I might tend to agree with you if twi wasn't the only group who practiced these scriptures in some form or another, but there are many other religious groups who do. Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Amish, just to name a few off the top of my head. Our country prides itself on freedom of religion and twi was/is a part of that.
Hey there, Oldies
I don't really give a rat's patootie what any other "religious" group sanctions, we're talking about The Way and how they insisted we sever ties with all who were not part of the "in crowd".
As far as popping in and out, I think you must have been in some other organization than me.
In The Way that I was a part of, leaving "the hedge of protection" was the same thing as surrendering yourself and your loved ones to the mercy of the Devil who would probably use your momentary lapse to sweep in and exterminate you.
Are you sure you were in the same TWI as me?
The TWI that I was involved with was not a religion.
It was a cult!!
And you weren't "free" to think for yourself unless you were willing to accept the consequences of paragraph #2.
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.
<_<
What's so hard about this I don't see
In the record John Mark did quit ,he went part way on the first journey ,and then returned home. It does not say they had a disagreement and he split ways, it says he withdrew ( NIV and NASB say he "deserted" them.)
He went back home It seems logical that one would not take along someone to help that had previously not worked out, someone that had left them high and dry so to speak, someone that had left them short of the needed manpower to complete the job. It does not say why he quit, but I believe that had it been for good reason Paul would have taken that into consideration and not have felt so strongly about not taking him.
It's kinda like if you were supposed to pick me up from work , and just blew me off for no good reason. I'd feel differently than if you had, say for instance had a heart attack and couldn't because you were in the hospital. Next time I needed a ride depending on which case it was would affect my trusting you for a ride.
If one goes part way in a race and stops he quits, just because you go home and run the next day does not negate that you quit the race. John Mark started a work and went home in the middle, he quit, that's just the facts , whether he had a reason, good or bad is irrelevant he still quit, what he did when he got home is irrelevant , he still quit the work he started with Paul.
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?"
First Peter did not quit the Way in 67 you need to check your facts. Had you read what was said he was clear that people sometimes quit. the instances you posted are examples of quiting. What he said was.........
And that really tells us something. There's somebody in the Bible just like you and there's someone just like me, and we can learn from their victories and we can learn from their failures too. John Mark quit but he came back. John Mark failed but he was not a failure. Does that encourage you?
First Peter did not quit the Way in 67 you need to check your facts. Had you read what was said he was clear that people sometimes quit. the instances you posted are examples of quiting.
whitedove.............you need to READ what I posted. The quote is below.......I posted that "Peter W@de quit twi after pfal was filmed in '67."
The reason is obvious......wierwille mentions wade's little booklet in the pfal class. Therefore, it seems that wade was STILL WITH TWI at the time of its filming........then, by the late 60s/early 70s wade is gone, nowhere around giving support to twi. What facts need checking?
My post #221
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.
Should I put together a little sermon labeling Peter J. W@de "a quitter?" <_<
Heck, one could just as easily call the Apostle Paul "a quitter"......he "quit" on God's revelation to NOT go to Jerusalem, and still went.......didn't he?
Why does one have to attach *blanket-labels* that stigmatize a tiny segment of one's life? I just wouldn't wrap my sermon around this little infraction and then label it something like....."John Mark the quitter."
Sure, I see the point that we learn from victories, learn from failures ..... that we fail but are not failures.......it just seems that if one were to look at John Mark's point of view, perhaps he had a valid reason for withdrawing from the journey with Paul (and it had nothing to do with "failure"). Seems like Barnabus didn't hold this against him.......whatever.
whitedove.............you need to READ what I posted. The quote is below.......I posted that "Peter W@de quit twi after pfal was filmed in '67."
The reason is obvious......wierwille mentions wade's little booklet in the pfal class. Therefore, it seems that wade was STILL WITH TWI at the time of its filming........then, by the late 60s/early 70s wade is gone, nowhere around giving support to twi. What facts need checking?
Peter was involved in the way ,past late 60s early 70s 1976 was when he parted company.. Just for the record
My post #221
Should I put together a little sermon labeling Peter J. W@de "a quitter?" <_<
Heck, one could just as easily call the Apostle Paul "a quitter"......he "quit" on God's revelation to NOT go to Jerusalem, and still went.......didn't he?
You could if you wish , just make sure you add the rest of the story as Peter did in his. Which you seem to want to ignore.
Why does one have to attach *blanket-labels* that stigmatize a tiny segment of one's life? I just wouldn't wrap my sermon around this little infraction and then label it something like....."John Mark the quitter."
