John Lynn responds

[shazdancer]

Well, he said to email him personally...

...so I did.

I sent him what was essentially my post on page 1 of the "Hi, It's the Real Me -- John Lynn" thread. Here is his reply. Pardon the length. My remarks are in bold, followed by his answer in the next post.

Dear John,

I have mixed reactions to your posting on Greasespot Cafe. Other posters there responded similarly. It was nice that you attempted to make a connection, but sad that you felt you could not just talk and answer questions.

You invited us to contact you, so here I am. I doubt this will go much further than a letter or two, because I have no desire to "come back to the Word." In the most essential ways, I never left. But I did leave an organization back in 1984, because I saw at its core that it was not designed to really care about people.

And by the way, people write with pseudonyms online for many different reasons. I, for one, still have a child at home, and the Internet world is not always a safe place. I have no trouble responding to questions and comments from anonymous posters, as for every poster, there are several "lurkers" who never post who want to know. But you know me. My name is...{and here I gave him enough info that he now knows who I am.}

Here is what I wrote you on Greasespot:

What did we learn from PFAL that hadn't been taught for centuries?

The Word of God is the Will of God -- hmm, basic fundamentalist doctrine.

The Law of Believing -- ruined many lives, and almost wrecked mine

How the Bible Interprets Itself -- a basic course in how to read ANY book

Four Crucified -- Bullinger

For This Purpose Was I Spared -- your group throws that one out

How to be Born Again -- see any born-again church

Renew the Mind -- ditto

Speaking in Tongues -- Oral Roberts had that one packaged as neatly as Wierwille.

T.I.P. -- Your group completely revamps much of what was taught in the Intermediate Class.

JC Not God -- probably the most significant doctrine you brought with you from TWI

(Now, as far as The Way being a one-stop, package deal, I would also like to mention that B.G.Leonard had his class first and taught it to Wierwille, who re-labelled that package PFAL.)

So if we throw out the parts of PFAL that you do not adhere to, there is not much left that can't be found in any evangelical church with a charismatic renewal element, the type of church that was coming of age at the same time TWI gained its biggest following. And the ministries of Oral Roberts and B.G.Leonard, et al, certainly surfaced before Wierwille, as well as Bullinger, who published in the late 1800's.

So why is it that you think "tens of thousands of people ... learned the Word like they could not have anywhere else... VPW/TWI did have a package of biblical truth unlike anything for centuries?" Was it so important that this doctrine be packaged that people's lives could be destroyed over it? Frankly, I think God cares more for people than He does for a book, even His own.

If you reply, I hope you will not feel the need to cite a verse for backup. Just talk as a person, with an opinion. May I post your reply on Greasespot? You can always review my post to check that I did not take any remairks out of context. I think I have a reputation there of being fair.

Regards,

{Shaz}

[shazdancer]

After a couple of emails to say he would get back to me (and to say "I'm not going to type my life away to anonymous people in a forum") he wrote this...

quote:

---

Hey Sharon,

I'm back. Yes, you may post my reply on GSPT.

OK, you left TWI b/c you saw too many evidences of leaders not caring for people. Amen, me too. Not all were like that, but a growing number, and the heart of the organization had gone south before that. Rather than leaving, per se, I forced the Trustees' hand so that people would see their true colors, although at the time not as many as I had hoped really did.

I can reply to your points as a person with an opinion, but what good is my opinion if it contradicts what God says in His Word? You are basically asking me questions about the Word, so I'm not sure how to reply without citing it, at least generally. And we have literature and/or tapes that address each of the points you brought up, which I will cite. I'm glad to know that you have not left the Word.

I'll address your points in order:

1. The Word of God is the Will of God -- hmm,basic fundamentalist doctrine. Not in practice it isn't. Very few Christians are taught, and therefore believe, that the Word is actually what it proclaims itself to be. Of course they say they do, but when faced with changing what they believe because Scripture contradicts that belief, they more often than not stick with what they hvae been taught. TWI's staunch adherence to "It is written" laid a firm foundation for many thousands of saints to stand on the Word

2. The Law of Believing -- ruined many lives, and almost wrecked mine. As TWI taught it, there is no such thing--"that works for saint and sinner alike." Pistis is a noun, not a participle, and itmeans "faith." Faith is simply trust, and it requires an object, like a promise. Therefore, faith is a response

of trust to a promise. We do not initiate the process, God does. He goes first, giving us a promise. Then it is up to us how we choose to respond. If we respond with faith, and act accordingly, He provides the power to bring to pass the promise.

