So, isn't that basically an 'official' teaching that tithing is required/expected?
Expected, yes. Required, no.
I liken a "requirement" to something like the paying of dues. If one is a member of a club or association, one may have dues, and if those dues are mandatory, the failure to pay them results in the mandatory cancellation of one's participation.
a. To look forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of: expecting a telephone call; expects rain on Sunday.
b. To consider likely or certain: expect to see them soon. See Usage Note at anticipate.
2. To consider reasonable or due: We expect an apology.
3. To consider obligatory; require: The school expects its pupils to be on time.
Informal. To presume; suppose.
The original question of this thread was, "As we were discussing it, we began to wonder when and how they came up with their tithe percentages... and also, what exactly was TWI's official definition/policy of a tithe."
To me, what vp taught in piffle was the 'official definition/policy'.
If the tithe was expected, vp was looking forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of the tithe, was considering the tithe likely or certain, was considering the tithe reasonable or due, and was considering the tithe obligatory, required.
Ok, here it is Tom. I've done as faithful a job as I can typing it.
qt
< article removed >
Just a note: All the capitals are in the text, I've not made additions or added any comments of my own.
qt
Moderator note: The article needed to be removed since it is copyrighted by The Way International and reproducing it in full violates that copyright (even though The Way International has done more than their fair share of violations). Since the thread is/was already moving along at a good pace, not a bad idea to leave it. You are free to quote sections of the article. See: Fair Use Policy
Using your definition of "expected", this is what I know so far: twi didn't/doesn't expect folks to tithe in order to participate in fellowships. They DO expect folks to tithe to participate in classes, as shared by some folks during their experience of the more recent years.
If the tithe was expected, vp was looking forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of the tithe, was considering the tithe likely or certain, was considering the tithe reasonable or due, and was considering the tithe obligatory, required.
You really can't say it was required.
Paying the mortgage is required, or you lose the house.
Paying the car payment is required, or you lose the car.
Paying the grocery bills is required, or you don't eat.
Paying the tithe was not required... because folks still got to participate if they didn't do it.
Paying the mortgage is required, or you lose the house.
Paying the car payment is required, or you lose the car.
Paying the grocery bills is required, or you don't eat.
Paying the tithe was not required... because folks still got to participate if they didn't do it."
Yes, but according to the doctrine that was taught in the 90's, (if not pre 1990's), God wouldn't even spit in your direction if you were not at LEAST tithing.
Yes that's right. There was some fear motivation associated with it.
Christians Should Be Prosperous even said something like "tithing is the minimum health, accident insurance"....
But I learned quickly in twi that God blesses folks with good health and accident prevention, anyway.
Bottom line, it was/is up to the individual whether they wanted to tithe in twi, or not. It was not a requirement to participate, except in classes in the later years, as you pointed out.
I never had an 'exit spewing'. Those of you who did, were you ever told that at least one of the reasons you weren't welcome at twi was because of your lack of/unwillingness to ABS?
See, many groups and organizations expect certain behavior...like being on time. Schools, jobs, doctors appointments, hotels...all these expect one to be on time. It's even written in to the official policy.
If one is not on time, what happens?
Usually, one does not get kicked out...unless one disregards the policy repeatedly.
So, if anybody was EVER told they were no longer welcome at twi for the reason of lack of/refusal to ABS...either as part of the reason or all of the reason...then I would have to say that regardless of the timing of the ejection from twi, twi's 'official policy' of the tithe as a minimum was established in piffle.
Thank you so much, QT!!! That's a lot of typing! :)
You cannot expect God to bring anything your way without adhering to this basic principle.
Can you say "spiritual blackmail"? This is only the beginning of things "implied" by TWI regarding what happens when someone doesn't at least tithe to TWI.
If I am not prospering physically, both in my finances and my health, there must be some variable of believing being violated. Usually it is very simple. We need to set some proper boundaries for what we can expect. In other words, what is the "bottom line" on this prosperity business?
I Timothy 6:7 and 8
For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we carry nothing out.
And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
That does not seem to be asking too much! God does not mean for you to squander, waste, or flaunt your ego with material possessions, but to honestly and abundantly have your need met to the end that you may do your utmost for His highest.
He told us time and time again that "name brand" stuff was unnecessary. Any TWIt driving a BMW or something nice was seen to be "flaunting" and spending money that should be going to TWI. Why not drive a cheaper car so you can give more to TWI. That's living above your need, isn't it?
All this from the man who wore Bruno Magli shoes.... <_<
Abraham is the only man in the Bible specifically called the friend of God (II Chronicles 20:7, Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23). He is the first man recorded in the Bible to have tithed. In other words, Abraham was "right friendly" to God because he operated the principle of tithing. Wouldn't you like to be the same? Then God's hand will be free so that he can "be friendly" back to you!
Here again, God is noted as "the most high" as well as the One Who delivers His people from their enemies. This is another reality of the tithe -- safety, protection, and abundance for the tither, his family, business, and country. That is the context! Here we see that the first thing Abram does with his newly acquired abundance is to tithe to the representative of the most high God.
More spiritual blackmail, imo. I can't tell you how much we heard statements like this and how much they impacted how we thought and acted.
