; that’s a rhetorical kill switch. Disagree with the apostle? You’re not having a reasonable disagreement—you’re “leaving God out of the picture.” Classic move. Works great if your goal is control. Works terribly if your goal is actually following Scripture.

When a Dream Becomes Doctrine

The whole piece kicks off with Armstrong’s vivid dream about young men lobbying against him. He wakes up “considerably impressed,” convinced God is showing him that too many members secretly want to run things their way. From there, it’s off to the races: proof-texts, historical revisionism, and dire warnings about “liberalism.”

Look, dreams can be memorable. They can even be meaningful. But when a leader’s nocturnal brain activity becomes the launchpad for an article on church government, you’ve officially left “sola scriptura” in the dust. The Bible is supposed to be sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6—“Do not go beyond what is written”). Not “Scripture plus whatever Herbert dreamed last Tuesday.” This is how cults get their operating manual—personal revelation dressed up as divine insight that just so happens to affirm the leader’s power.

The Great Purge and the Peace That Followed (According to Him)

Armstrong gleefully recounts how the 1974 “men of renown” who tried to take over were booted out. The offshoots they started? All doomed to fail because “except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain” (Psalm 127:1). The troublemakers left? Peace at last! The remaining members? Finally free of those pesky dissenters.

Translation: If you question the apostle, you’re bitter, revenge-seeking, and probably going to hell in a handbasket. If you stay loyal, you get peace, growth, and God’s blessing. It’s spiritual gaslighting wrapped in a Psalm 127 bow—while conveniently ignoring Jesus’ actual instructions for church discipline: private confrontation, then witnesses, then the whole church (Matthew 18:15-17), not mass excommunication for questioning authority.

History, of course, had other plans. The Worldwide Church of God eventually repudiated much of Armstrong’s theology after his death. The “liberals” weren’t the problem; the rigid, extra-biblical system was. But in 1980, none of that mattered. Loyalty to the man trumped loyalty to the text.

The Real Theological Crime

At its core, Armstrong’s article defends a closed system: one true church, one true apostle, one true set of doctrines (many of which were novel inventions). Any move toward grace, accountability, or biblical nuance was labeled “watering down God’s truth.” The result? A church that looked less like the vibrant, Spirit-led body in Acts and more like a tightly controlled corporation with a prophet at the top.

Jesus warned against this exact spirit: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… It shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:25-28; see also Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-26). Elders are to shepherd willingly, not as overlords (1 Peter 5:2-3). Armstrong’s article doesn’t just miss that verse. It drives a truck over it while shouting, “But I’m the apostle!”

So yes, the piece is theologically bad. Not mildly misguided—catastrophically so. It replaces Christ’s headship with a man’s (Colossians 2:19), Scripture’s authority with a dream’s, and servant leadership with top-down dominion. It’s the kind of writing that makes you wonder if the real question isn’t “Shall we all leave the Church of God?” but rather, “When did the Church of God start looking so much like the Church of Herbert?”

Thankfully, the real church of God—the one Jesus actually built—has always been bigger than any one man’s dream. It survives bad articles, bad governance, and even worse theology. Because at the end of the day, the vine is Christ (John 15:5). The branches are us. And no self-appointed apostle gets to prune that.

Silent Pilgrim 

Crackpot Bob: Still Claiming to Be God’s Prophet While Acting Like a Petty, Vindictive Church Mob Boss

In recent online comments, critic Terry Nelson has sharply accused Bob Thiel, leader of the Continuing Church of God (CCOG), of directing efforts to pressure a woman named Priscilla (the ex-wife of one of Bob's so-called evangelists, into returning to her adulterous husband while simultaneously attempting to lure members and leaders away from the Hope of Israel Church of God (HOI COG), and COG7 through financial incentives.

According to Nelson, Thiel informed his small group of followers in a members-only post that he had sent two of his associates to locate Priscilla and compel her to reconcile with her husband, identified as Radson. The same individuals were also tasked with meeting leaders and members of the Hope of Israel Church of God in an effort to persuade them to leave that organization and join the CCOG, allegedly offering money and material goods as inducements.

Nelson stated that Thiel harbors deep animosity toward the Hope of Israel Church of God. He claimed Thiel had publicly signaled, through associate Radson, an intent to destroy the rival group. Nelson further alleged that Thiel announced plans to showcase leaders from the Hope of Israel Church of God whom the CCOG had successfully bribed. He referenced the Mulanji district, though an associate named Evans reportedly misspelled the location.

Nelson reported that three leaders—two men and the wife of a third—attended a meeting arranged by Thiel’s group. The individuals later expressed regret, stating they attended only because they had been invited. Nelson claimed these leaders were subsequently removed from their positions after it was discovered they had accepted substantial payments from Evans and Radson. He asserted that a photograph circulated by Thiel’s organization did not show an actual congregation but rather a private house gathering to which neighbors had been invited. Nelson concluded that Thiel is being deceived by con artists in these matters.

