I believe the definition would depend on one's point of view... When I first got involved, TWI was my mom's weird Christian friends. Later it became other things - it was HQ, it was the ROA, it was every believing believer, the one true household, Zion... What is it now that I am out?
It's a sad little group of followers who have been duped by a trail of narcissistic sociopaths (VPW, LCM, and Rosie) to devote their life to a worthless lie.
So - two parts to it: 1. The followers and 2. Corporate leadership.
or... 1. sheep 2. wolves
see, you have to look at the context and administration involved to understand the meaning of the word.
Maybe you should buy a concordance, or look in the Blue Book.
Dividing groups up into and distinguishing between leaders and followers is another aspect of things. A leadership position could have been filled by a number of people? No? Is it the position, within an awful system, or the person, that was to blame? I tend not to distinguish between the two. What would anyone drilled to the doctrine and practice have done given enough (apparent) power?
Dividing groups up into and distinguishing between leaders and followers is another aspect of things. A leadership position could have been filled by a number of people? No? Is it the position, within an awful system, or the person, that was to blame? I tend not to distinguish between the two. What would anyone drilled to the doctrine and practice have done given enough (apparent) power?
Leadership positions could and would be filled by a number of people, but the selection of the people was left up to the highest level - the BOD/BOT. In fact, I think it was even taught that the only real "members" of The Way were the Board of Directors/Trustees. The selections were based on qualities such as being the biggest kiss butt, meekness (in Wayspeak this meant unquestioning obedience), etc.)... it sort of weeded out the ones who could have made or wanted to make changes. For instance, when I was WD, I had a area coordinator who was a very good man who brought a lot of people into the ministry through his abilities. His area thrived under him. Until he got up at a STS and taught something that wasn't spot on with his pre approved notes. Next thing you know he's scrubbing pots at Gunnison. Someone like him would not make it to BOD/BOT level. Even H@rvePl@tig who was on the BOD/BOT wasn't kept around for too long - in my opinion, he was a good man as well, at least from my personal experience.
So, is it the person, or the position? I think you wouldn't get (or keep) the position unless you were the "right" (in the president's view) kind of person willing to do the things they wanted done.
I did horrible things while I was in, but I never wanted to be WC, because their level of commitment necessitated too much sacrifice of self. Not self sacrifice - I'm good with that - but destroying who I was as a person in order to be successful. I saw the things WC did - the marking and avoiding of entire families, the subservience, the boring clothes and hair and Stepford wives. I couldn't become THAT. And therefore I couldn't become upper level leadership.
So, is it the person, or the position? I think you wouldn't get (or keep) the position unless you were the "right" (in the president's view) kind of person willing to do the things they wanted done.
. . .
That is true. A lot of jobs work that way everywhere. And a new position/responsibility can change a person too.
TWI, to my thinking, is a way of life, dictated by the doctrinal teachings of The Way......magic thinking, jibber-jabber babbling, observance of unorthodox customs and proprietary vocabulary..... Some TWIers associate directly with the mother ship while others have been relegated (voluntarily or otherwise) to penal colonies, strewn hither and yon, known as splinter groups. There are also rogue outliers who pledge no vow of allegiance to any particular band of loyalists but still choose to live the prescribed lifestyle independently.
I did horrible things while I was in, but I never wanted to be WC, because their level of commitment necessitated too much sacrifice of self. Not self sacrifice - I'm good with that - but destroying who I was as a person in order to be successful. I saw the things WC did - the marking and avoiding of entire families, the subservience, the boring clothes and hair and Stepford wives. I couldn't become THAT. And therefore I couldn't become upper level leadership.
This sounds like the 90s. That was when I checked out after 18 years. TWI wasn't at all like that before, not at root locations or out on the field. I don't even think it's that extreme now. It may have been heading that way since '89 or so, but that had to be their low point. If they had tried to keep that going up to the present day, they'd have nobody.
We're all going to be at the gathering together. God promises to wipe away all tears from our eyes. He couldn't promise that if we still had to deal with all that drama after the return. God will sort it out. Meanwhile, yeah, let's complain about everything.
I did horrible things while I was in, but I never wanted to be WC, because their level of commitment necessitated too much sacrifice of self. Not self sacrifice - I'm good with that - but destroying who I was as a person in order to be successful. I saw the things WC did - the marking and avoiding of entire families, the subservience, the boring clothes and hair and Stepford wives. I couldn't become THAT. And therefore I couldn't become upper level leadership.
