Steve Lortz

Thanks, Raf! I was being sloppy. "All is" can be easily disproven. "All is not" cannot be proved. I gotta drive a friend with a broken arm down to Indianapolis for surgery tomorrow, and I have to do some homework tonight to make up for the drive time tomorrow, so I have to bid you all a fond "Aloha nui oi!" for now! (no, that was not tongues!) Love, Steve

It's not a matter of experimentation. It's a matter of research design. You do very well until you include the word "ALL". "ALL" can neither be proven nor disproven. When you talk about probabilities, as "...one would have to concede the likelihood that I am right. Not the certainty..." then I certainly (?) have to agree with you, especially as our world-view is being changed from deterministic to probablistic by quantum mechanics (and by Dungeons & Dragons). (By the way, I think Ecclesiastes 9:11 indicates that the Biblical world-view was probablistic also.) I think there is a strong possibility that many, if not most, of the people who first spoke in tongues during session 12 of PFAL were faking it, not just during session 12, but throughout their time involved with TWI. I think Wierwille was faking it. It does not follow from that observation that EVERY person who spoke in tongues for the first time during session 12 of PFAL was faking it. Nor does it follow that EVERY person who speaks in tongues, even outside the influence of TWI is faking it, nor that Peter or Paul were faking it, what, nearly 2,000 years before Wierwille? I Corinthian 14:22 states that tongues can be a "sign" for some people, but the biblical idea of a "sign" is a vastly different thing from the post-Enlightenment idea of "proof". (I'm gonna hafta put that in my paper somewhere, too ) I approve of what you're doing with this thread, Raf! You are stirring us to think critically, and now I always approve of that! Love, Steve

Well... I actually have to start with the most obvious question of all... what did Luke mean when he wrote "...kai en toi sumplerousthai ten hemeran tes pentecostes..." I currently think it can be translated accurately as "and during the topping-off of the day of Pentecost..." That's as far as I've gotten so far... No wait... FIRST, I have to ask how probable was it that "Luke" wrote it? ...and did he mean it as history?... or as theology? ... or as BOTH? Did "Luke" get his chocolate mixed up with his peanut butter? I have begun reading I. Howard Marshall's Luke: Historian and Theologian, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan: 1970) to see what he has to say about it, and to keep a reading journal so I can reference what I've read, if I need to later. I think it's going to take about two years to do this topic (A Translation of Acts 2 through the Lens of Walter Kaiser's Diachronic Promise-Plan Organizing Principle) right. There will be times when this thread moves at a seeming snail's pace. I guarantee it won't be what we were taught in PFAL. The paper will also need a biblically derived definition of "spirit", and an explanation of the Stoic concept of "spirit" to show how I Corinthians 8:6 sheds light on the happenings of Acts 2. Stay tuned and be patient... And please keep my feet to the fire! Love, Steve

My daughter calls that "corn starch" parking, as an indirect reference to perks of the adult entertainment industry! You know, I'm finding this thread VERY cathartic! Love, Steve

...and I believe Wierwille drove off anyone who wasn't a yes-man or yes-woman. Love, Steve

Slightly I really enjoy Hell on Wheels, not just for the idea of escaping from the ghosts of TWI, but from the current political atmosphere as well (both my grand-dads were railroad men)! Whose running this railroad!?! A good question INDEED! Love, Steve

Even if you were to inventory EVERY experience of tongues and conclude that each one is fake, it still cannot prove that ALL experiences of tongues are fake because the very next one COULD be genuine. This is not a matter of evidence restricted to tongues. It is a matter of evidence for everything, from the matter of the sun coming up each day to discovery of the Higgs bosun. I don't have to hook up somewhere to have a bowel movement, except of course to plumbing... unless I'm on L.E.A.D.!!! Love, Steve

The Corps night when Gere read The Passing of a Patriarch, I was in residence at Gunnison. The voice from HQ told us to turn off the tape recorders and DO NOT take notes. Before the night was over, I swore that I would NEVER obey that instruction again... Lovwe, Steve