Nelson also accused Thiel of repeatedly harassing Priscilla. He stated that Priscilla personally informed Thiel of the facts but was ignored in favor of statements from what Nelson called Thiel’s “fake ministers.” According to Nelson, Thiel consistently rejects information that does not align with his preferred narrative. Nelson questioned Thiel’s rationality and mental state, described him as lacking common sense and empathy, and asked whether CCOG members could continue supporting such leadership. Nelson expressed relief that Priscilla is no longer associated with Radson or the CCOG, calling her separation from them a blessing.

The Dangers of Bob Thiel and His Heresies

The pattern of behavior described in Terry Nelson’s comments exposes serious risks inherent in following a leader who claims prophetic authority while demonstrating a consistent disregard for truth, individual rights, and basic ethical conduct. When a religious figure directs associates to pressure a woman into returning to an allegedly adulterous marriage against her stated wishes, it reveals a willingness to subordinate personal well-being and justice to organizational control. Such actions do not reflect pastoral care; they reflect coercion dressed in spiritual language.

Equally troubling is the reported use of financial bribes to recruit members from another church combined with an expressed desire to destroy a rival organization. This approach transforms ministry into a competitive power struggle rather than a pursuit of truth or spiritual growth. Leaders who resort to inducements and smear tactics erode trust within the broader Christian community and teach followers that ends justify unethical means.

A further danger lies in Thiel’s apparent refusal to accept direct testimony from Priscilla while readily believing associates whom Nelson describes as liars and con men. A self-proclaimed prophet who filters reality through a self-serving narrative creates an environment in which truth is secondary to loyalty. Followers in such a system learn to suppress doubts, ignore evidence, and defend questionable conduct, leaving them vulnerable to repeated manipulation and moral compromise.

Over time, these patterns point to deeper heresies beyond any specific doctrinal disputes. They reflect a fundamental inversion of Christian principles: the elevation of institutional power over the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of control for compassion, and the dismissal of inconvenient truth in favor of a curated narrative. History demonstrates that religious movements led by individuals exhibiting these traits often produce damaged followers, fractured families, and lasting spiritual harm rather than genuine faith and freedom.

Those associated with Bob Thiel would do well to examine whether continued support for such leadership aligns with the values of justice, honesty, and care for the individual that true Christianity demands. The evidence presented in these comments suggests that the greatest danger may not lie in any single doctrine but in the character and methods of the man promoting them.

Here are screen shots of Bob's latest gaslighting go Priscilla.

The Untouchables: Armstrongist Edition — Because Nothing Says “True Church” Like Decades of Zero Accountability

Nathan Albright’s White Paper 9 is a devastatingly precise diagnosis of how elites in religious (and other) institutions become effectively untouchable. The mechanisms he describes—prestige shielding, elite networks, status preservation, and the resulting social environment of moral insulation—are not abstract sociology. They are the daily operating system of splinter groups today. What Albright analyzes in general terms plays out in real time in the Churches of God under self-appointed “leaders” like Bob Thiel, David C. Pack, Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland, and their lesser imitators.

Prestige Shielding in the Splinters

Albright explains how accumulated reputation creates a perceptual shield: past “accomplishments” (or claimed ones) cause current misconduct to be interpreted charitably, with critics facing high social costs for speaking up.

In Armstrongism, this is on steroids. Herbert W. Armstrong’s prestige still blankets the entire movement decades after his death. Splinter leaders position themselves as his legitimate heirs, “restoring” what was lost, or receiving special revelations that HWA supposedly lacked. Bob Thiel (“Bwana Bob,” the Crackpot Prophet) constantly waves his claimed double portion and endless “dreams” as proof of divine appointment. David Pack claims to be the Elijah who would restore all things and has set dozens of failed dates for Christ’s return to Wadsworth, Ohio. Gerald Flurry claims to be “That Prophet” and possesses physical items tied to HWA.

The prestige shield works beautifully: hundreds of failed prophecies, documented scandals, financial exploitation, and authoritarian abuse are waved away as “attacks by Satan” or “persecution.” Members who invested years (or lifetimes) in these groups have a massive spiritual sunk-cost fallacy. To admit the leader is wrong is to admit their own sacrifices, broken families, and emptied bank accounts were for nothing. So the shield holds. Critics (including this blog) are dismissed as “bitter ex-members” or “tools of the devil,” exactly as Albright predicts.

Elite Networks and Mutual Protection

Albright describes dense webs of relationships among prominent figures that produce reciprocal protection—suppression of damaging information, favorable narratives, and mobilization of resources in defense of a member under scrutiny.

While Armstrongist groups are famously fragmented and often at war with each other, a functional elite network still operates. Leaders rarely call out each other’s false prophecies or abuses publicly (unless it serves to recruit members). There is a gentleman’s agreement of sorts: you don’t blow up my prophetic credibility and I won’t blow up yours. Insiders and ex-insiders know the quiet circulation of stories—Kenyan scandals in CCOG (adultery, witchcraft accusations, arrests, cover-ups involving named ministers like Evans Ochieng), RCG’s documented mind-control tactics and family destruction, PCG’s no-contact policies and financial austerity on members while the elite live comfortably, etc. Yet these rarely break into the broader “Church of God” consciousness in a way that threatens the system.

