Tithes, Offerings, and Free Labor: The Three Pillars of Armstrongism

Armstrongism: Where Tithing Is Mandatory, but So Is the Free Labor!

For decades, the Worldwide Church of God perfected a rather remarkable arrangement with its membership. Members were expected to tithe, give offerings, support the church's building projects, finance its television broadcasts, and contribute to an endless parade of special fundraising campaigns. But apparently, handing over a substantial portion of one's income wasn't quite enough. The church also expected its members to provide something money couldn't buy quite so cheaply: their labor.

Why hire someone when you have thousands of faithful members who can be persuaded that mowing the minister's lawn is somehow an act of Christian service?

Throughout the old Worldwide Church of God, members were routinely called upon to perform all sorts of unpaid work. Some mowed ministers' lawns, maintained their properties, deleavened ministers and evangelists homes before the Days of Unleavened Bread, cleaned church buildings, maintained church facilities, provided "Sabbath" security, set up rented halls, dismantled Feast of Tabernacles facilities, washed dishes, scrubbed toilets, and performed countless other chores. When the Feast rolled around, members became an unpaid workforce responsible for making everything look wonderful for the visiting ministry and church hierarchy.

Naturally, this was all presented as serving God, supporting the Work, loving the brethren, or demonstrating a willing and obedient attitude. Nobody wanted to be the person who questioned why the church couldn't hire employees to perform work that ordinary organizations would simply pay people to do. After all, questioning the arrangement might reveal an insufficiently submissive attitude.

And heaven forbid anyone should suggest that a minister, who was already receiving a salary and numerous benefits, might mow his own lawn!

The arrangement was particularly amusing when it came to the ministry's comfortable lifestyle. Members could be struggling financially, working ordinary jobs, raising families, and trying to make ends meet, yet somehow they were expected to find additional time to maintain church properties and assist the ministry. Their own household responsibilities could wait. The Work came first, and apparently so did the minister's landscaping.

Fast-forward to the modern Armstrongist splinter organizations, and it appears that some traditions are simply too precious to abandon.

A Philadelphia Church of God social media post from last year recently appeared in my X feed showing PCG women washing clothing for the young people attending its Summer Educational Program (SEP). Apparently, the ladies were busy providing laundry services for the campers. It brought back memories of the original SEP program in Minnesota in 1971,  where we were expected to wash our own clothes. Not by machines, but in tubs with laundry scrubbing ridges, by hand.

Washers at PCG houses across north Edmond right now are lighting up (housewives pitching in to do SEP camper laundry: It's a family effort)! https://t.co/RtdwKe6RUA

— Philadelphia Church of God (@PCG_News) July 14, 2025

 https://x.com/PCG_News/status/1944880593986318663?a=b4Ofv6VCpaULjnNn_eg&s=20

Imagine that! Young people learning to take responsibility for their own laundry. What a revolutionary concept!

Of course, one has to wonder whether the children of the PCG's privileged leadership families would be quite as enthusiastic about this arrangement if they were expected to wash their own clothing. Perhaps there is a special exemption for children whose parents occupy the upper floors of the Armstrongist aristocracy. One can almost imagine the horror of discovering that a washing machine actually requires someone to put clothes inside it, add detergent, and press a button.

Why should the campers learn independence when there are perfectly good church women available to operate the laundry department?

Perhaps the PCG should consider expanding the service. They could establish a permanent laundry ministry, complete with a hierarchy of washing supervisors, folding coordinators, and approved detergent policies. A special offering could be collected to purchase additional washing machines, while the women provide the labor free of charge. Which, incidentally, they already do as part of the free traveling slave labor that accompanies the Celtic dance road shows. Groups of women travel with the production washing, ironing and taking care of the dancers clothing.

And this is the larger problem with Armstrongism. The old Worldwide Church of God established a culture in which members were expected to surrender not only their financial resources but also their personal time, energy, and independence. The splinter organizations inherited much of that institutional mentality. Whether it is the Philadelphia Church of God, the Continuing Church of God, or one of the other Armstrongist descendants, the old expectation that members should continually sacrifice themselves for the organization remains an uncomfortable part of the tradition.

To be fair, there is nothing inherently wrong with church members volunteering. Congregations everywhere depend upon volunteers. People willingly clean their churches, prepare meals, help at camps, and organize religious gatherings. There is something genuinely admirable about people working together to help one another. People do this because they have felt blessed by what they get from their churches instead of being TOLD they will be cleaning.

There is a considerable difference between voluntary Christian service and an institutional culture in which members are expected to provide endless unpaid labor because the organization has convinced them that doing so demonstrates their loyalty, obedience, or spiritual commitment. When saying no becomes an indication of a bad attitude, volunteering begins to look considerably less voluntary.

And that is where Armstrongism deserves some serious scrutiny.

The church can collect its tithes, second tithes, third tithes, tithe of the tithe, special offerings, building fund contributions, and member/co-worker appeal letters. It can maintain its expensive headquarters, purchase property, operate elaborate church facilities, and provide comfortable accommodations for its leadership. Yet somehow, there is always another job that needs doing by someone who isn't getting paid.

The members provide the money. The members provide the labor. The members provide the transportation, cooking, cleaning, maintenance, organizing, and laundry services. Meanwhile, the leadership gets to enjoy the benefits of a remarkably well-organized volunteer workforce.

Perhaps the next Armstrongist doctrinal restoration should be the recovery of an ancient and previously overlooked truth: Thou shalt not hire a janitor when thou hast a congregation of unpaid members.

One can almost hear Herbert Armstrong approving from the grave. After all, why stop at demanding a tenth of someone's income when you can also have their weekends, holidays, vacation time, and household labor?

Armstrongism has always been extraordinarily good at telling its members what God supposedly expects them to sacrifice. What it has been considerably less enthusiastic about explaining is why so much of that sacrifice seems to benefit the organization and its leadership.

Apparently, salvation is a full-time job, the ministry is management, and the membership is the maintenance department.

And remember, brethren, your tithes are due on payday. The laundry is due by Thursday.

The Churches of God: Where Satan Gets Top Billing and Jesus Is Just the Angry Supporting Actor

For a movement that claims to represent the one true Church of God and restored 1st-century Christianity, its ministers seem to spend an astonishing amount of time talking about someone other than Jesus. You would think that a religion supposedly centered on Jesus Christ would devote most of its energy to discussing his teachings, his sacrifice, his mercy, his love, and the New Covenant. But apparently, those subjects are too mainstream Christian for the Armstrongist prophetic entertainment industry. Instead, its ministers have developed an almost obsessive fascination with Satan, demons, conspiracies, mysterious spiritual forces, and the endless machinations of the devil. If something goes wrong, Satan did it. If someone disagrees with the ministry, Satan is involved. If a member leaves the church, Satan has deceived them. If a website criticizes the organization, the devil must be behind it. If the world experiences political turmoil, religious confusion, or social problems, you can be certain that another satanic conspiracy is waiting to be exposed.