Sure, I see the point that we learn from victories, learn from failures ..... that we fail but are not failures.......it just seems that if one were to look at John Mark's point of view, perhaps he had a valid reason for withdrawing from the journey with Paul (and it had nothing to do with "failure"). Seems like Barnabus didn't hold this against him.......whatever.
It's not a blanket lable it's a fact. It's pretty simple, when one starts something and does not see it through to the end he quits, valid reasons are not the issue as Peter Wade mentioned. What or why does not change that he did quit. What he did when he went home does not change it either. Look it's simple if I agree to run the Boston marathon you start at point A the start and run until you get to point B the finish . If one stops in between those points and drops out he quits, that's just the fact. Why that happened is another reason, one may have a good one maybe their legs cramped, maybe the fell and broke a leg , whatever the reason the fact is they quit. It does not matter that they went home and the next day continued running it still does not change the quit. it also does not pass judgment on anyone either it simply states the fact they quit.
As he said John Mark failed but he was not a failure.
Actually now that I think about it, if you really want to pick at words I'd say Peter was being very kind in his choice of words. The NIV and NASB say he "deserted" them. Now people quit things all the time , but deserters, well they used to shoot them now didn't they ?
Maybe it stands out to me from all those twi labels......cop-out.....possessed..... greasespot......mark/avoid
Labels have a way of *sticking*.....
Unless God labels one "a quitter"........why should I add it?
From the John Mark thread:
Paul writes to Timothy, "Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry" (II Timothy 4:11). So Mark goes from being a quitter to being "very useful [very helpful, profitable] to me for ministry".
Is "being a quitter"........worse than "being a cult follower?"
Unless God labels one "a quitter"........why should I add it?
Ok then we'll call him a deserter then.........
Maybe it stands out to me from all those twi labels......cop-out.....possessed..... greasespot......mark/avoid
Labels have a way of *sticking*.....
I agree they do , but there is a difference between a factual description of an event and a baseless accusation. One can't reflect their past experience into another biblical record and expect it to coincide. Therein might be the problem . As Christians we must accept what is written and not add our preconceived ideas about what it means based on something that happened to us.
If God says he quit he quit, if he says he deserted then I'll take His word for it. By the way He also said he was useful [very helpful, profitable) I don't here anyone complaining about those words. No complaint about those labels either. Some people just look for things to find wrong. I think perhaps looking at why that is would be time better spent.
Actually, I prefer to view John Mark as a holy man moved by the spirit of God to pen some awesome truths and accounts of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nor do I care to *attach an insignificant label* on a small sliver of a man's life. You can call him whatever you like........ but I prefer to step back and look at *the sum of a man's whole life.
When there is continuous, habitual pattern.......then, yes......."labels" have a way of sticking.
When carnal patterns of lust, drunkenness, strife, lying, hatred, idolatry, etc.......consume and take up residency in a man's life..........then, yes........to me, it certainly becomes a teaching point of "the man of the flesh."
Otherwise, stuff like this reminds me of Matt 7:3.....And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
* Note.........I did NOT post on the John Mark thread, nor does it need further discussion on this thread.
** In starting this Way Corps Vet thread......my point was to address this corps vet *label* and how it impacted individual corps and the overall message it conveyed.
Actually, I prefer to view John Mark as a holy man moved by the spirit of God to pen some awesome truths and accounts of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nor do I care to *attach an insignificant label* on a small sliver of a man's life. You can call him whatever you like........ but I prefer to step back and look at *the sum of a man's whole life.
When there is continuous, habitual pattern.......then, yes......."labels" have a way of sticking.
When carnal patterns of lust, drunkenness, strife, lying, hatred, idolatry, etc.......consume and take up residency in a man's life..........then, yes........to me, it certainly becomes a teaching point of "the man of the flesh."
Otherwise, stuff like this reminds me of Matt 7:3.....And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Hey your the one that wanted to point out using what God labels I never said not to look at his life in whole ,only that ,that record spoke accuratly ,which Peter quoted. You wanted to use what God said fine, he withdrew and he deserted, I'm fine with that. I agree we should look at the whole picture. If your looking at his whole life then that would also be a part of it. Or do you only include the parts you choose?
* Note.........I did NOT post on the John Mark thread, nor does it need further discussion on this thread.
Your choice......
** In starting this Way Corps Vet thread......my point was to address this corps vet *label* and how it impacted individual corps and the overall message it conveyed.
I'll remind you that you were the one who drug this into your thread not me.
There are three threads at the moment.....from which I'd like to compile my thoughts on this thread. Those three threads are: 1) Here we go again, 2) The New Corps - sorta, and 3) John Mark.
I guess when it's clear that scripture says he withdrew and deserted Paul we don't want to discuss it anymore. Kind of shoots down the labeling and liberties with scripture argument I guess.
