I looked up at LCM in the distance and with everyone pretty much within earshot, said, "I don't care if you back her up all the way and I don't care who she is, I'm not emasculating myself at the table. Go ahead and kick me out, kick me out for what, so you can cross gender the Corps? (I was in the Corps that year.) Who's the f*****g snitch? I want their names..."
Eagle,
I think you were right in your assessment about use of the word "host" and "hostess", however, I think you were wrong in how you handled it.
I did that once, reproved Craig in front of the whole lunchroom, while I was in the Corps.
Even though I was correct, I felt really bad later doing it that way .... I could have easily done it privately if it was such an important issue. I felt like a real idiot making a public spectacle of myself.
Went to Craig's office later and apologized, and he accepted my apology.
That was something I would have loved to have seen, your challenge of him in front of others. But I know that had to have been a very rare thing. I saw far too often those who spoke to LCM about matters and the next moment they were off grounds, right or wrong.
I addressed my comments to the Wayfers around me at that time, really. Since they were so good at taking messages to Craig...then take this one...
I had just gone through a tirade of snitching that entire year for the smallest of infractions, which were not even infractions. The back-biting was horrendous in '92. Most likely, it got worse after that before it got better. I had expected to be thrown out of the Corps, but wasn't, so I later left.
Funny thing about this was, I was used to discipline from the Army but I was not used to childish stupidity.
However, I believe I was not the only one griping about that. There were probably several others there that said the same thing. This is what I said. But after all that, you know, I was not so upset at Mrs. Owens, nor so upset at LCM, but REALLY upset at my unknown tormenters who ran to report the comments.
My feeling is that had there been only me saying that on that day, I would have been confronted and kicked off grounds. I believe that there were several that said it because Craig addressed the incident in the plural. There were too many, I think, to confront and rather than go to Mrs. Owens and tell her she was wrong and it got men angry, he decided instead to "back her up."
Craig lost some credibility with a lot of people in that advanced class special in 1992. That same weekend he went back on his word about never replacing Wierwille's classes and he made the announcement that he was re-doing the Advanced Class. Replacing the Advanced Class didn't bother me, but going back on his word did. I then saw the systematic replacement of Wierwille by LCM and I knew, even though he said literally, "the foundational class, PFAL, I WOULD NEVER REPLACE THAT CLASSIC". I knew he would, and he did with the Way of Abundance and Power, you know, where Eve was a lesbian.
I didn't care if they relooked at Wierwille's doctrine, just that something about the way he did it was sneaky. He must have been dealing with the old Wierwillites even then and was weaning them off Wierwille. I don't know what to think.
But I appreciate knowing that there was a time when Craig did listen to constructive criticism. By the way, Craig's habit was to rail on people in public, so I have no problem with anyone doing that back to him. If he doesn't do it in private, neither should he expect any other treatment or favors.
I have to give you that one. I have viewed tapes of him in the 70's and the 90's. (As well as the 80's), and I have to agree that he was a much better and loving type in the 70's. The POP came in April 1986, almost 20 years ago, and from that moment on, there was an incessant attack on LCM from people all over the ministry that supported Chris Geer. In order to save his presidency from false accusations (I believe a lot of Geer's accusations were made up in POP, IMHO), Martindale then saw his ministry was split and he could not win them over. He sent out the loyalty letters in 1989 and removed those who wouldn't back him.
However from that point, he began to set himself up as absolute in power, perhaps to defend himself out of paranoid delusions, I do not know. Then by 1990 and on he was a tyrant perhaps believing anyone who challenged him was trying to remove him from power.
In the end, his own abuse of power and sexual harassment got him booted. He left a problem in that he taught too many people to be like him or believe his way or marking and avoiding people, being ruthless against them, and not seeing the love of God anywhere.
He certainly did change in the 90's. I was so sorry to see that because I was one of his biggest supporters. After the sexual abuse allegations, no moral support came from me.
OR Eagle, he was a screw ball and a bully drawing a line in the sand and expecting people to grant him complete loyalty.