When a leader faces serious heat, the network (or sub-network) activates: loyal ministers issue character references, members are told to “pray for the leader,” and critics are isolated or disfellowshipped. The reciprocal expectation is clear—today I defend you, tomorrow you (or your allies) defend me.

Status Preservation and the Inner Circle

This may be the most powerful dynamic in the splinters. Albright notes that not just the leader, but spouses, children, staff, donors, board members, and protégés all have status, financial, vocational, and identity interests tied to the elite’s reputation. The pressure to suppress inconvenient truths becomes overwhelming.

Look at any major splinter. The leader’s family often occupies key positions. Long-time ministers and administrators have built entire careers (and retirements) around the group. Donors who have given “firstfruits,” tithes, and special offerings for decades cannot easily admit they were deceived. Young people raised in the system have their social world, marriage prospects, and identity wrapped up in it. The result is a thick layer of protective insulation. Information that leaks is minimized, contextualized, or attacked. The broader membership only hears the sanitized version.

Family dynamics add extra power here, as Albright notes with the Eli example. Loyalty to “God’s government” and “the family” become indistinguishable, making honest confrontation feel like betrayal of both.

The Social Environment of Insulation in Practice

In these groups, ordinary members live under one set of rules while the elite operate under another. Failed prophecies that would destroy credibility elsewhere are reframed as “tests of faith” or “God giving more time.” Abuses that would end careers in healthier churches are “God’s way of doing things.” Critics are not engaged on the merits; they are marginalized through the very mechanisms Albright describes.

The feedback loop is vicious: the leader hears mostly praise and filtered information from sycophants and dependents. He becomes genuinely convinced of his own specialness. The audience around him—shaped by the same environment—reinforces it. Consequential exposure is minimized through control of media, finances, and social connections. This is precisely why the splinters can persist despite decades of prophetic failure and documented harm.

Breaking the Cycle of Moral Insulation in Armstrongism

Nathan Albright’s sociological analysis shines a harsh but necessary light on why Armstrongist splinter groups remain trapped in patterns of elite exemption, failed prophecies, financial exploitation, and spiritual abuse despite decades of evidence. The prestige shielding around self-appointed leaders like Bob Thiel, David C. Pack, Gerald Flurry, and others is not unbreakable divine protection — it is a thoroughly human sociological construct built on sunk-cost fallacies, selective memory, and communal self-interest. When combined with elite networks and status-preservation incentives, it creates environments where ordinary moral evaluation is short-circuited, allowing the same cycles of wackiness and harm to repeat. Recognizing this as a systemic sociological problem, rather than merely a collection of bad actors, is the first step toward meaningful change.

Breaking prestige shielding requires deliberate, sustained refusal to participate in the protective perceptual framework. Individuals and communities must reject the automatic presumption of competence and good faith that past (or claimed) accomplishments grant. This means evaluating leaders by their present fruit — doctrinal accuracy, financial transparency, treatment of the vulnerable, and fidelity to Scripture — rather than by inherited HWA prestige, dramatic self-titles (“That Prophet,” Elijah, etc.), or emotional appeals to “God’s government.” Critics and concerned members must be willing to bear the social costs Albright describes: being labeled bitter, divisive, or satanic. As the prophets demonstrated, this often requires indirect approaches at first (parables, questions, documented timelines of failed predictions) before direct confrontation becomes possible. Persistent, factual documentation — exactly as this blog has done for years — chips away at the shield by making misconduct visible and impossible to filter out entirely.

On a broader scale, disrupting these dynamics demands the cultivation of alternative social environments and feedback channels outside the insulated networks. Former members, independent researchers, and those still inside who retain intellectual honesty can form or support loose networks that prioritize truth over group loyalty. This includes amplifying insider testimonies (such as the Kenyan CCOG scandals), cross-referencing leaders’ claims against verifiable history, and encouraging personal Bible study focused on the New Covenant rather than proof-texted legalism. Families and inner circles must wrestle with the Eli-like conflict: genuine love and loyalty cannot mean complicity in harm. Status interests — careers, retirements, identities — will always pull toward preservation, but individuals can realign them by counting the cost of continued participation in a system that devours its own.

Ultimately, the most powerful antidote to moral insulation in these groups is a return to biblical Christianity unfiltered by Armstrongist traditions. The New Covenant frees believers from the heavy yoke of human mediators and institutional prestige. Christ Himself confronted the insulated religious elites of His day without deference to their status or networks. When enough people — inside and out — insist that leaders be held to the same standards as everyone else, the perceptual shield weakens. The social environment shifts from protection to accountability. This will not happen through polite internal reform alone; it requires the prophetic courage Albright highlights and the persistent external pressure of sunlight.

The Armstrongist splinters have thrived on insulation for generations, but sociological constructs are not eternal. They crumble under sustained truth-telling, courageous exposure, and the quiet exodus of those who choose freedom in Christ over fear of man. The work continues — documenting, satirizing, appealing, and calling people to evaluate leaders by present conduct rather than borrowed glory. In the end, prestige that cannot withstand honest scrutiny was never worth shielding in the first place. Truth, by contrast, needs no such defenses.