This sounds like the 90s. That was when I checked out after 18 years. TWI wasn't at all like that before, not at root locations or out on the field. I don't even think it's that extreme now. It may have been heading that way since '89 or so, but that had to be their low point. If they had tried to keep that going up to the present day, they'd have nobody.
We're all going to be at the gathering together. God promises to wipe away all tears from our eyes. He couldn't promise that if we still had to deal with all that drama after the return. God will sort it out. Meanwhile, yeah, let's complain about everything.
Johniam, If you're able to grasp the gist here, how do YOU define what TWI is? Is it people? Is it a corporation? Is it an idea? Is TWI the Ministry which the Word which is the Household of followers? Something else? What do YOU think?
Johniam, If you're able to grasp the gist here, how do YOU define what TWI is? Is it people? Is it a corporation? Is it an idea? Is TWI the Ministry which the Word which is the Household of followers? Something else? What do YOU think?
It's always people. People make things happen. People also have differing views. People make corporations. People have ideas. People set goals. People define things. People are fickle. In fact, Jim Morrison was right; people are strange.
What I see in a lot of threads and posts is no acknowledgement of God. Only man's judgment like it's all there is. God will sort everything out. I sometimes feel like, directly or indirectly, I have to constantly remind people of that.
I recall that those of us who were committed to twi had a strong sense of pride about it. Sure, we had to go to fellowships regularly to keep that going, but it was there. Even today, I have the same sense of pride about being in the body of Christ. This world just seems to get crazier and crazier.
Some people here go as far out of their way as they can to keep saying that twi was insignificant, irrelevant, had no impact, etc. Then, out of the other side of their mouths, they keep harping on how evil and dangerous they think VP was. Can't have it both ways.
I think twi had plenty of impact, spiritually and culturally. Look how the world attacks everything twi stood for. The way they are using the gay marriage issue to demonize all Christianity. If the only media you ever listen to is from the world, you're going to distance yourself from Christianity as much as you can.
The world is always people too. They have their own standards. Their own ideas. Their own goals, just like twi. God wouldn't say to be not conformed to this world if it wasn't possible. You think that's all that's relevant?
Twi emphasized some things not others. Nobody can emphasize everything that's virtuous. Wouldn't be bite sized enough to assimilate. They got OUR attention, didn't they? See, if all you do is complain, you tend to only see negatives. Not just about twi.
Johniam, If you're able to grasp the gist here, how do YOU define what TWI is? Is it people? Is it a corporation? Is it an idea? Is TWI the Ministry which the Word which is the Household of followers? Something else? What do YOU think?
It's always people. People make things happen. People also have differing views. People make corporations. People have ideas. People set goals. People define things. People are fickle. In fact, Jim Morrison was right; people are strange.
The thing is, John,
your "explanation" of twi failed to distinguish between it,
Jonestown, bowling teams, fraternities,
militants, Sherlock Holmes fanclubs,
or anything else.
Whether you meant to or not, it only served to dodge the question so you
could change the subject.
What I see in a lot of threads and posts is no acknowledgement of God. Only man's judgment like it's all there is. God will sort everything out. I sometimes feel like, directly or indirectly, I have to constantly remind people of that.
At least it's not LITERALLY true that you
"HAD TO CONSTANTLY REMIND PEOPLE OF THAT"?
If that were true, someone would be, say,
holding members of your family at gunpoint
and requiring your posts keep to one unvarying topic
and one unvarying position no matter how boring
and uninformative you get at it.
Instead,
the "feel like" means that this is just something
that you feel on a personal level that affects nobody but
you and you feel the need to inflict it on everyone else
here and are unable or unwilling to stop yourself before
hitting the "reply" button.
It certainly would partially explain why you tend to
interrupt threads on ONE subject to change the subject
rather than just make up a new thread on the subject
you actually want to talk about. The rest of us do that
whenever we want.
I recall that those of us who were committed to twi had a strong sense of pride about it. Sure, we had to go to fellowships regularly to keep that going, but it was there. Even today, I have the same sense of pride about being in the body of Christ. This world just seems to get crazier and crazier.
Which, invariably, many of us would agree to.
We felt pride in our positions.
Then again, that's no guarantee of truth-
political radicals of every stripe and terrorists
are committed to their causes and proud of them
right this minute.
Some people here go as far out of their way as they can to keep saying that twi was insignificant, irrelevant, had no impact, etc. Then, out of the other side of their mouths, they keep harping on how evil and dangerous they think VP was. Can't have it both ways.
