Another Armstrong Preacher Added to The List

 

Michael Armstrong, great grandson of Herbert Armstrong is now preaching for Intercontinental Church of God. You can watch him here leading songs and speaking. He's got that familiar GTA ring to his voice.

He also has a lot of video shorts on their Youtube channel.

Theodicy, Armstrongism and Performance Christianity: The Attempts to Figure Out the Puzzle of Evil

 

I Don’t Like Puzzles

Theodicy, Armstrongism and Performance Christianity

The Attempts to Figure Out the Puzzle of Evil

By Scout

“But who indeed are you, a human, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?”  Romans 9:20, NRSV

Some parts of Christianity I have thought a lot about.  Other parts, not so much.  This is mostly a matter of interest but sometimes it can be a matter of perplexity.  I am bothered by theodicy.  I do not believe that Christianity has made much of this important, nay critical, part of Christian doctrine. And I think Armstrongism is similar to other denominations on this topic but not worse. 

Theodicy is a study of why there is a good and perfect God yet an evil world.  For me, this topic has been the elephant in the room I didn’t want to talk about.  Because I had no answers and I mostly found the answers of others to be inadequate.  In Christian theology, theodicy has a forensic flare.  Theologians seek to justify God, as if he is being sued in court, for the existence of an evil world.  So they come up with various justifying arguments.  Mankind holds the same perspective as Job – God needs justification.  What binds all these arguments together is the perpetually troublesome concept of anthropomorphism.  Armstrongism, strong in anthropomorphism, of course, is in the fray.  So, I don’t have an answer for this, but I do have a viewpoint.  Let me give you my line of reasoning.

A Theodicy Sampler

If God is perfectly good, why is this world a vortex of evil?  A number of attempts have been made to unravel this perplexing issue.  David Bentley Hart has asserted that God has nothing to do with evil.  Rather, Thrones, Principalities and Powers are the source of evil in the Cosmos.  (I am never sure if I actually understand what Hart writes.)  My opposing view is that all sentient beings, whether good or evil, operate under the license of God.  Nobody can exercise any level of free will without permission from God either implicitly or explicitly. 

Another view is that God is engaged in soul-making.  The world is a boot camp and we are all being put through the exercises that will produce the good character that will serve us and others throughout eternity. But often the outrageous evil of this world does not build people but crushes them into uselessness.  Living on this planet is not a pleasant trip to the exercise salon to build biceps. Another problem is that not everyone is put through a prescribed regimen that is the same for all even though the ultimate purpose must be the same.  Some people have an easy ride and others ride in terror.  What’s that about?

Others believe that God defends the free will of people and this naturally results in the generation of evil.  God wants people to have the free will to choose good.  Only if good is freely chosen is it a product of good character.  Coercion doesn’t count.  If we are all Calvinist automatons, our actions are empty of genuine heart except once in a while as a matter of coincidence.  So, if humans are accorded free will, they may produce both good and evil.  You can’t let people do what they want to do and learn from it unless there is the potential for them to screw up.  And we have screwed up widely.

Yet, others believe that God is a Cosmic Accountant who offsets debits against credits.  He assures that if an evil is committed it is matched to some good that accrues. And because the books will be balanced in the Eschaton, all is well that ends well.  The problem with this is that it connects good to evil as if evil is a necessary principle in the Creation. Evil has a necessary place at the table which denies the perfection of a loving God.

Then there are those that reject typical beliefs about God and evil.  Often cited is the character Ivan in Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov.  Ivan accepts the idea of God.  He even believes that one day evil could yield some kind of a good outcome.  He just does not believe that any outcome is worth the horror of a tortured and murdered child.  It is a cost/benefit problem.  There is no benefit that makes the cost acceptable.

I am not familiar with all conjectures concerning theodicy.  But of the ones I have examined, including the Armstrongist view which I will turn to later, seem to be burdened to the point of collapse with anthropomorphism.  They assume that God is a human-like being, who thinks like a human, acts like a human and who, like a human, must be defended in the court of theology for permitting evil where it should not be.  I believe this viewpoint is in error. 

After reviewing and seeing the flaws in a number of theodicies, maybe theologians are barking up the wrong tree.  Maybe this is something that nobody is going to figure out this side of the Parousia.  Like dark matter in the Cosmos.

The Reasonableness of not Knowing

We know God by analogy and anthropomorphism is just one big analogy.  God is described in human terms, mostly, in scripture because that makes him understandable to humans.  Some mistakenly believe that the analogy, an instructional literary device, is actually God’s essence and this leads them to believe in a limited, human-like God.  For some, the limitation of God is useful in that it makes the idiosyncratic idea that humankind’s destiny to become God-as-God-is-God much more plausible. 

