I guess I was thinking of this ,while you are correct in that you never mentioned an age. I guess it was my understanding of what you wrote. I suppose I assumed from GREW UP that you were speaking of a younger age followed by got married ,and had families, and careers , things typically that happen as one grows up from a young age. In light of all ahead and the unknown possibilities that could or would happen it seemed you were stating that it was static and as such an unreasonable request because it did not take into consideration a persons life changes.
I was never in doubt that VPW made the request it was his program, ,but that was the deal good or bad, no one had to accept it. Me personally I try to honor that choice just like I would honor a business deal whether it was a good one or a bad one.,others may not choose to , as for me if I agreed then I hold to the agreement.
whitedove.......your last statement in this post....[of which I bold-faced for emphasis].....is very intriguing in light of this whole lifetime/christian/corps discussion. Hopefully, I can gingerly broach this subject without inferring anything or hurting anyone............so here goes.
Spouse Corps:
..... 1) When a non-corps person married a corps person.....wasn't there twi counseling before this?
..... 2) Didn't vpw teach that the man was the head of the woman....in the marriage?
..... 3) If a non-corps (male) married a corps (female).......wasn't he to live & lead THEIR CORPS COMMITMENT?
..... 4) Even if the man didn't sign the corps form......didn't he make a vow before God? before twi clergy?
..... 5) If so........then wasn't SPOUSE CORPS recognized within the corps household? corps responsibilities?
..... 6) By free-will.......this man KNOWINGLY "signed-on" to the corps commitment, didn't he?
..... 7) Now.........is this spouse corps guy RESPONSIBLE TO OBEY TWI DIRECTORS A LIFETIME?
Please Note: My attempt at this questioning is LOGIC.......not twi's deceptive tactics, ok?
Before you (or anyone else responds)........DISCLAIMER: I believe that my corps commitment (at the time) was to SERVE GOD a lifetime......Christian service (not twi service). I believe that my corps application had OPTIONS to accept assignments or not accept assignments. I believe that the One Body of Christ is all important.......and twi is straying further and further from scripture.
I could never use someone's sins or hypocrisy as a pretext to abandon the truth. God forbid.
But many in TWI, saw vp's hypocrisy as the "correct" way to walk the truth:
He's our example to follow…He's our father in the Word.
Hey, if he can renew his mind to watching porn so that it doesn't even bother him – then it must be available for me to do that. I need to grow spiritually to where I get to that place in my walk!
If he can have such a pure mind that he can handle anything – even having sex with a woman other than his wife – then it must be available for me to do that - I can't wait to get to that place in my walk!
Hey, he said anything done with the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation is okay.
Well, I guess when I'm really honest with myself, it isn't that I disagree with Oldiesman's point about "truth being truth, no matter who's mouth it comes out of"... it's more that, because of who's mouth it came out of, I now seriously doubt that it is the truth.
So, it's more that Sick-Vic's lies, lifestyle, and clearly un-godly practices are the stumbling block he put between me and what others would call the truth.
Or, put another way: because this man's judgement on so many things has been found faulty, it is hard for me to believe it wasn't equally faulty when he "rightly divided" the word of God.
And THAT is why the walk of the man is so important, Oldies...
whitedove.......your last statement in this post....[of which I bold-faced for emphasis].....is very intriguing in light of this whole lifetime/christian/corps discussion. Hopefully, I can gingerly broach this subject without inferring anything or hurting anyone............so here goes.
First I want to know who this Ginger is and who invited her into this conversation? :blink:
Spouse Corps:
..... 1) When a non-corps person married a corps person.....wasn't there twi counseling before this?
I don't know if I can say for all cases there was , I think it was supposed to be that way, but things were not always as they were supposed to be as you know. I did
..... 2) Didn't vpw teach that the man was the head of the woman....in the marriage?
Yes
..... 3) If a non-corps (male) married a corps (female).......wasn't he to live & lead THEIR CORPS COMMITMENT?
I don't know in terms of a final decision maybe, Personally I believe that decision should come by mutual agreement it seems logical that it is difficult to be a helpmeet if the other party is not allowing help.I think it is foolish not to seek council from others especially your wife. But that's me!
..... 4) Even if the man didn't sign the corps form......didn't he make a vow before God? before twi clergy?
Yes I believe so
..... 5) If so........then wasn't SPOUSE CORPS recognized within the corps household? corps responsibilities?
Well responsibilities Yes, recognition depended on who you delt with. Many times it was a fight to be .
..... 6) By free-will.......this man KNOWINGLY "signed-on" to the corps commitment, didn't he?
Yes
..... 7) Now.........is this spouse corps guy RESPONSIBLE TO OBEY TWI DIRECTORS A LIFETIME?
Well here in lies the the problem I guess, I believe that I signed on to a program with my first priority to obey God and his Word, At the time I believed that the ministry also had the same responsibility in running the program, I also believed that they were doing such , because of that belief I believed that the Corps program would provide a framework or vehicle for service for a lifetime. As such I expected to be involved for a lifetime in some capacity in some leadership capacity. I believe that they asked or expected the same from me as that was the point of the program. As part of that program I expected to accept an assignment for a period of time which was one ,two , or three, years in length. My understanding was that one was free to accept an assignment suggested by the Corps coordinator, or that one could request an assignment of their choosing but that whichever one was the final decision it would be your assignment. As such you would have an assignment each year be it your or their choice. That's not to say there was not resistance, pressure ,ect. in letting one choose, often there was. Within the framework of that choice and always keeping in mind one's first priority I would agree that it was expected that one take direction from the program coordinator or subsequent leadership under them. If or When the program no longer met the conditions of its responsibility then I believe the conditions of the participant were no longer binding with the program. However could be continued on as a personal choice to honor the intent of the commitment as the individual saw fit.
Please Note: My attempt at this questioning is LOGIC.......not twi's deceptive tactics, ok?
Before you (or anyone else responds)........DISCLAIMER: I believe that my corps commitment (at the time) was to SERVE GOD a lifetime......Christian service (not twi service). I believe that my corps application had OPTIONS to accept assignments or not accept assignments. I believe that the One Body of Christ is all important.......and twi is straying further and further from scripture.
