socks

Free the T-shirts Roy! But I bet ol' Paw gave away more than he sold. GS may be one of the best examples of a freebie on the web I've seen. I like the ads and sometimes I've wished GS would put the bucket out for a donation once or twice a year just to pay the rent and allow participants the kind of pride of ownership that would permit some serious abuse. Just kidding, but it wouldn't be a bad idea, really. Course I haven't ponied up any dinero's on my own so yeah. You can see where that's going. I think I'd only put a ditto next to WW's post. You might run your book by someone like an editor someday, just someone else that might have some experience - I think I suggested that before. Not so much for the grammar or words (and everyone - EVERYone benefits from an editor's second pair of eyes) but more to possibly condense sections of it to single chapters. I've got a book thing I've been working on for 3 years and it's not easy, I'll say that, although the first draft rolled out pretty easily. Didn't make any sense but it came out quickly. It's just a suggestion not a criticism. If I remember right you go through a series of chapters that cover a lot about relationships, diet, and a lot of stuff and how those things affect who we are and how we think. DNA too right? It's insightful and might read easier if it were pulled together a little tighter. If it's important to you that you wrote it it might be good to do that. Using the posting/thread format is tough for some things, works fine for others. I've always had a hard time with it to be honest. I don't post on any net boards but when it comes to ex-Way boards named GreaseSpot Cafe this is the one I choose. It's in fits and starts. Till the next fits...

Yeah, I'm probably cheap in a lot of ways. I HATE that I can buy something and then be expected to toss out the perfectly good box, case or container it came in. It takes some thought, little changes in how I live. I avoid packaging and bagging when I can but there's a lot you can't. I recycle but that's an industry built on wasteful practices to begin with IMO. I do it though, get some semblance of sanity out of the insanity of modern consumptive practices of which I'm a part. Self - Loathing is my middle name. But I have tools I've owned for 40 years in my shop, pliers I bought in 1973 come to mind, shoes I've worn for 10 years, fishing gear that's been in the water all over the country. I like keeping stuff I can take care of. Deals is my name in dog years. Always looking for the scam that will out scam the scammers that scammed up the pricing structure. Less is more when it's what goes out of my bank account. The type of business the Way is will always creates a budgetary environment where some are getting paid, some are getting the benefits, and some (most) aren't. Getting any. If you work for them, you get a salary (or did at one time), you get certain benefits that go along with that, be they small or not. The income supports the effort that produces and maintains the products and services. The customer pays for them. The Way never met a class it didn't charge for. There's always a donation. The Way teaches that their product - the "Word" - is priceless so don't bitch about paying a few bucks for it, for "materials" and the delivery system. Since you can't ever really pay what the "Word" is worth the fees and charges are considered miniscule by comparison. And any effort you yourself put towards it is a privilege so shuuuudup, get to work. And the real money has always come from demanding tithes and other cash $ be given to them, a gang that would make the Mafia look like cub scouts, as they don't even guarantee protection for your per centage, push comes to shove there aren't many "good fellas" in their camp. Any reasonably thoughtful fool will see sooner or later that you either take that on face value and go with it or opt out. The Way offers no alternatives, so it is what it is. I know some people find a happy medium they're happy with, but from the Way's corporate stance they only function one way and that's the way they always have and if you don't like it, beat it. It really hasn't changed a lot. The fact that the Way has assets of - what? 16 million, more? it's sitting on and still functions the way they do indicates they have a plan they're acting on - they're a tiny teeny company, a small organization and have no aggressive vision to expand their base operations. They're in maintenance mode. As a result they will be "frugal" and what they do spend won't reflect a real interest in long term quality since the long term existence of the base operation can be kept with minimal spend. Sooner or later it will crap out though, it has to but I doubt anyone there really cares to plan ahead for that. At the Way foam core will always work where wood and brick might be preferable. Build cases for the foam core to protect it, but don't build anything that will actually stand up and last for years to come. The few exceptions - the auditorium for example, don't amount to much in the long run IMO. You could probably build twice the facility today for half of what it cost in $ and labor. Just a guess, never done the math but knowing what's being done today by other churches that would be my guesstimate, give or take. Cheap? Hell yeah they're cheap. They've probably still got a Benjamin or two of mine sitting somewhere being fondled by a bean counter, even still today, keeping it warm.

