socks

In checking on this thread just now I noticed at the bottom of the GS session window THIS LINK. I filled out the form. I put in the email form box "YoureAnIdiot" as the name and the email addie as "controlthis@jedimindtrick.com" and got to a couple pages and finally THIS PAGE where I can get the whole package of crap for the reduced price of 47.00. And the best part is the recording that loads is someone whose voice would make a parrot cringe. Anyhoo. It's good to see GS is enforcing the topic.

Sequestering ourselves out of and away from"the world" isn't what Paul did there, that's for sure. He in fact entered a more open environment than would have been in the synagogue because the synagogue would have had a different purpose as a center for religious life and worship. That's dfferent than the hall of Tyrannus. Sequestering ourselves out and away from the world isn't a bad thing though simply because that's not what Paul did in Tyrannus. To some degree he had better control over his efforts there, and that allowed him and the group better focus without interference. Paul himself did in fact step out of the Jewish world of the Sanhedrin after his "conversion", for approximately 13 to 15 years his exact activities aren't fully known. But by the time we see him in Jersualem and heading out he'd had time to get a lot of work done. Not to argue but I don't see Greasespot as the same thing as the hall of Tyrannus, although there are probably some similarities. Paul's purpose in going there was to escape the negative malignments of the Jewish community he was involved with and eliminate outside interference so they could concentrate on what they wanted to do which was - well, it's safe to assume it dealt with a Christ focused study and discourse on the Mosaic Law, the new birth in Christ, etc. etc. and whatever other material and topics they wanted to work with. Other things went on too, it wasn't just discussion and debate, there was outreach, inspired learning no doubt, healing and personal pastoring of people's needs, etc. The purpose of GS is tell the "other side" of the story about a specific group and it's members - the Way. That's not the same thing, IMO. Some of the same things happen, at times and participants here get a lot out of the interaction and sharing. If I want to have an open and diversely populated discussion on a doctrinal issue though I don't want to have it informed by what the Way taught or it's influences in steering the discussion. All roads can't lead back to what the Way did or taught as right or wrong, etc. as validating the dicussion. But that sort of open discussion does happen here to some degree, at times, yes.

I don't see Acts as a blueprint. I see it as a record of what happened. But I could see it as providing some direction and perspective. From that we could draw any number of blueprints usable in a place and time. :) "Stayed put" is a reasonable outcome of the efforts of the guys and gals in Jerusalem. Some people would determine to "go", be involved in "outreach" efforts as they were inspired to do so. The vast majority of people would stay right where they were and form the church communities we see forming, Corinth, Ephesus, etc. etc. The passion to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ would reach out to the individual first and then out from them as a natural result. That's what seemed to be in high profile in Acts. I don't see that they do or they don't. For a time, many possibilities could be appropriate or even just worth trying if that's what someone wanted to do. As a final, one-way only modus operandi, no. Right for everyone regardless - no. It's clearly not an exact replication of anything we see in the New Testament so to promote is as such would be wrong. Tyrannus and what Paul and the people did there is an interesting effort and time to examine. Low-cost, low-overhead, a regular daily concentrated effort amongst a group of interested people. From out of that the entire province heard the gospel, so it's reasonable to assume there was some coming and going over the two year span of time. I agree it was based locally, a community effort rooted in a location and people. They "reasoned", disputed. Something like the Way Corps would be similar but not the same. There's no indication that people quit something, left what they were doing and signed on to a program for a period of time to a selective program of study or work. For some that may have been the case, it would be hard to say. They did leave one environment that wasn't conducive to continued focused endeavor and set up in another that was, we know that. The "hall" of Tyrannus seems to have been a lecture hall for open discussion and rhetorical debate in the city of Ephesus. Paul in fact left the synagogue, a closed environment that was resistant to what he was doing and took his work into the public eyes and minds of the world at that time. So, there are definite contrasts to that and the Farm in New Knoxville. He started with a "core" group of people that wanted to pursue their work, together. In a way though he left one group of adamantly opposed people and opened the doors to another, but one that wouldn't oppose his teaching on a strict religious foundation. But it wasn't done behind a curtain or behind closed doors, it was in the open for the world to see, hear, listen, discuss and judge for themselves. It's basic, common sense. If you're not making any headway in one place, try another. In that way God's inspiration to Paul might have been more to overcome his personal inclination to go to the Jews first and foremost and fully embrace the world as his field to work in.

I'm confoosed. The myspace page it sends you to is a comparison between The Way Nash and CFF, and it reads to me like CFF is favored. :blink: Is this some sort of thinly veiled sham of a slam to lure unwary Wayfers? Me no know. But it doesn't make sense. Or...does it....?

