shortfuse

Got one. What do you want to know?

One of the most confusing things to sort out and accept is the possibility that you have been involved in a cult. "What about all the good times, good things, good people?" If you start to accept the notion, you tell yourself things like, “I’m just believing a label applied by people and organizations that are threatened by my stand. “ And look at the good that have come from so called cults. Jesus and his disciples – accused of being cultists. Paul and his movement in the book of Acts – labeled a cult. “Not bad company,” you tell yourself. Look at some of the groups that founded and settled parts of the United States. The Pilgrims were Puritan Separatists, extremists, in many ways a very cult like group. The Puritan settlements evolved in to very legalistic, intolerant communities far more controlling than The Way. But from these same pilgrims come traditional American ideals like self governance and religious liberty. Is there really anything wrong with a being in a cult? Who cares about labels anyway? The sects within any religious movement are the core, committed individuals who derive a sense of pride from their sacrifice, loyalty, and discipline. Where would the world be without people truly fanatical for their cause? So I’m a cultist. :blink: So what?! Talk me out of it.

I think verses such as the following were part of the justification for this attitude. Ps 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. Ps 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. The idea being that if you really "eschew" evil it will offend you when ever and where ever you see it. You don't have to look to hard to find evil, but if you are looking for it you will see it every where. It will seem like the adversary is working "overtime" on you, but really you are working overtime trying to be appropriately offended. The truely spiritual are PO-ed all the time - just like God.

Let's see there was KAKOS or "Destructive Evil" Then there was PONEROS or "Harrassing Evil" Then finally there was ...what where am I? :unsure: Sorry dozed off. I can't remember the last one. Guess I'm unproductive too.

Are you still running VPW's PFAL class or were you being facetious?

Was Jim's book ever published?

Still haven't seen the confirmation that this teaching even happened. Anyone got a date or STS # yet?

This seems like the crux of the issue to me. I doubt if you'll get anywhere with the TWI angle on the child custody case. I've seen this tactic fail more than succeed. Not that it isn't relevant, but I think the real arguable issue here is the mother's effort to alienate the son from his non-Way father.

On this point you're way off base.

Now that's just funny.

I was thinking about this after reading the myspace\thewayint forum. A regular GS poster stated in that forum, that although they would not seek out an opportunity to attend a Way fellowship, they would welcome the opportunity if the invitation were extended from Way leadership - like a LC or RC. (Not an exact quote - this is my paraphrase). I am curious how many of you feel the same way - you would come back and at least check things out if invited. Or would an apology of some kind be required before you would consider it. Or if there is some other gesture that would cause you to consider fellowshipping with the Way again? I gather for many here this will never be a consideration, but I also think *some* would welcome the chance for a "reconcilation". Just curious.

I'm betting it's got to be "gas station attendant".

Okay, fair enough. My intent was not to exclude people who are qualified and up to the task. It's my hunch that many more active way corps read this board than one might think, and that they are mulling things over trying to find some way to salvage it all. I didn't really expect any active way corps to reply to this, but I think they are reading it. I am one that privately holds out hope that the whole mess can be cleaned up - yes I know this is insane to many who post here. It's hard to sort it all out. Just putting the thought out there, no insults intended.

Ditto that.

I didn't say that. I am saying if anyone is responsible to lead, or more specifically to speak up and bring about change, that would be the Corps, imo. Where are you going with this, paw?

They are supposed to be leaders, but they are for the most part disgruntled followers.

You know you're out there reading this. You look out here because you still think for yourself. You recognize that there have been and still are problems with your ministry doctrinally and practically. You stick around that ministry because you value commitment and you believe that eventually things will get better. You Way Corps are the only ones who can change things for the better. What are you going to do about it and how much longer can you stand to wait?

John Rupp, Steve Longley, David Chavoustie. PFAL grads will love this class. If you had no doctrinal issues with the content, it would be the best thing they've done. Try it! I'm pretty sure they have some way around that though. <_<

Personally, I viewed it as a career choice. I thought I would work for The Way the rest of my life, and I thought I would serve in top leadership positions (best term I can think of). I never intended it from a climbing the Way Corps-orate ladder ego point of view some have described here. I felt a sense of calling and felt I had the capacity for it. I guess in the back of my mind I also was prepared to work secularly, but I guess I never thought I would pursue a secular "career". I'm not even complaining, I'm just saying I don't think the system works well While I was in training, craig raised the definition of what the Corps was supposed to be about. Not just fellowship coordinators - fellowship coordinator coordinators, that is, Branch and above. He equated the Corps commitment with ordination. This always made me wonder what the point was of ordination. Can you get any more committed than "totally committed" for life? The only answer I ever heard was it meant greater recognition and thus access for that minister, but that is a bit weak to me. Ordination is supposed to be one of the most serious commitments a man or woman can make. Which brings me to an interesting thought… The New Testament has several cautions against ordaining too hastily. Perhaps there is some correlation between this and the high attrition rate of the Corps. (Yes, I know there are other reasons, but this was observable in the VPW era also). Maybe a "lifetime of Christian service" should be the commitment one makes at ordination and not before. The time after corps graduation could serve as a time to mature and prove oneself and /or prove to oneself that a lifetime commitment of service in the ministry is what he/she wants to do and is able to do. There would still be failures, but I wonder if it wouldn't be significantly less. Then open the Corps back up to a broader class of leadership training, and reduce the expectation for the length of service following graduation. You'd bring more people into the training and more benefit to the ministry. What's better a few people for a lifetime or many people for shorter lengths of time? I would suggest the latter. Going back to your question (well closer to it anyway), the "bi-vocational" ministers I know (non-TWI) pastor rather small churches about the size of a large home fellowship or small branch. They know if the work grows beyond a certain size they will have to do it full time. With these folks, that influences them to make no real effort to grow the size of the church. They are comfortable ministering to their current congregation and feel like they can focus on growing the church later in life when their kids are grown, etc.

