Tzaia

It is NOT a religion. It is a Way of Life. (tongue firmly planted in cheek)

Clay - another angle to T-bone's point is that we had been taught to honor and even venerate like-mindedness to the place where it was nearly impossible to hear another opinion without checking it against the TWI take on that opinion. Only in the past few years have I been able to recognize that tendency and the amount of influence it had on my thoughts and beliefs. As you can see, it creates an unhealthy divisiveness. TWI counted on its followers unwillingness to consider any other opinion and used that to people's detriment. One other thing - it's all opinion. We won't know the "truth" until we die, and no one's been back to confirm any of it - not even Jesus.

If that were the case, then there wouldn't be all the schools of thought about the nature of salvation. In other words, what he said was merely an opinion. If the bible is the word of God and God is sovereign, then it would be reasonable to expect that he could and would ensure that his word is kept intact. This lack of intactness causes me to question what its level of authority should be in my life. The only way one can view the bible as being error-free even in the larger details is (IMO) to disengage from reality of what is written on the pages. I think if you practice disengaging from that reality long enough that eventually you stop reengaging. The other interesting thing about inerrancy is that only protestant sects expect a rational view of God and only literalists and fundamentalists believe in an inerrant bible that is somehow rational as well. The various branches of the Catholic church and earlier sects had no such conditions tied to their belief. As such, inerrancy and rationalism are a relatively recent occurrence0 and both add a level of difficulty to the belief process (imo). For example: salvation from the gospels: You can think you have it, but never do You can have it, but wish you didn't Someone who grabs it at the last minute is just as saved as one who never strayed (where's the justice in that?) according to Jesus, yet we are also told in a song that the greatest treasure remains for those who gladly choose him now, which is a direct contradiction from what Jesus taught. There are various sects that teach that salvation can be lost and others say it can never be lost. Others think its a continual process, while others think that it will never be available to some - that you were chosen or rejected before you were ever born. They're all reading from the same book. I think that if it were all that simple, there wouldn't be the plethora of opinions.

I see his point to a certain extent. For an organization that was so hung up (boy that dates me) on the word and nothing but the word, a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with the word crept in and was regarded like the gospel itself. Therein lies the irony. While there is a disdain for oral tradition, TWI is steeped in it and apparently doesn't recognize it for what it is. I know people didn't see that when I was a part. Back then, I took the "it is written" pretty seriously and determined what I would do based on "it is written" vs "what we say." There were times when it was harder to deflect the "what we say" things. However, it was not impossible if you didn't care what people thought and what people said and did in return. There were only a couple of times I became openly confrontational - like when I found out that corp was taught that the end justified the means (date and switch) when it came to tricking people into taking the class. Even though I was assured by R0b3rt B3lt that this was not "taught," there was no denying that individuals in the wc were doing "whatever it takes" to get people into the class and that had to come from somewhere higher up (as I pointed out to him). After that conversation, I pretty much stuck to 'it is written' and deflected the oral traditions that were attached. The person you are referring to doesn't (to the best of my knowledge) hang out with TWI people. He sticks strictly to what was actually written down and published. Except for the claim that the mother killed her child by worrying, most of what was put to paper is not overtly harmful (except that it makes its point at the expense of other religious traditions). It was the stuff that wasn't written down and wasn't available to the general public or even the lower-level followers (but treated like the word and kept in secret) that caused the problems, which again is ironic given the disdain for groups like the Masons.

Are you sure about the year?

Not regarding TWI, but then my time in wasn't as traumatic as some. I do agree with chockfull's comments about it being the mind's way of repairing and healing. I had someone who interjected themselves into my life 37 years after a very traumatic breakup - acting as though it were no big deal - and it probably wasn't to him. On the other hand my last therapist indicated to me that my initial response as a teenage was probably PTS. During this reacquainting time, my mind went a little nuts as I tried to sort out my emotions. My dreams were vivid and unsettling. I finally got to the point where I felt the best course for me was to confront him. It didn't go well. He was stunned that I would still be holding all of that against him, much less thinking an apology was appropriate - after all he'd moved on. I walked away thinking what a damaged human being he must be. The dreams went away and so did most of the obsessive aspect of my thoughts around the whole thing.

One of the things I got from PFAL was TWI's disdain of oral tradition - namely the Catholic church's traditions that had nothing to do with anything that was ever contained in the Bible - only to discover that there was a whole undercurrent of belief that was handed down (so to speak) verbally. One that I can think of was needs-based living and the formula used to determine needs. I'm sure there's a lot more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Clay - if you want to receive what you believe to receive that's fine, but don't you think that limits God a bit? How can you be sure that what you are believing for is really in your best interest? Perhaps you should believe for God's will to be done in your life no matter what you think that should look like. I do believe that you tend to attract what you think in your mind, but even if that's negative that's not always a bad thing - unlike what was taught in TWI. TWI's teaching on negative believing was incredibly manipulative. It was designed to allow them to make demands on people that robbed them of their time, money, and family relationships. The natural reaction to those demands when they overtake one's life is negative thoughts, which weren't tolerated all that well.

My main suggestion is to lose the way-speak. I gave 2 examples above your question. No normal person talks like that.

It truly was all about him...