One has to wonder whether Satan ever gets a vacation. Listening to Bob Thiel, Gerald Flurry, Gerald Weston, Samuel Kitchen, Alton Billingsley, and Dave Pack, you might conclude that the devil is the busiest, most successful, and most powerful spiritual being in the entire universe. God seems to spend most of his time reacting to Satan's latest scheme, while Jesus is apparently waiting backstage for his eventual entrance into an apocalyptic production involving enormous destruction and a very unhappy humanity. Welcome to Armstrongism, where Satan gets the starring role, Jesus gets the angry cameo, and the ministry gets to explain everything else.

Satan: The Real Star of Armstrongist Theology

Although these ministers have their own peculiar theological obsessions, they share a remarkable tendency to portray the world as one enormous battlefield of satanic interference. Everything is connected, everything is a conspiracy, and virtually every unpleasant development is interpreted as evidence that Satan is working behind the scenes to frustrate God's purposes. Bob Thiel deserves particular recognition for his seemingly endless interest in identifying the devil's activities. His broadcasts and writings repeatedly return to Satan, demonic influence, deception, persecution, and supposed spiritual attacks against his ministry. One almost expects him to announce that the local grocery store has changed its opening hours because Satan is attempting to undermine the restoration of the true Church of God.

Gerald Flurry has his own elaborate collection of prophetic enemies, conspiracies, and end-time threats, with a theological universe populated by sinister forces and an endless succession of people and institutions that must be exposed. Gerald Weston and the Living Church of God likewise devote considerable attention to Satan's influence, worldly deception, and spiritual dangers lurking around practically every corner. Then there is Dave Pack, whose prophetic pronouncements have turned anticipation of Christ's return into a seemingly perpetual exercise in apocalyptic expectation. With prophetic timelines repeatedly requiring explanation and adjustment, one wonders whether Satan has been given responsibility for maintaining the church calendar.

The common thread is that Satan receives an extraordinary amount of attention. Rather than encouraging members to concentrate on Christ and the freedom found in the New Covenant, these ministries repeatedly direct their attention toward the devil's supposed influence over virtually every aspect of human existence. Apparently, keeping the membership frightened, suspicious, and constantly alert to satanic interference is considerably more exciting than teaching people how to live like Jesus.

The Most Powerful Being in the Universe Is Apparently Satan

Here is where Armstrongist theology becomes particularly amusing. Ministers routinely describe Satan as the god of this world, the great deceiver of humanity, and the master manipulator of governments, religions, education, science, politics, and practically every institution that fails to agree with their interpretation of Scripture. Satan has supposedly infiltrated everything, and the world is portrayed as one enormous demonstration of his influence. Yet these same ministers insist that God is sovereign, all-powerful, and ultimately in control.

There is a rather obvious contradiction in the way this is presented. If Satan is so extraordinarily successful at deceiving humanity, manipulating world affairs, corrupting religion, and frustrating God's purposes, one might reasonably wonder what exactly God is doing while all this is happening. Does God have a plan, or is he simply waiting for Satan to finish his latest project? Has the devil established a competing universe with a larger staff, better public relations, and a more effective communications department? Armstrongist ministers would undoubtedly object to such questions and explain that God permits Satan to influence the world for a specific purpose. Fine, but that still doesn't explain why their preaching seems to give Satan more attention than the very God they claim to represent.

The New Testament repeatedly directs believers toward Christ, yet Armstrongism seems determined to keep everyone's attention fixed on the devil. Instead of celebrating Christ's victory over sin and death, members are continually reminded of the devil's supposed victories over practically everything else. If one listened exclusively to these ministers, it would be easy to conclude that Satan is winning the battle and God is still trying to figure out how to get things back under control.

Bob Thiel and His Never-Ending Satanic Detective Agency

Bob Thiel deserves special recognition in this department. His ministry seems to have developed an almost encyclopedic interest in identifying Satan's influence in the modern world. One can easily imagine his followers waking up each morning wondering what fresh satanic conspiracy has been discovered overnight. Perhaps another church has been deceived, another government agency is being manipulated, another religious organization has failed to recognize Bob's prophetic importance, or another website has published something critical of his ministry. Naturally, that last possibility must be particularly important.

It is difficult not to notice how much attention is devoted to the devil compared with the actual teachings of Jesus. Where are the extended discussions about loving one's enemies, forgiving others, caring for the poor, showing mercy, and refusing to judge people hypocritically? Where is the enthusiasm for the Sermon on the Mount? Where are the discussions about the grace of God and the sufficiency of Christ? Apparently, those subjects cannot compete with another thrilling installment of Satan's Secret Operations Against Bob Thiel.

One almost wonders whether the devil has established a special department devoted exclusively to monitoring the Continuing Church of God. With the amount of attention devoted to supposed attacks against the organization, Satan must have an entire office building somewhere, complete with a dedicated communications team and a department responsible for keeping track of Bob's latest broadcasts. Perhaps the ministry should publish a weekly intelligence report detailing the latest satanic operations, complete with charts, maps, prophetic interpretations, and an announcement that another person has disagreed with Bob. It would certainly give his followers something to look forward to.

Jesus: Apparently Not Much to Talk About Until He Starts Destroying Everyone

And then there is the rather unfortunate place Jesus occupies in Armstrongist theology. You would think the central figure of Christianity would receive considerable attention, considering that his teachings are supposed to establish the foundation of Christian living. His death and resurrection are central to the New Covenant, and his example is what believers are supposed to follow. Yet in much Armstrongist prophetic preaching, Jesus often seems to be waiting backstage until the exciting destruction begins.

When ministers finally get around to discussing his return, the atmosphere changes dramatically. Suddenly, Jesus is presented primarily as an angry returning conqueror preparing to unleash devastating judgment upon a rebellious world. There is no shortage of enthusiasm for the catastrophic passages in biblical prophecy, and the more frightening the prediction, the more animated some presentations seem to become. The charts come out, the prophetic timelines are dusted off, and the ministers begin explaining who will suffer, who will be punished, who will be destroyed, and how much of humanity will be left standing.

Some Armstrongist interpretations emphasize the biblical language concerning two-thirds of humanity being struck down in end-time judgment. Rather than treating such passages with solemnity and humility, certain prophetic presentations seem almost exhilarated by the prospect. One would think they were announcing the opening of a new amusement park rather than discussing the suffering of billions of human beings. Apparently, the greatest Christian excitement is not the prospect of humanity being reconciled to God but the opportunity to explain how thoroughly God is going to punish everyone who failed to listen to the ministry. Naturally, the ministers themselves will have been among the select few who understood everything correctly. What a remarkable coincidence!

Whatever Happened to the Jesus Who Actually Taught People to Love?

Consider the Jesus presented in the Gospels. He taught his followers to love their enemies, pray for those who persecuted them, forgive others, care for the poor, show mercy, and treat their neighbors with compassion. He criticized religious leaders who burdened people with demands while neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. He repeatedly challenged religious arrogance and self-righteousness, demonstrating that genuine spiritual leadership was about serving others rather than exercising authority over them.

In Luke 15, Jesus tells stories about the lost being found and the joy of restoration. In John 10, he describes himself as the good shepherd who cares for his sheep, and in Matthew 11, he invites the weary and burdened to come to him for rest. This is the Jesus Christians are supposed to follow. But where does that Jesus fit into the Armstrongist prophetic circus? Apparently, he is the fellow who occasionally gets mentioned between lengthy discussions about Satan, the Beast, the Great Tribulation, world government, religious deception, and the latest conspiracy supposedly proving that the ministry was right all along.