Maybe some of us knew back then how volitile and unpredictible he was. Some of us had previous experiences with him going off half cocked and issuing cruel judgements without bothering to apprise himself of the facts.
Some of us knew from personal experience that he was not trustworethy enough to swear an oath of loyalty to.
I think that he got the suprise of his life when people woke up and realized that they owed their loyalty to NO man .... especially one who would say ...*and don`t give me that standing with God crap*
That single statement alone in the demand of loyalty awoke thousands.
I think that you may be giving LCM way too much credit here.
I have viewed tapes of him in the 70's and the 90's. (As well as the 80's), and I have to agree that he was a much better and loving type in the 70's.
I believe it was trained OUT of him gradually over the course of the 70s.
Reading his OWN account of the 70s ("vp and me in wonderland" thread)
has convinced me of that.
In the end, his own abuse of power and sexual harassment got him booted. He left a problem in that he taught too many people to be like him or believe his way or marking and avoiding people, being ruthless against them, and not seeing the love of God anywhere.
I'd like to point out that the "swear loyalty to me or you're fired" thing
was FIRST done by vpw, to the corps, in front of lcm.
I was not there until 1980, so the 1970s experience was only viewing videotapes of him, of course, in front of a camera he was at his best. By the 90's even that did not seem to matter.
I think I have to give you that one as it seems you know a lot from the 70s and experienced more of him in the early days.
One believer did tell me something about LCM after the Athletes of the Spirit showing. VPW had viewed it and the expansion of the devil spirit thing, kind of glorifying the presence of devil spirits, and came into his house to talk to Dotsie, his wife. There were Corps people and some major Twig coordinators from Columbus who had been invited there to the house. Apparently Mrs. Wierwille was making cookies for the group and VPW came in and at least a few overheard the following:
"I think I picked the wrong man for the presidency."
For those that were there that day, I would sure like to confirm this. It was always taught that VPW went to God to pick him, and then later I heard VPW actually asked the Corps who they wanted and LCM won hands down.
Eagle, I only got involved in 79. What I know was from correspondence, as app and spouse corpes. He once wrote me an incredibly venomnous hatefilled letter, without having EVER met me or aprised himself of the facts in the situation....(I was following the leadership in my branch directed) ...I was inconsolable after he declared me a spiritual loser...
He then 3 months letter wrote me a smarmey *welcome to the corpes house hold letter* I was God`s best, spiritua elite...yadda yadda...completely unaware of the spiritual filth he had declared me to be in his earlier letter...
I was also in Ks when he declared all of the fellowships in our city were no longer associated with the way.
He based his decision and rage on false information recieved from ONE brown nosing suck up who wanted to look like a big shot that sought him out during a visit to Emporia....without bothering to check with the lc the bc or the long standing dedictated believers of that town.
I knew that the leadership in our state had been fired....I knew why... I didn`t even really have a problem with it. I knew that when hq sent letters to the believers that they flat out lied as to why our limb leaders had been fired and sent packing.
So I had a pretty good precedent for knowing that lcm was quite willing to be extremely viscious without provocation by the time the loyalty oath letter came out .... I also had first hand experience with hq telling an entire state of believers an out and out lie.
So when we got that letter Eagle, I could see the bully for what he was....it didn`t matter though we loved the ministry and respected the man whom we believed that God had chosen...and would have done ANYTHING asked as committed dulous.
We might have even written a letter swearing allegiance...knowing that we would never forske God`s ministry or his leader, knowing that we had always jumped and never asked how high.
EXCEPT for one line....he demanded that we swear loyalty to stand with him and the ministry which had taught us God`s word....*and don`t give me any of that standing with God crap*
My spouse sadly shook his head and told me that we would ALWAYS stand with God :(
When we didn`t reply to his satifaction....we recieved a letter declaring us salt that had lost it`s savor (worthless) fit only to be cast in the street and trod under the feet of the beasts..this to people who had served faithfully for 10 and 15 years respectively....precious in God`s sight..meek people who simply wanted to serve God to the best of their ability for their entire lives.