Analogy is very useful if it is understood to be analogy. It is the principal means we have of understanding God.  But the clarity is lost if we believe that analogy is essence.  God is absolute and we are relative.  Yet, analogy works because we are made in his image (not his essence).  Everything in the created, relative realm is an analogy of the Divine realm. Even wording that seems technically precise is really anthropomorphic.  To say God is all-powerful is to take the limited human concept of power and escalate it far beyond human experience.  Though this is an ardent sublimation, the meaning still remains rooted in humanness.  It is just much larger on the relative human scale ― a scale that does not pertain to God at all because he is absolute and not relative.  

The point is that we as relative beings will still be relative beings when we are resurrected.  We are relative because as created beings we are contingent on the Creator who prescribes limits for us. God, on the other hand, is uncreated and unlimited.  Hence, God transcends us and we will never know God in the fullness of his essence. Isiah 55 says, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways."  Our understanding of the absolute God is naturally apophatic.  We can characterize the relative through analogy but our metaphors for the absolute are spare.  

So, what does this apophatic view mean for developing theodicy?  It means that we cannot develop a theodicy.  God transcends us.  He is of a different category that we are.  It is presumptuous to believe that we can justify God.  And this justification is the driver behind the formulation of theodicies. We cannot even understand his plans, purposes and principles beyond what he has revealed to us in our limited and contingent condition.  

Carefully note that I am not asserting that there is no theodicy.  I am agreeing with the idea developed by some theologians that the true theodicy is in the divine realm and it transcends our understanding.   God does not act without purpose; it is just that we do not understand his purposes.  We enjoy a scaled down understanding, dependent on analogy, but in theodicy we bump up against its limits. I had an Armstrongist commenter on this blog once say that if we can’t understand God, what is then the value of being a Christian.  There is a difference between having and exhaustive understanding and having a working understanding.  We have the latter.

The Armstrongist View – Maybe

This must be conjectural.  I searched one of the online archives of Armstrongist literature and the word “theodicy” was not found by the search engine. So, I will rely on my 30 years of experience as a one-time Armstrongist.  It is safe to say that Armstrongists believe that people have free will and can do either evil or good.  Otherwise, the Armstrongist view aligns mostly closely with soul-making.  God is producing righteous character in his followers and the potential for evil is a tool in this process.  People must learn that evil is destructive and they must not follow evil. 

Earlier, I mentioned some of the flaws with the idea of soul-making.  Theologian Robert Fortuin expands this further.  He points out that soul-making treats atrocities as if they were useful lessons, like classroom exercises.  In my mind this flaw belittles the empathy of God for humanity.  Another flaw he identifies is the mistaken belief that we can actually understand the logical connection between human suffering and divine purpose.  Instead, this is a mystery to us with our limited capabilities.  Further, it makes evil a useful constructive tool instead of a parasitic tragedy on human existence.  So, the idea that evil exists so we can all develop character fails.

Conclusion

My belief that God’s intents are far beyond our ability to understand when it comes to evil in our world has a name.  I have seen it termed Apophatic Non-theodicy. It sounds like a denial and it is.  The denial is inescapable.  And the reason why theologians cannot come up with a cogent, credible theodicy is not a problem of persuasive logic in the justification of God but a problem of the doctrine of God.  We, Christians and Armstrongists, have the doctrine of God wrong.   God is absolute and we cannot apply our relative categories to him.  We find ourselves in a place of humility.  Like it says in Job 40, “Then Job answered the Lord: “See, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth.” If someone asks me why the kid in our neighborhood, who everyone agrees was a great kid, got runover and killed in the street, I will say, “I don’t know.” 

Rod Meredith Didn't Listen, So God Had To Choose Crackpot Bob

The latest installment in the continuing saga of Bob Thiel's theological self-importance provides an excellent opportunity to examine a familiar Armstrongist phenomenon: what happens when a man becomes convinced that he possesses special prophetic insight, only to discover that the people he believes should recognize his brilliance are not particularly interested in doing so.

An Armstrongist tale of prophetic brilliance, ecclesiastical rejection, and one man's determination to prove that everyone else is spiritually blind.

There are few things more entertaining in the fractured world of Armstrongism than watching one of its self-appointed prophetic authorities explain why every other church leader is wrong, why the brethren are too spiritually dull to recognize the truth, and why his own personal understanding of biblical prophecy should apparently be treated as a matter of divine importance.

Enter Bob Thiel, the self-proclaimed, self-annointed, leader of the Continuing Church of God, whose latest prophetic performance demonstrates that the old Armstrongist tradition of theological self-importance is alive and well.

And what is the source of this latest drama? None other than the late Dr. Roderick C. Meredith, former leader of the Living Church of God.

Apparently, Bob still has some unfinished business with Meredith. The disagreement concerns the interpretation of Daniel 9:27, the famous prophecy involving a covenant, a mysterious prince, and the ever-popular Armstrongist obsession with a coming European superpower. But beneath the biblical arguments lies a much more entertaining story: Bob's apparent conviction that he had the right answer, Meredith once agreed with him, and the Living Church of God subsequently wandered into prophetic confusion.

One can almost hear the frustrated prophet muttering:

"Why won't they just listen to me?"