What TWI taught did great damage to many people's lives, because they took either the credit or the blame for whatever happened to them. God did set up a reciprocal relationship with us, and faith is the simplest thing Godcould require of people. There is some merit on our part for having faith, but most of the merit is on God's part, for if He does not keep His promise,our faith is in vain. TWI's emphasis on "believing" subtly shifted the emphasis from the object of faith (the Word) to the human mind, and many saints believed (had faith in) their own believing rather than in God.

Pertinent CES 90 min teaching tapes: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Fear But Were Afraid to Ask; Take My Word For It

3. How the Bible Interprets Itself -- a basic course in how to read ANY book. Not really, because there is only one book that is God-breathed, and therefore flawless. Its Author put within it the linguistic keys to deriving His originally intended meaning. Again, very few Christians approach the Word with these keys, because they have never been taught them. Thus, most sincere Christians are in the dark about many critical spiritual issues, because they do not know who to understand the Bible.

CES pamphlet: 22 Principles of Bible Interpretation

4. Four Crucified -- Bullinger. OK, but again, hardly any believers know this relatively small truth. The greater truth that it illustrates is that the Word of God cannot contradict itself. Istill think this short subject is a fabulous barometer to measure whether those who hear it will change their minds to line up with God's wonderful Word.

5. For This Purpose Was I Spared -- your group throws that one out. Well, we handle it differently, and, we think, more accurately. With his dying breaths, Jesus was reaching out once more to the people towhom he had been sent--Israel. He quoted the first and last verses of Psalm22, a famous passage that most Jews knew well. Those with ears to hear no doubt recognized that the words of that psalm were taking place in front of their eyes that day.

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.ph...article&sid=295

6. How to be Born Again -- see any born-again church. I don't know how many you've been to, but I've seen plenty of well known Christians tell people that if they pray "the sinner's prayer," or "accept Jesus into their heart," or "repent of their sins," that they will be saved. That is not what Romans 10:9 says, however. And with something so critical, surely we should say exactly what God says about it. Yes, there are many who do teach Romans 10:9, but I'm not sure they are a majority.

In the same vein, TWI was correct in teaching that salvation is being "born again of incorruptible seed," and is therefore permanent.

CES Videos by John Schoenheit: The Permanence of Christian Salvation, Parts 1-5 (ea. 30 min)

7. Renew the Mind -- ditto. Yes, there are many who teach Romans 12:2, but many are unaware of the administrations in Scripture (absolutely one of the most important things TWI taught, basically correctly), and therefore do not give people the proper Church Epistles "ammunition" with which to renew their minds.

CES Tape: Battle of the Minds

8. Speaking in Tongues -- Oral Roberts had that one packaged as neatly as Wierwille. No way. TWI is, as best as I can recall at the moment, the only place I ever heard that SIT is not a gift, but a manifestation of the gift of holy spirit, and that every Christians can SIT whenever he wants to. Oral, et al, teach that SIT is a gift,and that the Holy Spirit is the 3d Person of the Trinity, both of which errors badly skew this vital truth.

9. T.I.P. -- Your group completely revamps much of what was taught in the Intermediate Class. Re: prophecy, we expand upon what TWI taught, because they put it in "Way" too small a box, that is, it is onlyfor a corporate setting, in a group. Not so, prophecy is prophecy, and if it is directed to an individual, it is still prophecy.

Re: interpretation of tongues, there is no verse saying it is a message from God, as TWI taught. 1 Cor. 14:2 says that when one SIT, he speaks notto men, but to God. Obviously, the interpretation of SIT would follow suit.Interpretation is speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God, giving thanks well, praising God, etc.

CES Seminar: Growing Up in Christ, Part Two: Teaching and Activation in the Manifestations of the Gift of Holy Spirit

10. JC Not God -- probably the most significant doctrine you brought with you from TWI. I agree, but in emphasizing who Jesus is NOT, TWI failed to teach who he is and what he is doing now. They did not teach that each Christian is to have a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord, the only man who perfectly trusted God and who can thus mentor us in the art of faith.

