shortfuse

The Way teaches that home fellowships (known elsewhere as cell groups, Bible studies, etc) are THE way God intends for the church to meet in our day, and THE way for the "Word to move" in this administration. For instance, Acts 2:46 "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," [Way emphasis added] Add to this a handful of salutations to individuals and the "church in their homes" from the epistles and you can cobble together a case. BUT, you could also read the verse above and note that they were STILL IN THE TEMPLE EVERYDAY, and that what they did from house to house was EAT. Now, I dig home fellowships in someways, and I can appreciate what they have to offer. But, to say it is the only and best way to do it is just silly. From a cynical viewpoint, it is zero overhead revenue stream. What's not to love about that? When did home church come to The Way? I remember hearing that a number of leaders left the ministry when VPW decided to go that route. Anybody know more about the timing and rational?

Maybe this has been covered here before, but I haven't read it... Was there a certain point in time when The Way began to adopt non-mainstream Christian doctrines or did it happen gradually overtime? I'm referring to all the differentiating points like rejecting the Trinity for example. VPW was raised and schooled trinitarian, he even slipped up with some comments in PFAL. Does anyone know if there was a turning point where he started teaching JCNG and why? It seems to me that some or all of the points that made Way teaching unique must have had an origin in calculated decisions to differentiate TWI and give it the appeal of scarcity.

Is there any other explanation for the theme, poster (you'll see Sunday), CD's, etc? Completely and utterly out of ideas. Note to TWI Watchdogs: "Borrowing" from other sources was always so fruitful for VPW. Maybe taking a look at other groups for some fresh slogans would help.

I remember at one point Craigers told us to say we weren't Christian (lol- he wasn't). "Christian" is a term of derision - we were "Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ". I remember shortly after that being in a witnessing situation, and answering "yes" when asked if I was a Christian. Afterwards, my witnessing "buddy" rebuked me strongly. "Weren't you paying attention on Corps Night! We're not Christian - WE'RE DISCIPLES!" Oh, yeah. Slipped my mind. Later they had to back off all that "we're not a religion" talk when it started to jeopardize their tax exeption as a religious non-profit.

That guy is in Florida someplace. This is somebody else. I think he also has a fellowship page someplace but I don't see any links to it here.

Human slavery among the cabinet, eh? Care to elaborate? Sounds a bit melodramatic.

No counselling received. Were told the Corps training was counsel enough.

Reading the thread about the (im)probability of changes at The Way, I'm reminded of how powerless most Way folks feel in affecting any change whatsoever in the organization. These folks who so earnestly crave a change at the top, act like the only way that will ever happen is by outliving the current regime, and picking up the pieces. But honestly, who really wields power in the Way? Is it the B.O.D. or the individual believer? Simple. Who funds it? The individual believer. Here's what I'm saying, "innies". If you don't like the direction the Way is going in, stop waiting for it to change one day in the future. Make it change today. That is, STOP SENDING THEM YOUR MONEY. You will be shocked how quickly you will have their ear with this one simple measure. If you feel bound by duty to tithe, you don't have to stop, just give your money where you believe it will better fund God's work. If/When The Way is more in line with what you can honestly support, then give them your money in a clear conscience.

Classic. Love you, too.

Saying "I don't mean to be rude" doesn't make you any less so. You "see" nothing except the hearsay you've read in this thread, and yet you smugly bash the character of someone you probably don't even know. I don't mean to be rude, but p1ss off.

Exactly. Here's the thing, though. They do understand that and they are willing to wait.

http://www.slate.com/id/2171430/fr/flyout

LOL. 'Tis true. :)

Used to be a St0kley and D3bbie Rose in MD. Dunno, just a guess...

Sharing the pipe with a proxy server I wouldn't be surprised by. Monitoring in the office, sure. Monitoring in Founder's Hall, I doubt it. Monitoring who people are calling and taking action on it? Again I doubt it, unless what you are talking about happened on office phones, in which case it is justified.

That rap no longer in use.

"Ambassadors for Christ" is the theme for this one.