This is what he said to the people who displeased him...It was just more evidence in my book of his instability....we still fellowshipped and supported twi in every way that we had for the last decade....we just weren`t recognised.
By the time the loyalty letters came around, he must have lied to us at HQ. He said he simply wrote letters requesting if they would stand with him as president of the Way or not, but did not mention "standing with God crap".
I believe what you said. The way he handled it was awful. He could have said something like, "I think it is admirable you want to stand with God, but do you feel you can do it with this ministry with my lead? If not, then the Way is not for you. I need people to back me up moving God's Word in this ministry, and if you don't feel comfortable with me, that is fine, just let me know this. You should, however, not expect to be leading in this ministry if you feel this way and should find an appropriate church or ministry that suits your needs and ideas. I wish you all the best success in any endeavor you may choose.
Wishing You God's Best,
L. Craig Martindale
(That is HOW he should have written it, or something like that.)
However, he chose to draw a line in the sand like it was a 50-yard line and dare everyone to come into his end of the playing field. Standing with God is not "crap".
At this time these letters came out I was solidly behind LCM not knowing any of this. I am so sorry, rascal, for any abuse sent your way. And that goes for anyone else at GS. I almost feel like I was part of it.
((((Eagle))) Please please do not feel bad.... I am just so glad that we all are beginning to understand that not everything was as it seemed.
It wasn`t that we were unwilling to stand with the ministry, it wasn`t that we ever considered not supporting lcm..... We were sold out committed doulos`s and had never considered a life that didn`t have the ministry central and for most.
We loved God, We loved his word We loved the ministry and We believed in our leadership. We would have done ANYTHING asked.....but that just wasn`t good enough....in the end we were maligned and treated as suspicious.
Eagle, the sad thing is that you are entirely correct, had he aproached folks in a different manner the alarms wouldn`t have been raised.....But he was such a bully about it all.... belligerantly making demands and then throwing a tantrum like a two year old when he didn`t get the results he desired.
In his second letter, it was a form letter I believe, sent to all who either hadn`t written their loyalty oath or hadn`t done it the way he wanted.... at the time it seemed like he was doing his darndest to hurt us by any means within his power....
He stripped fellowships away...stripped corpes status....called us vile names.
It was very very sad. At the time, we grieved for the harshness that God`s people were being treated with....but still supported him and stood with twi for years....trusting God to sort it all out....in the end, they simply
didn`t want us anymore. We were cast aside as worthless.
... By the time the loyalty letters came around, he must have lied to us at HQ. He said he simply wrote letters requesting if they would stand with him as president of the Way or not, but did not mention "standing with God crap". ...
Eagle, he did write 2 letters, one in March and one in April, 1989, asking way employees and corps to stand with him in the movement of the Word, and if folks couldn't do it, to be honest about it and resign. He didn't lie to you or hq about that.
If he wrote a letter subsequent saying "and don't give me any of that standing with God crap" I can understand where he was coming from and can envision him saying that. And I agree with it and it makes sense to me.
Some people apparently responded to his request "I stand with God". That response was insulting and nonresponsive to his request for folks to make up their mind who they stand with, either the trustees or Geer, or someone else. He wrote in his March 1989 letter that standing with God means to do his word and will, and each of us must decide with whom we want to do that. And so, the response "I stand with God" was crapola, unresponsive and insulting.
When the boss of a company asks for your loyalty and wants you to stand with him as best you can on a project, and you answer "I stand with God"... what do you think the boss will say?
"Don't give me any of that standing with God crap"... or "ask God to send you a paycheck"
You stand with God ... Great! So do 8,000 other religions.
I do understand the loyalty letter to paid employees of TWI, it was the way he handled the matter. I have personally seen this man in action at that time and after, and all he did was go downhill from there. I agree those that would not stand with him as the head of an organization he is running should be asked where they stand, and I know of one limb leader that did respond "I stand with God". LCM sent a second letter and said what he said in a harsh way. An appropriate god-like attitude to this should have been done. Also, since Geer was doing what he was doing, it should have been appropriate to ask for the resignation in order for them to join whatever organization he ran separately from TWI. The guy just REACTS and does not think.
