Whatever led to his conclusion, he was being a hypocrite...Mr. Wierwille taught repeatedly from the bible that "all men are liars"...in other words, why did he believe the woman's husband?...
Wierwille came from an era of male chauvinism and a background that kept women "in their place"...his entire life was saturated with this belief system. He used the bible to justify his position...it made it much easier for him to sexually abuse women when, in his own mind, they were "inferior" and deserved to be treated as objects. Many of the women in the "early years"of twi that were ordained, paid a high price for their "ordination"...I know of several of them that were Wierwille's personal mistresses.
Christian minister?...No, I'm sorry, the man didn't qualify for that title...he was a sexual predator who cloaked his evil deeds under the thin veneer of Christianity.
It still seems like a remarkably cynical remark. There were many men who came from that background (including my father) and I can't remember ever hearing him voice a comment like that. Indeed, he always treated my mother with the greatest respect and consideration. I can't help wondering what experiences in his life led to him having such a warped view of women.
So all are to submit one to another? That might (gasp) mean that at times a male believer might have to submit to a female believer! Oh, the horror! Somebody get Oldies some smelling salts!
WG
To the contrary, this is one reason why I believe, in fact, that twi as a ministry didn't degrade women. I was in submission to them on the spiritual level. Women were elevated into spiritual positions and responsibilities. That's not degrading...that's elevating.
That makes some sense. In der vey I think it was the beginning of a long downwrd spiral for some. A lot of times, it was the woman who was attacked as being the cause of lack of results for the most trivial reasons.
Really bad things happen.. she was often targeted with blame for causing embarassment or shame. Well, that didn't last long I guess, pretty soon everybody was under the microscope.
True. I wasn't trying to allocate blame there, just trying to make the point that husbands and wives were equals (heirs together of the grace of life).
Women were elevated into spiritual positions and responsibilities. That's not degrading...that's elevating.
except when they had to sleep their way up the ladder.. and it did happen.
Happened in a "Christian" "ministry". A corporate structure that allows such practices is corrupt.
True. I wasn't trying to allocate blame there, just trying to make the point that husbands and wives were equals (heirs together of the grace of life).
I didn't think you were. It just kind of made sense to me with some things I saw..
I saw some men get worse and worse. No "results", more abuse. Less "results", even more abuse and blame..
But the practical side is the man loving the wife as the Christ loved the CHurch...she submits to that Granduer type. THis is directed I feel those who are very seasoned in the knowledge of that love..we typicaly we saw a love thru Christ and many tried to follow the footsteps without real direction..many where to young to consider this type of love in marriage..I like to think of it as "Joint Heirs" in Grace..Most men cannot comprehend this love that CHrist had for the Church to understand that it means to lay down his life...It takes a ton of meekness to live this...If I knew a man like this I would have no problem submitting...
except when they had to sleep their way up the ladder.. and it did happen.
I think single women would have gotten up the ladder anyway, if they wanted. You are free to speculate and assume, but I haven't seen proof that any woman was ordained specifically because she slept with Wierwille or anyone else. In fact I think the accusation is an insult to the spiritual commitments and abilities of some of the ordained women. By this accusation, I think you have degraded these women.
Single women were treated as equals in twi. And look who's now running the whole shebang?...
TWI as a ministry was degrading to women? I don't believe it, and wouldn't have been involved with it for 19 years if I saw evidence of ministry bias against women.
and wouldn't have been involved with it for 19 years if I saw evidence of ministry bias against women.
That's the whole point, isn't it?
I would not have been involved had I seen it, either.
So, yeah.. look who's in charge. rosie the "enabler". She sacrificed her "own kind" (women), or allowed it. She was well aware of loy's "preclivities", for years, by her own admission. I think she was just waiting for loy to hang himself.
Equals? Hmm.
Maybe in a Hemingway kinda fashion.. if they could fish, hunt, roll with the punches..
1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
I thought these were handled pretty well in PFAL. If you have a better explanation of them, I'll be happy to consider.