Alright, here's another one. Craig used to teach (don't know if VPW ever took this stance) that since revelation comes by way of the "five spiritual senses", there was also such thing as "spiritual emotions" that were a form of revelation. Biblical examples included when Jesus was "moved with compassion" or angry with the money changers in the temple. These weren't regular emotions, but spiritual energizing to respond to a particular situation. He went on to explain that he would recognize "spiritual emotions" because they would come on suddenly and didn't seem merited from a five-senses point of view. Furthermore, he recognized it as revelation because the emotional state would vanish as soon as he acted on it. (Seriously, I'm not making this up.) Anyone who interacted with Craig much saw MUCH more "spiritual anger" than any other spiritual emotion. There much wrong with this teaching. One thing that stands out to me is the implied importance of disregarding that "voice of reason" most of us have. When experiencing an intense emotion like anger, we need to get good at hearing that faint voice of sanity telling us to calm down. Instead, LCM elevated his violent mood swings to the realm of "spiritual emotions" that should be acted on as revelation from God. What fruit did this teaching produce? Exactly none. Those leaders prone to LCM-like rashness felt validated, and viewed this tendency for anger and vicious criticism as a great spiritual strength. It was precisely the opposite. For those of us of a milder temperament, we felt compelled to fabricate the kind of intensity exhibited by these "leaders". Many were cast aside as weaklings. Others of us spent years viewing a great strength in temperance as an embarrassing deficiency. ...but I digress. Anyone know if this "spiritual emotions" teaching is still in the advanced class?

This was the bottom line for Craig. He liked to claim he could always give good solid reasons for his decisions, but in the end he pretty much fell back on the claim that it was all by revelation. If it's by revelation, who are you to argue with God?! And if there is any question as to whether or not it was really instruction from God, "Look, either God works in me or he doesn't!" D'oh It's so obvious in hindsight. This is another line I've heard repeated by many an LCM emulator.

Reading some of recent posts got me thinking about the impetuousness and emotional volatility LCM used to pass off as revelation and sound decision making. One such example I first recall occurring while in-residence in the Way Corps. Craig would get all upset about some isolated situation in the ministry and go off on the whole Corps household as if it were indicative of all of us, or the whole ministry. He claimed God would show him the incident was an "index fossil", referring to a method of dating artifacts and geological samples. If the age of a particular fossil could be ascertained then everything in the same strata of earth could be ascribed the same age. The reference to science made the over-reaction seem more objective some how. <_< Looking back it was not only dangerous over-reaction, it taught a generation of us to do the same thing.

Mostly insults come to mind. "That guy's dumber than a box of hair" "Elevator doesn't go to the top floor" "Out to lunch without a sandwich" "Possessed as a new boot in hell!" (still don't get that one) Then there were okieisms to express intensity. "All over it like a Texan on a pork chop" "Go 'til you hear glass" "Tight as you can, and then one more" "All over that guy like a hair shirt" I once met a guy in Oklahoma who had made a song out of many Craigisms. It wasn't intended as satirical at the time, but looking back it sure did that well.

No doubt. As is evident in the language of the message, it was an ill considered emotional outburst, not a well considered policy change. That outburst became a mandate that lasted 8 or 9 years. Suddenly any act of kindness toward us had to be filtered through a guarded lens of distrust. What is this persons motives? What are my motives? Even if both are pure hearted, I might still be wrong in principle or precedent set. It took a lot of the joy out of simple cheerful giving (and receiving). It's hard to articulate the awkwardness and second guessing this engendered. On another level, I see this as an example of how Craig tried to get the attention off of himself and made people to look inward and turn any criticism they might have on themselves.

Back in the day, LCM went so far as to say we shouldn't accept the label "Christian". We were "disciples". A few years after that, he had a bit of a reversal. Turns out the IRS considers The Way a religious organization. If you refuse to be called a religion, that's fine, but you have to give up your tax exempt status. No thank you! "The Way is a religion if anybody asks."

I remember reading a letter from VPW my folks had their files. I don't remember what he was apologizing for, but it was addressed to the whole Corps, and it was sometime just prior to a Corps week. Anybody recall that?

Probably can be found in the PFAL book and maybe Mrs. VPW's book.