Tom

Maybe you are correct. I'm still thinking that it is speaking in tongues. There are a couple of reasons. The first reason is that if it is not speaking in tongues that it is talking about, then I would have to rethink all of what I know about intercession (& think I recognize about it in my spirit) - which I can do, but obviously NOT in the next 5 minutes. The second reason is that I don't see why I should. This phrase, "inexpressible groanings," which some of you think must mean that it can't be speaking in tongues because tongues are expressed is a figure of speech. Whether it is the person doing it or the spirit doing doesn't change the literal impossibility of the words. There are no groanings (low inarticulate sounds) which are not expressed or uttered in some way; although not in words. So, there are no such things as "inexpressible groanings." So, I'm figuring that either the expression has no meaning or it emphasizes the fact that speaking in tongues expresses something that, to the individual speaking, is inexpressible without the help of the spirit because of the weakness of his flesh. Y, know, anyway - that's what I'm thinking - comments on that possibility?

Absolutely - finely expressed fine points. Stuff like that keeps me motivated to keep communicating with you. On the other hand, I have no idea what the heck you just said. The best I can do is divide that into 3 or 4 phrases or clauses, maybe a couple of sentences. I don't even see a question mark on the question. I'm not trying to be a strict grammarian here, but if I don't get the sense of a question, a question mark where one belongs might help - or I don't get the sense of what the question is that you're referring to. Honest, bro, I'm not trying to be difficult. Tom

Example: Jane has a need. She knows she has a need. She can't figure her way out of her difficulty. She doesn't even know how to pray for it with her understanding. John is walking by the spirit, just enjoying life, when God let's him know that Jane is in need (maybe he smells roses, Jane's favorite flower - I don't know, but he knows). John doesn't know what the need is. He knows less how to pray for it with his understanding than Jane does, & she has no idea how to herself. So John speaks in tongues for Jane. Things come together for Jane amazingly - in her understanding maybe, in real physical results maybe, in a lot of ways, maybe - but Jane is aware that things in her world have been transposed into a state in which the things that were in question have bowed the knee to Jesus. She might even be aware that someone has just spoken in tongues for her, thereby bringing that to pass. She might even be aware that it was John who spoke in tongues for her at that moment each syllable having power. She might not distinguish between the power of each syllable, but she's gotten the gist - maybe even to the point that the next time she sees John, he smiles & says, "So it all worked out, right, right?" Jane replies with a knowing smile, "No way, you didn't (but she knows he did). John replies, "Way!" And they both know, spirit to spirit. Yes?

Okay, I THINK I may get what you're talking about. To find out, let me ask you this. Does the tongue have to be spoken out loud, or can one understand (interpret) the tongue of another without hearing it or even being in the same room? See, what I think you are talking about is the spiritual intercession that goes on believer to believer when one speaks in tongues. I think you are talking about someone being sensitive to that - that there is something spiritual that happens whenever a syllable of tongues is uttered & someone sensitive to the spirit can know spiritually what is happening. Yes?

Gads, you guys, STOP IT! Dancing, you're the one putting forth something; YOU'RE supposed to give chapter & verse & say simply what you're saying, NOT Waysider. And then you, Waysider, give chapter & verse - you're killing me. I must be missing something here.

Oh, BS. Why even try to communicate if you think only those who don't want to know don't understand? You don't think that; don't act like you do - that's rude. Well, for one thing, they were not "in the church," but what's your point? I know you feel like I should be getting it by reading this post, but I'm not, so what is it that you think this post documents? Can it not just be said? Um, I sort of think it does - are we making progress?

I'm sorry that it has taken me so much time to respond, but usually if I don't understand something understandable, backing off for a while helps (besides, not understanding, it's hard to have anything meaningful to say). I can't say I have since arrived at much of an understanding, but at the risk of sounding like an a$$ hole, I'm going to address what you're saying - go easy; I don't mean to sound insulting if I do sound that way. Fine, I understand your language, but I don't understand what you're saying. If that's NOT your point, I missed it. And I have no idea what your quoted statement has to do with speaking in tongues, if anything. What the hell does that mean? How can it not be a tongue and be recognized as a tongue at the same time? If you've addressed those, I missed it. Well, obviously that didn't help. :) Why do you ask? I never thought or said that tongues couldn't be understood by someone. If I've got PFAL preconceived notions blocking what you're saying, I'm sorry, but you've been there, so please understand & deal with that in your communications - unless that's impossible here. Yeah, that.

