Armstrongism’s Pharisaic Gatekeepers: When the Law Becomes the God

Armstrongism’s Pharisaic Gatekeepers: When the Law Becomes the God

As Bereans Did has another excellent article up about the law and the church. One notable quote is this:

The Pharisees had an easy method for testing Him, and that was that the real Messiah to come surely would validate them as the guardians of the law; that the real Messiah would not allow Himself to be put to death by them or the Roman occupation. So all they had to do to prove or disprove Him was to charge Him with sin, condemn Him according to the law, and see what happens. If He dies, they were right. If He didn’t, they could always claim they were following the law to the letter. He broke the law; He sinned, and they acted accordingly, as they were commanded in the law.

Consider this carefully. It was their interpretation of the law that was the final arbiter of their decision process; not God who performed miraculous healing through the Holy Spirit that only could be attributed to God. They attributed those things to the devil anyway, even raising the dead.

The law was their de facto god… their graven images of stone that they never questioned as actually being treated by them as another god they obeyed in the hope of being blessed as a result. Appease the law and receive blessings. Ignore the law and the law would curse them.

The Pharisees didn’t merely keep the law—they positioned themselves as its exclusive guardians and final interpreters. Sounds familiar? That's Armstrongism today in the Churches of God landscape. They are the gatekeepers of the law and its modern day arbitors. Salvation is not assured unless you follow the strict law keeping of the church. Break the Sabbath - lake of fire. Eat pork or shellfish - lake of fire. Smoke cigarets - lake of fire. Leave the church - the deepest pits of the lake of fire that there is. Salvation does not exist outside of the strict lawkeeping of the church.

The Pharisees thought the real Messiah, they assumed, would validate them. He would submit to their authority, honor their rulings, and never allow Himself to be condemned under the very system they administered. So they tested Him the only way that mattered to them: charge Him with law-breaking, condemn Him according to their reading of Scripture, and watch what happens. If He dies, they were right. If He doesn’t, they could still claim they were simply being faithful stewards of the law.

Their interpretation was the final arbiter. The miracles—healings, raisings of the dead, works that could only come from God—were irrelevant. Those could be reassigned to the devil. What could not be questioned was the law as they understood it. The law had become their de facto god: a set of stone tablets they never examined for the possibility that they had turned it into another idol. Appease it and you receive blessing. Ignore it and it curses you. Transactional, mechanical, and utterly self-justifying.

Armstrongism runs the identical playbook, only with different letterhead.

Herbert Armstrong, Crackpot Bob, David Pack, Gerald Flurry, and the various lesser prophets who still orbit the system all function as self-appointed guardians of “the law.” Not the law as fulfilled in Christ, but the law as they have reconstructed it—Sabbath, holy days, tithing, clean and unclean, physical circumcision of the heart via calendar observance, and the rest of the package. The true church, they insist, will validate them. The real end-time work will recognize their authority, their interpretations, their organizational structure, and their financial requirements. Anyone who rejects those things is not merely mistaken; they are law-breakers, and therefore outside the covenant of blessing.

Watch how the test works in practice. Bring evidence of the finished work of Christ, the indwelling Spirit, the New Covenant reality that the law was a tutor until faith came (Galatians 3:24–25), or the plain statement that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4). The response is not engagement with the text. It is the Pharisaic move: charge the person with sin according to their reading of the law, declare them disqualified, and wait. If the person continues to reject their system, they were right—the individual is simply not “called.” If the person dies without submitting, the system is vindicated. The interpretation of the law remains the final arbiter.

Miracles, changed lives, the actual fruit of the Spirit, and the historical record of failed prophecies are all secondary. Those can be reassigned. The 1975 collapse can be redefined. Pack’s successive failed dates can be spiritualized. Thiel’s shifting timelines and African scandals can be minimized or blamed on others. What cannot be questioned is the law as the gatekeepers define it. Keep the Sabbath correctly (as they define “correctly”), send the tithe to the right address, avoid the right meats, and you remain eligible for blessing. Fail any of those and the curse of the law is still hanging over your head—New Covenant or no New Covenant.

This is exactly the idolatry the quote describes. The law has become the graven image. It is not examined as something that was always meant to point beyond itself to the One who fulfilled it. It is treated as the active agent of blessing and cursing. Appease the system and God is obligated to bless. Ignore the system and God is obligated to curse. The finished work of Christ is reduced to an entry ticket that still requires ongoing law-performance to remain valid. The Spirit’s work is subordinated to the calendar and the offering envelope.

