Read the Declaration of Independence. I just did. :)in response to another thread.
"manifest destiny" comes in many forms. Just pray you're not a Native American or Mexican because God wants your land and he knows who should have it. And it's not you.
Read the Declaration of Independence. I just did. :)in response to another thread.
"manifest destiny" comes in many forms. Just pray you're not a Native American or Mexican because God wants your land and he knows who should have it. And it's not you.
"Greed is good".
As long it's godly.
manifest destiny = destined to expand ......but at what cost?
Although wierwille taught us "the blueprint" of the first century church and how twi was patterned after that model....I just don't see it. The Apostle Paul didn't sit at Jerusalem mandating that the abundant sharing all funnel into his treasury department for his allocation of funds?
Wierwille's setup was a fleecing of the people......kinda like an oppressor-over-colonist taxation. You pay to play type of deal. Is that the christianity that wierwille espoused?
Of course, I could agree with A SMALL PERCENTAGE going to some type of headquarters to offset expenditures, operating costs, administration dues, and all that.......but 100% of abs going to hq? Never again.
Sorry if this is not quite related, but I'm newish and reading when I can and wanting to say hello every now and again. What is stunning to me, and sort of ironic, is how much the descriptions of the later TWI make me think of the former East Germany or of China, their having people "tell" on each other and making people report their movements, etc, and it's made me wonder - is it just really difficult in general for people to accept others' equality? "Animal Farm" comes into my head as well, if I'm remembering it correctly, the idea of some being "more equal than others" and empowered to order the others around for their own good.
The first "Americans" declared independence from their former Monarchy. It wasn't long before the future inhabitants determined that God wanted them to have all the land they could get their hands on, pretty much. The cost was anyone that happened to be their first.
Weirwille's model was a business model. Business has income and profits. Money comes in and he used it to fund expanding the Way Ministry's assets and resources.
I don't know that if we were to wipe the paper clean and start from scratch whether any money has to be sent to anyone to fund anything. There are many ways to capitalize an effort, expand resources, etc. etc. Doing things that we think are "right" isn't bad. Forcing people to fund it to participate isn't either - that's business. Business sells goods and services for an exchange of some value - money works most of the time these days. That's not what Christianity is all about and it's a disgrace that it's done so easily and by so many. But that's business and business can be very cutthroat.
Christianity isn't a business and in our current state, this "age of Grace", we seem to teeter totter between being the Temple, and building a Temple. People have a Big God and He needs a Big House with lots of stuff in it to make us all happy.
From that same clean slate the entire concept of "abundant sharing" as it's been developed by ministry's like The Way and other denominations isn't anything even close to "biblical" when it's laid out as law (call it what we will - rules, guidelines, best practices, etc.) Any organization can determine how they want to function and if it's legal, they're good to go. When anyone says "this is the way God wants it and only this way" they'd better be right or - well, look at what ultimately happened in the Way.
There's no definitive model or pattern established by the first generation of Christians other than records of what they did at that time. Acts doesn't establish enough time or examples to define what would be normative in all churches, everywhere, forever. IMO Paul, whoever he really was, would puke at what the "Church" typically does today in his name in all of it's sects and forms, based on how he is described his lifestyle and pursuit of reaching others.
In Acts 15 the leaders in Jerusalem determined to not invoke any of the Mosaic observances upon the Gentiles other than that they steer clear of some basic essential things and keep to their new faith in Christ. So if the "tithe" was expected of those early Jewish converts it wasn't of the Gentiles - in those people's minds. Whether that's right or wrong, they administrated the body of believers in a completely different way than we see it today. And as "one body" of both Jew and Gentile it would appear logical that the development would have moved more towards the edict given to the Gentiles and inheriting only the former as traditional observances with no binding spiritual authority in the New Church of Christ.
I understand your point, I think. I only make note of this to say that IMO it's a minor part of the overall progression of how Christian churches have developed over time. There's a fine, fine balance that must be achieved. It's doable.
The first "Americans" declared independence from their former Monarchy. It wasn't long before the future inhabitants determined that God wanted them to have all the land they could get their hands on, pretty much. The cost was anyone that happened to be their first.
Weirwille's model was a business model. Business has income and profits. Money comes in and he used it to fund expanding the Way Ministry's assets and resources.
I don't know that if we were to wipe the paper clean and start from scratch whether any money has to be sent to anyone to fund anything. There are many ways to capitalize an effort, expand resources, etc. etc. Doing things that we think are "right" isn't bad. Forcing people to fund it to participate isn't either - that's business. Business sells goods and services for an exchange of some value - money works most of the time these days. That's not what Christianity is all about and it's a disgrace that it's done so easily and by so many. But that's business and business can be very cutthroat.
Christianity isn't a business and in our current state, this "age of Grace", we seem to teeter totter between being the Temple, and building a Temple. People have a Big God and He needs a Big House with lots of stuff in it to make us all happy.
From that same clean slate the entire concept of "abundant sharing" as it's been developed by ministry's like The Way and other denominations isn't anything even close to "biblical" when it's laid out as law (call it what we will - rules, guidelines, best practices, etc.) Any organization can determine how they want to function and if it's legal, they're good to go. When anyone says "this is the way God wants it and only this way" they'd better be right or - well, look at what ultimately happened in the Way.
There's no definitive model or pattern established by the first generation of Christians other than records of what they did at that time. Acts doesn't establish enough time or examples to define what would be normative in all churches, everywhere, forever. IMO Paul, whoever he really was, would puke at what the "Church" typically does today in his name in all of it's sects and forms, based on how he is described his lifestyle and pursuit of reaching others.