According to Bob's account, he and Meredith discussed the interpretation of Daniel 9:27 in November 2003. Bob claims that they independently arrived at the same conclusion regarding the identity of the mysterious prince and the supposed seven-year covenant. Bob then reminds readers that Meredith subsequently published an article in the Living Church News in 2004 that reflected this understanding. Naturally, Bob considers this significant. After all, if the great Dr. Meredith once agreed with Bob, then surely that agreement ought to establish something important about Bob's prophetic credentials.

But here is where the story becomes interesting.

Meredith's published writings demonstrate that he was willing to examine the biblical text and discuss competing interpretations. The Living Church of God eventually acknowledged that Daniel 9:27 could be understood in more than one way. The church's 2019 discussion explicitly recognized the possibility that the prophecy referred to Christ, a future prince, or even a dual fulfillment.

Bob, however, was not impressed. In his view, the church had lost knowledge. It had deviated from the teaching he believed Meredith had once supported. Its leaders apparently no longer understood the prophetic details that Bob considered essential.

And so we arrive at the familiar Armstrongist conclusion:

If the church agrees with Bob, it possesses prophetic understanding. If it disagrees with Bob, it has lost prophetic understanding. What a convenient arrangement! The church apparently had prophetic insight when Bob was involved in the discussion, but once it began examining the matter differently, its understanding deteriorated.

One wonders whether the Holy Spirit has been reduced to an ecclesiastical endorsement machine, dispensing divine approval whenever Bob's interpretation receives a favorable vote.

Bob repeatedly invokes Meredith's earlier statements to support his own interpretation. But there is a problem with this approach. Meredith's writings do not establish that Bob possesses exclusive prophetic authority. Nor do they demonstrate that Meredith's earlier agreement with Bob was a divine endorsement of Bob's future leadership. Meredith was a church leader who held particular theological views. He could agree with Bob on one subject and disagree with him on another. That is how ordinary human reasoning works.

But in Bob's prophetic universe, a former agreement seems to carry considerably more weight than subsequent disagreements. The implication is that Meredith's earlier support validates Bob's position, while the Living Church of God's later uncertainty demonstrates its spiritual decline.

This is an extraordinary way to construct a theological argument.

Imagine a mathematics teacher agreeing with a student on a particular equation, then later reconsidering the problem. Would the student be entitled to announce that the entire school had lost mathematical knowledge because the teacher no longer agreed with him?

Perhaps Bob would.

After all, the Continuing Church of God appears to have perfected the art of turning disagreements into evidence of spiritual blindness.

The actual theological disagreement concerns the identity of the "he" in Daniel 9:27.

Bob insists that the passage refers to a future European ruler who will confirm a seven-year covenant and break it after three and a half years.

The Living Church of God has acknowledged that the passage is not entirely clear. The United Church of God and Church of God, a Worldwide Association have also presented interpretations that differ from Bob's.

And here is the inconvenient reality:

The biblical text does not contain Bob's name.

It does not identify him as the exclusive interpreter of Daniel.

It does not declare that the Continuing Church of God will possess the only correct understanding of the prophecy.

Yet Bob's writing repeatedly moves from disagreement over interpretation to claims that other churches have lost knowledge, will fail to recognize prophetic events, and will not know when to flee. This is where Armstrongist prophecy becomes less about understanding Scripture and more about maintaining institutional control.

Accept our interpretation, because we understand what is coming. Reject our interpretation, and you may not recognize the events that will supposedly determine your survival.

That is a remarkably effective way to keep people anxious, living in fear and under control. It is also a remarkably convenient way to establish the authority of the man making the predictions.

Bob's insistence that Meredith once agreed with him raises another question. Why is this historical agreement so important? If Bob's interpretation is correct, it should stand on its own merits. If Daniel 9:27 clearly identifies a future European ruler, then Bob should be able to demonstrate that from the text without repeatedly reminding readers that Meredith once agreed with him. But the repeated references to Meredith create the impression that Bob is still seeking validation from the very organization he left. It is almost as though the Continuing Church of God has become a permanent monument to an unresolved ecclesiastical disagreement.

Meredith is gone. The Living Church of God continues to exist. Its leaders have expressed uncertainty about the prophecy. And Bob is still explaining why they should have listened to him. One might reasonably ask whether the real issue is Daniel 9:27 or Bob's apparent need to be recognized as the man who understood it first.

There is an even larger issue that Armstrongist prophecy enthusiasts frequently overlook.

The New Covenant is not primarily a countdown clock to a European political arrangement. The New Testament emphasizes Christ's finished work, the forgiveness of sins, the transformation of believers, and the life of faith.

Hebrews 8:6 describes Christ as the mediator of a better covenant, established on better promises.

Hebrews 10:14 declares that Christ has perfected those who are being sanctified through His sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:17 states: "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

Yet Armstrongist prophecy discussions often revolve around identifying future political leaders, deciphering European reorganizations, predicting the beginning of the Great Tribulation, and determining which church possesses the necessary prophetic knowledge.

The result is a religious environment in which the believer is constantly encouraged to look toward the next prophetic development.

