What I think on this is that the fellowship in the home is a mixed bag. There is the intimacy side of it which is appealing. However, in general, it taught people to cross personal boundaries. People usually keep their lives and their families protected in their own home. But with fellowship in the home, and the love-bombing culture, I think what it accomplished is systematically breaking down personal boundaries.
The fruit or result of this is you would see people very willing to comment on and control others in areas where they had no business - it crossed personal boundaries. Finances, child care, careers, sex, nothing was maintained as taboo for boundary crossing in discussing or controlling in another. I think the "touch" thing is kind of personal. Some people like to be touched, others less so. I'm more of the "don't touch me" makeup. I think though more importantly that the crossing of boundaries is what was set up there. And the mental conditioning to accept the crossing of boundaries passively without fighting.
This produces an environment that is groomed for predators. And the Way had many predators. Many of them stayed hidden. Some of the worst were exposed, like Victor Barnard. People use and manipulate each other in the Way for more than just sex though. The caste hierarchy certainly shows a good element of the same type of behavior David Miscavage shows in Scientology with the propensity for abuse. And many other types of abuse.
Boundaries.
If you are or have been in the Way for a long time you might want to check yours. You may find they have been murdered by a hit and run. The murdered boundaries in the sexual category are especially egregious. They have caused documented suicides.
Banging on doors during dinnertime to explain life to strangers, or walking up to them in the mall, and the process of "conquering fear" in order to witness I'm sure broke down understanding of boundaries as well.
I generally remember home fellowships being very heavy and gloomy. Teachings were anger/control charged. But that was 90s/00s.
The Way was built in the 60s/70s and talk of the Hippies was common. Might the home fellowships be extensions of Hippie culture?
Yes, I think they might be. Another useful vehicle for VPW's ego-trip stolen class.
Private homes where hippies smoked dope and engaged in free sex... wow, what a draw, what a model, for a person like VPW. Uncontrolled and unregulated activities with no responsible overseer (like a church minister).
Well, I disagree. I'd say our home provided what it should... a safe and peaceful meeting place, where people could (and mostly did) speak honestly about whatever might be on their hearts. Whether the reason for that is from the way we were raised, from something learned during the years with twi, or from the heart we had for the truth... I don't know. Seems it doesn't much matter. If others missed (or abused) the opportunity to offer or provide that to others, well that's on their heads, regardless of whatever reason (or excuse) they might come up with.
Well, I disagree. I'd say our home provided what it should... a safe and peaceful meeting place, where people could (and mostly did) speak honestly about whatever might be on their hearts. Whether the reason for that is from the way we were raised, from something learned during the years with twi, or from the heart we had for the truth... I don't know. Seems it doesn't much matter. If others missed (or abused) the opportunity to offer or provide that to others, well that's on their heads, regardless of whatever reason (or excuse) they might come up with.
Sounds like maybe you don't necessarily really disagree. It's obviously not an either/or. The home church model is about promoting emotional intimacy, isn't it? As with most other aspects of twi, there wasn't much genuine training or leadership on how to keep things above board, establish appropriate emotional/social boundaries or keep people from preying on vulnerable members.
Been reading here lately and in correspondence and thinking a bit. It's all very well having meetings in the home - "home church" - good idea, keeps things intimate. Too intimate. I imagine the original idea was to avoid shelling out $$ for meeting rooms or building places (like church buildings!). But meeting in the home had a dual purpose.
Think how lovey-dovey everyone was. Greeted with hugs and kisses, despite not knowing the greeter well and perhaps despite one's own personal reservations. Everyone squished on couches or chairs during fellowship, and again after fellowship when things might be more relaxed. There came also more hugs and the back rubs and shoulder rubs, in sympathy or whatever. All this can be nice, can be friendly. It was a sort of enforced intimacy that could be manipulated by some. Everyone wanted to be round a charismatic leader.
But what if that charismatic leader had other ideas? In the "group hug" on the couch, ostensibly putting arms along the couch back, perhaps, then allowing them to stray onto the shoulders of young women? Seeing who shied from that touch and who didn't. The occasional "accidental" brush of the hand in an inappropriate way. A too-long hug when people were leaving.
And then, at bigger fellowships, everyone was used to this behavior because it had become the norm. So on coming into contact with the more rapacious type of leader - well, the softening up had already taken place.
Rather than "promoting harmony in the home," I'm coming to the conclusion that meeting in the intimate home setting, where people's guard is down somewhat, was the start of the grooming process for the sexual abuse for young women. A lot of this unwanted touching just wouldn't have got started, would have been rejected earlier, if meetings had taken place other than in homes. Who smooches up like this in a church? In a meeting in a public room at the library or town hall or school hall? In a park or beach meeting?