Thank sky. Ditto. By traditional I mean financially. Most ministers take the job of heading, leading, pastoring a church and are paid to do it. They're supported by the church, and by the gifts of others. Taking away the characteristics of the job performed, they're similar IMO. I'm not talking about the quality of the performance or whether it's right or wrong to do that, rather that the job of ministry is a salaried position. Right or wrong would be more of an individual issue I think. VPW did what he did on his own for awhile, but he quickly approached it as a supported enterprise, using a business model that included capitalization by family funding and gifts. Long term it was paid for by others. YET- we see that the "outreach" of the Way was planned and executed by a self-financed program, "WOW Amabassadors", where in fact each person went on their own dime and did what they did at their own expense. Interesting dynamic going on there and it ran on it's own steam with a little push and shove here and there for a long time. The contrast between that and what the early discipiles did isn't black and white but those first people appeared to band together and share as a community There's very little information that implies they all went on salary and were paid to do what they did, in Jerusalme or elsewhere. Supporters of the traditional financial church ministry system that go to the bible point to Paul and some of the statements about workers being worthy, etc. Thats fine but it only paints part of the picture. The rest of it is that Paul (and others then) supported themselves and did what they did because they wanted to do it, paid or not. Another common implication, The Way fronted this, is that they worked that way "until" the churches could support them as if to say that end was the normal and correct end. I disagree. For the early church the end result was two-fold, spread the gospel of Christ and continue living as a community around that gospel. To me Acts and the epistles are a snapshot of what happened and don't always give a pattern for exactly what to do, forever, no matter who you are, where or when. It's a specific group of people in a time and place, and through those records we can see, start to anyway, how God and Christ work. It doesn't establish final definitive patterns we can look to today and faultlessly compare then with now and draw conclusions about events and patterns today. Some yes. We get information, wisdom from the past and what was learned and taught. But following the records slavishly without thought and prayer will produce a copy of what (we think) happened then and not what might be possible to happen now. To that end, I think the "traditional" view of financially, tax-exempted, board oriented and tithe supported ministry work is a crippled model. If we can only do what we do when others pay and there's a tax write off - we're screwed before we start. Metphorically speaking. That's my take anyway.

Agreed. I doubt the profile of "Paul" we see in the epistles would recognize The Way as Christianity, to be completely honest. Even if there are doctrinal points and characteristics that are based on the same thing, the epistles don't deal with the same issues the same way. F'rinstance Paul made it clear that the social caste system the Corinthian church was putting into play was way off base. He openly debated and argued the case for Christ with any and all comers and beliefs. He personally travelled, lived and supported himself while teaching and preaching in order to witness Christ and pursued his life's passion at his own expense, with or without the support of his peers, family or anyone else. VPW lived a traditional minister's life, teaching and holding services and collecting money to support himself and fund what he wanted to do, relied on family, surrounding himself with a group of people that even he didn't want to be around the last days of his life. There are significant differences. Imagine the reaction of someone like Paul finding out that his letters had been purloined and rewritten into a "new reissued" teaching and sold for money. I'm not totally critical of "all things Way and VPW" but for my own part, it was what it was. Lipstick on the pig won't make it prettier. It doesn't mean I hate it or despise it. Nothing in this life is perfect and failure is common. There were successes however. There always are.