In Acts 15 the leaders in Jerusalem determined to not invoke any of the Mosaic observances upon the Gentiles other than that they steer clear of some basic essential things and keep to their new faith in Christ. So if the "tithe" was expected of those early Jewish converts it wasn't of the Gentiles - in those people's minds. Whether that's right or wrong, they administrated the body of believers in a completely different way than we see it today. And as "one body" of both Jew and Gentile it would appear logical that the development would have moved more towards the edict given to the Gentiles and inheriting only the former as traditional observances with no binding spiritual authority in the New Church of Christ.
I understand your point, I think. I only make note of this to say that IMO it's a minor part of the overall progression of how Christian churches have developed over time. There's a fine, fine balance that must be achieved. It's doable.
socks........lots of good points there, thanks.
As you noted, wierwille's twi was structured after a business model......yeah, I get that. Wierwille packaged/re-packaged a "product" (pfal), targeted a market cities (satellite offices), established a sales training (corps), had a mission statement (word over the world), put copyrights on his products to keep competitors from stealing them, added new twists and promotions to programs (University of Life and LEAD), national conferences for maximum exposure (PFAL '77, Adv Cl. '79, Victorious Living, Sound Out '84)......etc. etc.
From the corps/insider perspective though, I see how wierwille manipulated this Oppressor/victim culture into twi. Thus, to me.....it brings to mind those who fled monarchies for religious freedom from such oppression and heavy-handed taxation.
Clearly, "twi christianity" is NOT true christianity.
Sorry if this is not quite related, but I'm newish and reading when I can and wanting to say hello every now and again. What is stunning to me, and sort of ironic, is how much the descriptions of the later TWI make me think of the former East Germany or of China, their having people "tell" on each other and making people report their movements, etc, and it's made me wonder - is it just really difficult in general for people to accept others' equality? "Animal Farm" comes into my head as well, if I'm remembering it correctly, the idea of some being "more equal than others" and empowered to order the others around for their own good.
.....Animal Farm -- "some are more equal than others"
Read the Declaration of Independence. I just did. :)in response to another thread.
"manifest destiny" comes in many forms. Just pray you're not a Native American or Mexican because God wants your land and he knows who should have it. And it's not you.
"Greed is good".
As long it's godly.
Really makes you think, doesn't it? Just who are we really? The U.S. that is.
Really makes you think, doesn't it? Just who are we really? The U.S. that is.
You'd probably get 320 million answers to that question.....but then, you'd find diverging fault lines based on ethnic, religious, and cultural values.
Or, based on who's writing the history books.....their agenda would paint the broad strokes. Just like twi, wierwille framed his ministry in the context of "the Lord spoke to him"......thus, he left his pastorate, he stole BG's class, he plagairized other men's works, etc. etc.....TO FULFILL HIS MINISTRY.
Another part of this whole mixed bag is this, IMO - some folks treat the Book of Acts (and the rest of the Bible) as if it were journalism, recording the activities of THE one and only, authentic Christian activity going on at the time.
For me, the idea that TWI was in any way, shape or form like the "first century church" is a fiction that existed only in VP's delusional mind. It is ridiculous, as pointed out already in this thread. Wierwille made a bogus claim by even using the phrase, "the first century church." One major reason is because there was no unified "first century church." Pick up any book on the history of early so-called Christianity and you see that right away.
This topic gets far more complicated, I think, when we consider how "orthodox" Christianity was sort of firmed up (but not really) HUNDREDS of years after Jesus died and still is scattered around in a multitude of forms called denominations. Let's not kid ourselves...it's doubtful anyone knows "without a shadow of a doubt" exactly what Jesus intended his followers to do since we have so many translations and interpretations of the N.T. Usually the Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start to figure out what he intended but who really understands statements like: the meek will inherit the earth? Much less how to "apply" that "truth" in their lives?
Paul, bless his heart, further muddied the waters by forming his own version of Christianity (the one Luke wrote about), Barnabas went off somewhere when Paul disagreed with him (who is to say Barnabas was wrong since we don't know what really happened), and James and company stayed in Jerusalem doing their thing. Not to mention the Gnostics, etc. who had their own views. It was a diverse time, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times...still is IMO.
One good source for info on this is: Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew, by Bart Ehrman. It may be of use to some of you.
I believe there are a bunch of threads here on GSC that have some good background info on this, too.
Another part of this whole mixed bag is this, IMO - some folks treat the Book of Acts (and the rest of the Bible) as if it were journalism, recording the activities of THE one and only, authentic Christian activity going on at the time.
For me, the idea that TWI was in any way, shape or form like the "first century church" is a fiction that existed only in VP's delusional mind. It is ridiculous, as pointed out already in this thread. Wierwille made a bogus claim by even using the phrase, "the first century church." One major reason is because there was no unified "first century church." Pick up any book on the history of early so-called Christianity and you see that right away.
On this bugus claim......wierwille set his course to structure a top-down twi hierarchy.
Yet, in those early days.....when left autonomous (functioning independently, having self-government) many twigs thrived in the power of God. Week after week, many witnessed in those self-governing twig fellowships a new reality of the presence of the Lord. Some of us enjoyed twig-hopping because each was so different, so unique. Plus, when the youth were left to their independence......twigs were hot, short, power-packed, fun, vibrant, etc. And, twigs weren't the centerpiece of the whole night......they were simply the start!
Therefore, when I look back at how wierwille co-opted the true dynamic of christianity.....I see "colonial christianity" where the monarch sits far away structuring and mandating society, searching for "the way" to insert more influence and strengthen his power base.
When though the scriptures state "members in particular in the Body of Christ, with Christ as the Head".....or, "the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee"......why was twi constantly establishing a hierarchy? Who beguiled us from the simplicity that was in Christ? When truth of the scriptures are allowed to reign supreme..............twi was the evil master.
And, when wierwille/martindale put extensive time to build up "the spiritual buffer zone" in Ohio......clearly, that was a ruse to give window-dressing to twi, to entice its image. Then, the encroachment of "colonial christianity" was on the move to your doorstep.
