Church of God International Now Fracturing Into Multiple New Groups

 

The New Motto of the Former CGI Congregations: E PLURIBUS UNUM!

"How do we assert our independence without appearing to be rebellious and schismatic?" The answer to that question has alluded Armstrong Church of God ministers for many years now, but Pastor Bill Watson of Medina, Ohio may have finally found the "right" answer: Declare your independence from the Church of God International, declare that you're being faithful to the "truth," keep the money and resources of the local congregation within the local congregation, and agree to "cooperate" or "associate" yourself with other independent former congregations of CGI!

And Mr. Watson isn't the only one who has followed this formula. Mike Nolen has his Carolina Church of God Independent Ministries. We also have the Blue Ridge Church of God Independent Ministries of Jeremy Nix and Jeremiah Ridley. As of November first, there is also the newly minted Springfield Church of God Independent Ministries of Brad Campbell. There are other independent groups in Kentucky and Arkansas who have been accepted by some of the groups, and others have been invited to secede from CGI and ally themselves with the others. In other words, this is an active poaching operation! They appeal to the vanity, ambition, and restlessness of ministers who are tired of behaving and following corporate guidelines.

Indeed, the announcement of Brad Campbell's departure reveals much about the nature of these folks. The statement reads: "Greetings everyone! As of November 1st, 2026, the CGI congregation in Springfield is no longer a CGI congregation. This change is in no way a reflection of the CGI Organization in Tyler, Texas, but is a needed change for the local congregation due to a history of bad decisions on the part of some people from 14 years ago. As you may well know, if you know anything about the Springfield congregation from 14 years ago, they had become known as a group that allowed almost anything, and the teachings had gone off the rails to the point of our doctrines not even being recognizable." The statement continued: "Because of the challenges attached to those old problems, we have asked the leadership in Tyler, Texas, to grant us the ability to work as an independent congregation. That has been granted, and we have begun the changes necessary to establish our identity as an independent congregation." The statement continued: "You will also notice that we have listed several Ministry Partners on our website. As part of our new mission, we will post and work with as many of the Churches out there that want to participate in the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ unto all the world." (I'm sure that my readers can guess who their "partners" are - reference the links in the second paragraph of this post)

Even so, don't you dare accuse them of being schismatic or forming a new group! The statement concluded: "Will we still work with CGI in Tyler as one of those partners? Of course! It is not our intent to hurt anyone’s work or to hurt any individual in this process. Our new name is 'Springfield Church of God Independent Ministries. 'Our new motto is based on Eph 4:3 Endeavoring to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace." Now, isn't that nice. They're not trying to hurt anybody, and they're just trying to preserve unity and peace among the brethren! I smell something, and it's usually associated with bulls!

By the way, just in case you're interested in their brand of the "Gospel" (or scanning the headlines and warning Americans about the really bad stuff that's right around the corner), then you'll be interested in their upcoming Wall Watcher Conference. The distinguished speaker's list is as follows: Bill Watson, Jeremiah Ridley, and Mike Nolen. With the results of the recent election, I imagine attendees can expect a lot of hair-pulling and proclamations of imminent doom! This will probably be followed by everyone singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" and declaring how good it is for brethren to dwell together in peace and unity. Out of many one? Don't you bet on it! My advice: Get a bag of popcorn, relax, and enjoy the show - It's bound to be a doozy!

Armstrongism: When Following Christ Just Isn't Interesting Enough

Lymph Nodes, Bumps on Heads, and the Continuing Circus of Armstrongism

The Living Church of God has found another subject worthy of its followers' attention: lymph-node-like structures in the skulls of mice! Yes, you read that correctly. While the rest of Christianity is busy proclaiming Christ, the Living Church of God is busy informing its readers about the latest discoveries in mouse cranial immunology. One can only wonder what exciting theological revelations will come next. Perhaps a study of hamster toenails will finally unlock the mysteries of the Kingdom of God!

The article, by Scott Winnail and Francine Prater, discusses preliminary research suggesting that mouse skulls contain immune structures resembling lymph nodes. The researchers are investigating whether similar structures exist in humans and what role they might play in protecting the brain. It is interesting scientific research, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with scientists investigating the remarkable complexity of the human body. In fact, discoveries like these are fascinating.

But leave it to Armstrongism to turn an interesting scientific development into yet another opportunity to promote its particular religious mythology. The article quickly moves from mouse immune systems to the necessity of an intelligent Creator, followed by an advertisement for Evolution's Dirty Little Secrets. Apparently, the discovery of something interesting in a mouse skull is now sufficient evidence to send everyone running to the Living Church of God's creationist propaganda department.

What makes this particularly amusing is Armstrongism's own history of becoming fascinated with peculiar ideas and questionable pursuits that have very little to do with following Jesus Christ.