For easier reading --- paragraphs inserted and highlighted wording.
Well here in lies the the problem I guess, I believe that I signed on to a program with my first priority to obey God and his Word, At the time I believed that the ministry also had the same responsibility in running the program, I also believed that they were doing such , because of that belief I believed that the Corps program would provide a framework or vehicle for service for a lifetime. As such I expected to be involved for a lifetime in some capacity in some leadership capacity.
I believe that they asked or expected the same from me as that was the point of the program. As part of that program I expected to accept an assignment for a period of time which was one ,two , or three, years in length. My understanding was that one was free to accept an assignment suggested by the Corps coordinator, or that one could request an assignment of their choosing but that whichever one was the final decision it would be your assignment.
As such you would have an assignment each year be it your or their choice. That's not to say there was not resistance, pressure ,ect. in letting one choose, often there was. Within the framework of that choice and always keeping in mind one's first priority I would agree that it was expected that one take direction from the program coordinator or subsequent leadership under them.
If or When the program no longer met the conditions of its responsibility then I believe the conditions of the participant were no longer binding with the program. However could be continued on as a personal choice to honor the intent of the commitment as the individual saw fit.
Gee, whitedove.......when "the cards are openly laid on the table"..... it looks like your viewpoints aren't all that different than mine, especially that last paragraph.
From where I sit........I believe that each and every corps person (regular, family, spouse & recognized) had/has the rightful duty to love and honor God, first and foremost. When the corps grad was conflicted and bound in the spirit (betwixted, restrained, & perplexed) on path-veering decisions, he needed to follow "the road to Emmaus, the one where Jesus Christ would instruct with wisdom and revelation."
For indeed........if it were "Christ-in-me, the hope of glory" then surely that spirit within would lead me and guide me to all truth (and ways to minister and serve). And, finding that "proper arrangement" to serve God and not mammon became increasingly challenging as twi evolved thru various stages into a business-like corporate entity.
And, personally.....I stayed in twi into the 90s.....serving in an area (far from the binding tentacles of hq). After several years, when I could no longer hold back the encroaching legalism of twi policies and God-less mandates..... I resigned knowing that, by the grace of God, I'd done everything I could to minister to those in my care. I exited on my terms with God as my witness. A few years later, martindale was ousted....and twi was attempting to be a "kinder, gentler ministry."
Well, I guess when I'm really honest with myself, it isn't that I disagree with Oldiesman's point about "truth being truth, no matter who's mouth it comes out of"... it's more that, because of who's mouth it came out of, I now seriously doubt that it is the truth.
So, it's more that Sick-Vic's lies, lifestyle, and clearly un-godly practices are the stumbling block he put between me and what others would call the truth.
Or, put another way: because this man's judgement on so many things has been found faulty, it is hard for me to believe it wasn't equally faulty when he "rightly divided" the word of God.
And THAT is why the walk of the man is so important, Oldies...
Yes, I understand what you mean Highway, about Oldies' point – which is valid – truth is truth. I have no problem with that. That's not what I'm addressing. There's more to this issue than just truth. What I'm talking about is our response to the truth – which can vary – we believe/obey it, ignore it, reject it, twist it, etc. Our response to the truth is the key to what effect [if any] the truth will have on us. Sinful attitudes, hypocrisy, persistent sinning, etc. can act like an insulating layer – that for all practical purposes renders the heart impervious to truth. I Timothy 4:2 talks about the false teachers with their hypocrisy of lies have their own conscience seared as with a branding iron.
In Matthew 15:3-9 NIV Jesus said for the sake of tradition, people nullify the Word of God. Was the truth nullified for everyone? No – only to those who follow the teachings and rules of men. That's why I mentioned in post # 107 Jesus' warnings of the doctrines/hypocrisy of the Pharisees [Matthew 16: 6, 11; Luke 12:1] – because of the nullifying power they have to render the truth ineffective on those who subscribe to such things.
Romans 1:18 NIV speaks of men who suppress the truth by their own wickedness. Hebrews 4:2 NASB says the Word does not profit people when it's not united with faith...Point being, their response does not change the truth - but their response does not allow the truth to change them.
Oldies touched upon this response aspect in his post # 200:
I could never use someone's sins or hypocrisy as a pretext to abandon the truth. God forbid...
To that I say, good for you!!!...In retrospect – I think the closer one got to vp – like being on Staff or the Corps program – the more one was susceptible to the truth-nullifying effect exuded by his character, by the example he set. After all, if he was teaching us the Word like it hasn't been known for centuries – then it's logical to assume he was also teaching us how to walk the Word like it hasn't been done for centuries. The Corps program was designed to be a cloning process – to turn out a bunch of mini-vps. It's the systematizing of hypocrisy.
Here's the expanded literal translation according to usage of the Way Corps motto:
Excalater, that's the per'nt, IMO. You hits the nail on the head.
"Truth" is not a separate reality, disconnected from all of us and everything else, a set of indexed principles, indexed in alpha order to be memorized. Life can be indexed and memorized but it isn't lived that way, is it? Life happens while someone's reading a book title "The Truth and How To Live It".
The bible isn't written that way - an indexed book of point by point topics, "truths". It's a historical record, a story.
Commandments, instructions, rules, we got 'em. If there's a "pure" way of viewing God, that's one way, but God doesn't present Himself that way, over history. His story, from our view, is of one lived.
It is our view, but it's really the only one we've got, y'know? Time marches on...
To add: point to remember - God is a "somebody" in the bible, less a "something". He's a something, okay, he's "God", but wazzat y'know? God didn't want a name when asked for one in the O.T. - just call Him "I AM". Odd name, but I guess it works, His choice, right? Throughout the bible though the anthromorph's and all of that constantly refer to God in human terms - so He may or may not actually "be" the way He's written about but I believe He's something like it. So that makes God a someone for me, with intent, purpose, and interests. Preferences. How that really shakes out at the checkout stand, good question, still working on that one. But when I think of "truth" ------ I'd bet any Wayfer Corps Ved in good standing would have a difficult time defining that in terms that would make sense and be usable.
I think they could identify something that was in their opinion, "true", but even than there'd be validation on their part to define it. So no wonder, y'know.....
