Steve Lortz

I can feature that. When I was teaching seventh-graders (post-TWI), we would sometimes (ONLY sometimes!) sing Roll Away, especially if I felt they needed to be stirred up a little before their next class. They considered it a treat, and the sixth graders asked me to teach it to them. Another inherently good thing that TWI drove into the ground through mindless repetition! Love, Steve

Do the new participants have to cut their own toes off with a pocket knife due to frostbite, I wonder? Love, Steve

I bet it tasted like CHICKEN!?! Love, Steve

My goodness! The Way Corps revividus... complete with L.E.A.D... AND hitch-hiking! Love, Steve

I nosed around through the links and didn't smell any Wierwilleisms. I found it disappointing when I followed the "How to be saved" link, and it just pointed out various teachings I should listen to. No direct info on how to be saved. Not even any clues or hints. Love, Steve

In antiquity, nobody wrote in solitude the way we do today. Paul had a group of people around him when he wrote, including the scribe who wrote down what Paul decided to commit to writing, after he had presented it to the group for discussion and feedback.If Paul wasn't personally able to write Ephesians and Colossians, I think his close companions did. I think they replicated what Paul would have said to the best of their ability. This was NOT an unusual practice in the first century. I don't think "that Gnosticism spirit teachings" got into Ephesians and Colossians through inserted forgeries. The meanings of the word "spirit" changed between the time of Paul and the time of Augustine around the turn of the fifth century, from stoic meanings to neo-platonic. After Theodosius declared everyone except "trinitarians" (as we still understand that term today) to be deranged, insane heretics, writers like Augustine went to town to read "Gnostic spirit teachings" into the language that Paul and others had already written. The object is not to get rid of the confusion by cutting out the words we don't understand, but to recover an understanding of what they meant when they were originally written and read. Love, Steve

I don't think so, waysider. Ephesians 1:16&17 read, "16 [i, Paul] Cease not to give thanks for you,making mention of you in my prayers; "17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him [en epignosei autou]." The word "knowledge" (epignosei) is dative singular. According to Eric G. Jay's (1958) New Testament Greek; An Introductory Grammar, "To express instrument the dative case is used without a preposition: lithoi 'by a stone', or, 'with a stone'; logchais 'with spears'. In the New Testament, but not in classical Greek, the preposition en may also be used with the dative case to express instrument, en machairai 'with a sword'" (p. 72). According to Ephesians 1:17, God gives us the Spirit of wisdom and revelation with, or by, the instrument of our knowledge of Him, which come from, among other things, a scholarly knowledge of His Word. The more we know and understand about God's Word, the more inspiration the Holy Spirit can give to guide us in our understanding. The Spirit and the written Word act as a system of checks and balances. If we magnify the written Word and ignore the Spirit, as TWI did, we fall into pharisaic legalism. If we magnify spirit and neglect the written Word, as CES/STFI did, we fall into emotionalistic spiritualism. Love, Steve

Well put, Sunesis, very well put indeed! I spent 5 years teaching writing and humane letters at a small Christian classical academy, and some very important things have been overlooked and forgotten since the "Enlightenment" (17th-18th centuries A.D.). One of these things is that ALL language is primarily metaphorical. Even science and history. Mathematics is simply a language adapted to describe quantifiable experiences. All words, ALL of 'em, have fundamental experiential meanings, and figurative (poetic) meanings drawn from qualities of the original experiences. For instance, the original fundamental meaning of "spirit" ("ruach", "pneuma") is "air (one of the four elements) in motion because it is admixed with fire (another of the four elements)". Since breathing (air in motion) is so closely associated with being alive, "spirit" took on the figurative meaning of "the power of life". I believe that's what it meant to the people who first wrote and read the Bible. After the Crisis of the Third Century, "spirit" took on the neo-platonic meaning of "the substance of of a parallel cosmos inaccessible to the senses". That's how Augustine used it, and generally speaking, how we still think of it today. That's also how Wierwille taught it. Another example is "the heavens". The heavens are what you see when you go outdoors and look up on a clear night. The heavens are a place of predictable movement. The only things visible are "fiery" so the heavens were the realm of fire. The heavens were considered plural because there are a few heavenly bodies that move at different rates and in different directions from the fixed stars. But the movement of even these "wanderers" is predictable (so each one had its own heaven). The figurative meaning of the heavens is "a place of safety", because they are too high for the turmoils of the earth to reach. That's why the gods (fire elementals, as opposed to the demon air elementals, or the human earth elementals) were supposed to live in the heavens. And despite what Wierwille taught about "anything from above the ground was from heaven", the heavens didn't begin until the orbit of the moon. Clouds are in the realm of "air", and we always see clouds in front of the moon, never behind it. So the realm of fire, the heavens, began at the orbit of the moon. The heavens are "a place of safety" because the trouble that afflicts the earth can't reach them. That's why good things are reserved for us in the heavens. They are kept safe there until it's time for them to come down to us from heaven. That's also why the attempt to build the tower at Babel was such an affront. Augustine conflated the "heavens" also with the neo-platonic parallel cosmos inaccessible to the senses Soooo... I agree with Sunesis. The purpose of the Bible is not to teach science or history, but to communicate Truth through metaphorical means (which is not always the same as allegory). And one way the Holy Spirit communicates with us is to open the eyes of our understanding to poetic significances in the Bible. Love, Steve