When the Ozster lifts this kid up during the solo, he doesn't blink an eye, worth the view alone. A double set of balls for this kid staying on a stage with a nut throwing buckets of water around too. <br> <br> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k1lG1y0R6sU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Something as serious as this may be the catalyst for him to go deep. Rather than seem like a callow cur I do agree with Kit, it's got to be tough to be Roberts Jr. He was raised in an extremely difficult world and money was involved. His Dad is one of the big promoters of the "seed faith" movement. I've all but taken O Roberts off my radar but he was certainly part of a huge movement in American religion that scraped dollars out of people's pockets, teaching the blessings of God that flow back to the giver of a gift. Like money. Jr. was raised on that. These family ministries become little empires, cash cows for the founders and often, unlike in the Way, for their families. They begin to see all of the resources of their church as their own and for their own use and have no problem livin' the life on God's people's dollar. I do pray for anyone who commits a crime like this because it's a serious offense to themselves as well as all those around them. On that level it has nothing to do with him being a minister or any of that, once you get tied up in the law like this you have many years of repercussions that affect you. If you don't clean your act up it will haunt you for years and if there's a next time it can be worse. Much worse. Course a lot of celebrities get off and go their own way with a slap on the hand but if you keep coming back it's gonna get you. Most of all I hope that he gets it together, a good start would be junking all of that theology his Dad wrapped around the giving of money and the buying and selling of God's gifts. But bottom line, anyone who chooses to kill themselves be it a drink at a time or like Robert's other son with a bullet - do it away from the rest of the world and don't put others at risk. But it's a sad waste of good life and a lesson for all, bad way to learn it but a lesson.

Well yah, no wonder these guys drink. Somebody's great grandfather somewhere had five too many and came up with the perfect name to ruin your life. Aural - that would be okay I guess. Either way - don't drink and drive. Drink and throw up on your own carpet, please but not at 93 mph.

Good point WW. :) That old promo film had Walter Cummins, "college student". Little known fact : In 1972/73, there were no trailers in the back of the property, those were added to house the incoming 4th corps. Now the little known part - In '73 all the incoming comers for the 4th Corps got letters from Howard Allen letting them know that they would need to Bring their own trailers. I know - I got a letter and we got in touch with another couple doing pricing, etc. and trying to figure out what we'd need to have, to do, to know. About a month later we got another letter saying the housing would be set up. In the interim I called Howard and also spoke to Gene Randall there and gathered the spec's on what we'd need to do - like would there be pads (concrete), or was a 5th wheel preferable (and it wasn't clear but the 5th wheel set up was looking like the best route as I recall). I'd worked for a couple months in a mobile home factory, doing wiring, so I actually had some resources for information. And yes, I was thinking that if it wasn't going to be ready we'd just wait a year or till whenever it was. Wierwille was always in a hurry. Emporia, same thing. The original set of trailers were left on flat bed through the first winter with temporary wiring for heat and lights, and no water. Showers etc were in the EOB as it was called then. Early spring they started the installs. It was an adventure at the time, but the pattern of the Way Nash at that time was that it was often short on money, then as time went on and money came in it was a matter of how to spend it.