Yes, ultimately, had this happened to me, I would have let them go first, but only after correspondence and a personal invitation to meet. I probably would have let them come en masse to TWI and let them speak their minds on what bothered them. If any was of my own fault, I would have changed. But I believe a lot at that time was exaggerated against LCM so he should have not reacted in such the way he did. He might have kept a lot of people. There is one person I would have let go from the outset...Geer. I would have called him into my office and asked what his intentions were and why he was badgering the trustees. This POP letter should have been recognized for what it was...a fictitious piece of paper.
I think the trustees finally realized that later on AFTER all the damage was done. LCM was NOT the right man for the job. Clearly someone else with a level head, not as much ego, more intelligent and not a Wierwille worshipper should have been the pick.
Eagle, he did write 2 letters, one in March and one in April, 1989, asking way employees and corps to stand with him in the movement of the Word, and if folks couldn't do it, to be honest about it and resign. He didn't lie to you or hq about that.
That's an assumption on your part, and was easily testable.
You didn't call lcm and ask him
"Exactly what did you mean by this?"
As it happened, someone did exactly this.
"When I asked if this letter was a call to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM,
he said I had been doing this ALL ALONG."
So, lcm didn't send some reasoned discourse asking people to search their consciences.
If he did, people would have wondered who ghost-wrote it.
lcm was known for yelling whenever he wanted to- not appealing to
reason. And that was in the 80s. (In the 90s, he REALLY got to cursing and screaming.)
What lcm did was DEMAND BLIND OBEDIENCE,
and he EXPECTED BLIND OBEDIENCE.
At least,
THAT'S WHAT LCM SAID HE MEANT.
Now, you or I could interpret that further, but disregarding
what he HIMSELF said he meant is just silly.
There's no rationale for discarding his own explanation.
If he wrote a letter subsequent saying "and don't give me any of that standing with God crap" I can understand where he was coming from and can envision him saying that. And I agree with it and it makes sense to me.
Some people apparently responded to his request "I stand with God".
That makes a lot of sense, and is very instructive.
When demanded to choose which MAN to give their blind obedience to,
many Christians said they refused to choose to give any man blind obedience.
Did they CENSURE lcm for making such a contraBiblical demand?
No-but it WAS an indication they disagreed with the question being posed.
Had he just gone about his business, he would have retained their
freely given loyalties to twi-but not himself.
What they did NOT say is as instructive as what they DID say.
Did they get fed up and leave? NO. They stayed right where they were,
but expressed discontent with the contraBiblical demand.
If they wanted to insult him, there were many, many ways to do it.
They could have insulted him by mail, by phone, or to his face,
to name 3.
That response was insulting and nonresponsive to his request for folks to make up their mind who they stand with, either the trustees or Geer, or someone else.
A) It was not insulting.
"I stand with God, you microcephalic babboon!"
would have been insulting.
B) It was not "NONRESPONSIVE."
It addressed his demand directly.
lcm offered two options only.
They rejected both options and offered a THIRD option.
Not every question can be answered with only 2 options-
especially when both answers are WRONG.
("Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no only, please.")
Therefore, their answers told him as much-or more-than a simple
choice between men.
C) It was not a "REQUEST", it was a DEMAND.
Technically, it was not illegal to make such a demand of those directly
on twi payroll-although it's Biblically QUESTIONABLE.
Demanding this from all the non-payrolled twi'ers he demanded this of-
like the entire corps- was morally wrong and there's not even a legal
rationale for it.
He wrote in his March 1989 letter that standing with God means to do his word and will, and each of us must decide with whom we want to do that.
Technically true-although being FORCED to choose is wrong,
and the sign of an immature Christian pretending to lead.
And so, the response "I stand with God" was crapola, unresponsive and insulting.
HE may have considered it so, but that didn't change the reality of things.
Just like some people thought that lcm was sane and rational then,
but the reality was that he was a tipped turbolaser ready to fire in any direction.
The response "I stand with God" was actually true, honest, and from the heart.