....But what if that charismatic leader had other ideas? In the "group hug" on the couch, ostensibly putting arms along the couch back, perhaps, then allowing them to stray onto the shoulders of young women? Seeing who shied from that touch and who didn't. The occasional "accidental" brush of the hand in an inappropriate way. A too-long hug when people were leaving.
And then, at bigger fellowships, everyone was used to this behavior because it had become the norm. So on coming into contact with the more rapacious type of leader - well, the softening up had already taken place.
Rather than "promoting harmony in the home," I'm coming to the conclusion that meeting in the intimate home setting, where people's guard is down somewhat, was the start of the grooming process for the sexual abuse for young women. A lot of this unwanted touching just wouldn't have got started, would have been rejected earlier, if meetings had taken place other than in homes. Who smooches up like this in a church? In a meeting in a public room at the library or town hall or school hall? In a park or beach meeting?
Thoughts, anyone?
Twinky, I’m with you on unwanted touching / hugging etc. I am not a touchy-feely-type guy. I am very reserved – especially around the opposite sex. Maybe it’s just me but even as a teen I believed any touching, hugging, and kissing led to some serious business…so I was always a little uncomfortable even if I was standing near a guy believer giving a girl some big-believer hugs. Not trying to paint myself up as a saint – just felt safe with my hands-off policy – otherwise I’ve got to deal with the “bad thoughts” inspired by the touching/hugging/kissing. Don’t mean to condemn Mr. Hugger either…but it doesn’t hurt to hear what women think of all this.
10 hours ago, WordWolf said:
twi's not the only group to use meetings in homes. However, they do serve both the purpose of
"we're not spending a nickel on anything we don't have to-all the money stays at the top" and
"we're in someone's home, crossing their personal boundaries",
and that's for all sorts of groups.
Of course, meeting in a living room can also be done innocently and socially, but that wasn't twi's way.
It WAS the way some people did it in twi, but that was almost an accidental by-product of the process,
like drawing in real Christians into the web of exploiters and con artists.
Yeah I would think the atmosphere of a home-setting would tend to soften boundaries – where folks let down their guard. Along with what WordWolf said – friends…family…relatives….meet in the home all the time but it gets complicated with TWI – there can be other things at play.
I think there was a “grooming process” with a predatory bent thanks to the insidious elements that trickled down from vp’s “ministry”. Like In vp’s Christian Family and Sex class – a weird idea runs throughout the class as a subtext or subliminal message - that the “renewed mind” can handle anything – and so inappropriate and offensive things can wind up getting lost in the sauce of moral disengagement.
I was fascinated by WordWolf’s phrase “ It WAS the way some people did it in twi, but that was almost an accidental by-product of the process, like drawing in real Christians into the web of exploiters and con artists.” TWI could bring out the best and the worst in people depending on one’s makeup (personally I prefer the Maybelline brand). If you had altruistic or idealistic tendencies you looked for ways to help others. If you were a predator, con artist, etc. you appreciated the target-rich environment.
Edited by T-Bone trying to beat the clock (server timeout)
Think it might have started as an accidental by-product, but rapidly became a means of working. Like the accidental discovery of Pyrex, for example. Quickly became desirable in its own right. Like the opportunity to "soften boundaries" and crack the door ajar, ready for abusers.
My church meets in home groups, about a dozen or so people. I have been in several housegroups. Most meet in the home. And NONE of them have indulged in over-intimate hugs, kisses, touching, backrubs or like physical contact. A chaste kiss on the cheek, a handshake, a quick hug if you know someone quite well but without close body contact ... that's as far as it goes. I cannot imagine the TWI-style close contact greeting going on in any housegroup I have attended.
Church in the home seemed to be God's idea in Acts and the Pauline Epistles. The Way may have misused and abused the concept, but I do not think the church in the home was the problem .... but rather the leaders and wanna-bes who attended the churches in the home. Churches in the home are common and a blessing throughout much of the free ... and restricted....nations of the world.
Been reading here lately and in correspondence and thinking a bit. It's all very well having meetings in the home - "home church" - good idea, keeps things intimate. Too intimate. I imagine the original idea was to avoid shelling out $$ for meeting rooms or building places (like church buildings!). But meeting in the home had a dual purpose.
Think how lovey-dovey everyone was. Greeted with hugs and kisses, despite not knowing the greeter well and perhaps despite one's own personal reservations. Everyone squished on couches or chairs during fellowship, and again after fellowship when things might be more relaxed. There came also more hugs and the back rubs and shoulder rubs, in sympathy or whatever. All this can be nice, can be friendly. It was a sort of enforced intimacy that could be manipulated by some. Everyone wanted to be round a charismatic leader.
But what if that charismatic leader had other ideas? In the "group hug" on the couch, ostensibly putting arms along the couch back, perhaps, then allowing them to stray onto the shoulders of young women? Seeing who shied from that touch and who didn't. The occasional "accidental" brush of the hand in an inappropriate way. A too-long hug when people were leaving.