"Yes that's right. There was some fear motivation associated with it."
and
"Bottom line, it was/is up to the individual whether they wanted to tithe in twi, or not"
Oldies, on the one hand, I really do see your point. But on the other hand - if someone held a loaded gun to your head and said they would pull the trigger if you did not hand over your cash - would you say the bottom line was that it was still up to you whether you wanted to hand it over or not? Yeah - there is some fear motivation, but . . .
So, if anybody was EVER told they were no longer welcome at twi for the reason of lack of/refusal to ABS...either as part of the reason or all of the reason...then I would have to say that regardless of the timing of the ejection from twi, twi's 'official policy' of the tithe as a minimum was established in piffle.
Really has nothing to do with Piffle. Piffle doesn't set the twi policies, the BOD does.
I would like to know, myself. So far, haven't heard they do.
I don't have time to pick this apart completely right now, but I will point out something very obvious to me (NOW, anyway - lol) :
"I Corinthians 16:1-3:
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
Upon the first [!] day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be not gatherings when I come.
And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality [gift--abundant sharing] unto Jerusalem [Headquarters].
Believers were instructed to give first to the ministry that was moving the Word."
Notice the things that have been "added to The Word" here. . . . that the collection for the saints, which was supposed to have been as God hath prospered him, has become "abudnant sharing" and that Jersualem has become Headquarters.
After making those additions to Paul's writings, the author concludes that the believers were instructed to give first to the ministry that was moving the Word.
However, if you read Corinthians while keeping in mind the historical context that is set forth in Acts, you will come to realize that there was a famine going on in Jerusallem and Paul was collecting offerings to help those who were suffering because of the famine.
If you continue to read Paul's writings, you will see that although Paul acknowledges that perhaps he has a right to collect money from the "church" for himself, he does no such thing. Instead he continues to work and earn his own keep.
The way I remember it is, "suggestion from leadership is tantamount to a command", so "suggesting" that the tithe would be the minimum and is "expected" pretty much makes it a command. ;)
The article QT points out and the Christians Should be Preposterous pamphlet are pretty darn clear on where TWI stands on giving, imo. Argue semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that TWI used spiritual blackmail, threats and coercion to get that "expected" money from folks.
Abi, the gun to the head example is excellent and very apropos to how we lived under TWI's rule.
Really has nothing to do with Piffle. Piffle doesn't set the twi policies, the BOD does.
I would like to know, myself. So far, haven't heard they do.
Ummm...the question was, in part, at one point at least, about when the policy of tithing was first established 'officially'. (If I'm wrong about this, Tom, please correct me.)
I put forth that the expectation of the tithe was first established in piffle, giving the tithe an 'official' place in twi 'policy'.
Of course, as you so wonderfully pointed out, 'official policy' is usually set at the whim of the bod...and there has never been an official statement of twi policy, beliefs, practices, etc..
TWI operates primarily upon intimidation. If twi were to put, or ever had put, such intimidation into writing as an 'official policy', twi would have been successfully sued out of existence by now.
Where did I hear, "the devil never puts things in writing"...?
The author states that the "him that needeth" of Ephesians 4:28 is "the ministry that stands for the most high God and is endeavoring to get his Word to His people".
Pure private interpretation. If God intented "him that needeth" to be understood as "the ministry that stands for the most high God" why didn't God simply say that? And how completely arrogant to assume that TWI is THE ministry that stands for God. Especially in light of what we now know about what leadership was doing.
Then there is Acts 4:33-35, from which the author concludes "Biblically. People need to hear the Word you have so they can make up their own minds. This is why the believers laid their abundance at the feet of the apostles at Jerusalem "
What a bunch of bull! There is a reason why the author didn't actually quote what is written in those verses there. Because those verses clearly state that the people did not consider their possessions their own "but had all things common" and "neither was there any among them that lacked" and "laid them down at the apostles feet and distribution was made unto everyman according as he had need."
When did TWI EVER make distribution according to every man's need?
So VPW and LCM needed fancy cars, expensive clothes, beautiful homes - but those of us peons were just fine with beat up cars that barely ran, second hand clothing, and small rented apartments or homes in horrid neighborhoods?
Oldies, on the one hand, I really do see your point. But on the other hand - if someone held a loaded gun to your head and said they would pull the trigger if you did not hand over your cash - would you say the bottom line was that it was still up to you whether you wanted to hand it over or not?
I see what you're saying and it was definitely wrong for twi to teach that God would abandon us if we didn't give money. I was repulsed by those thoughts, and in fact actually proved otherwise when I deliberately stopped tithing to see if I'd get abandoned. I didn't, and still had pleasurable participation in twi.
When you tithe off the top of your income and your increase in other categories of physical abundance, then you are taking positive and bold action against the adversary's plots to annihilate you, your family, your business, and even your community and nation in the physical realm.
So, if we don't tithe then we have no power to fight the devil trying to annihilate us?? THIS is why we were so afraid of someone in our family being killed, getting a terminal illness, losing our job, etc... Heck, even the US was open to destruction if little ole me didn't give at least 10%??
"and your increase in other categories...." - My ex made me tithe off monetary gifts from family members and even tithed off our income tax return!
We experience the world in a time-oriented manner through cause and effect. First Lucy ate that white berry, then she became sick. First I hit Bob's foot with a hammer, then his foot swelled with a purple bruise. I conclude that eating the white berry is what actually made Lucy sick later. I conclude that being hit with a hammer is what later caused Bob's foot to swell. It is logical enough on the surface. Often, it seems clear--absolutely clear--that a specific action caused a second event to happen. This is what is known as causation. Many events appear to be the results brought about by identifiable causes, and the human mind is geared to look for these cause/effect relationships.