Consider Fred Coulter, one of the better-known Armstrongist splinter-group leaders. Before becoming associated with his own Church of God movement, Coulter had an interest in phrenology, the discredited nineteenth-century practice of examining the bumps and contours of a person's skull to supposedly determine personality, character, and mental abilities. Phrenology was eventually abandoned by legitimate science because its basic assumptions were unsupported.

Think about that for a moment. Here we have an Armstrongist religious leader whose earlier interests included studying bumps on people's heads, while another Armstrongist organization is now excitedly publishing material about newly discovered immune structures inside skull bones. One wonders whether the next great Armstrongist theological breakthrough will involve determining someone's spiritual maturity by measuring the circumference of their cranium

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with being interested in science. Scientific discovery is worthwhile, and Christians have every reason to appreciate the wonders of creation. The problem is what happens when religious organizations become so preoccupied with every scientific curiosity, prophetic theory, obscure historical claim, and supposed end-time revelation that the actual message of Christianity gets pushed into the background.

Armstrongism has spent decades chasing its peculiar collection of religious obsessions. Its leaders have argued over prophetic timelines, British-Israelism, calendar calculations, church eras, supposed apostolic successions, obscure doctrines, and endless interpretations of world events. Every scientific discovery becomes another opportunity to advertise their particular understanding of creation, while every international headline becomes a possible fulfillment of some prophetic theory.

Meanwhile, where is the emphasis on the teachings of Jesus?

Where is the serious discussion about loving one's neighbor, forgiving enemies, showing compassion, caring for the vulnerable, and refusing to place religious burdens upon other people? Where is the emphasis on the grace of God, the sufficiency of Christ, and the New Covenant established through his death and resurrection?

Jesus did not commission his followers to become amateur skull scientists, prophetic detectives, or professional interpreters of every strange scientific discovery. He commissioned them to proclaim the Gospel and live according to his teachings.

The irony is that Armstrongist organizations frequently present themselves as possessing special biblical understanding that supposedly separates them from ordinary Christianity. Yet so much of their attention is consumed by matters that have little bearing on the Christian life. They continually search for something new, something unusual, something that will make their particular organization appear more knowledgeable than everyone else.

Perhaps the real problem is that following Christ is not nearly as exciting to religious empire builders as discovering another supposed prophetic mystery or finding a new scientific curiosity to exploit in a fundraising campaign.

The Living Church of God can publish all the articles it wants about mouse skulls, immune systems, and the wonders of biological design. Fred Coulter can reflect on his former fascination with the bumps on people's heads. Scientists can continue investigating the remarkable complexity of the human body. None of that is objectionable in itself.

But Christians should remember that the Gospel is not hidden inside a mouse skull, waiting for Scott Winnail to explain it. Nor is salvation discovered by examining the bumps on someone's head, deciphering obscure prophetic puzzles, or subscribing to the latest Armstrongist interpretation of world events.

The Christian faith is about Jesus Christ, not an endless parade of religious curiosities.

Perhaps Armstrongism would accomplish something genuinely worthwhile if its leaders spent half as much time teaching people to follow Christ as they spend chasing every peculiar idea that crosses their desks. After all, the greatest discovery Christianity has to offer was not made in a laboratory, inside a mouse skull, or by examining somebody's head.

It was made known through Jesus Christ.

And that should be more than enough to keep a church occupied.

LCG: When Ministers Have Opinions, They're Doctrine. When Members Do, It's Satanic Rebellion!

Our Opinions vs. Christ's Mind: Apparently, God Has an Opinion Department, and Doug Winnail Runs It!

Douglas Winnail of the Living Church of God has apparently decided that one of Christianity's greatest problems is people expressing their opinions. In his recent "Have A Happy Sabbath" missive titled "Our Opinions vs. Christ's Mind," Winnail warns readers against saying things like "Here's how I see it" or "Here's what I think." According to his reasoning, expressing disagreement with church leadership can be spiritually dangerous, and he helpfully reminds everyone that Satan may be lurking behind those who dare to question the decisions of the ministry.

Well, isn't that convenient! Apparently, the devil has found a particularly effective way to attack Armstrongism: allowing members to develop independent thoughts.

Winnail invokes Moses, Peter, Isaiah, Solomon, and Paul to make his case that Christians should be careful about expressing their opinions. He reminds readers that God's thoughts are not our thoughts and that Christians should develop the mind of Christ rather than promote their own opinions. That sounds wonderfully spiritual until one asks a rather inconvenient question: Whose interpretation of Scripture is Douglas Winnail presenting?

His own, of course!