Well sky, adminstering the affairs of the new church took form pretty quickly, we know that. It was a work in progress that was "dynamic", it had the energy of the message of the risen Christ that was fresh and being delivered by first hand witnesses and their close friends and family. The receiving of pneuma hagion, and the immediate proliferation of the events of Pentecost by people from all over the geographical area who were there. Acts records a series of miracles and extraordinary events all occuring within a few years. Things were hoppin'. Years and years of study pretty much yield x amount of information. I think there's a lot we don't know about the years in Acts, but a lot we do and can. In the end it's not another door and then another, there's a level of understanding that's fairly plain I think. I don't completely subscribe to the view that the disciples in Acts were hunkered down, uninterested in spreading the message of Jesus Christ and serving only themselves. Chapters 2 - 6 indicate a group that was growing and learning together. By the time chapter 6 hits, the issue is largely one of growth and size and the need to expand the leadership and service group to accomodate the church, which both the people and the leaders recognized, embraced and resolved. And it's telling that the solution wasn't one of the existing leaders macro-managing that effort, rather they recommended that the church itself seek and select trusted qualified people to handle the expanding needs. Also telling - after Paul's "conversion" later when he's in Jerusalem, it's the current group that selects Barnabas to go out and Pauls goes with him. Paul later goes again and goes with the blessing of the church in Jerusalem. Its in those travels that the churches are visited, taught and of course we see Paul reaching out to the non-Jewish peoples. I can see it as an extremely diverse and eclectic mix in Jerusalem. Pharisees, Saducees - both were sects with a social, political origin. Rome governed. Groups like the Essenes were already established. The Christian message was spread throughout all of these people, and more. James is clearly the "leader" at that time, his voice and authority seems to be assumed in the way it's recorded, no one questions him as it's written and he joins their minds and message into a statement at that Council in 15. He appears to be somewhere in the middle of this mix of Jewish tradition and Christian faith in accomodation yet understands what Peter, Paul, Barnabas and others give witness to. And he clearly supports the outreach of Christianity as it's born by Paul and others. Yet he urges Paul to give appearance to be respectful of the Jewish law and to not create dissension. Plus, there's people we see pop up that have no other record - Agabus is one. Acts give us a view into the events of that time in a way that paints a very diverse picture of the "church". I don't see it as settled as I did at one time. Centralization over simplifies what was going on I think. It appears the churches Paul established were free to develop and work independently without coercion from Jerusalem, with the kind of pastoral support Paul and others brought. When we finally see Paul saying he's "alone" it's a statement of fact, due to his "house arrest" status, although he still had a fair amount of freedom much of the time it seems. There was division over doctrine - lots of them. On the money standpoint I think it was still segmented and self-governing across the churches for the most part. Acts itself doesn't paint a picture or give details that indicate the church in Jerusalem was centralized and demanding authority over the new church's money or doctrine. If they had, they wouldn't have let Paul do what he did or support it nor recognzied at least officially that the new churches were free of the Mosaic Law. If they had wanted to maintain control the Law and Jewish birth right would have locked that down for them. They held the core of people who were with Jesus, lived and learned first hand from Him and were present in Acts 2. It stands to reason that they would have held a strong leadership role. For better or worse.

GeorgeStGeorge - I hope it makes sense. I've studied Acts in light of "Church Administration" for years and years and at some point it hit me - oh yeah. That first determination was more than an internal peace-gesture between the old and new guard amongst the leaders. It was a pointed and clearly articulated statement as to what it meant to be "God's people". Teaching tithing today flies in the face of it. I could say they were wrong, amend the decision, ignore it, disobey it, but as a matter of church history it stands as one of the first "official" determinations they made as to who and what they were, and how they would conduct their faith moving forward. Here we are. sky - I agree. In that regard The Way Nash is, or was, a bloated frog serving itself. And I think that's why, at least one reason, why so much of the doctrine that men like Paul and Barnabas taught is misunderstood, lost and/or ignored. From that comfy throne of theirs verses like "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me" is filtered and the meaning lost. Segmented, sliced and diced to mean nothing more than being able to rub a sore brain cell. The context of passionate disciplined service at one's own expense is lost in lieu of a "key" to get more of what they want and already have enough of. It's like having a 10 pound hammer and a bag of nails but nothing to build worth keeping. Ulitmately Christianity is more than a well ordered set of beliefs, rituals and timely observances to be taught and handed down generation to generation. It has that to it, we're humans and we like our branded t-shirts, hats and tatoos. We're born and we need to know. We forget, we need to remember, be reminded. But the Jews already had a bang-up version of that going in.