I've had quite a bit of contact with B.G. Leonard's work, and from what I've seen, it was mostly the Intermediate and Advanced TWI classes that VPW drew parts of from BGL's work. I don't think BG ever taught most of what was in the Foundational PFAL class.

People's lives were not destroyed by any of the truth that TWI made available. They were harmed by the errors that were mixed in, and by the ungodly behavior of many leaders. It is heartbreaking to me that thousands of my former peers have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, giving up the Wordwe learned because of the hurt we experienced.

I don't think you can compare God's care for people with His care for His Word, because the two are never juxtaposed as far as He is concerned. As Jesus said, it is only by one knowing the truth that he can be free. God loves people, and thus gave His Word for their benefit. We are doing our best to make know that truth, and I hope you will take some time to consider it.

Much love,

John

Be sure to visit us online at:

http://www.cesonline.org/

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/

http://www.truthortradition.com/

---

[excathedra]

thanks shaz

[Cherished Child]

One....two....three....four....---what?! Where are the flame-throwers? Sure are slow arriving on the scene...

[JustThinking]

I agree with several things he said. No flames here.

[TheSongRemainsTheSame]

FIVE :D-->

I have read the emails and still find there is no dialogue to proceed from one of the authors except one on one at best.

And thank you Shaz

Rok On

Song

[excathedra]

ps. I am woman hear me roar

Edited August 13, 2004 by moddishwasher

[shazdancer]

LOL, exy, shh, or Zixar might start another thread on your remarks... ;)-->

Seeing John's response just strikes me how far I am from this mindset that I once had to some extent, that of "if you know the RIGHTLYDIVIDEDWORD, it answers all questions and relieves all stresses, and your flatulence won't stink."

(That should get past the censors....)

Regards,

Shaz

[Dartanian3m]

Thank you Shazdancer for sharing your experience with JAL with us.

Thank you JAL for never claiming to be perfect but for having the strength of mind and heart and the love to share your understanding and experience of God's heart.

[Danny]

Ex

Shouldn't that be like ash (like in baseball bat).

[Cynic]

quote:

---

Not in practice it isn't. Very few Christians are taught, and therefore believe, that the Word is actually what it proclaims itself to be. Of course they say they do, but when faced with changing what they believe because Scripture contradicts that belief, they more often than not stick with what they hvae been taught.

---

It is extremely doubtful JAL has the epistemic basis to support his generalizations as facts rather than suspicions.

Worse: The spectacle of a Christological Socinian and an open theist such as JAL criticizing the community of Christian believers for failure to believe scriptural testimony that contradicts traditional beliefs is somewhat similar to the spectacle Charles Manson would make if he opined against some allegedly prevalent antisocial tendency among Republicans.

[Dartanian3m]

Initially I tried to understand your post Cynic but perhaps its best I don't afterall.

[Cynic]

Epistemic

Christological

Socinian

Opine

[satori001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dartanian3m:

Initially I tried to understand your post Cynic but perhaps its best I don't afterall.

---

Yes. It's best.

Cynic, if the kid weren't sleeping I'd be howling with laughter right now.

[satori001]

Let's look at JAL answer #2! I have enumerated each sentence, and then re-stated them in my own wonderful, matchless words.

1. As TWI taught it, there is no such thing--"that works for saint and sinner alike."

2. Pistis is a noun, not a participle, and it means "faith."

3. Faith is simply trust, and it requires an object, like a promise.

4. Therefore, faith is a response of trust to a promise.

5. We do not initiate the process, God does.

6. He goes first, giving us a promise.

7. Then it is up to us how we choose to respond.

8. If we respond with faith, and act accordingly, He provides the power to bring to pass the promise.

-----------------------

What I think he's saying:

2. Pistis means faith, not faithing (or believing)

3. Faith = trust in some thing ("object"), like a promise.

4. Faith = response of trust in a promise. The "object" was like a promise, now it IS a promise.

5. God initiates the Mysterious Process© - what "process?" I thought faith was a noun. Is it a participle again?

6. Mysterious Process© step 1: God gives us a promise. Hooray! Uh uh, not so fast, nippers!

7. Mysterious Process© step 2: We choose (verb) how to respond (verb)

8. Mysterious Process© step 3: If we choose (verb) to respond (verb) with faith (noun) He provides (verb) the power (noun) to bring to pass (zowie!!) the promise.