The Corps Vet concept was aligned with the WOW Vet concept........when you graduated from the program, YOU WERE DONE.......i.e. "a veteran."
As hundreds went into the corps training (around 1976).......it was publically promoted as "A Lifetime of Christian Service" and that many corps grads would take this learning into businesses, into word in culture. From basically 1977-1982, wierwille and company did NOT label these military/business corps grads as "quitters."
What are the expectations (or 'hooks') in the J2P2 corps-style training? Once they complete the program........then what? Will those trainees be "given the blessing of the rural-regimentation" OR will the labeling start? Will they be slandered as QUITTERS......COP-OUTS.......POZZEZZED......MARK-n-AVOID..???
Like I said in my opening post...............selling those way corps vet t-shirts in twi's bookstore was an indication of how the trustees viewed the CORPS PROGRAM.
For a few years, we had *completed our tour of duty, obligation to the corps program*.......now as veterans, the choices were ours. According to the trustees......we had completed our mission of learning and now, it was up to us to go forth. The options in assignments were ours.
Yet.............within a couple of years, twi stopped selling those t-shirts. And, by 1984......the screws were tightening again around us to TAKE TWI ASSIGNMENTS..........else, the labeling and slander started.
After all............victor paul wierwille was a "quitter" if one chooses to look at little slivers of his life. He quit the payne ohio church. He quit the van buren church (some think he was terminated)..........but of all the things in wierwille's life, I would not label him a *quitter.*............nor would I label any corps grad *a quitter.*
Further.........martindale mandated, in 1995, that all active corps take full-time employment FROM TWI..........or else, they would be *dropped* corps......and be labeled *corps alumni*.........another changing of terminology, again.
When the First Corps had their 20 year reunion in ohio.......and made known that they wanted to stop by hq for some memories, some pictures.........howard allen threatened legal action if they stepped foot on twi property. Nice, howard............that's the kind of action Jesus would take, right?...............NOT.
Is there a difference between a veteran(Vet) and someone who is on active duty?
I'm just askin'
According to definition, here are a couple:
1) experienced, practiced [past term acknowledgement of learning]
2) designating or of a person who has served in the armed forces.
At the time I went thru twi's 4-year program.......2 years of gaining exposure, experience (witnessing, classes, etc) and 2 years in-rez (with light-bearers, lead, research paper, teaching, etc)
Was there a difference between being a WOW..........and a WOW veteran..?
Then.......there was a push to send WOW veterans to "spiritually-dark" cities. Any wow vets who signed up for ANOTHER YEAR of active duty were commended.
Like I said in my opening post...............selling those way corps vet t-shirts in twi's bookstore was an indication of how the trustees viewed the CORPS PROGRAM.
For a few years, we had *completed our tour of duty, obligation to the corps program*.......now as veterans, the choices were ours. According to the trustees......we had completed our mission of learning and now, it was up to us to go forth. The options in assignments were ours.
Yet.............within a couple of years, twi stopped selling those t-shirts. And, by 1984......the screws were tightening again around us to TAKE TWI ASSIGNMENTS..........else, the labeling and slander started.
After all............victor paul wierwille was a "quitter" if one chooses to look at little slivers of his life. He quit the payne ohio church. He quit the van buren church (some think he was terminated)..........but of all the things in wierwille's life, I would not label him a *quitter.*............nor would I label any corps grad *a quitter.*
Further.........martindale mandated, in 1995, that all active corps take full-time employment FROM TWI..........or else, they would be *dropped* corps......and be labeled *corps alumni*.........another changing of terminology, again.
When the First Corps had their 20 year reunion in ohio.......and made known that they wanted to stop by hq for some memories, some pictures.........howard allen threatened legal action if they stepped foot on twi property. Nice, howard............that's the kind of action Jesus would take, right?...............NOT.
I believe the vet was for veteran of the in residence program, much like when your an alumni at school. Now the next phase begins the application of what one learned. They quit selling Takit shirts too so what? Once a veteran of the in residence training you could take a assignment of their choosing or one of yours, either way it was an assignment. As I said before that's not to say that their was not considerable pressure to take the one they suggested.
After all............victor paul wierwille was a "quitter" if one chooses to look at little slivers of his life. He quit the payne ohio church. He quit the van buren church (some think he was terminated)..........but of all the things in wierwille's life, I would not label him a *quitter.*............nor would I label any corps grad *a quitter.*
This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through the last several posts... sometimes what looks like quitting to one person, might just be correcting a mistake or moving on to someone else for someone else.