The question becomes: Are we watching the right European ruler?

Rather than: Are we living faithfully in Christ?

That distinction matters. Christian faith is not supposed to depend upon an endless succession of prophetic predictions and institutional claims.

The Continuing Church of God presents itself as the continuation of the true Church of God.

But its own history raises an obvious question. If the Church of God is supposedly guided by divine revelation, why do its various splinter organizations repeatedly disagree over major prophetic interpretations? Why does one organization claim that Daniel 9:27 refers to Christ, while another insists that it refers to a future European ruler? Why does one group claim that the other has lost knowledge? And why does every splinter group seem to believe that its own leadership possesses the understanding that everyone else lacks?

The answer may be less mysterious than Armstrongist leaders would like to admit.

These organizations are human institutions. Their leaders interpret Scripture, develop doctrines, and sometimes disagree. There is nothing inherently surprising about that. What is troubling is the tendency to transform those disagreements into claims of exclusive divine authority. Bob's dispute with the Living Church of God is a perfect illustration.

Rather than simply acknowledging that Christians can disagree about difficult prophetic passages, Bob portrays the disagreement as evidence that the church has lost knowledge. The Continuing Church of God, meanwhile, becomes the institution that supposedly possesses the missing understanding.

How convenient.

The prophetic authority that was supposedly lost by one organization has conveniently reappeared in another organization led by the man who says he possesses it.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of this entire episode is not the interpretation of Daniel 9:27. It is the attitude that surrounds it.

Bob's article repeatedly emphasizes his personal involvement in the development of Living Church of God teaching, his conversations with Meredith, and his conviction that the church has subsequently departed from the correct interpretation. The implication is difficult to miss.

Bob believes he was right. Meredith once agreed. The church later disagreed. Therefore, the church has lost knowledge. And Bob is left to explain the situation to everyone else.

One might almost feel sorry for him.

Almost.

But there is something genuinely revealing about a religious leader who repeatedly uses his disagreements with other churches to reinforce the idea that he alone possesses the understanding necessary to interpret biblical prophecy correctly. It is the same old Armstrongist game.

A man claims special understanding. His followers are told that other churches are spiritually blind. Disagreement becomes evidence of apostasy. And the leader's personal interpretation becomes the standard by which everyone else is judged. The only thing missing is a trumpet announcing the arrival of the next prophetic genius. Perhaps Bob should consider adding one to the Continuing Church of God stationery. After all, when you have spent years explaining why the rest of the Church of God world has lost prophetic knowledge, it must be terribly frustrating when the rest of the Church of God world continues to disagree with you.

The prophecy remains disputed. The church remains divided. And Crackpot Bob remains convinced that the problem is everyone else.

Some things in Armstrongism never change.

Dixon Cartwright, longtime publisher of The Journal: News of the Churches of God, has died.

For more than two decades, Cartwright and his wife Linda ran one of the few independent, cross-group publications in the fractured post-Herbert Armstrong world of the Churches of God. From their base in Big Sandy, Texas, they produced a subscription newspaper that refused to function as a controlled mouthpiece for any single organization. In a landscape of hierarchical groups that tightly managed information, The Journal offered something rare: a forum where members across the various COG splinters could read news, share views, and sometimes confront uncomfortable realities.

Cartwright launched The Journal in February 1997, one month after John Robinson shut down In Transition. Cartwright had worked with Robinson's paper and tried to keep it going, but the two could not reach an agreement. Rather than let the idea of an independent COG newspaper die, he and Linda started their own. The first issue appeared as the post-1986 and post-1994/95 splits were still reshaping the old Worldwide Church of God world. United Church of God, Living Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, Restored Church of God, and dozens of smaller groups and independents were all competing for members, legitimacy, and control of the narrative.

Cartwright's stated purpose was practical: help people maintain contact with other COG Christians across organizational boundaries and provide a place for discussion. Unlike many church publications of the era, The Journal did not require articles to pass a doctrinal purity test. It published news of congregations and leadership changes, Feast reports, historical pieces, governance debates, and letters to the editor from a wide range of perspectives. Major COG organizations largely stayed away from advertising in it-precisely because they preferred to control the message. That absence itself was revealing.

Over its run of roughly 202 issues, the paper covered concrete problems inside the movement. It reported on governance conflicts, leadership struggles, financial and organizational decisions that affected ordinary members, and events such as the 2005 shooting at a Living Church of God service in Brookfield, Wisconsin. It carried historical material on the WCG era, Ambassador College, and the early years of the various splinters. It also ran opinion pieces and letters that questioned aspects of Armstrongist practice and authority. Critics in the more hardline groups sometimes dismissed it or attacked it; some in the stronger anti-Armstrong circles called Cartwright an "enabler" for continuing to operate inside the COG orbit rather than fully repudiating it. Cartwright's response was consistent: he was not trying to prop up any particular leader or group. He was providing a forum and an avenue for communication and fellowship among people who still identified with the Churches of God.