skyrider, a point worth remembering about the whole teaching of the tithe in Christianity is that it along with all of the specific observances in the Law of Moses were discussed in Acts, in chapter 15. Those in the church that had been Jewish were learning that the law itself was no longer a requirement for the new church of Christ. Some, 15 mentions a sect of the Pharisees, apparently still held to it and were insisting that the new Gentile Christians take on the Jewish observances of the law (which they themselves must have been holding to still). The decision of that council was to not impose ciccumcision or observation of the law upon the Gentiles. Some basic "rules" were outlined for them to keep to but they were surely things that had already come up in what they'd learned from the disciples. The discussion as recorded by Luke is clear and implies a wide range of discussion took place. It was articulated as an "official" determination by James and the group and communicated by letter and people to deliver and reiterate it in person. This is nearly always skipped over or overlooked when the tithe is taught as a continued observance of the law in the form of a "principle". Not only for the Jews at that time and definitely, clearly for the non-Jewish converts, it was determined that all of the law was not only unnecessary but not required as a part of salvation, pre or post. Teaching tithing as a "key" to overall abundance and well being is dicey therefore if taught as a "requirement" for anything. It is often taught as a universal over arching "prinicple". That principle could correctly be described as the answer to the eternal question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" In this context, it's the chicken. There has to be a reason for the egg, the fruit, to be brought forth. We don't puzzle over where the chicken came from because we would accept that it's in God's provison that we're blessed with life and the ability to produce. And with chickens. Tithing "The Principle" is recognition of God as Creator, Father, and Provider of all good things. So a tithe by the definition of a "biblical principle" is a gesture of that recognition. We got chickens, here's some of the eggs. In actual fact then for us today, tithing or giving as that gesture has nothing to do with "getting" anything from God, or keeping to a required principle or with supporting any specific human agency. Giving to a group or church or effort that we support and want to be a part of is fine. It makes sense and could be the right thing for someone to do. It could be a part of that recognition. I agree with you that PFAL and class revenue never funded the Way to any great extent. Funding came from the financial gifts of the members. The Way has business concerns and needs, goals. They, like lots of churches, twist and turn that into making themselves the required recipients of God's tithes instead of just saying they want to do such and such and need money to do it so can you give them some. Basically they don't want to ask for money so they make it a requirement of a person's spiritual life and well being. That's exactly what the guys in Acts 15 determined NOT to do. It's a form of extortion, an "offer you can't refuse".Every new Christian should print Acts 15 and keep it with them to present whenver they're taught Tithing as a requirement. Sort of like a get out of jail card, pass go and don't give a 100 dollars when you do card.

Mark, I see two pieces, sides to this - the information and the use of it. Anyone, Christian or not can give their enlightened advice and force their opinion on someone else to insist they change. Application of the information in the article is personal. You decide, I decide. Most people we deal with and live around don't know our inner concerns unless we tell them. That informs the relationship once we do, so I highly recommend to people in general that they use care in who they confide in, especially if they are sensitive about it and how others will take it. For some what others think is more of a concern than others. Once information is out in the open, you may have to assume responsibility for it in ways you don't want to. Some things benefit from others knowing, some don't, but either way the if the decision is ours to make I advise not broadcasting things out to the world around us. It allows for input yes, but it also means we may be subjected to the open judgment of others when we don't want it. Pastoring figures into this, in a church. Overall, people usually want to be helpful. Some do better than others. I know very few pastors who are actively ministering in a church leadership capacity who take a hard-nosed approach to working with people. It was a common approach in the Way because people weren't following a few simple rules of engagement when it comes to pastoring. "Teaching" someone something is entirely different than entering into a trusted relationship. The Way teaches a lot. That's just talk. Being involved and committed long term to another's well being is much more work. To my read, the article poses a simple view into how to apply some suggested methods to get a hold of your life. If you need to. If you want to. It doesn't suggest that eternal life salvation relies on how we control our thinking everyday. God is involved, prayer, something that figures into the process being described heavily IMO. I don't even see how the "renewed mind" topic even enters into the article's points. He's not in the Way, neither am I. Maybe it's me, but it didn't ping that topic in my mind. I believe flat out that we should do our best with what we have and what we know. We should pursue good information and counsel and accept help when we trust it and can get it. We should "ask God" as the writer recommends and expect God's guidance and help to produce His will. When we can't or don't know how, this area of sound pastoring is a key one IMO.