See: White Paper 9: The Sociology of Moral Insulation: Prestige Shielding, Elite Networks, and Status Preservation

If You Hitch a Ride on the Wild Bus of Anthropomorphism, It Can Take You Some Strange Places

 

Maybe the Ride Would be Like This

If You Hitch a Ride on the Wild Bus of Anthropomorphism, It Can Take You Some Strange Places 

Father, Son, Arianism and Armstrongism

By Scout

Now at the time spoken of here in John 1 and verse 1, the Word was not the Son of God. They were co-equals. There never was a time when the Word did not exist as a separate personage from God. And yet He, too, is God. Now later the one called God, here, became the Father and after Jesus was born as a human being He said, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." Well, I've said that a few times about my son, Garner Ted. But, nevertheless, at this time, the Word had always existed. There never was a time He did not exist, so He could not have been a Son of God — otherwise God would have had to have existed first. Herbert W. Armstrong, “Our Calling”, Sermon, 1976 (Available Online)               ­

I have said these things to you in figures of speech.”  ― Jesus (NRSV, John 16:25)

Many Armstrongists will be surprised at Herbert W. Armstrong’s (HWA) statement above.  They are fond of quoting “The Father is greater than I” without regard to Jesus’ kenotic state of incarnation.  Subordinationism is a quite common view among Armstrongists.  Yet HWA apostolically asserts that God and the Word are co-equal – both God in some sense.  His statement, insofar as it goes, has a distinctly Nicene Christian ring to it. 

Armstrongism, then, has an internal inconsistency.  It asserts that God and the Word are co-equal persons.  And are both God.  Yet, the paradox is that there is a widespread belief in Armstrongists circles that Jesus the Son is inferior to God the Father.  I believe this is rooted in the anthropomorphic view of God held by Armstrongists and likely inherited from Arianism.   I will now step gingerly into metaphysics.  

Ontology and Economy

In theology, two metaphysical properties of God are ontology and economy.  Ontology refers to who God is.  Economy refers to what God does.  This is important in establishing how the Father and the Son are co-equal.  They are equal in ontology but differ in economy. 

An example is the number 1.  It is useful in counting chickens.  If you have one chicken you can count him using the number 1.  In ontology, the number 1 is like all other numbers.  It has magnitude and order.  But the number 1 with the same ontology can be used in binary arithmetic in the implementation of digital electronics.  It makes computer logic efficient. But it differs somewhat from the chicken-counting number 1.  In binary arithmetic, it is used to signify if an electronic gate is open.  The number 1 has the same ontology in both cases but a different economy in each case.  Just as the Father and the Son are both God in essence but the application of their perfections is different – one is Father and the other is Son.  They are the same in their essential being but differ in how they apply themselves. 

It is important to understand this principle.  It is the background for being able to interpret what Jesus means when he says “I and the Father are one” which implies equality.  And elsewhere he says “the Father is greater than I.”  This is not a contradiction.   The Father and the Son are the same in ontology but differ in economy.  In Nicene Christianity, this co-equality and sharing of essence is called Homoousion.

The Subordination of Jesus in Armstrongism

God is absolute. He is not just the strongest kid on the block.  He created the block, the kids and the concept of strength.  He calls things into existence. He creates reality.  He is incomparable rather than relative.  Another way of stating this is to say that God is not limited in any sense that we can think of a limit. He has absolute free will and he is what he is. 

There cannot be more than one absolute being.  If God the Father is absolute then Jesus cannot be absolute if he is a separate being.  And the reverse is true. There are a number of arguments concerning this but the one I will examine here is the Argument from Unlimitedness.  If there were to be two beings that were absolute, they would limit each other and the definition of absolute would be violated.  If one being is all-inclusive then there cannot be another being that is excluded.  The only way there can be more than one being that is absolute is for the multiple beings to have a shared essence and the Nicene doctrine of Homoousion is supported.

A corollary is that if God consists of more than one being but one being is absolute, then the rest are not.  So, if God the Father is absolute, and Jesus is a separate, distinct being, then Jesus is not absolute.  But Jesus is also “ho Theos” so God the Father and God the Son must have a shared essence and any form of polytheism, including the bitheism of Armstrongism, collapses. 

So, how then are Father and Son differentiated?  I don’t know.  I have a conjecture. Perhaps a difference in economy is really a difference in emphasis for beings who encompass all things.  The Father and the Son are both absolute, both all in all.  But economy is created when God the Father emphasizes certain perfections and Jesus emphasizes others though all perfections are jointly held.  

The Arian Pitfall of Anthropomorphism

Arius extended the anthropomorphic metaphor of father and son further than it could go.  Nothing in the physical realm is an exact duplication of God’s attributes.  In the physical, human realm, the father gives rise to the son as a result of human reproductive capability.  Arius concluded that Jesus, then, was created by God the Father, that Jesus was not really God-as-God-is-God.  Because he did not recognize metaphor, Arius thought he was being true to scripture and others were not.  But what Arius did do was commit the heresy of Heteroousion which the Nicene brothers had to correct.  