He continued publishing through health setbacks, including a heart attack in 2011 that reduced his energy. In late 2017 he announced that The Journal would end after the January 2018 issue. At the time he noted that the paper would turn 21 the same month he turned 71, that his reasons for publishing had changed, and that he no longer saw the same necessity for the project that he had felt in 1997. He remained active in one or more COG groups and described himself as a COG member, though he said he was not the same kind of Christian he had been when he started the paper. The website continued for a time under other oversight, and plans were made to archive the issues.

Cartwright's contribution was not that of a full outsider or relentless polemicist. It was that of an independent publisher who refused to let the major organizations monopolize the flow of information. In a movement long marked by top-down control, suppressed dissent, and careful public relations, a newspaper that reported across group lines and allowed competing voices had a corrosive effect on the old closed system. It documented the ongoing fractures, the governance problems, and the distance between the promises of the Armstrong era and the realities of the later COG landscape. That documentation helped members and former members see the picture more clearly.

Dixon Cartwright's death closes a long chapter in the independent reporting on the Churches of God. The Journal was never the most aggressive exposé vehicle, but for twenty-one years it was one of the few consistent places where the news and the arguments of the post-Armstrong world could appear without being fully filtered by the organizations being written about. In that role it performed a real service.

The Death of Dixon Cartwright

Mr. Reginald Killingley of Texas informed me today that Dixon Cartwright died yesterday. Many of my readers will remember Dixon as the publisher of The Journal, News of the Churches of God - a long running newspaper tracking schools of thought and happenings within the Armstrong Churches of God. He edited, reported and wrote for the paper until he retired some years ago. 

 

I will always remember Dixon as a friend, and as the person who encouraged me to write about my experiences and views regarding human sexuality - especially concerning issues surrounding homosexuality and the Christian faith. Indeed, Dixon published several articles by me on this subject in his newspaper. True to form, Dixon was unafraid of controversy and invited the expression of different perspectives on a host of topics. 

 

I remember many long conversations on a host of theological questions over the years, and some over political views where our disagreements were sometimes very profound. I had the honor of hosting Dixon in my home when he attended the funeral of Tom Justus of Arkansas many years ago. Despite the sad circumstances, Dixon and I thoroughly enjoyed our time together, and I will never forget that occasion. 

 

May God bless Dixon on his journey, and may God bless his family and friends as they grieve his loss. Bottom line, everyone who experienced the Armstrong Church of God culture owes Dixon a debt of gratitude for his indefatigable and clear-eyed reporting on it. 

 

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix

Celtic Throne: When the Philadelphia Church of God Confuses a Traveling Dance Spectacle With Preaching the Gospel

There is something rather remarkable about the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG). A church that claims a unique understanding of God's government, the law, British Israelism, and supposedly the exclusive work of Jesus Christ has apparently concluded that one of its premier methods of "proclaiming the gospel" is to dispatch a large Irish dance production across the country.

Enter Celtic Throne.

According to the PCG's own glowing account of the 2023 season, the production involved 32 dancers, 27 crew members, nine vehicles, 6,400 miles of travel, 14 hotels, 253 hotel rooms, roughly 300 costumes, 2,150 square feet of dance flooring, plus the full supporting apparatus of food service, transportation, lighting, sound, marketing, stage construction, and traveling parents who volunteer their time. Seventeen performances in 14 cities. Seven weeks on the road. An entourage large enough to impress many professional theater companies.

And the spiritual fruit of this enormous undertaking? Nothing!

The PCG presents Celtic Throne as a means of taking the gospel to the world. Their article supplies abundant detail on choreography, hotel logistics, catering, costumes, promotional appearances, and the challenges of moving a traveling show. What it does not supply is evidence that this elaborate spectacle has brought a single person into the PCG, produced meaningful conversions, or resulted in any demonstrable increase in people embracing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

That distinction matters. A production can be entertaining. It can be artistically impressive. It can introduce people to a religious organization. None of those things automatically constitutes the proclamation of the gospel.

When a church expends enormous resources on a production while presenting it as a spiritual mission, the obvious question arises: Is this really about proclaiming Christ, or has religious theater become another vehicle for institutional vanity?

1. "To the Trees!" - A Peculiar Battle Cry

The PCG article repeatedly notes the phrase used immediately before each performance: "To the trees!"

This is the cue for dancers, musicians, and backstage crew to take their positions. The article does not establish that the phrase is intended as a religious invocation, and it may simply be a theatrical signal. Nevertheless, the expression deserves scrutiny in light of the production's Celtic themes.

Trees, particularly the oak, held an important place in various ancient Celtic religious imaginations. They were associated with sacred spaces, ritual practices, and traditions attributed to the Druids. In some accounts, trees symbolized connections between realms. The Irish term nemeton refers to a sacred place or sanctuary, often linked to groves. Ancient sources and later scholarship describe sacred groves and trees within certain Celtic practices.

Does "To the trees!" prove that the PCG is consciously invoking pagan religion? No. That would be an overstatement. The phrase may be nothing more than a production cue, and the article offers no explanation of its origin.