Thanks, Raf! I don't know what you drink, but have one on me! Love, Steve

Raf, you and I have often come to different conclusions, but I have always enjoyed considering your point of view, and have learned many things in the process, especially on the Actual Errors thread. I like to think we are friends, even if only in a virtual manner. I remember conversations I heard in my Pop's newsroom when I was a boy growing up. They were pretty free-wheeling! But the reporters doing the arguing would still go have a drink with each other afterwards! I've taken my contributions on tongues to the doctrinal thread, because that's literally what I'm working with... doctrinal stuff, but I'm continuing to follow this thread with great interest, particularly the posts that cite studies. I'm getting pointed to better anti-tongues sources here than in any of my other reading. I only have one comment on the course of this argument. To say "my experience of tongues was fake" is a falsifiable statement that can be proven or disproven. To say "ALL experiences with tongues are fake" is not falsifiable, which means it cannot be proven or disproven. To prove it would require testing ALL experiences with tongues, and if a single one is genuine, your premise fails. Carry ON! Love, Steve

After the first 2 - COUNT 'EM - 2 days of reading for this paper, I am convinced Wierwille burnt all his reference books simply because he did not want to do the hard work of genuine scholarship! Love, Steve

This is how I think baptism was done among the earliest Christians: the person presenting her/him self for admission to the congregation would strip down to some degree as they were exhorted to put off the old man; saying something to the effect of "Jesus is Lord", the person would be dunked in the water; when the person came up out of the water, she or he would be speaking in tongues; the person would then be re-dressed with exhortation to put on the new man. Apart from the day of Pentecost itself (the thank offering of the first fruit of the wheat harvest, when people give back to God of that which He has given them), every mention of SIT in Acts and Paul is occassioned when people are doing it the wrong way, which argues against SIT being a result of possession by the Holy Spirit, or an abdication of personal will and responsibility by the speaker. I think so little was written about SIT because, for the most part, it was taken for granted. I think SIT at baptism died out as a result of the power struggle between the council of elders (twig coordinators) in the cities and the metropolitan bishops (branch coordinators). The metropolitan bishops could control the water, but they couldn't control the Spirit. Some eye-popping things about prophecy and prophets were written in the Didache, a document believed to be contemporaneous with some of the latest writings to make it into the canon. Thanks for not just blowing off the things I'm writing. Wierwille WAS a con man. I doubt that he himself ever genuinely spoke in tongues. I don't think the way he led people into SIT was 100% right or effective. But i think God was able to make use of Wierwille's deceptions, in SOME cases, to bring His will to pass, like Balaam. I have no doubt that Raf is speaking the truth as he understands it, and I applaud him for that. Love, Steve

What methodoloogy do you propose? How do you define "proof"? What are your presuppositions? These are all questions I'm going to have to address regarding my own thesis arguments, if I expect it to pass. Some of my relatives took PFAL. Others began speaking in tongues spontaneously when they were children, as members of congregations that didn't even acknowledge SIT, pro or con. My brother did it spontaneously as an adult, long before he ever took PFAL. He told me his story, and I believe him for reasons too lengthy, personal and convoluted to go into here. Others first spoke in tongues as members of Pentecostal congregations who regarded TWI as the vilest of cults. And that's just the relatives. The greatest desire of one of my sister's heart is to "praise the name of God with a song, and ... magnify him with thanksgiving" as per Psalm 69:30, but because of the lies she's been deliberately taught about SIT (that you gotta be possessed by a demon to do it), she doesn't even consider that those things are explicitly related to whatever Luke and Paul meant by "speaking in tongues". As one of my friends would put it, I am not a turnip that just fell off the truck. Love, Steve

Thanks, waysider! I'm gonna print that out, and use it as a reference point for further research. You've saved me from a lot of blind combing through databases! Love, Steve

By no means! I developed this stuff to teach to 7th graders! Love, Steve (and I have been diligently taking my meds!)

I'm not doubting what you are reporting, waysider. It would help me if you could give me some specific references to the studies so I can consider their impact on my thesis. When you add the caveat "as defined within the parameters of Way Theology" I can agree with you. The premise that "spirit can communicate only with spirit" is preposterous (do you realize that "preposterous" literally means "bass-ackward"!). However, I don't believe Paul or the first century Christian writers were dualistic Platonists, but rather more materialist Stoics. The Stoics did have a conception of spirit that CAN be squared with things written in the New Testament much more closely than the things written by the Alexandrian apologists in the 2nd century... OR by Wierwille in the 20th! Differences between the Platonic and the Stoic conceptions of spirit will play an important part in my thesis, and I DO believe that human thought life (spiritual or otherwise) is mediated through electro-chemical actions in the physical brain. If I could present it in person, you wouldn't be bored! I do it with a pinwheel, a balloon and a rubber band! Love, Steve

Can't be done, John, one way or the other...