If this is a "splinter" group - I'm lovin' it and not inclined to leave. ClayJay - It turns out that I was one of the "fortunate" ones. I caught glimpses of the life that the hard-core people were leading, and I knew it wasn't for me. My time in was not easy, but for different reasons than most talk about here. It took me a long time to disengage from the TWI mindset on certain things, mainly literalism, dispensationalism, and fundamentalism. Most of that has been within the past year and due to discussion about books people here were reading. I have been able to come to understand what the attraction was and why I held on to certain beliefs long after leaving through the sharing of experiences here. Having said that, I don't agree with pouncing on people who still hold to TWI concepts. It's too much like what happened when we were in. Even though this is an anti-TWI forum, we are all in different places, and we need to respect that - unlike how differences were treated in TWI. Having said that, the main reason for the "About the Way" forum is to give people a place to process their experience in a way that is helpful for them. If that's not necessary or desirable for you, then spend your time elsewhere. I think it's unproductive to tell someone else how they need to process their life experiences, but it is productive to share how you've dealt with issues that have come up in your experience.

Which is the basis of all conflict - the inability to see people as "we".

My comments are in blue. Quoted from the STF website - word for word. This New Testament, the Revised English Version® (REV®), is the version that we are developing. We call it the REV because we are presenting a revised version of earlier English versions, primarily the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), which we have used as the base text for our work, modifying it when we feel it is appropriate. I found that word "feel" to be a strange choice. The use of the word feel here is used to denote perception. I think the usage is absolutely true, but unintentional. We have worked to keep the REV as a literal translation whenever appropriate, like the ASV or King James. It is not a "dynamic equivalent translation," such as the NIV, although there are times when, to make good sense in English, we had to depart from a strictly literal translation. Our goal is to eventually have an "essentially literal" translation of the Bible that more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market, and also one that is written in today's English. Please look here for an explanation of the differences between dynamic equivalent and essentially literal. I was intrigued by the use of "whenever appropriate". My question would be how and who determines when a change in language is appropriate. That would be JWS - there is no "we" unless "we" includes DG. In any case, it's a closed method of determination. The goal is to have a Bible that "more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market". My question is: According to whose standard? That statement is beyond arrogant as it assumes that no one has gotten it right, but JWS is sure getting close. We think we can do that because we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly. Furthermore, one's theology always affects the way that person will translate the text. It is our assertion that there are theological issues that we understand more correctly than most translators, and thus our translation will reflect that theology. So where did STF get this level of understanding that it allows them to render the meanings of text correctly? How do they know they are correct about any of it? The honest answer is that they don't. The next bold/italics statement is the reason for the rewrite. STF is unable to get the text as currently written to agree with its theological basis - the reason why there is an STF. STF's assertion is that no organization on the face of the planet has ever gotten it right. JWS's initial assertion was the Bible was something you could believe - at least that's what he claimed in the foundational "class" he and his sister co-taught. Now that's not the case, at least not without some rewrites on his part. He's essentially changing the text to reflect his theology. Do I agree with his theology? It doesn't really matter. What I do not agree with is how he has gone about developing his theology. His first paper - the adultery and fornication paper - was written because he had no understanding of those concepts. He really didn't see, from just a reading of scripture, that this was a bad thing. So my impression is that he is essentially oppositional to "it is written" because he doesn't trust "the man" (so to speak). He is dismissive of people's input unless it comes from a trusted source, which is the problem. He is unable (IMO) to accurately discern who to trust. And he appears to take the screwball over the legitimate source every time. I think the people who would be interested in this rewrite of sacred text for the purpose of supporting someone's theology should ask if that's really a good thing, or is STF taking the route of every other organization who has had a problem with "it is written"?

I get the distinct impression they are not. Only MG's kids were actively involved and then it was only the 2 oldest. GS's (JWS's wife) daughter was at the one leadership conference I attended, but that was 5 years ago when she was in HS. Obviously DG's kids are not.

Billy - I just sense a heightened sense of drama that I think we can all do without. Maybe things will settle down now that JAL's gone - well he's not one to go quietly. Then there's JWS's quirkiness, which will undoubtedly become problematic. Do Dan and Jeff really think they're going to be able to pull this off?

Yet he was able to blithely ignore the behavior until it personally affected him.

JWS is a wonderful person as long as you serve a purpose. He was in complete agreement when it came to shutting his sister out, and HONESTLY felt she should understand. He discarded a 16 year friendship with me and never looked back. His idea of how women should function in marriage was pure dark ages. He may be legally in charge, but I sincerely doubt if he has any idea what goes on day-to-day, and he doesn't care - unless it causes him a problem. That's my experience. YMMV.

In theory. In practice, people are worth nothing.

Chapter and verse...

Charlene - this is a great article. I have read many of the same books (I'm well into the Karen Armstrong books) and have to agree that TWI and the offshoot that I was involved with were no more research oriented than any other denomination. The realization that I was as guilty of proof-texting in my approach to study as anyone was sobering.

Nice song. Usually when someone quotes something there's a feeling of personal relevancy.

Is this the same ministry that has several staffers with "No Fear" windshield appliqués? and am I missing something here as well?

I don't know what Billy is referring to, because I don't think Billy knows. He has no direct knowledge of TWI, so anything he thinks he knows is anecdotal at best. There are surface things that are very different. Worship is more Assemblies of God (IMO) in structure. It is charismatic more along those lines. The music is contemporary; hands are in the air; liturgical dance and banners. However the foundation is pure TWI logic. All you have to do is listen to the podcasts and read the Sower to see it.

E 91st is a great church, too. I (used to) know a lot of people there

It was esoteric. That was the pull for me.