It's all about control -- Critical thinking not allowed.
The more I think about it the more I realize that TWI was never a truly a " biblical research ministry". Not even in "the good old days" when I was involved.
No legitimate biblical research was every done by TWI. VPW plagairized much of what became PFAL. Under VPW, any research done by others had to be framed by what was already established in PFAL or by VPW himself. Under Martindale and Rivenbark it seems to have only gotten worse.
'Biblical Research Ministy' is just a facade - a hook to give the appearance of academic respectability. They have none.
The author of the article writes:
quote:
This is where research begins. Research means to "re-search" or "search again." Repetition aids learning ; therefore, use material that has already been worked.
The author has to twist the definiton of the word research to make his point -An old trick of Wierwille's.
In the academic and scientific world c Research does not simply mean to "search again" or to repeat what has already been done.
Here is what it really means:
Research
Re*search" (r?-s?rch"), n. [Pref. re- + search: cf OF. recerche, F. recherche.]
Diligent inquiry or examination in seeking facts or principles; laborious or continued search after truth; as, researches of human wisdom. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)
Amen Goey. If they wanted to be honest, they could show this information to potential new people when they do the class explanations. (If they still do them, that is)
"This is our approach. Everything has to start with and line up with our literature."
Or they could just put it on their web site. Yeah, I'm holding my breath.
I remember when I led my first twig that I was really nervous about "working and researching the Word" to come up with a teaching. It didn't take long for me to figure out that original research wasn't necessary at all. Just rehash a tape teaching or an article in the mag...teachings were a snap ! And I wasn't the only one. To be honest, I cannot recall hearing one teaching that was based on research done solely by the teacher...at the twig, branch, or limb level. You could always find a tape or article that was done by someone else before. And now I know that even the times I heard VP that the teachings were also "recycled".
Gee, that's funny. Because, you see, after I took PFAL and became a Twig leader, I really thought we were supposed to research the Bible, not "re-search" it. I did a lot of teachings that were not rehashes of Sunday teaching tapes or TWI books, although some were review. I also taught parts of PFAL to people who had never had the class.
It didn't take a lot of brilliance to do a word study and teach the highlights of it, or to read a passage and expound on it. I am not trying to say how great I was, but rather that I was doing what I thought we were supposed to do. I thought PFAL was supposed to give us keys to understanding the Bible.
I guess I was lucky to live in an area where there weren't that many believers close together, so if you did what you wanted in a Twig, no one heard about it, or cared. It wasn't until years later that I heard about this "re-search" stuff. I thought it was at best a guideline for neophytes in the Word; at worst, I thought it was a crock.
Wow. I was gonna bring this up and here we are. I remember the time as a HFC assistant when I was given the green light to lead a group word study instead of a teaching one night. I had been nagging for the chance to do it for so long that I finally won out. My coordinator (wonderful person, just Way conditioned through and through) mentioned how nice it would be to have each person bring a "research" book - PFAL, the blue book, JCING, etc... I think I was a bit surprised even though I'd been around for years by this time (nothing gets past this kid, no way) and said that I intended to do a study and use the REAL research materials on my shelf and others... lexicons (hated Bullingers and usually used Thayer's the most), Strong's, etc. etc. - plus show how the context will help with deeper and more accurate shades of meaning. The coordinator thought I was trying to be too intellectual with it but gave me the go-ahead.
We did one night of studying with all the "real" research materials we had handy (it went about an hour but felt like ten minutes to me - we deliberately did only one song and kept everything else to a minimum for this night), and then everyone who wanted to got to teach for two minutes apiece on further study of what we worked that night a week later. I heard some astounding teachings that next week that sounded NOTHING like usual TWI teachings. People seemed genuinely excited to be something other than parrots. I always tried to encourage independent thinking, all the while missing the fact that I was definitely not fitting in with the established Way of doing things.
I never did a teaching with more than a quote or two from an article or book (Just to tie things in with the Obsession Of The Week now and then) in all the years I taught at fellowships. I was aware of (and mildly horrified by... but only briefly) DocVic's nonsensical definition of "research" but personally never fell for it for a minute. Too bad I thought all the other stuff being "taught" was similarly "researched" rather than re-read and regurgitated.
