Tom, an important point that's been brought up I think is that Craig's public statements could constitute a policy in TWI. As then acting President, CEO and Boss El Grande, what he said in public to Way members would establish policy.
Once he said it, said "this is the way this is", that established it. That was the rule, new, restated, whatever.
And if he ever said that participants must tithe otherwise they get booted out, then that would be a rule, a requirement, a policy, to tithe.
But as far as I can tell he didn't make that requirement, otherwise we'd know about it by now. Something that specific and mandatory would be well known and crystal clear.
"I do recall a twig of senior citizens who were told by a representative of HQ they would either have to disband or stop representing the twig as part of twi. If memory serves me HQ said the twig was not diverse enough...............OH! ........did I mention none of them tithed? This was many years ago. There probably aren't too many of them still with us. I know they were quite hurt when all this took place."
This was about them not-tithing.
If they tithed, twi would have been just fine with their makeup.
This situation sounds unique, and I feel it's best to refrain from judging one way or the other because it's possible other things besides tithing could have been in play. I don't know if that twig would have been considered part of twi even if they gave money because I don't have all the facts. I've seen that happen before though, where other twig requirements weren't fulfilled and the meeting wasn't considered an official twi meeting regardless of the money. That may or may not be in play here, I just don't know.
And if he ever said that participants must tithe otherwise they get booted out, then that would be a rule, a requirement, a policy, to tithe.
But as far as I can tell he didn't make that requirement, otherwise we'd know about it by now. Something that specific and mandatory would be well known and crystal clear.
So, if there's no paper trail, it never happened.
Here's what we do know.
lcm made a number of draconian statements in public concerning money,
and said twi'ers should be expecting to give 15%.
lcm has closed-door communications with the corps and leadership as
normal.
Leadership at all levels begin shaking the people down for 15%,
and invoking social sanctions when they don't.
(Face-melting sessions, lots and lots of "oversight", leaning into what
normally would be called "harassment" if private citizens did it.
So,
lacking a sealed document saying
"I, lcm, demand 15% or you're fired from this group",
all of that is just an amazing coincidence, I'm sure.
twi's NEVER been in the habit of putting policy in writing.
This is, of course, the perfect blanket excuse for excusing them every
bad policy they ever enacted-
"I never read this policy, so it didn't exist and they never had it."
Mind you,
even if this DID magically excuse them,
doesn't it strike you as VERY suspicious that you can't find a
policy manual or handbook for twi even to save your life?
So what is worse -- being kicked out for NOT absing?, Or trying to stay IN for the fellowship -- but finding living hell instead?
Those are pretty good questions and I think the answers are in the gray areas of life for each individual making the decision. One tolerates what one tolerates. Some folks are able and willing to tolerate more than others.
During my stint, I was willing to tolerate tithing for a time according to the book (CSFB), 10% of gross income. When I discoverd that it wasn't bringing results, I was not able to tolerate that standard. It is my belief that each person made that decision for themselves, or should have, regardless of the wishes of another (with the exception of children).
Another thought: up to this point we seem to be focusing only on the negative, the fear and intimidation; but what about folks who actually believed in tithing, who gave out of love, and the heart of giving, not grudgingly or of necessity? Those things were taught in twi also. So it's possible folks were motivated by those things as well, and still are. I just can't automatically assume that all these folks are tithing because they are afraid God won't spit in their direction, even though Craig in one of his rants said so.
twi's NEVER been in the habit of putting policy in writing.
But there were written requirements to do extra things. For instance, if one wanted to take the Advanced Class, one had to fulfill certain requirements, else one wasn't admitted. If one wanted to go WOW, one had to fulfill the requirements, else one wasn't admitted.
Interesting thing was the written "Freely Avail" statement in "what is the way". Maybe folks really didn't take that one seriously, but there it was, sitting there like a diamond. :) It would have been better for all of us had Craig and some others took that one seriously.
Outofdafog, you're talking apples and oranges. Parents teaching their children to tithe, giving them the tithing money and telling them to, is entirely different than an adult individual requirement to tithe. What choice do they have? The bible says they should obey their parents. They are also exonerated from personal responsibility, since they must obey their parents. What happens if they decline? They can't.
I am sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear oldies, it wasn't the children ABS'ing that bothered me, it was including it on the blue form for a 6 year old. That was a little over the top for me. Maybe something that wouldn't have bothered you, but coupled with all the other mandates that kept coming down the pike as present spewth and all of the other control tactics they used, it did bother me that they wanted to write down what a 6 year old abs'd.