The terms of the New Covenant are set forth in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-12. The only thing added to the covenant after the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the mystery and grace committed to Paul to steward, "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel". (Ephesians 3:6) Love, Steve

I agree with what TrustAndObey wrote, teachme. Communion does commemorate entering into the New Covenant. But it's okay to do it over and over again in order to remember the covenant. In fact, Jesus tells us to do it EVERY TIME WE EAT! So doing it over and over again is not like trying to get born again over and over again. Love, Steve

About three years ago,I wound up in intensive care for a few days. I had come down with diabetes without knowing it, and by the time we found out, my blood sugar level was 1010, 10 points off the scale. 300 can be fatal. My body had gone into shut-down mode, and I hadn't been able to eat anything for God knows how long. I remember laying there one night in IC, unable to sleep for all the gurgling and sloshing and belching and growling going on in my gut. It was my digestive system re-hydrating, coming back on-line after having shut down to die. They brought me breakfast the next morning. It included a half an English muffin with a little margarine and grape jelly on it. I picked up that muffin and considered it for about a half hour before I could bite it. It was CARBS! Because I had abused my intake of CARBS, I had almost died. Yet I couldn't go on living without eating CARBS! The Lord taught me more in that half hour about the Bread of Life and communion than I have ever read or heard. When Jesus did what He did, and said what He said at the last supper, He didn't mean to introduce some mystical ritual that could only be performed by the initiated. It was more like saying "Grace" before or after a meal. Regarding the bread as Christ's body and the wine as His blood was meant as a mnemonic device, an aid to memory, for people to keep in the front of thier attention the price Jesus paid for our salvation, ensuring that salvation. The original "eucharists" weren't little slivers of cracker and tiny sips of grape juice. They were whole pitch-in dinners, where everybody ate together. Referring to the "body" and the "blood" was intended to remind everybody of what Christ had done for them so they could be together! "Communion" (and "excommunication") have been abused, but that ain't Jesus' fault! Love, Steve

"IMHO" is texting short-hand for "in my humble opinion". I may not agree with some of the things you think, but then again, you may not agree with some of the things I think. I don't feel alienated because you speak your mind. Love, Steve

Soo... where wuz I? Lessee, I think I finished Ephesians 5:1. Yeah... that's the ticket. We're ready to look at Philippians 3:17-19 "17 Brethren, be followers together [summimetes = "imitators together or "joint-imitators"] of me [Paul], and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample [typos = "example"]. "18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: "19 Whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)" This exhortation to be imitators is more complex than those we have seen to this point. Here Paul exhorts the believers at Philippi, as a group, to be imitators of himself, and to watch out for people who walk the way he did, so that the believers can still imitate Paul by imitating the example of those people. The parenthetical expression of verses 18 and 19 gives a description of people who do NOT walk the way Paul did, whose example we are NOT to follow. It lists four characteristics of these people: the result of their effort is wasted, they serve their own appetites, they are proud of things of which they ought to be ashamed, and they have set their minds on earthly rather than heavenly things. Whenever I read these verses, I can't help but think of the dance production of Athletes of the Spirit. TWI was very proud of something it ought to have been ashamed of. Verses 18 and 19 contain a figure of speech known as "Last-First". This figure reverses the ordinary sequence of a progression in order to emphasize the final result of the progression. A person walking on this path begins doing so by giving more thought to the earthly aspects of things than to the heavenly aspects. Not paying attention to the true nature of his actions, he becomes proud of doing things that are really reprehensible. He becomes addicted to one or more of his own appetites, and in the end, all his efforts are wasted. WASTED! He sets himself against the effect of Christ's work on the cross. We do NOT want to imitate such people! All for now. Love, Steve

Too true, penworks, too true! A number of organizations lead their people into making thoughtless promises, and then teaching them that there is NO WAY OUT, once you've promised. It was in the context of such promises that the Lord taught me the value of repenting of my foolishness. Love, Steve

