Oakspear

There are several reasons for this, in my opinion. One is that some of the stories in the initial segments are of the "why would he make that up?" variety. He tells stories on himself, like when he allegedly gave the sermon on the evils of alcohol, he came across pretty badly, and how the Korean (?) missionary suggested that he go straight to the bible to uncover the abundant life. It's like when somebody tells you that they went to high school with some obscure actor or musician, rather than a famous one, you figure it's so inconsequential, it must be the truth. He eases into the self-aggrandizing stories little by little. Another is that he starts off by actually reading what's written and pointing out contradictions between what he reads and what mainline denominations believe. He builds trust and then gradually starts slipping in dubious Greek definitions and made up sources and lost documents. He does this so gradually that you barely notice that it's happening. Contrast this with Martindale's WayAP class, where he's screaming about the Trinity and abortion before you break for celery sticks and bad cofee.

...before the Texas BBQ's we had the Southern Comfort Weenie Roasts.

I knew two families who owned their homes free & clear during the nineties. The first was a long-time wayfer who continually preached how you could own a home without going into debt. His plan was to buy a share in a home, say 20%, for cash. The seller would own 80%, be responsible for 80% of the taxes, etc. As you saved more money you'd pay him more money in exchange for a larger share of the home, eventually you'd own 100%. He got this idea out of a book and was actually doing this with his parents when his parents died and he inherited the house outright. The other had bought a house the old-fashioned way, by taking out a mortgage, but had paid off the mortgage by the time he got involved in TWI when they were in their forties. They had some rental properties that they were paying a loan on, but were persuaded by TWI leadership to sell them to get out of debt. When I was "in" both of these families were held up as examples of how you could own your own home, live the abundant life, blah, blah, blah, without being in debt. At the time I privately questioned this: one family was able to prosper due to the untimely death of their parents and the other by doing the very thing that TWI preached against, just by stopping it when TWI came into their lives.

I run into them every once in a while. I work in a grocery store and I see a few from time to time. Current wayfers too. Recently the daughter of an ex-wayfer guy and a current wayfer mom talked to my wife about performing a wedding.

I have retired from being "the voice of reason". :P WordWolf can carry that torch.

Even if you want to squeeze in the "new light" thing, Paul, the 12 etc, brought new light, period, there doesn't seem to be provision for a new crop of apostles, supposing that the "new light" would be lost and in need of being reintroduced.

Wow! You've read the whole site? I'm impressed I agree that your opinion is meager. No...we devote all of our time crabbing and crying about things that happened years ago. All of my clothes have the Grease Spot logo on them. I have a chip embedded in my head that keeps me logged on to GS 24/7. The ministry? It makes me ill to hear TWI referred to as The Ministry Okay. Why would you think that someone would tell you that? Gee, all that I got was a yellow hat. Well I did get to make out with a gal named Jeannie while guarding Wierwille's home one night...that's better than a gun. I'm not your f---'n kid, SkippyWe should have some kind of automated response to these preachy b*st*rds, I'm tired of it myself.

"Why, discerning the reason, the meaning of a thing, utilize to the point of senses-world manifestation in that others can discern it, the singular, unitary, verbiage, when (which places it distinctly in time) the number corresponding to the completion of a cycle suffices in it's entirety?"

Didn't he write "Another Roadside Attraction"?

Didn't read the thread...but still has an opinion...

I agree with whoever said Martindale exceeded Wierwille in general wordiness. Now I've got nothing against using "big words", I like to trotting out a variety of words and, especially in writing, try to use words that convey nuance and shades of meaning. But Martindale frequently tossed out "big words" that either were pronounced wrong or were used incorrectly. It was embarrassing sometimes if there was a new person at a tape hookup. His analysis of King James English was even worse. Two examples are his expositions on "rereward" and "reins". "Rereward" was an archaic spelling of "rearward", which meant something like rear guard; it's pretty from the context. But he was teaching it as if it was pronounced re-reward, like a reward again. He'd teach it at Corps night, then you'd hear the stupid local Corps regurgitating it without thought. The other was "reins", which referred to kidneys (where they get renal from I guess). Hebrew often used body parts metaphorically, like heart of compassion, bowels of mercies, etc. He taught it as if it referred to a horse's reins. <_<

And you know this because you've been in a variety of churches? Or is it because you've been told that's what they teach. You sound like a replay of Martinale.