The contrast is extraordinary. The Jesus of the Gospels spent considerable time demonstrating compassion toward people, while the Jesus presented in some Armstrongist prophetic preaching seems to spend considerably more time being discussed in connection with how many people will be destroyed when he returns. One wonders whether these ministers have ever considered that the purpose of the Gospel is not to cultivate an audience that delights in imagining the destruction of everyone outside its religious organization.

Herbert Armstrong's Theological Inheritance

Of course, this obsession did not appear out of thin air. Herbert W. Armstrong established a theological framework in which Satan's influence over humanity was central to understanding practically everything. The world was supposedly deceived, traditional Christianity was supposedly corrupted, mainstream religion was supposedly part of a counterfeit system, and governments were influenced by satanic forces. Education, science, politics, and culture were all viewed through the lens of a cosmic struggle between God's government and Satan's government. Armstrong's followers inherited a worldview in which the entire planet was essentially under the control of the devil, while their own organization represented God's restored truth.

That is a remarkably convenient arrangement for anyone who wants to insulate a religious organization from criticism. If outsiders disagree, they are deceived. If members question leadership, they are rebelling. If critics expose embarrassing problems, they are being used by Satan. If the organization fails to achieve its predictions, the devil is still working against it. There is always a supernatural explanation available, and the ministry never has to seriously consider that perhaps its own teachings are mistaken, its leaders are fallible, or its prophetic interpretations are simply wrong. Why examine human mistakes when you can blame a supernatural conspiracy?

This worldview also creates an environment in which members are encouraged to distrust practically everyone outside their particular church organization. Mainstream Christianity is deceived, secular society is under Satan's influence, other religious organizations are counterfeit, and critics are spiritually compromised. The result is a self-contained theological bubble in which the ministry becomes the only supposedly reliable source of truth. It is difficult to imagine a more effective way of keeping members dependent upon religious leadership.

The Great Christian Irony

Here is the irony Armstrongist ministers seem to miss: Christianity is supposed to be about Christ. The name itself gives away the central figure. Yet Armstrongism has managed to construct a religious culture in which Satan receives an extraordinary amount of attention, the world is portrayed as one enormous satanic conspiracy, and Jesus is frequently discussed in connection with the destruction awaiting everyone who refuses to follow the ministry's instructions.

Where is the emphasis on the grace of God? Where is the celebration of Christ's victory over sin and death? Where is the assurance that believers are held in God's hands rather than living in perpetual terror of demonic interference? Paul wrote in Colossians 1:13 that believers have been delivered from the power of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of God's beloved Son. That is a rather different emphasis from spending one's religious life obsessively cataloging everything Satan supposedly controls.

In Colossians 2:15, Paul describes Christ's triumph over spiritual powers and authorities. Christ is the victor, not Satan. The Christian message is not that Satan is so powerful that believers must spend every waking moment worrying about his latest conspiracy. It is that Christ has accomplished what humanity could never accomplish for itself. Yet apparently, that message doesn't generate enough excitement for the Armstrongist prophetic entertainment industry.

Perhaps It's Time to Put Satan Back in His Place

At some point, one has to ask why these ministers seem so preoccupied with Satan. Is it because fear is an extraordinarily effective tool for keeping people dependent upon religious leadership? Does constantly warning members about deception make them less likely to trust outside information? Does portraying the world as hopelessly corrupted make the organization appear indispensable? Whatever the explanation, the results are remarkably consistent. Members are taught to distrust outsiders, fear spiritual contamination, question mainstream Christianity, avoid supposedly dangerous influences, and remain dependent upon the ministry for explanations of practically everything happening in the world.

Meanwhile, the simple teachings of Jesus about love, mercy, forgiveness, humility, and compassion frequently receive considerably less attention than the latest prophetic warning. Perhaps that is the greatest tragedy of Armstrongism. It has taken a religion centered upon Jesus Christ and turned it into a never-ending investigation of Satan's activities, complete with prophetic detectives, conspiracy theories, end-time countdowns, and ministers who seem positively delighted whenever another catastrophe can be squeezed into their interpretation of biblical prophecy.

If Satan really is as powerful as these ministers make him sound, perhaps they should stop advertising his accomplishments so enthusiastically. After all, why give the devil free publicity? And perhaps someone should remind Bob Thiel, Gerald Flurry, Gerald Weston, Samuel Kitchen, Alton Billingsley and Dave Pack that Christianity actually has a central figure. His name is Jesus Christ, and he isn't a supporting character in Satan's biography. He is the one Christians are supposed to follow.

Maybe the next great Armstrongist restoration shouldn't involve discovering another satanic conspiracy, identifying another prophetic enemy, or announcing another impending catastrophe. Maybe it should involve rediscovering Jesus Christ and actually paying attention to what he taught. That would mean spending less time obsessing over the devil and considerably more time demonstrating the love, mercy, and grace that Jesus commanded his followers to practice.

One can only imagine the ministry-wide emergency meeting that would follow.

Shepherds With Badges, Dictators With Bibles

Jesus Said Come Unto Me. The Minister Said Not Without an Appointment!

By A Concerned Believer

There was a time in the Worldwide Church of God when some ministers apparently believed they had been issued something considerably more impressive than a ministerial credential. They seemed to think they had received the keys to the Kingdom of God, the authority to regulate access to Christ, and the divine responsibility to determine which unfortunate members were worthy of sitting in their congregations.

Apparently, Jesus Christ had delegated the business of deciding who could approach Him to a collection of local ministers who had become rather impressed with their own importance.

And if you happened to disagree with one of them, question his judgment, miss a service, grow a beard, have the wrong attitude, or otherwise fail to demonstrate the appropriate level of ministerial obedience, you might discover that your relationship with God was suddenly subject to administrative review.

Welcome to the Worldwide Church of God, where some ministers seemed to confuse shepherding the flock with owning the sheep.

When a Near-Fatal Accident Was Less Important Than Ministerial Permission

Consider the heartbreaking account submitted by Brad (at end of this article) concerning his nineteen-year-old son, who suffered an almost unimaginable motorcycle accident in 1986.

The young man struck a dirt mound, was thrown from his motorcycle, traveled through the air, and suffered catastrophic injuries. He lay outside overnight on frozen ground before being discovered the following morning. His injuries included a damaged aorta and numerous spinal fractures. Emergency surgery was necessary, and doctors had serious concerns about whether he would survive or remain paralyzed.

Two steel rods were eventually placed in his back. He endured tremendous pain, lost considerable weight, and faced a long recovery.

One might reasonably expect a Christian minister to demonstrate some compassion under those circumstances. Perhaps a few visits, a sincere expression of concern, a prayer, or even an occasional inquiry about how the young man was progressing.

But apparently that was asking too much.

The minister initially failed to visit, despite knowing about the accident. When he eventually appeared at the hospital, the young man was reportedly frightened by him.

After a remarkable recovery, the young man expressed a desire to attend Sabbath services with his parents. He was still recovering and needed to recline in a chair at the back of the room.

Some members initially spoke with him, although the family noticed that the congregation was not particularly welcoming.

Then came the minister's contribution to Christian hospitality.