TWI as a ministry was degrading to women? I don't believe it, and wouldn't have been involved with it for 19 years if I saw evidence of ministry bias against women.
Well its degrading to straight, married women anyway.
1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
I thought these were handled pretty well in PFAL. If you have a better explanation of them, I'll be happy to consider.
assuming they got it right..
If every man were a prophet, and every woman a prophet's wife.. that would explain the twi mindset towards women..
Oh yes. In the 1970's, I saw women raked over the coals even when they "asked their husbands at home".
1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
I thought these were handled pretty well in PFAL. If you have a better explanation of them, I'll be happy to consider.
As I remember it from PFAL these verses were directed to a specific situation in Corinth. If my old tired memory serves it was a situation where there was a groupd\ of women who were causing disruptions etc by being argumentative in the gatherings of the first century church. In this case Paul was adddessing a particular situation. It is necessary when reading the epistles to remember that Paul never wrote them with an eye for their being a final blueprint for the church through the centuries but as a way for keeping in contact with and addressing problems with in the church of his day. That said I think that to extrapolate that this was directed to all women of the church at all times throughout the centuries is erroneous UNLESS a group is being argumentative to the point of being disruptive (which could just as easily be a group of men)
Earlier you posted in our discussion about Ephesians *** have to leave to check on exact quote since can't cut paste on this computer***
about wives being subject to their own husbands "except when they choose not to"
"except when they choose not to"
is the crux of the entire meaning
Its that freedom of choice thing-- As Christ gives us the choice to obey or not obey to follow or not follow The husband must grant to his wife that same freedom if he is truly acting as Christ would. The wife then has the freedom to follow and/or obey her husband as she chooses.
The Church has an obligation to teach these verses, we as women and followers of Jesus Christ should heed these verses. But iwhen a HUSBAND demands that his wife obey him he has ceased to act as Christ would by DEMANDING.
That is the stumbling block. That is where the problem rests --the idea that just because the husband is "head of house" just because scripture tells the wife she SHOULD "submit", somehow the husband is granted the RIGHT to demand and/or otherwise COMPEL his wife to do so.
When that happens the husband is seizing hold of an authority over his wife that Jesus Christ himself never claimed over his followers.
I have often wondered how often I, and many other wives would gracefully acquiese to our husbands desires, wishes and ideas, if we truly felt we had complete freedom to do so or not.
It is a vastly different thing to go along with the one you love because it will bring happiness to them versus feeling forced to agree OR ELSE.
Even the most reasonable of ideas and requests will be rejected by the most reasonable of wives if they feel that their husbands are not considerate of their feelings or wishes --and that is exactly how woman who are told they MUST SUBMIT feel a great deal of the time.
As for the husband being the "tie breaker" when he and his wife disagree, as another poster commented: How does that work?? She has one vote. He has one vote. He has another vote to "break ties".
BY my math that means: She has one vote. He has two votes. That's not a vote that's a dictatorship
I agree with your additions. It makes sense. I believe God wants all of us to follow him and his word with love as the motivation, because we choose to, not because we are being forced to or told to.
As for the husband being the "tie breaker" when he and his wife disagree, as another poster commented: How does that work?? She has one vote. He has one vote. He has another vote to "break ties".
BY my math that means: She has one vote. He has two votes. That's not a vote that's a dictatorship
I don't get it either.
Oldies,
I was taught in twi that the women is supposed to be the "crown". A reflection of her husband.
It still seems like a remarkably cynical remark. There were many men who came from that background (including my father) and I can't remember ever hearing him voice a comment like that. Indeed, he always treated my mother with the greatest respect and consideration. I can't help wondering what experiences in his life led to him having such a warped view of women.
Cynical?...Perhaps...but also honest.
Wierwille embraced the concept of chauvinism because it suited his desires and his disregard for women...not all men who grew up during that era were as calloused and selfish as Wierwille...many adapted themselves according to compassion and love...Wierwille was void of those things (IMHO)
I'm sure that Wierwille had experiences in life that encouraged him to be the way that he was...but he had freedom of will and chose to treat women the way that he did...I'll make no excuses for him.