On this bugus claim......wierwille set his course to structure a top-down twi hierarchy.
Yet, in those early days.....when left autonomous (functioning independently, having self-government) many twigs thrived in the power of God. Week after week, many witnessed in those self-governing twig fellowships a new reality of the presence of the Lord. Some of us enjoyed twig-hopping because each was so different, so unique. Plus, when the youth were left to their independence......twigs were hot, short, power-packed, fun, vibrant, etc. And, twigs weren't the centerpiece of the whole night......they were simply the start!
Therefore, when I look back at how wierwille co-opted the true dynamic of christianity.....I see "colonial christianity" where the monarch sits far away structuring and mandating society, searching for "the way" to insert more influence and strengthen his power base.
When though the scriptures state "members in particular in the Body of Christ, with Christ as the Head".....or, "the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee"......why was twi constantly establishing a hierarchy? Who beguiled us from the simplicity that was in Christ? When truth of the scriptures are allowed to reign supreme..............twi was the evil master.
And, when wierwille/martindale put extensive time to build up "the spiritual buffer zone" in Ohio......clearly, that was a ruse to give window-dressing to twi, to entice its image. Then, the encroachment of "colonial christianity" was on the move to your doorstep.
Some thoughts....
I agree that VPW co-opted anything good that came to Way followers, claiming it as a direct result of his "accuracy of The Word" teachings.
I agree that the enthusiasm many of us shared produced some undeniable benefits that come from a loving community -independent from the manipulations of VP or anyone else's control. The Way Tree sructure was the device of control, for sure.
Your post reminds me of a moment I had while on the Bible Lands Tour sponsored by TWI in 1986.
At the time, I was a member of the Research Team. We'd just published the Aramaic Concordance (not the Interlinear yet) in August before the ROA. The Bible Lands Tour group, led by other people on the Research Team like W*alter C*mmins, Joh* S*hoenheit, etc. gave their interpretations of the gospels and O.T. records as we visited each site, like Bethlehem, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, etc.
One day our group (a large one) took several boats across the Sea of Tiberius, also called the Sea of Galillee. While I sat there in my little seat, with a life jacket strapped on and surrounded by enthusiastic Way people, I felt left out. I was wondering what our organization was really doing. Did we have any right making money off of Bible teachings, especially a harmony of the gospels? I did not agree with the validity of doing that project, but I was not directly involved in it.
I wondered what Jesus, having crossed this very body of water at one time, would think of us? What he did, at least what the gospels record, seemed a lot different than the gymnastic-style so-called biblical research we were promoting.
By this time I doubted the validity of a gospel harmony and thankfully had nothing to do with the "research" being taught on this tour. I was on the perimeter of the research team, working on the Aramaic projects. Doubts were rising more and more every day for me. On this tour, some days I felt the enthusiasm for what WJC taught when he taught in the evenings - simple things like practicing the compassion that Jesus had, but then I picked apart so much of the rest of the teachings that there was hardly anything left to like. By this time I'd been in the ministry for 15 years, so throwing it all away was a tall order. There must be something left to salvage. By the time we got to the other side of the Sea and disembarked, I was confused but at least the control TWI had exerted on me for so long was loosening up and I was thinking on my own, sorting through what good I had experienced, what bad. The bad could all be traced back to VPW and his dogmas. The good came from knowing some great people and from keeping me focused on the more contemplative aspect of my life with what I called God at the time.
The TWI offshoots issue is of deep concern to me, which is no secret since I wrote about this in my article on GSC, "Nostalgia for TWI research raises questions." My concern has to do with this: without confronting what fundamentalism is, how cults work, or admitting facts about VPW (his alcoholism, sexual predator behavior, stealing of other's books and selling them as his own work, abuse of power, money, sex, you name it) the people who continue to promote his "research" and his ways of running a group, are doing a great dis-service to themselves and others, in my view. The antidote: appropriate education about religion and the Bible and cults and fundamentalism; critical thinking; and continuing to tell our side of the story...
Boy, TWI did use Acts like a handbook for modern day TWI living, didn't they? They took a time, place, space and context and applied it to us.
I've always thought though, that this record in Acts was kind of like what happened to us, as I do believe the Revival of God in the 60s-early '70s was a true movement of God. I have always wondered, what happened to kill it, so to speak - our movement that was going strong? I remember when, all of a sudden, from out of nowhere, the edict came down - those of us from Larchmont couldn't fellowship in Rye anymore, we now had to go to twig in Larchmont and I didn't like the twig leader - a dorky kid in my grade in high school - I didn't want to go to his twig... then a couple of other things came down and I started drifting away. And I think of this record:
Paul and Barnabbas, up in Antioch, having a good time, thouands of gentiles are getting born again, then some jewish guys (not leadership) come up from Jerusalem (about 500 miles to the south - so they really had to put forth a little effort to get to Antioch) and say, hey - you know, unless you keep the law and follow Moses, and do this and that, you really aren't born again.
So, instead of saying - oh, ok - the Antioch believers got po'ed and Paul and Barnabas set off to Jerusalem and confront the leaders there, who had no idea anyone had done this - they didn't send anyone. In other words - Jerusalem - back off. God is working how he sees fit with the Gentiles.
What was happening here was a change - from the law, to revelation/situational theology with Christ as head directing people. This was a major shift in how people now approached God. From law to revelation. From: Here's a law for this situation to - how would God have us act in this situation? Each situation is different.
I guess my point is - we just grew and grew. We didn't need anyone to tell us who the "leader" was. People's ministries became pretty obvious.
We were like a living organism, a body with the head leading us.
How much bigger would this movement have been if TWI HQ had just stayed out - left us alone. If when the "edicts" came down, we said - back off!