Leave your tuffet as soon as possible. Walk, DO NOT RUN, to the nearest exit! Love, Steve

I know the first question some of my profs would ask me is "What do you really mean by 'really'?" Gotta give it some thought... Love, Steve

(This originally appeared on Raf's thread about SIT, etc.) I've just declared my intention to write a thesis this week. It'll probably take a couple of years to finish. I'm going to translate Acts 2 from the Greek myself, and I've started work on only the very first phrase, "kai en toi sumplerousthai ten hemeran tes pentekostes", which the KJV has as "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come". I think it would be closer to the Greek sense to say "and during the topping-off of the day of Pentecost", since sumplerousthai means "to fill full". It's comforting to know that I will not be working in the intellectual vacuum of TWI, but under the supervision of a multitude of professors at a seminary that is not fundamentalist and that does not formally recognize SIT as something presently valid. I just spent the last couple of days organizing an informal support network consisting of seven of my profs who are interested in my project. SIT will be a side issue (though an important one) to my goal, which is to interpret Acts chapter 2 through the lens of Walter Kaiser's "promise-plan" system of unifying the material in the Bible. Kaiser's promise-plan is a vastly better organizing system than Darby's dispensationalism OR Reformation covenant theology. The heavy lifting of the project will be explaining how "the person and work of the Holy Spirit" fits in, or, the difference between the Giver and the Gift. One of the things I'm going to have to do is demonstrate the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the role of spirit set forth in a Stoic interpretation of I Corinthians 8:6. I've already blown one prof's mind with that one! I think I will start a thread about this project on the Docrinal forum, so I will be able to include all of you in my support network. And after following you in the Actual Errors in PFAL, Raf, I know your input would be very valuable in keeping my feet to the fire! Thanks! Love, Steve

I believe that it is impossible to "prove" the existence of God. I can decide whether or not to believe it. I think it's the same way for speaking in tongues. I don't think it can be proven that SIT is real. Likewise, I don't think it can be proven that SIT is fake. Despite all the reasons Wierwille gave for speaking in tongues (what were there? a dozen or so?), I don't believe SIT is good for any earthly thing. It doesn't produce any scientificly demonstrable effect. So in a sense, Raf, I agree and disagree with you at the same time. Truth is not as cut and dried as Wierwille would have had us believe. I am coming to believe that God works in history (including present tense experience) through synchronisms, that is through seemingly meaningful coincidences. Perhaps that's what the Greek word kairos means in Ephesians 1:10? I've just declared my intention to write a thesis this week. It'll probably take a couple of years to finish. I'm going to translate Acts 2 from the Greek myself, and I've started work on only the very first phrase, "kai en toi sumplerousthai ten hemeran tes pentekostes", which the KJV has as "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come". I think it would be closer to the Greek sense to say "and during the topping-off of the day of Pentecost", since sumplerousthai means "to fill full". It's comforting to know that I will not be working in the intellectual vacuum of TWI, but under the supervision of a multitude of professors at a seminary that is not fundamentalist and that does not formally recognize SIT as something presently valid. I just spent the last couple of days organizing an informal support network consisting of seven of my profs who are interested in my project. SIT will be a side issue (though an important one) to my goal, which is to interpret Acts chapter 2 through the lens of Walter Kaiser's "promise-plan" system of unifying the material in the Bible. Kaiser's promise-plan is a vastly better organizing system than Darby's dispensationalism OR Reformation covenant theology. The heavy lifting of the project will be explaining how "the person and work of the Holy Spirit" fits in, or, the difference between the Giver and the Gift. One of the things I'm going to have to do is demonstrate the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the role of spirit set forth in a Stoic interpretation of I Corinthians 8:6. I've already blown one prof's mind with that one! I think I will start a thread about this project on the Docrinal forum, so I will be able to include all of you in my support network. And after following you in the Actual Errors in PFAL, Raf, I know your input would be very valuable in keeping my feet to the fire! Thanks! Love, Steve