And there was definately a mandate to tithe the 15% - it was drilled into us every STS -nearly every fellowship and we were definately told that failure to do so would result in God's hand of blessing being removed from the believer as well as their family, their property etc. Now I can say I am an eye-witness to that, but of course if you don't want to believe that is your privilege.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the mandate for every "grad" to purchase their own STS tape and magazine, no matter how many were in your household? Do you think that was over the top to have 5 STS tapes and 5 magazines in every home or however many according to the amount of "grads" in your family. Like people couldn't share them or together as a family listen to them. It is so obvious to me that that was to sell their product and make more money off Joe Believer.
But there were written requirements to do extra things. For instance, if one wanted to take the Advanced Class, one had to fulfill certain requirements, else one wasn't admitted. If one wanted to go WOW, one had to fulfill the requirements, else one wasn't admitted.
Formal programs, that's something else entirely. Supposedly, everything not a class or program was
entirely voluntary, but during the 90s, that became a fiction everywhere.
(Before that, it was a fiction in some places but not others.)
Interesting thing was the written "Freely Avail" statement in "what is the way". Maybe folks really didn't take that one seriously, but there it was, sitting there like a diamond. :) It would have been better for all of us had Craig and some others took that one seriously.
Now there's something I can agree with wholeheartedly.
So long as "some others" means "the people carrying out Craig's orders."
I can't seem to figure out the quote thing...but I'm going to quote OldiesMan first, then the article:
First, Oldiesman:
"Another thought: up to this point we seem to be focusing only on the negative, the fear and intimidation; but what about folks who actually believed in tithing, who gave out of love, and the heart of giving, not grudgingly or of necessity? Those things were taught in twi also. So it's possible folks were motivated by those things as well, and still are. I just can't automatically assume that all these folks are tithing because they are afraid God won't spit in their direction, even though Craig in one of his rants said so."
When my husband and I were actively involved, we tithed on the gross. Then when the point came down that you need only tithe on your net income, because you never actually had control over things like taxes, etc. We continued to tithe on the gross, because we felt that was a way we could kick over the tithe and into abundant sharing. During that time, I was pregnant with my daughter, then two years later, became pregnant with my son.
This part of the article is something I held onto.
From the Way Magazine Article, The Tithe Doth Still Provide (LCM, 1982)
"As Dr. Wierwille wrote in the booklet Christians Should Be Prosperous, "Tithing...without the pure impetus of love as the motivating principle, is fickle and shallow." Above all, your heart and attitude must be right before God.
Deuteronomy 7:13 and 14
And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb (your babies will be healthy!), and the fruit of thy land (so will your business!), thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.
No unbelievers should be more blessed that you! You will have what you need to function beautifully. And look at the promise that a woman will produce children who are healthy and vibrant, to be the future believers! Wow! All that tithing covers is huge!"
As some of you know, my son has been diagnosed with severe Autism. I knew something was very much off track when he was a year old. My husband, when we got the initial diagnosis of PDD (Pervasive Development Disorder, which is sort of a blanket, initial diagnosis), turned to me at the Developmental Pediatrician's office and hissed, literally hissed at me, "You're off the word, because I tithe and that guarantees this couldn't happen!"
I carried that guilt for years, and sometimes still think about it...even as educated as I am about the disorder, even with everything we do for him, I still have the niggling questions. Because, you know what, I was one of those happy, cheerful givers. My parents raised us to give charitably, to help out where we could, and when I was involved in TWI, I thought that writing the check for ABS was cool. I expected to receive blessings, I looked for them.
It never occurred to me that my kids could fall into the statistical bell curve of disabilities--I was not, as I was later told--harbouring some fear that was manifested in the birth of my son. And despite being told that "ministering to him would provide all the healing he needed," I have continued to fight for his education with the school system (though I live in a great area, I admit that), and his father so that he can get the medical attention that is really making an impact.
When we separated, TWI leadership came to me...at my home...and the first item on their agenda to discuss was my ABS. They were concerned that I would no longer believe that 9/10ths would cover more than 10/10ths. In this same conversation, it was mentioned...TO ME...I didn't hear about it second hand, it was not written down, but TOLD to me...that if I were to stop ABS'ing then I would bear the complete responsibility when my children and I ended up on the streets. I was told that I was "In the Jaws of the Adversary" and only by continuing to faithfully tithe and ABS would my future be secured.