In the early days in California - the young men who started the awakening/movement were coopted by older men who used these young men to build their churches. Lonnie Frisbee was coopted by - I forget - it was either Wise or Martin - and basically built their ministies and churches for them. Dopp and Heefner - coopted by VP.
What would have happened if it had just flowed without the regs, rules, edicts, and being coopted?
Why is there a movement and someone always has to "organize" it? I don't read that in Acts. It seems people got born again, hung out, ate, fellowshipped with each other and lived their lives. I don't see there was a meeting schedule, advance meetings, retreats, days in the word - and on and on.
I think maybe TWI wasn't so good at understanding what it did say.
Why is there a movement and someone always has to "organize" it? I don't read that in Acts.
Mmm...maybe I need to go back and read Acts but it seems to me for the most part, someone DID organize a lot of it...named Paul.
I understand you view the activities "back in the 1970s" etc. as a great movement of God, etc. as you describe. At this juncture, I guess we part company, since I have doubts about that interpretation of what was going on...emotionalism, yes. Evangelism, yes. What the nature of those things are bothers me and since to be honest I no longer hold the assumption of Christianity as valid, i.e. we're born in sin, separated from the Creator who created us and need a savior, I should probably bow out of this conversation.
Great points, Sunesis. I've thought a lot about this myself, and was thinking about it while still in and growing dissatisfied.
When I was involved in the Jesus movement in Southern California in the late 60s, it was spreading organically. The home fellowship I got involved in wasn't part of any hierarchy, and in fact wasn't associated with any other home fellowships. People fellowshipped together because they wanted to, not because they were assigned to go somewhere. People witnessed because they were seeing signs, miracles, and wonders, not because there was a structured "witnessing night." The growth happened naturally.
It seemed that way when I first got into twi in '72, too. The "Way tree" was in place by then, but we didn't initially feel the strong arm of HQ. PFAL classes at that time had waiting lists--a stark contrast to what I hear about twi today....tiny classes and few of them running.
I had to wait for a class myself because the one that was about to run when I got interested already filled the room they'd rented for it. Classes were running back to back, and in mine there were at least 20 new students.
Ironically, the fellowship I'd been in in Calif. fell apart, too. They had a lot of enthusiasm but not much knowledge of the Bible, really. So I was ripe for the picking when I heard that verse in PFAL, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." I thought, "Aha, that's what happened to our group! Won't it be great to have knowledge!"
But then there's that verse about "knowledge puffeth up" (in contrast to love, which edifies).
Enthusiasm and knowledge are both good, but they have to be in balance. Enthusiasm without at least a basic knowledge of the Bible can cause groups to disintegrate or get usurped, and knowledge without love can cause even a relatively large group to implode on itself, as we've all seen.
If those early Jesus movement groups had had more knowledge of the Bible, they might not have been such easy prey for those who would come along and take over. They might have been wise as serpents while staying innocent as doves. And if groups like twi (and many like it) had not been so hell-bent on accumulating knowledge (and money, power, and acclaim) and had been more about love, compassion, and kindness, and letting people live their own lives, perhaps things would have gone differently.
Linda Z - always good to see you. I agree very much.
Penworks, no reason for you to bow out. Just because you have a different take and belief/nonbelief anymore. People here have always enjoyed your insightful input, especicially from one who was there in the beginning.
I'm sure you've noticed, but there are all sorts of beliefs here. I have always found it interesting to see where people have gone over the years. I also realize now, that many people never did believe while in TWI and have stated so here. My question then to those who didn't is: How did one stand it? Especially those who went in the corps? What was one looking for? Was it a ground floor opportunity, like I think some offshoot leaders saw it as, and its the only way they know to keep the feel good power and respect coming? What kept someone who didn't believe in TWI - when it was hard enough for those who did. I sometimes think it was massive peer pressure, people with father issues who saw in VP someone who had answers. People wanted to be "right." People wanted power - a myriad of things.
I enjoy your input now and what led you to say - that's it, it never was true - especially after having been in the research dept.
I think because you don't think there was a revival and I do, is a reason to walk. You have doubts - great - so do a lot of other people.
I think this has been a fascinating thread. I see the bottom line to all of this as
"making money in God's name"...
...As soon as a few folks get together (perhaps with good intentions), they decide to "Organize"of course this includes giving themselves a "name" and then hoisting a flag that requires the appropriation of funds...
Next thing you know it's a business that provides paychecks...I'm not so sure that this is what Christianity is really about.
...I find it to be a personal journey and not so much about organizations...but that's just me.
Linda Z - always good to see you. I agree very much.
Penworks, no reason for you to bow out. Just because you have a different take and belief/nonbelief anymore. People here have always enjoyed your insightful input, especicially from one who was there in the beginning.
I'm sure you've noticed, but there are all sorts of beliefs here. I have always found it interesting to see where people have gone over the years. I also realize now, that many people never did believe while in TWI and have stated so here. My question then to those who didn't is: How did one stand it? Especially those who went in the corps? What was one looking for? Was it a ground floor opportunity, like I think some offshoot leaders saw it as, and its the only way they know to keep the feel good power and respect coming? What kept someone who didn't believe in TWI - when it was hard enough for those who did. I sometimes think it was massive peer pressure, people with father issues who saw in VP someone who had answers. People wanted to be "right." People wanted power - a myriad of things.
I enjoy your input now and what led you to say - that's it, it never was true - especially after having been in the research dept.
I think because you don't think there was a revival and I do, is a reason to walk. You have doubts - great - so do a lot of other people.
I simply don't have anything else to say in this particular thread. How can I comment on something I don't think is real? Anyhow, it's fun reading and I always learn a lot here.
Enthusiasm and knowledge are both good, but they have to be in balance. Enthusiasm without at least a basic knowledge of the Bible can cause groups to disintegrate or get usurped, and knowledge without love can cause even a relatively large group to implode on itself, as we've all seen.
