Puppet Strings and Proof-Texting: Why HWA's "Don't Believe Me, Believe Your Bible" Is Still Trapping New Covenant Believers

Don't Believe Me, Believe Your Bible!

The Armstrongist Magic Incantation That Wasn't So Magical After All

Herbert W. Armstrong loved this line. He trotted it out on radio, in The Plain Truth, in booklets, and from the pulpit like a holy incantation: "Don't believe me — believe your Bible!" Paired with the folksy "Blow the dust off your Bible" and the scriptural-sounding "Prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21), it sounded so reasonable, so humble, so biblical. Who could argue with that? After all, the man was just a humble servant pointing people back to the Word, right?

Wrong. In the hands of Armstrongism, this wasn't an invitation to genuine, Spirit-led Bible study. It was the opening move in a sophisticated con — the theological equivalent of a used-car salesman saying, "Don't trust me, kick the tires yourself!" while the odometer has been rolled back and the engine is held together with prayer and duct tape.

The Setup: Sounding Humble While Seizing Control

The phrase worked because it disarmed skeptics. Mainstream Christianity was painted as paganized, deceived, and tradition-bound. Armstrong positioned himself as the no-nonsense voice crying in the wilderness: "The churches of this world won't tell you the truth — but your Bible will!" People who had grown up with vague sermons and feel-good religion suddenly felt empowered. They were being challenged to think, to study, to prove.

What they weren't told was that the "proving" came with an invisible owner’s manual: Armstrong’s booklets, his Plain Truth articles, his Bible Correspondence Course, and later the filtered interpretations of his ministers. The Bible was "plain," but apparently not plain enough without the special Armstrong decoder ring. British Israelism? Prove it from the Bible (using our genealogical charts and selective history). Tithing as a binding "financial law" for New Covenant Christians? Prove it (ignore Hebrews and the early church practice). The weekly Sabbath and annual Holy Days as required for salvation or identity? Prove it (while we quietly downplay or spiritualize other Old Covenant shadows we don't like).

The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were commended for searching the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true. They examined with open minds. In Armstrongism, you examined — but only within the approved framework, often under the watchful eye of a local elder who could smell "Laodicean" or "rebellious" thinking from across the room. Independent cross-referencing with mainstream commentaries, church history, or Greek/Hebrew study aids? That was often viewed with suspicion. Why would you need those when "God's apostle" had already done the heavy lifting?

The Double Bind and the Selective Memory

Armstrong and his successors changed teachings over the decades — on divorce and remarriage, on makeup, on the nature of God, on healing, on a host of prophetic details. Yet the phrase "Don't believe me, believe your Bible" was still trotted out as if the system were static and infallible. When the changes came (especially the traumatic ones after Armstrong's death), suddenly "prove all things" became "stay loyal to the church" or "don't cause division." The same mouths that once shouted about blowing dust off Bibles now warned against "intellectual vanity" or "questioning God's government."

Exit stories from former members are littered with this pattern. People who actually took the challenge seriously — who kept studying after baptism and found the Bible didn't say what the booklet claimed — often ended up disfellowshipped or marked. The phrase that sounded like freedom became the trapdoor. You were free to "prove" it... as long as you arrived at the pre-approved conclusion. Disagree? Then you weren't really believing your Bible — you were being deceived by Satan, your own carnal mind, or "the world."

And the prophecies? Oh, the prophecies. Armstrong set dates, hinted at dates, and built an entire end-time scenario around his work and the "Philadelphia era." When they failed (repeatedly), the response wasn't "Maybe I was wrong — let's go back to the Bible together without my filter." It was often "The Bible is still true, the work continues, hold fast." The very Book he told people to believe apparently needed his ongoing reinterpretation to stay relevant.

The Deeper Deception: Bible as Weapon, Not Guide

At its core, the tactic inverts biblical authority. The Bible becomes a tool to confirm what the leader has already decided, rather than the supreme standard that can correct or rebuke the leader. This is classic high-control religion dressed in scriptural clothing. It flatters the convert's intelligence ("You're not like those blind followers in other churches — you checked!") while slowly transferring authority from the text (and the Holy Spirit) to the organization and its hierarchy.

It also creates a closed epistemological loop: The Bible is true. Armstrong (or his spiritual descendants) correctly interprets the Bible. Therefore, questioning Armstrong is questioning the Bible. Try escaping that without being accused of rejecting God Himself.

The Real Danger for New Covenant Christians

This is where it gets especially toxic for those who have come to understand the freedom and sufficiency of the New Covenant in Christ.

The saying sounds pious, but in Armstrongist practice it often functions as a gateway drug back into Old Covenant bondage. It keeps sincere believers fixated on shadows — Sabbaths, Holy Days, tithing systems, clean meats, and "government" structures — as if these were the heart of Christian identity and obedience. Meanwhile, the blazing center of the New Covenant — the finished work of Christ, justification by faith apart from works of the law, the indwelling Spirit, and the liberty purchased at the cross — gets treated as secondary or even dangerous if it leads someone to question the "restored truths."