Every sentence in his article represents an interpretation of Scripture, a personal theological conclusion, and an opinion about how Christians should behave. He has selected particular passages, connected them to his preferred understanding of church authority, and presented that interpretation as a spiritual lesson for everyone else. Yet somehow he never pauses to ask whether his own conclusions might simply be another man's opinion.

Apparently, the ministry gets a special exemption from the very warning it issues to everyone else. Members must suppress their opinions, but evangelists are free to publish theirs in church literature and call them the mind of Christ. What a marvelous arrangement!

This is hardly a new problem in Armstrongism. Herbert W. Armstrong established a religious culture in which the ministry was expected to teach the official line, members were expected to accept it, and independent examination could quickly become evidence of a rebellious attitude. Ambassador College was supposed to train ministers, but its institutional culture emphasized loyalty to Armstrong's teachings and the approved doctrinal system. Whatever theological education individual ministers possessed, the larger environment left little room for openly challenging the established interpretations coming from headquarters.

Ministers learned to speak with enormous confidence, even when discussing subjects on which Christians and biblical scholars have disagreed for centuries. They were supplied with sermons, articles, outlines, and approved explanations. The congregation was expected to listen, take notes, and understand that the ministry had already done the thinking for them. Critical examination was not exactly encouraged when it threatened the established hierarchy.

And look where that system has led!

Armstrongism has fractured into a collection of competing organizations, each claiming to preserve, restore, or correctly understand the teachings of Herbert Armstrong. The Living Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, the improperly named "Continuing" Church of God, Intercontinental Church of God, and numerous smaller groups all emerged from the same theological family tree. Their leaders have frequently disagreed over doctrine, prophecy, church government, biblical interpretation, and who supposedly possesses the authority to speak for God.

One would think that after producing so many competing interpretations, Armstrongist ministers might develop a little humility about the limitations of their own understanding. Instead, they continue to lecture everyone else about the dangers of having opinions!

The irony is blatant. The very splintering Winnail's warning about independent opinions should remind him of the movement's own history. These organizations did not appear because everyone agreed with everyone else. They emerged because ministers disagreed, developed competing interpretations, and became convinced that their particular understanding was the correct one. Each leader apparently discovered that the other fellow's opinions were dangerous while his own were divinely inspired.

Herbert Armstrong had his opinions. Garner Ted Armstrong had his. Gerald Flurry has his. Bob Thiel certainly has his. Mark Armstrong has his. And Douglas Winnail has his. The difference is that each man's opinions are packaged as authoritative biblical understanding when they happen to serve his particular organization.

But let a church member express a different interpretation, question a minister's decision, or point out a contradiction, and suddenly we are warned about divisiveness, rebellion, and Satan's influence.

There is another serious problem with Winnail's use of Scripture. The examples he selects do not establish that questioning religious leadership is inherently wrong. Numbers 16 describes a particular rebellion against Moses, while Matthew 16 records Peter misunderstanding Jesus' mission. Neither passage gives modern church ministers unlimited authority or establishes that disagreement with them is evidence of satanic influence. In fact, Peter's rebuke of Jesus demonstrates the danger of human misunderstanding, not a blanket prohibition against questioning religious authorities.

The New Testament repeatedly encourages believers to examine what they are taught. The Bereans were commended for examining the Scriptures to determine whether Paul's message was true (Acts 17:11). Paul instructed Christians to test everything and hold fast to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He even warned believers not to accept a different gospel simply because someone presented it with impressive religious credentials (Galatians 1:8).

Imagine that! The apostles actually encouraged independent examination rather than demanding unquestioning loyalty to an ecclesiastical hierarchy.

And perhaps that is precisely what makes Winnail's little article so revealing. He quotes Scripture about developing the mind of Christ but seems far less interested in the New Testament's insistence that Christians examine teachings for themselves. The mind of Christ is apparently something best obtained by agreeing with the ministry.

There is a fundamental difference between humility before God and unquestioning submission to religious officials. Christians should certainly be humble, careful, and willing to correct their own mistakes. But humility does not mean surrendering one's conscience to a minister, and spiritual maturity does not mean turning off one's ability to think critically.

If Douglas Winnail genuinely wants people to stop promoting human opinions, perhaps he should begin by examining the enormous collection of human opinions that constitutes Armstrongism itself. Perhaps the ministry could start acknowledging that its interpretations are not automatically God's thoughts simply because they appear in a Living Church of God publication.

Until then, his warning sounds less like an appeal to develop the mind of Christ and more like another familiar Armstrongist reminder that the ministry does the interpreting while everyone else does the listening.

The real question isn't whether Christians should promote their own opinions. It is why Armstrongist ministers seem to believe that their opinions are somehow exempt from the very criticism they so eagerly direct at everyone else.

Apparently, when a church member says, "Here's what I think," it may be Satan talking. When Douglas Winnail says it, it becomes a church publication.