You're missing the point.
Then again, you've admitted you don't read some posters' posts,
so there's no surprise you'd miss any points they made
while you were scrolling past and insisting on being unchanging.
On a national scale, let alone international scale, twi IS "insignificant"
and is barely a footnote, if that. It was big-but not enormous- for a handful
of years. It was almost nonexistent until about 1970, when the House of Acts
Christians and other legitimate Christians were diverted into it from doing
"their own thing". By 1985, at its height, it was still not as big as most
national churches. By 1990, 80% of THOSE people had all left or been kicked
out. Over the next decade, both twi and the splinters lost people steadily,
so both twi and its legacy groups, statistically speaking, are "insignificant
and "irrelevant." A lot of failed religious groups existed in the 20th
century in the US, and twi fits among them. Go ahead, try and find a
history of the 20th century where it sounds like twi made a significant
"impact" that wasn't written by twi or ex-twi people. Historians that don't
specialize in cults have never heard of it, and many now may not have, either.
Worldwide, I suspect more people discuss the "carbonari" than twi,
including discussion right here.
That having been said, was twi "evil and dangerous"? Yes, and it still is.
For example, in 2010 in the UK (to pull some statistics),
5 people were killed by stinging insects. Statistically, that's an
insignificant number. However, that's poor comfort if your loved one was
one of the 5 people. So, people like us would continue to warn people about
being careful around stinging insects no matter how statistically insignificant
they are. Stinging instects are "dangerous". They aren't "evil" because
they're not INTENTIONALLY trying to benefit from people at expense of the
people. Twi, however, does- or, as you say, the people making the decisions
of twi do.
I think twi had plenty of impact, spiritually and culturally. Look how the world attacks everything twi stood for. The way they are using the gay marriage issue to demonize all Christianity. If the only media you ever listen to is from the world, you're going to distance yourself from Christianity as much as you can.
If all of Christianity was represented by twi or ex-twi,
I'd have fled it just as many ex-twi'ers did.
They had good reasons, as they see it, to consider Christianity
as a whole to be harmful and not provide a benefit.
And you're grossly inflating how much of a positive contribution
twi's had to the US, "spiritually and culturally."
The world is always people too. They have their own standards. Their own ideas. Their own goals, just like twi. God wouldn't say to be not conformed to this world if it wasn't possible. You think that's all that's relevant?
Twi emphasized some things not others. Nobody can emphasize everything that's virtuous. Wouldn't be bite sized enough to assimilate. They got OUR attention, didn't they?
Getting our attention is no guarantee of truth.
Jim Jones drew the attention of a lot of people,
and is better known than vpw despite having had
a much shorter career.
See, if all you do is complain, you tend to only see negatives. Not just about twi.
That's more than a little ironic coming from a guy who scrolls past posts,
pauses to cherry-pick a few items to complain about,
then claims there's only negatives at the GSC.
John,
if all you come to do here is complain, all you'll find in the threads ARE negatives.
Johniam, If you're able to grasp the gist here, how do YOU define what TWI is? Is it people? Is it a corporation? Is it an idea? Is TWI the Ministry which the Word which is the Household of followers? Something else? What do YOU think?
So, John,
the question on the table, is how you define what twi is.
How do you define it so you're not describing every organization
It's always people. People make things happen. People also have differing views. People make corporations. People have ideas. People set goals. People define things. People are fickle. In fact, Jim Morrison was right; people are strange.
The thing is, John,
your "explanation" of twi failed to distinguish between it,
Jonestown, bowling teams, fraternities,
militants, Sherlock Holmes fanclubs,
or anything else.
. . .
. . .
Johniam,
Thank you for your reply. If you can articulate further, I'd like to hear what people you believe comprise TWI. How does your mind distinguish between "wayfer" and "non-wayfer" or "former wayfer", for lack of better terms, if you will? What people ARE TWI?
Didn't VeePee make it onto time cover once ? surely that only happens when there's some kind of influence, at some point ??!! I just think it's a crying shame twi became what it was/is...Christianity in general is more screwed up than what twi was/is,(imo) and IF VeePee had let the music, worship side develop with the times instead of being stuck in a quasi Bill Gaither/country n western groove, I believe groups like Hillsong etc...would have paled in comparison.
I agree too, people make things happen, it's just that in twi people weren't allowed to make things happen
Didn't VeePee make it onto time cover once ? surely that only happens when there's some kind of influence, at some point ??!!