In my lifetime, I have tried several occupations, each of which called upon some talent I thought I had. And as I discarded these occupations, one-by-one, there were definitely those who called me a quitter. Folks who thought I didn't give things enough time or just didn't know how to stick it out. Sorry folks, I spent 20 years "sticking it out" in a marriage that never did work, in a religious group that didn't work. And what I learned is, if my gut says "this isn't working for me" I am the only one who can truly determine if I've given it my best shot, and have reasonably assessed why it is time to change or move on. And in my experience, if it truly isn't working for me, it truly isn't working for the other folks involved either, no matter how much they try to say it is.
The end result of all my "quitting"? I now have a job I thoroughly enjoy and could see myself doing for the rest of my life. And, oddly enough, this job uses bits and pieces of many of the different things I tried earlier in life. And if I hadn't tried them all, and gained those bits of experience and training, I don't believe I would have been well-suited for this job.
Bottom line -- a person should never be forced into following someone else's direction for their life.
When you think about it, why is there all this confusion about what twi meant by "commitment" and "service"? Is there any confusion about what the Armed Forces mean when they recruit you? Is there any doubt that they own you for a specified number of years? Is there any question that you will accept their assignments, even go to war, or face the consequences? Is there any question that at the end of your term you have a choice to leave or re-sign? VP says he patterned the way corps after the marine corps. Why didn't he just say, straight out, what the terms of service were? Because twi thrived on vagueness and innuendo. It was their stock in trade. It allowed them to shape the commitment to suit each recruit and bring in the most people. If they had been straight up, we wouldn't be having this debate. There wouldn't be any questions about the meaning of the terms. It's just that simple.
This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through the last several posts... sometimes what looks like quitting to one person, might just be correcting a mistake or moving on to someone else for someone else.
In my lifetime, I have tried several occupations, each of which called upon some talent I thought I had. And as I discarded these occupations, one-by-one, there were definitely those who called me a quitter. Folks who thought I didn't give things enough time or just didn't know how to stick it out. Sorry folks, I spent 20 years "sticking it out" in a marriage that never did work, in a religious group that didn't work. And what I learned is, if my gut says "this isn't working for me" I am the only one who can truly determine if I've given it my best shot, and have reasonably assessed why it is time to change or move on. And in my experience, if it truly isn't working for me, it truly isn't working for the other folks involved either, no matter how much they try to say it is.
You seem to be confused at what was said. No one said you could not or should not quit things at times BUT ,that only when you do that's what it is called, that's the word we use to describe it. You seem to include some irritation that the description includes some form of judgment it does not, it only describes what the person did. In the cases mentioned it is accurate to say VPW quit what he did at that point, he was a quitter in that area of his life . The point as Peter mentioned is that one can pick up and start again which was what VP did as well as John Mark. It sounds like you have done the same a few times as well.
The end result of all my "quitting"? I now have a job I thoroughly enjoy and could see myself doing for the rest of my life. And, oddly enough, this job uses bits and pieces of many of the different things I tried earlier in life. And if I hadn't tried them all, and gained those bits of experience and training, I don't believe I would have been well-suited for this job.
Again no one said that quitting does not bring you experience in life, or learning, only that if you start something and fail to reach your planned end by your choice, then you have quit, John mark had a planned course of action he went part way , and withdrew, he quit, pretty simple
Bottom line -- a person should never be forced into following someone else's direction for their life.
When you think about it, why is there all this confusion about what twi meant by "commitment" and "service"? Is there any confusion about what the Armed Forces mean when they recruit you? Is there any doubt that they own you for a specified number of years? Is there any question that you will accept their assignments, even go to war, or face the consequences? Is there any question that at the end of your term you have a choice to leave or re-sign? VP says he patterned the way corps after the marine corps. Why didn't he just say, straight out, what the terms of service were? Because twi thrived on vagueness and innuendo. It was their stock in trade. It allowed them to shape the commitment to suit each recruit and bring in the most people. If they had been straight up, we wouldn't be having this debate. There wouldn't be any questions about the meaning of the terms. It's just that simple.
Well though I might agree with about being forced non the less it happens all the time when people sign up for things and relinquish that choice to direct their own lives. It happens in the service as your pointed out. And yes there is often a vast difference between what the recruiters told you would be the plan and what reality was after you signed up. I've often experienced that people change their perception of what was said based on their emotional response to the outcome. In general people IMHO don't like to be accountable for their choices many times.