When the young man subsequently missed a Sabbath service, his father approached the minister. The response was astonishing:

"I was surprised to see him here. He has to go through me before he can come to services. People just can't walk in here!"

There it is. A young man had nearly died, endured multiple operations, and was struggling to recover. Yet the minister apparently considered his attendance a matter requiring personal authorization.

One almost wonders whether Jesus needed to submit an application, provide references, and wait for approval before entering the building.

Perhaps the minister had forgotten that Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them" (Matthew 19:14). But then again, perhaps that particular instruction had been superseded by the local ministerial handbook.

The young man's father also recalled that the minister had previously delivered a lecture condemning motorcycle ownership, using the accident as an example of the dangers of such activities. Rather than demonstrating compassion toward a suffering young man, the incident apparently became an opportunity for a public lecture.

The young man never returned.

His family eventually left as well, finding considerably more peace and grace outside the organization.

That is quite an accomplishment for a religious organization supposedly dedicated to preparing people for the Kingdom of God. A young man survived a devastating accident, only to discover that getting back into the local congregation was apparently more difficult than getting back on his feet.

The Minister: Shepherd, Servant, or Self-Appointed Gatekeeper?

The real issue here goes considerably deeper than one unpleasant minister.

For decades, the Worldwide Church of God cultivated a hierarchical religious culture in which ministers occupied positions of extraordinary influence over members' lives. Their opinions could affect family relationships, church participation, employment decisions, personal conduct, and the way members understood their standing before God.

Members were repeatedly taught the importance of God's government, ministerial authority, and submission to those placed over them. In practice, this could create an environment where questioning a minister was treated as questioning God Himself.

What a convenient arrangement!

Imagine being a minister who can tell people what to believe, how to live, whom to associate with, which activities are acceptable, and whether they are spiritually fit to participate in the congregation. If someone objects, you can always remind them that resisting your authority is resisting God's government.

It is difficult to imagine a more effective arrangement for protecting an insecure religious hierarchy from criticism.

Of course, the New Testament presents a rather different picture of Christian leadership.

Jesus specifically warned His disciples against exercising authority over others in the manner of worldly rulers. In Luke 22:25-26, He explained that leadership among His followers was to be characterized by service, not domination.

Peter likewise instructed elders not to lord it over those entrusted to their care, but to serve as examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:2-3).

Apparently, some WCG ministers missed that lesson while studying the organizational chart.

The Internet Is Filled With Other Stories

Brad's account is not the only disturbing testimony published by former Worldwide Church of God members.

The Exit & Support Network has collected numerous accounts from people describing controlling ministers, spiritual intimidation, family disruption, unfair discipline, and experiences they considered spiritually abusive.

These are personal testimonies rather than independently verified findings in every individual case, but the recurring themes deserve attention.

One former member described a minister who demanded attendance at every service and even attempted to control the number of children the family had. Another account described ministers involving themselves in a woman's employment decisions, with consequences for her family's financial circumstances.

A former member reported that a church deacon had approached her inappropriately, only for the minister to accept the deacon's version of events and blame her.

Another former WCG member from Guadeloupe described an environment in which attending a relative's funeral on the Sabbath was considered unacceptable because services took priority.

There are also published accounts of sexual misconduct and allegations of abuse involving church personnel, including a testimony from a former member in Zimbabwe who reported that a minister was investigated and found guilty of sexual abuse.

These accounts cover different congregations, periods, and circumstances. They should not be treated as proof that every WCG minister behaved this way. Nevertheless, the repetition of similar complaints raises serious questions about accountability and the consequences of placing enormous authority in the hands of religious leaders.

The Exit & Support Network's collections from 2009, 2011, 2022, and 2025 illustrate how many former members have continued to describe painful experiences long after leaving.

The question is not whether every minister was abusive. The question is why a religious system could allow ministers to exercise such extraordinary influence without adequate accountability.

Disfellowshipment: The Minister's Favorite Spiritual Hammer

One of the most damaging features of the old Worldwide Church of God culture was the fear surrounding disfellowshipment.

Being removed from the congregation was not necessarily treated as an ordinary disagreement between a member and a religious organization. It could be presented as a terrifying spiritual catastrophe, with implications for one's relationship with God, family, and fellow believers.

For members who had spent years being taught that the Worldwide Church of God was God's one true Church, being cast out could be psychologically devastating.

And who frequently controlled the process at the local level?

The ministry.

This created a remarkable imbalance. A minister could become the source of a member's spiritual anxiety while simultaneously claiming to be the person responsible for that member's spiritual welfare.

What could possibly go wrong?

When a minister's judgment became confused with God's judgment, an ordinary disagreement could become a spiritual crisis. Members could be frightened into silence, discouraged from asking questions, or pressured to accept decisions they believed were unjust.

The ministerial position became more than a position of service. In some congregations, it functioned as a position of control.

Did These Ministers Actually Believe They Could Keep People Out of God's Kingdom?

This is perhaps the most disturbing theological problem.

There is a tremendous difference between a church establishing reasonable standards for participation in its services and a minister behaving as though he personally controls someone's access to salvation.

The young man in Brad's account was not asking for a minister to approve his eternal destiny. He simply wanted to attend services with his parents while recovering from a devastating accident.

Yet the minister's response suggested that even entering the congregation required his personal permission.

That is precisely the kind of attitude that deserves condemnation.

Christ did not establish a ministerial aristocracy in which local religious officials became spiritual customs agents, stamping passports for entry into the Kingdom of God.

Salvation is not administered by a local pastor's office. Christ is the Savior. He is the mediator, the head of the Church, and the one to whom believers are accountable.

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:5 that there is one mediator between God and humanity, Christ Jesus.

Not a minister in Pasadena. Not a local pastor. Not an evangelist with an impressive title. And certainly not a man who believes that a recovering nineteen-year-old needs to obtain his permission before attending Sabbath services.

The arrogance of such an attitude is difficult to overstate.

The Great Irony of God's Government

Armstrongism spent decades emphasizing the importance of God's government. Members were taught that God worked through a hierarchy and that submission to the ministry was essential to maintaining the proper spiritual order.

But there is an enormous difference between biblical leadership and religious authoritarianism.

A Christian minister is supposed to serve, encourage, teach, comfort, and care for people. He is not supposed to cultivate fear, demand unquestioning obedience, or make people believe that their relationship with Christ depends upon his personal approval.

Jesus gave a remarkably simple test of spiritual leadership: greatness was demonstrated through service.

Some ministers apparently preferred the perks of being in charge without bothering with the inconvenient business of actually caring for people.

Brad's son needed compassion. He needed encouragement. He needed people who were genuinely happy that he had survived an almost fatal accident.

Instead, he encountered a minister who apparently considered himself the gatekeeper of the congregation.

And the irony is that the very people who preached endlessly about God's love, obedience, and righteousness could sometimes demonstrate remarkably little of those qualities when confronted with an actual human being in need.

A Legacy That Deserves to Be Remembered

Brad's account also contains a painful later update. His son eventually passed away in 2008, leaving behind a family and many people who loved him. The minister, David R. Carley, died in October 2024, according to Brad's account.