*falls over laughing*
It is true that making the cover of Time indicates some sort of impact,
at least at the moment the cover was chosen.
What's funny is the idea vpw made the cover.
He once was mentioned in part of an article about cults.
They made him sound like a crackpot,
and included a photo in the story of him riding around
on a motorcycle.
I read the article when I was in college, and even printed it out at the time.
He wasn't made to sound significant at all.
Although, he could have been said to have influenced the people
in his group. (IIRC, it was 1971, not 1970.)
I just think it's a crying shame twi became what it was/is...Christianity in general is more screwed up than what twi was/is,(imo)
We disagree there.
We were TOLD that was true. I believe we were lied to OFTEN in twi.
and IF VeePee had let the music, worship side develop with the times instead of being stuck in a quasi Bill Gaither/country n western groove, I believe groups like Hillsong etc...would have paled in comparison.
I agree too, people make things happen, it's just that in twi people weren't allowed to make things happen
Well,
a lot of the best people were not allowed to do what they did best,
which was a shame.
I think twi was organized to prevent that since it would make those
people actual people and not ciphers,
which would have diminished the image of vpw as the sole mover.
It's always people. People make things happen. People also have differing views. People make corporations. People have ideas. People set goals. People define things. People are fickle. In fact, Jim Morrison was right; people are strange.
Yes, people can be strange...and not always in a good way.
What I see in a lot of threads and posts is no acknowledgement of God. Only man's (sic) judgment like it's all there is.
Maybe that's because this is not a dedicated religious site. One would think that in the 10+ years you've been posting here you might have noticed that on the front page of the forum section.
God will sort everything out. I sometimes feel like, directly or indirectly, I have to constantly remind people of that.
You're under no obligation to remind people of anything, yet you do. May I ask why?
I recall that those of us who were committed to twi had a strong sense of pride about it. Sure, we had to go to fellowships regularly to keep that going, but it was there.
That's actually a keen observation. We had to constantly and deliberately do whatever things were necessary to maintain a sense of self delusion.
Even today, I have the same sense of pride about being in the body of Christ. This world just seems to get crazier and crazier.
non sequitur
Some people here go as far out of their way as they can to keep saying that twi was insignificant, irrelevant, had no impact, etc. Then, out of the other side of their mouths, they keep harping on how evil and dangerous they think VP was. Can't have it both ways.
Au contraire...You CAN have it both ways. TWI was totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of Christianity and religion in general. That does not negate the deeds of VP Wierwille.
I think twi had plenty of impact, spiritually and culturally.
Would you care to elaborate? (First on the definition of spiritual impact and then on how TWI affected modern culture.)
Look how the world attacks everything twi stood for.
How so? examples please.
The way they are using the gay marriage issue to demonize all Christianity. If the only media you ever listen to is from the world, you're going to distance yourself from Christianity as much as you can.
Regardless of your stance on this opinion, it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.
The world is always people too. They have their own standards. Their own ideas. Their own goals, just like twi. God wouldn't say to be not conformed to this world if it wasn't possible. You think that's all that's relevant?
Allow me to elaborate what was meant when people in The Way cherry picked this section of scripture. It meant you should conform to a doctrinal system that was in agreement with Way theology. They promoted themselves as the foremost authorities on living a life that was in accordance with "the word".
Twi emphasized some things not others. Nobody can emphasize everything that's virtuous. Wouldn't be bite sized enough to assimilate.
Oh my! They OVER emphasized a whole lot of things that were.... how shall I say it?....NOT virtuous. What has bite-sized got to do with the price of rice in China?
They got OUR attention, didn't they?
Why is this a good thing?
See, if all you do is complain, you tend to only see negatives. Not just about twi.
Conversely, if all you do is ignore obvious and genuine problems, you can never fix the things that are broken.
Thank you for your reply. If you can articulate further, I'd like to hear what people you believe comprise TWI. How does your mind distinguish between "wayfer" and "non-wayfer" or "former wayfer", for lack of better terms, if you will? What people ARE TWI?
There is, surprisingly, a lot of diversity among former wayfers. That is, surprisingly for a so called "cult".
I really don't know much about current twi. Don't mix much with them. I can't help but believe that the people who comprised twi when VP was alive dramatically shifted by the time LCM did the purges (1994). The people who comprised twi when VP was alive were a) people who were already Christians who needed a break from religion, and b) people who wanted specific questions answered who liked what they heard (JCING, ADAN, RTHST). What a long interesting trip it was!
I'm sure current twi has those same elements, but the do what I say or else stuff? I have no use for it.