Logic is a powerful tool, but by itself, it can be every bit as misleading as any other system of thought. Logic is a set of rules whose purpose is, if used properly, to define "proof". But every logical argument is built on "self-evident" premises. If an argument's premises do not accord with objective reality, then the application of logic to those premises can only lead us into confusion and error. Wierwille's definition of "salvation" is flawed in a number of ways. First, man is not, has never been, and will never be, a three-part creature: body, soul and spirit. Second, salvation is God making good on promises He originally gave to Israel in the O.T. The dispensationalist teaching that the Curch is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel severs Christianity from the promises of salvation, and indeed, even from the cross of Christ itself. There are other flaws that make trying to figure out what "salvation" means very, very confusing. But the confusion isn't in the Bible. It's in the things we were taught by Wierwille. In Luke 18:18-30, the phrases "to inherit eternal life", "to enter into the kingdom of God", "to be saved" and "to receive everlasting life in the age to come" are all used synonymously. Looking at those things might help understand the things that Paul doesn't explicitly state. I'm glad we are both members in particular of this great Body, Jerry! Love, Steve

Back in the beginning of the fog years, around '87 or so, Lynn and several others collaborated on a paper that has come to be known as the 37-page letter or document. This was the first public out-speaking against the Trustees, and asked the question, "Who should we follow?" As part of its introduction, it used the lines from the Sunday school song, "My Lord knows the way through the wilderness, All I need to do is follow..." This prompted me to do a word study on the idea of following, as indicated by the uses of mimeomai (to follow) and mimetes (follower) in the New Testament. The epistles do a very thorough job of describing who, how and why we should follow. First, the word "mimeomai" means "to imitate". The Biblical meanings of "to follow" and being a "follower" refers, not primarily to obedience, but to imitation. I Corinthians 4:15&16 "15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I [Paul] have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [mimetes = "imitators"] of me." The very first way that a person learns is as an infant, by imitating the actions and vocalizations of the people who come into its range of experience, usually its parents and siblings. Here Paul appeals to the Corinthians to imitate him the way children imitate their parents. I Corinthians 11:1 "1 Be ye followers [mimetes = "imitators"] of me [Paul] even as I also am of Christ." Once more Paul exhorts the Corinthians to imitate himself, and lets them know that in doing so, they will be imitating Christ, since he also is imitating Christ. Ephesians 5:1 1 Be ye therefore followers [mimetes = "imitators] of God, as dear children:" Again we see encouragement to Christians to imitate someone the way children imitate their parents, only in this case, we are to imitate God. As we read in Philippians 2:14&15, "14 Do all things without murmurings and disputing: "15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" As Christians, we are children of God, and we should act like it by imitating our heavenly Father. When we do so, we shine like lights. I have more to post on this, but that's all I can do for the time being. Love, Steve

I hope nothing I've written recently has led to this post. If I've inadvertantly posted something rude, let me know and I'll change my ways. Thank you! Love, Steve

One of the most liberating things I realized after leaving the TWI mentality was that repentance works! I can't go back to change the awful things I did and taught in TWI, but I can repent (change what I'm doing now) and receive God's forgiveness. Wierwille didn't teach repentence as a condition for forgiveness. He taught that "sin-consciousness" was the problem, not sin itself. By ignoring your sin-consciousness you could automatically receive forgiveness, while CONTINUING in the sin. What a putrid perversion of grace! Love, Steve

Thanks, waysider. "Food for critical thought and closer examination" indeed! I think our attitudes toward Paul were skewed by Wierwille's attitude. As part of Wierwille's "God's Word as it hasn't been known since the first century" schtick, he had to explain how the understanding of God's Word had "failed" in the first century, and Wierwille pinned the blame on Paul's trip to jerusalem. Paul the apostle was a failure in taking the Word over the world, but Victor Paul was going to succeed where Paul the apostle failed. Wierwille made Paul out to be a collosal loser in order to make himself seem like a winner. Love, Steve