Thanks, T-Bone Yeah, I figure God is always doing the best he can with what He's got. God can even use an a$$ (Balaam's a$$) to get His Word across to another a$$ (Balaam). But I'm not in favor of becoming an a$$ to get the point across. VP promoted The Way Tree as an original revelation to him. He also promoted it as a a revelation to him revealing how the 1st century church operated. He also said that the 1st century church was led to meet in home fellowships by the guidance of holy spirit. Ah, yes, he also likened The Way Tree to the way Moses was advised by Jethro to lead the people of Israel. If the 1st century church really operated according to The Way Tree that VP promoted as an original revelation to himself, doesn't that dismiss the idea that there was anything original about the revelation? He also said the communist cells operated that way, & that's why they were so effective. Today, he would say terrorist cells. And he would be right, but it seems to me that communists were operating that way before VP got his original revelation. I do not believe that it was any kind of revelation to VP. I also do not believe that's the way the 1st century church (after which TWI was "supposed" to pattern itself) operated. I think The Way Tree, as it was presented to us, was pretty much a lie top to bottom. It was, I think, John Lynn, who described The Way Tree as the systematizing of error. THAT, I believe, is the truth. If I were to try to trace back this revelation to who 1st received it, I would accept Jethro as a possibility - no one afterwards could then qualify. I don't see much difference between what Wierwille described as The Way Tree & how Jethro advised Moses to organize the people. But when Moses instituted his "way tree," it enabled him to "Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: and thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do" without "Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone." VP was trying to be a Moses to His (is that a nice fatherly term to your ears or a term of ownership or both - they're both wrong!) people. But he WASN'T Moses, & we WEREN'T the sheep of Israel. He and we were all members in particular in the Body of Christ. In Moses' day, the "way tree" replaced long lines that Moses waited on all day to give the people the counsel of God while still enabling HIM to answer THEIR needs. In our day, The Way Tree replaced the joints and bands of the One Body through which Jesus Christ brought increase to the One Body, & INSTEAD enabled VP to be our "father" & "teacher" (both contrary to the advice of Jesus Christ), & the determinator of what all true guidance was. Systems theorists recognize that people ought to organize themselves into organic rather than mechanically organized systems. People, like all living organisms, don't respond to industrial age laws such as "if you want twice as much product, work you people twice as many hours." They grow & suffer setbacks in waves. Anyone who ever has been sick or trained athletically knows that. The Body of Christ isn't a mechanical structure; it is an organism. It is the masterpiece of God when it comes to organisms. When I would leave NY in the early 70's & go to HQ, I would FEEL like I had left spiritual life & gone to a place where VP was Moses & we were all Jews. Now I know why & can put it into words (but you'd better have not tried to put it into words to anyone while you were there). It WAS that way. Then, after a while, it seemed right to be the right way. Then, when I would return to NY, it would seem like a confusing mess. But after a while, I would see the spiritual life of the believers, the vitality pulsing through the body there. In a short time my fellowship grew to over 30 people, but I always knew how everyone was doing basically because I quickly became part of the flow of the life of the thing, & basically, we were swimming in the power & victory of God - but an OT perspective with the veil still over the eyes wouldn't see it. Okay, I've gone on long enough - hope I'm still making sense. Ain't THAT the truth!