People - anyone, all humans - need to not drink and then drive a car while intoxicated. I probably drink less in a year as some you do in a week, but I carry a little digital "breath a lyzer" gadget in my glove box, so that anytime I am out and have more than one drink I can test myself. Drinking and driving is just stupid. Preacher's are not immune to that. He was cited for driving 93 mph in a 65 mph zone Intoxicated. Throwing stones? I'd have used a big one to at least get him off the road. Geez, I don't care if he's a Mormon Scientologist Christian Scientist Pope - get that mother off the road. Dammed right he needs help. He'll have lots of it if he gets into the DUI program in his state and they won't be crying in their coffee about how hard it must be for a PK. Once you get in the belly of the beast you have plenty of time to think about it. Follow the Path of Ham - drink too much? Walk. Or call a cab or a friend. Or just fall over in the gutter. Stay out of your car. Having said that - IMO DUI law is way out of whack in the U.S. - in California it varies from county to county and isn't equitable or reasonable. I completely agree that DUI is dangerous activity. I don't agree with the laws or law enforcement on how it's managed. It's widely understood that if you have between 20 and 50 k you can get any marginal toxicity test in a first time DUI tossed out of court. For the same amount you can get the penalties minimized - if you have the money. If you don't, you're screwed. I have a feeling he'll be handled with respect.

Really good question, methinks. I picked up a book years ago by George Mackie, a missionary in the middle East. Saw it in a Border's and picked it up, it deals with "Bible Manners and Customs". In it is a part where he gave his perspectives on differences he observed in middle Eastern religious thought and Western religious thought - think he was in Syria, I've got the book around somewhere - and he put it in this way: western thought sees a God who is good and He does good things, eastern thought sees good and says God has done it. The difference is subtle and has taken me a while to digest it, still am really. I found the book when I was doing some reading after a series of events that had formed that perspective in my mind and I found it to be a real change in how I thought about what I "knew" in the bible. Somewhat intangible at first and a little hard to nail down. When I read through Mackie's book and saw that it helped. Where I went with it is not exactly what Mackie was saying but he did note that both kinds of thought could benefit from the other's perspective, in his opinion. I don't verse it as "idiom of permission" but I kind of see a relationship there....that the ongoing affairs of this life, this world, our world and lives, aren't governed so concretely by "laws" and "principles" that everything happens as a direct result of something that I do or don't do that is either aligned with or against those laws and principles. Put another way I am not the sole cause of good or evil that happens in my life nor is God the active agent in each and every instance. Rather, from my perspective, I would give "God the glory", the credit as it were, for everything that is good as best I I understand it and see it. I credit God as the creator and see Him in everything. From that view God doesn't cause catastrophic events to occur, directly. The world is man's domain and the world works as it does. If there is good in the world at all, God is the source but God does not personally cause each and every good thing to happen, nor every bad thing to happen. God "allows" both good and bad to happen. (Rain falls on just and unjust, the sun rises and sets for everyone, etc. ) It is a slightly different way to view how God "works". I see it as a way of thinking that informs many different kinds of religious and philosophical thought. For what it's worth, I've never quite gotten Bullinger's dispensational view of the Bible and this kind of thought, "idiom of permission" although he explains it. It's a little too hmm, cut and dried, "mechanical", although I see the curves of change in the bible's history. Not sure if this contributes, I'd have to dig out some more stuff to document it but for what it's worth....:)

I'll take up that cross with you Jerry. "Yet how many times did Way leaders do "word studies" that track the use of a single Greek word through the New Testament based on the assumption that the use of that word was a string of divine pearls?" Yes, the "word study" - god, don't get me started. Armed with concordance and Bible, the damage that can be done. In it's simplest form this is a wonderful study aid to the reading of the Bible. But that weird obtuse Way-kind of logic, that after some foray through the N.T. looking at the "greek word for" something, plodding through verse after verse and then coming to some quacked conclusion that made no difference to anyone about anything remotely worthwhile but inevitably tied into some great "principle" or.....geez. Yeah. Hamerstein, what think ye of this: http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/mathrev/mr-sigfg.html It's not mine but as a launching point for discussion.... I roam the world of metrics from time to time and the ideas around "accuracy" and "precision" have taken on specific meanings to me. How would you define them, from a math perspective?