We get into trouble when the mind seeks or creates an artificial cause/effect relationship that doesn't actually exist. After something especially beneficial or harmful occurs, we want to know what caused it. We tend to focus on the first action we noticed before the effect, then assume that it must have been the catalyst triggering the later event. Nine times out of ten, we're right. It was the white berry that made Lucy sick. It was true that hitting a foot with a hammer makes that foot swell and bruise. That makes us lazy intellectually; we forget that, one time out of ten, we pick the wrong cause. In Latin, this type of logical mistake is called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which means "After this, therefore because of this." It's the idea that any event which happened first must be the particular event that caused a good or bad event later, and once we find a possible answer we tend to snatch hold of it and then stop thinking about other possibilities.
For example, suppose the fall term of classes ends in December. The manager of a toystore in the local mall hires one new worker. This worker is a college student named Stacy. She wants to do some work before spring term classes start. After Stacy is hired, the store's sales shoot up by 300%. "Wow!" the manager says to herself, "That Stacy is a fantastic sales worker! I haven't hired anyone else but Stacy. Still, since we hired her, our sales have tripled! I'd better give her a raise!" Is the manager's conclusion logical? Is it true that Stacy must be fantastic at her job?
Odds are, nine out of ten readers at this point are nodding, thinking to themselves, "Yeah, it makes sense to me. You hire a new girl, and the sales go up. No other girls were hired. It must be the new girl's work."
On the other hand, the tenth reader stopped and thought, "Wait a minute.... Didn't you say Stacy was hired in December? That's right around Christmas time. Maybe the reason the sales went up wasn't because of Stacy, but because of the time of year." The manager's conclusion now vanishes in a puff of logic.
Which one were you? If you spotted the logical fallacy, puff out your chest and strut around in pride as an intellectual champion. You were clear-headed and avoided the post hoc error. If you didn't spot the problem, and made the same assumptions the manager did, don't feel too ashamed. Often causation is trickier than it looks.
The problem is that correlation is different from causation. Correlation is when two or more things or events tend to occur at about the same time and might be associated with each other, but aren't necessarily connected by a cause/effect relationship. For instance, in sick people, a runny nose and a sore throat correlate to each other--they tend to show up in the same patients. That doesn't mean runny noses cause sore throats, or that sore throats cause runny noses, however. Forgetting that leads to sloppy thinking.
Proud journalists point out that, in the last hundred years, no peaceful nation with a free press has ever experienced severe famine. They argue that freedom of the press prevents blunders in governmental policy and it allows more efficient advertising and dispersal of commodities like food. But is that true? On the other hand, no country with a tradition of honest, publically monitored elections has ever experienced massive famine in the last hundred years either--at least not in times of peace. Which factor "caused" the surplus agriculture and trade to prevent the fearsome famine? Was it free speech or free elections?
Arguably, neither caused it. Perhaps it's all accidental. Free speech or elections might have no effect on agricultural output. Or have we got our cause and effect is backward? Did having sufficient food ensure a stable society so that free speech and democracy could blossom in the first place? Perhaps in famished lands, free speech and free elections fall by the wayside during and after the famine, and thus these hungry countries tend to slide into repressive dictatorships. If that's true, then repressive dictatorships might not actually bring famines upon themselves through clumsy management or a lack of advertising, as earlier suggested.
This is not just a moot intellectual point. Public policy often hinges on spending money to bring about a specific effect. For instance, consider New York City in the 1980s. The city at that time was a dangerous place. Crime was at an all-time high then. Murders, prostitution, and drug-dealing had reached epic levels. New York had tried stiffer penalties, longer jail terms, mandatory counseling, methadone treatments, and a variety of other approaches without denting the ugly problem. Mayor Guiliani hired researchers to come in. What was one of the early findings? Analysts spotted a correlation between graffiti in an inner-city neighborhood and the relative crime-rate in that area. The more graffiti, the higher the crime rate. Treating this as a cause/effect relationship, New York's mayor Guiliani decided to alter the funding for the police department, cutting back money for some types of law-enforcement, pouring money into an city-wide anti-graffiti campaign, and arguing that a cleaner city would diminish the visual "mindset" of crime in the area. He enacted a zero-tolerance policy by prosecuting taggers who painted on public property, and he cleaned up Times Square and the trashiest parts of the city. As overall crime rates dropped in the 1990s, the mayor touted his program as a success.
Impressed and surprised, other cities tried to duplicate New York's approach. They enacted similar financial policies and created similar laws. They hauled in hoodlums and cleaned up graffiti . . . and they all failed miserably. Crime in these cities either remained the same or in one or two cases, worsened slightly, even though the changes they made were nearly identical to that of New York.