I think we make a big mistake if we think Paul was the foremost Christian in the early days of the Church, and all Christianity was ruined when he went to Jerusalem. I think this erroneous view of Paul arose for a number of reasons: 1. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, and the Church became predominantly gentile after the first century. 2. Since the gentile Christian communities were so widely scattered, Paul had to stay on the move, and consequently, had to write a heck of a lot more letters than the other evangelists did. He also had to write a lot more because the gentile believers didn't have the background to understand how Christ and His resurrection fit in with 2nd temple Judaism. 3. When Matin Luther started actually reading what was written in the Bible, he was attracted to the book of Romans, and read the legalism of medieval Roman Catholicism into the "law" of 2nd temple Judaism (eisegesis). Since Paul had to explain the relation between law and grace to his gentile readers, Protestants came to see Paul as the exponent of an antagonism between law and grace that was more appropriate to the 16th century than to the 1st. Paul assumed disproportionate importance in the eyes of the Protestants. 4. In the 19th century, Darby, Scofield, Bullinger, et al., redefined the mystery of the New Testament from "God exalting Jesus to the function of Lord after His resurrection", to "God revealing a secret period of time when the Church would be completely separate and discontinuous from Israel" to the apostle Paul. In effect, this made Paul, rather than Christ, the founder of Christianity for the Church "in this our day and time", and those who turned away from Paul must also have turned away from true Christianity (and those today who turn away from dispensationalism are turning away from true Christianity). But Paul WASN'T the foremost Christian in the early days of the Church. The honor of that title definitely belongs to Peter (even though I don't think that made him a proto-pope). In James D.G. Dunn's book Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, he analyzed the spectrum of beliefs in 2nd temple Judaism, and the spectrum of beliefs that arose within Christianity as it grew. If we look at the early Church on a scale of conservative and progressive attitudes toward the statement "Jesus is Lord", James would seem to be on the far right, and Paul would be on the far left. Since Luther, some people have even considered that James should not have been included in the canon. But it was Peter, the linchpin, who kept Christianity from flying apart. The great mystery, that Gad had raised Jesus from the dead and made him both Christ and LORD, was first preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost. The first gentiles who became Christians, without first becoming Jews, became so under the ministrations of Peter. When Paul writes in Galatians, he makes Peter sound like a temporizing wimp, but that's not necessarily the way the Lord viewed the transactions. Did all those who live in Asia, who turned away from Paul, also turn away from Christianity? The Seven Church Epistles, set forth in Revelation 2:1-3:22, are addressed to the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. All these were located within the Roman province of Asia. These were real, living, 1st century Christians. Revelation was written about a generation or so after Paul, and all these congregations were considered to be Christian by the writer of Revelation. Some of them had problems that needed to be addressed, doubtless, but Philadelphia at least seemed to be in pretty good order. So how much weight should be given to Paul's statement a generation earlier, that they had all turned away from him? In what specific way did they turn away from him? Love, Steve

Paul wasn't behind bars in Rome. He was under house arrest. He wore an ankle bracelet. The other end of its chain was fastened to a burly member of the Praetorian Guard. Paul was free to receive who ever wanted to visit him. He just couldn't leave the house. He DID preach, teach and minister to people while he was waiting for his trial. Paul couldn't have "made a call" the way we use those words. Up until about 100 years ago, when the use of telephones became widespread, "to call" someone meant "to visit" that person at his or her house. If you showed up on someone's doorstep, and they were indisposed to see you, you would leave a "calling card", so they would remember that you had been by. Two examples of the "calls" Paul would have sent out while under house arrest in Rome are "Philemon" and "Colossians", which had nothing to do with a mysterious "age" of grace, or of the church. Paul doesn't tell us in II Timothy why "all they which are in Asia" turned away from him (II Timothy 1:15), but he does tell us why Demas forsook him in II Timothy 4:10, because Demas loved this "age". The fact that the Romans had Paul under arrest would not have fazed his followers, who were, after all, primarily following a man who had been CRUCIFIED by the Romans! Love, Steve

The phrase "present truth" and all the rationalization behind it is an abomination. LOve, Steve

Is that why God didn't want the Israelites to eat pork? Love, Steve

It's good to read you again, Gen-2! One of the things that makes John's writings interesting is their view of time, or maybe "sequence" would be better. The text seems to alternate between narrative passages set in the writer's past, and expository passages set in the writer's present. If a person never read John, he or she could well conclude that the "new birth" occurs at the resurrection, an event that is still future for everybody except Jesus. John is one of the main voices indicating that we are already "born again". When a person gets beyond the dispensationalist "plan of the ages", one sees we are living in a time that is difficult to conceive in categoric terms. We are still living in what Paul calls "this present evil age" (Galatians 1:4), even though the resurrection, a feature of the age to come, began with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some people call this an "overlap" of the ages, but I think that's too simplistic. Some say we are living in the tension of "already/not yet". Some of these things may lay behind John's odd sense of timing. Love, Steve

I think I was on that LEAD trip, too. I remember going up in the ranger's fire tower, and the ranger was explaining that they watched for smoke. One of the LEAD participants said "Like that over there?" pointing to some smoke in the distance. And the ranger hadn't noticed it before. There were outhoses with seats at the ranger station. There was a warning sign outside the outhouse that said "primitive facilities". That was the only time out there we were able to sit instad of squatting over a slit trench to do our business. We thought is was luxurious! Love, Steve