Well put together & a loving act of service, Sunesis - thanks. If I may add 2 or 3 things... It seems we called them fellowships. I don't recall for sure, but I don't think we called them twigs in '71, maybe we did. But I remember learning about building a number of fellowships in a certain area, & I think at that point we were calling them branches. But then we were informed that what we were doing WASN'T The Way Tree, & the WC came light-bearers to NY & chopped everything up with the Way Tree cookie cutter style. If one went to a certain twig, THAT'S the twig they had to go to exclusively. Not only that, but it wasn't godly to go to someone other than your twig coordinator, especially someone in another twig for ministering if you had a need. IMO, it was that instituting of The Way Tree that finalized the take over of power at the "leaf" level. The branch & limb levels had already been taken over by Wierwille, & it was this fully implemented Way Tree structure that broke up the rest of the "joints and bands" in the Body through which increase came by Jesus Christ, the head. It was also at this time that the Way West & the Way East were making a lot more money than Wierwille. He couldn't STAND that. As I remember hearing things, God told Heefner that if he moved to NY, the Word would move there, & so he did, & it did. I definitely know from Steve Perez on Long Island that God said as much to him about moving to Long Island to move the Word. This was Jesus Christ growing his Body. VP appointing "leadership" was BS - as was the WOW program. Before that people WERE going where God was showing them to go to move the Word. WOW stopped all that. VP said he was putting the WOW program into effect because people were too afraid to answer the call from God to go & move it, & that he was just going to put the WOW program into effect for a few short years until people got over their fear & could answer the call from God directly. Well, obviously VP NEVER ended the WOW program. Actually, people were responding before the WOW program, & stopped afterward. How could people answer the call from God when all revelation was coming to VP or to Wiengartner or whomever sat in the seat of power (where Jesus belonged & was doing just fine)? People were receiving revelation and being followed by signs, miracles, & wonders. People shared about those things. There was an attempt to shut everyone's mouths because "it was just ego." But if you wanted to learn honestly, you would know people who would share what you needed - it was part of the practical aspect of those joints and bands ministering in love that I talked about. The attempt to muzzle the whole thing in the name of pure doctrine was, IMO, nothing more than the same control effort of VP. In '72, Wierwille came to NY to teach the advanced class because there was so much spiritual activity going on, he saw the need - or so he said. I heard nothing at that class that I didn't already know from someone in NY, & hadn't already seen in action. Maybe not some of the specific examples - some of the amazing accounts of healings in the class, but in those days most of those accounts weren't TWI accounts anyway. Biblically, we are SUPPOSED to tell of the things that God is doing. We were - that's how we learned. TWI tried to put a quietus to the life of it. They didn't. Not then. Finally, via The Way Tree, they did.

Maybe that's why I don't understand.

I don't remember them talking about revival after foundational PFAL. More & more it was like circle the wagons around the cornfield to keep the enemy out. Then it was like circle the wagons to keep people from leaving, & finally, it was like open up the wagons, & get rid of everyone who hasn't had enough sense to leave on their own. Well, maybe not, but that's not TOO much of an exaggeration.

A couple of things: What happened to "no man understandeth?" Sounds like you're talking about simple inspired utterance. I still don't get what's to consider in the much more that you're talking about.

Hm, maybe it's because kids become so much easier to live with when you're not living with them :)

Thanks WW

Indeed, as I posted on the Yahoo site: While we're discussing things, I'd just like to put forth this. It is not a matter of being negative or being positive IMO. Jesus said you can't put new wine into old wineskins; it bursts the wineskin. He said you HAVE TO put new wine into new wineskins. No amount of positive thinking, believing, thinking it would be nice, or prayer will change that. If it would have, Jesus would have worked that way. It's a matter of the CONTAINER. When Wierwille tried to incorporate the Body, organize the organism, Way Tree Jesus, WOW the outreach of God's spirit, Way Corps the gift ministries, centralize from whom all was to be fitly joined together, structure the joints and bands, etc, etc, he kicked Jesus out of the way & substituted an old wineskin - old, as in Old Testament old and new industrial age old. The life of the thing was eaten out of it by a cancer from that point on. THAT structure will not hold new wine. As we were taught, it is not available - Jesus said so. Now, if you want to go back to before Wierwille did that to the Body of Christ, then, as Xxxx [We hade been talking about someone on teh Yahoo site] said many a time, "There's nothing to it but to do it." Or, if you REALLY want to drop the old & the bad, stop dwelling on the past, & move on, again, that's fine with me, "There's nothing to it but to do it." Drop the old wineskin. THAT'S forgetting the bad & moving on with the good. Xxxxx didn't need the old wineskin in KS. NY didn't need it. CA didn't need it. South America didn't need it. Europe didn't need it. Africa didn't need it. People are doing it. Believe God for a couple of people to do it with, & do it. That's how it got done the first time. That's how it always gets done. That's how it is getting done today. I understand Xxxxx's definition of revival, but remember revival starts w hen one rises with dawn in his eyes and wakens another, & the two a third, until there is enough making enough noise to waken the whole town - anybody know how that butchered version really goes? I figure there is a point in revival when you don't have to try to get anything to move. The think is like a roller coaster going downhill picking up speed. All you have to do is hold on & have enough balls to not corral the thing with an artificial structure. But it starts with 3 people enjoying the love & power of God together, & that is so much more than nobody because when 2 or more are gathered in him name, he is there among them. There is nothing to it but to do it.