It was A response, albeit not the response he wanted, and was a way to avoid
insulting someone they disagreed with but still attempted to show respect towards.
That he interpreted any or all of it as some plot against him is a measure
of how unstable and irrational he was tracking-
thus demonstrating picking HIM, at least, was a bad answer.
Knowing then what we know now, only the most obstinate could say
"If I knew then what I know now, I would have stayed, because he
wasn't going insane at the time."
When the boss of a company asks for your loyalty and wants you to stand with him as best you can on a project, and you answer "I stand with God"... what do you think the boss will say?
Well,
it's a strange thing to answer in a COMPANY.
In a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, a CHURCH,
with the loyalty of believer/zealot/martyr,
the power dynamics are VERY different from
a company, office, business.
Most people can see that they're different in
practice and application, and muddying the
differences between the two does not change
that.
"Don't give me any of that standing with God crap"... or "ask God to send you a paycheck"
Well, to give a religious answer to a secular company is to
pretty much invite sanctions. At that point, you're not serving
the secular company. (Although I HAVE been requested to pray
by secular employers, more than once, more than one,
and one requester was not a Christian.)
You stand with God ... Great! So do 8,000 other religions.
Where do you stand with me?
"Don't push this issue."
That's not the answer lcm wanted, but it WAS an answer.
It would have been more honest if he HAD just said
"where do you stand with me?"
However, the asked Christians saw it that way-which was
what he meant. He expected them to
"BLINDLY FOLLOW"
him.
They refused to do so, but still showed him the respect
of his office. A smart man could easily see he was driving
himself to the edge of a cliff, and dropped the subject,
knowing that to do otherwise would be to shove away those
The root of the problem with Martindale's "loyalty oath letter" was his total lack of spiritual understanding. Christ is the head of the body...not any organization or any man. If a Christian leader functions correctly within the body of Christ, there is no need for him to ask the question that Martindale asked.
It was egotistical and only demonstrated that twi was nothing more than a worldly organization. If you were one of those poor souls who depended upon getting a paycheck from twi...then perhaps the question was appropriate...but again, it only underscores the reality that the household of twi was "something different" than the household of God as depicted in the bible....
...Receiving a paycheck from an incorporated denomination is not the same as being a minister of Christ who walks by the spirit...if you cannot see the difference, perhaps it's not too late for you to sign the loyaty oath?
While the answer of "I stand with God" is the right one for a Christian who doesn't want to blindly follow a man, we were all part of an organization that expected just that from us, if not from day one, then from very early on. Wierwille demanded it as well, but was smart enough to (usually) cloak it in more diplomatic tones. Attempting to remain within TWI without agreeing to blindly follow its head ignored the way things were. Trying to "stand with God" could best be accomplished with TWI by ignoring its true nature.
Martindale screwed himself by not reigning in his true nature, by believing his own press clippings, and demanding what Wierwille was able to get from us with honey, rather than vinegar.
If a Christian leader functions correctly within the body of Christ, there is no need for him to ask the question that Martindale asked.
Except when some/most of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, are possibly/probably thinking that the leader is ineffective, off the wall, corrupt, worshipping other gods, etc.
At that point, a line has to be drawn. It is incumbent upon the leader to ask/request/demand of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, where they stand.
If they do not "stand with me" -- please make up your mind, be honest, and get out -- go stand with someone else you don't have a problem standing with.
...Receiving a paycheck from an incorporated denomination is not the same as being a minister of Christ who walks by the spirit...if you cannot see the difference, perhaps it's not too late for you to sign the loyaty oath?
An employee stands with and supports their employer, whether they are a minister of Christ, or not.
If an employee can't or won't be loyal to and support their employer, they really should move onto something else.
Except when some/most of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, are possibly/probably thinking that the leader is ineffective, off the wall, corrupt, worshipping other gods, etc.
I missed when we stopped talking about a church and started
talking about a MILITARY ORGANIZATION.
At that point, a line has to be drawn. It is incumbent upon the leader to ask/request/demand of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, where they stand.