Just thinking over the weekend, outside of the way are there any other denomenations where there is this emphasis on "Stand when a man of God enters the room/walks on stage"? Can kind of see a place for it in large congregational settings, but seems a bit silly in small settings like doing a class in a home - also is awkward in social settings. Just a thought...

The Way Corps commitment is hard to relate exactly to any other commitment. I said marriage because that is the only other lifetime commitment I could think of. Sure there are deal breakers - but some people will feel justified for divorce more easily than others. The high divorce rate today is in some way a testament to the difficulty had in finding solutions and the easy in identifying "deal breakers". Some people eventually reach a very blissful state of marriage because they stuck with it. Others have stayed in marriages for many years to their own hurt, perhaps "sticking with it" in hopes that it would eventually get better if they just stayed committed. I think you could look at the Corps commitment in both ways depending on individual experience. The other thing the Corps is loosely related to is the real "Corps" namely the U.S. Marines. The highly trained special mission force ready to fight the enemy at any time, through any hardship. The marines are total BA's and deserve much respect for their commitment and discipline. Arguably though, very few maintain this level of service and "readiness for war", if you will, for LIFE. I think the Way Corps could learn from this fact. Perhaps the Way Corps do serve a "tour of duty" after training 5 to 10 years - go anywhere, do anything, no questions asked. Stay highly mobile, debt free -all that. But after that, ease back a bit - settle in, raise a family, run a fellowship, have a secular carreer. In the marines (and the military in general) you also have those who make a carreer of it. There's your clergy to go back to the ministering example. Carreer ministers should be ordained and make it their life's work. The Way Corps is somewhere in between. Not ministers by profession, but also not fully engaged in secular life. In ecclesiastical terms this is sometimes called being a "bi-vocational" minister or pastor, and is common today in small non-denomenational churches. (Indeed there is some basis for this in the book of Acts.) It gives you the benefit of relating more to the congregation - you have a job and family and face the same challenges they do - but it also engenders the conflict of trying to do two fulltime jobs well. Serving two masters, if you will. Most people can't do it for the long term, they either go one way or the other. Then of course there's the angle of a levitical preisthood which draws from the Old Testament, or as referenced by Mark O'Mally earlier, the religious orders or casts we see in the Catholic church (and other religions as well). The Corps concept is not derivative of any one of these ideas entirely, and is thus in the view of some, vague and poorly defined. So to answer the question, "lifetime" is not necessarily a problem, nor is "commitment." But someone should take a hard look at what EXACTLY is being committed to and for HOW LONG.

Ohh, good one. How would you put it on your resume, TheHighWay? Spent 10-15 years working for the Way. Have to put it in some terms meaningful in business. Your point is just sarcastic and childish.

hopper, Comparison was with regard to lifetime commitments. Those are the only two I can think of.

A lot of debate over something that seems obvious. Many seem more preoccupied with defending their statements. Yes, the statement "lifetime of Christian service" was stated in the printed materials. But the extent of the commitment was grossly UNDERSTATED. Marriage is a lifetime commitment. For most of us it is not exactly what we expected, and if we are truely committed "I didn't know it was going to be like THIS" is not a valid excuse for breaking that commitment. That said, a good minister or marriage counselor will try and underscore the extent of the commitment and make sure both parties are as clear as possible what they are committing to for LIFE. If they aren't then don't marry them. I think the point here is that the LIFETIME commitment of the Corps is understated. There are already so few applicants. What if you coached them before hand and said, "Are you sure you want to do this?" "You will be expected to move roughly every 3 to 5, you will NEVER own your own home, you will remain loyal to the ministry no matter what. Are you SURE that's what you want to do?" To me that would be a more ethical approach, but you'd have even fewer people take the offer and it's hard to shrink beyond what it is now. In reality if the Corps program is to survive the whole concept needs some re-thinking and the length of commitment is a key area to evaluate.

Found the site. Arizona requires disclosure, that's the reason it was found there. See this.