May be on topic - I don't know about anybody being innocent or guilty, of anything. GS isn't small claims court or any kind of court for that matter. It's a discussion board. To me the whole topic deals more with accurate, factual and true information. Is the information true according to fact? Wiki-peedonit is a great example of an attempt at collaborative, community shared information. Any topic can be placed, written, added to, edited, annotated, or questioned. Sources have to be cited where appropriate. Anyone using it needs to check those sources. Wikipedia is as good as those who contribute to it. Topics have holes, gaps, inaccuracies, uncited content. Some of that's because it's a work in progress by design, some is because the information just isn't correct. Overall there's a lot of sound, accurate and well written information that can be checked and used. But anyone who uses content published to it without checking it against other sources runs the risk of getting wrong information. Here, things are posted, stated. Some are opinions - "I think", "IMO", "as far as I know", "I always heard", etc. and the like. Others are facts based on experience - "In 1988, (this) happened to me", "I saw", "I said", "they said", etc. Others still are simply restated known facts - "The PFAL book reads on page...", "The Way published....", "I wrote", etc. Some are facts from publicly known events and occurrences - "At the ROA 77...", "In a meeting held in...", etc. I don't know that that covers everything but those are at least some types of information. Plus jokes and humorous asides, there's a lot that goes up in those categories. The context(s) for the information shared and collaboratively generated has to be considered - a lot of what's posted has happened in the past and all of the primary participants aren't here, collectively sharing and creating the information. So, one person may be restating their knowledge, memory, understanding and observations of past events that may be recognized generally by others but by no one else directly involved at that time other than the poster. This happens all the time - "In 1988, I remember...", and someone else posts "Yes, I remember in our area, the same kind of thing happened where...", etc. Getting to the innocent/guilty verdict here regarding people and past events isn't of interest to me personally. I consider that an area of my own domain and one where I don't see any value to knowing that and won't pursue it about other people, here. If it deals with me, that's different. Others, I post at times along the lines of what I stated above but if I feel something is factual I state it so it reads like that. Whether someone else wants to accept that verbatim is up to them, but if I were me I'd be careful doing that. So to speak. Just on face value. I think a lot of good information is shared here, but I would caution everyone to carefully consider the compositve view of the "facts" they generate from what they read here. It's the nature of a board like this that as information posts and circulates and recirculates that a "record" of facts can be generated that's apparently "true" but is in fact mostly unconfirmed information that's been shared informally in the course of discussing a topic. Not all of it, I'm not suggesting that for everything. Can't think of an example off the top of me head, but there are some that float around where it's assumed that if this happened, and that is true, then (this) is probably verifiably true. That's not accurate or reliable information, obviously. But it's a discussion board here, so the kind of posting that goes on can and should allow for a topic to be kicked around as it will by those interested, freely and without too many restrictions. I just try to weight and evaluate the information and not insist (for myself) that everything be in a signed affadavit with photos and subpoenaed records before I give it consideration. It's a discussion board, not a court of law and setting it up as such would restrict the objective of providing open discussion of one's involvement and experiences in the Way (and related topics). IMO.

Never heard that one waysider, but it does sound like some homespun "truth" that would come out of the mouth of a well meaning, albeit deluded Wayfer. That example is in fact not true. And never one to avoid a pun, it waters down the idea of a "new birth". Introducing "clear' or clean water into dirty water never cleans it up, it dilutes the parts per of the particles in it. They don't go away, the water just looks cleaner. I guess. The bible's description of new birth isn't a mixture. It's a new birth, and "newness" of life. The article makes some sound points because it presents what reads like an unreasonable proposition in a realistic way. We can put forth the effort and God can bless but we know that it isn't built into this life to have a controlled and constantly maintained "perfection" in everything we think and do. As you state everyone is born with tendencies, predispositions, genetics that make them who they are and that isn't "perfect". Striving for this "perfection" is misunderstood I think, as being right, knowing everything about "the truth" and making no errors or mistakes in what we do. I don't see that in the bible's message at all, definitely not what Christ taught. The ongoing perfect effort is to attempt to live life with what we've been given, knowing that it's a learn-as-we-go deal. This is illustrated in the proverb of Jesus in Luke 7 - those who have a lot to be forgiven for appreciate the burden that's removed in forgiveness - a lot. If only a little, there's little to appreciate. Whether big or small, "all fall short". Seeing ourselves for who and what we really are, in an ongoing effort, causes us to appreciate the journey of learning we're on, and appreciate both God and ourselves in that effort. It's "healthy' to recognize where we need to improve and better ourselves and it's possible to enjoy that process as we go, despite it's difficulties. We know we're trying, we know we're giving it a shot. There's nothing worse than misguided judgement of our efforts by others who would do better to spend their time doing their own work and if they had the time to spend, helpiing others along the way. I don't have a lot of faith in mankind's ability to progress as a whole, very far or for very long. But I can't deny that if we don't try, at whatever level's we choose, we'll only fall further back into the black hole that's waiting. So, we persist. :)

Everything he's saying is basically correct, in light of what Jesus taught people, what's recorded in the gospels. His emphasis was on what a person thinks and how they really feel in their hearts. That message was simple - concentrate on your inner relationship with God and others and let the outer one you act out reflect it - thoughtfully and with care. Jesus drove a hard bargain in this category and described adultery as basic as looking at another with that desire, without even acting on it. The betrayal occurs in the mind and heart the way He taught it. And that makes sense. In fact, the whole concept of "sin", both as a systemic condition and as singluar instances or actions taken makes sense in light of how Jesus taught about it, I think. There's really no caveat of condition IMO that preempts the idea of taking responsiblity for one's own thoughts - they're ours and we owe it to ourselves to give them some thoughtful consideration, methinks. To literally think about what we think about, and how we affect ourselves, never mind everyone else and how they affect us. But that's not a bad idea either. In that article he doesn't emphasize "negative" thoughts, he's talking about pure versus impure, wholesome as opposed to destructive. I don't see the downside in that Rottiegrrl. The interaction we have with other people regarding this kind of direction can be a pain in the asz, that's for sure. Everyone's more than ready to tell you what's wrong with you, with what you do, how you act and dress and how you feel based on the expression on your face. A very little bit of that goes a really long way. I read a lot of the news all the time. Hey, it's a fugged up world. I get that. I still want to know what's going on. I just do my best to sort through it all and try to keep moving in a positive direciton that's helpful and good. I'm not good, I'm a putz. But I try, what else can I do?