The New Covenant answer is not complicated, even if it is offensive to the gatekeepers.

The law was never the final arbiter. Christ was. He did not come to validate the Pharisees’ guardianship; He came to fulfill the law and the prophets so that righteousness could be given apart from law-keeping (Romans 3:21–22). He was put to death under their condemnation and rose anyway—precisely the outcome their test said could not happen if He were genuine. The resurrection did not confirm their authority. It exposed it.

Under the New Covenant the believer is not under law but under grace (Romans 6:14). The law still reveals sin; it does not produce righteousness. The righteousness that counts is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ. The curses of the law were exhausted on the cross (Galatians 3:13). There is no remaining transactional relationship in which Sabbath-keeping, tithing percentages, or clean-meat observance function as the mechanism of blessing. Those things may be observed by someone who is free; they are not the means by which anyone is kept free.

Armstrongism cannot accept this because it would collapse the gatekeeper role. If the law is no longer the active agent of blessing and cursing for the believer, then the people who claim exclusive interpretive authority over that law lose their power. So they keep the Pharisees’ method alive: charge the New Covenant teaching with antinomianism, condemn it according to their reading of selected Old Testament texts, and declare that anyone who dies outside their system has simply proven the system correct. The miracles of grace, the fruit of the Spirit, and the plain reading of the apostolic letters are reassigned to “another spirit” or “lawlessness.”

The law was their god. It remains the functional god of every Armstrongist system that still treats law-performance as the condition of ongoing acceptance. The quote you sent is not merely historical commentary. It is a diagnosis of a living problem. The stone tablets are still being polished, still being appealed to as the final standard, and still being used to determine who is in and who is out—while the One who fulfilled them is reduced to a supporting character in someone else’s legal system.

Paul does not stop at calling the law a temporary guardian. He goes further and names the condition of everyone still under its jurisdiction:

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” (Galatians 3:10)

The tutor was never a gentle schoolmaster handing out participation trophies. He was the enforcer of a standard no one could meet. Fail in one point and the whole arrangement collapses into curse (James 2:10, which Paul has already quoted in spirit). The law does not grade on a curve. It does not accept “mostly faithful.” It demands perfect, continuous obedience or it pronounces the sentence. That is why Paul says the law was never given to impart life; it was given to shut every mouth and place the entire world under the judgment of God (Romans 3:19; Galatians 3:21–22).

Armstrongism’s gatekeepers still collect the tuition as if the curse has not been paid.

They warn members that missing a Sabbath, sending the tithe to the wrong address, eating the wrong meat, or failing to observe a holy day correctly places them back under the very curse Paul says was exhausted at the cross. They treat the finished work of Christ as an entry fee that still requires ongoing law-performance to remain in good standing. In practice this means the curse is still active, still hanging over the believer’s head, still administered by the same self-appointed guardians who claim exclusive authority to interpret the statutes. The cross is acknowledged. The curse is simply relocated to anyone who refuses their reading of the law.

Paul’s next sentence removes the entire mechanism:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” (Galatians 3:13)

The curse did not evaporate because people started trying harder. It was transferred. Christ became the cursed one so that those who trust Him would never again stand under that sentence. The law’s demand for perfect obedience was met in Him. Its penalty was executed on Him. The tutor’s authority to threaten the heir with the curse ended the moment the heir was declared free.

Yet the systems that still function as gatekeepers of the law continue to issue the threat. Keep the calendar correctly or the blessing is withdrawn. Send the money to the approved address or the curse returns. Submit to the leadership’s interpretation or you have placed yourself back under the very condemnation from which Christ redeemed you. This is not fidelity to Paul. It is the reimposition of the curse the apostle said had already been removed.

Any organization that still treats law-performance as the condition of ongoing acceptance is not merely misunderstanding the tutor’s temporary role. It is actively reintroducing the curse Paul declared finished. The guardians are still collecting payment on a debt that was canceled at the cross. They are still threatening the heirs with the very sentence the Heir already bore. The law has not merely outlived its usefulness as a guardian. In their hands it has been restored as an active instrument of condemnation long after the one who became a curse for us removed its power to condemn.

Silent Pilgrim

Why I Think Armstrongism is Wrong about Adam And My Theory of Human Origins

 

Adam and Eve (See Note at end; fair use)

Why I Think Armstrongism is Wrong about Adam

And My Theory of Human Origins

By Scout

Humankind has always had some very novel myths about where humans came from.  The ancient Celts and Japanese believed that humans descended from the gods.  Some ancient Greeks believed that humans grew out of the soil like plants.  Mud seems to be popular.  The Phoenicians were among those who believed that all life sprang from mud.  The Abrahamic religions assert that humankind was created from the soil into which God breathed life. I agree with the Abrahamic religions as to origin principle but see a different scenario.