Supposing you're right,
BEFORE that,
there's a need for open dialogue.
If there's a confidence problem with an officer in the military
and the men under his command,
discussion DOES begin.
Then again,
since this was not a MILITARY ORGANIZATION,
but a CHURCH,
dialogue would be MORE expected.
If you're unable to picture how honest dialogue would go-
meaning "I want to hear what's on your mind"-
I can produce samples.
If they do not "stand with me" -- please make up your mind, be honest, and get out -- go stand with someone else you don't have a problem standing with.
An employee stands with and supports their employer, whether they are a minister of Christ, or not.
And if there's problems, there are avenues for communication
and dialogue that resolve them so that it doesn't come to
"declare your loyalty or you are fired".
That twi was woefully deficient in such processes was the
deliberate plan of vpw-
who DISSOLVED his advisory body because he didn't want dialogues-
and shows that an education of twi-ONLY
crippled lcm in his ability to function as a leader.
lcm probably had no idea how inadequate his abilities in
this area were in comparison to the AVERAGE Christian leader
in a SMALL LOCAL congregation, let alone a higher-up.
If an employee can't or won't be loyal to and support their employer, they really should move onto something else.
When it comes down to cold organizations, true.
Even there, it is understood the employer will deal
honestly and fairly with the employees,
or face CRIMINAL CHARGES.
Ask the Enron guys how they're enjoying the results
When demanded to choose which MAN to give their blind obedience to,
many Christians said they refused to choose to give any man blind obedience.
Oh really?
The term blind obedience was not in the March or April 1989 letters, and I believe written documentation sent to thousands, trumps verbal hearsay to one. The terminology used in the letters is "stand with and support".
But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that Craig meant blind obedience...
You know what that means if you were in the corps. That was taught in the corps and all staff and corps know what it means and what twi means by it.
So, if one had a problem with that concept, one should have dealt with it way way before the concept may have been invoked or verbalized.
That is assuming he actually meant blind obedience... like "go shoot yourself in the head if I tell you".
When I think of Craig asking for blind obedience, it is in the context of moving the word... doing the work of the ministry... so I would read that into the context it was written.
I WAS in the lunchroom the day LoyBoy went into a tirade and demanded obedience from his minions.
He screamed from the head table (as best as I can remember) "Your allegiance is either with me or the man across the sea (a reference to Chris Geer) and don't give me any of your 'God' crap!"
That's what he said Oldies. I'm not making it up, and not doctoring it to make it seem like something it's not. That's what he said (within a word or two).
It was not a well-reasoned, tempered response to insubordination. It was a temper tantram and a childish rant, demanding to have his way. It was REALLY silly and embarassing, to anyone with the least bit of circumspection.
I quit staff the next morning. Hey, THANKS Craig!
Gawd, if it wasn't for him and his big mouth, I might still be in WayWorld. Eeeewww...
"If a Christian leader functions correctly within the body of Christ, there is no need for him to ask the question that Martindale asked.
Except when some/most of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, are possibly/probably thinking that the leader is ineffective, off the wall, corrupt, worshipping other gods, etc.
At that point, a line has to be drawn. It is incumbent upon the leader to ask/request/demand of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, where they stand."
Actually, Oldies there are other options. If most of year "sargeants" etc. are thiking that you are an ineffetive leader, off the wall, corrupt, etc. then maybe it is time to take a good hard look in the mirror, instead of just demanding they swear loyalty to you. In hind sight especially, this would have been a good idea.
I do understand the loyalty letter to paid employees of TWI, it was the way he handled the matter.
Eagle... WE weren`t paid employees....we were simply corpes on the field... doing the best we could to love God and support his ministry.
He wasn`t paying us.... we were serving ... giving without stint....in addition to regular twi duties of time and , money, we wre proud to work at least one weekend many times more a month either at the limb or Emporia for years....
His belligerant demand, and subsequent viscious attack was completely uncalled for to folks who loved him in spite of his cavallier treatment of God`s people.