I'm so off topic, I'm not even sure what my point was. Anyhoo -
Very little is known about John Mark but a lot is assumed. We assume he was young, and he probably was. We assume he did work to help and assist the leaders of the early church, that seems reasonable. What exactly we don't know but it was useful work, by the few references we read. So John Mark was someone who helped make things happen.
John Mark "quit" the work he was doing at one point but we don't know why. We assume it was wrong, because of the reaction he got, seemingly leaving the others he was with high and dry. But they continued on, Paul his own way and Barnabas his.
Paul and Barnabas splitting up was their problem. I could assume as easily as anything else that if it hadn't been John Mark as the catalyst, it would have been something sooner or later. Who knows? No one. It's a sketchy record.
Paul wasn't the designated "leader" when he went out the first time with Barnabas. He established his rep as time went on.
John Mark is the writer credited with writing the "gospel of Mark". Not bad.
His absence in the records of Pauls' (other than a couple short remarks) seems to indicate he dropped out of sight. Nothing really indicates that overall though. There are a LOT of people not mentioned in the N.T. records of the bible. More people aren't mentioned than are, clearly. Does that mean they all dropped out of sight, did "nothing", quit?
Agabus shows up in Acts. Who's Agabus? Where'd he come from? He comes and goes very quickly. Others, the same, many unnamed.
I think because the bible is a done deal, written, memorialized forever as is, it's very easy to go to any record and concoct an entire profile of history with next to nothing to go on.
Doubting Thomas, John Mark the Quitter, Apollos the Silver Tongued Orater - it's like reading children's stories, mythical characters whose images grow and grow with nothing more added to them than what we read the first time we read about them. They make great source material for endless sermons and advice, but do they actually fuel the lessons that are taught or are they the crutches used to make points that would be made anyway but that sound better, truer, when there's bible material to support them?
I'm just asking the question. My opinion - much ado is made about very little, so points can be made. Like ol' John Mark always gets kicked in the tushy for being a "quitter".
Out of the 1,000's of people in the first and second generation of Christians that followed Christ - how many are mentioned? How many get their name tagged to a book that's been printed billions of times?
One lesson I can get from John Mark and all of these people I read about today - they were human. Normal human people who are painted as being part of something that, if it's true, is truly incredible.
For easier reading --- paragraphs inserted and highlighted wording.
Gee, whitedove.......when "the cards are openly laid on the table"..... it looks like your viewpoints aren't all that different than mine, especially that last paragraph.
From where I sit........I believe that each and every corps person (regular, family, spouse & recognized) had/has the rightful duty to love and honor God, first and foremost. When the corps grad was conflicted and bound in the spirit (betwixted, restrained, & perplexed) on path-veering decisions, he needed to follow "the road to Emmaus, the one where Jesus Christ would instruct with wisdom and revelation."
For indeed........if it were "Christ-in-me, the hope of glory" then surely that spirit within would lead me and guide me to all truth (and ways to minister and serve). And, finding that "proper arrangement" to serve God and not mammon became increasingly challenging as twi evolved thru various stages into a business-like corporate entity.
And, personally.....I stayed in twi into the 90s.....serving in an area (far from the binding tentacles of hq). After several years, when I could no longer hold back the encroaching legalism of twi policies and God-less mandates..... I resigned knowing that, by the grace of God, I'd done everything I could to minister to those in my care. I exited on my terms with God as my witness. A few years later, martindale was ousted....and twi was attempting to be a "kinder, gentler ministry."
Personally I would prefer that one read the entirety of what I said not the random red letter addition, I doubt we are on the same page. I don't believe that the program was ever intended to be a two year or four year program and then you were done thing. I don't believe that it was the intent to train people so that they could leave to serve in the peace corps or other ministries upon graduation. No more so than Walmart trains people expecting them to work for Kmart upon completion.
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Romans 14:12-14 (in Context) Romans 14 (Whole Chapter)
Good grief. VPW was a stumblingblock for me. Instead of an example. That's why I copped out on my "corps committment." Actually, it wasn't just VPW, it was a whole bunch of people who were supposed to be an "example."
Why do we need to justify the choices of our conscience?
WalMart does not require you to work for them for the rest of your life. Or even after the training to work at all. You are free to work anywhere.
Your words are empty and foolish whitedove. You like your insane scenarios to further empty discussion and create fights. Your posts are that of a troll. Without any care at all of what your words may do.
Personally I would prefer that one read the entirety of what I said not the random red letter addition, I doubt we are on the same page. I don't believe that the program was ever intended to be a two year or four year program and then you were done thing. I don't believe that it was the intent to train people so that they could leave to serve in the peace corps or other ministries upon graduation. No more so than Walmart trains people expecting them to work for Kmart upon completion.
...Then why didn't they say it up front?... <_< ...why did they put in writing that taking assignments was optional?...They mislead at the very least...or they just out and out lied.
When I entered the corps, I never assumed that serving God and being a part of twi were synonomous. The bible doesn't teach that...That is what I mean about bait and switch...they baited you with a 4 year program and switched it to a lifetime of servitude...they baited you with serving God and they switched it to serving them....
And if twi never intended it to be a 2 or 4 year program, they never should have presented it as that...they flat out lied.
WalMart does not require you to work for them for the rest of your life. Or even after the training to work at all. You are free to work anywhere.
Your words are empty and foolish whitedove. You like your insane scenarios to further empty discussion and create fights. Your posts are that of a troll. Without any care at all of what your words may do.
Of course I think everyone knows this but you.
Never said they did, what I did say was that they trained people for the intent of working for them as leaders in their company ,in that example it is one in the same as the Corps program. The Corps program was promoted as a lifetime of christian servive. Walmart is not a promoted as lifetime of management that I know of that is the differance If you didn't like the terms then don't join.
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Romans 14:12-14 (in Context) Romans 14 (Whole Chapter)
Good grief. VPW was a stumblingblock for me. Instead of an example. That's why I copped out on my "corps committment." Actually, it wasn't just VPW, it was a whole bunch of people who were supposed to be an "example."
Why do we need to justify the choices of our conscience?