Let me tell you briefly what I do believe.  First of all, I believe there was an Adam.  And an Eve.  But I do not believe they were the progenitors of all of humankind.  I do not believe the Biblical language requires them to be the biological progenitors of humankind.  And I believe Adam and Eve were created from existing humans but with updated spiritual components at the time of the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution.  They were a new and marvelous creation with updated spirits and similarities to God, even though their bodies included some physical parts whose design had already been around for a while.  Some theologians use the term Homo divinus to refer to this new humankind.  I will start with my theory and then turn to Armstrongism.

Adam, The New Assembly

If I took an existing SUV and put a new and faster, more efficient computer in it, I would have created a new SUV. Technically speaking, the car was not made from simple raw materials at that moment of creation but it is totally new concept that involved the reuse of some existing technologies.  This is what I think happened with Adam and other humans that were his contemporaries.  The account in Genesis 1 could support either a creation from elemental raw materials or a creation from both new and existing components. I believe it was the latter. 

The Rise to Civilization and the Development of Agriculture

The first modern humans, people who looked like us, appeared on earth 300,000 years ago. But civilization began to flourish about 12,000 years ago concomitant with the development of agriculture in the Neolithic.  So, for about 288,000 years, people who looked like us chased around the planet wearing skins and brandishing spears with stone tips.  They were hunter-gatherers.  They had no agriculture.  They ate fruits and vegetables opportunistically in the wild.  They did not significantly progress for 300 millennia and then something radical happened.  Then, seemingly suddenly on this great scale of time, civilization gained traction just a few millennia ago.

The Genesis account of Adam emphasizes agriculture.  In Genesis 1, this is found in verses 11-13, 29-30.  In Genesis 2, verses 5-9, 15-17.  Agriculture was the new frontier.  It would create a more controllable, predictable economy on which a complex stable civilization could be established.  Though there were different rates of advancement, I believe all of humankind was updated at the same time worldwide with a more complex intellection―a mind that could understand not only art and science but also spiritual concepts. 

Göbekli Tepe is an archaeological site dating from around this time in northern Mesopotamia that fits this scenario.  At its discovery, scientists were perplexed that the people who built the ancient city were hunter-gatherers yet they built many advanced religious monuments. Such monuments are associated with advanced agricultural societies not hunter-gatherers.  This was just prior to the development of agriculture but they could understand spiritual concepts with symbolism, ceremony and astronomy. This kind of paradox is what one would expect if there were a revolution in intellection in a yet hunter-gatherer society. 

And Adam and Eve were the two people that God chose to interact with out of the worldwide population that had undergone the revolution in intellection.  The rest of humankind would have to make what they could of their new abilities.

The Genetic Account

I believe that Adam lived around 12,000 YA.  Archbishop James Ussher computed from scripture that Adam lived around 6,030 years ago. Even if we take my earlier figure, there is not enough time for the Y chromosome haplogroup of a single man to give rise to the many haplogroups that now exist on the planet.   These mutations take a long time.   Over a mere 6,000 years, Adam’s y chromosome haplogroup passed to subsequent generations would be virtually unchanged. So, if Adam were the progenitor of all of humankind, all the males in the world at this time would have whatever Adam’s Y chromosome haplogroup was (it was J but that is another subject).   Yet there is a highly diverse Y chromosome haplogroup structure in the world now.  This diversity did not come from a single patrilineal line in a few millennia.  

A case in point.  The Y chromosome haplogroup of most Europeans, both East and West, is Y chromosome haplogroup R.  The earliest excavated remains showing haplogroup R were found on the shores of Lake Baikal in Siberia.  The remains date to 24,000 YA.  Yet, if we are to believe that Adam is the progenitor of all humankind, the people bearing haplogroup R should not have existed before Adam.  Yet they did. Not only does this demonstrate that Adam is not the progenitor of the European people (because they pre-existed him), it indicates that the Flood was not global (because they continued to exist after the putative global Flood).  Had the Flood been global, haplogroup R would have been entirely erased and Europeans would not exist today. 