Never knew that. How funny! I guess he figured, well, this'll show 'em. But I wonder why in anyone's mind there had to be a hmmm...active, standing fully operational "First Corps"? It's denying reality to say that there wasn't one or that those who were part of it, weren't or to ignore them. Well, ignoring them wouldn't be that hard, and definitely - no Happy Holiday Ho Ho Trustee Picture card for them boy howdey. But to replace them with others is even weirder in the deny-reality department. :blink: I wonder if they ran to the "Stop Sign" and back, just to show those whippersnappers how it's done? 5:55 in the BRC, baby! That would have been an even shorter lived First Corps!

Congratulations! Beautiful baby, Raf. Things that surprised me about babies right after birth - -they're so light, even at 7 or 8 pounds, they seem light as a feather. -cleaned up, they smell pretty good. For awhile. The smell of baby powder is nice. -they kind of unfold and unstretch the first hour or so. Ears, legs, arms, they get really pink and soft. -they look so shocked once their eyes get focused - like "WHAT THE HECK IS THIS???" and it's interesting to see how bonded they are to Mom. The Dad too, but mostly Mom. It's cool. What are you seeing, Raf? Would love to read your Report, when you get a mo'. Again, all our best to you and the Mom. You are now and always will be, forever, The Dad. Enjoy it, there's nothing like it. And start saving now if you haven't already. :)

Not knowing Craig's current personal state of mind, heart and all that stuff or that of the Way Nash's, it's not possible for me to give a reasonable opinion. Can you clarify the question though - "actually come back?" To what, and where? If you're thinking to the Way International in some leadership capacity, perhaps as acting President - can't say. There's a lot of specifics in this whole topic that aren't known, I don't know anyway. Few seem to know the specific points that were actually drawn to his leaving - I'd assume part of them were the lawsuit at the time and what it meant to him personally and the Way as a whole, as well as the result to his marriage relationship and how that was dealt with. I'd assume his state of mind and ability to function in a new changing structure was diminished too. Emotions, anger, hurt, disappointment had to be effecting the decision. I've always just assumed it was a combination of all of these things that led to his "stepping down" and being terminated from an active position as well as his separation from his wife and family. An important point to consider in this is whether it's even a good thing for him to go back to the Way in a leadership position, not only for them but for him. Everything else being equal and there being a circumstance where he was healthy, happy and sound - that might not be the right thing for him at this stage of his life. I'm sure there's a lot of people who have fantasized of his return as acting President, but that may be more hoping that things would get right and concerns addressed and corrected. I'd have to ask myself - what ends are being served by his doing such a thing? His, the Ways, others or...? We might ask ourselves "what does God want?" I'm sure that could be answered in many different ways.

Very true, Tzaia. A local church we've gone to refers to it in family/home terms, and their Sunday services are hmmm...I had the word - "foyer" I think it is, a point of entry and gathering, where you come in and meet, greet and enjoy. It's very open and just about anyone could pop in and get what's going on without a lot of explanation. They form series with themes that will run for several weeks and do a great job at creative structuring around the service, including stage set props and music. There is a general order of service but it's never seemed to get mundane or pedestrian. I don't go regularly, my wife drops in more than I do, but it's done in such a way that if you do "drop in" you're not lost trying to catch up or understand what they're doing. Many of the topics cover material I'm familiar with but even at this introductory level they're working with the congregation in a useful, real way so it's not fluff or pop-talk Christianity and I'm usually insipired coming out of them. This is very different than a "twig" or home fellowship, although the level of warmth and openness is the same - as what a home fellowship should be like. But there's no great challenge every week to get in everyone's face to stand and decide and commit to a class or another meeting or to join and sign up for something. There's depth but at the level that would or could provoke a person to further inquiry. And in fact if you don't you walk out with what you brung and what you got out of it. This whole approach isn't by accident, it's the result of thought, decision and effort. It's a prayerful effort to be sure with the understanding of doing and offering what God is directing. They feel they're filling a need and in fact are working in concert with other churches and groups who may be doing different things different ways. That's much different than the way TWI ever worked, in intention and practice. The assumption that God is working and willing in a whole larger context of people and that the entire body is working (or can be) towards a greater vision - I think that's lost in how the Way (and possibly it's children ministries) work where it's a practical and useful reality.