This was another key in my leaving - when our RC (who I was quite close with and still have respect for - for all his failings he is sincere in his beliefs and his actions and words reflect the beliefs to the best of his ability) told me in no uncertain terms that ALL the Corps had "researched" Martinpuke's teachings and classes and came to the conclusion that with the exception of the attitude and manner of teaching and a very minor jot or tittle of meaning it was all accurate and would continue to be taught as long as the ministry lasts. This was within the last year. Loy is gone, gone, gone, never to return. Make no mistake about that - he will not ever be allowed in a decision making category again. But the word most adamantly was that LCM's teachings and doctrine will stand and will continue to be taught. Only the manner of presentation is to change. So much for "research." I could go on forever on this but I'll leave it here for now.
quote:This was another key in my leaving - when our RC (who I was quite close with and still have respect for - for all his failings he is sincere in his beliefs and his actions and words reflect the beliefs to the best of his ability) told me in no uncertain terms that ALL the Corps had "researched" Martinpuke's teachings and classes and came to the conclusion that with the exception of the attitude and manner of teaching and a very minor jot or tittle of meaning it was all accurate and would continue to be taught as long as the ministry lasts. This was within the last year. Loy is gone, gone, gone, never to return. Make no mistake about that - he will not ever be allowed in a decision making category again. But the word most adamantly was that LCM's teachings and doctrine will stand and will continue to be taught. Only the manner of presentation is to change. So much for "research." I could go on forever on this but I'll leave it here for now.
I know what you mean Shaz... I think I used some of the PFAL stuff for the base of my first couple of teachings, but after I got comfortable "in my skin"... I'd just sit down about 30 minutes before twig and put together something about whatever was "hot on my heart" at the time...
they were pretty good teachings too (IMHO), not because of me, but because they really worked... they actually applied to the folks who were there on that day at that time... others taught this way as well...
I know things changed a lot in the 80's and 90's though... and I would've left if it had been dictated what to teach... if I hadn't already...
The secret to "assigned teachings" in my area was this: teach what was needed or what you were excited about teaching at the time (in my case, whatever I was independently studying) and make it connect at some point with the title if you could. If you couldn't make it connect, call it by that title anyway and no one ever really noticed or cared.
My BC (Who was also the RC) said that was what we SHOULD do and supported me doing it that way, especially since I was pretty well in tune with the needs of the fellowship and was pretty good at presenting very useful stuff in a fairly logical manner. Knowing him, he wasn't bucking the system so it was "available" to not do the cookie-cutter thing but apparently not very well advertised. As with most things TWI...
... it wasn't very consistent. My experience is fairly recent (18 months) and we were expected to teach using almost all of the same verses. If it was "teaching from the Sunday Teaching Service" you were expected to cover roughly the same material. (Pretty boring if you just had a phone hook up or already heard it.) Some deleted or added verses were ok for variety but not too much. Again, stick to what's taught and don't do an entirely different subject.
WayMag, same thing. No deviation.
I once way off script and was summoned for a "discussion" about how to properly organize a teaching. Two local corps essentially told me to stick with what was on the page and that's it. Come to think of it, that was also the last time I was allowed to teach from the WayMag. Hmmm... could be coincidence?
Wow, JT. Bummer. Not that I'm surprised. There are so many different pockets of "believers" with so many different interpretations of the same instructions and I know the tendency is nearly always towards less rather than more freedom. The particular area I'm speaking of here went from one extreme to another in liberalism/Nazism almost daily, but in the matter of what to teach and how to teach it, I guess we were much more liberal.
Clarification: I always assumed that the assigned topics were merely suggestions and acted accordingly with no one ever objecting to how and what I taught. I didn't know anyone assumed otherwise until someone complained about the stifling subjects at a coordinator meeting. Me never being submissive enough to keep my mouth shut all the time, I said that I just ignored the suggestions and taught what I thought needed taught. That was the point when the RC said that this was the way he wanted it done and that sometimes a particular group's need was more important than mimicking what was coming from HQ.
In fact, I know I recollect him saying that people already heard it or read it once and we were absolutely NOT to merely repeat the tape/magazine/book - that we needed to put our hearts and souls into it and keep the needs of our fellowships first.
Weird. And this was a guy that has probably been called "Nazi" by more people than anyone since Hitler... and not always without cause.
I'm sorry it didn't work that way everywhere, and I can't help but imagine how miserable it was to be in your shoes, JT. I think I would have voluntarily quit "teaching" if I just had to regurgitate. But who knows - cultists have an amazing knack for rationalization when it comes to putting up with oppression.