If those early Jesus movement groups had had more knowledge of the Bible, they might not have been such easy prey for those who would come along and take over. They might have been wise as serpents while staying innocent as doves. And if groups like twi (and many like it) had not been so hell-bent on accumulating knowledge (and money, power, and acclaim) and had been more about love, compassion, and kindness, and letting people live their own lives, perhaps things would have gone differently.
Yes....what if there had been more emphasis on love, compassion and kindness and letting people live their own lives?
Years ago, I started a thread called "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.........because, to me, there were many issues that fell into each of those three categories. Had there not been lots of good......I never would have stayed so long. I saw the power of God in signs, miracles and wonders on many occasions. Several instantanious healings after praying/ministering to someone...happened! I've shared some of these on GS. Even to this day, many good-hearted people, now ex-twiers, are STILL some of the best friends around. Lots of good.......lots.
The bad.......the structure, the hierarchy, the system, the growing legalism, etc. etc.
The ugly......wierwille as predator, abuser, drunkard, plagairist, manipulator, etc.....and raising up others who were two-fold the child of hell in his place. Ugly.....agendas, slanted-truth, corps-indoctrination, cultish compound at hq, bunker mentality, conspiracy theories, etc.
THAT IS WHY.....the scriptures warn us of wolves in sheep's clothing, hirelings, angels of light, who is bewitching you, you did run well, by their fruits ye know them, form of godliness, evil men and seducers, etc.
"Each Twig is self supporting, self propagating and self governing in cooperation with its respective Branch as each Branch is to its respective Limb, as each limb is to its respective Trunk, as each Trunk is to the Root of the Way".
There it is, in its original verbiage. Look at the context. Frequently, this section of the class was quoted in a truncated version that ended with the words "self governing". Read between the lines! The Way is not an organization that started out sweet and later turned sour. The cards were on the table as early as , if not earlier than, 1974.
I enjoy your input now and what led you to say - that's it, it never was true - especially after having been in the research dept.
Sunesis - I forgot to respond to you on the above statement you addressed to me. First, the phrase "it never was true" is yours not mine. I did not say that. What I said was my doubts exist over how we interpreted those events as "a great movement of God." This is what I actually wrote:
"I understand you view the activities "back in the 1970s" etc. as a great movement of God, etc. as you describe. At this juncture, I guess we part company, since I have doubts about that interpretation of what was going on...emotionalism, yes. Evangelism, yes. What the nature of those things are bothers me and since to be honest I no longer hold the assumption of Christianity as valid, i.e. we're born in sin, separated from the Creator who created us and need a savior, I should probably bow out of this conversation."
I think we can all agree there was a lot of excitement and some people got healed, etc. In my view, our minds are powerful enough to produce spontaneous healings without believing in Jesus...I venture to say plenty of people in the world have experienced such things who are not Christians.
What I no longer am willing to say is that my own over-excited youthful zeal in those days (and that of other people) was "of God" in the sense there was a God directing us and "intervening in the affairs of men." My sense of what God is has changed from that view so I have re-evaluated what I did in the past. As I already mentioned, I no longer hold to a belief of a monotheistic "God," nor the assumptions Christianity is built on. It's not so incredulous that I could have arrived at this point after being on the research team. You might remember from my story Affinity for Windows posted here at GSC, that my questioning began because of that experience with the texts, etc. My journey after I left TWI brought me to where I am now. When I get my book completed, perhaps that will give you a more in-depth answer; I prefer not to write more here.
Recommended Posts
socks
Read the Declaration of Independence. I just did. :)in response to another thread.
"manifest destiny" comes in many forms. Just pray you're not a Native American or Mexican because God wants your land and he knows who should have it. And it's not you.
"Greed is good".
As long it's godly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
manifest destiny = destined to expand ......but at what cost?
Although wierwille taught us "the blueprint" of the first century church and how twi was patterned after that model....I just don't see it. The Apostle Paul didn't sit at Jerusalem mandating that the abundant sharing all funnel into his treasury department for his allocation of funds?
Wierwille's setup was a fleecing of the people......kinda like an oppressor-over-colonist taxation. You pay to play type of deal. Is that the christianity that wierwille espoused?
Of course, I could agree with A SMALL PERCENTAGE going to some type of headquarters to offset expenditures, operating costs, administration dues, and all that.......but 100% of abs going to hq? Never again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cara
Sorry if this is not quite related, but I'm newish and reading when I can and wanting to say hello every now and again. What is stunning to me, and sort of ironic, is how much the descriptions of the later TWI make me think of the former East Germany or of China, their having people "tell" on each other and making people report their movements, etc, and it's made me wonder - is it just really difficult in general for people to accept others' equality? "Animal Farm" comes into my head as well, if I'm remembering it correctly, the idea of some being "more equal than others" and empowered to order the others around for their own good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The first "Americans" declared independence from their former Monarchy. It wasn't long before the future inhabitants determined that God wanted them to have all the land they could get their hands on, pretty much. The cost was anyone that happened to be their first.
Weirwille's model was a business model. Business has income and profits. Money comes in and he used it to fund expanding the Way Ministry's assets and resources.
I don't know that if we were to wipe the paper clean and start from scratch whether any money has to be sent to anyone to fund anything. There are many ways to capitalize an effort, expand resources, etc. etc. Doing things that we think are "right" isn't bad. Forcing people to fund it to participate isn't either - that's business. Business sells goods and services for an exchange of some value - money works most of the time these days. That's not what Christianity is all about and it's a disgrace that it's done so easily and by so many. But that's business and business can be very cutthroat.
Christianity isn't a business and in our current state, this "age of Grace", we seem to teeter totter between being the Temple, and building a Temple. People have a Big God and He needs a Big House with lots of stuff in it to make us all happy.