As for the husband being the "tie breaker" when he and his wife disagree, as another poster commented: How does that work?? She has one vote. He has one vote. He has another vote to "break ties".
BY my math that means: She has one vote. He has two votes. That's not a vote that's a dictatorship
In our marriage there have been some occasions in which John (in his role of 'tiebreaker') has decided the issue to stick with his original position, and I have lost the argument, and other occasions in which after reflection he has seen the logic of my argument and decided the issue to agree with my position. I don't consider that a dictatorship; in both cases, my point of view is given a full and fair hearing. Sorry you don't get it, Bolshevik, but it works for us.
That makes some sense. In der vey I think it was the beginning of a long downwrd spiral for some. A lot of times, it was the woman who was attacked as being the cause of lack of results for the most trivial reasons.
Really bad things happen.. she was often targeted with blame for causing embarassment or shame. Well, that didn't last long I guess, pretty soon everybody was under the microscope.
Upon further consideration, it seems to me significant that 1 Peter 3:7 (although in a passage dealing with the duties of both husbands and wives) is specifically addressed to husbands and the comment 'that your prayers be not hindered' is in a verse addressed specifically to husbands as if it is their duty to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure their prayers are not hindered (and by this I do not mean to embarass or shame his wife).
A few things come to my mind when I read this thread:
1) EVERYBODY ABUSES! Some posters come off as though only the most vile devil possessed creepy individual ever abuses, but we all do it. VP used to say that all forms of energy are measured in terms of the positive...cold is merely the absence of heat, darkness is the absence of light...etc. Perhaps it is sound to say that abuse is the absence of love. We all see both love and abuse in the homes and schools we grow up in. I admit that there's a difference between premeditated abuse, where someone makes a personal doctrine out of abuse and rationalizes that it's really love, the kind of abuse alluded to on this thread, and what I will call 2nd degree abuse, where people are under pressure in the heat of the moment, become impatient, and abuse rather than love, just because it can be done RIGHT NOW. We all do that, especially here on GSC.
2) NOBODY was forced to stay in an abusive relationship; coerced, maybe, but not forced. In summer of 1980 I was at Emporia for some special event. Lots of people were there, including VP. At one point someone was teaching from the rear porch (they had everything set up outside, music included). I think it was Gary King, then limb cordo of Kansas. Can't remember what he taught on biblically, but at one point he said "If you really feel you were doing better in life before TWI and THAT'S what you'd like to do again, go ahead and do it; there's no shame. I'm here because I want to be." Kinda like that. There were several occasions back then that I would hear that same basic message; that we had free will. Perhaps over time the message of "Be committed for a lifetime; no excuses!" drowned out the free will message, especially during LCMs last years, but nobody stuck a gun to our heads.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
16
40
32
Popular Days
Jul 5
32
Jul 11
29
Jul 9
26
Jul 6
25
Top Posters In This Topic
GrouchoMarxJr 13 posts
oldiesman 16 posts
Ham 40 posts
Jeaniam 32 posts
Popular Days
Jul 5 2007
32 posts
Jul 11 2007
29 posts
Jul 9 2007
26 posts
Jul 6 2007
25 posts
Jeaniam
It still seems like a remarkably cynical remark. There were many men who came from that background (including my father) and I can't remember ever hearing him voice a comment like that. Indeed, he always treated my mother with the greatest respect and consideration. I can't help wondering what experiences in his life led to him having such a warped view of women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
To the contrary, this is one reason why I believe, in fact, that twi as a ministry didn't degrade women. I was in submission to them on the spiritual level. Women were elevated into spiritual positions and responsibilities. That's not degrading...that's elevating.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Real life now, isn't that how it really is? Or do people have a corner on truth that allows them to walk in perfect submission?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
It's not talking about marriage in Ephesians.
The husband is not a man, and the wife is not a woman,
in the flesh, but it's about the mystery.
