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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One can almost hear the frustrated prophet muttering:

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

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

But here is where the story becomes interesting.

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

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

And so we arrive at the familiar Armstrongist conclusion:

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

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

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

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

This is an extraordinary way to construct a theological argument.

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

Perhaps Bob would.

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

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

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

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

And here is the inconvenient reality:

The biblical text does not contain Bob's name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather than: Are we living faithfully in Christ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How convenient.

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

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

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

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

One might almost feel sorry for him.

Almost.

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

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

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

Some things in Armstrongism never change.