"Written" presents some unique problems, issues and opportunities. If you mean written on paper. Paul speaks to another kind of "epistle" of communication and reassurance, and we know where that's "written". Even figuratively speaking, if that statement in the epistles is extrapolated out and given some process consideration, I think we can end up with a very reliable standard. PFAL, the book is nothing of the sort. Good Lord - if this is what it takes to get some semblance of an inkling of what it means and what it says, it doesn't pass any tests to be declared a "standard" Mike makes it sound like it's impossible to understand or take at face value. Geez - we studied 40 years ago and had a better understanding of what it "meant", and had no problem communicating it so others could understand it. Dare I say it - this whole boondoggle discussion is one hair shy of being rediculous. The idea of CHOOSING it to be a standard is what Mike's talking about, and the rest is b-s. Sorry, I meant bull-shiste. But the Bible is clearly the closest thing a Christian has to a written source and record, and standard.

Wise move, dmiiller. Some quotes from one article. (I'm leaving out any positive, balanced reporting because I'm convinced Momentus is Bull-shintus and some people just like their pigs wearing lipstick. And I know it was written in 1994, but when someone's gone this far out on the edge, I don't need a flashlight to see they may be a little dented around the ears. That's enough for me. ---------------------------- In 1990, two years after quitting Lifespring, he was ready. At that time, he was involved in a home Bible study group at an Episcopal church in Petaluma, Calif., and "there was a buzz about our (meetings) in the congregation at large. . . . I (had developed a skill for) honing in on what people were concealing and the concerns of their hearts." Another image problem for Momentus involves Tocchini's apparent inability to put his message into conversational English. People come out of the seminars spouting such phrases as "showing up," "where do you stand" and "who we are will show up in how we engage with others regarding the commitments that define our relationship." Recently, Tocchini has begun replacing some of the psychobabble with weird constitutional language. He talks about "governing the capitol that you are" through your personal legislative, executive and judicial branches, and says that getting "aligned with our God-designed identity . . . (enables us to) enjoy the privileges and benefits of a constitutional republic." A few have also been irked by the perceived elitism of Momentus graduates. "The attitude seemed to be that anyone who had doubts or questions about Momentus would be fine if you just got him through the (seminar)," says Charles Berlin, an early Santa Rosa supporter who later changed his mind. "But Jesus never said, 'You have to do the seminar.' " Part of the problem predated Momentus, pastor Strong says. At Tocchini's church, for example, some congregation members were automatically suspicious of the seminar because of fallout from a 1980s movement called shepherding. Under that program, which at one time involved charismatic churches across the country, individuals submitted control of their personal lives to church leaders. The purpose, Strong says, was to help believers follow biblical teachings, but it got to the point where "people were being told how often to have sex with their wives." That, he says, "left many wary of the next fad. And when that next fad came through–in the form of Momentus–a bunch of people not only said 'no,' but 'hell no.' " Some observers suggest that the controversy over Momentus may be a lot of sound and fury over nothing. The effects of the seminar on graduates, say several supporters and critics who have watched it long term, often fade or disappear after a few months. Rex Julian Beaber, a psychologist and attorney familiar with encounter groups, says that isn't surprising: "The grand lesson of the whole marathon group encounter movement is that the effects are very short-lived. . . . It is very difficult to change another human being." The only reason people think their lives are different is because "they confuse emotional intensity with significance. What are they doing now that they weren't doing before? Were they unemployed people who now have jobs? . . . Are they best friends with someone they couldn't forgive? The evidence of real change is usually trivial." -------------------------- Havens, indeed. Sounds like they were more like hornet's nests. I don't know if it's true or not but I heard tell 3rd hand that at one of these mental slop-fests a guy being interrogated and accused by his "friends" hauled off and levelled one of them out, flat out punched the other guy right out of his chair. I bet he never got a refund. But that's definitely change.

Information on Momentus for the inquiring: http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.....BAF0/DM494.htm http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9978/faith-or-fad I've spoken to people that were in the Santa Rosa church that split over the influence and effects of all of this. They said it was one of the most difficult experiences they'd ever had and nothing good came of any of it. Money was involved - no surprise there - and questions as to what came in and where it went. I don't really know any of the details firsthand but it sounded pretty weird. Buyer beware.