Well that's the thing One persons stumbling block is anothers example sometimes. I don't think anyone needs to justify the choices of their conscience either. Nor do I think that they need to make something into what it was not, to make themselves feel better about their choice.
1. They didn't train anyone for a 'lifetime of christian service'.
2. They don't know what chistian service is.
3. You don't need the the Corps for Christian Service.
4. the Corps wasn't about a lifetime of christian service-EVER.
5. One can quit or not do what was expected of the way, without any problems from a biblical point of view, or a moral point of view. Or any VALID point of view. During the training or after the training.
Very little is known about John Mark but a lot is assumed. We assume he was young, and he probably was. We assume he did work to help and assist the leaders of the early church, that seems reasonable. What exactly we don't know but it was useful work, by the few references we read. So John Mark was someone who helped make things happen.
John Mark "quit" the work he was doing at one point but we don't know why. We assume it was wrong, because of the reaction he got, seemingly leaving the others he was with high and dry. But they continued on, Paul his own way and Barnabas his.
Paul and Barnabas splitting up was their problem. I could assume as easily as anything else that if it hadn't been John Mark as the catalyst, it would have been something sooner or later. Who knows? No one. It's a sketchy record.
Paul wasn't the designated "leader" when he went out the first time with Barnabas. He established his rep as time went on.
John Mark is the writer credited with writing the "gospel of Mark". Not bad.
His absence in the records of Pauls' (other than a couple short remarks) seems to indicate he dropped out of sight. Nothing really indicates that overall though. There are a LOT of people not mentioned in the N.T. records of the bible. More people aren't mentioned than are, clearly. Does that mean they all dropped out of sight, did "nothing", quit?
Agabus shows up in Acts. Who's Agabus? Where'd he come from? He comes and goes very quickly. Others, the same, many unnamed.
I think because the bible is a done deal, written, memorialized forever as is, it's very easy to go to any record and concoct an entire profile of history with next to nothing to go on.
Doubting Thomas, John Mark the Quitter, Apollos the Silver Tongued Orater - it's like reading children's stories, mythical characters whose images grow and grow with nothing more added to them than what we read the first time we read about them. They make great source material for endless sermons and advice, but do they actually fuel the lessons that are taught or are they the crutches used to make points that would be made anyway but that sound better, truer, when there's bible material to support them?
I'm just asking the question. My opinion - much ado is made about very little, so points can be made. Like ol' John Mark always gets kicked in the tushy for being a "quitter".
Out of the 1,000's of people in the first and second generation of Christians that followed Christ - how many are mentioned? How many get their name tagged to a book that's been printed billions of times?
One lesson I can get from John Mark and all of these people I read about today - they were human. Normal human people who are painted as being part of something that, if it's true, is truly incredible.
socks...........yeah, your post summerizes some of what I was thinking when starting this thread and putting John Mark in my first post.
To label John Mark "a quitter"....???? Man, that is taking some liberties with scripture......what do we really know? Gee, I'd have to go back and study the record.......BUT if "the word doesn't say, then stop guessing" and STOP LABELING.
Quitting is an interesting "concept," isn't it? I mean.......don't we all quit doing something before we start doing something else? Paul quit being a pharisee....and became a living epistle. Was Paul "a quitter?" VPW quit the payne ohio church and quit the van wert church.....and started twi. Was vpw "a quitter?" Peter W@de quit twi after pfal was filmed in 67.....and started his own ministry. Was peter w@de "a quitter?"
To me, when I read that "sermon" on John Mark the quitter...........all I saw was private interpretation.
Personally I would prefer that one read the entirety of what I said not the random red letter addition, I doubt we are on the same page. I don't believe that the program was ever intended to be a two year or four year program and then you were done thing. I don't believe that it was the intent to train people so that they could leave to serve in the peace corps or other ministries upon graduation. No more so than Walmart trains people expecting them to work for Kmart upon completion.
From where I sit today, I do NOT believe that the corps program was ever intended to be "A lifetime of Christian service".........but rather, it was "a wierwille-indoctrination of twi service" with snippets of scripture to cloak the self-serving agendas.
Any "lifetime contract" or "binding agreement"......was NULLIFIED when the participant became aware of the deceitful nature of wierwille's (trustee) hidden agendas. Some left within weeks of their first inresident year. Some corps left at Christmas time......never to return. Some left during their interim year. Some confronted issues and parted company. Some left immediately after corps graduation. Some refused an irrational corps assignment and seeing that "God was no where in that decision." Some worked for twi a year, or two, or more.......etc. etc.
I don't believe that wierwille was training "leaders"..............I believe that wierwille was training FOLLOWERS. Why do I say this? LOOK no further than: 1) L. Craig Martindale and 2) Chrisxophxr C. Gexr.
Nothing like the old-fashioned "bait-and-switch" to bring back memories of twi.
This is pretty simple.
In the beginning, the corps were TOLD they were to complete their training,
then had the OPTION of assignments after that.
Whether or not they took on official assignments, they were corps grads (corps vets),
and now had training they could use at their discretion.
Does that mean I'm saying "they expected to take that training and could then leave
and do WHATEVER THEY WANTED with it?"
No, that is a distortion based on things nobody said.
What corps-grads (most if not all) expected to do was to go in with their lives,
now trained by twi and expected to apply what they learned, both in their lives and
in twi.
What does that mean in a practical sense?
It means they could choose to work for twi, or they could choose to have a normal
life. If they chose a normal life, they would serve God where they were, and support
twi where they were. In other words, a corpse grad who was from Des Moines could
return to Des Moine, and do things like run a twig, or run one, then run a branch, or
host pfal or other classes, or otherwise support twi in action and teaching.
They made an OFFICIAL committment for the length of the program, and from then
on, they were at their discretion as to how they applied it.
Does that mean they were expecting to leave twi with it?
Again, this is a distortion of what's simple to almost everyone.
THEY were to choose what capacity they would apply this in, based on what was
available for them to do and what they WISHED to do.
That's fairly simple.
HOWEVER,
what the student expected, and what twi later demanded, were 2 different things.
A few people here have pointed out they signed up-in writing-for 4 years, where they
paid for the training. What they were told several weeks in, was that they were now
required to serve twi for life at the discretion of twi,
which meant twi could make any sort of demand on them, and they would have
to find a way to accomplish it, no matter how difficult.