Yet the question remains legitimate: Why does a church that claims to be restoring the original Christianity of the apostles show such enthusiasm for Celtic imagery, cultural mythology, and theatrical conventions that can carry associations quite different from the message of the New Covenant? The issue is not whether Irish dancing is inherently pagan. It is not. The issue is whether the PCG is treating a cultural performance as a substitute for the actual proclamation of Christ.

2. Celtic Dancing Is Not the Gospel

Irish dance is an art form-a cultural expression of rhythm, movement, music, and choreography. Christians are not required to reject every cultural tradition that originated outside biblical Israel. There is nothing inherently wrong with appreciating Irish dancing.

The PCG, however, is not merely staging a cultural recital. It presents Celtic Throne as a vehicle for proclaiming the gospel. That claim requires far more than an elaborate stage, a narrator, dramatic lighting, costumes, and a traveling cast.

What is the gospel? Paul summarized it in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, He was buried, and He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. The gospel is the good news of what God has accomplished through Jesus Christ-His death, resurrection, and the reconciliation of sinners to God.

It is not a story about Celtic kings. It is not a celebration of Irish cultural identity. It is not a demonstration of elaborate choreography. And it is certainly not a production whose spiritual significance can be measured by the number of costumes, hotel rooms, or miles traveled.

If a person attends Celtic Throne, enjoys the dancing, applauds the performers, and returns home without hearing or understanding the gospel, what exactly has been accomplished evangelistically? The PCG might reply that the production "opens a door." An open door is not the same as someone walking through it. A theatrical production is not the same as the preaching of Christ crucified.

3. The New Covenant: Christ Is the Center, Not the Spectacle

One of the more revealing aspects of the PCG's approach is the contrast between its emphasis on elaborate religious productions and the priorities of the New Covenant.

Jesus did not commission His disciples to establish a traveling theatrical enterprise. He commissioned them to make disciples. In Matthew 28:19-20 He instructed His followers to make disciples of all nations, baptize them, and teach them to observe His commandments. The task involves proclaiming the message of Christ, calling people to faith and repentance, baptizing believers, and teaching them to follow Jesus.

There is no suggestion that the apostles required a traveling dance troupe, an elaborate theatrical production, a fleet of vehicles to fulfill this mission, and millions of dollars in tithe money spent. The apostolic church proclaimed Christ through preaching, teaching, personal relationships, and the testimony of believers.

Paul explained his approach in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. He did not rely on impressive rhetoric or human wisdom. His message centered on Jesus Christ and Him crucified. That passage is inconvenient for an organization that appears to treat a spectacular production as an effective means of gospel proclamation.

Artistic excellence is permissible. The question is whether the spectacle has become the message. When the PCG describes seven weeks of travel, elaborate technical arrangements, promotional activities, costumes, and theatrical performances, it describes an enormous human undertaking. Where is the corresponding emphasis on the actual gospel? Where is the evidence that people are being brought to faith in Christ? Where are the accounts of individuals who encountered the production, understood the message of salvation, and became disciples of Jesus?

The article supplies extensive logistical detail. It does not provide comparable evidence of spiritual effectiveness. That is a significant omission.

4. The Traveling Road Show and the Question of Fruit

The PCG article describes Celtic Throne as a production that has traveled extensively, performed in numerous cities, and attracted audiences that include prominent guests. It also notes street performances at restaurants, fairs, pubs, and the Lincoln Memorial. The article even celebrates the fact that local police checked the troupe's permit at the Lincoln Memorial, with a co-director describing the experience as evidence of a "miracle." Many other groups have put on productions here, such as the LDS-based Mellenial Choirs.

A permit to perform at a national memorial is an accomplishment for a traveling production. It is not a miracle. More importantly, it is not evidence of God's approval of the PCG's religious claims.

Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20). The context concerns identifying people by the character and results of their lives, not by their ability to secure an unusual performance location. A successful promotional campaign does not establish the truth of a religious organization. A large audience does not establish the truth of a religious organization. A spectacular production does not establish the truth of a religious organization. Permission to perform at the Lincoln Memorial does not constitute a divine endorsement of the theology of the Philadelphia Church of God.

The relevant questions concern fruit. Does this production lead people to Christ? Does it teach the New Covenant? Does it encourage love for God and neighbor? Does it produce genuine discipleship? Does it help people understand the grace of God?

The article does not answer those questions. It supplies a travelogue-an expensive-looking travelogue.

The article's silence does not prove that no one has ever expressed interest in the PCG after attending Celtic Throne. It would be irresponsible to assert that as established fact without membership or conversion data. However, the PCG's own account does not demonstrate that the production has achieved its stated evangelistic purpose. If the organization wishes to present this as an effective means of proclaiming the gospel, it should be able to provide evidence beyond the number of performances and the enthusiasm of the cast.

How many people attended? How many subsequently expressed interest in the gospel? How many received meaningful biblical instruction? How many became disciples of Christ? How much was spent, and what measurable spiritual outcome resulted? Those are reasonable questions when an elaborate traveling production is presented as a work of evangelism.