What happened? Why couldn't they duplicate New York's success? The problem may be one of false causation. That correlation between the amount of graffiti and the overall crime rate doesn't necessarily mean that graffiti causes crime to happen--no more than the correlation between black eyes and broken noses in people who lose fist fights means that black eyes "cause" broken noses. The crime-rate in an area also correlates to the rate of unemployment, for example, and New York's unemployment was dropping steadily through the 1990s. Perhaps rising employment caused crime to drop at just about the same time the mayor started his anti-graffiti campaign. The rate of drug abuse in a given area also correlates to the number of crimes in that area. The city had started constructing larger drug treatment clinics in the late 1980s after the decade's peak of coccain addiction. Although the construction funding had been spent in the late 1980s without visible effect, many of these clinics actually started operation only two or three years before the fall in crime in the early 1990s. Perhaps after two or three years of treatment, a significant fraction of cured addicts no longer needed to engage in crime sprees to support an expensive and illicit habit. It's not at all clear if there was just one cause--maybe the combination of rising employment, drug clinics, and the mayor's anti-graffiti campaign together had a synergistic effect that was missing in other cities where the anti-graffiti program didn't work. One recent book on applied economic theory, entitled Freakonomics, has gone so far as to suggest plausibly the source of the crime-drop nationwide in the late 1990s and the early 2000s has been an unintentional result or by-product of abortion policies thirty years earlier!
To give a more recent example, on June 28, 2003 Reuters News Agency reported on a Hungarian medical study of 221 men who carried cell phones. The study found that men who carry cell phones in the front pocket of their pants rather than in a jacket or briefcase had a 30% lower sperm count than the average male population as previously measured in 1970. Immediately an outcry appeared to start law-suits against cell phone companies for causing sterility in men, and some consumer watchdogs called for warning labels on cell phones.
The problem is that the study only found correlations--it did not determine clear causation. As Dr. Hans Evers pointed out, many individuals who carry their cell phones in their pants pocket rather than their jacket pocket do so because they are smokers. They carry their cigarette pack in their jacket pocket instead of a pants pocket--to avoid crushing their cigarettes--and thus must carry the cellphone in their pants instead. It has long been known that smokers have a reduced sperm count. Perhaps smoking caused the lower sperm count rather than position of the cell phone per se. Also, the study did not take into account other factors like stress levels (stress can also cause a drop in sperm count); perhaps the men carried cell phones constantly because of a stressful job in which they needed to stay in contact with a company twenty-four hours a day. Finally, the overall sperm count of men may have dropped locally or globally as a whole since the earlier 1970 findings used as a control--possibly due to the increasing levels of chemical pollution worldwide. (Male alligators in parts of Florida, for example, also have 30% lower sperm counts than they did in the 1970s, but nobody thinks that's a result of their cell phone use!)
The point to all this is that, if you are writing an argument, and you claim a cause-effect relationship exists, you should double-check and triple-check that it is causation and not mere correlation. It's hard to nail down causation conclusively, as evidenced by tobacco company lawyers who argued for forty years that smoking merely "correlated" to lung cancer rather than actually caused it. However, the least you can do is pause and ask yourself what other possible causes exist in addition to the one you point to in a paper. If they do exist, you need to think through the evidence and determine why these other causes are less likely than the one you propose.
(Copyright Dr. L. Kip Wheeler 1998-2006. Permission is granted for non-profit, educational, and student reproduction. Last updated July 18, 2006.)
Ummm...the question was, in part, at one point at least, about when the policy of tithing was first established 'officially'. (If I'm wrong about this, Tom, please correct me.)
I put forth that the expectation of the tithe was first established in piffle, giving the tithe an 'official' place in twi 'policy'.
Correct-the LATEST it became a policy was in pfal.
Both pfal-vpw's class
and wap-lcm's class
included/include a book that talks about nothing BUT the tithe and how it's expected.
Of course, as you so wonderfully pointed out, 'official policy' is usually set at the whim of the bod...and there has never been an official statement of twi policy, beliefs, practices, etc..
TWI operates primarily upon intimidation. If twi were to put, or ever had put, such intimidation into writing as an 'official policy', twi would have been successfully sued out of existence by now.
Where did I hear, "the devil never puts things in writing"...?
Job 31:35 (KJV)
"Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book."
Taught in twi under vpw AND lcm-
and mentioned during the AOS video.
(Which we were expected to watch over...and over...and over...
so it's easy for me to recall that-including the chapter and verse citation.)
=================
I expect some people were harassed BECAUSE of refusing to tithe
until they got sick and tired of being sick and tired,
and left.
Then the official reason they left was that they "copped out".
The truth of the matter is slightly more complicated.
=================
There's LEGAL sanctions
(pay your taxes or you will be fined-pay the fine AND the tax or you will be jailed)
and there's violence sanctions
(give me all the money in your wallet or I will break the bones in your face)
and there's SOCIAL sanctions.
vpw himself taught on this, more than once.
Here's the Scripture he used that I've heard him use....
"John 9:
1And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
8The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
9Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
10Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
12Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.
13They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
14And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
15Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.
22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out."
Now,
to be kicked out of one church now, he said, is not a big deal-
you can go down the block and join another.
But in that place and time, to be kicked out of the synagogue
was tantamount to being declared no longer a Jew.
It meant other Jews could not deal with you as a Jew and so on.
That's a SOCIAL SANCTION.
You didn't do what they said-
so your punishment is social.
In this case, you were shunned.
twi didn't hold a gun to your head.
(Most of you.)
However, all of you who were subjected to face-melting sessions
by "leadership" for failing to tithe or abundantly share to the degree
they considered sufficient,
or failing to follow "suggestions" like "help me move"
or "come clean my house"
or "asking questions"
faced SOCIAL SANCTIONS.
Was there an overt threat of violence? No.
Was there a threat and consequences?