Since they were now manipulated by peer pressure and on grounds and couldn't
just say 'this is not what I agreed to in writing" due to a variety of social and psychological
stigmas (it was TECHNICALLY possible but PRACTICALLY impossible),
twi then had the person right where they wanted them.
twi managed-through trickery, psychosocial manipulation, peer pressure, and various
forms of outright lying- to get at least a PARTIAL workforce, that PAID for the PRIVILEGE
of being "standby slaves" for twi, expected to be told at a moment's notice to follow the
whims of twi for the rest of their LIVES.
(Unless they left twi completely, which, again, should be obvious that this was declared
tantamount to being worthless and fit only to die.)
Did vpw actually INTEND for a group of standby slaves?
That he DID should be obvious if you look at EVERYTHING he said.
He told the corps grads that they were REQUIRED to take time off from work wherever they
were, and come to hq to set up the grounds for ROA every year.
When some people DID do that, then returned home due to obligations with family, work or others,
vpw got ANGRY and insisted they were required to stay a SECOND week and work MORE
to PUT ON the ROA.
"He reminded everyone of the commitments that they had made regarding a lifetime of Christian
service. Every corps person needs to plan ahead one year or more so that they can be a part of
these events. They need to be able to be a part of ROA and corps fellowship."
So, vpw intended-at least early on-that "a lifetime of Christian service" would NOT mean
"serve God the rest of your life as led by The Spirit, in the context of twi",
but rather
"serve God the rest of your life as defined by whatever vpw and twi tells you God's Will is."
I agree that there was always the expectation that a corps grad would serve "in some capacity" within twi. But what that capacity was, is what I think is in dispute. There is a huge difference between coordinating a local fellowship in the city and state of your own choosing, and being told that you either go to state X, city Y and coordinate the area, or you are dropped from active corps status, which is what so many of us experienced.
As for "losing years of your life" if you walked away from the corps... by that I mean that whatever your expectations going in, if you finished the corps training, you must have some pretty firm beliefs in The Way International's goals, beliefs, etc. So, then you decide you cannot accept the assignment they are giving you. They drop you from active corps status. This usually results in great self-condemnation because you believe you have failed God and are a big spiritual loser (because you still believe in twi) OR you realize that this group is NOT working for God, and they don't care about your best interests, and that's when it dawns on you that you have wasted all those years and all that time and the prime of the youth of your life devoting so much of your time and resources to a group that wasn't what you thought it was!! Yes, the years were gone either way, but it is very much a person's awareness of the loss I am discussing. It is often the rude awakening of having your corps standing taken away that causes people to realize this loss.
I think that the fact that there were at one time Corps grads around who weren't on the hamster wheel of Corps assignments, who were working a "secular" job or running their own business (like the Colonel who worked at the Pentagon, the medical doctor, and others), who were not reassigned every three years coexisting with Corps grads who were accepting assignments and being uprooted on a regular basis caused some confusion on the part of some people who applied for the program. I recall a couple applying for Corps training as late as the mid-nineties who were convinced that they would put in their time and then come back to Nebraska and pick up where they left off, running their small business; and this just before Martindale mandated that all active Way Corps work full-time for "the ministry" and not hold outside jobs.
Yes, an expectation that a Corps grad serve in some capacity seems obvious, but given the wide range in which "some capacity" was practiced, it is not all that surprising that some folks interpreted "A Lifetime of Christian Service" more broadly than others.
That being said, I am occassionally surprised to hear about ex-wayfers who innocently clung to the belief that within The Way International serving God or following Christ was viewed as anything other than serving and following the leaders of The Way International. From what I can see, Wierwille and later Martindale, despite protests that it was "the Word" and not what VP Wierwille or L Craig Martindale said, made it very clear that what they said was what "The Word" said. Following God was defined as following the MOG.
I don't believe that wierwille was training "leaders"..............I believe that wierwille was training FOLLOWERS. Why do I say this? LOOK no further than: 1) L. Craig Martindale and 2) Chrisxophxr C. Gexr.
Martindale writes.........VP and Me
Geer writes.................The Passing of a Patriarch
Martindale "jumped" every time wierwille said "jump." Geer taught the 7th & 9th corps how to be sold-out to the victor paul wierwille ministry........he spent countless hours listening to wierwille's old teaching tapes, studied all of wierwille's habits and mannerisms, read the same books wierwille liked, took dog-training seriously to side in closer to wierwille, learned bus driving from howard, studied books on bodyguarding, took evasive driving course to help protect vpw if need be, and the list goes on.
Geer's cliff notes: Sell your soul to the wierwille-indoctrination and agendas.
The corps program was NOT a "leadership" program............it was a followship program.
From where I sit today, I do NOT believe that the corps program was ever intended to be "A lifetime of Christian service".........but rather, it was "a wierwille-indoctrination of twi service" with snippets of scripture to cloak the self-serving agendas.
Any "lifetime contract" or "binding agreement"......was NULLIFIED when the participant became aware of the deceitful nature of wierwille's (trustee) hidden agendas. Some left within weeks of their first inresident year. Some corps left at Christmas time......never to return. Some left during their interim year. Some confronted issues and parted company. Some left immediately after corps graduation. Some refused an irrational corps assignment and seeing that "God was no where in that decision." Some worked for twi a year, or two, or more.......etc. etc.
I don't believe that wierwille was training "leaders"..............I believe that wierwille was training FOLLOWERS. Why do I say this? LOOK no further than: 1) L. Craig Martindale and 2) Chrisxophxr C. Gexr.
Like I said, I'd say my viewpoints are alot different than yours.
I don't believe that wierwille was training "leaders"..............I believe that wierwille was training FOLLOWERS.
