TheEvan

HCW, I always thought of myself as a malcontent, nonconformist, etc. Especially the the last 4-5 years I was in. I imagine others thought the same of me, even then. Then my wife unearthed a letter I wrote her when I was travelling sometime during those years. It was embarassing, nauseating, purile, spiritually juvenile and any other pejorative not immediately springing to mind. There was nothing noble about my remaining "in" as long as I did. The only reason I did was I was a weenie. And chicken. so what if I frequently bucked things. My presence was ample proof of my weeniness.

Great quote from the Portland paper!! :lol: :D :P :lol: :) :lol: There were rumors that der Veg gave up named of various DFAC folks in exchange for dropping the suit. I know I got a call once from one who claimed that's why he got audited, based on specific questions & info the IRS had on him.

One wag on Waydale said he took it and, Praise the Lamb, it cured his insomnia.

I can't comment on House of Acts as I simply visited the place ex post facto. Saw Jim Wahl and a few other familiar faces. Others living there were actually in Ohio at summer school. The Wierwille coup of Heefner/Doop was during "The Way Presents" in Oakland. Can't remember if that was '72 or '73. Locally, our scene changed a great deal when Townsend came in the fall of '70. Before that we just met as a big group every night. Usually 100 or so people. Sometimes many more. That fall we split into 4 (if memory serves) large fellowships. I remember Claudettee and a number of other familiar faces in my memory of that. After a few more months we split into smaller fellowships that were later called "twigs". I'm thinking it was 12 or 13 of them. These changes totally changed the communal character of what was happening prior to the changes. Before he left, Fugit started wearing slacks & carrying a briefcase. And we had weekly services at a local YMCA for the whole group. In those times there was heavy opposition locally, particularly from a pastor at Grace Presbyterian. He lost a ton of youth to The Way. Prior to The Way I had actually gone there a few times and attended a summer camp with them. I'll refrain from using names, but a number became Corps, ordained, what not. Anyway, this pastor published a little study, authored in concert with a guy big in the Jesus People movement on the West coast. It was called "The Way: A Study in Biblical Heresy". I read it but can't remember it too well. Later, though, when reading the Martin blurb in his book on cults, I remember thinking that he'd taken his talking points from that earlier study distributed in Wichita. In '71 or so I left The Way for a year and a half or two, so I'll have to leave that period of development for others. I'll just say that when i returned in '73, the look & feel of things was much different. More "corporate", HQ-oriented. Gack.

I agree that in a certain way he ws doing God's work. Kind of like Pharoah was doing God's work. I mean, without him many Isrealites might not have left the land of leeks, onions & Raca-a-ages.

Just came back from another Tanzania trip. "Saw" isn't the right wrd. Perhaps "eperienced" will do it. I experienced Masai music, mostly singing in their unique voice. Pure music making. And a quartet of women of another people group (the name escapes me for the moment) who deliver with such power I'm still shaken over it.

Okay, I'll bite. I got in early '70 in Wichita. Whaddayawannaknow? My first Piffle was taught live by Donnie Fugit. In those days we met 6 nights a week. We sang our own songs (mostly Fugit tunes) and all smoked during the meetings. Wild times. We occasionaly got California visitors on their way to & from Valhall (hq). I also visited the Bay Area that fall and went up to Novato to the former House of Acts and visited friends there. So, whaddayawannaknow? Your timeline above is a bit off. By '69, California had a active Way scene, but NY did not yet. Wichita got under way after Fugit returned from SF in '69. NY got underway, if I remember, in the summer of '70 by several different people who went there. I know Stefan Emerick went there from wichita. as did Tina Ranyak & Barbara Fair. Interesting times.

Excellent post, Mark. When one makes a public profession through baptism, those already in the community of the saints held this person accountable to his public confession. Such was the case then, and still is today in africa. This lack in our culture is symptomatic of our piritual malaise. And nobody seems to be amenable to being held accountable...

PETER BETER! (Yes, it's pronounced "Beater")HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Who can forget his strident monotone baritone repeating over & over "the Dynasty has stolen ALL the gold!..."

Wow, amazing post on many levels, catcup.

mstar, I went to a "sing" at a Primitive Baptist church that sings in the style of Sacred Harp. They strongly disavowed the label, point out the (very subtle) differences in what they do. Nevertheless, all the elements are there. Most of the melodies are reworked into modal-type melodies. They are often sung over a drone or ground bass. The singing style is high, steely, "balls out". I think it's awesome. Mark & Thomas, I too dig antiphonal music. But I also dig the nutso polyphony of Gesualdo. I have a recording of his Tennebrae exquisitely sung by the incomparable Hilliard Ensemble. wow. In our services we have abandoned hymnals, using overhead transparencies. 60% of our selections are from the Baptist or Broadman Hymnal. The remaining 40% are a mix of camp meeting songs, Southern gospel & contemporary "praise & worship". Personally, I find precious little to like in contemporary p&w. It's a musical & lyrical wasteland with all the depth of a Coke commercial. mstar, shape note isn't really a style. It's just a notation style used to make harmony easier...at least ostensibly. Mennonites use shape note hymnals, for example, but their smooth, reticent & very blended singing style couldn't be any farther removed from Sacred Harp style. Nevertheless, the "shape note" term has come to be used for that unique Appalachian singing style.

In the realm of logic, Mark, the onus isn't on George to prove that God isn't. One cannot prove a "not". The onus is on you and me to prove God is. That is, if anybody wants to be proving something, a thing to which I'm disinclined.