Thanks for understanding. Well put too, by the way. Just "voluntarily stop teaching." It was a hard thing to do though as I miss that. We had some good folks in my last fellowship and it was great to talk to them about a teaching afterwards. New LC and that went out the window. This guy even read the waymag to us once! And he's corps. Sure glad he's a super-duper trained expert on God's Word. He can read! ;-) Not sure which is worse. The guy being so thick that he thinks that is teaching or knowing it's not and being unsatisfied. Either one isn't very appealing.
Ah... the "nazi" label. At times, I think the literal according to usage is "someone who has a different view than me and is unwilling to see it my way." :-)
My take on our situations is that I am thankful you were/are able to do that. (Can't remember if you're still in but didn't think so) And I do love the quote on your posts! May I borrow it sometime?
I was totally in awe of the teachings I heard before I led a twig. I'd sit there flabbergasted that these folks had worked all this stuff. I honestly thought they came up with it totally on their own, using only the principles of PFAL, a KJV Bible, and concordance and possibly with a little help from a Greek/Aramaic dictionary. Some (just some) of them may have been.
This was before the days when tapes were constantly used--once in a while we'd get a copy of a teaching tape and wear it out. I was intimidated and felt totally inadequate to lead a twig...didn't see how I could possibly be smart enough to put together a coherent, intelligent teaching that would bless our little group and hopefully answer some needs.
As tapes, mags, etc. became more readily available, I saw then how things were recycled and passed around over and over again (sometimes verbatim). It was then I relaxed more about it, knowing that I could draw on those teachings and not steer my twig wrong. Didn't trust myself one bit.
Guess in a way it sounds like I was lazy, but in reality, I was scared to death, thinking I would teach something that was "off the Word" and cause some catastrophe to befall those I loved so much. If I taught from what others had already done, I automatically assumed they were smarter and much more "in tune" with what God wanted, and, therefore, I would do no harm.
Sheesh---pathetic, I know, but that's as honest as I can be about it.
I am pretty sure you're not alone here. My first twig was pretty similar. I thought the twig leader was a giant in biblical scholarship. His teachings were stuffed with Bible verses unlike your typical mass. That ended when I got to know him later and realized he was just good at memorizing teachings. In fact, he was a VPW-clone in many ways. Used his mannerisms, phrases, etc. Kind of spooky.
On the positive side, I did meet quite a few who were talented, educated and knowledgeable. To bad TWI generally saw those folks as a threat when they actually used their brains to think on their own.
My personal experience agrees with what Jason P. wrote. I was told, and all others who taught were told too, not to re-teach what was in the Way Mag, STS, or whatever. You could use it as a launching point into a side area or something you were working, but you didn't have to. In fact if someone did just re-hash an article they were talked to afterwords for not putting enough heart into the teaching. And, to clarify, others and myself taught using Youngs, Bullingers, Thayers, WayMag, Humanists, Psychologists, religious texts, dictionaries, etc. You name it, if it was relevant, it was used.
Human understanding does not come from a closed environment.
Really "sucks" that in many ways there are(were) multiple "Way Ministry's" that exist(ed) within itself.
seriously, in a span of 2 weeks at different offshoots, we heard teachings on "light" and almost every verse mentioned was taught in each of those teachings. the worst part about them is when the person teaching would say "and quote dr. wierwille" or "a very great man, victor paul wierwille." all opnionated parts of the teaching were in reference to wierwille and all of the bible verses could be found by using the concordance that comes in most bibles. amazingly enough, those teachings were somehow "just what we all needed to hear."
I'm not surprised. It seems like each corps person felt it was ok to mold things to fit them. We had one LC who couldn't use a concordance without a LOT of effort. (Not a terribly bright guy) He put a lot of emphasis on outreach and not much on research or teaching. Another was a research nut (said in a good way) so we spent hours in his TC meetings. (Did he have to tell us EVERYTHING he was thinking about?!)
Same with holidays, etc. Each one seemed to see us as his own little MOGdom. At least the last few weren't screamers so that was an improvement. :-|
I loved to Work the Word. still do. It helps a lot to shed light on stuff. I'm not a scholar, but I do know how to use a concordance and I have been able to teach many other Christians.
I have no problem with the Word that I learned.I have only a problem with people who think that their $% don't stink and that JC came only to save my pathetic soul.
Recommended Posts
Goey
Insurgent,
It's all about control -- Critical thinking not allowed.
The more I think about it the more I realize that TWI was never a truly a " biblical research ministry". Not even in "the good old days" when I was involved.