So we simply "respond," a verb, with trust, a noun, or is it a participle again? A nouniciple? (I think getting needs and wants "parallel" was simpler.)

So do you people remember all those times you were "believing" to be healed and stuff? And nothing happened, except maybe you sat there and bled? Well, you IDIOT, it's because you were doing the participle believing, and not the noun believing. What's the matter with you? Participles aren't nouns. (I knew it had to be that.)

Thanks for clearing that up, John!

And thanks for bringing new lite to our GS generation Shaz. Hope you don't mind my little effort at "right division." I'm sure JAL won't mind.

[satori001]

Hey, there was more to answer 2. I should have known. Here is the 2nd paragraph:

-------------------------------

What JAL said:

1. What TWI taught did great damage to many people's lives, because they took either the credit or the blame for whatever happened to them.

2. God did set up a reciprocal relationship with us, and faith is the simplest thing God could require of people.

3. There is some merit on our part for having faith, but most of the merit is on God's part, for if He does not keep His promise,our faith is in vain.

4. TWI's emphasis on "believing" subtly shifted the emphasis from the object of faith (the Word) to the human mind, and many saints believed (had faith in) their own believing rather than in God.

-------------------------------

My rightly diverted version:

1. It's only karma, dude.

2. Wouldn't breathing be simpler? And what is so simple about believing? We can't even define it properly. Countless people use the word, and each by their own highly subjective definition. Simple? Gimme a break. Oh, and how do you square grace with "reciprocation?"

3. There is some merit on our part for having faith... wha? Merit? Merit? Anyway, it continues: "but most of the merit is on God's part, for if He does not keep His promise, our faith is in vain." Well there's logic for ya. Let's break (not "tear," mind you) it down, shall we?

a - There is some merit on our part for having faith,

b - but most of the merit is on God's part,

c - for if He does not keep His promise, our faith is in vain.

---

3. breakdown of a-c

a - I dunno. Grace, merit, grace, merit. What am I missing?

b - It's like there's this merit pie, and we get a thin slice for having (verb) faith (noun) - but not "believing," cause that ain't the present truth - and God keeps he rest (but not all) of the pie. What am I missing?

c - for? what's the for for? It means 'c' follows from 'a' and 'b'. This sentence is a logical trainwreck. How does 'c' follow from 'a' and 'b'?

You get a little bit of merit, and God gets most of it, for [because] if He does not keep His promise, our faith is in vain.

This is whatcha call a logical leap, off the deep end.

---

4. I think CES is subtly saying the same damn thing as TWI:

TWI - Ya gotta believe to receive

CES - Ya gotta have belief to have receif (receive)

**

I gotta headache.

- edited to add a couple words here and there -

Edited August 13, 2004 by satori001

[satori001]

JAL answer #3:

How the Bible Interprets Itself -- a basic course in how to read ANY book.

1. Not really, because there is only one book that is God-breathed, and therefore flawless.

2. Its Author put within it the linguistic keys to deriving His originally intended meaning.

3. Again, very few Christians approach the Word with these keys, because they have never been taught them.

4. Thus, most sincere Christians are in the dark about many critical spiritual issues, because they do not know who to understand the Bible.

My rightly delighted version:

1. This minor point has yet to be fully established, and may be the crux of the whole cult biscuit. I find it more and more difficult to believe that God would ever limit Himself to one, very loosely assembled, very poorly translated, very old collection of writings, EVEN if they were written by prophets. Maybe it's just me, but I think this is ridiculous.

2. The need for "keys" at all means the whole thing is locked to the average reader. Would God do that?

3. Yeah, well, my point exactly.

4. Well duh! Goes to the same point.

I can see now why God doesn't get ALL the merit. He needs to rely on guys who are really good with words to find the "linguistic keys" to explain His wonderful, mighty, matchless, (thesaurus raid!) abstruse, ambiguous, arcane, complicated, concealed, confusing, cryptic, dark, deep, dim, doubtful, enigmatic, enigmatical, esoteric, far out, hazy, hidden, obscure, etc., Word and Will.