And further, the human genome is a record of mutations.  And it reflects the original progenitors of humankind.   These are people who in the phylogentic tree structure of human genetics had a Y chromosome haplogroup that has been designated A00.  A00 diverged from other Homo sapiens about 240,000 years ago.  The people who possess this haplogroup are sub-Saharan Blacks.  The first biological Adam was a Black man living in southern Africa (See Wikipedia article titled “Y-chromosomal Adam”).  This is who the entirety of present humankind is descended from.  The biological Adam is not the same as the Biblical Adam.  Biblical Adam lived just yesterday on the geological timescale and was a Middle Easterner.

Herman Hoeh did not have the advantage of the science of genetics, otherwise he would never have written his flagship article on the races of man. I think Hoeh would probably have never believed in British-Israelism.  

Responses to Some Armstrongist Viewpoints

Admittedly, Armstrongism held many viewpoints that were also generally held by conservative Christian denominations.  Here I am working from memory going back to my years as an Armstrongist.  Modern Armstrongist denominations may no longer hold these views.  Readers should let me know. 

Genesis 10 contains a genealogy which some believe describes all the races of humankind.  And some Bibles have a gloss above Genesis 10 that says something like “The Table of Nations.”  Herman Hoeh uses this gloss in his article “The Truth about the Race Question.” This gloss is not a part of scripture but an added editorial comment.  It was popularized by German publishers in the 18^th Century and was originally called the Voelkertafel. The scripture, however, states that the genealogy just represents the clans of the sons of Noah and that these people spread abroad.  It does not say that the genealogy reflects the origin of all of humanity. 

Paul speaks of Adam as the “first man.”  I believe Adam was the spiritual forerunner of all humankind.  And scripture seems to be saying that he was created first before the rest of humankind was transformed.  But he was not the biological progenitor of all of humankind.  I am not sure if Paul believed that Adam was the progenitor of all humankind.  The New Testament does not say that explicitly. Moreover, the state of scientific knowledge does not alter spiritual principles.  Paul very likely also believed in the Three-Tiered Cosmos of Genesis 1.  This view has been overtaken by events.  We no longer believe that the sky consists of something solid, a firmament, holding back an ocean of blue water.  The precise configuration of the heavens does not alter the spiritual insight which Genesis intends to convey that God created all things. 

In Genesis 3:20, it states that Eve is the “mother of all living.”  I believe she is.  She had a major role in the drama of the Garden of Eden. But I believe this refers to her symbolic and spiritual role of motherhood rather than her biological role. If one wants to dismiss the allegorical view and regard this passage as biological, then we must look at the genetics.  The earliest mtDNA haplogroup is L0 and originated in East Africa. All the other mtDNA haplogroups are derived from L0 through mutation. Biological Eve was a Black woman (See the Wikipedia article titled “Mitochondrial Eve”).

Another theory is that the children of Adam and Eve could intermarry and that this was not damaging physically, that incest could happen until it was later forbidden by the Torah.  The idea is that Cain married his sister. This is fantasy.  The way genetic damage occurs through incest does not permit this notion.  The damage from incest is caused by the pairing of recessive genes in siblings that permits the emergence of pathological conditions.  The principle would be just as true for Adam’s immediate progeny as it would be for people today.  Cain married someone from a neighboring tribe who was not descended from Adam and Eve. 

Conclusion

First, there are many ways of interpreting the synergy between the Book of God’s Words (the Bible) and the Book of God’s Works (science).  I have chosen to apply the science of genetics, for instance, to Adam’s circumstance much more than others would.  Those people who regard Genesis as an ahistorical allegory, would think me to be naïve in doing this.  For them, what I have done with genetics on this topic would be akin to solemnly psycho-analyzing the comic book character Superman.  In response I would say that I am not trying to be doctrinal but probing.  I believe my viewpoint has substance.  And who knows where to draw the line between allegory and history?

The world is not brought into pleasant balance by discarding science.  Science is simply the study of God’s Creation.  Believers in God should avail themselves of the findings of science.  A theory of Adam that draws upon both the Bible and science is quite plausible.  God is not only the Author of spiritual principle; he is also Creator and Sustainer of the physical Cosmos.  Adam is written up in both the Book of God’s Words and the Book of God’s Works. 

Note: When I looked for depictions of Adam on the internet, I found almost exclusively images of Western Europeans.  You would think that they all had read Armstrong and Hoeh and believed that God was White, Adam was White and Shem was White down to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  I believe the most credible depiction of Adam would portray him as looking like a Mizrahi Jew.  The Levantine Mizrahi decidedly do not look like Western Europeans.  Armstrongists, influenced by Ashkenormativity, probably would not consider Adam to be White if they saw him in person. I selected this picture of Adam and Eve in the interests of accuracy.

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!