Brad reported that the minister never apologized for the pain his conduct caused the family. It was also noted that the minister went on to write a book about "grace",

We cannot know everything that happened between these individuals, but we can recognize the hurt described in this testimony. A family remembered the treatment they received during one of the most frightening periods of their lives. That experience contributed to their eventual departure from the organization.

And that is the tragedy of religious authoritarianism. People who come seeking fellowship, encouragement, and a relationship with God can leave carrying years of disappointment, fear, and spiritual disillusionment.

The Worldwide Church of God liked to present itself as a special people preparing for the Kingdom of God. Yet what good is all that talk about the coming Kingdom when some of its representatives cannot demonstrate basic Christian compassion in the present one?

Perhaps the greatest indictment of the old ministerial culture is not that its ministers made mistakes. All human beings make mistakes.

It is that some appeared to believe their office placed them above ordinary accountability, that their decisions carried divine authority, and that members were expected to accept their treatment without complaint.

If that is what someone understands by God's government, perhaps they should spend a little more time reading what Jesus actually said about leadership.

The Kingdom of God does not need arrogant gatekeepers. Christ does not need territorial managers. And the Church does not need men who mistake ministerial titles for personal ownership of the people they are supposed to serve.

A final thought: If a nineteen-year-old recovering from a near-fatal accident cannot find compassion in a congregation claiming to represent Jesus Christ, perhaps the problem isn't the young man who stopped attending. Perhaps the problem is the minister who forgot what Christianity was supposed to look like.

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

SON REFUSED RE-ENTRY AFTER MOTORBIKE ACCIDENT

My son was in a motorbike accident at the age of 19 in 1986 He hit a dirt mound on his way to work, 5 miles away, was airborne 31 feet before rolling numerous times end over end (91 feet), and was thrown from the bike. He lay out all night on frozen ground, in and out of consciousness, and wasn’t found until the next morning by a friend who went looking for him when he didn’t show up for work. He wasn’t wearing a helmet but they say if he had of been, his neck would have been broken and he was have died for sure. 

 

An elder came out to see him before he was moved to a second hospital and said his face “looked like raw hamburger.” Later that same day I got a phone call from the hospital saying his aorta was damaged and they had to operate right away and they said they wanted me to know he “might not make it.” After I fervently prayed, he came through it but was still on the critical list. 

 

Due to his back being broken in a massive number of places, he was operated on two days later. It took seven hours because the surgeon had to pick the bones out of his back. We also didn’t know if he would be paralyzed for life. During the operation he had to have two steel rods placed in his back. All this time our minister never showed up, although he knew about the accident because we told him. But when we phoned him from the hospital he said he had really been wondering as they hadn’t heard. This minister did eventually pay a brief visit to the hospital, but my son said he was “scared” of him when he came into the room. 

 

Needless to say, my son was in a lot of pain for quite awhile and lost 13 lbs. He couldn’t even get into his back brace at first due to the pain. The miracle in all this was that two weeks after the accident he was walking with a walker in the hospital and nine days from that time he was released from the hospital. It was hard to keep him down. 

 

Two weeks after that we asked him if he wanted to go to services with us and he said “yes.” He had to recline in an awning chair in the back of the room because it was more comfortable. He hadn’t been attending for some time and said it was hard to go back. Our minister was out of town for a couple of weeks at the time, but we figured it would be okay if our son came. After all, he almost died! A few members were friendly the first time he came, but the second Sabbath when we had refreshments, only one teenager made an effort to come up to talk to him. I think the rest considered him “the bad apple.” 

 

Well, our minister finally returned from his absence and didn’t say anything about him being there. (That is, until our son overslept one Sabbath and stayed home from services.) That day I went up to talk to him and he said, “I was surprised to see him here. He has to go through me before he can come to services. People just can’t walk in here!” 

 

I remember how later how our minister just seemed to “forget about him.” He never asked how he was doing or anything. We had to bring it up first and one time when we started to tell him how our son was progressing, he just mumbled something like, “that’s good to hear” and shortly moved on. 

 

A few weeks earlier, our minister gave a lecture to the whole congregation (while my son was in the hospital) about “how dangerous and foolish” it was for any kid in the church to get a motorbike and he added, “If any of you kids are thinking of getting a motorbike, maybe you’ll think twice now!!” And this was a minister that at first acted so nice when he visited my son in the hospital and asked how he was doing. So much for “God’s true ministers.” 

 

What a terrible experience our son had to endure! He never went back to services after that. Many years have passed and he’s doing fine today with a family of his own and a good job. He is free to live his life without fear and judgmental attitudes from those who claim to be “God’s people” and our family relationship is so much better. 

 

Oh, I forgot to say that a few years later we left also. There’s so much more peace and grace living in Christ than living in that so called “true church of God.”
By Brad 

 

Update: I later found out that this minister whose name was David R. Carley died October 2,2024 at the age of 82. David Carley never said he was sorry or apologized for the horrible pain he caused my family. I am aware that he also abused others in our congregation. Our beloved son passed away in 2008, leaving behind many who loved him, including his family. Note: This minister is also exposed in the testimony: Pronounced “Unconverted.

A Coal for the Mouth, Hot Air for the Message

The Live Coal on Their Lips: Armstrongism's Self-Appointed Prophets

There is something particularly revealing about the way Armstrongist leaders appropriate Isaiah 6 to support their claims of prophetic authority. The account of Isaiah's encounter with God and the live coal placed upon his lips has become convenient imagery for religious personalities who want their followers to believe they have received some extraordinary divine commissioning. Unfortunately for them, the actual passage teaches something quite different from the self-important message they would like people to accept.

When Isaiah encountered God's holiness, his first reaction was not to boast about being specially chosen or announce that he had been appointed to restore lost biblical truths. Instead, he recognized his own unworthiness, declaring, "Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips." Isaiah understood that he was a sinful man standing before a holy God, and he made no attempt to elevate himself above others.

The live coal was brought from the altar by a seraphim, who touched Isaiah's mouth and declared that his iniquity had been taken away and his sin purged. This was an act of divine cleansing, not a religious credential that Isaiah could use to establish authority over other believers. Isaiah did not purify himself, appoint himself, or manufacture an experience to convince others that he deserved their unquestioning loyalty. God was responsible for the cleansing and God was responsible for the commission that followed.

When God asked, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Isaiah responded, "Here am I; send me." His commission was to deliver a difficult message to a spiritually hardened nation, not to establish a religious empire, collect followers, or convince people that salvation depended upon belonging to his organization. Isaiah's calling was about faithfully delivering God's message, not making himself the center of attention.

Armstrongism has repeatedly turned this biblical principle upside down. Herbert Armstrong claimed a unique end-time commission, and various splinter-group leaders have subsequently claimed special authority to restore, correct, or complete what they believe he left unfinished. Each generation seems to produce another self-appointed prophetic personality convinced that God has reserved a special position just for him. Apparently, the coal never stops being passed around in these organizations!

The New Covenant makes such claims even harder to defend. Hebrews 10:19-22 teaches that believers have access to God through Jesus Christ, while 1 Timothy 2:5 identifies Christ as the one mediator between God and humanity. First Peter 2:9 describes believers collectively as a royal priesthood, and 1 John 2:20, 27 speaks of the anointing believers have received. Nowhere does the New Testament establish a modern religious personality who alone possesses the spiritual authority to interpret God's will or demand unquestioning submission.