5. The New Covenant Is Not a Marketing Campaign

There is a deeper theological problem with the PCG's approach. Armstrongism has long emphasized institutional authority, prophetic claims, organizational identity, and the idea that a particular church organization possesses a unique role in God's plan. The PCG continues that tradition.

In such an environment, an elaborate production can serve purposes beyond entertainment. It can reinforce the organization's identity, create a sense of institutional importance, and supply members with a shared experience that makes the organization appear extraordinary. The production becomes a demonstration of the organization's supposed greatness: Look at what we can accomplish. Look at our talented children. Look at our elaborate stages. Look at our traveling ministry. Look at our ambitions.

The New Covenant points in a different direction. Paul wrote, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). The salvation of believers is not dependent upon the accomplishments of a religious institution, the theatrical abilities of its members, the financial resources of its leadership, or whether a church can organize an impressive traveling production.

The gospel is about what Christ has done, not what a religious organization can accomplish. A church can spend substantial sums on a production and still fail to communicate the gospel clearly. A small congregation can faithfully proclaim Christ without a theater, a traveling cast, or a sophisticated marketing operation. The size of the production is not the measure of the faithfulness of the ministry.

6. The PCG's Elite Children and the Question of Institutional Vanity

The article repeatedly highlights the role of Jude Flurry, who arranged street performances and served as the lead dancer. It also describes the extensive involvement of performers' mothers, the responsibilities of the cast and crew, and the logistical demands of the production.

Young people can learn discipline, teamwork, responsibility, and performance skills through a demanding artistic endeavor. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The question becomes more troubling, however, when an organization presents an expensive traveling production as a major evangelistic undertaking while the apparent primary beneficiaries are its own young performers and the institution itself.

The supplied account does not provide financial statements establishing the precise cost of the production or the amount spent specifically for the benefit of particular individuals. Those details would need to be documented before any definitive financial claim. Nevertheless, the larger question remains: When a church devotes substantial resources to a traveling production featuring its own favored young people, what makes that expenditure an essential work of the gospel?

The PCG article describes a remarkable amount of organizational effort-nine vehicles, dozens of performers, dozens of crew members, thousands of miles, hundreds of hotel rooms, a massive collection of costumes, props, lighting equipment, stage floori, and thier own travelling caterer-all presented as part of an evangelistic mission. Yet it provides no meaningful accounting of the spiritual results.

It is difficult to avoid the impression that the production functions, at least in part, as an institutional prestige project. The performers may genuinely enjoy it. The production may be artistically impressive. The PCG leadership may believe it serves an important purpose. None of those considerations establishes that it is an effective means of proclaiming the gospel. If the production is primarily serving the interests of the organization's leadership and its favored performers, the claim that it constitutes a major evangelistic undertaking deserves serious scrutiny.

7. What Would Jesus Think of the Traveling Road Show?

Consider the contrast between the priorities of Celtic Throne and the ministry of Jesus. Jesus taught in homes, synagogues, fields, and along the shores of Galilee. He proclaimed the kingdom of God. He called sinners to repentance. He welcomed the marginalized. He healed the sick. He taught His disciples to love their neighbors. He warned against religious hypocrisy and the pursuit of human recognition.

In Matthew 6:1 He warned, "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." Religious activity should not be undertaken merely to attract attention or secure recognition.

The PCG's article reads, in places, almost like a promotional brochure for a traveling entertainment enterprise. The focus falls on the scale of the operation, the people involved, the logistics, the special guests, the marketing, and the impressive accomplishments of the production. The gospel itself receives comparatively little attention. That is the problem. The church is not called to impress the world with its organizational abilities. It is called to proclaim Christ.

8. Celtic Throne and the Paganism Question: A Necessary Distinction

Irish dancing is not inherently pagan. Celtic cultural traditions are not automatically incompatible with Christianity. A Christian can appreciate Irish music, dance, history, and literature without embracing ancient Celtic religious beliefs. The New Testament does not prohibit Christians from enjoying cultural expressions simply because those expressions originated in societies that practiced pagan religions.

The PCG, however, needs to be clear about the distinction between cultural entertainment and religious proclamation. If Celtic Throne is a theatrical production inspired by Irish culture, it should be evaluated as such. If it is intended to proclaim the gospel, its actual message should be evaluated against the New Covenant. If the production incorporates religious imagery or themes drawn from ancient Celtic spirituality, those elements should be examined rather than assumed to be harmless because the organization has attached a Christian label to the production.

The phrase "To the trees!" is not sufficient evidence of pagan worship. The broader question of how Celtic cultural themes are being employed in a supposedly Christian production is entirely legitimate. The PCG cannot simply claim that its production is evangelistic and expect that claim to go unquestioned.

Conclusion: A Traveling Production Is Not a Substitute for the Gospel

The Philadelphia Church of God has invested an extraordinary amount of effort into Celtic Throne. Its performers have traveled thousands of miles. Its crew has managed a complicated production. Its members have supplied food, accommodations, transportation, and countless hours of labor.