No legitimate biblical research was every done by TWI. VPW plagairized much of what became PFAL. Under VPW, any research done by others had to be framed by what was already established in PFAL or by VPW himself. Under Martindale and Rivenbark it seems to have only gotten worse.
'Biblical Research Ministy' is just a facade - a hook to give the appearance of academic respectability. They have none.
The author of the article writes:
The author has to twist the definiton of the word research to make his point -An old trick of Wierwille's.
In the academic and scientific world c Research does not simply mean to "search again" or to repeat what has already been done.
Here is what it really means:
Research
Re*search" (r?-s?rch"), n. [Pref. re- + search: cf OF. recerche, F. recherche.]
Diligent inquiry or examination in seeking facts or principles; laborious or continued search after truth; as, researches of human wisdom. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Amen Goey. If they wanted to be honest, they could show this information to potential new people when they do the class explanations. (If they still do them, that is)
"This is our approach. Everything has to start with and line up with our literature."
Or they could just put it on their web site. Yeah, I'm holding my breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
way back in the 70s
I remember when I led my first twig that I was really nervous about "working and researching the Word" to come up with a teaching. It didn't take long for me to figure out that original research wasn't necessary at all. Just rehash a tape teaching or an article in the mag...teachings were a snap ! And I wasn't the only one. To be honest, I cannot recall hearing one teaching that was based on research done solely by the teacher...at the twig, branch, or limb level. You could always find a tape or article that was done by someone else before. And now I know that even the times I heard VP that the teachings were also "recycled".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Gee, that's funny. Because, you see, after I took PFAL and became a Twig leader, I really thought we were supposed to research the Bible, not "re-search" it. I did a lot of teachings that were not rehashes of Sunday teaching tapes or TWI books, although some were review. I also taught parts of PFAL to people who had never had the class.
It didn't take a lot of brilliance to do a word study and teach the highlights of it, or to read a passage and expound on it. I am not trying to say how great I was, but rather that I was doing what I thought we were supposed to do. I thought PFAL was supposed to give us keys to understanding the Bible.
I guess I was lucky to live in an area where there weren't that many believers close together, so if you did what you wanted in a Twig, no one heard about it, or cared. It wasn't until years later that I heard about this "re-search" stuff. I thought it was at best a guideline for neophytes in the Word; at worst, I thought it was a crock.
Oopsie, my bad,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason P
Wow. I was gonna bring this up and here we are. I remember the time as a HFC assistant when I was given the green light to lead a group word study instead of a teaching one night. I had been nagging for the chance to do it for so long that I finally won out. My coordinator (wonderful person, just Way conditioned through and through) mentioned how nice it would be to have each person bring a "research" book - PFAL, the blue book, JCING, etc... I think I was a bit surprised even though I'd been around for years by this time (nothing gets past this kid, no way) and said that I intended to do a study and use the REAL research materials on my shelf and others... lexicons (hated Bullingers and usually used Thayer's the most), Strong's, etc. etc. - plus show how the context will help with deeper and more accurate shades of meaning. The coordinator thought I was trying to be too intellectual with it but gave me the go-ahead.
We did one night of studying with all the "real" research materials we had handy (it went about an hour but felt like ten minutes to me - we deliberately did only one song and kept everything else to a minimum for this night), and then everyone who wanted to got to teach for two minutes apiece on further study of what we worked that night a week later. I heard some astounding teachings that next week that sounded NOTHING like usual TWI teachings. People seemed genuinely excited to be something other than parrots. I always tried to encourage independent thinking, all the while missing the fact that I was definitely not fitting in with the established Way of doing things.
I never did a teaching with more than a quote or two from an article or book (Just to tie things in with the Obsession Of The Week now and then) in all the years I taught at fellowships. I was aware of (and mildly horrified by... but only briefly) DocVic's nonsensical definition of "research" but personally never fell for it for a minute. Too bad I thought all the other stuff being "taught" was similarly "researched" rather than re-read and regurgitated.
