Steve Lortz

Shortly before I could no longer stand to associate with CES,they were going to host a formal seminar on various topics. I prepared a paper to present on the errors of dispensationalism. A friend was preparing a paper on the topic of "the gift of holy spirit... one corporate spirit or many individual spirits?" The seminar was postponed and then dropped when John, John and Mark realized they didn't have any substance with which to rebut arguments against the old TWI doctrines. I wonder, what do the fragments (not splinters but FRAGMENTS) of CES teach about Holy Spirit? Is it still an individual seed planted in each believer, or is it a unitary spirit that operates like a nervous system in the body of Christ? Do the other splinters of TWI hold to the old doctrine regarding holy spirit that Wierwille taught? If anybody has heard anything, I'd be interested in knowing. Thanks! Love, Steve

It struck me: if SIT is perfect thanksgiving TO God, as I believe the Word DOES say, then the gist, the sum and substance of what has just been spoken in an unknown tongue must ALSO be thanksgiving TO God, not a message from or for God in the language of the people present. Was the intermediate class a lot of hokum? I think so, looking back. Did a lot of people just make stuff up for interpretation? I think so. I probably did so myself, though it was not my intention. I think sometimes that people DID bring forth accurate words from God when they were "interpreting." I think they were just prophesying without knowing the difference. I don't think God has EVER been as picky as intermediate class excellor session leaders, and I WAS one! Love, Steve

I first spoke in tongues in a bathroom stall in the building where the class was being held, during one of the breaks. I could see what was coming, and I wanted to make sure I could do it. My wife has spoken in tongues since she was a child, even though she was raised in a family whose denominational background didn't recognize tongues. They called it her "made up language" and thought she was just playing. My brother reluctantly took the class, but he had been speaking in tongues for quite a while when he finally did. He first spoke in tongues when he was by himself, praying for a friend who was having some particularly difficult times. I know a lot of people, some with no direct influence from TWI, who speak in tongues. Seven years after leaving TWI I wrote a partial inventory of things I believed just to sort out all the stuff I had learned in TWI and all the new things I had learned after leaving TWI. After careful study (NOT TWI's "re-search"), it struck me that the only thing the Bible says that SIT "does" is offer perfect thanksgiving to God, in spite of our limited understanding. It's the one thing that there is no selfish "benefit" to doing. It is no miracle-grow that will make your baby spirit fat and strong. It is no lever for squeezing what you want out of God. If, in a particular situation, the Spirit tells you to speak in tongues, then by all means speak in tongues. If you aren't "inspired" to SIT, then only do it when you want to express the gratitude in you heart to God. I've been to services in Pentecostal churches where the SIT seemed to be done decently and in order. I've been to Pentecostal services that seemed like zoos. There are times in non-Pentecostal services when I speak in tongues unobtrusively, under my breath. God still hears me. The dog wants to go out. I'm going to go out and sit on the porch with her. I'm going to work some sudoku puzzles, and while I do, I might speak in tongues if I feel like it. Have fun! Love, Steve

I had so much fun at the interdenominational school where I used to teach, and at the School of Theology where am presently a student, enjoying the rainbow-like variety of experiences and understandings among my sisters and brothers in Christ! Enjoy real fellowship with the people God has set you among! Love, Steve

WOOHOO! I just received confirmation from my Greek prof (he IS a real doctor, you know)! Ekballo, the Greek word used in the New Testament for "casting out" evil spirits, is the same Greek word used for "casting out" manure! "Pardon me for a moment, I need to go to the restroom and cast out an evil spirit!" :P Who sez God don't have no sense of humor? Love, Steve

An interesting aside that I just noticed: The Greek word used for "casting out" evil spirits is ekballo from ek, "out of" and ballo, "I throw". The Blue Letter Bible has this, among other things, to say about ekballo: "1) to cast out, drive out, to send out a) with notion of violence 2) to cast out b) a thing: excrement from the belly into the sink" Apparently "casting out" an evil spirit is somewhat akin to taking a good, healthy poop! Not quite as glamorous as most televangelists would have us believe! Love, Steve