Clarification here please, Groucho. In, or around, '87, did lcm apparently accept the reproof & then rationalize & justify from the bible by the time '94 came around? What was lcm's reaction to the confrontation in '87? I don't know, Excie. My brother desribes himself as not quite being the idiot that he used to be. Hope springs eternal.

Sorry I wasn't clearer, Abi. I understand what you were saying. I agree with you. I was trying to point out that what was taught was selfish & not a true representation of the unselfish relationship the Word presents.

Rascal, may I weigh in here as an ex-alcoholic who was freed from his demon, & an ex-smoker, & ex-heroin addict who was freed from his addictions after contact with the Way. I was freed from the heroin addiction during TWI 1, the others later. Perhaps that explains something of my attitudes on the other thread that motivated you to start this one. A lot of what happened to people depends on where & when they got involved with the way. Not everyone experienced only what you did (although many experienced a lot of what you did). It wasn't all about the man with the thin black tie.

Me too, my wife & I were there. I remember the sinking feeling in my gut. I believe it was an advanced class, no? That was a pretty horrible time for the both of us. Worse for my wife. My wife was spouse corps at the time. WC treated her like she wasn't any kind of anything worth trusting or fellowshipping with. She said that was the last time she was going to something like that. I couldn't blame her. She was quicker on the uptake than I was. I was stupid & loyal & ready to make too many excuses for a$$ holes. No, your don't have power over your body to satisfy yourself sexually. Doesn't that sort of mean that men (& women) should be unselfishly looking to satisfy their mate instead of themselves?

Abigail, I PM'd you about a couple of things unrelated to this thread.

You don't have to feel constrained to answer this, especially if this is the same place we were at last time we discussed tongues, but you have to realize the obvious question. My native language is English. If someone who knows my native language is speaking to me in my native language, he is going to be speaking to me in English, a language we both understand. In what sense is that speaking in tongues?

Again, Wordwolf, this post should probably belong in the doctrinal section. I'm not sure what you've induced as "orthodox vpw" but vpw never dismissed all OT passages or all Gospel passages on the basis that they were different administrations. He taught they were for our learning. He taught they were to be received as addressed to us insofar as they didn't contradict that which is addressed to us. Your basic assumption concerning vpw orthodoxy is incorrect; no wonder your "time saving" conclusions are incorrect. Even if you're assumptions about vpw orthodoxy were correct, which they are not, they are certainly incorrect about me. Dang it, Wordwolf, do you make a habit of assuming stuff about people? I didn't think so before this. That just kills a potential communication. Okay, let's chalk it up to a miscommunication then - okay? Your words: what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication and attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible. You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands... I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.