Christianity in general is more screwed up than what twi was/is,(imo)
Well, it may seem that way sometimes but I don't think that's at all true about Christianity in general. It's news when a pastor or church leader has an affair, or series of affairs with church staff, for example. A pastor who remains faithful to his wife and treats others with respect and does what he can to help the community does not make good news copy. Even if it were reported no one would be interested.
You might have heard that in Ferguson the church where Michael Brown's parents attend was firebombed by a white supremacist group. It was a teensy weensy little article in my local paper. Did you hear that a group of churches in Central Ohio raised over $130,000 to help that church in Ferguson rebuild? Christians regularly visit the sick in hospitals, contribute and sponsor programs to help the needy and homeless and many Christian churches have food pantries for the hungry in their communities and usually those pantries are staffed by volunteers. It's called having compassion for your fellowman regardless of their faith, race of creed.
You NEVER had that sort of thing in TWI. In fact, TWI discouraged such giving and even went as far as to give to a charitable organization other than TWI was "devilish". The teaching was that the Devil rarely gives you choice between good and evil, he gives you choices between good and best. Giving to the Red Cross was "good" but giving to TWO is "best". That's from "Dealing With the Adversary". Believe it or not, most pastors aren't out there coercing young girls to have sex with them.
There are a lot of problems in the church and there are also fringe groups who are, in fact, worse that TWI. But Christianity in general worse than TWI? I don't think so.
I can't fully define TWI but part of the definition is that it is leader centered. That is, the leader is beyond reproach and above any criticism or accountability. Furthermore the doctrine is set and is not open for question or for an infusion of new ideas. There is clearly a "pecking order" and positions of high-level leadership are closed to all people with the exception of an elite few.
Also, people who complete the Way Corps training are thought to be qualified for marital, personal, family, and financial counseling even though there is no training in the Way Corps program relative counseling of any kind. No licensed or professional counselors provide any serious training in these fields. They are also considered qualified for major management positions even though, once again, there is no training on management practices in the Way Corps. In other words, The Way Corps basically rewards ignorance as well as awarding unquestioning obedience to their direct and overall leadership.
Financial giving outside of the The Way International corporate structure is heavily discouraged while giving directly to the corporate is strongly encouraged and it is taught that such giving brings the financial blessings of God. This even though full time staff members with serious illnesses are encouraged to enroll in medicaid in order to meet their medical expenses.
Similar to the Roman Catholic Church, the top leader of The Way International is thought of to speak for God on the earth. While a Way member would never admit that the top leader is in effect a pope, the practice indicates this is the case.
The language and grammar I use could probably be cleaned up a bit, and there is certainly more that I'm not covering. But there's my shot at a definition.
Recommended Posts
JavaJane
I believe the definition would depend on one's point of view... When I first got involved, TWI was my mom's weird Christian friends. Later it became other things - it was HQ, it was the ROA, it was every believing believer, the one true household, Zion... What is it now that I am out?
It's a sad little group of followers who have been duped by a trail of narcissistic sociopaths (VPW, LCM, and Rosie) to devote their life to a worthless lie.
So - two parts to it: 1. The followers and 2. Corporate leadership.
or... 1. sheep 2. wolves
see, you have to look at the context and administration involved to understand the meaning of the word.
Maybe you should buy a concordance, or look in the Blue Book.
(Hi, Bolshevik!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hi JJ, always appreciate your input.
Dividing groups up into and distinguishing between leaders and followers is another aspect of things. A leadership position could have been filled by a number of people? No? Is it the position, within an awful system, or the person, that was to blame? I tend not to distinguish between the two. What would anyone drilled to the doctrine and practice have done given enough (apparent) power?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Leadership positions could and would be filled by a number of people, but the selection of the people was left up to the highest level - the BOD/BOT. In fact, I think it was even taught that the only real "members" of The Way were the Board of Directors/Trustees. The selections were based on qualities such as being the biggest kiss butt, meekness (in Wayspeak this meant unquestioning obedience), etc.)... it sort of weeded out the ones who could have made or wanted to make changes. For instance, when I was WD, I had a area coordinator who was a very good man who brought a lot of people into the ministry through his abilities. His area thrived under him. Until he got up at a STS and taught something that wasn't spot on with his pre approved notes. Next thing you know he's scrubbing pots at Gunnison. Someone like him would not make it to BOD/BOT level. Even H@rve Pl@tig who was on the BOD/BOT wasn't kept around for too long - in my opinion, he was a good man as well, at least from my personal experience.