YES.
You all saw people who left or were kicked out,
and were told that this equated a death sentence
since leaving twi ("GOD'S PROTECTION")
meant harm and death were imminent.
If anyone needs me to pull up some examples,
I can do so.
Was that a LITERAL gun?
No.
However, twi threatened death would come for
the families-including children-
who left twi.
That's as close as they could legally come TO a gun
I don't see why not, Oldies. Course, I'm not expert. But if you wrote the letters, or if the letters were written to you - it seems to me you are free to do with them as you wish.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
31
11
10
18
Popular Days
Jul 18
45
Jul 19
39
Jul 20
21
Jul 22
16
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 31 posts
Belle 11 posts
WordWolf 10 posts
Tom Strange 18 posts
Popular Days
Jul 18 2006
45 posts
Jul 19 2006
39 posts
Jul 20 2006
21 posts
Jul 22 2006
16 posts
Sunnyfla
Tom, :) I had talked about this in one of my post in the doctrinal section . In the 80's they were teaching
that the "Abundant Shareing" was above and over the tithe. If you were not living the abundant life, or if
you or a family member were to become ill or anything in a serious negative matter was happening with
you , then it must be because you were NOT giving "Above and Over the Tithe" In other words, God was
protecting you up to 10%. I have no records of that in writing. But, we were constantly being told that by
the leadership in our area at that time. :wacko:
Edited by SunnyflaLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Expected, yes. Required, no.
I liken a "requirement" to something like the paying of dues. If one is a member of a club or association, one may have dues, and if those dues are mandatory, the failure to pay them results in the mandatory cancellation of one's participation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
OK.
The original question of this thread was, "As we were discussing it, we began to wonder when and how they came up with their tithe percentages... and also, what exactly was TWI's official definition/policy of a tithe."
To me, what vp taught in piffle was the 'official definition/policy'.
If the tithe was expected, vp was looking forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of the tithe, was considering the tithe likely or certain, was considering the tithe reasonable or due, and was considering the tithe obligatory, required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietThinker
Ok, here it is Tom. I've done as faithful a job as I can typing it.
qt
< article removed >
Just a note: All the capitals are in the text, I've not made additions or added any comments of my own.
qt
Moderator note: The article needed to be removed since it is copyrighted by The Way International and reproducing it in full violates that copyright (even though The Way International has done more than their fair share of violations). Since the thread is/was already moving along at a good pace, not a bad idea to leave it. You are free to quote sections of the article. See: Fair Use Policy
Edited by GreasyTechLink to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Thank you so very much QT!
A few weeks back my pastor asked me, "What kind of a cult was the way?"
After explaining as best I could without taking 5 years, he said, "So it was a prosperity cult?"
I had never ever seen twi like that! I responded, "I guess so, but I don't really think that was a focused teaching. I just don't remember."
Well now I remember! And now I see my pastor's point.
Wow. A prosperity cult.
Another layer comes off the onion for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Using your definition of "expected", this is what I know so far: twi didn't/doesn't expect folks to tithe in order to participate in fellowships. They DO expect folks to tithe to participate in classes, as shared by some folks during their experience of the more recent years.
You really can't say it was required.
Paying the mortgage is required, or you lose the house.
Paying the car payment is required, or you lose the car.
Paying the grocery bills is required, or you don't eat.
Paying the tithe was not required... because folks still got to participate if they didn't do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
You really tickle me OM! Seriously. I get a good giggle from your posts.
Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep...
Know what that is?
Your truck backing up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'm glad you're so happy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"You really can't say it was required.
Paying the mortgage is required, or you lose the house.
Paying the car payment is required, or you lose the car.
Paying the grocery bills is required, or you don't eat.
Paying the tithe was not required... because folks still got to participate if they didn't do it."
Yes, but according to the doctrine that was taught in the 90's, (if not pre 1990's), God wouldn't even spit in your direction if you were not at LEAST tithing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes that's right. There was some fear motivation associated with it.
Christians Should Be Prosperous even said something like "tithing is the minimum health, accident insurance"....
But I learned quickly in twi that God blesses folks with good health and accident prevention, anyway.
Bottom line, it was/is up to the individual whether they wanted to tithe in twi, or not. It was not a requirement to participate, except in classes in the later years, as you pointed out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
I never had an 'exit spewing'. Those of you who did, were you ever told that at least one of the reasons you weren't welcome at twi was because of your lack of/unwillingness to ABS?
See, many groups and organizations expect certain behavior...like being on time. Schools, jobs, doctors appointments, hotels...all these expect one to be on time. It's even written in to the official policy.
If one is not on time, what happens?
Usually, one does not get kicked out...unless one disregards the policy repeatedly.
So, if anybody was EVER told they were no longer welcome at twi for the reason of lack of/refusal to ABS...either as part of the reason or all of the reason...then I would have to say that regardless of the timing of the ejection from twi, twi's 'official policy' of the tithe as a minimum was established in piffle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thank you so much, QT!!! That's a lot of typing! :)
Can you say "spiritual blackmail"? This is only the beginning of things "implied" by TWI regarding what happens when someone doesn't at least tithe to TWI.He told us time and time again that "name brand" stuff was unnecessary. Any TWIt driving a BMW or something nice was seen to be "flaunting" and spending money that should be going to TWI. Why not drive a cheaper car so you can give more to TWI. That's living above your need, isn't it?