And then, at bigger fellowships, everyone was used to this behavior because it had become the norm. So on coming into contact with the more rapacious type of leader - well, the softening up had already taken place.
Rather than "promoting harmony in the home," I'm coming to the conclusion that meeting in the intimate home setting, where people's guard is down somewhat, was the start of the grooming process for the sexual abuse for young women. A lot of this unwanted touching just wouldn't have got started, would have been rejected earlier, if meetings had taken place other than in homes. Who smooches up like this in a church? In a meeting in a public room at the library or town hall or school hall? In a park or beach meeting?
Thoughts, anyone?
Twinky, wow!! I always thought TWI wanted HF because they didn't want to pay for a lot of overhead. But, I think you might be right; people tend to be more relaxed in home settings, than in a Church one. Wow! There can be a lot of abuse going on in homes, that no one knows about. I want to think about this.
What I think on this is that the fellowship in the home is a mixed bag. There is the intimacy side of it which is appealing. However, in general, it taught people to cross personal boundaries. People usually keep their lives and their families protected in their own home. But with fellowship in the home, and the love-bombing culture, I think what it accomplished is systematically breaking down personal boundaries.
The fruit or result of this is you would see people very willing to comment on and control others in areas where they had no business - it crossed personal boundaries. Finances, child care, careers, sex, nothing was maintained as taboo for boundary crossing in discussing or controlling in another. I think the "touch" thing is kind of personal. Some people like to be touched, others less so. I'm more of the "don't touch me" makeup. I think though more importantly that the crossing of boundaries is what was set up there. And the mental conditioning to accept the crossing of boundaries passively without fighting.
This produces an environment that is groomed for predators. And the Way had many predators. Many of them stayed hidden. Some of the worst were exposed, like Victor Barnard. People use and manipulate each other in the Way for more than just sex though. The caste hierarchy certainly shows a good element of the same type of behavior David Miscavage shows in Scientology with the propensity for abuse. And many other types of abuse.
Boundaries.
If you are or have been in the Way for a long time you might want to check yours. You may find they have been murdered by a hit and run. The murdered boundaries in the sexual category are especially egregious. They have caused documented suicides.
Chock, when I was in TWI decades ago all of those things that you mentioned, were your personal business. TWI didn't know my personal business, nor did they ask. However, I know from reading the 'Spot, that TWI made those things their business; perhaps that is why so many people left. I think they will be better off without TWI.
Banging on doors during dinnertime to explain life to strangers, or walking up to them in the mall, and the process of "conquering fear" in order to witness I'm sure broke down understanding of boundaries as well.
I generally remember home fellowships being very heavy and gloomy. Teachings were anger/control charged. But that was 90s/00s.
The Way was built in the 60s/70s and talk of the Hippies was common. Might the home fellowships be extensions of Hippie culture?
Bol, I don't think so. Back in the 60's, and early 70's, people used to let it all hang out, whatever that meant. People were free to live, and let live. TWI wanted control over the lives of their people; nuts to that!
Recommended Posts
chockfull
Hey Twinky,
What I think on this is that the fellowship in the home is a mixed bag. There is the intimacy side of it which is appealing. However, in general, it taught people to cross personal boundaries. People usually keep their lives and their families protected in their own home. But with fellowship in the home, and the love-bombing culture, I think what it accomplished is systematically breaking down personal boundaries.
The fruit or result of this is you would see people very willing to comment on and control others in areas where they had no business - it crossed personal boundaries. Finances, child care, careers, sex, nothing was maintained as taboo for boundary crossing in discussing or controlling in another. I think the "touch" thing is kind of personal. Some people like to be touched, others less so. I'm more of the "don't touch me" makeup. I think though more importantly that the crossing of boundaries is what was set up there. And the mental conditioning to accept the crossing of boundaries passively without fighting.
This produces an environment that is groomed for predators. And the Way had many predators. Many of them stayed hidden. Some of the worst were exposed, like Victor Barnard. People use and manipulate each other in the Way for more than just sex though. The caste hierarchy certainly shows a good element of the same type of behavior David Miscavage shows in Scientology with the propensity for abuse. And many other types of abuse.
Boundaries.
If you are or have been in the Way for a long time you might want to check yours. You may find they have been murdered by a hit and run. The murdered boundaries in the sexual category are especially egregious. They have caused documented suicides.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
You've got it, Chockfull. Violation of pretty much all boundaries. Grooming for all kinds of mischief. Grr!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Banging on doors during dinnertime to explain life to strangers, or walking up to them in the mall, and the process of "conquering fear" in order to witness I'm sure broke down understanding of boundaries as well.
I generally remember home fellowships being very heavy and gloomy. Teachings were anger/control charged. But that was 90s/00s.