So, is it the person, or the position? I think you wouldn't get (or keep) the position unless you were the "right" (in the president's view) kind of person willing to do the things they wanted done.
I did horrible things while I was in, but I never wanted to be WC, because their level of commitment necessitated too much sacrifice of self. Not self sacrifice - I'm good with that - but destroying who I was as a person in order to be successful. I saw the things WC did - the marking and avoiding of entire families, the subservience, the boring clothes and hair and Stepford wives. I couldn't become THAT. And therefore I couldn't become upper level leadership.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
And I presume that the 'first century church' a.k.a 'followers of that Way' 'Christun' were defined by...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
A time period defined as before 100 A.D., or something like that, I assume ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That is true. A lot of jobs work that way everywhere. And a new position/responsibility can change a person too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I do seem to remember some "WE ARE THE MINISTRY" rallying back in the day. Sort of like U-S-A! U-S-A!. This was after 1999.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Nothing wrong with a bit of fervour tho is there ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hi Allan, how's it going?
No, if followers of TWI thought TWI was just leadership, just corporate, why have fervour? Make it's like a sport team. Anyone keeping score?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
TWI, to my thinking, is a way of life, dictated by the doctrinal teachings of The Way......magic thinking, jibber-jabber babbling, observance of unorthodox customs and proprietary vocabulary..... Some TWIers associate directly with the mother ship while others have been relegated (voluntarily or otherwise) to penal colonies, strewn hither and yon, known as splinter groups. There are also rogue outliers who pledge no vow of allegiance to any particular band of loyalists but still choose to live the prescribed lifestyle independently.
Did I mention they're "The Best!"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
I did horrible things while I was in, but I never wanted to be WC, because their level of commitment necessitated too much sacrifice of self. Not self sacrifice - I'm good with that - but destroying who I was as a person in order to be successful. I saw the things WC did - the marking and avoiding of entire families, the subservience, the boring clothes and hair and Stepford wives. I couldn't become THAT. And therefore I couldn't become upper level leadership.
This sounds like the 90s. That was when I checked out after 18 years. TWI wasn't at all like that before, not at root locations or out on the field. I don't even think it's that extreme now. It may have been heading that way since '89 or so, but that had to be their low point. If they had tried to keep that going up to the present day, they'd have nobody.
We're all going to be at the gathering together. God promises to wipe away all tears from our eyes. He couldn't promise that if we still had to deal with all that drama after the return. God will sort it out. Meanwhile, yeah, let's complain about everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Meanwhile, yeah, let's complain about everything."
If that's what you really think this is about, why do you keep returning?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Johniam, If you're able to grasp the gist here, how do YOU define what TWI is? Is it people? Is it a corporation? Is it an idea? Is TWI the Ministry which the Word which is the Household of followers? Something else? What do YOU think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
If they kept going the way they were there'd be no-one left.......that's why there's no-one left....hardly
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
To complain about people who complain about everything,
thus becoming part of what he complains about.
Which gives him something else to complain about.
Naturally, once that's been pointed out,
he'll complain about that, too.
There's even a diminishing return of chasing people off.
The biggest groups to chase off were in the beginning.
Each group gets progressively harder to scare away.
The last handful will either die in twi or have to
be scraped off like barnacles.
But I really think the lawyers insisted they change tactics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
Johniam, If you're able to grasp the gist here, how do YOU define what TWI is? Is it people? Is it a corporation? Is it an idea? Is TWI the Ministry which the Word which is the Household of followers? Something else? What do YOU think?
It's always people. People make things happen. People also have differing views. People make corporations. People have ideas. People set goals. People define things. People are fickle. In fact, Jim Morrison was right; people are strange.
What I see in a lot of threads and posts is no acknowledgement of God. Only man's judgment like it's all there is. God will sort everything out. I sometimes feel like, directly or indirectly, I have to constantly remind people of that.
I recall that those of us who were committed to twi had a strong sense of pride about it. Sure, we had to go to fellowships regularly to keep that going, but it was there. Even today, I have the same sense of pride about being in the body of Christ. This world just seems to get crazier and crazier.
Some people here go as far out of their way as they can to keep saying that twi was insignificant, irrelevant, had no impact, etc. Then, out of the other side of their mouths, they keep harping on how evil and dangerous they think VP was. Can't have it both ways.