Erm. Does that sound threatening to anyone else? Tell that to a new single mom, without a job, who hadn't finished college because of marriage, and who deals with a slightly, ok, highly vindictive ex...and it somehow isn't extortion?
"Official Policy" was more than what was spoken at wib, roa, and corps night or STS. "Official Policy" was more than what was written in the "Household Newsletters," aka as the Grapevine, which was the little newsletter that were put out by each limb.
Official policy was generally disbursed thru the Trunk to Limb weekly mailings called the "Distribution to Limbs" correspondence.
"Official Policy," was whatever had taken the whimsy of LCM and RFR. The "trustees' became lame ducks early in the 90s, being shoved out of the way by rfr and Donna M. The "trustees" were often informed of policy changes at trustee cabinet meetings at the same time as the head of housekeeping was being informed.
Not only did LCM say that God wouldn't spit in our direction of we didn't abs more than 10 percent, he routinely blamed the deaths of believers on their "stubborness" regarding abs. I personally was told by someone in the DC branch that I was going to die if I didn't start abundantly sharing more. Never mind the fact that I had just moved there from a different state and only got paid once a month.
Another thought: up to this point we seem to be focusing only on the negative, the fear and intimidation; but what about folks who actually believed in tithing, who gave out of love, and the heart of giving, not grudgingly or of necessity? Those things were taught in twi also. So it's possible folks were motivated by those things as well, and still are. I just can't automatically assume that all these folks are tithing because they are afraid God won't spit in their direction, even though Craig in one of his rants said so.
Once again OM you miss the point. Nobody has said that some folks, or even more than some, didn't give 'freely and not of necessity'. The point is that LCM and TWI made it a focal point that it was a necessity in order to 'receive God's blessing'.
We're talking about it from this angle because when you see a field full of cow paddies that have choked out all but a few of the wildflowers... you tend to focus on the cow paddies and what they wrought...
Interesting thing was the written "Freely Avail" statement in "what is the way". Maybe folks really didn't take that one seriously, but there it was, sitting there like a diamond. :) It would have been better for all of us had Craig and some others took that one seriously.
I think what bothered me the most was the comment (which became doctrine) that "God won't even spit in your direction unless you are giving 10%."
First of all, who the he11 was LCM to dictate what God will and will not do? Second, it's not in the Bible. To say that a minimum of 10% is required to get God's attention sounds to me like a bribe. What if I don't have anything? God doesn't care about me?
Of course, I never dared open my mouth when I was in. Wish I had've, I'd have been gone much sooner.
I think the concept was first discussed in PFAL and Christians Should be Prosperous.
As far as it becoming law and "required", I haven't a clue.
I was under the impression that giving money in twi wasn't ever "required", but I could be wrong as I wasn't around past 1991.
I never heard of anyone actually getting booted out for not throwing money in the horn of plenty, which case may indicate it being an actual "requirement".
I know one person that I was told not to be around because they did not 'throw money in the horn of plenty'. So, maybe they weren't 'thrown' out but people weren't exactly friendly with them.
And, they didn't have to 'throw' someone out they just told them that they don't have a hedge of protection around them and throw them to the 'wolves'.
This subject is really a sore point with me. Its what kept me in TWI for so many years so that I did have that hedge of protection so I wouldn't die or my family didn't die. They didn't have to have a special written policy.
One Branch coordinator I knew had a chart set up in his basement of everyone that tithed and how much. He knew how much everyone made.
. To say that a minimum of 10% is required to get God's attention sounds to me like a bribe. What if I don't have anything? God doesn't care about me?
Of course, I never dared open my mouth when I was in. Wish I had've, I'd have been gone much sooner.
WG
As I recall, this point was obviated with the Gospel record of the woman who gave her last mite.
The saddest point of all, is that never really took the Epistles' record seriously. Oh, they READ it. They even TAUGHT it. BUT!- that teaching always had an addendum that the MINIMUM was 10%.
I have heard of the record keeping that was ushered in in the '90's. How sad. I'm glad that I left before then.
Here's a quote from the teaching Rico Magnelli gave to the WC on Debt after Chris Jordan's research paper mysteriously made it into hands of lots of folks on staff. :unsure:
... it’s not noted in the church epistles that we should tithe. In the epistles, higher concepts take center stage. The sharing of our abundance, plurality giving, those things. Well, you can’t share above and beyond the 10%, your abundance, if you’re not sharing 10% in the first place, it’s not possible. So it’s implied.