The last time I saw Chip was in the mid-nineties at the ROA. He was living in Michigan at the time.

AAAAuuuuuuggggghhhh!!!!!! There's a redneck with a bible banging on my front door! :o

If it's Students of the Word Equipped and Running to Serve, shouldn't it be S.O.T.W.E.A.R.T.S.?

He's another cult leader, this time trading on grandad's name...how's that?My name is T0m Joyce...I'm sure you can find me in the Lincoln Nebraska phone book, Skippy.

The "Word" in general? Where do you get that GSers don't regard "The Word" favorably? There's probably about a half dozen at most here who are not Christians of some sort and still hold the bible dear, including most who have posted on this thread. I find your generalization of them insulting. Isn't he the head of this program?

In my view what Jesus taught and what many preachers do when they teach is not "explaining what God really meant, but expounding on the application of what was written. What Wierwille and his ilk did was take the position that you needed a secrtet decoder ring to divine God's true meaning.

Well, if God was big enough to talk to Moses and Paul and Jesus, why wouldn't he be big enough to talk to you? Do you really want to limit God to what people 2000+ years ago said about him? Sorry to hear that looking for a direct experience of the divine leads nowhere for you. Of course we have...we're grease spots :blush:

Yes!

I said this over four years ago and still believe it! Somebody mentioned Wierwille and Bullinger both coming up with the same grammatical error, that a good example of plagiarism without understanding what he plagiarized. Two of my favorite examples are "Private Interpretation" and "Jesus' Brothers" In Bullinger's explanation of 'private interpretation' he expounds upon the words ίδίος and επίλυώ (idios & epiluo). He gives examples of verses where επίλυώ is used and it always means something along the lines 'expound', 'open up', 'unveil' 'make known' etc. The biblical context is usually, if not always, in the context of teaching or explaining. He then gives non-biblical examples to help make his point, one of which is the example of dogs being let loose upon the game. Wierwille teaches it as if 'interpretation' is the equivalent of wild dogs running loose, where Bullinger makes no such conclusion, but he was obviously Wierwille's source. He took the 'dogs' example and 'ran' with it - while not really understanding Bullinger's point. My other favorite is 'The Lord's Brethren'. Bullinger taught that, of the two geneologies, the 'royal' one in Matthew was Joseph's. He uses this belief to counter some who said that 'James, Joses, Simon and Judas' were Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage and not the sons of Joseph & Mary, by pointing out that older half-brothers would 'invalidate Jesus' claim to the throne of David'. Wierwille taught that the geneology in Matthew was Mary's, not Joseph's, but he uses the same reasoning about older half brothers superceding Jesus' claim to David's throne, I believe even the same exact words as Bullinger, which made no sense since Wierwille taught that the 'royal' line was through Mary. This one isn't about whether Wierwille or Bullinger were right or wrong about the genelogies, but that Wierwille was quoting Bullinger and not understanding Bullinger's point. That's all (without exceptional distinction )

Nicely putInstead of trying to experience the divine in exactly the same manner that Moses or Paul or even Jesus did, why not look at what they did experience, think "wow, that was cool...I wonder what's in store for me?" and then sit back and enjoy our own transcendent experience?

It would be absurd, in my view, for God to need explaining if the bible was written by the supreme being, creator of the universe. An alternative is to view the bible as a collection of writings by well meaning people trying to put into words their personal experience with what they call God. No need to make it "fit like a hand in a glove", no need to reconcile contradictions, no need to agonize over why, if it's God's Word, one has trouble understanding it. Just take what works and leave the rest. Disclaimer: The above is in no way intended to disparage those who do believe that the bible was written by God and is thus infallible

From a different prespective: TWI, as well as other churches, denominations, gurus and self-help teachers feel that they have to tell us "what God meant", because, taken as a whole it isn't always clear what the author of the bible did mean. There are contradictions, apparent or real and theologians have been trying for centuries (millenia actually) to reconcile these discrepancies. Wierwille wasn't the first one to claim that he had the corner on truth either.

I think that it depends on the size of the branch. Several years ago "branch" was redefined as two or more fellowships so that all Way Corps could be classified as "branch coordinators". I believe that these days anyone drawing a salry is state or region coordinator.