Arianism is an odd philosophy that afflicted various branches of the Millerite Movement.  When HWA joined a church after being convicted of the necessity to keep the seventh day, he joined an Arian church.  He boarded up on the bus. Robert Coulter, past president of the General Conference of the Church of God Seventh Day (CG7), in an interview with Dixon Cartwright, stated that the early CG7 was Arian, that is, they did not believe that Jesus was God.  CG7 was Arian when Herbert W. Armstrong joined it.  But HWA did not retain this Arianism in its explicit form. 

The major difference between Arianism and Armstrongism has to do with the transmissibility of the nature of God.  Arius had a unitarian view and believed that God is unique and his nature cannot be transmitted to others - even Christ.  HWA believed that the nature of God was ultimately going to be transmitted to nearly everyone.  So, one cannot assert that Armstrongism is directly Arianist.  But there is a subtle point of Arianist influence. Armstrongists seem to believe that Jesus is subordinate to the God the Father (in spite of HWA’s assertion of their co-equality) not only in Kenotic state but in essence.  As we have seen, this means that Jesus is not absolute.  This also means that Jesus is not God.   And this is incontrovertibly an Arianist viewpoint. 

The Summary Argument

Using HWA’s terminology from the quote at the top, two “separate personages” cannot be “co-equal” if they are absolute. There can be only one absolute being.  If the beings are co-inherent and co-essential we get into different territory.  Arius made the mistake of not recognizing the human father-son relationship as applied to God is anthropomorphic, a metaphor.  It is not that humans have the true father-son relationship and the relationship between the Father and Son is an imitation.  It’s the other way around.  The divine relationship transcends the human relationship.  We have the weak imitation in flesh.   We are the poetry, the metaphor.  And Arius made the mistake in rhetoric of not recognizing anthropomorphism when he saw it. 

 

Bwana Bob Thiel’s Masterclass in Pastoral Idiocy: Earthquakes Prove You Need to Be a True Philadelphian (Or Else)

The other day a strong earthquake shook a region of the Philippines. Naturally, Bwana Bob, our most highy favored Crackpot Prophet couldn't let a little thing like human suffering pass without making it all about him and his one-man-band Continuing Church of God. He piously inquired of his handful of Filipino followers whether any of his precious members had suffered or been injured. The answer? No.

Relieved that his tithing base remained intact, Crackpot Bob then unleashed this pearl of pastoral wisdom (quote left intact, because it really is too stupid to improve upon):

He writes:

While that is good news, the death’s from this quake are a sober reminder that life is fleeting. Consider also the words of Jesus: 

 

1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5)

Your situation can change. You can perish. Do not put off full repentance as YOU may not have as much time to become a true Philadelphian Christian as you might think.

Oh, brilliant, Bwana Bob. Jesus warns about the universal need for repentance in a broken world, and you turn it into a sleazy timeshare pitch for your irrelevant Armstrongist splinter. According to Saint Bwana, random earthquakes aren't just tragic reminders of mortality — they're divine billboards screaming "Hurry up and join Thiel's Philadelphian Elite or you're toast!"

This is peak theological idiocy, even by Crackpot Prophet standards. Jesus said "repent." Full stop. He didn't say "repent and become a true Philadelphian under that guy in California who keeps failing at prophecy, obsessing over calendars, and pretending British Israelism isn't debunked nonsense." Crackpot Bob has taken a clear, grace-centered warning about sudden death and twisted it into fear-mongering recruitment for his ego-driven mini-cult.

Life is fleeting, Bwana Bob — especially your credibility after decades of prophetic faceplants. But hey, keep using dead bodies as marketing material. Nothing says "loving shepherd" like leveraging earthquakes to scare people into sending you money so they can be counted among your "true Philadelphians." Classic Bobism: tone-deaf, self-promoting, and theologically bankrupt.

Crackpot Bob’s Holy Grail: Why Bwana Bob Still Worships Hislop’s Discredited Two Babylons Like It’s the Third Testament

Oh, what a gloriously sunny day here in California and in the annals of Crackpot Prophet theatrics! Bwana Bob Thiel popped his perpetually self-righteous cork like a cheap bottle of prophetic Mogen David wine the other day when the good people of Barcelona celebrated the installation of a monumental cross atop the Tower of Jesus Christ at the Sagrada Família. Nothing — and I mean nothing — sends our modern-day Apostle of Crossophobia into a frothing tizzy quite like the sight of a simple Christian cross gleaming in the Spanish sun. 

 

And what divine, infallible source does this self-anointed genius rely on to fuel his unhinged hatred of crosses? Why, none other than Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons — the third most sacred tome in the Armstrongist pantheon, right behind Herbert W. Armstrong’s Mystery of the Ages and Bob’s ever-growing stack of self-serving “revelations.” Because apparently, in Crackpot Prophet world, a 19th-century anti-Catholic rant dripping with errors, fabrications, and wild speculation isn’t just a quirky old book… it’s practically on par with Scripture itself. How absurd!

Oh, brethren (and sistren), gather ’round for another thrilling episode of “How the One True Church Clings to Debunked Nonsense While Pretending to Have All Truth.” For decades, Alexander Hislop’s anti-Catholic polemic The Two Babylons has been the golden calf of Armstrongism. This 1853 pamphlet-turned-book claims Roman Catholicism is just repackaged Babylonian paganism — Nimrod and Semiramis pulling the strings behind Christmas trees, Easter eggs, clerical collars, and pretty much anything fun or traditional that “they” do. Hislop’s methodology? Cherry-picked myths, wild etymology, superficial statue resemblances, and enough speculation to fill a dozen failed prophecy date books.