Evil spirits in the New Testament: The New Testament never uses the phrase "devil spirit", which I assume would be pneuma diabolou. The writers of the NT used daimon - "demon", daimonion - "little demon", and daimonizomai - "to be demonized". What were demons in the cultures of the time? Most of the ancients viewed the cosmos, which was itself supposed to be a unitary, intelligent being, as inhabited by three types of subsidiary intelligent beings: humans who were earth elementals, demons who were air elementals, and gods who were fire elementals. Human beings inhabited the surface of the earth, demons inhabited the realm of air which extended from the surface of the earth to the orbit of the moon, and gods inhabited the realm of fire which extended from the orbit of the moon to the orbit of the fixed stars. Beyond the orbit of the fixed stars was nothing but the void. Celestial objects such as the sun, moon, planets and stars were regarded as actually BEING gods. The word "demon" probably originally meant something like "a distributor of fate". Demons were seen as intermediaries between the gods and human beings. Since demons were air elementals, they were invisible. You can see human beings, who are made of visible earth, and gods who are made of visible fire, but air is invisible. Ordinary people lived in terror of demons. The effete, elite philosophers looked down their noses at ordinary peoples' attitudes. Since demons were "superior" to human beings, it was obviously impossible for demons to be or do evil. If you thought demons could be or do evil, then you must be one of those ignorant yokels. The philosophers had a word to describe those backward fools, deisidaimon, or "demon-fearing". Deisidaimon occurs one time in the NT, at Acts 17:22 where it is translated "superstitious". When Paul told the Greeks they were "too superstitious", he was doing an intellectual Three Stooges' finger-poke into the eyes of the Epicureans and Stoics who were there (Acts 17:18). Paul was implying that they were ignorant yokels! One of the reasons ordinary people flocked to Christ in Christianity's earliest days was because the influence and activities of the Holy Spirit that had first been poured out on the day of Pentecost demonstrated that the ruler of the power of the air had been condemned, and his minions had been rendered katargeo, or "idled down". In the face of Holy Spirit, evil spirits lost whatever real power they may have had. One of the Roman charges against Christians was that they were superstitious or demon-fearing. The Romans thought this, not because Christians were afraid of demons... they were the only ordinary people who WEREN'T... but because Christians taught that demons can be and do evil. There's more to this topic, but that's all I've got the energy to post right now. Love, Steve

HEY, HAM! Don't bad-mouth the tree frogs! I love to hear them sing in the twilight! Love, Steve

Your solution is certainly appealing, sudo, but it does have one shortcoming, it doesn't take into account the evidence available. It doesn't explain Jacques Vallee's findings, it doesn't explain the experiences with which excathedra opened this thread, and it doesn't explain the personal experiences that many other people, including myself, can attest to. Are the religious explanations (and there are many different ones) adequate? I don't necessarily think so, either ancient or modern. Are psychological explanations adequate? Can such experiences be safely attributed to schizophrenic or schizo-affective episodes? I've had long and moderately intimate acquaintance with friends, some of whom have been diagnosed with schizophrenia and others with schizo-affective disorder. I myself have been diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder and am familiar with how the balances of my neurotransmitters can influence my perceptions. There are some pieces to the puzzle to be found there, but no comprehensive solution that I know of. Have religious people down through the millennia committed atrocities that should bring shame on our whole species? Yes, indeed! But I think the atrocities of 20th century athiests demonstrate the ability to commit atrocities is a feature of being human, not necessarily of being religious. I, for one, welcome the perspective your viewpoint adds to the converstion, even though I don't particularly agree with it. Love, Steve

The word diabolos is an adjective compounded of dia - "through", and ballo - "I throw": or "I throw through". It may have meant something like what we mean when we say we "throw somebody under the bus". Since it was originally an adjective, it meant something like "slanderful". With an article ("the") the adjective becomes substantive and means "accuser". So, for the most part, the word "devil" in the King James simply means an accuser. The word "spirit" (pneuma) is never directly associated with diabolos, though diabolos seems to be in parallel construction with "Holy Spirit" when Jesus was being tempted in the wilderness. The word is singular except for three places, I Timothy 3:11, II Timothy 3:3 and Titus 2:3, where the text says that Christian women should not be diaboloi, plural. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were OF their father the diabolos, but at the last supper, he said that one of His disciples WAS a diabolos. There is more biblical evidence for "devils" being human than there is for "devils" being spirits! Will wonders never cease!?! Next time, daimon and daimonizomai... Love, Steve