New Covenant believers are repeatedly warned in Scripture not to let anyone judge them in regard to Sabbaths, festivals, or food (Colossians 2:16-17), not to be entangled again with a yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1), and that the law was a tutor to bring us to Christ, not a perpetual straitjacket (Galatians 3:24-25). Yet the Armstrongist use of "Don't believe me, believe your Bible" has a remarkable ability to make people feel spiritually superior for re-imposing those very shadows — and spiritually terrified of letting them go.

Worse, it trains people to outsource their discernment. Instead of growing into mature believers who can handle the Word rightly divided (2 Timothy 2:15), many remain perpetual students of the latest booklet or sermon from the current "leader." The next self-appointed "Zerubbabel," "Elijah," or "apostle" can step in with fresh "new truth" or recycled old errors, wave the same magic phrase, and the cycle repeats. The Bible becomes a ventriloquist dummy for whatever authoritarian personality currently holds the microphone.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is what it does to the heart. New Covenant Christianity is meant to produce sons and daughters who walk in freedom, love, and the Spirit — not anxious rule-keepers scanning for the next doctrinal tweak or fearful of losing their salvation over a missed Holy Day or an unauthorized Bible study. The phrase, twisted this way, keeps people in a subtle form of spiritual slavery: outwardly zealous for "the truth," inwardly dependent on human mediators who claim to have unlocked what the Bible "really" says.

True biblical Christianity invites examination — but it doesn't fear it. It doesn't need to control the outcome or punish those who land in different places after honest study. It points people to Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of the Scriptures, not to any man or organization as the necessary filter.

So yes, blow the dust off your Bible. Read it. Study it. But do it without the Armstrongist training wheels, without the fear that independent conclusions will get you marked, and without the assumption that one man's (or one group's) "restored" system is the only possible faithful reading. The New Covenant is bigger, freer, and far more Christ-centered than any humanly constructed theological empire built on selective proof-texting and loyalty tests.

The man who kept telling people not to believe him built an awful lot of his authority on making sure they ultimately did. That's not humility. That's the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook — and far too many sincere people are still falling for it.

Precept Upon Precept, Clown Upon Clown: How Armstrongism Turned God’s Mockery Into Their Holy Study Method

 

But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Isaiah 28:13

Ah, yes. The classic Armstrongist party trick. Whenever some wide-eyed prospective member or lingering splinter drone starts asking too many pesky questions about why the "one true church" cherry-picks doctrines like a starving raccoon in a dumpster, out comes the triumphant bellow: "Precept upon precept! Line upon line! Here a little, there a little!" It's their sacred get-out-of-context-free card, the magical incantation that justifies ripping verses from here, there, and everywhere to "prove" British Israelism, mandatory tithing to headquarters, triple tithes and offerings during "God's" feast days, the sacred calendar, clean/unclean meats, and whatever other Old Covenant legalism HWA and his prophetic successors decided was essential for salvation that week.

Let's actually open the Bible and see what Isaiah 28:9-13 says, shall we? (You know, the whole context thing that the "Philadelphia era" remnant claims to love so much.)

King James Version (because that's the one they prefer when it suits them):

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Notice something? The phrases "precept upon precept" etc. are not a divine study method handed down from on high. They are the mocking taunt of drunken, scoffing priests and prophets in Ephraim (and by extension, Judah) who are ridiculing Isaiah's message. They're saying, in effect: "Who does this guy think he's teaching? Babies just weaned from the breast? Blah blah blah, rule on rule, line on line, a little here, a little there—yada yada yada." It's baby talk to their sophisticated, wine-soaked ears.

God is not patting them on the back for their systematic theology homework. He's pronouncing judgment. They rejected the true rest and refreshing found in Him (verse 12 — hello, New Covenant shadow), preferring their own religious game of collecting scattered proof-texts while ignoring the heart of the matter. As a result, the very words they mocked become a trap that causes them to stumble, fall backward, be broken, snared, and taken captive.

How Armstrongism Distorted It Masterfully

Herbert W. Armstrong and his theological descendants (Thiel, Pack, Flurry, Kitchen, Brisby, and the rest of the clown car) turned this passage of divine mockery and judgment into their primary hermeneutical operating system. "The Bible is a jigsaw puzzle! You have to put it together precept upon precept, here a little there a little!" they'd thunder from the pulpit, while conveniently ignoring that the passage is God describing how the unrepentant stumble over His word precisely because of that fragmented, rules-focused approach without the Spirit.

This "method" gave them unlimited license to:

• Proof-text their way to British Israelism by yanking obscure verses about ancient tribes and slapping them onto modern Anglo-Saxon nations. Never mind the mountains of genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence against it.