I think twi had plenty of impact, spiritually and culturally. Look how the world attacks everything twi stood for. The way they are using the gay marriage issue to demonize all Christianity. If the only media you ever listen to is from the world, you're going to distance yourself from Christianity as much as you can.
The world is always people too. They have their own standards. Their own ideas. Their own goals, just like twi. God wouldn't say to be not conformed to this world if it wasn't possible. You think that's all that's relevant?
Twi emphasized some things not others. Nobody can emphasize everything that's virtuous. Wouldn't be bite sized enough to assimilate. They got OUR attention, didn't they? See, if all you do is complain, you tend to only see negatives. Not just about twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The thing is, John,
your "explanation" of twi failed to distinguish between it,
Jonestown, bowling teams, fraternities,
militants, Sherlock Holmes fanclubs,
or anything else.
Whether you meant to or not, it only served to dodge the question so you
could change the subject.
At least it's not LITERALLY true that you
"HAD TO CONSTANTLY REMIND PEOPLE OF THAT"?
If that were true, someone would be, say,
holding members of your family at gunpoint
and requiring your posts keep to one unvarying topic
and one unvarying position no matter how boring
and uninformative you get at it.
Instead,
the "feel like" means that this is just something
that you feel on a personal level that affects nobody but
you and you feel the need to inflict it on everyone else
here and are unable or unwilling to stop yourself before
hitting the "reply" button.
It certainly would partially explain why you tend to
interrupt threads on ONE subject to change the subject
rather than just make up a new thread on the subject
you actually want to talk about. The rest of us do that
whenever we want.
Which, invariably, many of us would agree to.
We felt pride in our positions.
Then again, that's no guarantee of truth-
political radicals of every stripe and terrorists
are committed to their causes and proud of them
right this minute.
You're missing the point.
Then again, you've admitted you don't read some posters' posts,
so there's no surprise you'd miss any points they made
while you were scrolling past and insisting on being unchanging.
On a national scale, let alone international scale, twi IS "insignificant"
and is barely a footnote, if that. It was big-but not enormous- for a handful
of years. It was almost nonexistent until about 1970, when the House of Acts
Christians and other legitimate Christians were diverted into it from doing
"their own thing". By 1985, at its height, it was still not as big as most
national churches. By 1990, 80% of THOSE people had all left or been kicked
out. Over the next decade, both twi and the splinters lost people steadily,
so both twi and its legacy groups, statistically speaking, are "insignificant
and "irrelevant." A lot of failed religious groups existed in the 20th
century in the US, and twi fits among them. Go ahead, try and find a
history of the 20th century where it sounds like twi made a significant
"impact" that wasn't written by twi or ex-twi people. Historians that don't
specialize in cults have never heard of it, and many now may not have, either.
Worldwide, I suspect more people discuss the "carbonari" than twi,
including discussion right here.
That having been said, was twi "evil and dangerous"? Yes, and it still is.
For example, in 2010 in the UK (to pull some statistics),
5 people were killed by stinging insects. Statistically, that's an
insignificant number. However, that's poor comfort if your loved one was
one of the 5 people. So, people like us would continue to warn people about
being careful around stinging insects no matter how statistically insignificant
they are. Stinging instects are "dangerous". They aren't "evil" because
they're not INTENTIONALLY trying to benefit from people at expense of the
people. Twi, however, does- or, as you say, the people making the decisions
of twi do.
If all of Christianity was represented by twi or ex-twi,
I'd have fled it just as many ex-twi'ers did.
They had good reasons, as they see it, to consider Christianity
as a whole to be harmful and not provide a benefit.
And you're grossly inflating how much of a positive contribution
twi's had to the US, "spiritually and culturally."
Getting our attention is no guarantee of truth.
Jim Jones drew the attention of a lot of people,
and is better known than vpw despite having had
a much shorter career.
That's more than a little ironic coming from a guy who scrolls past posts,
pauses to cherry-pick a few items to complain about,
then claims there's only negatives at the GSC.
John,
if all you come to do here is complain, all you'll find in the threads ARE negatives.
So, John,
the question on the table, is how you define what twi is.
How do you define it so you're not describing every organization
in existence, preferably accurately?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Johniam,
Thank you for your reply. If you can articulate further, I'd like to hear what people you believe comprise TWI. How does your mind distinguish between "wayfer" and "non-wayfer" or "former wayfer", for lack of better terms, if you will? What people ARE TWI?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Didn't VeePee make it onto time cover once ? surely that only happens when there's some kind of influence, at some point ??!! I just think it's a crying shame twi became what it was/is...Christianity in general is more screwed up than what twi was/is,(imo) and IF VeePee had let the music, worship side develop with the times instead of being stuck in a quasi Bill Gaither/country n western groove, I believe groups like Hillsong etc...would have paled in comparison.