All this from the man who wore Bruno Magli shoes.... <_<
More spiritual blackmail, imo. I can't tell you how much we heard statements like this and how much they impacted how we thought and acted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Yes that's right. There was some fear motivation associated with it."
and
"Bottom line, it was/is up to the individual whether they wanted to tithe in twi, or not"
Oldies, on the one hand, I really do see your point. But on the other hand - if someone held a loaded gun to your head and said they would pull the trigger if you did not hand over your cash - would you say the bottom line was that it was still up to you whether you wanted to hand it over or not? Yeah - there is some fear motivation, but . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Really has nothing to do with Piffle. Piffle doesn't set the twi policies, the BOD does.
I would like to know, myself. So far, haven't heard they do.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I don't have time to pick this apart completely right now, but I will point out something very obvious to me (NOW, anyway - lol) :
"I Corinthians 16:1-3:
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
Upon the first [!] day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be not gatherings when I come.
And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality [gift--abundant sharing] unto Jerusalem [Headquarters].
Believers were instructed to give first to the ministry that was moving the Word."
Notice the things that have been "added to The Word" here. . . . that the collection for the saints, which was supposed to have been as God hath prospered him, has become "abudnant sharing" and that Jersualem has become Headquarters.
After making those additions to Paul's writings, the author concludes that the believers were instructed to give first to the ministry that was moving the Word.
However, if you read Corinthians while keeping in mind the historical context that is set forth in Acts, you will come to realize that there was a famine going on in Jerusallem and Paul was collecting offerings to help those who were suffering because of the famine.
If you continue to read Paul's writings, you will see that although Paul acknowledges that perhaps he has a right to collect money from the "church" for himself, he does no such thing. Instead he continues to work and earn his own keep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
The way I remember it is, "suggestion from leadership is tantamount to a command", so "suggesting" that the tithe would be the minimum and is "expected" pretty much makes it a command. ;)
The article QT points out and the Christians Should be Preposterous pamphlet are pretty darn clear on where TWI stands on giving, imo. Argue semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that TWI used spiritual blackmail, threats and coercion to get that "expected" money from folks.
Abi, the gun to the head example is excellent and very apropos to how we lived under TWI's rule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Ummm...the question was, in part, at one point at least, about when the policy of tithing was first established 'officially'. (If I'm wrong about this, Tom, please correct me.)
I put forth that the expectation of the tithe was first established in piffle, giving the tithe an 'official' place in twi 'policy'.
Of course, as you so wonderfully pointed out, 'official policy' is usually set at the whim of the bod...and there has never been an official statement of twi policy, beliefs, practices, etc..
TWI operates primarily upon intimidation. If twi were to put, or ever had put, such intimidation into writing as an 'official policy', twi would have been successfully sued out of existence by now.
Where did I hear, "the devil never puts things in writing"...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Okay, I'm going to pick some more
The author states that the "him that needeth" of Ephesians 4:28 is "the ministry that stands for the most high God and is endeavoring to get his Word to His people".
Pure private interpretation. If God intented "him that needeth" to be understood as "the ministry that stands for the most high God" why didn't God simply say that? And how completely arrogant to assume that TWI is THE ministry that stands for God. Especially in light of what we now know about what leadership was doing.
Then there is Acts 4:33-35, from which the author concludes "Biblically. People need to hear the Word you have so they can make up their own minds. This is why the believers laid their abundance at the feet of the apostles at Jerusalem "
What a bunch of bull! There is a reason why the author didn't actually quote what is written in those verses there. Because those verses clearly state that the people did not consider their possessions their own "but had all things common" and "neither was there any among them that lacked" and "laid them down at the apostles feet and distribution was made unto everyman according as he had need."
When did TWI EVER make distribution according to every man's need?
So VPW and LCM needed fancy cars, expensive clothes, beautiful homes - but those of us peons were just fine with beat up cars that barely ran, second hand clothing, and small rented apartments or homes in horrid neighborhoods?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I see what you're saying and it was definitely wrong for twi to teach that God would abandon us if we didn't give money. I was repulsed by those thoughts, and in fact actually proved otherwise when I deliberately stopped tithing to see if I'd get abandoned. I didn't, and still had pleasurable participation in twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Excellent points, Abi!
So, if we don't tithe then we have no power to fight the devil trying to annihilate us?? THIS is why we were so afraid of someone in our family being killed, getting a terminal illness, losing our job, etc... Heck, even the US was open to destruction if little ole me didn't give at least 10%??
"and your increase in other categories...." - My ex made me tithe off monetary gifts from family members and even tithed off our income tax return!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This may be a good time to break out some of my Way Memorabilia letters from twi leaders regarding questions I had on tithing. :)
Before I start re-typing these letters, a question ... Are we allowed to post communications of this nature?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
lcm's article included the following:
Here it is again...lcm made the claim that Abraham being called "the friend of God"
is directly connected to Abraham having tithed.
That's a logical fallacy,
and I'll let another website explain it-since they can do a better job than I can.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/logic_causation.html
"Correlation and Causation:
We experience the world in a time-oriented manner through cause and effect. First Lucy ate that white berry, then she became sick. First I hit Bob's foot with a hammer, then his foot swelled with a purple bruise. I conclude that eating the white berry is what actually made Lucy sick later. I conclude that being hit with a hammer is what later caused Bob's foot to swell. It is logical enough on the surface. Often, it seems clear--absolutely clear--that a specific action caused a second event to happen. This is what is known as causation. Many events appear to be the results brought about by identifiable causes, and the human mind is geared to look for these cause/effect relationships.