Which will remauin a mystery till it's shown to you.
And the woman will kick your ***, be man enough to take it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
True. I wasn't trying to allocate blame there, just trying to make the point that husbands and wives were equals (heirs together of the grace of life).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Happened in a "Christian" "ministry". A corporate structure that allows such practices is corrupt.
I didn't think you were. It just kind of made sense to me with some things I saw..
I saw some men get worse and worse. No "results", more abuse. Less "results", even more abuse and blame..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
But the practical side is the man loving the wife as the Christ loved the CHurch...she submits to that Granduer type. THis is directed I feel those who are very seasoned in the knowledge of that love..we typicaly we saw a love thru Christ and many tried to follow the footsteps without real direction..many where to young to consider this type of love in marriage..I like to think of it as "Joint Heirs" in Grace..Most men cannot comprehend this love that CHrist had for the Church to understand that it means to lay down his life...It takes a ton of meekness to live this...If I knew a man like this I would have no problem submitting...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think single women would have gotten up the ladder anyway, if they wanted. You are free to speculate and assume, but I haven't seen proof that any woman was ordained specifically because she slept with Wierwille or anyone else. In fact I think the accusation is an insult to the spiritual commitments and abilities of some of the ordained women. By this accusation, I think you have degraded these women.
Single women were treated as equals in twi. And look who's now running the whole shebang?...
TWI as a ministry was degrading to women? I don't believe it, and wouldn't have been involved with it for 19 years if I saw evidence of ministry bias against women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
That's the whole point, isn't it?
I would not have been involved had I seen it, either.
So, yeah.. look who's in charge. rosie the "enabler". She sacrificed her "own kind" (women), or allowed it. She was well aware of loy's "preclivities", for years, by her own admission. I think she was just waiting for loy to hang himself.
Equals? Hmm.
Maybe in a Hemingway kinda fashion.. if they could fish, hunt, roll with the punches..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Heck it's right in pfal-
"God says shutup" to the women.
VP didn't even come close to what that section is speaking of.
Yes TWI was degrading to women and men also.
A hate group always turns in upon itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Are you referring to the following verses?:
1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
I thought these were handled pretty well in PFAL. If you have a better explanation of them, I'll be happy to consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well its degrading to straight, married women anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Oldiesman, I don't believe you would consider at this time, nor was it handled well in pfal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
assuming they got it right..
If every man were a prophet, and every woman a prophet's wife.. that would explain the twi mindset towards women..
Oh yes. In the 1970's, I saw women raked over the coals even when they "asked their husbands at home".
"Woman, shut the *f* up.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
As I remember it from PFAL these verses were directed to a specific situation in Corinth. If my old tired memory serves it was a situation where there was a groupd\ of women who were causing disruptions etc by being argumentative in the gatherings of the first century church. In this case Paul was adddessing a particular situation. It is necessary when reading the epistles to remember that Paul never wrote them with an eye for their being a final blueprint for the church through the centuries but as a way for keeping in contact with and addressing problems with in the church of his day. That said I think that to extrapolate that this was directed to all women of the church at all times throughout the centuries is erroneous UNLESS a group is being argumentative to the point of being disruptive (which could just as easily be a group of men)
Earlier you posted in our discussion about Ephesians *** have to leave to check on exact quote since can't cut paste on this computer***
about wives being subject to their own husbands "except when they choose not to"
"except when they choose not to"
is the crux of the entire meaning
Its that freedom of choice thing-- As Christ gives us the choice to obey or not obey to follow or not follow The husband must grant to his wife that same freedom if he is truly acting as Christ would. The wife then has the freedom to follow and/or obey her husband as she chooses.
The Church has an obligation to teach these verses, we as women and followers of Jesus Christ should heed these verses. But iwhen a HUSBAND demands that his wife obey him he has ceased to act as Christ would by DEMANDING.
That is the stumbling block. That is where the problem rests --the idea that just because the husband is "head of house" just because scripture tells the wife she SHOULD "submit", somehow the husband is granted the RIGHT to demand and/or otherwise COMPEL his wife to do so.