Well, I did some browsing around in Blue Letter Bible. The word "demon" never occurs in the KJV, but then, neither does the phrase "devil spirit". Two words translated "devil": "daimon" and "diabolos". It seems odd that Wierwille, with his supposed adherence to "the originals" would abandon the Biblical Greek use of "daimon" for the 17th century English "devil". More later... Love, Steve

Indeed! Does anybody know why Wierwille was so insistent on calling evil spirits "devil spirits"? I don't think the New Testament does so? I think it usually calls them "demons" or "unclean spirits". Here's a bit of history My link Love, Steve

In the foundational class on hooky-pook...er... the section of the foundational class on hooky-pook, Dr. (he wasn't really a doctor, you know) Wierwille mentioned "Mr. Fletcher". Anybody familiar with spiritualism would recognize that "Mr. Fletcher" was the "spirit guide" of Arthur Ford. In Psychic Mafia, Keene exposed the deceptive material means Arthur Ford used to fool people. Either Wierwille was taken in, or he knowingly promoted the deceptions of spiritualism. Speaking of spiritualism, before they decided to present themselves as technologically advanced space aliens in the west, evil spirits presented themselves as spirits of the "dear departed", communicating from the "other side". Nowadays, an interested person can find both brands. Regarding the "devil spirit" material exhibited at the advanced class, the table usually included a copy of Dungeons & Dragons. The game was co-authored by Dave Arneson, a faithful follower of TWI, who abundantly shared tens of thousands of dollars a year from the sales of D&D to The Way International. The Trustees, including Wierwille himself, were always buddy-buddy with Arneson to his face, inviting him to parties that ordinary believers were not invited to, when they were in town. But they turned around and bad mouthed the game at the advanced class. I suppose, looking back, it was an advanced class in hypocrisy! Love, Steve

chockfull wrote "...preserving their little rice bowl..." What an appropriate turn of phrase! Love, Steve

I wrote that I would post some references to things people might find interesting. The French scientist Jacques Vallee decided to investigate reports of alien encounters from a counter intelligence perspective rather than the perspective of "objective" science. He wrote a series of books including Messengers of Deception: UFO Contactees and Cults (1979), Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact (1988) and Confrontations: A Scientist's Search for Alien Contact (1990). Here are a couple of pull quotes from Messengers of Deception: "I propose: that the UFO we see is a device which creates a distortion of the witness's reality; that it does so for a purpose, which is to project images or fabricated scenes designed to change our belief systems; and that the technology we observe is only the incidental support for a worldwide enterprise of 'subliminal seduction'." (p. 19) "It [the story of alien contact] involves many people with a common characteristic: they have engaged in communication with what they regard as another level of consciousness, above the human level. They believe that they have met the 'Higher Intelligence.' They have acquired an almost fanatical faith in its importance for the future of humanity. They have created a subculture in which psychic phenomena and contact with space are considered everyday occurrences. Then why is their world one of fear and insecurity and suspicion, not a world of love?" (p. 54) Vallee presents his conclusions in terms of "aliens" instead of "evil spirits", but the motives and methods of the beings are the same. He thinks they are playing a game of bluff, and they have far less real power than they want us to think. Vallee sees that they want to distract us from something, but not having an appreciation for what the gospel is really all about (which, by the way, WE didn't have either in TWI), Vallee has no idea why they are so driven. John 16:8-11 tells us that the Comforter has come, among other reasons, to convince the world that its ruler has been condemned. It seems to me that the powers of this world are mightily interested in distracting people from that truth. Another book that influenced my thinking was The Psychic Mafia by M. Lamar Keene (1976). Keene had been a professional psychic medium for a number of years, before quitting that life-style. In his book, Keene exposed the tricks used to swindle the gullible. Judging from what Wierwille taught in the advanced class, either he was pretty gullible himself, or he also was a knowing swindler. Love, Steve