The Way was built in the 60s/70s and talk of the Hippies was common. Might the home fellowships be extensions of Hippie culture?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Yes, I think they might be. Another useful vehicle for VPW's ego-trip stolen class.
Private homes where hippies smoked dope and engaged in free sex... wow, what a draw, what a model, for a person like VPW. Uncontrolled and unregulated activities with no responsible overseer (like a church minister).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I disagree. I'd say our home provided what it should... a safe and peaceful meeting place, where people could (and mostly did) speak honestly about whatever might be on their hearts. Whether the reason for that is from the way we were raised, from something learned during the years with twi, or from the heart we had for the truth... I don't know. Seems it doesn't much matter. If others missed (or abused) the opportunity to offer or provide that to others, well that's on their heads, regardless of whatever reason (or excuse) they might come up with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Sounds like maybe you don't necessarily really disagree. It's obviously not an either/or. The home church model is about promoting emotional intimacy, isn't it? As with most other aspects of twi, there wasn't much genuine training or leadership on how to keep things above board, establish appropriate emotional/social boundaries or keep people from preying on vulnerable members.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
higherground30
Preach! Twinky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
twi's not the only group to use meetings in homes. However, they do serve both the purpose of
"we're not spending a nickel on anything we don't have to-all the money stays at the top" and
"we're in someone's home, crossing their personal boundaries",
and that's for all sorts of groups.
Of course, meeting in a living room can also be done innocently and socially, but that wasn't twi's way.
It WAS the way some people did it in twi, but that was almost an accidental by-product of the process,
like drawing in real Christians into the web of exploiters and con artists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Twinky, I’m with you on unwanted touching / hugging etc. I am not a touchy-feely-type guy. I am very reserved – especially around the opposite sex. Maybe it’s just me but even as a teen I believed any touching, hugging, and kissing led to some serious business…so I was always a little uncomfortable even if I was standing near a guy believer giving a girl some big-believer hugs. Not trying to paint myself up as a saint – just felt safe with my hands-off policy – otherwise I’ve got to deal with the “bad thoughts” inspired by the touching/hugging/kissing. Don’t mean to condemn Mr. Hugger either…but it doesn’t hurt to hear what women think of all this.
Yeah I would think the atmosphere of a home-setting would tend to soften boundaries – where folks let down their guard. Along with what WordWolf said – friends…family…relatives….meet in the home all the time but it gets complicated with TWI – there can be other things at play.
I think there was a “grooming process” with a predatory bent thanks to the insidious elements that trickled down from vp’s “ministry”. Like In vp’s Christian Family and Sex class – a weird idea runs throughout the class as a subtext or subliminal message - that the “renewed mind” can handle anything – and so inappropriate and offensive things can wind up getting lost in the sauce of moral disengagement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_disengagement
I was fascinated by WordWolf’s phrase “ It WAS the way some people did it in twi, but that was almost an accidental by-product of the process, like drawing in real Christians into the web of exploiters and con artists.” TWI could bring out the best and the worst in people depending on one’s makeup (personally I prefer the Maybelline brand
). If you had altruistic or idealistic tendencies you looked for ways to help others. If you were a predator, con artist, etc. you appreciated the target-rich environment.
Edited by T-Bonetrying to beat the clock (server timeout)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Think it might have started as an accidental by-product, but rapidly became a means of working. Like the accidental discovery of Pyrex, for example. Quickly became desirable in its own right. Like the opportunity to "soften boundaries" and crack the door ajar, ready for abusers.
My church meets in home groups, about a dozen or so people. I have been in several housegroups. Most meet in the home. And NONE of them have indulged in over-intimate hugs, kisses, touching, backrubs or like physical contact. A chaste kiss on the cheek, a handshake, a quick hug if you know someone quite well but without close body contact ... that's as far as it goes. I cannot imagine the TWI-style close contact greeting going on in any housegroup I have attended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogLover
I agree with Twinky.
Church in the home seemed to be God's idea in Acts and the Pauline Epistles. The Way may have misused and abused the concept, but I do not think the church in the home was the problem .... but rather the leaders and wanna-bes who attended the churches in the home. Churches in the home are common and a blessing throughout much of the free ... and restricted....nations of the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Twinky, wow!! I always thought TWI wanted HF because they didn't want to pay for a lot of overhead. But, I think you might be right; people tend to be more relaxed in home settings, than in a Church one. Wow! There can be a lot of abuse going on in homes, that no one knows about. I want to think about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Chock, when I was in TWI decades ago all of those things that you mentioned, were your personal business. TWI didn't know my personal business, nor did they ask. However, I know from reading the 'Spot, that TWI made those things their business; perhaps that is why so many people left. I think they will be better off without TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Bol, I don't think so. Back in the 60's, and early 70's, people used to let it all hang out, whatever that meant. People were free to live, and let live. TWI wanted control over the lives of their people; nuts to that!
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.