This is absolutely born out in their maxim that you cannot be a good leader until you know how to be a good follower... the way corps was about training people to be good followers. Then they hand-picked the ones they wanted to be leadership. Anyone who went through the training knew from very early on who was on the fast track to leadership, and who wasn't. And it didn't always have to do with who had the right heart, talent, or people skills!!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
46
28
47
24
Popular Days
Mar 21
55
Mar 19
50
Mar 25
39
Mar 27
31
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 46 posts
oldiesman 28 posts
WhiteDove 47 posts
waysider 24 posts
Popular Days
Mar 21 2008
55 posts
Mar 19 2008
50 posts
Mar 25 2008
39 posts
Mar 27 2008
31 posts
Posted Images
skyrider
whitedove.......your last statement in this post....[of which I bold-faced for emphasis].....is very intriguing in light of this whole lifetime/christian/corps discussion. Hopefully, I can gingerly broach this subject without inferring anything or hurting anyone............so here goes.
Spouse Corps:
..... 1) When a non-corps person married a corps person.....wasn't there twi counseling before this?
..... 2) Didn't vpw teach that the man was the head of the woman....in the marriage?
..... 3) If a non-corps (male) married a corps (female).......wasn't he to live & lead THEIR CORPS COMMITMENT?
..... 4) Even if the man didn't sign the corps form......didn't he make a vow before God? before twi clergy?
..... 5) If so........then wasn't SPOUSE CORPS recognized within the corps household? corps responsibilities?
..... 6) By free-will.......this man KNOWINGLY "signed-on" to the corps commitment, didn't he?
..... 7) Now.........is this spouse corps guy RESPONSIBLE TO OBEY TWI DIRECTORS A LIFETIME?
Please Note: My attempt at this questioning is LOGIC.......not twi's deceptive tactics, ok?
Before you (or anyone else responds)........DISCLAIMER: I believe that my corps commitment (at the time) was to SERVE GOD a lifetime......Christian service (not twi service). I believe that my corps application had OPTIONS to accept assignments or not accept assignments. I believe that the One Body of Christ is all important.......and twi is straying further and further from scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Just ignore the screaming terror, the blind abuse, the people destroyed....
We are using the truth so it don't matter. Our truth that we decide.
I am with exc, I don't want that truth, though I thought it would be better.
It wasn't, never was, and was always a taking from the poor truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
But many in TWI, saw vp's hypocrisy as the "correct" way to walk the truth:
He's our example to follow…He's our father in the Word.
Hey, if he can renew his mind to watching porn so that it doesn't even bother him – then it must be available for me to do that. I need to grow spiritually to where I get to that place in my walk!
If he can have such a pure mind that he can handle anything – even having sex with a woman other than his wife – then it must be available for me to do that - I can't wait to get to that place in my walk!
Hey, he said anything done with the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation is okay.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
Well, I guess when I'm really honest with myself, it isn't that I disagree with Oldiesman's point about "truth being truth, no matter who's mouth it comes out of"... it's more that, because of who's mouth it came out of, I now seriously doubt that it is the truth.
So, it's more that Sick-Vic's lies, lifestyle, and clearly un-godly practices are the stumbling block he put between me and what others would call the truth.
Or, put another way: because this man's judgement on so many things has been found faulty, it is hard for me to believe it wasn't equally faulty when he "rightly divided" the word of God.
And THAT is why the walk of the man is so important, Oldies...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
For easier reading --- paragraphs inserted and highlighted wording.
Gee, whitedove.......when "the cards are openly laid on the table"..... it looks like your viewpoints aren't all that different than mine, especially that last paragraph.
From where I sit........I believe that each and every corps person (regular, family, spouse & recognized) had/has the rightful duty to love and honor God, first and foremost. When the corps grad was conflicted and bound in the spirit (betwixted, restrained, & perplexed) on path-veering decisions, he needed to follow "the road to Emmaus, the one where Jesus Christ would instruct with wisdom and revelation."
For indeed........if it were "Christ-in-me, the hope of glory" then surely that spirit within would lead me and guide me to all truth (and ways to minister and serve). And, finding that "proper arrangement" to serve God and not mammon became increasingly challenging as twi evolved thru various stages into a business-like corporate entity.
And, personally.....I stayed in twi into the 90s.....serving in an area (far from the binding tentacles of hq). After several years, when I could no longer hold back the encroaching legalism of twi policies and God-less mandates..... I resigned knowing that, by the grace of God, I'd done everything I could to minister to those in my care. I exited on my terms with God as my witness. A few years later, martindale was ousted....and twi was attempting to be a "kinder, gentler ministry."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes, I understand what you mean Highway, about Oldies' point – which is valid – truth is truth. I have no problem with that. That's not what I'm addressing. There's more to this issue than just truth. What I'm talking about is our response to the truth – which can vary – we believe/obey it, ignore it, reject it, twist it, etc. Our response to the truth is the key to what effect [if any] the truth will have on us. Sinful attitudes, hypocrisy, persistent sinning, etc. can act like an insulating layer – that for all practical purposes renders the heart impervious to truth. I Timothy 4:2 talks about the false teachers with their hypocrisy of lies have their own conscience seared as with a branding iron.
In Matthew 15:3-9 NIV Jesus said for the sake of tradition, people nullify the Word of God. Was the truth nullified for everyone? No – only to those who follow the teachings and rules of men. That's why I mentioned in post # 107 Jesus' warnings of the doctrines/hypocrisy of the Pharisees [Matthew 16: 6, 11; Luke 12:1] – because of the nullifying power they have to render the truth ineffective on those who subscribe to such things.
Romans 1:18 NIV speaks of men who suppress the truth by their own wickedness. Hebrews 4:2 NASB says the Word does not profit people when it's not united with faith...Point being, their response does not change the truth - but their response does not allow the truth to change them.
Oldies touched upon this response aspect in his post # 200:
To that I say, good for you!!!...In retrospect – I think the closer one got to vp – like being on Staff or the Corps program – the more one was susceptible to the truth-nullifying effect exuded by his character, by the example he set. After all, if he was teaching us the Word like it hasn't been known for centuries – then it's logical to assume he was also teaching us how to walk the Word like it hasn't been done for centuries. The Corps program was designed to be a cloning process – to turn out a bunch of mini-vps. It's the systematizing of hypocrisy.
Here's the expanded literal translation according to usage of the Way Corps motto:
"It is written...in one of vp's books."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
VP said: truth is still truth even if it comes out of the mouth of the devil (or words to that effect).
That same mouth spouts lies also.