We get into trouble when the mind seeks or creates an artificial cause/effect relationship that doesn't actually exist. After something especially beneficial or harmful occurs, we want to know what caused it. We tend to focus on the first action we noticed before the effect, then assume that it must have been the catalyst triggering the later event. Nine times out of ten, we're right. It was the white berry that made Lucy sick. It was true that hitting a foot with a hammer makes that foot swell and bruise. That makes us lazy intellectually; we forget that, one time out of ten, we pick the wrong cause. In Latin, this type of logical mistake is called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which means "After this, therefore because of this." It's the idea that any event which happened first must be the particular event that caused a good or bad event later, and once we find a possible answer we tend to snatch hold of it and then stop thinking about other possibilities.
For example, suppose the fall term of classes ends in December. The manager of a toystore in the local mall hires one new worker. This worker is a college student named Stacy. She wants to do some work before spring term classes start. After Stacy is hired, the store's sales shoot up by 300%. "Wow!" the manager says to herself, "That Stacy is a fantastic sales worker! I haven't hired anyone else but Stacy. Still, since we hired her, our sales have tripled! I'd better give her a raise!" Is the manager's conclusion logical? Is it true that Stacy must be fantastic at her job?
Odds are, nine out of ten readers at this point are nodding, thinking to themselves, "Yeah, it makes sense to me. You hire a new girl, and the sales go up. No other girls were hired. It must be the new girl's work."
On the other hand, the tenth reader stopped and thought, "Wait a minute.... Didn't you say Stacy was hired in December? That's right around Christmas time. Maybe the reason the sales went up wasn't because of Stacy, but because of the time of year." The manager's conclusion now vanishes in a puff of logic.
Which one were you? If you spotted the logical fallacy, puff out your chest and strut around in pride as an intellectual champion. You were clear-headed and avoided the post hoc error. If you didn't spot the problem, and made the same assumptions the manager did, don't feel too ashamed. Often causation is trickier than it looks.
The problem is that correlation is different from causation. Correlation is when two or more things or events tend to occur at about the same time and might be associated with each other, but aren't necessarily connected by a cause/effect relationship. For instance, in sick people, a runny nose and a sore throat correlate to each other--they tend to show up in the same patients. That doesn't mean runny noses cause sore throats, or that sore throats cause runny noses, however. Forgetting that leads to sloppy thinking.
Proud journalists point out that, in the last hundred years, no peaceful nation with a free press has ever experienced severe famine. They argue that freedom of the press prevents blunders in governmental policy and it allows more efficient advertising and dispersal of commodities like food. But is that true? On the other hand, no country with a tradition of honest, publically monitored elections has ever experienced massive famine in the last hundred years either--at least not in times of peace. Which factor "caused" the surplus agriculture and trade to prevent the fearsome famine? Was it free speech or free elections?
Arguably, neither caused it. Perhaps it's all accidental. Free speech or elections might have no effect on agricultural output. Or have we got our cause and effect is backward? Did having sufficient food ensure a stable society so that free speech and democracy could blossom in the first place? Perhaps in famished lands, free speech and free elections fall by the wayside during and after the famine, and thus these hungry countries tend to slide into repressive dictatorships. If that's true, then repressive dictatorships might not actually bring famines upon themselves through clumsy management or a lack of advertising, as earlier suggested.
This is not just a moot intellectual point. Public policy often hinges on spending money to bring about a specific effect. For instance, consider New York City in the 1980s. The city at that time was a dangerous place. Crime was at an all-time high then. Murders, prostitution, and drug-dealing had reached epic levels. New York had tried stiffer penalties, longer jail terms, mandatory counseling, methadone treatments, and a variety of other approaches without denting the ugly problem. Mayor Guiliani hired researchers to come in. What was one of the early findings? Analysts spotted a correlation between graffiti in an inner-city neighborhood and the relative crime-rate in that area. The more graffiti, the higher the crime rate. Treating this as a cause/effect relationship, New York's mayor Guiliani decided to alter the funding for the police department, cutting back money for some types of law-enforcement, pouring money into an city-wide anti-graffiti campaign, and arguing that a cleaner city would diminish the visual "mindset" of crime in the area. He enacted a zero-tolerance policy by prosecuting taggers who painted on public property, and he cleaned up Times Square and the trashiest parts of the city. As overall crime rates dropped in the 1990s, the mayor touted his program as a success.
Impressed and surprised, other cities tried to duplicate New York's approach. They enacted similar financial policies and created similar laws. They hauled in hoodlums and cleaned up graffiti . . . and they all failed miserably. Crime in these cities either remained the same or in one or two cases, worsened slightly, even though the changes they made were nearly identical to that of New York.