From that same clean slate the entire concept of "abundant sharing" as it's been developed by ministry's like The Way and other denominations isn't anything even close to "biblical" when it's laid out as law (call it what we will - rules, guidelines, best practices, etc.) Any organization can determine how they want to function and if it's legal, they're good to go. When anyone says "this is the way God wants it and only this way" they'd better be right or - well, look at what ultimately happened in the Way.
There's no definitive model or pattern established by the first generation of Christians other than records of what they did at that time. Acts doesn't establish enough time or examples to define what would be normative in all churches, everywhere, forever. IMO Paul, whoever he really was, would puke at what the "Church" typically does today in his name in all of it's sects and forms, based on how he is described his lifestyle and pursuit of reaching others.
In Acts 15 the leaders in Jerusalem determined to not invoke any of the Mosaic observances upon the Gentiles other than that they steer clear of some basic essential things and keep to their new faith in Christ. So if the "tithe" was expected of those early Jewish converts it wasn't of the Gentiles - in those people's minds. Whether that's right or wrong, they administrated the body of believers in a completely different way than we see it today. And as "one body" of both Jew and Gentile it would appear logical that the development would have moved more towards the edict given to the Gentiles and inheriting only the former as traditional observances with no binding spiritual authority in the New Church of Christ.
I understand your point, I think. I only make note of this to say that IMO it's a minor part of the overall progression of how Christian churches have developed over time. There's a fine, fine balance that must be achieved. It's doable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
socks........lots of good points there, thanks.
As you noted, wierwille's twi was structured after a business model......yeah, I get that. Wierwille packaged/re-packaged a "product" (pfal), targeted a market cities (satellite offices), established a sales training (corps), had a mission statement (word over the world), put copyrights on his products to keep competitors from stealing them, added new twists and promotions to programs (University of Life and LEAD), national conferences for maximum exposure (PFAL '77, Adv Cl. '79, Victorious Living, Sound Out '84)......etc. etc.
From the corps/insider perspective though, I see how wierwille manipulated this Oppressor/victim culture into twi. Thus, to me.....it brings to mind those who fled monarchies for religious freedom from such oppression and heavy-handed taxation.
Clearly, "twi christianity" is NOT true christianity.
.....Animal Farm -- "some are more equal than others"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Really makes you think, doesn't it? Just who are we really? The U.S. that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
You'd probably get 320 million answers to that question.....but then, you'd find diverging fault lines based on ethnic, religious, and cultural values.
Or, based on who's writing the history books.....their agenda would paint the broad strokes. Just like twi, wierwille framed his ministry in the context of "the Lord spoke to him"......thus, he left his pastorate, he stole BG's class, he plagairized other men's works, etc. etc.....TO FULFILL HIS MINISTRY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Another part of this whole mixed bag is this, IMO - some folks treat the Book of Acts (and the rest of the Bible) as if it were journalism, recording the activities of THE one and only, authentic Christian activity going on at the time.
For me, the idea that TWI was in any way, shape or form like the "first century church" is a fiction that existed only in VP's delusional mind. It is ridiculous, as pointed out already in this thread. Wierwille made a bogus claim by even using the phrase, "the first century church." One major reason is because there was no unified "first century church." Pick up any book on the history of early so-called Christianity and you see that right away.
This topic gets far more complicated, I think, when we consider how "orthodox" Christianity was sort of firmed up (but not really) HUNDREDS of years after Jesus died and still is scattered around in a multitude of forms called denominations. Let's not kid ourselves...it's doubtful anyone knows "without a shadow of a doubt" exactly what Jesus intended his followers to do since we have so many translations and interpretations of the N.T. Usually the Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start to figure out what he intended but who really understands statements like: the meek will inherit the earth? Much less how to "apply" that "truth" in their lives?
Paul, bless his heart, further muddied the waters by forming his own version of Christianity (the one Luke wrote about), Barnabas went off somewhere when Paul disagreed with him (who is to say Barnabas was wrong since we don't know what really happened), and James and company stayed in Jerusalem doing their thing. Not to mention the Gnostics, etc. who had their own views. It was a diverse time, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times...still is IMO.
One good source for info on this is: Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew, by Bart Ehrman. It may be of use to some of you.
I believe there are a bunch of threads here on GSC that have some good background info on this, too.
Cheers.
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think of colonizing in different terms.. say a Petri dish..
It's probably the same thing..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It makes sense to me. One populates a Petri dish with a culture that.. one is *intellectually* interested in.. what is it going to do..
or..
a culture from which one anticipates a monetary return of investment..
then there is the experiment gone "wrong" where the spores, through procedural incompetence are released into the environment..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
any thoughts here?
The Mother country populated the colonies with those who would work an honest job.. make a legitimate (in terms of mother) pay..
a culture.. that one society could harvest the efforts of another..
how is that so far different from the Petri Dish argument?
Yes it is VERY one-sided. As far as the prof
and those who chose to "stand in the gap"..
ect
martindale's source and "supplier" ends up in oppulence..
Colonial chirstianity? I think da way is an object lesson here..
Very good thread Skyrider..
sorry.. the edit screwed things up.. quoting me for gawd's sake..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i liked some of these posts sox pen et al
hi cara !!!!! welcome !!!!
i personally feel things will go well in a new heaven and earth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I can only hope they do..
thanks friend..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
On this bugus claim......wierwille set his course to structure a top-down twi hierarchy.
Yet, in those early days.....when left autonomous (functioning independently, having self-government) many twigs thrived in the power of God. Week after week, many witnessed in those self-governing twig fellowships a new reality of the presence of the Lord. Some of us enjoyed twig-hopping because each was so different, so unique. Plus, when the youth were left to their independence......twigs were hot, short, power-packed, fun, vibrant, etc. And, twigs weren't the centerpiece of the whole night......they were simply the start!