With the truth it adds a bit, subtracts a bit, twists a bit... so it sounds like the truth but it actually isn't.
That's what THW's point is all about.
If it doesn't change the speaker's point of view, as T-Bone points out - where is the power in this "truth"?
If there is no power in it - it isn't setting [the speaker] free - so why should anyone follow the speaker's example?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
We be good O-Man!
Excalater, that's the per'nt, IMO. You hits the nail on the head.
"Truth" is not a separate reality, disconnected from all of us and everything else, a set of indexed principles, indexed in alpha order to be memorized. Life can be indexed and memorized but it isn't lived that way, is it? Life happens while someone's reading a book title "The Truth and How To Live It".
The bible isn't written that way - an indexed book of point by point topics, "truths". It's a historical record, a story.
Commandments, instructions, rules, we got 'em. If there's a "pure" way of viewing God, that's one way, but God doesn't present Himself that way, over history. His story, from our view, is of one lived.
It is our view, but it's really the only one we've got, y'know? Time marches on...
To add: point to remember - God is a "somebody" in the bible, less a "something". He's a something, okay, he's "God", but wazzat y'know? God didn't want a name when asked for one in the O.T. - just call Him "I AM". Odd name, but I guess it works, His choice, right? Throughout the bible though the anthromorph's and all of that constantly refer to God in human terms - so He may or may not actually "be" the way He's written about but I believe He's something like it. So that makes God a someone for me, with intent, purpose, and interests. Preferences. How that really shakes out at the checkout stand, good question, still working on that one. But when I think of "truth" ------ I'd bet any Wayfer Corps Ved in good standing would have a difficult time defining that in terms that would make sense and be usable.
I think they could identify something that was in their opinion, "true", but even than there'd be validation on their part to define it. So no wonder, y'know.....
I'm so off topic, I'm not even sure what my point was. Anyhoo -
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i thank you socks
not off topic for me, but then again what is the topic ? ha
god is love and real to me
veepee's love is not real to me
and that's my reality :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
John Mark - that was it! Back at the top -
Very little is known about John Mark but a lot is assumed. We assume he was young, and he probably was. We assume he did work to help and assist the leaders of the early church, that seems reasonable. What exactly we don't know but it was useful work, by the few references we read. So John Mark was someone who helped make things happen.
John Mark "quit" the work he was doing at one point but we don't know why. We assume it was wrong, because of the reaction he got, seemingly leaving the others he was with high and dry. But they continued on, Paul his own way and Barnabas his.
Paul and Barnabas splitting up was their problem. I could assume as easily as anything else that if it hadn't been John Mark as the catalyst, it would have been something sooner or later. Who knows? No one. It's a sketchy record.
Paul wasn't the designated "leader" when he went out the first time with Barnabas. He established his rep as time went on.
John Mark is the writer credited with writing the "gospel of Mark". Not bad.
His absence in the records of Pauls' (other than a couple short remarks) seems to indicate he dropped out of sight. Nothing really indicates that overall though. There are a LOT of people not mentioned in the N.T. records of the bible. More people aren't mentioned than are, clearly. Does that mean they all dropped out of sight, did "nothing", quit?
Agabus shows up in Acts. Who's Agabus? Where'd he come from? He comes and goes very quickly. Others, the same, many unnamed.
I think because the bible is a done deal, written, memorialized forever as is, it's very easy to go to any record and concoct an entire profile of history with next to nothing to go on.
Doubting Thomas, John Mark the Quitter, Apollos the Silver Tongued Orater - it's like reading children's stories, mythical characters whose images grow and grow with nothing more added to them than what we read the first time we read about them. They make great source material for endless sermons and advice, but do they actually fuel the lessons that are taught or are they the crutches used to make points that would be made anyway but that sound better, truer, when there's bible material to support them?
I'm just asking the question. My opinion - much ado is made about very little, so points can be made. Like ol' John Mark always gets kicked in the tushy for being a "quitter".
Out of the 1,000's of people in the first and second generation of Christians that followed Christ - how many are mentioned? How many get their name tagged to a book that's been printed billions of times?
One lesson I can get from John Mark and all of these people I read about today - they were human. Normal human people who are painted as being part of something that, if it's true, is truly incredible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Personally I would prefer that one read the entirety of what I said not the random red letter addition, I doubt we are on the same page. I don't believe that the program was ever intended to be a two year or four year program and then you were done thing. I don't believe that it was the intent to train people so that they could leave to serve in the peace corps or other ministries upon graduation. No more so than Walmart trains people expecting them to work for Kmart upon completion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
One verse comes to mind for me.
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Romans 14:12-14 (in Context) Romans 14 (Whole Chapter)
Good grief. VPW was a stumblingblock for me. Instead of an example. That's why I copped out on my "corps committment." Actually, it wasn't just VPW, it was a whole bunch of people who were supposed to be an "example."
Why do we need to justify the choices of our conscience?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
WalMart does not require you to work for them for the rest of your life. Or even after the training to work at all. You are free to work anywhere.
Your words are empty and foolish whitedove. You like your insane scenarios to further empty discussion and create fights. Your posts are that of a troll. Without any care at all of what your words may do.
Of course I think everyone knows this but you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...Then why didn't they say it up front?... <_< ...why did they put in writing that taking assignments was optional?...They mislead at the very least...or they just out and out lied.
When I entered the corps, I never assumed that serving God and being a part of twi were synonomous. The bible doesn't teach that...That is what I mean about bait and switch...they baited you with a 4 year program and switched it to a lifetime of servitude...they baited you with serving God and they switched it to serving them....
And if twi never intended it to be a 2 or 4 year program, they never should have presented it as that...they flat out lied.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Never said they did, what I did say was that they trained people for the intent of working for them as leaders in their company ,in that example it is one in the same as the Corps program. The Corps program was promoted as a lifetime of christian servive. Walmart is not a promoted as lifetime of management that I know of that is the differance If you didn't like the terms then don't join.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well that's the thing One persons stumbling block is anothers example sometimes. I don't think anyone needs to justify the choices of their conscience either. Nor do I think that they need to make something into what it was not, to make themselves feel better about their choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
1. They didn't train anyone for a 'lifetime of christian service'.
2. They don't know what chistian service is.
3. You don't need the the Corps for Christian Service.
4. the Corps wasn't about a lifetime of christian service-EVER.