Herbert W. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God lapped it up like fine Rothschild wine. It perfectly “proved” that mainstream Christianity was drenched in paganism, justifying their rejection of holidays, their Old Covenant Holy Day obsession, and their endless sermons about how only they had restored the pure faith. Hislop wasn’t just a source — he was practically an extra-biblical prophet for the Armstrong empire.

Enter Ralph Woodrow: The WCG’s Perfect Proof-Texting Weapon

Not content with Hislop alone, the WCG also propped up evangelical author Ralph Woodrow as their go-to guy for slamming Catholics and Protestants. Woodrow’s Babylon Mystery Religion (1966) was basically Hislop lite — heavy on the Babylonian connections, light on rigorous scholarship. It checked every box for WCG leadership: anti-Catholic, “historical” sounding, and useful for proof-texting their narrative that everyone else was part of Mystery Babylon. They quoted it, recommended it, and used it to bolster the idea that true Christians must flee all those pagan-tainted customs and join the one true remnant.

Woodrow was hailed as a solid authority in Armstrongist circles — exactly the kind of outsider validation they loved when it confirmed their superior understanding. For years, his book helped keep the flock fearful of Easter baskets and Christmas lights, all while sending in those tithes to support the “work.”

The Great Repentance: Woodrow Grows a Conscience

Then came the plot twist that Armstrongists still pretend never happened. Ralph Woodrow, to his eternal credit, actually did the honest research he should have done earlier. He went back to the sources, examined Hislop’s claims, and realized the whole thing was built on sand — sloppy methodology, factual errors (Nimrod and Semiramis weren’t even contemporaries, folks!), fabrications, and agenda-driven nonsense.

In a remarkable act of integrity, Woodrow pulled Babylon Mystery Religion out of print, publicly retracted his support, and wrote The Babylon Connection? to set the record straight. He apologized, essentially, for helping spread poorly documented claims and urged people to rely on better evidence rather than chasing Babylonian ghosts under every Christian practice. Even the WCG reportedly began taking a second look during their transformation period.

What a concept — admitting you were wrong and correcting it! Too bad that spirit of repentance never caught on in most Armstrongist splinters.

Bwana Bob: The High Priest of Hislop Worship in the Modern Age

Fast-forward to today, and no one bows at the altar of Hislop quite like Crackpot Bwana Bob. Bwana Bob treats The Two Babylons as practically infallible — citing it left and right in his articles, booklets, and marathon sermons to “prove” pagan origins for just about everything. For Crackpot Prophet Thiel, Hislop’s word is gospel truth unless it conflicts with one of Bob’s own dreams or “double blessings.”

Never mind the mountain of scholarly discrediting. Never mind Woodrow’s public mea culpa. Bwana Bob keeps propping up this discredited screed because admitting it’s mostly bunk would unravel too many of his pet distinctives. It’s the same old Armstrongist game: cling to flawed extra-biblical sources that make you feel special and superior, while mocking everyone else as deceived.

Scholars — historians, archaeologists, biblical experts across the spectrum — have long dismissed Hislop as 19th-century propaganda full of errors and bias. But in Thiel-world, reality is whatever confirms the narrative that only CCOG has it all figured out.

A Sobering Warning: The Depths of Bob Thiel’s Delusions

This blind devotion to a thoroughly debunked book like The Two Babylons isn’t just a quirky footnote in Armstrongist history — it’s a glaring symptom of something far more dangerous. Crackpot Bob has built his entire prophetic persona on a foundation of sand: cherry-picked sources, self-proclaimed titles, and a refusal to let facts interfere with his narrative. When even Ralph Woodrow — a man who once championed these ideas — had the humility to repent and correct his errors, Thiel doubles down. That stubbornness reveals a leader more interested in maintaining control and feeding his own ego than pursuing actual truth.

If you’re still following Bwana Bob, take a hard look at what this pattern means. His “ministry” is littered with failed predictions, exaggerated claims about his own importance, and a track record of attacking anyone who dares question him — all while propping up discredited 19th-century propaganda as if it were on par with Scripture. This isn’t the work of a true apostle or prophet; it’s the hallmark of someone lost in layers of delusion, using fear of “paganism” to keep people isolated from the freedom Christ offers in the New Covenant.

The real tragedy is the spiritual harm this causes. Families divided, lives controlled by legalism, resources poured into a “work” that produces more division and disappointment than fruit. History shows Armstrongism’s long trail of shattered prophecies and broken people. Don’t let Thiel’s worship of Hislop drag you down the same path. Step back, examine the evidence with an open mind, and embrace the grace and rest found in Jesus Christ — not in the endless rules, failed dates, or dusty books of self-appointed prophets.

It’s time to walk away from the confusion. True faith doesn’t require propping up debunked sources or following men who refuse to repent of obvious errors. True faith is not afraid of crosses.