There is no reason to deny that the production may be artistically impressive or that its participants may genuinely enjoy it. The relevant question is not whether Celtic Throne is entertaining. The question is whether it is proclaiming the gospel. Based on the PCG's own article, the evidence for that claim is remarkably thin.

The organization describes an enormous traveling operation but does not demonstrate that the production has brought people to Christ. It describes elaborate logistics but does not provide evidence of meaningful evangelistic results. It celebrates the accomplishments of its performers but does not explain how those accomplishments advance the New Covenant.

The PCG may call this a work of evangelism. Calling something evangelism does not make it evangelism. The New Testament does not measure the success of Christian ministry by the number of costumes, hotel rooms, performances, or miles traveled. It measures ministry by faithfulness to Christ, the proclamation of His gospel, and the genuine spiritual fruit that follows.

If the purpose of Celtic Throne is to proclaim the gospel to the world, where is the evidence that it is doing so? Until the PCG can provide a meaningful answer, its traveling Celtic production looks less like an apostolic mission and more like an elaborate institutional vanity project-a spectacular show, an impressive traveling operation, a great deal of organizational effort, and a rather conspicuous absence of demonstrated evangelistic fruit.

The gospel of Jesus Christ does not need a traveling dance troupe to make it impressive. It needs to be proclaimed. The apostles managed to spread the gospel throughout the Roman world without a single Irish dance production, a fleet of vans, or 2,150 square feet of portable dance flooring. They had something far more important: the message of Jesus Christ. And that was enough.

Silent Pilgrim

UCG Admits Why Some Of Their Videos Are So Bad

 

UCG's Latest Assignment: Write Your Own "Vision Statement" to Discover Who You Are

Just when it seemed the United Church of God had run out of ways to turn simple faith into another endless task list, President John Elliott introduced a new one. Society, he says, is racing toward destruction (Proverbs 14:12-got it), and the urgent answer is ... personal vision statements. Not resting in Christ's finished work. Not the once-for-all sacrifice that has already secured the believer's identity as a child of God. Instead, members are asked to sit down, reflect, and write a clear declaration of who they are "in process of becoming."

Nothing says "New Covenant rest" like assigning members a corporate-style exercise in self-definition. 

Elliott begins by reminding them that they are citizens of the Kingdom (Ephesians 2:19), members of God's family, and children of God the Father and Jesus Christ. True enough. Then comes the turn: "Who exactly am I in God's eyes at this moment?" The answer is apparently not "Already complete in Him" (Colossians 2:10), "No condemnation" (Romans 8:1), or "Accepted in the Beloved" (Ephesians 1:6). Instead, identity becomes an unfinished project: the bride must be "diligent in making herself spiritually ready" (Revelation 19:7-8). Responsibility lands once again on her effort, her level of commitment, and her own picture of how the process should unfold. 

Paul is then brought in as Exhibit A. Elliott assembles a sample "vision statement" from Romans 8, 2 Timothy 1, Galatians 2:20, and several other verses. Paul did write about being a child of God and a joint heir; he also said that Christ lived in him. He counted everything else as rubbish, he said, because gaining Christ mattered more. He wanted to be found in Him-not claiming a righteousness earned through the law, but receiving the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ (Philippians 3:8-9). Elliott's quotations describe what grace has already made true. They are not instructions for members to invent a personal identity statement so they can "stay focused." Paul was not building a personal brand for the coming Kingdom. He was resting in the fact that Christ had already taken hold of him.

The letter then asks each member to write a version of that statement: a clear account of "who you are in process of becoming." The purpose is to stay anchored while "endeavor[ing] to keep growing... toward the goal pictured in the plan of salvation we just celebrated in God's annual Holy Days." There it is again: salvation is still being linked to the annual Holy Days, even though Colossians 2:16-17 describes those observances as shadows fulfilled in Christ and says they should not be used to judge anyone. Under the New Covenant, believers do not need to measure their faithfulness against an Old Covenant festival calendar to prove that they belong. That question has already been settled. We are children and heirs, seated with Christ (Ephesians 2:6). Spiritual growth follows, but it comes through the fruit of the Spirit; it does not earn our place or force us to keep declaring that place over and over.

This is classic Armstrongism dressed in legalistic corporate language. Everything becomes a matter of personal effort, self-monitoring, and repeated confirmation, as though people might lose their standing simply by forgetting to reaffirm it. The New Covenant says something plainer and more secure: "It is finished" (John 19:30). Revelation 19 presents the saints' righteousness as fine linen given to them-not fabric they painstakingly produce through vision statements or renewed resolve on each Holy Day. You do not need a personal mission statement to know that you are God's child. The Spirit Himself bears witness with your spirit (Romans 8:16), and the Father has already said so. Rest there. Destructive lifestyles exert real pressure, but writing more declarations about yourself will not answer it. Christ is in you, the hope of glory. That is already true; it is not a goal you must keep revising.