What a wonderful arrangement. One might almost think the whole thing was designed to protect the ministry from having to answer uncomfortable questions!

------------

Our Opinions vs. Christ’s Mind

How many times have you heard or made comments like “Here’s how I see it” or “Here’s what I think”? All too often, these comments are made about people in leadership and the decisions they make—even in the Church. Moses was criticized by men who held different opinions (Numbers 16:1–11), and Peter differed with Jesus and even rebuked Him (Matthew 16:21–23). In both cases, the critics failed to recognize Satan as the real source of their negative and divisive attitudes.

         Before we share our opinions, we need to remember that God warns, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways” (Isaiah 55:8). As Christians, our focus should be on developing godly perspectives that reflect the mind of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:5). Long ago, Solomon wrote, “A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back” (Proverbs 29:11). Before we make a comment, it is good to ask ourselves, Am I promoting my own opinion or does my comment reflect the mind of Christ? —Douglas S. Winnail

Turning Hearts Backward: Armstrongism's Latest Family Disaster

Just when you thought Armstrongism had scraped the very bottom of its theological barrel, in spite of Crackpot Bob's barrel dredging, Samuel Kitchen has resurfaced with another spectacular exercise in religious imagination. Apparently, the greatest spiritual crisis facing Christianity today is that former members of the Worldwide Church of God have failed to return to Herbert Armstrong's old religious playground. Never mind the Gospel, the New Covenant, or the fact that Jesus Christ supposedly established His Church nearly two thousand years ago. According to Samuel, the Almighty has apparently been waiting all this time for former Armstrongites to come crawling back, and Samuel has been personally drafted to lead the grand restoration project.

Samuel's latest prophetic masterpiece claims that Jesus Christ used Herbert Armstrong between 1927 and 1986 to turn the hearts of the fathers toward the children, and that we are now living through a second phase in which the children must turn their hearts back toward their fathers. Naturally, those fathers are Herbert Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God. There is just one enormous problem with this interpretation: the New Testament already tells us how the Elijah prophecy was fulfilled. Luke 1:16-17 identifies John the Baptist as coming in the spirit and power of Elijah, while Jesus Himself connected John with that prophetic expectation in Matthew 11 and 17. But apparently the Gospel writers forgot to mention that John was merely the opening act for Herbert Armstrong, who would arrive centuries later with a printing press, a radio program, and an organizational chart.

The most outrageous part of this family-restoration fantasy is the suggestion that Armstrongism somehow turned the hearts of fathers toward their children. For countless former members, the experience was often quite the opposite. Armstrongist teachings and institutional demands divided families, encouraged suspicion toward relatives who left, and placed loyalty to the organization above ordinary human relationships. Parents, children, spouses, and extended families suffered the consequences of religious doctrines that made church membership and obedience to ministerial authority more important than maintaining loving family connections. If Herbert Armstrong was supposedly sent to restore families, somebody should have checked the construction plans as he destroyed his own family., alienating all of his children and grandchildren. The finished product left an awful lot of broken relationships behind!

Samuel then drags Malachi 2 and 3 into his prophetic construction project, insisting that everyone who departed from the Worldwide Church of God has departed from God's way and must return to the original organization. He takes God's appeal to Israel to return to Him and conveniently transforms it into a divine command to return to Samuel's version of Armstrongism. Malachi 3:7 is about repentance and covenant faithfulness, not an advertisement for a twentieth-century denomination. The prophet was not predicting that former members would eventually have to choose between Armstrongist splinter organizations and Samuel Kitchen's personal restoration headquarters. That interpretation requires a considerable amount of theological imagination, but Samuel seems to have an unlimited supply.

His insistence that Jesus Christ remains the head of the Worldwide Church of God is equally absurd when used to establish the organization's exclusive spiritual authority. Of course Christ is the head of His Church. Paul makes that abundantly clear in Colossians 1:18. But nowhere does Paul identify Herbert Armstrong's organization as the exclusive institutional embodiment of Christ's Church, nor does he suggest that Christians who leave it have abandoned Jesus. The Church belongs to Christ, not Herbert Armstrong, not Samuel Kitchen, and certainly not whichever Armstrongist personality happens to announce that he has inherited the divine franchise. The Worldwide Church of God underwent enormous changes after Armstrong's death, and former members had every right to examine its teachings and reach their own conclusions. Disagreement with a religious organization is not automatically rebellion against God.