There we go with the debate again. I appreciate your post Roy, thanks. Anytime you, Loftus or anyone else actually wants to discuss anything related to or in that article, go for it. So for, not much of that's going on here. You're right about one thing - no one that Loftus is talking about is going to hear him out with that funky attitude he's got, he's trying to make people look foolish, and no one likes that. Tell you what - you get Loftus to clean his act up a little and I'll meet you both half way. Otherwise, you're not going to like what I have to say about him or his ideas. I've been kind so far. I can let it go at that. Till then, my friend.

"We don't live in a vacuum and some of us are familiar with at least one of the men whose student he claims to have been. Dr. William Lane Craig is pretty well known in Christian circles....he is an avid debater and prolific author. Dr. Craig is very up front about his education and journey, so some of us are even familiar with that aspect of the equation and when Loftus alludes to the nameless, faceless Profs he has dealt with, my mind jumps to Dr. William Lane Craig" Really, a good point. The article says that one with faith uses everything but reason and logic to define and defend their beliefs and faith. "Believers" deny, avoid, use "special pleadings" and have all sorts of personal motivations and weaknesses driving them, per JL. Atheists such as JL - none of that. According to JL, it's all reason, logic, facts just the facts, blue sky all the way. It's a case made that conveniently drops any personal motivations from one side and loads the other side up to sky with them. How convenient. I suspect that JL has turned to demeaning the opposing side simply because he's come to an irreconcilable difference in belief, in personal life, professionally, perhaps in all. Now he demeans the other side and attempts to reduce it to lesser force, marginalizing it's validity and thereby moving it off the table. But for JL I think it's clear he's not going to the next course, he's going to keep picking at that plate - and likely for both personal and professional reasons. The ideas and issues are not served by that kind of approach, from either side. One could say that "most former graduates of theological institutions are conflicted and unreasonable". That wouldn't be true though. It would conveniently disparage them however and reduce their value towards any discussion. Much as he does in his article to those "believers" he talks about.

This horse is still moving, let me fix that. (and thanks. But I will openly admit I'm not Christ Like, so we can breathe easy, I make no claims on that count and never will.) As to the writing skills of Loftus - I think he wrote rather well, and put down what he meant clearly and succinctly. I had no trouble understanding what he said and based on his other books and writings I think I got a clear idea of what he meant in this. So, as a writer, he did fine at least by me. I got his points. He wears his credentials rather large, I've seen. I don't. I actually don't have any to flaunt so it's easy but I won't blather on about the number of books, lectures, hours spent, days pondering or years working. Everyone does what they do. When the rubber hits the road we all fall out of bed pretty much the same way. That he screws around with some of the material he uses deserves to be challenged. His use of Socrates for instance - now anyone who wants to challenge my version is welcome to and it is challengeable - but I don't agree with Loftus's interepretation - that the more one knows the more one should doubt. I don't see that the socratic method is directly a use of doubt but I suppose I could be squeezing it a little or a lot........to question yes that's different than doubt though. Learning would require ongoing analysis IMO, yes and the effect of even mastering a field to one's own best ability invokes the understanding that there is still yet more to learn if one is to progress. But to doubt as a result of what one knows through learnng - in the way that I think Loftus uses it here - is simply wrong and more of an extrapolation on his conclusions, that faith is wrong and that one should doubt their faith. (and I don't believe that issues of spiritual faith are best served by external analysis as I alluded to, a subjective internal method is required and more authentic for the components of mind and thought. ) But faith as a quality of human life is normal for all humans. The fact that a "Socrates" is quoted leaves lots of room to quote a Jesus for that matter - since it's not known if a man Socrates ever actually existed. So in that way I still find it very ironic that anyone would invoke "Socratic" ideas in that way, I don't. I did at one time but my general investigation of philosophy has caused me to steer away from that. LIkewise - and this is just me - I don't always quote Jesus directly because I believe at this point that many of the basic ideas - but not all - of what Jesus is written to have said are things that can be drawn from many sources including the Torah - that's not rocket science IMO. However the "living logos" idea is very defining to Jesus Christ and provides a context to the words of the gospels that gives them meaning. Loftus has the same problem a lot of us do - he's so sure of himself or wants to be that he uses the word "most" in this piece - "most" Believers don't seriously question their faith..... You can't do that. You can, I do, he does obviously but it clouds any discussion to generalize in that way. As soon as I jump to "most" I have to validate that and the points he makes won't fully validate that way IMO. Plus any time you tell someone "you're just like everyone else" - they're likely to say no they're not. Because they're not.