WG, you should check out this piece of Peter Wade's HERE> There's a point where, if you really think about what Christ is about and what the New Testament says has occurred and accept it, just let it kind of settle over your mind for awhile, it will wash over you like a cool rain on a warm day and drench you in awareness of what God's done and is doing. Let it. It doesn't matter what anyone else says about it, or you or about anything. I highly recommend these kinds of showers. :)

deleted, as this was getting pretty far off track for the topic and space. :) My own focus isn't at all the same as yours Mike. I started to think how a lot of this starts to deal with topics like "logos" and what that is, and a host of other topics, ideas and what-not.

Steve, et al - the whole gang, that scriptlet out of Galatians 4 and all of the "formed in you" hullabaloo that's been proposed by Mike illustrates all too graphically the danger of taking a single line from the bible (could be anything really) and assigning it significance out of context. Other uses (morphoo, etc. etc. ) do give a sense of the meaning, but immediate context in Galatians makes it clear what the point of the letter was - the difficulty in Galatia and Antioch between Jew and Gentile and exactly what the new life and birth in Christ was too them. That's what it addresses, and no mystical brain surgery is required to get that from even the most cursory reading. What it refers to first and foremost is that they come to an understanding on the role of the "old" covenant in relation to the new one, "in" Christ. A Christ-like church is one joined together, unified by "that selfsame spirit" of God, in each person with no collective or individual accountability to fulfill an expectation of observing the law for the end of a "righteous" life - the new life in Christ achieves and accomplishes that. The birth of holy spirit is complete, or as VPW himself emphasized, "completely completely complete" in and of itself. The "new life" doesn't get any more or any bigger - Christians simply chooses to align their behavior with it. I do have a single rule of faith and practice, actually, to the original topic - and again in Galatians as it's written in these words, a perfect way to view it for every Christian - "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." Followers of Christ have a brand new way, to coin a phrase :) and that Way is through Him, to a living relationship with God. Being constantly mindful of that simple set of realities is what we can call "living faith" and while difficult at times as life can be, is no more difficult than cultivating a mind of trust and honor to God - a "mind of Christ", the same mind that He had. While I deeply enjoy studying the bible and all that it offers, the constant jerry-rigging that goes on to torture ever yet new and deeper meaning out of every word in the name of "biblical research" is hmmmm...[adjective of choice goes here]. IMO. Given that opinion the best effort a person can expend on the "Word of God" is to attempt to understand it for what it says. Using the reworded words of someone else as the reference of choice is dicey at best. Given that it's all written in a language that none of us understand as one who would have who wrote it, we have to accept some efforts at translation to get off first base. In that way what PFAL proposed has merit - attempt to make what effort a person can to study it and learn as best they can themselves, and live as simply as possible within that understanding. Bullinger allowed for that fact in his book "Give and His Gifts" in the study of the words pneuma and hagion, that all of the writings and teachings on it would not replace a simple study and reading of the bible itself and the reader allowing their understanding to be enlightened through that so they could learn themselves. In this way I would say today - the entire argument of a "challenge" to establish a "single page" of reliable standard for faith and practice denies the value of the bible itself and the working of holy spirit in each person to teach and lead. The fact that there is disagreement amongst people means nothing in relation to the 'truth" of what the bible would or could say and in fact places the emphasis on the wrong thing, completely. And it's been a sorry day to see how easily that's been denied and swept aside by "Christians" in favor of "another gospel".

I am my own Grandpa. There, it's out. themex, I think you've got a valid interest and good heart about what you're asking. There is a sense of the larger, extended family of people that have continued onward in their endeavors in "spreading" and more importantly "living" the Word in all capacities of life and work. You'd probably do well to make contact with some of the ministries that are listed around here, to see more clearly what they're doing now, too.

Anonymity being what it is, yeah, who knows. But Steve and his wife Sandy live on the West Coast and don't post to GS. Well, who knows. But they don't. Steve's "retired", isn't a part of any "ex-Way" community "keep-moving'-the-Word-of-PFAL" stuff and I wouldn't try to imply that to him unless you want a - well, just don't. He and Sandy continue to pursue the Word of God and spreading it in their own wonderful ways and have long since left any connection to the Way or VPW. Trust me on that one. They definitely have great big hearts for people and friends, and always have. Jim's waiting the Return at this stage of his life. Look for a tall guy with a rakish grin, twirling his mustache. :)