Then comes Zerubbabel, because no Armstrongist prophetic fantasy is complete without dragging him into the discussion. Samuel takes the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple in Zechariah 4 and attempts to transform it into a two-stage prophetic blueprint for Armstrong's original organization and Samuel's present restoration effort. The declaration "Grace, grace unto it" becomes another convenient steppingstone toward his predetermined conclusion. Unfortunately, Zerubbabel was rebuilding the temple after the Babylonian exile, not establishing a prophetic template for every self-appointed Armstrongist leader who decides he has been commissioned to restore something. By Samuel's reasoning, anyone undertaking a renovation project could potentially qualify as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The Bible is apparently one enormous Armstrongist treasure hunt, and Herbert's photograph is hidden behind every chapter.

The real character of Samuel's message becomes especially apparent when he moves from prophetic speculation to threats. He tells former members that if they refuse to serve God, they can go into the lake of fire, that they deserve destruction, and that the Church does not need them anyway. What a delightful demonstration of Christian hospitality! Jesus taught His followers to love their neighbors, forgive their enemies, serve others, and demonstrate humility. Samuel appears to have discovered an alternative version of Christianity in which the principal qualification for leadership is the ability to threaten former members with eternal destruction for refusing to join your organization. He claims that God needs people to return while simultaneously declaring that the Church does not need them. Apparently, God desperately needs your participation, but Samuel doesn't particularly care whether you exist.

His demand that former members disclose their names and photographs to demonstrate Christian fellowship is another peculiar feature of this article. According to Samuel, maintaining anonymity is somehow denying Christ, and Christians cannot hide behind a curtain like contestants on The Price Is Right. One wonders whether the apostles realized they were supposed to preach the Gospel or whether they should have been collecting identification photographs for the Jerusalem congregation. Christian fellowship does not require surrendering reasonable personal privacy to satisfy the demands of a religious leader. Trust must be earned, not demanded, and refusing to disclose personal information is not evidence of spiritual rebellion. It is particularly understandable when dealing with religious environments where disagreement can result in condemnation and unwanted attention.

But perhaps the most revealing declaration is Samuel's insistence that God personally drafted him and his family for this restoration work. He claims they did not set out to accomplish this mission, that Jesus Christ did it through them, and that anyone with complaints should take them up with Jesus. What a convenient arrangement! Samuel makes the claims, Samuel establishes the authority, Samuel determines who is faithful, and anyone questioning the enterprise is apparently questioning God Himself. The New Testament offers a rather different model of Christian leadership. Paul specifically told the Corinthians that he did not seek to lord it over their faith but was a fellow worker for their joy (2 Corinthians 1:24). That is a far cry from declaring yourself God's appointed restoration coordinator and threatening everyone who refuses to cooperate.

The greatest absurdity is Samuel's claim that the Bride of Christ cannot make herself ready without returning to the Worldwide Church of God and participating in his restoration project. Hebrews 8:6 tells us that Christ established a better covenant founded upon better promises, while Ephesians 5 describes Christ's relationship with His Church. Nowhere does the New Testament teach that Christians must belong to Herbert Armstrong's organization to become part of the Bride of Christ. The preparation of the Church is centered upon Jesus, His grace, His righteousness, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Apparently, however, Christ's accomplishments are insufficient in Samuel's theological universe unless somebody first signs up for the restoration program, supplies their photograph, and helps finance the operation.

For former members who have escaped Armstrongism, the most important restoration is not a return to Herbert Armstrong's organization but freedom from the religious fear, guilt, and institutional control that characterized so much of their experience. Leaving Armstrongism was not necessarily an act of rebellion against God; for many, it was an act of conscience after examining teachings that simply could not be reconciled with the New Testament. Some have rebuilt damaged family relationships, rediscovered Christian fellowship, and found peace in understanding that their relationship with Christ does not depend upon the approval of a minister or membership in a particular splinter organization. Samuel wants these people to abandon that freedom and return to the very system they left. That is not restoration. It is an attempt to resurrect an institution by resurrecting the guilt that once kept people inside it.

The hearts of the children were not miraculously turned toward their fathers through Herbert Armstrong. In far too many cases, Armstrongism did precisely the opposite, teaching people to place organizational loyalty above family affection and to regard those who departed as spiritually dangerous. No amount of Malachi quotations, Zerubbabel references, or elaborate prophetic gymnastics can erase that history. Samuel can keep his two-stage Elijah fantasy, his theological construction project, his demands for photographs, and his threats about the lake of fire. Those who have found freedom in the New Covenant have no obligation to return to a system that placed human religious authority between them and Christ.

Perhaps Samuel should spend less time explaining why everybody needs to return to Herbert Armstrong and more time examining what Jesus actually taught. Christ does not need another self-appointed Elijah to finish what He supposedly failed to accomplish through the previous one, nor does He need Samuel Kitchen to serve as the gatekeeper of salvation. Herbert Armstrong was not the Gospel, the Worldwide Church of God was not the Kingdom of God, and Samuel Kitchen is certainly not the exclusive custodian of Christ's Church. The New Covenant has already been established, Jesus Christ is already its mediator, and Christians do not need to crawl back into Herbert's old clubhouse to prove their faith. After all, Christianity is supposed to be about following Christ, not spending the rest of your life trying to get everybody back into Herbert's old religious clubhouse.