Hmmmm... Did I call Lofton's writing "nonsense".............? No. Did I make fun of his writing skills? ......................... No. I originally stated that in what he had in what you posted, a "crappy attitude". I expanded on that later to include "sucky" and a couple other words. I still think so, stand by that and have no reason to change my mind. I think- His attitude towards those of "faith".......... Is crappy. Sucks. I don't like it and won't tolerate it from others or on behalf of others. I definitely won't go through this charade again but as for Lofton, he's no different than anyone else, IMO. And his frame of mind, attitude - sucks, IMO. And actually exemplifies the very things you are talking about - but for whatever reasons you don't see it. That's fine,I just want to point that out - that from my perspective you don't allow in others what you allow in him. I'm sorry people make fun of your writing skills Roy. I know you try and none of us do more than that. However - I am not making fun of his writing skills, this has nothing - nothing - not a single thing - nothing Nothing to do with his writing sklls and the skills he uses to write his ideas out. He is in fact competent in his writing skills, IMO, and does a fine job getting across what he means. It's what he means, the meaning of his words, that doesn't wash with me. I didn't make fun of Loftons' writing skills, I did disgree with him, take his ideas in that post to task and offer a point by point set of thoughts on what he did write. And for the record, it doesn't matter to me what you say to me about anything, agree with me, disagree, or whatever you want to do. I expect you to be honest and straightforward, no more, no less. A lot of people won't even do that, so in my world, if you do that you're a leg up on a lot of people. :)

All without exception? Sorry, some things will never pass. Some things go on and on and on and on and, well, on. Of this I'm sure.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OXwFmPwOkOY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The sound of a Snickers bar wrapper blowing down an empty street at 4:00 a.m. in the morning..............

Aaah! A bumper sticker?

Bumped because everyone looked much younger 7 years ago.

Glad to hear that Roy. Since no one's called Loftus any names as yet, we're in good shape. But aren't you violating your own rule? : saying nothing is the best defense

Good point. I think I often expect things to deliver more than their capacity. Jesus and the 12 - a small number, worked well, but the critical component was Christ, less the relative size of the group. (although 12 had significance) I would have to assume from the gospels and Acts that there was the anticipation of large numbers coming. They're ability to perform was human, and human activities have flaws, they develop, go in fits and starts. Jesus made it clear, they will know us by "our love", not by our corporate perfections, org charts and snappy robes. Grace, forgiveness and enough love to stick together, with the message of Christ front and center, makes for a good start for all sizes.

"The relationship between faith, reason and evidence..." Evidence based faith...."what grounds do I have for that faith".... Interesting video, there's a great deal of common ground we tread there. This states well that the core lesson of life is to learn to build the capacity for faith. "Some faith can be blind....and blind faith can be very dangerous". The quote from John would be well placed at the start of that book, to set context. I also noted the statement about a "delusion about history" within atheism", today. The tendency towards generalization in regards to the specific tenets of different religions of different ages, people, cultures, is sophomoric but widely accepted, as if the roar of the dissent is more appealing to the quiet discourse of thoughtful conversation. Noise over sound, both audible and both can drown out thought. This article is brief but interesting - http://www.uncommond...laws-of-nature/ I'm not a scientist, mathematician, or theologian. I see Lennox's logic, that the compelling argument for why things are the way they are being the universe "just is" or "because that's the way they are" is insufficient, less a reason and more a description of the result. Of what, I ask? If nothing, so be it. But if it were of nothing then where does that place me? I'm fine with being the current iteration of anything, but not of nothing, that doesn't quite make sense. There's an essential kernel there that's required whether I like it or need it or not, in my view. No one measures the distance traveled of something that had no start. That the one who measures doesn't care what was before the "0" in his graph doesn't mean there was nothing and without it there would be no 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. If it were me I might be able to say "that's not my area of interest" but I would not be able to say that there was nothing there. I can see an atheism that would say "I don't want to concern myself with that area". I can't see an atheism that would say "there cannot be an area there to concern myself with". That seems hmmm, wrong, on face value. Thanks for the link!