Remember, the church epistles are grounded and settled on the foundations of the OT scriptures, on Christ and the book of Acts and of course Acts is the church epistles happening. The law or the law assumes like tithing. There assumes that they’re already in operation or are already being done. Or the ten commandments, they’re immutable laws that in principle at least follow through, they’re just assumed that they are being done.
Gal. 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Cause and effect. What we sow, we reap. So consequences, just like blessings are not always immediately evident. If nothing else happens when we are disobedient to the word we stand to not earn eternal rewards that we could have earned if we were obeying the word at the time. There’s a spiritual effect for disobedience, we do not earn eternal rewards. For that period of time we are giving up eternal rewards we could have earned during that period of time if we would have remained faithful.
Luke 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much; and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
v.11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? (mammon or riches)
Does it remind you of, what you sow you reap? Unrighteous mammon referring to that in which someone trusts, beyond what God says we are to trust; like riches, wealth; it’s talking about money. It’s not that it’s evil, it’s just that it’s unrighteous mammon, it’s not righteous, it’s not what God declares we’re put to our trust in but it’s something people do put their trust in (riches and wealth), financial matters. There is a level of financial maturity and stewardship that corresponds to the level of the word that someone is entrusted with.
If therefore he has not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to his trust the true riches? What are the true riches? The true riches are the things of God, spiritual knowledge, understanding. Once someone has been given a degree of the word, God holds them responsible to do it and serve others (and we’re not just talking about leadership here). This is a lesson for everyone. If someone is slothful and slobbingly in their physical carrying of their physical possessions, caring of their physical matters, they’re not usually the deepest person spiritually. They may have intellectual knowledge but that’s just the way it is. God is not going to open up and unfold the great spiritual truths to someone who can’t be trusted to take care of their own things. We may not own the newest, shiniest, brightest thing, but the key is, do we take care of the thing we own? That’s the point.
PFAL pg 214
Those epistles that are addressed to us must be specifically applied by us. All other scripture is for our learning. We do not have to keep the ten commandments. We have the law of the love of God in Christ Jesus. If we live love with the power of God in us and the renewed mind, will keep the ten commandments? Definitely. We will not go around breaking the ten commandments for we live on a higher plateau; we live by a greater law.
In the book of Acts, which chronicles the rise and expansion of the first century church, the physical needs of the believers are not addressed. Why are thy not addressed? Because the lessons of the schoolmaster were already being heeded, the lessons of the tutor were already taken to heart. They understood the issue of debt and how to identify it and how to manage it and the framework in which it was to be utilized. Who were the about 3000 men that were won on that first day? They were devout men out of every nation. That’s why it starts off in Acts chapter 2 as plurality giving (Acts 2:42-47).
It’s not tithing or getting out of debt because the lessons of the law, they were already faithful, those men.
Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject to the higher powers (leaders in the church). For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. (ordained or ordered)
v.2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
v.3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same
v.4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
If he’s a minister of the word and if there’s evil creeping in, it’s his responsibility to address it.
v.5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Here’s the logical consequence for unbelief
v.6For this cause pay ye tribute also, for they are God’s ministers attending continually upon this very thing.
v.7 Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
Switches to financial matters here. So, whatever is necessary, whatever is due to that person, that’s what we should give them. If it’s respect for their position or their stand, respect them. If it’s honor for their position or their stand, that’s what we should do, we should honor them. If it’s financial matters, we should support them financially (double honors – means both the respect and the financial support).
v.7Render therefore…….
v.8 Owe no man anything….
Context is leaders in the household, yes, but let’s consider our key to the word’s interpretation. First, in the verse right where it is written. OWE NO MAN ANYTHING is really quite clear, it’s not a difficult thing to understand.
It’s the relationship between the believer and the overseer and how that overseer is to serve that person in the household and how that person in the household is to respond with moral support, financial support. All the lessons of the schoolmaster would help us with this (verses 1 through 7). Let’s look at one example:
Numbers 18:21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Even in the OT there was a relationship between those two. There was the service of the Levites and there was the appropriate response of the people, the tenth. So the tithe was to be brought to the overseers who then utilized it properly.
EWWWWW- i think this is what screwed so many of us up! I would teach this all the time. That ministers are a "terror to evil" not "good". So, they were terrorizing the "good" more and more, so we thought the good was "evil".
This is why we treated people poorly or shunned them if leadership confronted them. How basackwards things were/are!!!!!