Right Oak. Heck, even if one starts with Wierwillian dogma as a basis and properly applies those "keys to research" conclusions may be wildly different. 1. I dispute the usefulness of those particular keys. F'rinstance, Wierwille's take on administrations is easily debunked. 2. It is my position that the Bible doesn't reveal itself to those who come at it with "keys". Seems somewhat akin to approaching it with a crowbar. The kind of spiritual knowledge I'm after comes to me when I approach the Bible prayerfully, asking the Lord to reveal to me what he's like me to understand for this particular moment. Spare me the "mathematical accuracy and scientific precision". Brother...

Point made Allan, as I'm neither trinitarian nor "water-spraying" (whatever that is). Yes, it is discussion, not mucking and trashing. Others discuss. You throw rocks. Though I've never done this before, if I can figure out how to place you on ignore, regretfully I will do so. I mean no ill will. I simply have no time for you.

Correct, jardinero. In fact there was a general boycott of the bus system and large demonstrations in Baton Rouge several years earlier. They gained important concessions locally. As Rosa was already an activist, I'm sure the success in Baton Rouge was in her thinking when she made her bold move. Folks in those days knew how to make their point with grace & dignity. Which added power and weight to their argument.

Contrast "It's also true and good to keep in mind that God often gives good revelation to evil men" with "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost". Hmmm. Jerry, "Nice post Socks. Much food for thought there." Considering socks' topic (dog eat dog, in a manner of speaking) that's just WRONG! :)

Allan, if that's so then why do you bother mucking up the doctrinal forum? You apparently have no serious doctrinal statement to make. That's fine by me and I have no wish for you to be otherwise. But I do wish you'd refrain from coming in and taking potshots & posting useless non-sequitors to a serious discussion. But I'll try again just to see if you want to discuss: Simply put, if Rom. 10:9,10 is THE answer, what is the queston?

Un-huh, right on, affirmative, Amen, yeah & dig it. Excellent Danny. And I love your response, TGN.

I just don't see what the big deal is. Both are going about to 'splain God. He isn't going to be 'splained to that extent. To a degree, I think both sides are just trying to describe the same thing. Now everybody is fighting over their own little description of the same danged thing.

lm, I think the sexual overtones may be a natural consequence of such an emphasis of 'going with your feelings'. I once lived in a place with a very large Pentecostal presence. The talk was that the girls, um, had a reputation. Wierd, isn't it?

lovematters, It looks quite a bit like Way style, but certainly without calling on people. The worship gifts are not "boxed in" with tight restrictions a-la Piffle. I experienced most of the messages as varied, spontaneous, creative, to the point and meaningful. In other words, I found it way the heck more genuine. But the overall style is suffused with an emphasis on "decent & in order". On the other hand, sermon feedback (hearty "amen" or "hallelujah", etc) is practiced & encouraged, as well as general vocal expressions of praise. Brother Leonard moved in some pretty wild circles, having worked with Bill Branham (google him if you like a freakout!) and apparently came to his own conclusions about all that wild stuff. He could be quite uncompromising about it. Anyway, he's gone, and I'm not sure what things look like over there these days.

Here's the perspective from the viewpoint of the UPC: Hope this pastes in an intelligible manner. On edit, no it didn't. Let's see if'n I can fix it. CHARISMATIC - CLASSICAL Experience in Spirit is Criteria Doctrine of Scripture is Criteria Focus on Spirit - Focus on Christ Lauds Gifts of Spirit - Lauds Fruit of Spirit Strives For Power - Strives For Purity that brings Power Tongues optional at Baptism in Spirit - Tongues necessary for Baptism Holiness mocked, ignored - Holiness sought, desired Justification emphasized to downplay sin - Sanctification sought to deal with sin Frivolous, light - Serious, intense Boasts of Anointing - Emphases on Consecration Syncretizes with world - Separates from world Personality showcased - Character mandated Talent lauded - Dedication commended Control of the Spirit - Controlled by the Spirit Faith is a Force to Move God - Faith is Obedience to Will of God New Twist to Selected portions of Scriptures- Literal Interpretation of the Whole of Visual- Auditory Congregation consists of spectators- Congregation consists of participators Find the Formula- Find the Will of God Praise, Praise, Praise- Pray, Pray, then Praise Seeks the novel- Seeks the old paths Seeks New (Novel) Thing- Seeks New (Fresh) Thing Forget principle, love people- Uphold principles while loving people Put on Production- Wait on Moving of Spirit I use God - God uses me Cutting Edge - Restorationist Naturally, it's a pejorative view of the Charismatics. I'll add that the Charismatic movement springs from mainstream denominations. Pentecostalism springs out of the turn-of-the-century Pentecostal & Holiness movements. Those Holiness roots show up repeatedly in the above list.

I saw that and immediately thought of 'the Alaska debacle". Hmmmm.

Charismatic renewal's beginnings were indeed in the Catholic church. It started in the early 70's I believe. Though there has been blurring of late, there has always been a fundamental difference in approach and beliefs between the Pentecostals and the Charismatics. Personally I view Charismatic renewal as a mixed bag.

1. The concept of the "rightly divided" word is a misnomer. The Bible presents it as a process, not a fisnished product. Insisting on 'there has to be an answer' is, imo, a recipe for trouble. I submit that it is impossible for a human to understand the Godhead. God is bigger, exists in a different realm, 'my thoughts are not your thoughts', etc. I prefer to understand the extent of scripture that the Holy Spirit has illuminated to my understanding. What He illuminates is His business. What (or Who) I meditate on is my business. Gosh Allan, I'm not a bit tired.