It's just nutty! The same individuals are worried about putting God in a "box?" When you tell people they need "keys" to unlock the knowledge of God's will, where else but a "box" are they going to be looking?

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I've got no argument with JAL's doctrine. I mean, go to one church or go to another...They all have similarities and they all have differences...If I wanted to criticize a "Christian" organization's doctrines, I would probably start with the Catholic church...but that's just me.

My concern is how Lynn's organization effects people's lives. Do they manipulate people and motivate them with fear? Do they put an undue financial burden on folks? Are the followers of this group devoting much of their time in recruitment efforts? Is there a hierarchy of authority? Does JAL's group employ the same "cult tactics" that twi did? Are people being sexually abused? In other words, is it a cult or is it just another "Christian group"?

I don't think it was necessarily the doctrine of twi that caused so much damage in people's lives, as much as the structure of the "ministry" and the way that people interacted. (I do believe that much of twi's doctrine WAS very harmful)...but, nevertheless, the harmful doctrines had to be put into practice before people got hurt...and it was the beloved "waytree" hierarchy that was the beast with fangs. The control of people...their finances, where they live, who they associate with, their sex lives, etc, etc, etc.

So again, my question is how does JAL's organization operate and effect people's lives? I know if you ask them, they will say that we are all "blessed"... -->. But...how does it stack up? When examining Lynn's group from an honest and critical comparison...is it more like twi was, or is it more like a church?

[WordWolf]

Here's my non-titled take on the issues addressed.

1) The Word of God is the Will of God.

Nuances vary widely, but this is NOT an esoteric idea-many, many

Christians believe this. JAL should get around a bit more before

pronouncing that they don't.

2) Law of Believing.

Seems like JAL said that believing is a matter of God giving us

something to believe, we decide to believe it/trust God, and

God backs up His promise. I'm perfectly fine with that take.

3) How the Bible Interprets Itself.

JAL made the question tougher than it needed to be. Actually, the

techniques for understanding the Bible are at least partly useful

for understanding ANY book, and I've used them as such. I expect

others of you did as well. I also remember Heart Magazines where

people (I'm not naming names) mentioned using the basic keys taught

in their own professions, where they adapted them for use with

PEOPLE. If these keys work, they work better with a better book,

and better yet with a perfect book.

Further,

they are not, strictly speaking, secret, nor do they require

special training to understand. Bullinger had no problem

outlining them in "How to Enjoy the Bible".

4) and 5) I'm skipping, since there are doctrinal points of view,

and I don't see enough relevance to provoke sides in a debate.

6) Born Again.

Again, widely understood by a wide variety of Christians. I

apparently am exposed to a more representative cross-sampling of

Christians than JAL is. His opinion is limited by his parochial

approach, which is a shame, since it's so easily correctable if

he actually wants to. (Heck-if he asked me, I'd offer to guide him

in accomplishing this if he wanted an assist.)

7) Renewing the mind.

This is largely a matter of trusting the Bible, and believing it.

As such, again, it's wider-spread than JAL thinks, although it may

be labelled differently.

8) Speaking in tongues.

Technically, the "manifestation" versus "gifts" thing is generally

mistaught in my opinion. Correct on paper.

In a practical sense, however, large numbers of Christians treat

SIT as if it is a manifestation rather than a gift, even if they

have not corrected their terminology. On the power-end, it works

out the same. (Check BG Leonard's students, JE Stiles' students,

etc.) Some charismatics do work it right, many do not work it

in a disciplined, orderly fashion.

9) Having reviewed some of what CES has produced on this subject,

I think they've taken a step BACKWARD and have neither stayed

as accurate, nor improved by introducing their doctrine.

The Leonard-style techniques I was taught seem more secure to

document from Scripture. I'm curious where they first heard this

idea, or when and where it germinated. All ideas have origins.

Where did the "personal prophecy" one come from? I'm suspecting

its origin is a lot like a different doctrine I heard once. It was

easy to refute in exhaustive detail as well as on the surface-

so we did. A question we were troubled by was: how could such a

doctrine go so far without being challenged?