Example - you ask someone if they can volunteer to help at a function? The answer is Oh I would love to but I'm to busy! ( standard covenant excuse) These are the same folks that watch American Idol several nights a week, the truth is they are not too busy, the truth is they just don't want to put forth the time or effort. And that's fine, just say so . Be honest just say so. But they don't, why ? they want to walk away feeling that they had some good reason why they just could not possibly help. They just don't wan to be honest and say I don't want to do that. Being to busy sounds better it takes the rejection off of their decision ,the business of their life just wont let them help. I see the same with way experiences, some want to walk away with a reason they have changed their course and what was clear now becomes vague, because it makes them not responsible for their choice. Me I say make a choice and stand by it say I quit and here is why like it or not, but yes that's what I did. And now I am doing this ,I quit, but I started again. That was Peters message We don't have to remain in the quit position in life.
I don't really give a rat's patootie what any other "religious" group sanctions, we're talking about The Way and how they insisted we sever ties with all who were not part of the "in crowd".
As far as popping in and out, I think you must have been in some other organization than me.
In The Way that I was a part of, leaving "the hedge of protection" was the same thing as surrendering yourself and your loved ones to the mercy of the Devil who would probably use your momentary lapse to sweep in and exterminate you.
Are you sure you were in the same TWI as me?
The TWI that I was involved with was not a religion.
It was a cult!!
And you weren't "free" to think for yourself unless you were willing to accept the consequences of paragraph #2.
I don't really give a rat's patootie what any other "religious" group sanctions, we're talking about The Way and how they insisted we sever ties with all who were not part of the "in crowd".
As far as popping in and out, I think you must have been in some other organization than me.
In The Way that I was a part of, leaving "the hedge of protection" was the same thing as surrendering yourself and your loved ones to the mercy of the Devil who would probably use your momentary lapse to sweep in and exterminate you.
Are you sure you were in the same TWI as me?
The TWI that I was involved with was not a religion.
It was a cult!!
And you weren't "free" to think for yourself unless you were willing to accept the consequences of paragraph #2.
:blink: :blink: :blink:
So is there some point to addressing your response to Oldies a few posts back to me?
This whole idea of having the freedom to pick and choose assignments in The Way without being labeled a quitter, or worse, is laughable at best. Not only would you be labeled a failure, but God's protection would(supposedly) be lifted from you if you chose to do otherwise.
If you really never saw that, I would have to say "good for you".
Does that answer your question?
BTW -----Sometimes "quiting" is just another way of saying "I changed my course", as in "I can see this road is a dead end so I am going to "quit" following it."
This whole idea of having the freedom to pick and choose assignments in The Way without being labeled a quitter, or worse, is laughable at best. Not only would you be labeled a failure, but God's protection would(supposedly) be lifted from you if you chose to do otherwise.
If you really never saw that, I would have to say "good for you".
Does that answer your question?
Not really, Because I don't recall saying that at all ,in fact had you taken time to read what I said ,I believe several times now, you would have seen that.
Quote Whitedove post#268
Once a veteran of the in residence training you could take a assignment of their choosing or one of yours, either way it was an assignment. As I said before that's not to say that there was not considerable pressure to take the one they suggested.
In the record John Mark did quit ,he went part way on the first journey ,and then returned home. It does not say they had a disagreement and he split ways, it says he withdrew ( NIV and NASB say he "deserted" them.)
He LEFT, reason unstated.
The Greek word for what he did is "apostanta", from the same root word as "apostasia."
Now, all ex-twi who believe in a "Gathering Together" before the Last Days, the Wrath, etc.
should be able to tell you that they believe "apostasia" should properly be translated "departure."
The word ITSELF literally means "moving away from" (stasia is movement, apo is the away from part.)
Therefore, he LEFT.
Rendering LEAVING as "DESERTION" or "QUITTING" is to add meaning and connotation that are not in
the word "LEFT".
This is what vpw referred to as "private interpretation."
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
waysider
Hey there, Oldies
I don't really give a rat's patootie what any other "religious" group sanctions, we're talking about The Way and how they insisted we sever ties with all who were not part of the "in crowd".
As far as popping in and out, I think you must have been in some other organization than me.
In The Way that I was a part of, leaving "the hedge of protection" was the same thing as surrendering yourself and your loved ones to the mercy of the Devil who would probably use your momentary lapse to sweep in and exterminate you.
Are you sure you were in the same TWI as me?
The TWI that I was involved with was not a religion.
It was a cult!!
And you weren't "free" to think for yourself unless you were willing to accept the consequences of paragraph #2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i was in the one you were in waysider
and thank you for the reply oldies, but i still think you oversimplify it, to say the least....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
What's so hard about this I don't see
In the record John Mark did quit ,he went part way on the first journey ,and then returned home. It does not say they had a disagreement and he split ways, it says he withdrew ( NIV and NASB say he "deserted" them.)