Yes, indeed geisha. It's a good book, I'm enjoying it. Oh to be a man of no faith! Free from the treachery of the well that promises water but in whom lurks deceit for there can be no water but the water that resides in my belly! The foolish lower their bucket only to be disappointed time and again, let sand be their drink! Yes, to be free from the untenable promise of "tomorrow" for tomorrow never comes! Only now, this moment! A past that haunts like the ghost of those who never really were and a future that rolls like the fog, beautiful from the hillside but cold and without body when it arrives. Now, only now! and this! That which is and nothing else! Therein lies the sublime pleasure of Reality, relieved from the yoke of faith. Free! Free! Free at last! Follow? Yes, faith no more, Christianity specifically is about following. "To follow is to choose" is how I might put that. Following starts with a choice and continues that way. To disconnect the processes that produce the choice to follow would become counter productive. Then, a member of a flock wouldn't be following, they'd be - dunno, maybe getting pushed along in the press perhaps or falling out of bed one day and forgetting to get back in later, which happens too I guess. While I wouldn't think to add to the canon of scripture I might footnote what seems to be obvious in the admonitions of Jesus, the phrase "Follow Me, and bring your mind and brain, you're going to need both". Indeed, without either the choice to follow would not be possible. In fact the use of history, quotation, parable, metaphor, question-and-answer by Jesus all indicate an interest in inciting thought and reason to serve this seemingly foulest of things, "faith". We lose something if we redefine "follow' to exclude thought and choice....think about it - to follow is to travel and to travel is to reach a destination. Sight seeing tours do abound (keep an eye on your luggage!) but in life's journeys we aim to arrive somewhere, if that be only to the end. We don't want to lose that part of following, be it alone or in a group. Jesus describes Himself as "the way" - there is a destination. Ultimately though, to be as "children" and accepting those little ones as we might ourselves want to be accepted...... "Talitha cumi"....! There is also a very fundamental benefit to being part of a group. Try eating only what you grow or pick or gather or catch. Reading only what you write. Seeing only what you place in front of yourself. Sleeping only under the stars on the bed you make. It may be one of the most basic realities, that we are all each of us, only one, in and of ourselves and in that way we are alone, like it or not. So the urge to gather, to share, to "become as one" is not all that strange, and perhaps one of the most natural inclinations we have. True, normal, essential to survival. "Survival of the fittest"....? Can an independent thinker survive in a group? I would contend such a one can and will and to the extent each one is will be the extent to which that one flourishes, to the benefit of all.