I agree too, people make things happen, it's just that in twi people weren't allowed to make things happen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*falls over laughing*
It is true that making the cover of Time indicates some sort of impact,
at least at the moment the cover was chosen.
What's funny is the idea vpw made the cover.
He once was mentioned in part of an article about cults.
They made him sound like a crackpot,
and included a photo in the story of him riding around
on a motorcycle.
I read the article when I was in college, and even printed it out at the time.
He wasn't made to sound significant at all.
Although, he could have been said to have influenced the people
in his group. (IIRC, it was 1971, not 1970.)
We disagree there.
We were TOLD that was true. I believe we were lied to OFTEN in twi.
Well,
a lot of the best people were not allowed to do what they did best,
which was a shame.
I think twi was organized to prevent that since it would make those
people actual people and not ciphers,
which would have diminished the image of vpw as the sole mover.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
Thank you for your reply. If you can articulate further, I'd like to hear what people you believe comprise TWI. How does your mind distinguish between "wayfer" and "non-wayfer" or "former wayfer", for lack of better terms, if you will? What people ARE TWI?
There is, surprisingly, a lot of diversity among former wayfers. That is, surprisingly for a so called "cult".
I really don't know much about current twi. Don't mix much with them. I can't help but believe that the people who comprised twi when VP was alive dramatically shifted by the time LCM did the purges (1994). The people who comprised twi when VP was alive were a) people who were already Christians who needed a break from religion, and b) people who wanted specific questions answered who liked what they heard (JCING, ADAN, RTHST). What a long interesting trip it was!
I'm sure current twi has those same elements, but the do what I say or else stuff? I have no use for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Well, it may seem that way sometimes but I don't think that's at all true about Christianity in general. It's news when a pastor or church leader has an affair, or series of affairs with church staff, for example. A pastor who remains faithful to his wife and treats others with respect and does what he can to help the community does not make good news copy. Even if it were reported no one would be interested.
You might have heard that in Ferguson the church where Michael Brown's parents attend was firebombed by a white supremacist group. It was a teensy weensy little article in my local paper. Did you hear that a group of churches in Central Ohio raised over $130,000 to help that church in Ferguson rebuild? Christians regularly visit the sick in hospitals, contribute and sponsor programs to help the needy and homeless and many Christian churches have food pantries for the hungry in their communities and usually those pantries are staffed by volunteers. It's called having compassion for your fellowman regardless of their faith, race of creed.
You NEVER had that sort of thing in TWI. In fact, TWI discouraged such giving and even went as far as to give to a charitable organization other than TWI was "devilish". The teaching was that the Devil rarely gives you choice between good and evil, he gives you choices between good and best. Giving to the Red Cross was "good" but giving to TWO is "best". That's from "Dealing With the Adversary". Believe it or not, most pastors aren't out there coercing young girls to have sex with them.
There are a lot of problems in the church and there are also fringe groups who are, in fact, worse that TWI. But Christianity in general worse than TWI? I don't think so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I can't fully define TWI but part of the definition is that it is leader centered. That is, the leader is beyond reproach and above any criticism or accountability. Furthermore the doctrine is set and is not open for question or for an infusion of new ideas. There is clearly a "pecking order" and positions of high-level leadership are closed to all people with the exception of an elite few.
Also, people who complete the Way Corps training are thought to be qualified for marital, personal, family, and financial counseling even though there is no training in the Way Corps program relative counseling of any kind. No licensed or professional counselors provide any serious training in these fields. They are also considered qualified for major management positions even though, once again, there is no training on management practices in the Way Corps. In other words, The Way Corps basically rewards ignorance as well as awarding unquestioning obedience to their direct and overall leadership.
Financial giving outside of the The Way International corporate structure is heavily discouraged while giving directly to the corporate is strongly encouraged and it is taught that such giving brings the financial blessings of God. This even though full time staff members with serious illnesses are encouraged to enroll in medicaid in order to meet their medical expenses.
Similar to the Roman Catholic Church, the top leader of The Way International is thought of to speak for God on the earth. While a Way member would never admit that the top leader is in effect a pope, the practice indicates this is the case.
The language and grammar I use could probably be cleaned up a bit, and there is certainly more that I'm not covering. But there's my shot at a definition.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink 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.