When Supermarket Freezers Become the Four Horsemen: Crackpot Bob Discovers the Beast Behind the Thawed Peas!

There are days when you wonder whether Armstrongism has finally exhausted its supply of prophetic absurdities, but then along comes Crackpot Bob Thiel to remind everyone that the bottom of the prophetic barrel apparently has a basement. This time, Bob has discovered a terrifying new development in the march toward the Great Tribulation: European supermarket refrigerators and freezers have been hit by cyberattacks! While ordinary people might see a cybersecurity problem involving vulnerable refrigeration systems, financial losses, and spoiled groceries, Bob Thiel sees something considerably more sinister lurking behind the thawed peas. Naturally, he sees the Beast Power!

According to Bob's latest prophetic idiocy, these attacks could help pave the way for the coming European Beast Power, who will supposedly promise protection and security to the frightened citizens of the world. Apparently, somewhere between the thawed hamburgers, spoiled dairy products, and discarded frozen vegetables, Bob has spotted the unmistakable fingerprints of the coming Antichrist. One can only imagine the excitement at. his mini headquarters. Forget international diplomacy, military alliances, economic upheavals, and the complicated political realities of Europe. Somebody has managed to interfere with supermarket refrigeration, and suddenly the prophetic alarm bells are ringing louder than a freezer temperature warning.

And naturally, we cannot have a discussion about the European Beast without dragging Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg into the picture. Bob has previously entertained the possibility that this German politician could become the mysterious King of the North. Apparently, Europe is not allowed to have a prominent German politician without Armstrongite prophecy enthusiasts wondering whether he might eventually become the Antichrist. Imagine the poor man's predicament. He could be attending a political meeting, having lunch, or simply trying to get through his day, completely unaware that somewhere in California a prophetic detective is examining his background and political connections while wondering whether he might someday control the world's frozen food supply. If Guttenberg ever visits a supermarket, he might want to avoid the freezer department. Bob could interpret it as a prophetic sign!

What makes this latest episode so ridiculous is the complete absence of evidence connecting a cyberattack against supermarket refrigeration systems to biblical prophecy. Criminals exploiting computer vulnerabilities is hardly a new development, and businesses suffering financial losses from cyberattacks is an unfortunate reality of modern life. There is absolutely no reason to imagine that a supermarket refrigeration problem is somehow preparing the world to accept the Mark of the Beast. Yet Bob takes an ordinary news story, connects it to a collection of speculative prophetic interpretations, introduces Revelation 13, and presents readers with another installment of his never-ending apocalyptic detective series.

In Armstrongite prophetic land, nothing is ever simply what it appears to be. A computer glitch becomes prophecy, a financial disruption becomes prophecy, an international disagreement becomes prophecy, and a new European regulation becomes another unmistakable sign of the coming Beast Power. Now we can add supermarket freezers to the growing collection of prophetic evidence. At this rate, if somebody burns the toast in a Brussels hotel, Bob will probably publish an article explaining how the smoke fulfills Revelation's warnings about the destruction of Babylon. Perhaps the next great prophetic breakthrough will involve a malfunctioning microwave, a broken dishwasher, or an unexpected shortage of frozen pizza.

The larger problem with Armstrongism is its endless need to find confirmation of its prophetic expectations in practically everything happening around the world. Herbert Armstrong spent decades predicting the imminent rise of a European superpower, the coming Great Tribulation, and the collapse of the present world order. Those predictions did not unfold as advertised, but the prophetic machinery never stopped running. Instead, the next generation of Armstrongite leaders inherited the machinery and continued feeding it newspaper headlines. Every generation gets its own collection of supposedly unmistakable signs, every international crisis becomes another opportunity to announce that the end is approaching, and every new technology becomes a possible instrument of the Beast. When the predictions fail to materialize, the explanations are adjusted, the timelines are stretched, and the prophetic spotlight moves to another politician, another country, or another headline.

There is also something particularly troubling about the constant fearmongering that accompanies these articles. Cybersecurity is a genuine concern, and attacks against businesses deserve serious attention, but there is a gigantic difference between explaining technological vulnerabilities and frightening religious readers with speculative claims about the coming Antichrist. Christians can take cybersecurity seriously without believing that every hacker is an unwitting employee of the Beast Power. They can recognize technological dangers without imagining that every digital innovation is a rehearsal for 666. Unfortunately, fear has become one of the most dependable products in the Armstrongite prophetic marketplace, where ordinary news stories are transformed into warnings that the Great Tribulation is just around the corner.