You think it is clear that I didn't condon what was done to women, yet Rascal still doesn't get it. You didn't think I was clear about vpw's argument, yet Abigail got it. I said "However, I do think that there are many who neither say 'they think vpw's comments were appropriate,' nor worship him, yet do, perhaps without even thinking about it, agree with his teachings in part. Both factor into the wrangling." "People" I said. "in part" I said. I was talking about a continuum on which people could be at a point. Abigail got it. You would have if you didn't put words in my mouth. You want to lump me in with some classification? Then you're not conversing with me; you're conversing with a classification. That's a condescending, presumptuous rape of my individuality. Besides, you were wrong in your assumptions. If you're not going to address me & what I say, I'm not going to respond to you as if you had. Honestly, I thought you were bigger than that, Wordwolf. Perhaps, but that was not what my post was about; although, you apparently still perceive it that way despite the fact that I said it wasn't several times.

I think this article hits pretty close to the mark: MEL GIBSON'S CRUCIFIXION By Pastor Chuck Baldwin August 4, 2006 NewsWithViews.com Let's get right to the point: the Hollywood elite have had it in for Mel Gibson for quite a while. First, he abandoned their penchant for promoting big government by starring in a truer-than-most-want-to-admit movie thriller, Conspiracy Theory. He then further alienated Hollywood Leftists by starring in the hugely popular Vietnam war movie, We Were Soldiers. And I'm sure Mel's wonderful movie about America's fight for independence, The Patriot, didn't sit well with them, either. However, it was the production of his phenomenally successful film, The Passion Of The Christ, that no doubt took the Hollywood elite over the edge. That a Hollywood legend would dare to produce a movie that exalted, not denigrated, Christ's redemptive work on the cross was more than they could stomach. They have had Gibson in their sights ever since. Unfortunately, Mel Gibson provided the Hollywood elite the hammer and nails they needed to crucify him. His extremely foolish misconduct was just what his enemies were looking for. Now, they are attacking him with a vengeance! In fact, he has been castigated by almost everyone in the industry. For example, according to press reports, ABC has already announced the cancellation of a planned miniseries about the Holocaust it was developing with Gibson's Icon Productions. In addition, Michael Levine, an agent who has represented super-stars such as Michael Jackson and Charlton Heston, said, "It's a nuclear disaster for him [Gibson]. I don't see how he can restore himself." Throughout the industry, the sentiment is the same: "Gibson has committed vocational suicide and is dead in the water. It's all over for him." Yet, I don't remember anyone in Hollywood or in the national media saying it was "all over" for Jesse Jackson when back in 1984 he called Jews "Hymies" and referred to New York City as "Hymietown." I don't remember people saying it was "all over" for Michael Moore when he was quoted as placing Israel in his own personal "axis of evil." Why, then, are the Hollywood elite saying it's "all over" for Mel Gibson? Gibson's enemies even overlook the fact that instead of sending his publicist to handle the media (as most Hollywood stars would do), he personally took responsibility for his actions and comments. In fact, his humility and contriteness in the matter have been quite remarkable! In addition, Gibson has admitted to a long-standing problem with alcohol addiction, and he has apologized profusely for his anti-Jewish words spoken in a drunken stupor. He has even said he was willing to meet with Jewish leaders in order to facilitate a healing. What more can the man do? The answer is obvious: the Hollywood elite don't care how sincere or how repentant Gibson is; they want Mel Gibson's crucifixion! I believe the American people will see through Hollywood's hypocrisy and hatred and will find it in their hearts to forgive Gibson's foolishness. At least I certainly hope so. For the record, I would like to offer Mel Gibson, and anyone else who has a drinking problem, a free copy of my alcoholic father's true-life story, which is recorded on cassette tape. My dad was a confirmed and hopeless alcoholic until the age of 40. His deliverance from alcohol is nothing short of miraculous! From the day of his deliverance at age 40 to the day he died at nearly age 86, my dad did not have one drop of alcoholic beverage-not one! That's over 46 years of total sobriety. It is a truly remarkable real-life story! If any of Mel's friends would like to have a free copy of my father's true-life story, or if readers would like to obtain a copy for themselves or a friend, go to www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ebald.html for information on how to order. Again, there is no charge for the tape. I hope and pray that not only will Mel Gibson survive the personal and professional attacks against him but that he will discover the true source of peace that fortune and fame have obviously not provided. Wouldn't it be nice, too, if Hollywood could find a heart and soul of its own?