He went back home It seems logical that one would not take along someone to help that had previously not worked out, someone that had left them high and dry so to speak, someone that had left them short of the needed manpower to complete the job. It does not say why he quit, but I believe that had it been for good reason Paul would have taken that into consideration and not have felt so strongly about not taking him.
It's kinda like if you were supposed to pick me up from work , and just blew me off for no good reason. I'd feel differently than if you had, say for instance had a heart attack and couldn't because you were in the hospital. Next time I needed a ride depending on which case it was would affect my trusting you for a ride.
If one goes part way in a race and stops he quits, just because you go home and run the next day does not negate that you quit the race. John Mark started a work and went home in the middle, he quit, that's just the facts , whether he had a reason, good or bad is irrelevant he still quit, what he did when he got home is irrelevant , he still quit the work he started with Paul.
First Peter did not quit the Way in 67 you need to check your facts. Had you read what was said he was clear that people sometimes quit. the instances you posted are examples of quiting. What he said was.........
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
who in the bible is just like me ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
whitedove.............you need to READ what I posted. The quote is below.......I posted that "Peter W@de quit twi after pfal was filmed in '67."
The reason is obvious......wierwille mentions wade's little booklet in the pfal class. Therefore, it seems that wade was STILL WITH TWI at the time of its filming........then, by the late 60s/early 70s wade is gone, nowhere around giving support to twi. What facts need checking?
My post #221
Should I put together a little sermon labeling Peter J. W@de "a quitter?" <_<
Heck, one could just as easily call the Apostle Paul "a quitter"......he "quit" on God's revelation to NOT go to Jerusalem, and still went.......didn't he?
Why does one have to attach *blanket-labels* that stigmatize a tiny segment of one's life? I just wouldn't wrap my sermon around this little infraction and then label it something like....."John Mark the quitter."
Sure, I see the point that we learn from victories, learn from failures ..... that we fail but are not failures.......it just seems that if one were to look at John Mark's point of view, perhaps he had a valid reason for withdrawing from the journey with Paul (and it had nothing to do with "failure"). Seems like Barnabus didn't hold this against him.......whatever.
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Peter was involved in the way ,past late 60s early 70s 1976 was when he parted company.. Just for the record
You could if you wish , just make sure you add the rest of the story as Peter did in his. Which you seem to want to ignore.It's not a blanket lable it's a fact. It's pretty simple, when one starts something and does not see it through to the end he quits, valid reasons are not the issue as Peter Wade mentioned. What or why does not change that he did quit. What he did when he went home does not change it either. Look it's simple if I agree to run the Boston marathon you start at point A the start and run until you get to point B the finish . If one stops in between those points and drops out he quits, that's just the fact. Why that happened is another reason, one may have a good one maybe their legs cramped, maybe the fell and broke a leg , whatever the reason the fact is they quit. It does not matter that they went home and the next day continued running it still does not change the quit. it also does not pass judgment on anyone either it simply states the fact they quit.
As he said John Mark failed but he was not a failure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Actually now that I think about it, if you really want to pick at words I'd say Peter was being very kind in his choice of words. The NIV and NASB say he "deserted" them. Now people quit things all the time , but deserters, well they used to shoot them now didn't they ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Maybe it stands out to me from all those twi labels......cop-out.....possessed..... greasespot......mark/avoid
Labels have a way of *sticking*.....
Unless God labels one "a quitter"........why should I add it?
Is "being a quitter"........worse than "being a cult follower?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I agree they do , but there is a difference between a factual description of an event and a baseless accusation. One can't reflect their past experience into another biblical record and expect it to coincide. Therein might be the problem . As Christians we must accept what is written and not add our preconceived ideas about what it means based on something that happened to us.
If God says he quit he quit, if he says he deserted then I'll take His word for it. By the way He also said he was useful [very helpful, profitable) I don't here anyone complaining about those words. No complaint about those labels either. Some people just look for things to find wrong. I think perhaps looking at why that is would be time better spent.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Actually, I prefer to view John Mark as a holy man moved by the spirit of God to pen some awesome truths and accounts of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nor do I care to *attach an insignificant label* on a small sliver of a man's life. You can call him whatever you like........ but I prefer to step back and look at *the sum of a man's whole life.
When there is continuous, habitual pattern.......then, yes......."labels" have a way of sticking.
When carnal patterns of lust, drunkenness, strife, lying, hatred, idolatry, etc.......consume and take up residency in a man's life..........then, yes........to me, it certainly becomes a teaching point of "the man of the flesh."
Otherwise, stuff like this reminds me of Matt 7:3.....And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
* Note.........I did NOT post on the John Mark thread, nor does it need further discussion on this thread.