Christianity is supposed to be centered on Jesus Christ, the New Covenant, faith, grace, love, and the hope found in him. It is not supposed to be an endless exercise in identifying potential Antichrists, examining European politicians, decoding computer systems, and wondering whether the latest international news story is another clue that the world is about to end. Yet Armstrongism continues to encourage precisely this kind of obsessive prophetic speculation, leaving its followers constantly searching for the next frightening headline and the next supposed fulfillment of Herbert Armstrong's failed predictions.

Perhaps the most important question isn't whether a German politician will someday become the Beast. It is why certain religious leaders seem so dependent on keeping their audiences frightened about one. Fear is a remarkably useful tool when you are trying to convince people that you possess special prophetic insight that ordinary Christians supposedly lack. Unfortunately, Bob Thiel seems determined to demonstrate that virtually any news story can be transformed into another reason to worry about the end of the world.

So, the next time you visit your local supermarket, take a moment to appreciate the refrigeration department. Those freezers may be keeping your groceries cold, but according to Crackpot Bob's prophetic imagination, they could also be helping prepare the world for the Beast Power. Keep an eye on the frozen peas, watch out for suspicious German politicians, and whatever you do, don't let your ice cream melt without checking Crackpot Bob for the latest prophetic explanation.

The Four Horsemen may be coming, but apparently the frozen yogurt got there first!

One Man, One Computer, One Church in Administrative Chaos!

The 21st Century Watch: and its epic blunder.

The Intercontinental Church of God, under Mark Armstrong's leadership, has apparently encountered a technological catastrophe of biblical proportions. No, the Great Tribulation hasn't arrived, and the Beast hasn't taken over the Internet. The church has simply discovered that keeping an entire organization's information on one man's personal computer might not have been such a brilliant idea after all!

According to a recent announcement, elder Murray Allatt recently died, and apparently all of the ICG's information, including its mailing list for the 21st Century Watch magazine, was stored on his computer. Now that Murray has passed away, the church is struggling to recover the information and is asking subscribers to resubmit their mailing details. The announcement even explains that they don't wish to disturb his grieving wife.

First, let us express sympathy to Murray Allatt's family. His death is a personal tragedy, and his grieving wife deserves privacy and consideration. The criticism here belongs to the church leadership, not the deceased or his family.

But seriously, Mark, was there no backup? No second copy? No centralized database? No succession plan? Did the entire Intercontinental Church of God really place its institutional memory in the hands of one individual and one computer? Apparently, the organization that spends so much time warning the world about impending disasters never considered preparing for one of its own.

There is something particularly amusing about this happening to an organization publishing a magazine called 21st Century Watch. While its editors presumably watch world events, prophetic developments, and the coming Kingdom of God, the organization itself appears to have missed one of the most important technological developments of the last several decades: backing up your computer files!

Businesses, charities, small clubs, and even ordinary households understand the importance of protecting important records. Yet an entire religious organization apparently managed to put its mailing list and other essential information in one location, with no readily accessible backup. Now subscribers are being asked to help reconstruct what should have been safely preserved in the first place.

Perhaps the next issue of the magazine should be devoted to a newly discovered biblical truth: the lost doctrine of external hard drives! Maybe Herbert Armstrong simply overlooked that one when he was busy restoring all the other supposedly lost truths.

The larger question is what this says about Mark Armstrong's administration. Religious organizations don't demonstrate responsible leadership merely by publishing magazines, maintaining websites, and issuing prophetic warnings. They demonstrate it by taking care of the ordinary responsibilities entrusted to them. Protecting organizational records, planning for leadership transitions, and ensuring continuity are basic administrative duties, not advanced theological concepts.

Murray Allatt deserves sympathy, subscribers deserve better, and the ICG leadership might want to spend a little less time watching the end of the world and a little more time making sure its own files survive until tomorrow.

After all, if the Intercontinental Church of God cannot preserve its own mailing list from one generation to the next, perhaps its next great restoration should be a restoration of basic organizational competence.

The Kingdom may be coming, but the mailing list isn't coming back unless somebody remembered to make a backup!

Greetings,

 

The ICG brethren have asked me to assist in recovering their mailing list. As you may know, their elder, Murray Allatt died recently and all ICG information is on the PC. At this stage it is difficult to recover the information and of course, do not wish to disturb his grieving wife.

 

So, if you are a subscriber to the 21st Century Watch magazine – or would like to be – please send me your mailing details to pass on to them. There is no cost or obligation with subscribing to the magazine. https://www.21stcenturywatch.com

 

Samuel Kitchen: Wounded: The Hidden Cost of Carrying the Burdens of a Church

 

Wounded: The Hidden Cost of Carrying the Burdens of a Church

Just after the Feast of Tabernacles, Samuel posted one of his AI-generated songs on his Facebook and YouTube pages. It is titled "Wounded."