I have posted previously on this thread on what would probably be about page 6. My post alluded to a twig of senior citizens who were told to either disband or disassociate from twi. I would like to add that although noone in this twig "tithed", they did pass the HOP. Furthermore, they met three times a week and ran a very typical twig. By this I mean they had songs, announcements,believers meetings, teachings from class materials,and yes even SNS tapes. What I also failed to mention was that several had children and grandchildren who were involved in such programs as WC,FL, WAY COLLEGE,MINUTEMEN,etc. These folks really, really sacrifised family in the quest to move GOD's WORD. Perhaps some are even reading this thread. I know we often shield our kids from unpleasant reallities but maybe someone is recognising themself in this discussion and can add to the enlightenment.
"I always thought that "tithing" was part of Mosaic Law... that it had no place in the Grace administration... that Jesus only referred to it a couple of times because he was living under Mosaic Law at the time... "
About your statement above -
What was taught when I was in twi was that tithing was instituted with Abraham which was before the Mosaic law, so it transcended the law and still was God's will after the law administration.
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
oldiesman
And if he ever said that participants must tithe otherwise they get booted out, then that would be a rule, a requirement, a policy, to tithe.
But as far as I can tell he didn't make that requirement, otherwise we'd know about it by now. Something that specific and mandatory would be well known and crystal clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This situation sounds unique, and I feel it's best to refrain from judging one way or the other because it's possible other things besides tithing could have been in play. I don't know if that twig would have been considered part of twi even if they gave money because I don't have all the facts. I've seen that happen before though, where other twig requirements weren't fulfilled and the meeting wasn't considered an official twi meeting regardless of the money. That may or may not be in play here, I just don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
There's what preceeded your rendition of what I said, Oldies.
So what is worse -- being kicked out for NOT absing?,
Or trying to stay IN for the fellowship -- but finding living hell instead?
Either way is evil -- and by following the precepts from the perpetrator ---
They can now be triply accountable -- racketeering from three angles instead of one.
(three *administrations*, same ORG.)
And what I mentioned in the latter part of the post
is as plain as the nose on Cher's face -- BEFORE AND AFTER surgery.
Three different administrations (noses) entirely.
What they ran up their nose, was acceptable for a while --
then the *sniffer* needed a new way to inhale our resources..
(money is addicting -- don't cha know).
Oh -- btw --- peace, love, and bluegrass!
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So, if there's no paper trail, it never happened.
Here's what we do know.
lcm made a number of draconian statements in public concerning money,
and said twi'ers should be expecting to give 15%.
lcm has closed-door communications with the corps and leadership as
normal.
Leadership at all levels begin shaking the people down for 15%,
and invoking social sanctions when they don't.
(Face-melting sessions, lots and lots of "oversight", leaning into what
normally would be called "harassment" if private citizens did it.
So,
lacking a sealed document saying
"I, lcm, demand 15% or you're fired from this group",
all of that is just an amazing coincidence, I'm sure.
twi's NEVER been in the habit of putting policy in writing.
This is, of course, the perfect blanket excuse for excusing them every
bad policy they ever enacted-
"I never read this policy, so it didn't exist and they never had it."
Mind you,
even if this DID magically excuse them,
doesn't it strike you as VERY suspicious that you can't find a
policy manual or handbook for twi even to save your life?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Those are pretty good questions and I think the answers are in the gray areas of life for each individual making the decision. One tolerates what one tolerates. Some folks are able and willing to tolerate more than others.
During my stint, I was willing to tolerate tithing for a time according to the book (CSFB), 10% of gross income. When I discoverd that it wasn't bringing results, I was not able to tolerate that standard. It is my belief that each person made that decision for themselves, or should have, regardless of the wishes of another (with the exception of children).
Another thought: up to this point we seem to be focusing only on the negative, the fear and intimidation; but what about folks who actually believed in tithing, who gave out of love, and the heart of giving, not grudgingly or of necessity? Those things were taught in twi also. So it's possible folks were motivated by those things as well, and still are. I just can't automatically assume that all these folks are tithing because they are afraid God won't spit in their direction, even though Craig in one of his rants said so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
But there were written requirements to do extra things. For instance, if one wanted to take the Advanced Class, one had to fulfill certain requirements, else one wasn't admitted. If one wanted to go WOW, one had to fulfill the requirements, else one wasn't admitted.
Interesting thing was the written "Freely Avail" statement in "what is the way". Maybe folks really didn't take that one seriously, but there it was, sitting there like a diamond. :) It would have been better for all of us had Craig and some others took that one seriously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Outofdafog, you're talking apples and oranges. Parents teaching their children to tithe, giving them the tithing money and telling them to, is entirely different than an adult individual requirement to tithe. What choice do they have? The bible says they should obey their parents. They are also exonerated from personal responsibility, since they must obey their parents. What happens if they decline? They can't.