Jesus warned about false prophets and instructed His followers to recognize them by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-20). Titles, prophetic claims, elaborate interpretations, and declarations of divine appointment are not proof of legitimacy. Paul even warned in Galatians 1:8 that anyone preaching another gospel should be rejected, regardless of how impressive their credentials might appear. No religious leader is exempt from examination simply because he claims to speak for God.

Isaiah's experience should produce humility in anyone who reads it honestly. His encounter began with an overwhelming recognition of his own inadequacy, followed by cleansing and a commission to serve. That is quite different from modern religious personalities who seem convinced they have been selected to correct every other Christian, restore forgotten truths, expose everyone outside their organization, and announce the final prophetic timetable.

The live coal in Isaiah 6 was an act of divine cleansing connected with a specific prophetic commission. It was never intended to become a transferable religious credential for men seeking to establish their own authority. The New Covenant does not need another self-appointed Elijah, restorationist, prophetic celebrity, or religious personality demanding recognition as God's exclusive spokesman. It needs believers who remain faithful to Jesus Christ rather than surrendering their discernment to men who continually elevate themselves.

Perhaps these supposed prophets should consider Isaiah's first words before boasting about their own spiritual credentials: "Woe is me! for I am undone." If God really has placed a coal upon their lips, why does so much of what comes out of them seem devoted to establishing their own authority rather than exalting Jesus Christ?

Church of God Assembly’s “Love Them With a Stick” Manual

Church of God Assembly has rolled out the familiar Armstrongist child-training sermon in its A Good Report magazine, and it is every bit as tone-deaf as the original. Failure to discipline "dooms a child's future." Parents must copy God's "loving correction." Proverbs 19:18 is trotted out in full King James glory: "Chasten your son while there is hope, and let not your soul spare for his crying." Proverbs 13:24 still gets top billing-spare the rod and you hate the kid. Tantrums, screaming, or hitting demand "swift punishment." Children must learn to "face the consequences." Lamentations 3:27 is pressed into service so that bearing the yoke in youth is presented as a feature, not a bug. Then, almost as an afterthought, they add the usual legal fig leaf: no face-slapping, no kicking, no hitting near vital organs, because "God hates child abuse!" Correction must be done in love, with the child's best interests in mind.

The fine print is new. The product is not.

This is the same script Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God pushed for decades, only now it comes with a slightly longer disclaimer after the lawsuits and the exit literature. Garner Ted Armstrong's The Plain Truth About Child Rearing treated spanking as the God-given method that actually works, not a reluctant last resort. It was to start early, be applied firmly enough to produce results, and be paired with lectures on parental authority. HWA endorsed the approach in print and from the pulpit; parents whose children misbehaved at services could expect public accountability. Imperial Schools and plenty of local congregations ran on paddles, switches, and belts. "Don't spare for his crying" was treated as practical advice, not poetry. Former members have described the ordinary, everyday version of this system: paddlings at school and home that went well past "swift correction," all justified by the same verses Church of God Assembly is recycling.

Armstrongism's results are a matter of public record. One WCG-connected household produced the "boy in the box" case after extreme confinement and beatings. That was extreme; the underlying culture that normalized pain as the primary language of authority was not. Multiple exit accounts describe children beaten under the banner of love and Proverbs, then left unprotected when the same hierarchical system shielded predators. Sexual abuse cases involving ministers, staff, or members were not rare. The institutions that taught parents to "chasten" without hesitation often proved slow or hostile when the problem was not a tantrum but predation. The repeated official line that "God hates child abuse" sat for decades next to teaching and practice that made physical punishment the default response to childish behavior.

Church of God Assembly keeps the core framework-rod, swift punishment, don't spare for crying, yoke in youth-while adding the modern disclaimer. That is the pattern across the surviving groups: the theology stays; the press release gets a little more careful. Philadelphia Church of God and others still publish material that praises the old Garner Ted booklet and describes measured swats for young children as loving training that produces "peaceable fruit." The vocabulary has shifted slightly. The underlying claim that pain is the reliable teacher of godly character has not.

Parents who treat a toddler's crying or a child's protest as an emergency requiring immediate physical correction are following the exact script the old church taught. Some stayed inside the lines the magazine now draws. Many did not. The children who grew up inside that system, and the ones who still do in the smaller groups that never abandoned it, supply the evidence the fine print never addresses 

Failure to discipline dooms a child's future.A parent's discipline should be modeled after God's loving correction (Hebrews 12:5-8). Proverbs 19:18 instructs parents to:

 

Chasten your son while there is hope, and let not your soul spare for his crying [KJV]

And in Proverbs 13:24 it states:

 

He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disci plines him promptly.

The word "discipline" means "to each." Parents must make the rules for their children clear, fair, and consistent. The punishment should fit the crime. Parents should never accept unacceptable behavior-such as a child throwing a temper tantrum, screaming, or hitting.

Such actions deserve swift punishment! Children need to learn to face the consequences of their actions.

In the book of Lamentations 3:27 it states:

It is good for a man to bear the yoke in his youth.

It is work to discipline children but it will pay off in the long run. It must not go unmentioned that discipline for wrong acts or attitudes should never involve pushing, or slapping on the face, kicking or hitting near vital organs or any other physically damaging action. God hates child abuse! 

In administering discipline remember that correction should be done in love with the child's best interests in mind!

Crackpot Bob's Great Trinitarian Debate That Never Happened: Confessional Lutheran Podcast Dumps Crackpot Bob Because They Knew They Could Not Stand Up to the Glorious Knowledge of Crackpot Bob

There are few things more entertaining in the world of Armstrongism than watching Crackpot Bob announce a theological victory in a debate that never actually took place. Apparently, the latest triumph of the self-appointed leader of the improperly named Continuing Church of God involves The Confessional Lutheran podcast host who, according to Bob, was scheduled to interview him about the Trinity but eventually backed out. And naturally, Bob has already figured out exactly why.

He believes the host probably couldn't handle sitting across from the world's greatest theologian while he shares his great knowledge. Of course he does.

Why would anyone consider the possibility that schedules change, priorities shift, or a podcast host simply decides that an interview isn't worth pursuing? No, in Bob's world, there can only be one explanation: the host must have realized that he was about to encounter the theological equivalent of a nuclear explosion and wisely fled before being intellectually vaporized by the great Crackpot Bob.

Never mind that there was no debate, no exchange of arguments, no opportunity for the host to respond, and certainly no demonstrated victory. Crackpot Bob has apparently awarded himself the championship belt anyway. The opponent didn't show up, the match was cancelled, and Crackpot Bob is already standing in the winner's circle.

The debate that became a victory without a debate

According to Bob's own account, the podcast host initially postponed the interview because he wanted additional time to read Crackpot Bob's writings. Eventually, the two supposedly arranged to discuss the Trinity. Then the host backed out and stopped responding to emails.

That is the extent of what Crackpot Bob actually knows.

Everything after that is speculation.

Yet Crackpot Bob proceeds to tell his faithful readership that the host probably couldn't handle the truth, feared his audience might have trouble with it, and perhaps realized he had no valid arguments against Crackpot Bob's interpretation of Scripture and church history.