** In starting this Way Corps Vet thread......my point was to address this corps vet *label* and how it impacted individual corps and the overall message it conveyed.
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I'll remind you that you were the one who drug this into your thread not me.
I guess when it's clear that scripture says he withdrew and deserted Paul we don't want to discuss it anymore. Kind of shoots down the labeling and liberties with scripture argument I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Like I said in my opening post...............selling those way corps vet t-shirts in twi's bookstore was an indication of how the trustees viewed the CORPS PROGRAM.
For a few years, we had *completed our tour of duty, obligation to the corps program*.......now as veterans, the choices were ours. According to the trustees......we had completed our mission of learning and now, it was up to us to go forth. The options in assignments were ours.
Yet.............within a couple of years, twi stopped selling those t-shirts. And, by 1984......the screws were tightening again around us to TAKE TWI ASSIGNMENTS..........else, the labeling and slander started.
After all............victor paul wierwille was a "quitter" if one chooses to look at little slivers of his life. He quit the payne ohio church. He quit the van buren church (some think he was terminated)..........but of all the things in wierwille's life, I would not label him a *quitter.*............nor would I label any corps grad *a quitter.*
Further.........martindale mandated, in 1995, that all active corps take full-time employment FROM TWI..........or else, they would be *dropped* corps......and be labeled *corps alumni*.........another changing of terminology, again.
When the First Corps had their 20 year reunion in ohio.......and made known that they wanted to stop by hq for some memories, some pictures.........howard allen threatened legal action if they stepped foot on twi property. Nice, howard............that's the kind of action Jesus would take, right?...............NOT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hmmmmm?
Is there a difference between a veteran(Vet) and someone who is on active duty?
I'm just askin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
According to definition, here are a couple:
1) experienced, practiced [past term acknowledgement of learning]
2) designating or of a person who has served in the armed forces.
At the time I went thru twi's 4-year program.......2 years of gaining exposure, experience (witnessing, classes, etc) and 2 years in-rez (with light-bearers, lead, research paper, teaching, etc)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Was there a difference between being a WOW..........and a WOW veteran..?
Then.......there was a push to send WOW veterans to "spiritually-dark" cities. Any wow vets who signed up for ANOTHER YEAR of active duty were commended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thanks, Sky
There was a splash of rhetoric sprinkled in my question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I believe the vet was for veteran of the in residence program, much like when your an alumni at school. Now the next phase begins the application of what one learned. They quit selling Takit shirts too so what? Once a veteran of the in residence training you could take a assignment of their choosing or one of yours, either way it was an assignment. As I said before that's not to say that their was not considerable pressure to take the one they suggested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through the last several posts... sometimes what looks like quitting to one person, might just be correcting a mistake or moving on to someone else for someone else.
In my lifetime, I have tried several occupations, each of which called upon some talent I thought I had. And as I discarded these occupations, one-by-one, there were definitely those who called me a quitter. Folks who thought I didn't give things enough time or just didn't know how to stick it out. Sorry folks, I spent 20 years "sticking it out" in a marriage that never did work, in a religious group that didn't work. And what I learned is, if my gut says "this isn't working for me" I am the only one who can truly determine if I've given it my best shot, and have reasonably assessed why it is time to change or move on. And in my experience, if it truly isn't working for me, it truly isn't working for the other folks involved either, no matter how much they try to say it is.
The end result of all my "quitting"? I now have a job I thoroughly enjoy and could see myself doing for the rest of my life. And, oddly enough, this job uses bits and pieces of many of the different things I tried earlier in life. And if I hadn't tried them all, and gained those bits of experience and training, I don't believe I would have been well-suited for this job.
Bottom line -- a person should never be forced into following someone else's direction for their life.
When you think about it, why is there all this confusion about what twi meant by "commitment" and "service"? Is there any confusion about what the Armed Forces mean when they recruit you? Is there any doubt that they own you for a specified number of years? Is there any question that you will accept their assignments, even go to war, or face the consequences? Is there any question that at the end of your term you have a choice to leave or re-sign? VP says he patterned the way corps after the marine corps. Why didn't he just say, straight out, what the terms of service were? Because twi thrived on vagueness and innuendo. It was their stock in trade. It allowed them to shape the commitment to suit each recruit and bring in the most people. If they had been straight up, we wouldn't be having this debate. There wouldn't be any questions about the meaning of the terms. It's just that simple.
Edited by TheHighWayLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through the last several posts... sometimes what looks like quitting to one person, might just be correcting a mistake or moving on to someone else for someone else.