History of Governance in the Church of God

History of Governance in the Church of God

Stoned Stephen Society blog

While many churches of God consider WCG as the parent church, the WCG is actually a spin off from another parent church that was called the Church of Christ. Gilbert Cranmer is credited for starting our church in March of 1858. In 1831 at the age of 17, Gilbert was baptized in a Methodist church and started preaching. After 2 years, he quit over the trinity doctrine and joined the Christian Connexion or Christian Church which was made up of loosely affiliated Christians that had abandoned the colonial churches like the Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist.

In 1844, he joined the Adventist movement started by William Miller whose prediction of Christ’s return between 1843-1844, spread like wildfire. After the “great disappointment”, Gilbert moved from Michigan to Illinois to escape the ridicule and mocking from his neighbors when Christ did not return.

Sabbath-keeping started being preached by Joseph Bates in the 1840’s and 50’s among the Millerites/Adventists. Gilbert Cranmer began observing the Sabbath in 1852. James and Ellen G. White began raising up Sabbath keeping advent churches at this time and Gilbert Cranmer became associated with them. In 1858, the White’s refused to give Cranmer credentials to preach in the Advent churches because of his tobacco use. By 1860, Gilbert Cranmer raised up 12 congregations made up of mostly Adventists who wished to distance themselves from Ellen G. White’s prophecies and James White’s desire to create a top-down government structure for the church. It is interesting to note here that it was a government issue and prophecy that created the split from SDA and the creation of the Church of Christ. The first structure of our parent church was Congregationalist and strongly opposed Episcopal top-down governance. Over the next 24 years, congregations were raised up and by 1884, they came together under a General Conference. This is when they settled on the name, Church of God.

In Robert Coulter’s book, “The Journey: A History of the Church of God (Seventh Day)”, he says on p.109:

It is interesting to note that the Conference was organized as a membership movement that did not require negotiations, concessions, or preconditions among its varied membership in order to organize. The Conference came into existence as a spontaneous action of its membership rather than of its leadership, and it was to serve its membership rather than govern them. 

 

It was under the oppressive drive of James and Ellen G. White to define doctrine of the church for everyone else and concentrate power and authority unto themselves, that helped ensure a congregational culture and governance of the Church of God and led to publications that had an “open creed” where critical thinkers of the church could get Bible studies published. Any idea that truth could only be introduced into the church from the ministry was utter nonsense. This was the culture that enabled the Church of God to develop its core doctrines during its first 70 years in existence. This period was not plagued with politics, infighting, division and chaos. No, all of that happened under Andrew Duggers’ watch. He was the next “James White” to come along and try to concentrate power unto himself and dictate a new long list of official doctrines. Andrew Dugger managed to split the church in half by 1933. After 16 years, the church merged again but not after membership went from 40,000 all the way down to 10,000 thanks to Andrew Dugger’s “skills in governance.”

It was in the atmosphere of those divided and divisive years that HWA himself railed against Duggers’ oppression and believed as long as he received a paycheck from the Church of God, he would have to preach only what men ordered him to teach. HWA claimed he stopped receiving pay from the Church of God in 1933 and only loosely affiliated because he was not going to be told by men what to preach. But the truth is, and it is in the Church’s records, that he remained a credentialed and paid minister until 1938.

It is ironic but quite possible that some of those 30,000 members who left the Church of God during this time period because of the controls implemented into the church by Dugger, went with HWA because of his stance against top-down governance. HWA clearly railed against one man rule, top down government in his 1939 article, calling it the “image of the beast.”

HWA claimed later he did not know what church government should be and it wasn’t until the 1950’s that it started coming to him. In the GCG booklet on government by RCM in 1993, RCM says it was he and Herman Hoeh that essentially introduced top-down government into the church by a series of articles in the 1950’s. By 1978, HWA had taken on titles to himself like “Apostle” and later, “Elijah” and brought the church so in line with Roman Catholic Church governance that some began questioning this obvious heresy in the church. His delusional concentration of power, in my opinion, is the reason there was no smooth transition after his death and directly contributed to the collapse of ‘his’ church. Just like William Miller, James and Ellen G. White and Andrew Dugger before him, HWA came along to concentrate power, make false predictions in prophecy and the return of Christ (1975), enforce his version of truth, and ultimately cause mass confusion, politics, infighting and chaos.

The turbulent 1930’s in the Church of God produced 3 splinters from the church:

1. C. O. Dodd formed the sacred names movement.

2. Andrew Dugger established a headquarters in Jerusalem to convert Jews who he

    believed would be the 144,000 in Revelation.

3. Herbert Armstrong split over the Holy Days and British-Israelism.

Something important to realize is that while HWA claimed to restore 18 truths to the church by direct inspiration from Jesus Christ, the truth is, HWA came into contact with the Church of God in 1927 and began reading all the materials that church produced in its publications that had that “open creed.” He said when he came in contact with “Sardis”, they had very little truth. But the truth is, the focus and culture of the Church of God was to avoid “officiating” doctrines and beliefs held by the members. What that means is even though there was not a webpage with a laundry list of teachings one must agree to in order to fellowship or be initiated into a corporate body, almost every single one of HWA’s “divinely” restored truths were written about, published and discussed in the church; some of those ideas for many years. HWA did not leave because no one would believe his teachings on British-Israelism and the Holy Days. He left because the General Conference would not make them official doctrines as something everyone had to believe.