Crackpot Bob doesn't know why the host cancelled. He doesn't know what the host concluded after reading his material. He doesn't know whether the host had any intention of debating him further. But he confidently supplies the missing explanation, and naturally, the explanation makes Crackpot Bob look like the conquering hero.

This is a particularly convenient arrangement. When someone agrees to speak with Crackpot Bob, it demonstrates his importance. When someone postpones, they need more preparation. When someone cancels, they are apparently afraid of his arguments. And when someone actually disagrees with him, they simply haven't accepted the truth.

What a remarkable theological protection system! It is practically impossible for Crackpot Bob to lose an argument because he can declare victory without ever having one.

But beneath this amusing little victory announcement is something much more revealing about Armstrongism itself.

For decades, Armstrongism has devoted an extraordinary amount of energy to attacking Trinitarian Christianity. Its leaders seem almost incapable of discussing their own theological system without first taking a few swings at the Trinity.

Why?

Because the doctrine of the Trinity directly challenges one of Armstrongism's foundational theological assumptions: that God is not eternally one divine being existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but rather a family into which human beings can eventually be born as additional gods. In Armstrongist theology, God is a family, humanity has the potential to become God, and faithful Christians are supposedly destined to become divine beings just as God is.

That is the real issue.

The Trinity isn't merely another doctrine they happen to disagree with. It stands in the way of their entire theological vision of human destiny.

Consequently, Armstrongism has spent decades trying to portray Trinitarian Christianity as confused, irrational, pagan, unbiblical, and historically fraudulent. If they can convince their followers that the historic Christian understanding of God is a great deception, then their own alternative starts looking considerably more attractive.

And there is the problem: Armstrongism needs the Trinity to be wrong because its own doctrine of an expanding God-family depends upon a fundamentally different understanding of what God is. Herbert W. Armstrong built an entire religious system around the extraordinary proposition that human beings are ultimately destined to become God. Not merely to share in God's glory, not merely to be transformed into Christ's likeness, not merely to receive eternal life, but to become actual members of a divine family.

This was presented as the great mystery supposedly hidden from traditional Christianity. And what a sales pitch it was!

Traditional Christianity teaches that salvation is found in reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. Armstrongism takes that message and adds an extraordinary expansion project: God is reproducing Himself, and the eventual result is an enormous family of divine beings. Apparently, eternity wasn't going to be interesting enough unless everybody got promoted to the Godhead.

But there is a rather important distinction Armstrongism consistently blurs. The New Testament certainly speaks about believers sharing in God's nature, becoming children of God, receiving immortality, and being conformed to the image of Christ. Those are magnificent promises. But none of that requires believing that redeemed human beings become additional Gods, equal in divine status and nature to the eternal God.

Consider 2 Peter 1:4, which speaks of believers becoming partakers of the divine nature. It does not say that Christians will become additional members of a growing collection of Gods.

Likewise, Romans 8 speaks about believers being glorified and conformed to the image of Christ. It does not announce that the Father is preparing to populate eternity with independent divine beings. Armstrongism takes these magnificent New Covenant promises and stretches them into an entirely different theological proposition.

It is quite a transformation: from becoming like Christ to eventually becoming another God.

The Trinity isn't the theological disaster Crackpot Bob thinks it is

The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is one God, eternally existing as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It does not teach three Gods, nor does it teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are interchangeable persons.

The familiar Trinity diagram Bob dismisses is an attempt to illustrate distinctions between the persons and the one divine being. It isn't a mathematical diagram claiming that one plus one plus one equals one.

Is the doctrine difficult to comprehend completely? Certainly. But difficulty is not the same thing as contradiction.

Armstrongism, meanwhile, has its own considerable theological questions to answer. If God is an expanding family, what precisely constitutes Godhood? How does the Father remain the one supreme God while countless other beings supposedly become Gods just as He is? And where does Scripture explicitly establish the Armstrongist picture of an ever-expanding divine family?

Simply declaring that the Trinity is irrational doesn't answer those questions. And calling the historic Christian understanding of God pagan doesn't make Armstrongism's alternative biblical.

One of Armstrongism's oldest habits is portraying traditional Christianity as hopelessly corrupted while presenting its own doctrines as the restoration of truths supposedly lost by everyone else.

Herbert Armstrong supposedly restored truths the Christian world had abandoned. His followers then inherited the responsibility of defending those restored truths. Later splinter-group leaders, including Crackpot Bob, came along with their own claims to special understanding and authority.

And so the restoration business continues. Every generation seems to produce another individual convinced that the rest of Christianity has somehow missed what he alone has discovered.

Crackpot Bob's particular contribution is the suggestion that the Confessional Lutheran host may have backed away because he couldn't handle the truth about the Trinity.

How convenient!

Instead of allowing the historic Christian tradition to speak for itself, Crackpot Bob positions himself as the courageous defender of biblical truth standing against an intimidated religious establishment.

It is the familiar Armstrongist narrative: everybody else is deceived, everybody else is afraid, and everybody else needs the special understanding that only the latest restorationist prophet can provide.

At some point, one might reasonably wonder whether the problem isn't that Christianity has failed to recognize Crackpot Bob's brilliance, but that Crackpot Bob has become rather too comfortable treating disagreement as evidence of his own superiority.

Perhaps the funniest part of the entire announcement is Crackpot Bob's explanation that the cancelled podcast motivated him to update his articles, revise his eBook Mysteries of God: What Is God?, and record a new sermon titled Is God One Family or One Trinity?

Well, at least something productive came from the cancellation.

The podcast never happened, the debate never happened, and the Lutheran host never had an opportunity to respond. But Crackpot Bob got a sermon out of it, updated some literature, and supplied his followers with another inspirational account of how the theological establishment supposedly trembles at the thought of confronting him.

One almost wonders what the sermon would have been called had the host actually appeared.

Perhaps: How I Defeated a Lutheran in a Debate That Actually Happened?

We will never know.

The fundamental question isn't whether Bob Thiel can find another podcast host willing to discuss the Trinity. Nor is it whether he can produce another lengthy collection of scriptures attempting to discredit traditional Christianity.

The real question is whether Armstrongism's doctrine of God and humanity's ultimate destiny actually reflects the New Covenant revealed through Jesus Christ.

The New Testament consistently directs attention toward Christ, through whom believers receive reconciliation, adoption, eternal life, and the promise of resurrection. Our destiny is to belong to God, to be transformed into Christ's likeness, and to share in the life He gives.

There is no requirement to reinvent the Godhead as an expanding corporation of divine beings to make those promises magnificent.

And perhaps that is what makes Armstrongism's obsession with attacking the Trinity so revealing. It spends so much time explaining why everybody else is wrong that it rarely seems interested in examining the assumptions upon which its own theology rests.

Crackpot Bob's little podcast adventure is a perfect illustration of the Armstrongist mindset. An interview is arranged, the other party withdraws, and suddenly the cancellation becomes evidence that Crackpot Bob's arguments were simply too powerful for a Lutheran to withstand.

There is no debate transcript, no exchange of arguments, no intellectual victory to examine, and no evidence that the host was frightened by anything Bob had written.

There is only Crackpot Bob's speculation, presented to his faithful readership as though it were an almost certain explanation.