Several years after I left The Way International, an old friend of mine (from before the Way daze) called me up and wanted for me to meet with him and another fellow (his Amway... sponsor?... under-shepherder?... what?...) to talk about all the wonderful opportunities available to me if I also joined up. I wanted to attend the meeting because I felt our old friendship warranted it, but I also knew I didn't want to sign up for Amway, so I had to think it through. I reflected back on the time I had spent as a twig coordinator. Amway makes it sound like the only work involved is selling product. But the REAL work it takes if you want to live on financial easy street is riding herd on all the squirrels (no offense to you, Ham) that you've talked into joining up, trying to keep them from losing interest and quitting, trying to keep them from screwing each other, literally and figuratively, and from screwing YOU! I had enough of THAT in the two years I spent as a TC (and a successful one at that, we grew from about 12 to about 48, ran a foundational class at the twig level, and split). The main skill required in both TWI and multi-level-marketing was the ability to manipul... er...motivate people. Love, Steve

I don't know if there's a thread about it, but I no longer believe it's possible for a person to be "born of the serpent's seed" the way Wierwille taught it in session 13 of PFAL. Love, Steve

I do believe there are evil spirits, and I have done so since I was a teenager, because of experiences my brother and I had. That was long before I ever heard of TWI. I don't think evil spirits have any more power than they can fool us into thinking they have. The first time the spirits I had been messing with tried to kill me, they fled when I managed to get out the words "...God help me..." That ALSO was years before I became involved with TWI. I KNOW they don't have the powers Wierwille attributed to them in the Advanced Class. I know they don't operate the way Martindale portrayed them in Athletes of the Spirit. It's a long and convoluted story that's been going on far longer than there have been written records. If you're looking for something more than simple affirmation of your experiences, I can provide citations to some of the material that has led me to these conclusions. Incidentally, one of the reason Christianity spread as fast as it did in the first century was because people who became Christians were no longer afraid of evil spirits. Not like the goofballs at TWI HQ. Love, Steve

Good post, WordWolf! I received my original leadership training in the U.S. Navy submarine service. While I was in The Way, I just assumed that the top leadership understood how to lead. I didn't spend enough time at a root location, apart from in-rez training, to see how awful TWI leadership actually was in daily practice. After the Passing of A Patriarch was read, I kept expecting the Trustees to "take aggressive action to combat the casualty", as we would have said in the Navy. They did NOTHING! They dithered and lied and tried to palm the responsibility for the problems onto the lax standards of people running classes on the field. The scales fell from my eyes. I realized that Martindale, in terms of leadership, was an empty suit. I realized Wierwille had NEVER trained anyone to lead. Only to be yes-men and yes-women. All their comparisons of The Way to a military organization, including their use of the word "corps", became an affront to the true dignity earned by those who have submitted themselves to genuine military discipline, and who have genuinely led. This is from Military Requirements for Petty Officer 3 & 2: "Essentially, three elements constitute effective naval leadership: 1. Adherence to moral principles; 2. Good personal example; and 3. Administrative ability." The leadership of TWI failed on ALL counts! Love, Steve

May peace and love rule in your heart excie... Your presence here has had a positive impact on my life, and I thank you for being open and honest. Love, Steve

Thanks for the tip, geisha. I went and read the whole chapter, and I found a lot of food for thought! Love, Steve

One of my profs objects to the idea I sketched in my posts above, saying it is too much like the ransom theory of atonement. This theory holds that Adam sold out mankind to the devil, and that Jesus' life was paid to the devil to buy mankind back. Wierwille didn't call what he taught a "ransom theory", but that's what it was. Remember the words from the song "We are sons of God with power"? Weren't some of them "We've been bought back from the devil's power"? Ransom theories are generally held to be deficient because they view Jesus' life as a payment TO the devil. The devil, being a liar and a thief, is not viewed as being capable of putting a legitimate lien on God OR man. I am inclined to view whatever power the devil wields over men as being the result of illegitimate deception. I don't think he has any real power, and he certainly doesn't exercise ANY power over God. TWI's and CES' adherence to a ransom theory may be one reason why they attribute such extraordinary power to the devil, and turn God into such a puffball. I would not call the idea I put forth a "ransom" theory. I would call it a "restitution" theory, since it views the human life Jesus gave up on the cross as paid TO GOD to make restitution for the clan obligation Adam brought on mankind by taking his life (God's property) away from God through disobedience. Jesus' dual nature, as both Son of God and Son of man, would have qualified Him to pay our clan debt. All for now. Later on, we'll look at the "satisfaction theory" of atonement, and how the idea I've put forth differs from it. Love, Steve