5. One can quit or not do what was expected of the way, without any problems from a biblical point of view, or a moral point of view. Or any VALID point of view. During the training or after the training.
If you don't like it, too bad.
That's the way it was and is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
socks...........yeah, your post summerizes some of what I was thinking when starting this thread and putting John Mark in my first post.
To label John Mark "a quitter"....???? Man, that is taking some liberties with scripture......what do we really know? Gee, I'd have to go back and study the record.......BUT if "the word doesn't say, then stop guessing" and STOP LABELING.
Quitting is an interesting "concept," isn't it? I mean.......don't we all quit doing something before we start doing something else? Paul quit being a pharisee....and became a living epistle. Was Paul "a quitter?" VPW quit the payne ohio church and quit the van wert church.....and started twi. Was vpw "a quitter?" Peter W@de quit twi after pfal was filmed in 67.....and started his own ministry. Was peter w@de "a quitter?"
To me, when I read that "sermon" on John Mark the quitter...........all I saw was private interpretation.
<_<
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
From where I sit today, I do NOT believe that the corps program was ever intended to be "A lifetime of Christian service".........but rather, it was "a wierwille-indoctrination of twi service" with snippets of scripture to cloak the self-serving agendas.
Any "lifetime contract" or "binding agreement"......was NULLIFIED when the participant became aware of the deceitful nature of wierwille's (trustee) hidden agendas. Some left within weeks of their first inresident year. Some corps left at Christmas time......never to return. Some left during their interim year. Some confronted issues and parted company. Some left immediately after corps graduation. Some refused an irrational corps assignment and seeing that "God was no where in that decision." Some worked for twi a year, or two, or more.......etc. etc.
I don't believe that wierwille was training "leaders"..............I believe that wierwille was training FOLLOWERS. Why do I say this? LOOK no further than: 1) L. Craig Martindale and 2) Chrisxophxr C. Gexr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Nothing like the old-fashioned "bait-and-switch" to bring back memories of twi.
This is pretty simple.
In the beginning, the corps were TOLD they were to complete their training,
then had the OPTION of assignments after that.
Whether or not they took on official assignments, they were corps grads (corps vets),
and now had training they could use at their discretion.
Does that mean I'm saying "they expected to take that training and could then leave
and do WHATEVER THEY WANTED with it?"
No, that is a distortion based on things nobody said.
What corps-grads (most if not all) expected to do was to go in with their lives,
now trained by twi and expected to apply what they learned, both in their lives and
in twi.
What does that mean in a practical sense?
It means they could choose to work for twi, or they could choose to have a normal
life. If they chose a normal life, they would serve God where they were, and support
twi where they were. In other words, a corpse grad who was from Des Moines could
return to Des Moine, and do things like run a twig, or run one, then run a branch, or
host pfal or other classes, or otherwise support twi in action and teaching.
They made an OFFICIAL committment for the length of the program, and from then
on, they were at their discretion as to how they applied it.
Does that mean they were expecting to leave twi with it?
Again, this is a distortion of what's simple to almost everyone.
THEY were to choose what capacity they would apply this in, based on what was
available for them to do and what they WISHED to do.
That's fairly simple.
HOWEVER,
what the student expected, and what twi later demanded, were 2 different things.
A few people here have pointed out they signed up-in writing-for 4 years, where they
paid for the training. What they were told several weeks in, was that they were now
required to serve twi for life at the discretion of twi,
which meant twi could make any sort of demand on them, and they would have
to find a way to accomplish it, no matter how difficult.
Since they were now manipulated by peer pressure and on grounds and couldn't
just say 'this is not what I agreed to in writing" due to a variety of social and psychological
stigmas (it was TECHNICALLY possible but PRACTICALLY impossible),
twi then had the person right where they wanted them.
twi managed-through trickery, psychosocial manipulation, peer pressure, and various
forms of outright lying- to get at least a PARTIAL workforce, that PAID for the PRIVILEGE
of being "standby slaves" for twi, expected to be told at a moment's notice to follow the
whims of twi for the rest of their LIVES.
(Unless they left twi completely, which, again, should be obvious that this was declared
tantamount to being worthless and fit only to die.)
Did vpw actually INTEND for a group of standby slaves?
That he DID should be obvious if you look at EVERYTHING he said.
He told the corps grads that they were REQUIRED to take time off from work wherever they
were, and come to hq to set up the grounds for ROA every year.
When some people DID do that, then returned home due to obligations with family, work or others,
vpw got ANGRY and insisted they were required to stay a SECOND week and work MORE
to PUT ON the ROA.
"He reminded everyone of the commitments that they had made regarding a lifetime of Christian
service. Every corps person needs to plan ahead one year or more so that they can be a part of
these events. They need to be able to be a part of ROA and corps fellowship."
So, vpw intended-at least early on-that "a lifetime of Christian service" would NOT mean
"serve God the rest of your life as led by The Spirit, in the context of twi",
but rather
"serve God the rest of your life as defined by whatever vpw and twi tells you God's Will is."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Martindale writes.........VP and Me
Geer writes.................The Passing of a Patriarch
Martindale "jumped" every time wierwille said "jump." Geer taught the 7th & 9th corps how to be sold-out to the victor paul wierwille ministry........he spent countless hours listening to wierwille's old teaching tapes, studied all of wierwille's habits and mannerisms, read the same books wierwille liked, took dog-training seriously to side in closer to wierwille, learned bus driving from howard, studied books on bodyguarding, took evasive driving course to help protect vpw if need be, and the list goes on.
Geer's cliff notes: Sell your soul to the wierwille-indoctrination and agendas.
The corps program was NOT a "leadership" program............it was a followship program.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Like I said, I'd say my viewpoints are alot different than yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
This is absolutely born out in their maxim that you cannot be a good leader until you know how to be a good follower... the way corps was about training people to be good followers. Then they hand-picked the ones they wanted to be leadership. Anyone who went through the training knew from very early on who was on the fast track to leadership, and who wasn't. And it didn't always have to do with who had the right heart, talent, or people skills!!!
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.