This was another key in my leaving - when our RC (who I was quite close with and still have respect for - for all his failings he is sincere in his beliefs and his actions and words reflect the beliefs to the best of his ability) told me in no uncertain terms that ALL the Corps had "researched" Martinpuke's teachings and classes and came to the conclusion that with the exception of the attitude and manner of teaching and a very minor jot or tittle of meaning it was all accurate and would continue to be taught as long as the ministry lasts. This was within the last year. Loy is gone, gone, gone, never to return. Make no mistake about that - he will not ever be allowed in a decision making category again. But the word most adamantly was that LCM's teachings and doctrine will stand and will continue to be taught. Only the manner of presentation is to change. So much for "research." I could go on forever on this but I'll leave it here for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
HOLY FREG!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I know what you mean Shaz... I think I used some of the PFAL stuff for the base of my first couple of teachings, but after I got comfortable "in my skin"... I'd just sit down about 30 minutes before twig and put together something about whatever was "hot on my heart" at the time...
they were pretty good teachings too (IMHO), not because of me, but because they really worked... they actually applied to the folks who were there on that day at that time... others taught this way as well...
I know things changed a lot in the 80's and 90's though... and I would've left if it had been dictated what to teach... if I hadn't already...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mary Cate
Excuse me, but I think they have the word "re-search" mixed up with the word "re-cycle". Or would it be compost?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Perhaps they should have suitably called themselves "The Way Biblical Tired Re-tread Society".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason P
The secret to "assigned teachings" in my area was this: teach what was needed or what you were excited about teaching at the time (in my case, whatever I was independently studying) and make it connect at some point with the title if you could. If you couldn't make it connect, call it by that title anyway and no one ever really noticed or cared.
My BC (Who was also the RC) said that was what we SHOULD do and supported me doing it that way, especially since I was pretty well in tune with the needs of the fellowship and was pretty good at presenting very useful stuff in a fairly logical manner. Knowing him, he wasn't bucking the system so it was "available" to not do the cookie-cutter thing but apparently not very well advertised. As with most things TWI...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Jason,
As you said "As most things with TWI..."
... it wasn't very consistent. My experience is fairly recent (18 months) and we were expected to teach using almost all of the same verses. If it was "teaching from the Sunday Teaching Service" you were expected to cover roughly the same material. (Pretty boring if you just had a phone hook up or already heard it.) Some deleted or added verses were ok for variety but not too much. Again, stick to what's taught and don't do an entirely different subject.
WayMag, same thing. No deviation.
I once way off script and was summoned for a "discussion" about how to properly organize a teaching. Two local corps essentially told me to stick with what was on the page and that's it. Come to think of it, that was also the last time I was allowed to teach from the WayMag. Hmmm... could be coincidence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason P
Wow, JT. Bummer. Not that I'm surprised. There are so many different pockets of "believers" with so many different interpretations of the same instructions and I know the tendency is nearly always towards less rather than more freedom. The particular area I'm speaking of here went from one extreme to another in liberalism/Nazism almost daily, but in the matter of what to teach and how to teach it, I guess we were much more liberal.
Clarification: I always assumed that the assigned topics were merely suggestions and acted accordingly with no one ever objecting to how and what I taught. I didn't know anyone assumed otherwise until someone complained about the stifling subjects at a coordinator meeting. Me never being submissive enough to keep my mouth shut all the time, I said that I just ignored the suggestions and taught what I thought needed taught. That was the point when the RC said that this was the way he wanted it done and that sometimes a particular group's need was more important than mimicking what was coming from HQ.
In fact, I know I recollect him saying that people already heard it or read it once and we were absolutely NOT to merely repeat the tape/magazine/book - that we needed to put our hearts and souls into it and keep the needs of our fellowships first.
Weird. And this was a guy that has probably been called "Nazi" by more people than anyone since Hitler... and not always without cause.
I'm sorry it didn't work that way everywhere, and I can't help but imagine how miserable it was to be in your shoes, JT. I think I would have voluntarily quit "teaching" if I just had to regurgitate. But who knows - cultists have an amazing knack for rationalization when it comes to putting up with oppression.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Jason,
Thanks for understanding. Well put too, by the way. Just "voluntarily stop teaching." It was a hard thing to do though as I miss that. We had some good folks in my last fellowship and it was great to talk to them about a teaching afterwards. New LC and that went out the window. This guy even read the waymag to us once! And he's corps. Sure glad he's a super-duper trained expert on God's Word. He can read! ;-) Not sure which is worse. The guy being so thick that he thinks that is teaching or knowing it's not and being unsatisfied. Either one isn't very appealing.
Ah... the "nazi" label. At times, I think the literal according to usage is "someone who has a different view than me and is unwilling to see it my way." :-)
My take on our situations is that I am thankful you were/are able to do that. (Can't remember if you're still in but didn't think so) And I do love the quote on your posts! May I borrow it sometime?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Wow.