One of the personal reasons I find this stuff so interesting, and connected with my thinking about the idiom of permisssion, is because one of the last things I did for CES was to help edit Don't Blame God. I knew I was uncomfortable with the thinking of John Lynn, John Schoenheit and Mark Graeser, but I was not yet adequately prepared to do any genuine critical thinking on my own. Don't Blame God takes the idiom of permission to its logical extreme. The book contends that God does not have foreknowledge, and could not foresee that Adam would sin. It also makes God's power seem pretty much like that of the Pillsbury Doughboy. Poke Him in the belly, and all He does in response is giggle. The adversary becomes more powerful than God. The attitude of CES was similar that of TWI, except Wierwille potrayed God's power as that of a vending machine. But we know from the Word that God foresaw the necessity of Jesus Christ's works from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ, not Adam, is the firstborn of all creation, that is to say, Jesus Christ, not Adam, is the main purpose of all creation. I am coming to think that Adam's sin, taking his life into his own hands, and incurring the blood debt on his whole clan, was necessary for Jesus to settle the blood debt of the whole clan by giving His life, and enabling us in turn to voluntarily give our lives back to God. Otherwise, our obedience to God (our love for Him) would be that of little robots. It seems to me that this line of thought can explain many of the things Paul wrote in his letters about the nature of sin and death. Thanks for your consideration! Love, Steve

I was having a hallway discussion with one of my profs about spirit the other day, and he brought up an observation: the Bible doesn't ever tell us WHY a blood sacrifice was required. That set me to thinking: The Bible doesn't say why blood sacrifice was required, probably because everybody back then knew why, and took it for granted that their hearers would know why. The requirement of a blood sacrifice wasn't just part of religious ceremony back then. It was part of Hammurabi's civil law before the biblical material was ever written. It was lex talionis: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. That sounds barbarous to us today, but it was actually a method for limiting the escalating nature of blood feud. If somebody from the neighboring clan knocks one tooth out of your head, the most your clan can do in retaliation is knock one tooth out of the head of one of the neighboring clan's members. If a member of your clan kills a member of the clan next door, then your clan owes that other clan one life, and one life only. The debt for a life has to be paid in blood, because the life of the flesh is in the blood. Blood sacrifice of animals enabled the life (blood) of the sacrificial victim to be substituted for the life (blood) of the human debtor. After Adam sinned, God covered his sin with the hide of animals, which meant the blood of those animals was shed to pay Adam's life-debt. We now know that the blood of those particular animals wasn't effective in itself. Their blood pointed to the genuinely effective blood that would be shed by Jesus Christ. So Jesus' blood paid the life-debt incurred by Adam. The question becomes, how did Adam incur a life-debt? I submit that Cain, even though he was the first murderer, was not the first person who took a life to which he was not entitled. That person was Adam. God created Adam. Adam's life was God's property. When Adam decided to disobey God, he took his life into his own hands. Adam stole his life from God, and consequently owed God a life. That's what God meant when He said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." In the day that you disobey Me, you will have taken a life from Me, and you will owe Me a life. You can't pay Me what you owe Me yourself without remaining dead, so I'm gonna let you substitute the lives of animals, until Jesus comes along. He will be able to pay the debt you owe, and not have to remain dead. I don't think that confessing the Lord Jesus with our mouths simply means saying that Jesus is the Ruler of the cosmos. I think it means something like "Jesus, you are my master and I am your slave. I give my life to you." In confessing with our mouths the Lord Jesus, we give to Jesus our lives, Who passes ownership of them to God. Our lives are rightfully God's property. He made us. When we sieze ownership of our lives to do whatever WE please, we have literally taken our own lives. When we give our lives back to God through Jesus Christ, we are returning our lives to their proper owner. We recognize this change in relationship through obedience to the law of God that will be written in our hearts. What do you, my companions in fellowship, think? Am I onto something or out in left field? Love, Steve

Here's a link to Blue Letter Bible: My link I haven't explored all of its features yet. Knock yourself out, Twinky! Love, Steve