I am sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear oldies, it wasn't the children ABS'ing that bothered me, it was including it on the blue form for a 6 year old. That was a little over the top for me. Maybe something that wouldn't have bothered you, but coupled with all the other mandates that kept coming down the pike as present spewth and all of the other control tactics they used, it did bother me that they wanted to write down what a 6 year old abs'd.
And there was definately a mandate to tithe the 15% - it was drilled into us every STS -nearly every fellowship and we were definately told that failure to do so would result in God's hand of blessing being removed from the believer as well as their family, their property etc. Now I can say I am an eye-witness to that, but of course if you don't want to believe that is your privilege.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the mandate for every "grad" to purchase their own STS tape and magazine, no matter how many were in your household? Do you think that was over the top to have 5 STS tapes and 5 magazines in every home or however many according to the amount of "grads" in your family. Like people couldn't share them or together as a family listen to them. It is so obvious to me that that was to sell their product and make more money off Joe Believer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Formal programs, that's something else entirely. Supposedly, everything not a class or program was
entirely voluntary, but during the 90s, that became a fiction everywhere.
(Before that, it was a fiction in some places but not others.)
Now there's something I can agree with wholeheartedly.
So long as "some others" means "the people carrying out Craig's orders."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietThinker
I can't seem to figure out the quote thing...but I'm going to quote OldiesMan first, then the article:
First, Oldiesman:
"Another thought: up to this point we seem to be focusing only on the negative, the fear and intimidation; but what about folks who actually believed in tithing, who gave out of love, and the heart of giving, not grudgingly or of necessity? Those things were taught in twi also. So it's possible folks were motivated by those things as well, and still are. I just can't automatically assume that all these folks are tithing because they are afraid God won't spit in their direction, even though Craig in one of his rants said so."
When my husband and I were actively involved, we tithed on the gross. Then when the point came down that you need only tithe on your net income, because you never actually had control over things like taxes, etc. We continued to tithe on the gross, because we felt that was a way we could kick over the tithe and into abundant sharing. During that time, I was pregnant with my daughter, then two years later, became pregnant with my son.
This part of the article is something I held onto.
From the Way Magazine Article, The Tithe Doth Still Provide (LCM, 1982)
"As Dr. Wierwille wrote in the booklet Christians Should Be Prosperous, "Tithing...without the pure impetus of love as the motivating principle, is fickle and shallow." Above all, your heart and attitude must be right before God.
Deuteronomy 7:13 and 14
And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb (your babies will be healthy!), and the fruit of thy land (so will your business!), thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.
No unbelievers should be more blessed that you! You will have what you need to function beautifully. And look at the promise that a woman will produce children who are healthy and vibrant, to be the future believers! Wow! All that tithing covers is huge!"
As some of you know, my son has been diagnosed with severe Autism. I knew something was very much off track when he was a year old. My husband, when we got the initial diagnosis of PDD (Pervasive Development Disorder, which is sort of a blanket, initial diagnosis), turned to me at the Developmental Pediatrician's office and hissed, literally hissed at me, "You're off the word, because I tithe and that guarantees this couldn't happen!"
I carried that guilt for years, and sometimes still think about it...even as educated as I am about the disorder, even with everything we do for him, I still have the niggling questions. Because, you know what, I was one of those happy, cheerful givers. My parents raised us to give charitably, to help out where we could, and when I was involved in TWI, I thought that writing the check for ABS was cool. I expected to receive blessings, I looked for them.
It never occurred to me that my kids could fall into the statistical bell curve of disabilities--I was not, as I was later told--harbouring some fear that was manifested in the birth of my son. And despite being told that "ministering to him would provide all the healing he needed," I have continued to fight for his education with the school system (though I live in a great area, I admit that), and his father so that he can get the medical attention that is really making an impact.
When we separated, TWI leadership came to me...at my home...and the first item on their agenda to discuss was my ABS. They were concerned that I would no longer believe that 9/10ths would cover more than 10/10ths. In this same conversation, it was mentioned...TO ME...I didn't hear about it second hand, it was not written down, but TOLD to me...that if I were to stop ABS'ing then I would bear the complete responsibility when my children and I ended up on the streets. I was told that I was "In the Jaws of the Adversary" and only by continuing to faithfully tithe and ABS would my future be secured.