They answer, it seemed, was there were obstacles present-

obstacles that impeded honest, open communication and the

"iron sharpening iron" aspects so necessary to those who study and

teach. Either the teachers were considered inviolate,

or the teachers declared they were inviolate.

Either way, it's a formula for disasters, small or large.

============

I don't have any beef or personal animus against JAL or his

doctrines. It DOES seem to me that he and they are too insular,

and thus they are limited in scope and depth. That's a shame, since

they could be so much more if things weren't so locked in place.

It is a very short step from

"meet the new boss" to "same as the old boss."

[sky4it]

Statement from letter:

Its Author put within it the linguistic keys to deriving His originally intended meaning. Again, very few Christians approach the Word with these keys, because they have never been taught them. Thus, most sincere Christians are in the dark about many critical spiritual issues, because they do not know who to understand the Bible.

Once again sincerity is hogwash? and liguistic keys are the key to opening the door. Why is it that my Bible reads differently? My Bible says knock and a door will be opened unto you Seek and you shall find, or is that negated by the fact that the gospels weren't written to us? Is it really linguistic keys that open up the door of God?

I can only hope my friends on the Why Christianity thread werent so insulted by the inefficiency of linguistic keys that they find the Bible diplorable. If thats the case, I would think somebody has some explaining to do.

[def59]

According to Raf, TWI-CES's theology has led to the doctrine that Jesus made mistakes.

Either he was perfect or he wasn't. If he gave false prophecies then he is not worth following.

[oldiesman]

def59,

could you please be more specific. what exactly did Raf say?

I could be wrong, but I don't have a problem with Jesus making some mistakes. After all, he was a human being. TWI also taught that he got sick. Couple of things that sets Jesus apart from all other men is that (1) he was born of the virgin Mary (the virgin conception) and (2) he always did the will of the Father.

In my mind, always doing God's will, always being "in fellowship" with God, doesn't mean you are immune from making some mistakes.

But what kind of mistakes did they say he made?

some food for thought: what you and I might view as mistaken, might not be a mistake at all, just an action from God's viewpoint. Remember we don't always see things like God does.

:)-->

[imbus]

Dearest Chazdancer,

Thanks so much for you pursuit of the facts concerning JAL and CES.

Reading his responce sounded like "same popsicile... different flavor". It brought a twing of hoplessness to me as I read. I guess because it is so close to TWI I could scream. It is the same empty promises with high energy arousal, using the Bible as the mode of seduction.(Read>>>Patrick Carnes..."The Betrayal Bounds, breaking free of explosive relationships.")

The "God" Iv'e come to know is not that complicated, easy to access, and is not limited to a book. WoW, reading Johns responce made me so dang thakful for what I have now. Never again will I offer my spirituality to any human.

Thanks Chaz! :)--> What a great berometer of how far I have come. :D--> ;)--> :D-->

[Raf]

I want to clear that up, Def...

CES teaches that when Jesus said some standing there would be alive when the kingdom came, he was not aware of the upcoming administration/dispensation of grace. It's "not" (according to them) that he was mistaken: He was merely expressing the Word that he knew. God had not revealed the "secret" (aka mystery) to Jesus, so Jesus was right according to what he knew. They stop short of saying Jesus was wrong or mistaken.

My problem with this is that Jesus said he spoke the things his Father told him to say. Even in non-Trinitarian theology, Jesus would have to have been speaking presumptuously in order to make a prediction that later turned out to not come to pass.

[laleo]

See, Raf, that's what I don't get. You're too smart for these sorts of grammatical contortions. Aren't you? Why does every dang word have to be taken so literally? I don't understand why it matters what Jesus might have known or not known at any given time. It doesn't change the gist of his message, which, summed up, is the Golden Rule. Besides, Jesus didn't have a preoccupation with the afterlife, or future events, as I understand it. His message was about the kingdom of God in the here and now. What prediction was he even making, other than that some of those standing with him would experience the kingdom of heaven? That was the idea: the kingdom of heaven on earth. Now.

And another thing -- when it comes to grammar, proper grammar makes things easier to understand, not more difficult. It's not like if something is a participle, or in the dative case, it changes the whole structure and meaning of the passage, which only an English major would be able to ferret out. Grammar isn't the missing piece that explains a giant metaphysical puzzle. Why do you get caught up in these distortions of meaning?