organizational/practical leadership skill sets of r#@hard/don wierwille/art pol!ng who dealt with project and educational management. Yes, that's an interesting point. Later in the 80's smaller minds got a hold of the PM discipline and processes and the way it came out of the Way Nash was just useless. I didn't know that much about it then but when something works and helps, it works and helps. It did neither in the Way's rendition, it just mucked things up more. Clearly recall the big move to get more "professional" then and how field staffers needed to be more manager oriented, as if that was a stroke of spiritual genius. The Way had grown, yes. "Management" issues involved morality, ethics and application, depth in counseling and pastoring and evangelism. What generated from the Way was, in a word, lame but it seemed to make field positions seem more professionally oriented, like career jobs for the committed dimwit or something. It was as if the Way looked at it's people and decided they didn't have enough of the right kind of people, they wanted more education, more professional experience, most connections, more $. All those kids, those reformed hippies. If you'd gotten involved as a youth it quickly became a cold fish smack in the face, seeing the politics at work. Had the Way invested professionally in the people that came on board in a logical methodical way, offering choices, considering options and growing internal resources using the 'home grown' model - all the bluster and fire might have served it well. Instead it seemed to be moving into a Next Phase, winnowing out those it didn't consider useful or didn't want to deal with. It looks like this is burned in the consciousness of some off shotted groups I read about. The old timers have been raised on cut-and-run, they know how to kick people out, they saw it, may have been themselves. It's easy to blow something out and start over. It's not nearly as easy to work things out amongst a group of peers and work towards a common goal when you don't get everything your way or don't have your own little niche in which to reign. . Accreditation - I don't know what requirements were then but I'm sure the issue was funding and transparency. A Library was mentioned, forget if it was NK or RC, needing a library. Buuuuut, I doubt that was the issue, now. One of but not the biggie. VPW carried all the major books he'd used in the Way Bookstore so that really wasn't the big secret it seems now - if you bought the books and read them you saw what came from where. VPW benefitted from both trust and transparency. Like with Bullinger, I'd cracked those appendixes soon after getting the big hard cover version, still have it. Once I understood what he'd used I just moved on, it was referenced in PFAL. Same with Kenyon and others. I didn't take issue with his lack of footnoting and specifically id'ing areas he'd lifted and copied. Today I do, because of what it indicates - a research ministry that advocates deep study of the bible to learn it's historically accurate meaning and relies on the work of others - that won't credit and document for future use all of it's sources using a repeatable method and recognizing commonly accepted standards in the publishing world. That doesn't work, long term, if you want to be taken seriously, it's fine I guess if it's basically "vanity" publishing of your own stuff to a small audience. No less right but for family and friends it'll wash I guess. VPW didn't want the state and fed's getting into his world. For whatever reasons he had, can't blame him for that. But the Way originally indicated as far back as 1969 they were actively seeking accreditation, and probably earlier I'm sure. In those short years after a lot of people got involved, and then they came up with the RC solution, and then they didn't even really set up the processes to fully support that, it was treated as more of an add-on, so-what, don't come for that. Even today old timers hoot about that not being important or how they just "wanted the Word". Fine, but it was important, still is and The Way could have had the opportunity to build something that would last. $ was around and spent. If someone had said, well we can lock down our accreditation stuff this year and get it in place or we can get these two motor coaches - I'd have voted for the accreditation. I think others would have too. Interesting discussion and turns of thought Sky. So long ago. I have to dust off most of this to respond so I don't know how much sense it makes, probably not a lot.

Yeh, it was '79 -80. The coming and going between campuses was just out of whack sky, agree completely. It was kind of bizarre really. There was an emphasis on duplicating what had happened at Way in New Knoxville in Kansas and Indiana locations, the "heart" of it, etc. This was a basic life lesson for me. Took awhile - you know, you can hammer a nail and bend it and then keep whacking at it, re bending it back and hammering away at it but after a few tries when you see it won't go in, you....just keep trying different methods of getting that nail to go in? Or pull it, grab another and keep going....? If I were looking at being a "learning organization" with best practices in place but always looking to improve if better comes along - as the Way stated about itself - then the gap there was painfully clear - what was being learned about how to be better and what of that was being used? Not a whole hell of a lot. I knew the Way was a home grown thing going in, that was obvious. Being a part of the build was what a lot of people wanted to do. But it wasn't "our" build, it was VPW's. ("god's" by any other name). His dog, his pony, his show. All the rattle about being "on" God's Word and protecting the "mystery" in what was being done ended up producing distrust and failure, instead of success. Something ain't right about that. It's not that hard. He, we, made it out to be so difficult. It's not but it does require time, commitment and willingness to learn as one goes. VPW didn't really want to learn - that's not a guess, it's based on the facts. His never ending contention that he just couldn't get "people to listen" was whine with extra cheese. There were plenty of people listening. Saying something's true whether it comes to pass or not is a very clear concept and removes the measure of success from a result to the effort. That's....okay, but there's a lot more to that and if one goes that route they will have to be vary clear on what they're doing and why..

Can he get an amen! <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CnJKcnHGv2U?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>