Erm. Does that sound threatening to anyone else? Tell that to a new single mom, without a job, who hadn't finished college because of marriage, and who deals with a slightly, ok, highly vindictive ex...and it somehow isn't extortion?
I'd had enough of the threats. That was the end.
qt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
"Official Policy" was more than what was spoken at wib, roa, and corps night or STS. "Official Policy" was more than what was written in the "Household Newsletters," aka as the Grapevine, which was the little newsletter that were put out by each limb.
Official policy was generally disbursed thru the Trunk to Limb weekly mailings called the "Distribution to Limbs" correspondence.
"Official Policy," was whatever had taken the whimsy of LCM and RFR. The "trustees' became lame ducks early in the 90s, being shoved out of the way by rfr and Donna M. The "trustees" were often informed of policy changes at trustee cabinet meetings at the same time as the head of housekeeping was being informed.
Not only did LCM say that God wouldn't spit in our direction of we didn't abs more than 10 percent, he routinely blamed the deaths of believers on their "stubborness" regarding abs. I personally was told by someone in the DC branch that I was going to die if I didn't start abundantly sharing more. Never mind the fact that I had just moved there from a different state and only got paid once a month.
This subject makes me sick to my stomach.
Radar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Don't those things fall within the RICO statutes as being valid for a class action lawsuit?
Goey's Summary of the RICO Statutes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
List of Teaching Tapes
I'm looking to see if I have any transcriptions of these tapes. I'm sure the non-existent policy must be mentioned in one, if not all, of these.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Que Bella!
Check the wib tapes for 1990-95. I am think 93 or 94 has quite a diatribe on it.
xxoo,
ror
Link to comment
Share on other sites
watersedge
question oldiesman, are you in the way?
i mean are you actively participating in their programs?
if i had to quess i would venture that you are
at least, if you are invovled, you have the decency
to not fight or argue with those who are not
to disagree is one thing, and that is out of respect
please tell me what makes the way org have what other religions don't.
ive read lots of stuff here at gs and frankly most of it turns my gut
the way is not a true source of love imo, it seems to be a center of chaos and contention.
why pit family against family, parent against child, wife against husband, friend against friend
for a doctrine?
a creed?
a theology?
seems to me jesus said to love one another even as i have loved you
is his love not capable of sustaining all who call upon him?
is jesus selective in his love?
or is he absent in the way?
these are legit questions and if or when you have the time could you please answer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Once again OM you miss the point. Nobody has said that some folks, or even more than some, didn't give 'freely and not of necessity'. The point is that LCM and TWI made it a focal point that it was a necessity in order to 'receive God's blessing'.
We're talking about it from this angle because when you see a field full of cow paddies that have choked out all but a few of the wildflowers... you tend to focus on the cow paddies and what they wrought...
Yes, it would have... but he (and they) didn't...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I think what bothered me the most was the comment (which became doctrine) that "God won't even spit in your direction unless you are giving 10%."
First of all, who the he11 was LCM to dictate what God will and will not do? Second, it's not in the Bible. To say that a minimum of 10% is required to get God's attention sounds to me like a bribe. What if I don't have anything? God doesn't care about me?
Of course, I never dared open my mouth when I was in. Wish I had've, I'd have been gone much sooner.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
It is very difficult to be a cheerful giver when the teachings are focused on fear of what will occur if you don't give.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Amen... and that's the point of this thread... that folks were intimidated (if not mandated)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I know one person that I was told not to be around because they did not 'throw money in the horn of plenty'. So, maybe they weren't 'thrown' out but people weren't exactly friendly with them.
And, they didn't have to 'throw' someone out they just told them that they don't have a hedge of protection around them and throw them to the 'wolves'.
This subject is really a sore point with me. Its what kept me in TWI for so many years so that I did have that hedge of protection so I wouldn't die or my family didn't die. They didn't have to have a special written policy.
One Branch coordinator I knew had a chart set up in his basement of everyone that tithed and how much. He knew how much everyone made.
Now how sick is that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
As I recall, this point was obviated with the Gospel record of the woman who gave her last mite.
The saddest point of all, is that never really took the Epistles' record seriously. Oh, they READ it. They even TAUGHT it. BUT!- that teaching always had an addendum that the MINIMUM was 10%.