Therefore, when I look back at how wierwille co-opted the true dynamic of christianity.....I see "colonial christianity" where the monarch sits far away structuring and mandating society, searching for "the way" to insert more influence and strengthen his power base.
When though the scriptures state "members in particular in the Body of Christ, with Christ as the Head".....or, "the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee"......why was twi constantly establishing a hierarchy? Who beguiled us from the simplicity that was in Christ? When truth of the scriptures are allowed to reign supreme..............twi was the evil master.
And, when wierwille/martindale put extensive time to build up "the spiritual buffer zone" in Ohio......clearly, that was a ruse to give window-dressing to twi, to entice its image. Then, the encroachment of "colonial christianity" was on the move to your doorstep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Some thoughts....
I agree that VPW co-opted anything good that came to Way followers, claiming it as a direct result of his "accuracy of The Word" teachings.
I agree that the enthusiasm many of us shared produced some undeniable benefits that come from a loving community -independent from the manipulations of VP or anyone else's control. The Way Tree sructure was the device of control, for sure.
Your post reminds me of a moment I had while on the Bible Lands Tour sponsored by TWI in 1986.
At the time, I was a member of the Research Team. We'd just published the Aramaic Concordance (not the Interlinear yet) in August before the ROA. The Bible Lands Tour group, led by other people on the Research Team like W*alter C*mmins, Joh* S*hoenheit, etc. gave their interpretations of the gospels and O.T. records as we visited each site, like Bethlehem, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, etc.
One day our group (a large one) took several boats across the Sea of Tiberius, also called the Sea of Galillee. While I sat there in my little seat, with a life jacket strapped on and surrounded by enthusiastic Way people, I felt left out. I was wondering what our organization was really doing. Did we have any right making money off of Bible teachings, especially a harmony of the gospels? I did not agree with the validity of doing that project, but I was not directly involved in it.
I wondered what Jesus, having crossed this very body of water at one time, would think of us? What he did, at least what the gospels record, seemed a lot different than the gymnastic-style so-called biblical research we were promoting.
By this time I doubted the validity of a gospel harmony and thankfully had nothing to do with the "research" being taught on this tour. I was on the perimeter of the research team, working on the Aramaic projects. Doubts were rising more and more every day for me. On this tour, some days I felt the enthusiasm for what WJC taught when he taught in the evenings - simple things like practicing the compassion that Jesus had, but then I picked apart so much of the rest of the teachings that there was hardly anything left to like. By this time I'd been in the ministry for 15 years, so throwing it all away was a tall order. There must be something left to salvage. By the time we got to the other side of the Sea and disembarked, I was confused but at least the control TWI had exerted on me for so long was loosening up and I was thinking on my own, sorting through what good I had experienced, what bad. The bad could all be traced back to VPW and his dogmas. The good came from knowing some great people and from keeping me focused on the more contemplative aspect of my life with what I called God at the time.
The TWI offshoots issue is of deep concern to me, which is no secret since I wrote about this in my article on GSC, "Nostalgia for TWI research raises questions." My concern has to do with this: without confronting what fundamentalism is, how cults work, or admitting facts about VPW (his alcoholism, sexual predator behavior, stealing of other's books and selling them as his own work, abuse of power, money, sex, you name it) the people who continue to promote his "research" and his ways of running a group, are doing a great dis-service to themselves and others, in my view. The antidote: appropriate education about religion and the Bible and cults and fundamentalism; critical thinking; and continuing to tell our side of the story...
Make it a good day,
Pen
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Boy, TWI did use Acts like a handbook for modern day TWI living, didn't they? They took a time, place, space and context and applied it to us.
I've always thought though, that this record in Acts was kind of like what happened to us, as I do believe the Revival of God in the 60s-early '70s was a true movement of God. I have always wondered, what happened to kill it, so to speak - our movement that was going strong? I remember when, all of a sudden, from out of nowhere, the edict came down - those of us from Larchmont couldn't fellowship in Rye anymore, we now had to go to twig in Larchmont and I didn't like the twig leader - a dorky kid in my grade in high school - I didn't want to go to his twig... then a couple of other things came down and I started drifting away. And I think of this record:
Paul and Barnabbas, up in Antioch, having a good time, thouands of gentiles are getting born again, then some jewish guys (not leadership) come up from Jerusalem (about 500 miles to the south - so they really had to put forth a little effort to get to Antioch) and say, hey - you know, unless you keep the law and follow Moses, and do this and that, you really aren't born again.
So, instead of saying - oh, ok - the Antioch believers got po'ed and Paul and Barnabas set off to Jerusalem and confront the leaders there, who had no idea anyone had done this - they didn't send anyone. In other words - Jerusalem - back off. God is working how he sees fit with the Gentiles.
What was happening here was a change - from the law, to revelation/situational theology with Christ as head directing people. This was a major shift in how people now approached God. From law to revelation. From: Here's a law for this situation to - how would God have us act in this situation? Each situation is different.
I guess my point is - we just grew and grew. We didn't need anyone to tell us who the "leader" was. People's ministries became pretty obvious.
We were like a living organism, a body with the head leading us.
How much bigger would this movement have been if TWI HQ had just stayed out - left us alone. If when the "edicts" came down, we said - back off!
In the early days in California - the young men who started the awakening/movement were coopted by older men who used these young men to build their churches. Lonnie Frisbee was coopted by - I forget - it was either Wise or Martin - and basically built their ministies and churches for them. Dopp and Heefner - coopted by VP.
What would have happened if it had just flowed without the regs, rules, edicts, and being coopted?
Why is there a movement and someone always has to "organize" it? I don't read that in Acts. It seems people got born again, hung out, ate, fellowshipped with each other and lived their lives. I don't see there was a meeting schedule, advance meetings, retreats, days in the word - and on and on.