But perhaps the greatest irony is that Armstrongism's leaders spend so much time accusing traditional Christianity of misunderstanding God while promoting a theological system that turns the Christian hope of resurrection and eternal life into an elaborate scheme of human deification.

Herbert Armstrong announced that God was reproducing Himself. His successors have been busy defending that extraordinary proposition ever since. And Crackpot Bobl, apparently, is still convinced that the greatest threat to his theological reputation is a Lutheran podcast host who might have been too intimidated to interview him.

So congratulations, Crackpot Bob!

You successfully defeated an opponent who never appeared, won an argument nobody heard, and produced a sermon about a debate that never happened.

At this rate, the only thing left is to announce that the entire Christian world has conceded defeat and is now waiting for your next revelation.

Armstrongism: Where the restoration of biblical truth never ends, the self-appointed authorities never run out of things to explain, and even a cancelled podcast can be transformed into a glorious theological victory.

The debate is over. Apparently, it never started.

Trinitarian Sermon

Last July (see Letter to the Brethren: July 23, 2026), I mentioned that I was supposed to be a guest on a Confessional Lutheran’s podcast. The host then delayed that to better prepare himself to read more of my writings, and he set up for us to discuss the trinity on his podcast. So, I agreed and that was scheduled. But he backed out without informing us or responding to emails from our team.

In my opinion, he probably could not handle the truth and was afraid his audience would have trouble with the truth about the trinity.

The fact is that I do NOT believe that one can have a rational scriptural discussion about the beliefs of the original Christians and conclude the Church was trinitarian if one can accept the plain truth on that subject.

I speculate that the host may have seen that he did not have valid arguments against the scriptures and historical facts related to the Godhead.

Below is a drawing that trinitarians use to explain their faulty view, which logic shows contradicts itself:

(Public Domain via Wikipedia)

Anyway, partially because of the podcast host’s non-brave approach to cancelling, this motivated me to add some more to my COGwriter.com articles on the trinity, add updates to the free eBook Mysteries of God. What is God?, and decide to give one or more future sermons on the trinity.

And one of those sermons is what I recorded several days ago.

Therefore, the recommended sermon for this Sabbath is Is God One Family or One Trinity?

And now you also have a background story on its development.

New COG Splinter: The Signet Church of God: Yet Another Tiny Startup Stamps Itself as Zerubbabel’s Hands and Declares the Bride Can Finally Get Ready

Armstrongism never runs out of these. Every few years some earnest former member with a website, a PO Box, and a free PDF decides the last forty years of splintering, failed prophecies, and shrinking congregations were all just a dress rehearsal until he arrived to finish what Herbert W. Armstrong started. Enter the Signet Church of God, Bryan D. Weeks, and his book Zechariah and the Signet. Incorporated in Florida in 2021 as a 501(c)(3), complete with family board members and the usual modest online footprint (WT2, PT2, a handful of YouTube videos), it has now announced that the long national nightmare of Laodiceanism is over because God has intervened through their particular interpretation of Haggai and Zechariah.

The pitch is almost ritual at this point. HWA was the end-time Elijah and a modern Zerubbabel who laid the foundation of God’s “spiritual temple.” Zechariah 4:9 says Zerubbabel’s hands laid the foundation and his hands shall also finish it. Haggai 2:23 makes him God’s “signet.” HWA helpfully identified himself as that Zerubbabel in a 1981 member letter (“no one else had done it”). Therefore, since the man himself is dead, someone must now help “his hands” finish the house so Christ can return and marry His one true Church at the “Wife level.” Weeks and company have volunteered. The last four decades of every other group missing the boat as shepherds and builders, the “time of no more delay,” the midnight cry, the need to reunite everyone while starting a new corporation—all of it is solved by downloading their free book and tuning in to World Tomorrow II.

This is the same circular logic that has powered every post-1986 upstart. The founder of the organization declared himself the type, therefore the unfinished work requires successors, therefore the people currently promoting the book and the streaming service are the ones through whom God is putting things “back on track.” Ancient post-exilic temple-building oracles about Zerubbabel and Joshua get stretched across a 20th-century American media ministry and then handed to a 21st-century Florida nonprofit with a CRM and virtual phone system. The New Testament’s portrayal of Christ as the Branch, the true temple, and the one who builds His church is set aside so the narrative can land on HWA’s radio/TV empire and whoever claims to be completing it this decade.

The practical reality is what it always is with these groups. Modest online numbers, a Florida address, literature offered free, and the familiar Armstrongist package: the 18 restored truths, the God Family potential of becoming kings/priests/teachers, British Israelism via the old United States and Britain in Prophecy material, and the insistence that supporting “the Work” is the primary reason God called anyone. Meanwhile the call goes out to end schisms (I Cor. 12:25) by joining the newest schism. The chapter list in the book—Beauty and Bands, the modern Joshua decommissioned, the idol shepherd, Zechariah 6 “the Meeting,” the Two Witnesses—signals the usual detailed prophetic mapping that places the writer’s tiny organization at the center of end-time events. It is the same template Gerald Flurry used for his own Zechariah booklet, the same template Pack, Thiel, Kitchen, and a dozen others have used while announcing that this time the house will finally get finished.

Forty years of these efforts have produced the same results: further fragmentation, aging memberships, quiet walk-backs of timelines, and the next earnest volunteer declaring that everyone before him failed to “get it.” The Signet version adds the explicit “signet stamp of approval” language and the claim that Christ cannot return until their particular revival effort completes the organizational project HWA began. It does not escape the pattern. Armstrongism remains riddled with these small, self-appointed finishing crews that are failures from the outset—new names, new PDFs, same circular claim that the dead founder’s hands still need modern proxies, and the same invitation to treat yet another 501(c)(3) as the vehicle through which the Bride finally makes herself ready.

The book and sites are free. Anyone can read the interpretations and weigh them against both the broader biblical context and the long, repetitive track record of identical claims. So far the track record has been consistant. Nothing orginal. Just another Zerubbabel.k record has been consistent.

 Why we became necessary — in brief:

After Mr. Armstrong died the 7th Church era took center stage. The fruits of that succession have been bad ever since. So bad, in fact, that it has often looked like the gates of the grave would prevail after all. Thankfully, however, there are many verses that reveal God’s keen desire to fix this problem (i.e. Mt. 25:6; I Cor. 12:25; Rev. 3:18-21).

To that end God is now sending in the SCG to spearhead this revival! To understand why, we have to realize that Jesus Christ is NOT going to marry many divided and dysfunctional churches at His return (Mt. 22:1-14). He is going to marry that one loyal Church who has readied herself for marriage by finishing what His modern Zerubbabel started during the 6th Church era! (Zech. 4:9; Rev. 19:7).

We know who we are and what we have to do:

Herbert Armstrong set the bar during the 20th century for how to succeed in the God Family business (Luke 2:49; Rev. 3:7-11). But after some 40+ years of lukewarmness, most of God’s people have forgotten about his role as the modern Zerubbabel— how he built God’s Church God’s way and taught us to do the same (Mt. 24:14; 28:19-20). This is precisely why we are called the Signet Church of God. To succeed with what he started, we know that we are going to have to revive his building method. In other words, to attain God’s Signet stamp of approval on our efforts, we are going to have to build like he did (Hag. 2:23; Zech. 4:6-10).