I think you are right, Raf. If a person was lying, then it's best all the way around for that person to come clean, with her or him self, if with no one else. If I said I was lying, I'd be lying. Luke and Paul were writing about something. I'm inclined to think Wierwille was lying and faking it. I have no reason to believe Luke and Paul were, even if we are radically mistaken about what exactly they were writing of. I have no reason to believe Wesley's and Whitefield's audiences were faking it. I certainly have no reason to believe my brother or my sister or my wife were faking it. I have been diagnosed with the mild form of bipolar mood disorder, and am on medication. I have made a habit of examining my thinking and feelings for symptomatic patterns. I facilitate a regular support group associated with the National Alliance on Mental Illness. I am familiar with what psychotic breaks are all about. Some people ARE deluded, but I don't believe everybody is. I am not faking anything. The business about holding a picture, getting clear and concerned, "stayed mind" as practiced by TWI, etc., are methods of thought reform (brain washing), and I think they are among the things the New Testament writers called pharmakeia. I think all that was bogus and a waste of time. The way Wierwille associated those things with SIT could certainly put people off of SIT. I DO heartily and respectfully agree with much of what you are writing. My Pop was a newspaper man, and your attitude toward truth reminds me of his. Love, Steve

If you have citations, I can use them in my research. Thanks! Love, Steve

I believe you are telling the truth about your own experience Raf, and I respect that. You might be a little hasty in extrapolating from your own experience to that of everyone else. I've known too many people who have had experiences with tongues who never had anything to do with the Way International to think it was something invented by Wierwille, or even by Parham. It was associated with meetings during the Great Awakening of the 1700s where the preachers didn't even teach anything like Wierwille did in PFAL. I don't think the Pythoness at Delphi was speaking in tongues. She spoke undersandable Greek words in sequences that didn't seem to make sense. There is a strong possability that she spoke under the influence of psychotropic gases in the cave. It's instructive to compare and contrast the accounts Luke gives in Acts with what Paul wrote in I Corinthians. Luke never says in Acts that Paul or the Corinthians ever spoke in tongues, but what Paul wrote indicates that they did. What does that tell us? Something was going on. It wasn't what Wierwille taught. It wasn't what was going on at the Brownsville revival. But something WAS going on. What was it? I don't know, but I'm doing my best to think it through. There have been times in my life when I've found out I was lied to, had relied on those lies, and spread those lies myself. I don't blame you one bit for taking the stand you have taken, and I think it is part of the healing process you're still going through, as are we all. Love, Steve

I believe that SIT is real, but not what it is described as in either Pentecostalism or TWI. I believe that SIT is always thanksgiving (giving proper credit) to God. I believe there were lots of times when people made up their interpretations. I tried not to do that myself, but I can't guarantee that I was always successful. There were a few times while in TWI where people "fell on their faces" after I had interpreted. It strikes me that God could have used the opportunity to deliver a prophecy, even if it wasn't an "interpretation" of what I had just spoken in an unknown tongue. I am presently taking an advanced class on interpreting koine Greek, and I can testify that the things taught in the intermediate class about ANY kind of interpretation were a load of road apples. I have fairly frequently spoken "with prophetic voice", as some people who were never involved with TWI or Pentecostalism have told me, but it was never in a set situation, like a twig meeting or class. It has always been one-on-one when I have felt moved to say something about the situation a friend seemed to be in. I believe, if we fill our hearts with attitudes (through habitual thought) that are conducive to the flow of the love of God, then God can speak specific words into our hearts that communicate His love to our hearers, as our mouths speak out of the overflow of our hearts. Pentecost was the celebration of the first fruit of the wheat harvest, when people gave back to God of that which He had given them. The people who believed on the day of Pentecost were the first fruit of the wheat harvest. When they were speaking in tongues, speaking by the Spirit of God, they were offering back to God of that which He had given them, the gift of holy Spirit. The tongues as of flame demonstrated that their offering was acceptable to God. I'm writing my masters thesis on this (in a non-Pentecostal seminary). Love, Steve