In my lifetime, I have tried several occupations, each of which called upon some talent I thought I had. And as I discarded these occupations, one-by-one, there were definitely those who called me a quitter. Folks who thought I didn't give things enough time or just didn't know how to stick it out. Sorry folks, I spent 20 years "sticking it out" in a marriage that never did work, in a religious group that didn't work. And what I learned is, if my gut says "this isn't working for me" I am the only one who can truly determine if I've given it my best shot, and have reasonably assessed why it is time to change or move on. And in my experience, if it truly isn't working for me, it truly isn't working for the other folks involved either, no matter how much they try to say it is.
You seem to be confused at what was said. No one said you could not or should not quit things at times BUT ,that only when you do that's what it is called, that's the word we use to describe it. You seem to include some irritation that the description includes some form of judgment it does not, it only describes what the person did. In the cases mentioned it is accurate to say VPW quit what he did at that point, he was a quitter in that area of his life . The point as Peter mentioned is that one can pick up and start again which was what VP did as well as John Mark. It sounds like you have done the same a few times as well.
The end result of all my "quitting"? I now have a job I thoroughly enjoy and could see myself doing for the rest of my life. And, oddly enough, this job uses bits and pieces of many of the different things I tried earlier in life. And if I hadn't tried them all, and gained those bits of experience and training, I don't believe I would have been well-suited for this job.
Again no one said that quitting does not bring you experience in life, or learning, only that if you start something and fail to reach your planned end by your choice, then you have quit, John mark had a planned course of action he went part way , and withdrew, he quit, pretty simple
Bottom line -- a person should never be forced into following someone else's direction for their life.
When you think about it, why is there all this confusion about what twi meant by "commitment" and "service"? Is there any confusion about what the Armed Forces mean when they recruit you? Is there any doubt that they own you for a specified number of years? Is there any question that you will accept their assignments, even go to war, or face the consequences? Is there any question that at the end of your term you have a choice to leave or re-sign? VP says he patterned the way corps after the marine corps. Why didn't he just say, straight out, what the terms of service were? Because twi thrived on vagueness and innuendo. It was their stock in trade. It allowed them to shape the commitment to suit each recruit and bring in the most people. If they had been straight up, we wouldn't be having this debate. There wouldn't be any questions about the meaning of the terms. It's just that simple.
Well though I might agree with about being forced non the less it happens all the time when people sign up for things and relinquish that choice to direct their own lives. It happens in the service as your pointed out. And yes there is often a vast difference between what the recruiters told you would be the plan and what reality was after you signed up. I've often experienced that people change their perception of what was said based on their emotional response to the outcome. In general people IMHO don't like to be accountable for their choices many times.
Example - you ask someone if they can volunteer to help at a function? The answer is Oh I would love to but I'm to busy! ( standard covenant excuse) These are the same folks that watch American Idol several nights a week, the truth is they are not too busy, the truth is they just don't want to put forth the time or effort. And that's fine, just say so . Be honest just say so. But they don't, why ? they want to walk away feeling that they had some good reason why they just could not possibly help. They just don't wan to be honest and say I don't want to do that. Being to busy sounds better it takes the rejection off of their decision ,the business of their life just wont let them help. I see the same with way experiences, some want to walk away with a reason they have changed their course and what was clear now becomes vague, because it makes them not responsible for their choice. Me I say make a choice and stand by it say I quit and here is why like it or not, but yes that's what I did. And now I am doing this ,I quit, but I started again. That was Peters message We don't have to remain in the quit position in life.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
:blink: :blink: :blink:
So is there some point to addressing your response to Oldies a few posts back to me?
Because I don't believe I discussed .......
Other "religious" group sanctions.
Severing ties
Popping in and out
Hedge of protection
Free thinking
and other items contained in you post/........
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This whole idea of having the freedom to pick and choose assignments in The Way without being labeled a quitter, or worse, is laughable at best. Not only would you be labeled a failure, but God's protection would(supposedly) be lifted from you if you chose to do otherwise.
If you really never saw that, I would have to say "good for you".
Does that answer your question?
BTW -----Sometimes "quiting" is just another way of saying "I changed my course", as in "I can see this road is a dead end so I am going to "quit" following it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
He LEFT, reason unstated.
The Greek word for what he did is "apostanta", from the same root word as "apostasia."
Now, all ex-twi who believe in a "Gathering Together" before the Last Days, the Wrath, etc.
should be able to tell you that they believe "apostasia" should properly be translated "departure."
The word ITSELF literally means "moving away from" (stasia is movement, apo is the away from part.)
Therefore, he LEFT.
Rendering LEAVING as "DESERTION" or "QUITTING" is to add meaning and connotation that are not in
the word "LEFT".
This is what vpw referred to as "private interpretation."
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.