I think maybe TWI wasn't so good at understanding what it did say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Mmm...maybe I need to go back and read Acts but it seems to me for the most part, someone DID organize a lot of it...named Paul.
I understand you view the activities "back in the 1970s" etc. as a great movement of God, etc. as you describe. At this juncture, I guess we part company, since I have doubts about that interpretation of what was going on...emotionalism, yes. Evangelism, yes. What the nature of those things are bothers me and since to be honest I no longer hold the assumption of Christianity as valid, i.e. we're born in sin, separated from the Creator who created us and need a savior, I should probably bow out of this conversation.
Cheers
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Great points, Sunesis. I've thought a lot about this myself, and was thinking about it while still in and growing dissatisfied.
When I was involved in the Jesus movement in Southern California in the late 60s, it was spreading organically. The home fellowship I got involved in wasn't part of any hierarchy, and in fact wasn't associated with any other home fellowships. People fellowshipped together because they wanted to, not because they were assigned to go somewhere. People witnessed because they were seeing signs, miracles, and wonders, not because there was a structured "witnessing night." The growth happened naturally.
It seemed that way when I first got into twi in '72, too. The "Way tree" was in place by then, but we didn't initially feel the strong arm of HQ. PFAL classes at that time had waiting lists--a stark contrast to what I hear about twi today....tiny classes and few of them running.
I had to wait for a class myself because the one that was about to run when I got interested already filled the room they'd rented for it. Classes were running back to back, and in mine there were at least 20 new students.
Ironically, the fellowship I'd been in in Calif. fell apart, too. They had a lot of enthusiasm but not much knowledge of the Bible, really. So I was ripe for the picking when I heard that verse in PFAL, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." I thought, "Aha, that's what happened to our group! Won't it be great to have knowledge!"
But then there's that verse about "knowledge puffeth up" (in contrast to love, which edifies).
Enthusiasm and knowledge are both good, but they have to be in balance. Enthusiasm without at least a basic knowledge of the Bible can cause groups to disintegrate or get usurped, and knowledge without love can cause even a relatively large group to implode on itself, as we've all seen.
If those early Jesus movement groups had had more knowledge of the Bible, they might not have been such easy prey for those who would come along and take over. They might have been wise as serpents while staying innocent as doves. And if groups like twi (and many like it) had not been so hell-bent on accumulating knowledge (and money, power, and acclaim) and had been more about love, compassion, and kindness, and letting people live their own lives, perhaps things would have gone differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Linda Z - always good to see you. I agree very much.
Penworks, no reason for you to bow out. Just because you have a different take and belief/nonbelief anymore. People here have always enjoyed your insightful input, especicially from one who was there in the beginning.
I'm sure you've noticed, but there are all sorts of beliefs here. I have always found it interesting to see where people have gone over the years. I also realize now, that many people never did believe while in TWI and have stated so here. My question then to those who didn't is: How did one stand it? Especially those who went in the corps? What was one looking for? Was it a ground floor opportunity, like I think some offshoot leaders saw it as, and its the only way they know to keep the feel good power and respect coming? What kept someone who didn't believe in TWI - when it was hard enough for those who did. I sometimes think it was massive peer pressure, people with father issues who saw in VP someone who had answers. People wanted to be "right." People wanted power - a myriad of things.
I enjoy your input now and what led you to say - that's it, it never was true - especially after having been in the research dept.
I think because you don't think there was a revival and I do, is a reason to walk. You have doubts - great - so do a lot of other people.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I think this has been a fascinating thread. I see the bottom line to all of this as
"making money in God's name"...
...As soon as a few folks get together (perhaps with good intentions), they decide to "Organize"of course this includes giving themselves a "name" and then hoisting a flag that requires the appropriation of funds...
Next thing you know it's a business that provides paychecks...I'm not so sure that this is what Christianity is really about.
...I find it to be a personal journey and not so much about organizations...but that's just me.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I simply don't have anything else to say in this particular thread. How can I comment on something I don't think is real? Anyhow, it's fun reading and I always learn a lot here.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Yes....what if there had been more emphasis on love, compassion and kindness and letting people live their own lives?
Years ago, I started a thread called "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.........because, to me, there were many issues that fell into each of those three categories. Had there not been lots of good......I never would have stayed so long. I saw the power of God in signs, miracles and wonders on many occasions. Several instantanious healings after praying/ministering to someone...happened! I've shared some of these on GS. Even to this day, many good-hearted people, now ex-twiers, are STILL some of the best friends around. Lots of good.......lots.
The bad.......the structure, the hierarchy, the system, the growing legalism, etc. etc.
The ugly......wierwille as predator, abuser, drunkard, plagairist, manipulator, etc.....and raising up others who were two-fold the child of hell in his place. Ugly.....agendas, slanted-truth, corps-indoctrination, cultish compound at hq, bunker mentality, conspiracy theories, etc.
THAT IS WHY.....the scriptures warn us of wolves in sheep's clothing, hirelings, angels of light, who is bewitching you, you did run well, by their fruits ye know them, form of godliness, evil men and seducers, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The following is an excerpt from the The Way Tree class, © 1974, that I have posted on a previous thread. I believe this may have appeared even earlier in the Twig Leadership Training seminars.
"Each Twig is self supporting, self propagating and self governing in cooperation with its respective Branch as each Branch is to its respective Limb, as each limb is to its respective Trunk, as each Trunk is to the Root of the Way".
There it is, in its original verbiage. Look at the context. Frequently, this section of the class was quoted in a truncated version that ended with the words "self governing". Read between the lines! The Way is not an organization that started out sweet and later turned sour. The cards were on the table as early as , if not earlier than, 1974.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
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.