When that happens the husband is seizing hold of an authority over his wife that Jesus Christ himself never claimed over his followers.
I have often wondered how often I, and many other wives would gracefully acquiese to our husbands desires, wishes and ideas, if we truly felt we had complete freedom to do so or not.
It is a vastly different thing to go along with the one you love because it will bring happiness to them versus feeling forced to agree OR ELSE.
Even the most reasonable of ideas and requests will be rejected by the most reasonable of wives if they feel that their husbands are not considerate of their feelings or wishes --and that is exactly how woman who are told they MUST SUBMIT feel a great deal of the time.
As for the husband being the "tie breaker" when he and his wife disagree, as another poster commented: How does that work?? She has one vote. He has one vote. He has another vote to "break ties".
BY my math that means: She has one vote. He has two votes. That's not a vote that's a dictatorship
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Mo, I agree with your above statement , which is what VPW taught in PFAL and I think he handled it pretty well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Oldies I added to the post after you replied you might want to read the additions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I agree with your additions. It makes sense. I believe God wants all of us to follow him and his word with love as the motivation, because we choose to, not because we are being forced to or told to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't get it either.
Oldies,
I was taught in twi that the women is supposed to be the "crown". A reflection of her husband.
There's a lot of tarnished crowns in twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Templelady:
That's the best explanation of those verses I've heard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Cynical?...Perhaps...but also honest.
Wierwille embraced the concept of chauvinism because it suited his desires and his disregard for women...not all men who grew up during that era were as calloused and selfish as Wierwille...many adapted themselves according to compassion and love...Wierwille was void of those things (IMHO)
I'm sure that Wierwille had experiences in life that encouraged him to be the way that he was...but he had freedom of will and chose to treat women the way that he did...I'll make no excuses for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
In our marriage there have been some occasions in which John (in his role of 'tiebreaker') has decided the issue to stick with his original position, and I have lost the argument, and other occasions in which after reflection he has seen the logic of my argument and decided the issue to agree with my position. I don't consider that a dictatorship; in both cases, my point of view is given a full and fair hearing. Sorry you don't get it, Bolshevik, but it works for us.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Upon further consideration, it seems to me significant that 1 Peter 3:7 (although in a passage dealing with the duties of both husbands and wives) is specifically addressed to husbands and the comment 'that your prayers be not hindered' is in a verse addressed specifically to husbands as if it is their duty to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure their prayers are not hindered (and by this I do not mean to embarass or shame his wife).
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
A few things come to my mind when I read this thread:
1) EVERYBODY ABUSES! Some posters come off as though only the most vile devil possessed creepy individual ever abuses, but we all do it. VP used to say that all forms of energy are measured in terms of the positive...cold is merely the absence of heat, darkness is the absence of light...etc. Perhaps it is sound to say that abuse is the absence of love. We all see both love and abuse in the homes and schools we grow up in. I admit that there's a difference between premeditated abuse, where someone makes a personal doctrine out of abuse and rationalizes that it's really love, the kind of abuse alluded to on this thread, and what I will call 2nd degree abuse, where people are under pressure in the heat of the moment, become impatient, and abuse rather than love, just because it can be done RIGHT NOW. We all do that, especially here on GSC.
2) NOBODY was forced to stay in an abusive relationship; coerced, maybe, but not forced. In summer of 1980 I was at Emporia for some special event. Lots of people were there, including VP. At one point someone was teaching from the rear porch (they had everything set up outside, music included). I think it was Gary King, then limb cordo of Kansas. Can't remember what he taught on biblically, but at one point he said "If you really feel you were doing better in life before TWI and THAT'S what you'd like to do again, go ahead and do it; there's no shame. I'm here because I want to be." Kinda like that. There were several occasions back then that I would hear that same basic message; that we had free will. Perhaps over time the message of "Be committed for a lifetime; no excuses!" drowned out the free will message, especially during LCMs last years, but nobody stuck a gun to our heads.
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.