[John Keizs, who was a close friend and fellow minister of HWA from 1935-1945, says HWA had a persecution-complex and the church was glad to see him go as he was difficult to work with. Keizs also stated that HWA told him he planned to start a college where he could train men to teach only what HWA told them to teach.]

There were people in the church that believed those two doctrines and observed annual Holy Days. HWA learned it there! HWA continued sharing a feast site with John Keizs until 1945. And there are still people in the Church of God (Seventh Day) and the Seventh Day Adventist Church that believe and observe the annual Holy Days to this day.

As a prelude and summary statement about his research, Robert Coulter says this on p.18:

The history contained in The Journey, from the Church’s founding to the present, has not always been uplifting. Sometimes it reflects the triumph of the Christian spirit and faith. At other times it reflects the selfishness of human nature. But since the church, as a part of the body of Christ, is composed of frail human beings, the modern church, like the imperfect church of the first century, reflects both the goodness of God and the depravity of the human spirit and the need for Jesus Christ to recreate it after His image!

Herbert W. Armstrong died (40) years ago. The churches of God birthed from the Worldwide Church of God are but a shell of a former work and zeal. It’s time to look in that mirror and reflect on the truth of our roots and our history.

Something we have been hearing over and over for years now is, “If God has top-down government He plans to implement on earth during the millennial reign of Jesus Christ, why would He NOT want us to practice that government in the church right now?” I have three reasons why NOT:

1. We are not God. We are men and incapable of ruling justly over others. The proof of this is human history and the record of abuse in all top-down structures including the ones implemented in churches.

2. Only the ministry gets to “practice” this government now. The only thing the rest of us get to practice is I Peter 2:18-21 and quite frankly, I get to practice that enough in the world.

3. The New Testament does not clearly endorse any form of government and that is why we see evidence of multiple structures utilized in church history. [I have come to believe through further study that the New Testament does endorse Congregational Polity]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you compare the Church of God (Seventh Day) early days of congregational polity and open creed, encouraging all brethren to study to show themselves approved to the years they dealt with James White and Andrew Dugger trying to concentrate power unto themselves and dictating doctrine; which approach bore fruits of growth and peace and brotherly love and which bred politics, division and strife?

The so-called "Sardis era" of the Church (Church of God: Seventh Day) has 400,000 members with congregational governance. The WCG legacy is an aftermath of roughly 30,000 people divided by a divisive ministry drunk with top down power and dependency on tithe payers for their livelihoods.

Colossians 2:8, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

philosophy” is PHILOSOPHIA: “not philosophy in general but the teaching of a syncretistic religious group that claims special insight into God, Christ, astral powers, creation, that imposes a set of rules on its members and that bases the authority of its message on its age or esoteric (secret) nature. –p.1272, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

Philosophia is what destroyed families because of an ungodly understanding of divorce and remarriage in WCG. Philosophia is what ruined thousands of brethren’s financial lives as they believed Christ was returning in 1975 in WCG. Philosophia is what enabled a whoremonger to remain the spokesman (GTA) of the WCG through the 1970’s because when he was initially removed, the income dropped 30% so he was rushed back. Philosophia is why one-man-rule, top-down government was used in WCG to maintain control and keep people focused on HWA as their mediator to Christ. Philosophia is what produced the “true church” doctrine that tied people’s salvation to membership in WCG and put people to sleep.

In Robert Coulter’s concluding statements in his book, “The Journey: A History of the Church of God (Seventh Day)” he points out that, “all churches have skeletons in their proverbial closets if their historians choose to reveal them.”

As long as LCG and all other splinters from WCG refuse to shine the light of truth on church history, an unforgiving internet will continue to do so for them. Unacknowledged ecclesiastical sins will never be forgiven. You will go down as the church who had a name for being alive (The Living Church of God) but continued only as the walking dead, arms outstretched, falling forward from the white-washed sepulcher of the Worldwide Church of God.

HWA was a failed business man that turned his marketing skills to selling religion for gain. HWA taught many truths that he learned in COG7D and pawned them off as having received them directly from Christ. HWA was a gnostic who pushed his own “philosophia” without grace and without love; two things unconverted men can never understand.

In Philippians 1:15-18, Paul says that there are those who preach Christ out of envy, strife and selfish ambition, while others, out of love. Paul asks what we are to make of this. Should we give up? Discard everything what was learned as lies? No. Paul says, whether in pretense or truth, Christ is preached. And I want to make that clear. I did not write this to take away from what Jesus has done for me by bringing me into contact with the churches of God. Despite the messengers, I learned many truths of the Bible. I am not advocating that there is a “best place to be." There is only the best place for you where Christ wants to put you in your journey. The most important thing is to never turn off the most important aspect of your humanity that is created in the very image of God. John tells us that the name of our God is “Rational Thought.” Please, don’t ever trade that in for a quick fix into the Kingdom of heaven promised by teachers. Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling.

V.