Turns out I could have saved a LOT of time.
I alloted myself no less than 5 hours (usually 6-7) working on a teaching.
(Anything after 5 hours was tightening it up and trimming unnecessary words, so when I
spent 7 hours, it was shorter but more polished than 5 hours.)
I first really heard that idea-that it was more important to read vpw's books than to
do it yourself-months after I was OUT, by a LEADER who was OUT. Old habits die hard,
it seems....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
way back in the 70s
I'd like to add/clarify on my comment please...
I was totally in awe of the teachings I heard before I led a twig. I'd sit there flabbergasted that these folks had worked all this stuff. I honestly thought they came up with it totally on their own, using only the principles of PFAL, a KJV Bible, and concordance and possibly with a little help from a Greek/Aramaic dictionary. Some (just some) of them may have been.
This was before the days when tapes were constantly used--once in a while we'd get a copy of a teaching tape and wear it out. I was intimidated and felt totally inadequate to lead a twig...didn't see how I could possibly be smart enough to put together a coherent, intelligent teaching that would bless our little group and hopefully answer some needs.
As tapes, mags, etc. became more readily available, I saw then how things were recycled and passed around over and over again (sometimes verbatim). It was then I relaxed more about it, knowing that I could draw on those teachings and not steer my twig wrong. Didn't trust myself one bit.
Guess in a way it sounds like I was lazy, but in reality, I was scared to death, thinking I would teach something that was "off the Word" and cause some catastrophe to befall those I loved so much. If I taught from what others had already done, I automatically assumed they were smarter and much more "in tune" with what God wanted, and, therefore, I would do no harm.
Sheesh---pathetic, I know, but that's as honest as I can be about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Way back,
I am pretty sure you're not alone here. My first twig was pretty similar. I thought the twig leader was a giant in biblical scholarship. His teachings were stuffed with Bible verses unlike your typical mass. That ended when I got to know him later and realized he was just good at memorizing teachings. In fact, he was a VPW-clone in many ways. Used his mannerisms, phrases, etc. Kind of spooky.
On the positive side, I did meet quite a few who were talented, educated and knowledgeable. To bad TWI generally saw those folks as a threat when they actually used their brains to think on their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
learning
My personal experience agrees with what Jason P. wrote. I was told, and all others who taught were told too, not to re-teach what was in the Way Mag, STS, or whatever. You could use it as a launching point into a side area or something you were working, but you didn't have to. In fact if someone did just re-hash an article they were talked to afterwords for not putting enough heart into the teaching. And, to clarify, others and myself taught using Youngs, Bullingers, Thayers, WayMag, Humanists, Psychologists, religious texts, dictionaries, etc. You name it, if it was relevant, it was used.
Human understanding does not come from a closed environment.
Really "sucks" that in many ways there are(were) multiple "Way Ministry's" that exist(ed) within itself.
Edited by learningLink to comment
Share on other sites
No Way
seriously, in a span of 2 weeks at different offshoots, we heard teachings on "light" and almost every verse mentioned was taught in each of those teachings. the worst part about them is when the person teaching would say "and quote dr. wierwille" or "a very great man, victor paul wierwille." all opnionated parts of the teaching were in reference to wierwille and all of the bible verses could be found by using the concordance that comes in most bibles. amazingly enough, those teachings were somehow "just what we all needed to hear."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
way back in the 70s
Wow, learning !
"Human understanding does not come from a closed environment."
That statement is indeed profound. I might add that neither does an understanding of God and His Word.
I applaud those of you who had the confidence and courage to teach "outside the box".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Learning,
I'm not surprised. It seems like each corps person felt it was ok to mold things to fit them. We had one LC who couldn't use a concordance without a LOT of effort. (Not a terribly bright guy) He put a lot of emphasis on outreach and not much on research or teaching. Another was a research nut (said in a good way) so we spent hours in his TC meetings. (Did he have to tell us EVERYTHING he was thinking about?!)
Same with holidays, etc. Each one seemed to see us as his own little MOGdom. At least the last few weren't screamers so that was an improvement. :-|
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Schuks
I loved to Work the Word. still do. It helps a lot to shed light on stuff. I'm not a scholar, but I do know how to use a concordance and I have been able to teach many other Christians.
I have no problem with the Word that I learned.I have only a problem with people who think that their $% don't stink and that JC came only to save my pathetic soul.
I just wanna have fun, son!
My gravestone will read, "She had fun"
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.