The lyrics tell the story of someone whose body is no longer functioning as it should, someone struggling with physical limitations and the painful realization that things are not quite right. Given that Samuel has missed his usual weekly Sabbath messages, some people are beginning to wonder whether the song might be a reflection of his own circumstances.

If it is, one cannot help but wonder whether the enormous burden of trying to manage, maintain, and continually revise a dead church is finally taking its toll. He is still a relatively young man, and it would be unfortunate if the responsibilities he has assumed were beginning to affect his health.

There is a very real price to be paid when one individual attempts to carry the responsibilities of an entire religious organization on his shoulders. Running a church is demanding enough under ordinary circumstances. Attempting to keep a disintegrating organization together, defend its teachings, answer critics, produce weekly messages, manage members, revise doctrines, oversee finances, and continually convince people that everything is moving in the right direction is an entirely different matter.

The psychological burden can be enormous.

Living under a constant sense of responsibility for the survival of an organization can produce chronic stress, anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and burnout. When someone begins to believe that the entire future of a church depends upon his personal efforts, there is little opportunity to mentally disengage. Every setback becomes personal. Every departing member becomes another problem to solve. Every criticism can feel like an attack on the very foundation of one's life's work.

Over time, that kind of pressure can interfere with sleep, concentration, emotional stability, and physical well-being. Chronic stress can also contribute to headaches, muscle tension, digestive problems, elevated blood pressure, and persistent fatigue. The mind and body are not separate entities that can be pushed indefinitely without consequences.

There is also the psychological isolation that can accompany religious leadership. When someone believes he alone possesses the answers, carries the responsibility, and must continually defend the organization, it becomes increasingly difficult to acknowledge personal limitations or ask others to share the burden. Admitting exhaustion can feel like admitting weakness, particularly in religious environments where leaders are expected to demonstrate unwavering faith and confidence.

But no individual is indispensable to the work of God, regardless of what some church leaders might believe about their own importance.

There is something particularly tragic about religious organizations that place so much emphasis on loyalty, obedience, prophetic authority, and institutional survival that the human beings involved become secondary to keeping the organization functioning. A church should be a source of encouragement, fellowship, and spiritual support. It should not become an institution that consumes the emotional and physical well-being of the person attempting to hold it together.

If Samuel's song is autobiographical, perhaps it offers a glimpse into the personal cost of carrying responsibilities that have become too heavy for one person. Of course, we cannot know whether his lyrics reflect his actual health or circumstances, and we should not assume that they do. Nevertheless, the broader issue deserves attention.

A religious organization is not worth sacrificing one's health, peace of mind, or personal well-being to preserve. No church administration, doctrinal revision, prophetic claim, or weekly Sabbath broadcast is worth that price.

Perhaps the most important lesson here is that a church is supposed to serve people, not consume them. When maintaining the institution becomes more important than the well-being of the people running it, something has gone terribly wrong.

And sometimes, the person trying hardest to keep the whole thing from falling apart is the very person who needs someone to remind him that he is allowed to put some of the weight down.

Getting out of bed In the mornin’ 

Stretch my legs as the sun hits my eyes 

Take some steps 

Feel the warnings 

Of systems overloading from days gone by 

My prime has gone way by 

And I and I and I don’t know how to take it 

My prayers are sent into the sky 

How can I run the race today starting out I’m wounded? 

System alarms oh they cry 

My body is screaming 

How can I run the race today starting out I’m wounded? 

People wanting something they can’t have 

They be hating 

Their eyes turn with hate as I grasp the things they wanted 

Take some steps 

Feel the warnings 

Of systems overloading from days gone by 

My prime has gone way by 

And I and I and I don’t know how to take it 

My prayers are sent into the sky 

How can I run the race today starting out I’m wounded? 

System alarms oh they cry 

My body is screaming 

How can I run the race today starting out 

I’m wounded? 

If I say that God hears everything 

Will you turn your heart to scream? 

If I say that God sees everything you do 

Come out of the shadows turn around and be a brand new you 

Because it’s hard your prime has gone way by 

And I and I and I know you don’t know how to take it 

So send some prayers up to God in the sky 

Go and run the race today starting out we’re wounded 

System alarms oh they cry 

My body is screaming but how the Lord shines 

Using us so wounded 

Go and run the race today starting out we’re wounded

 System alarms oh they cry 

My body is screaming but how the Lord shines 

Using us so wounded 

Go and run the race today starting out we’re wounded 

System alarms oh they cry 

My body is screaming but how the 

Lord shines Using us so wounded