• Reimpose the Old Covenant (or their mutated version of it) on New Covenant believers. Tithing? Check. Holy Days? Check. Dietary laws? Check. Sabbath policing? Double check. All while Jesus and the Apostles made it clear the shadows have been fulfilled in Christ.

• Dodge the plain teaching of Scripture on grace, faith, and rest in Christ. Why deal with the finished work of the Cross when you can hopscotch through 66 books looking for supporting snippets?

• Maintain control. If everything is "here a little, there a little," only the enlightened Apostle or his chosen successor can properly assemble the puzzle. Question the assembly? You're a Laodicean, rebellious, or worse.

It's peak irony. The passage warns against treating God's word like a bunch of disconnected rules from a drunken religious elite who rejected rest in Him — and Armstrongism built an entire empire on doing exactly that.

The Real Point They Missed (Because It Would Bankrupt Their Empire)

Verse 12 is the heart: 

This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Sound familiar? Jesus said, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). The New Covenant isn't about mastering scattered precepts through human effort and headquarters-approved Bible studies. It's about faith in the finished work of Christ, the true Cornerstone (Isaiah 28:16, right in the same chapter they love to twist).

The Armstrongist approach — endless rule-stacking, fear of "falling away" if you miss a Holy Day, financial extraction disguised as "God's government," and spiritual exhaustion — is the exact opposite of rest. It's the path that leads to being "broken, and snared, and taken." Just look at the devastated lives, failed prophecies, scandals, and shrinking congregations across the splinters. The trap worked exactly as Isaiah described.

Congratulations, COG leaders! You've taken a passage where God mocks religious know-it-alls who treat His word like a rulebook for toddlers and turned it into your infallible method for reinventing Judaism with a thin coat of "Church of God" paint. Precept upon precept indeed — mostly the precepts of men that make the word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13, another verse they probably "here a little" away from).

If you're in one of these groups and feeling weary, exhausted, and spiritually snared... maybe stop treating the Bible like a drunken scoffer’s puzzle and listen to what God actually said about rest. The refreshing is available in Christ, not in another "special" Bible study booklet from Wadsworth, Grover Beach, Edmond, or wherever the latest self-appointed Elijah is holed up.

The word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept... that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken.

New Covenant Christians must grasp this passage not as a clever study tip, but as a stark warning against the very snare that trapped generations in Armstrongism. The "precept upon precept" approach, when stripped of its sarcastic biblical context, becomes a self-perpetuating system of spiritual bondage—piecing together isolated rules while missing the grand tapestry of grace fulfilled in Jesus. It keeps believers perpetually weaned from the true milk of the Word, treating Scripture as a divine puzzle only "God's government" can solve, rather than a living revelation pointing to rest in Christ.

In light of Armstrong's distortions, believers today are called to reject this fragmented legalism entirely. The New Covenant, sealed by the blood of the Lamb, frees us from the exhaustive labor of reassembling Old Covenant shadows. No more hunting "here a little, there a little" for justification through diet, days, or dollars. Instead, we stand on the solid Cornerstone, where the weary find genuine refreshing—not in headquarters-approved booklets or self-appointed apostles, but in the finished work of the Cross. This understanding dismantles the fear tactics and control mechanisms that thrive on confusion, replacing them with the simplicity of faith, love, and liberty in the Spirit. No one needs Bob Thiel, Dave Pack, Gerald Weston, Gerald Flurry telling them jus how things are supposed to be. 

Ultimately, Isaiah 28 exposes how religious elites stumble when they mock God's offer of rest. For those emerging from Armstrongist shadows, this means embracing the full implications of the New Covenant: no more hybrid law-grace systems, no more "one true church" elitism, and no more exhaustion masquerading as obedience. True doctrine flows not from puzzle-solving prowess, but from relationship with the One who is our Sabbath rest. As you study Scripture, do so with eyes fixed on Christ—the refreshing that the scoffers rejected. In doing so, you avoid the trap, walk in freedom, and become a voice of clarity for others still entangled in the wreckage of failed prophecies and man-made empires. The rest is not only better; it is the very gospel itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament Cosplay Meets New Covenant Reality

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

Covetous. Power-hungry. Doomed.

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

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

When a Dream Becomes Doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real Theological Crime

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

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

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

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

Silent Pilgrim 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dangers of Bob Thiel and His Heresies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prestige Shielding in the Splinters

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

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

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

Elite Networks and Mutual Protection

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

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

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

Status Preservation and the Inner Circle

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

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

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

The Social Environment of Insulation in Practice

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

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

Breaking the Cycle of Moral Insulation in Armstrongism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Maybe the Ride Would be Like This

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

Father, Son, Arianism and Armstrongism

By Scout

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

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

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

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

Ontology and Economy

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

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

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

The Subordination of Jesus in Armstrongism

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

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

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

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

The Arian Pitfall of Anthropomorphism

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

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

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

The Summary Argument

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

 

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

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

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

He writes:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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