What happened? Why couldn't they duplicate New York's success? The problem may be one of false causation. That correlation between the amount of graffiti and the overall crime rate doesn't necessarily mean that graffiti causes crime to happen--no more than the correlation between black eyes and broken noses in people who lose fist fights means that black eyes "cause" broken noses. The crime-rate in an area also correlates to the rate of unemployment, for example, and New York's unemployment was dropping steadily through the 1990s. Perhaps rising employment caused crime to drop at just about the same time the mayor started his anti-graffiti campaign. The rate of drug abuse in a given area also correlates to the number of crimes in that area. The city had started constructing larger drug treatment clinics in the late 1980s after the decade's peak of coccain addiction. Although the construction funding had been spent in the late 1980s without visible effect, many of these clinics actually started operation only two or three years before the fall in crime in the early 1990s. Perhaps after two or three years of treatment, a significant fraction of cured addicts no longer needed to engage in crime sprees to support an expensive and illicit habit. It's not at all clear if there was just one cause--maybe the combination of rising employment, drug clinics, and the mayor's anti-graffiti campaign together had a synergistic effect that was missing in other cities where the anti-graffiti program didn't work. One recent book on applied economic theory, entitled Freakonomics, has gone so far as to suggest plausibly the source of the crime-drop nationwide in the late 1990s and the early 2000s has been an unintentional result or by-product of abortion policies thirty years earlier!
To give a more recent example, on June 28, 2003 Reuters News Agency reported on a Hungarian medical study of 221 men who carried cell phones. The study found that men who carry cell phones in the front pocket of their pants rather than in a jacket or briefcase had a 30% lower sperm count than the average male population as previously measured in 1970. Immediately an outcry appeared to start law-suits against cell phone companies for causing sterility in men, and some consumer watchdogs called for warning labels on cell phones.
The problem is that the study only found correlations--it did not determine clear causation. As Dr. Hans Evers pointed out, many individuals who carry their cell phones in their pants pocket rather than their jacket pocket do so because they are smokers. They carry their cigarette pack in their jacket pocket instead of a pants pocket--to avoid crushing their cigarettes--and thus must carry the cellphone in their pants instead. It has long been known that smokers have a reduced sperm count. Perhaps smoking caused the lower sperm count rather than position of the cell phone per se. Also, the study did not take into account other factors like stress levels (stress can also cause a drop in sperm count); perhaps the men carried cell phones constantly because of a stressful job in which they needed to stay in contact with a company twenty-four hours a day. Finally, the overall sperm count of men may have dropped locally or globally as a whole since the earlier 1970 findings used as a control--possibly due to the increasing levels of chemical pollution worldwide. (Male alligators in parts of Florida, for example, also have 30% lower sperm counts than they did in the 1970s, but nobody thinks that's a result of their cell phone use!)
The point to all this is that, if you are writing an argument, and you claim a cause-effect relationship exists, you should double-check and triple-check that it is causation and not mere correlation. It's hard to nail down causation conclusively, as evidenced by tobacco company lawyers who argued for forty years that smoking merely "correlated" to lung cancer rather than actually caused it. However, the least you can do is pause and ask yourself what other possible causes exist in addition to the one you point to in a paper. If they do exist, you need to think through the evidence and determine why these other causes are less likely than the one you propose.
(Copyright Dr. L. Kip Wheeler 1998-2006. Permission is granted for non-profit, educational, and student reproduction. Last updated July 18, 2006.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Correct-the LATEST it became a policy was in pfal.
Both pfal-vpw's class
and wap-lcm's class
included/include a book that talks about nothing BUT the tithe and how it's expected.
Job 31:35 (KJV)
"Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book."
Taught in twi under vpw AND lcm-
and mentioned during the AOS video.
(Which we were expected to watch over...and over...and over...
so it's easy for me to recall that-including the chapter and verse citation.)
=================
I expect some people were harassed BECAUSE of refusing to tithe
until they got sick and tired of being sick and tired,
and left.
Then the official reason they left was that they "copped out".
The truth of the matter is slightly more complicated.
=================
There's LEGAL sanctions
(pay your taxes or you will be fined-pay the fine AND the tax or you will be jailed)
and there's violence sanctions
(give me all the money in your wallet or I will break the bones in your face)
and there's SOCIAL sanctions.
vpw himself taught on this, more than once.
Here's the Scripture he used that I've heard him use....
"John 9:
1And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
8The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
9Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
10Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
12Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.
13They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
14And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
15Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.
22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out."
Now,
to be kicked out of one church now, he said, is not a big deal-
you can go down the block and join another.
But in that place and time, to be kicked out of the synagogue
was tantamount to being declared no longer a Jew.
It meant other Jews could not deal with you as a Jew and so on.
That's a SOCIAL SANCTION.
You didn't do what they said-
so your punishment is social.
In this case, you were shunned.
twi didn't hold a gun to your head.
(Most of you.)
However, all of you who were subjected to face-melting sessions
by "leadership" for failing to tithe or abundantly share to the degree
they considered sufficient,
or failing to follow "suggestions" like "help me move"
or "come clean my house"
or "asking questions"
faced SOCIAL SANCTIONS.
Was there an overt threat of violence? No.
Was there a threat and consequences?
YES.
You all saw people who left or were kicked out,
and were told that this equated a death sentence
since leaving twi ("GOD'S PROTECTION")
meant harm and death were imminent.
If anyone needs me to pull up some examples,
I can do so.
Was that a LITERAL gun?
No.
However, twi threatened death would come for
the families-including children-
who left twi.
That's as close as they could legally come TO a gun
without making a big bang sound.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I don't see why not, Oldies. Course, I'm not expert. But if you wrote the letters, or if the letters were written to you - it seems to me you are free to do with them as you wish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.