I have heard of the record keeping that was ushered in in the '90's. How sad. I'm glad that I left before then.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Here's a quote from the teaching Rico Magnelli gave to the WC on Debt after Chris Jordan's research paper mysteriously made it into hands of lots of folks on staff. :unsure:
... it’s not noted in the church epistles that we should tithe. In the epistles, higher concepts take center stage. The sharing of our abundance, plurality giving, those things. Well, you can’t share above and beyond the 10%, your abundance, if you’re not sharing 10% in the first place, it’s not possible. So it’s implied.
Remember, the church epistles are grounded and settled on the foundations of the OT scriptures, on Christ and the book of Acts and of course Acts is the church epistles happening. The law or the law assumes like tithing. There assumes that they’re already in operation or are already being done. Or the ten commandments, they’re immutable laws that in principle at least follow through, they’re just assumed that they are being done.
Cause and effect. What we sow, we reap. So consequences, just like blessings are not always immediately evident. If nothing else happens when we are disobedient to the word we stand to not earn eternal rewards that we could have earned if we were obeying the word at the time. There’s a spiritual effect for disobedience, we do not earn eternal rewards. For that period of time we are giving up eternal rewards we could have earned during that period of time if we would have remained faithful.
Does it remind you of, what you sow you reap? Unrighteous mammon referring to that in which someone trusts, beyond what God says we are to trust; like riches, wealth; it’s talking about money. It’s not that it’s evil, it’s just that it’s unrighteous mammon, it’s not righteous, it’s not what God declares we’re put to our trust in but it’s something people do put their trust in (riches and wealth), financial matters. There is a level of financial maturity and stewardship that corresponds to the level of the word that someone is entrusted with.
If therefore he has not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to his trust the true riches? What are the true riches? The true riches are the things of God, spiritual knowledge, understanding. Once someone has been given a degree of the word, God holds them responsible to do it and serve others (and we’re not just talking about leadership here). This is a lesson for everyone. If someone is slothful and slobbingly in their physical carrying of their physical possessions, caring of their physical matters, they’re not usually the deepest person spiritually. They may have intellectual knowledge but that’s just the way it is. God is not going to open up and unfold the great spiritual truths to someone who can’t be trusted to take care of their own things. We may not own the newest, shiniest, brightest thing, but the key is, do we take care of the thing we own? That’s the point.
PFAL pg 214
In the book of Acts, which chronicles the rise and expansion of the first century church, the physical needs of the believers are not addressed. Why are thy not addressed? Because the lessons of the schoolmaster were already being heeded, the lessons of the tutor were already taken to heart. They understood the issue of debt and how to identify it and how to manage it and the framework in which it was to be utilized. Who were the about 3000 men that were won on that first day? They were devout men out of every nation. That’s why it starts off in Acts chapter 2 as plurality giving (Acts 2:42-47).It’s not tithing or getting out of debt because the lessons of the law, they were already faithful, those men.
If he’s a minister of the word and if there’s evil creeping in, it’s his responsibility to address it.
Here’s the logical consequence for unbelief
Switches to financial matters here. So, whatever is necessary, whatever is due to that person, that’s what we should give them. If it’s respect for their position or their stand, respect them. If it’s honor for their position or their stand, that’s what we should do, we should honor them. If it’s financial matters, we should support them financially (double honors – means both the respect and the financial support).
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
EWWWWW- i think this is what screwed so many of us up! I would teach this all the time. That ministers are a "terror to evil" not "good". So, they were terrorizing the "good" more and more, so we thought the good was "evil".
This is why we treated people poorly or shunned them if leadership confronted them. How basackwards things were/are!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I have posted previously on this thread on what would probably be about page 6. My post alluded to a twig of senior citizens who were told to either disband or disassociate from twi. I would like to add that although noone in this twig "tithed", they did pass the HOP. Furthermore, they met three times a week and ran a very typical twig. By this I mean they had songs, announcements,believers meetings, teachings from class materials,and yes even SNS tapes. What I also failed to mention was that several had children and grandchildren who were involved in such programs as WC,FL, WAY COLLEGE,MINUTEMEN,etc. These folks really, really sacrifised family in the quest to move GOD's WORD. Perhaps some are even reading this thread. I know we often shield our kids from unpleasant reallities but maybe someone is recognising themself in this discussion and can add to the enlightenment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alleycat
"I always thought that "tithing" was part of Mosaic Law... that it had no place in the Grace administration... that Jesus only referred to it a couple of times because he was living under Mosaic Law at the time... "
About your statement above -
What was taught when I was in twi was that tithing was instituted with Abraham which was before the Mosaic law, so it transcended the law and still was God's will after the law administration.
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.