His viscious declaration accompanied with biblical documentation of our utter worthlessness and wish for destruction was uncalled for in addressing people who had given their utmost for decades :(
As far as your statement oldies, I am not making this crap up.....at the time it was a damned nightmare....I desperatly wanted the ministry to be ok....desperatly wanted to believe that God would work in craig and all would be well.......
You are trying to minimalise what he demanded. We all know what an oath of loyalty to craig meant .... if you were honest. In no place did it say loyalty to God... No...Swear loyalty to me and the ministry that taught you God`s word.....pretty ominous that the only mention of God himself was to refer to standing with him as crap......which in hind site is pretty telling.
Loyalty was always taught with the example of Dog soldiers staked out to die unmoving in battle. This was life and death jump when told don`t ask how high or how far....don`t doubt or question question or you`d sink like peter.
We know that there were at least to and possibly three different letters sent out at different times to different folks ....ours recieved on the field was thelast and most viscious.
This would explain your contradicting *reports* without having to call anybody a liar.
Also consider...what happened when folks DID toe the line...swear allegiance in order to stay active in the ministry....did his requirements stop at just moving the word?
O heck no as I remember that was the beginning of more ever insane demands....time sheets... vacation sheets...finances monitered....implicit obediance in all matters or m&a....families required to sever all connections with one another....
LCM had no right to demand loyalty to himself or anything else....that is something that you earn from folks.
I am with George, as tough as it was at the time...THANKYOU Craig.... that one single line in that rediculous letter was what FINALLY opened our eyes.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
12
15
8
Popular Days
Feb 16
35
Feb 20
28
Feb 19
19
Feb 17
16
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 11 posts
excathedra 12 posts
Eagle 15 posts
WordWolf 8 posts
Popular Days
Feb 16 2006
35 posts
Feb 20 2006
28 posts
Feb 19 2006
19 posts
Feb 17 2006
16 posts
Posted Images
Outin88.
I often refer to VPW as "Mr. Wierwille" because I don't believe he truly earned a doctorate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Eagle,
I think you were right in your assessment about use of the word "host" and "hostess", however, I think you were wrong in how you handled it.
I did that once, reproved Craig in front of the whole lunchroom, while I was in the Corps.
Even though I was correct, I felt really bad later doing it that way .... I could have easily done it privately if it was such an important issue. I felt like a real idiot making a public spectacle of myself.
Went to Craig's office later and apologized, and he accepted my apology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Oldiesman:
That was something I would have loved to have seen, your challenge of him in front of others. But I know that had to have been a very rare thing. I saw far too often those who spoke to LCM about matters and the next moment they were off grounds, right or wrong.
I addressed my comments to the Wayfers around me at that time, really. Since they were so good at taking messages to Craig...then take this one...
I had just gone through a tirade of snitching that entire year for the smallest of infractions, which were not even infractions. The back-biting was horrendous in '92. Most likely, it got worse after that before it got better. I had expected to be thrown out of the Corps, but wasn't, so I later left.
Funny thing about this was, I was used to discipline from the Army but I was not used to childish stupidity.
However, I believe I was not the only one griping about that. There were probably several others there that said the same thing. This is what I said. But after all that, you know, I was not so upset at Mrs. Owens, nor so upset at LCM, but REALLY upset at my unknown tormenters who ran to report the comments.
My feeling is that had there been only me saying that on that day, I would have been confronted and kicked off grounds. I believe that there were several that said it because Craig addressed the incident in the plural. There were too many, I think, to confront and rather than go to Mrs. Owens and tell her she was wrong and it got men angry, he decided instead to "back her up."
Craig lost some credibility with a lot of people in that advanced class special in 1992. That same weekend he went back on his word about never replacing Wierwille's classes and he made the announcement that he was re-doing the Advanced Class. Replacing the Advanced Class didn't bother me, but going back on his word did. I then saw the systematic replacement of Wierwille by LCM and I knew, even though he said literally, "the foundational class, PFAL, I WOULD NEVER REPLACE THAT CLASSIC". I knew he would, and he did with the Way of Abundance and Power, you know, where Eve was a lesbian.
I didn't care if they relooked at Wierwille's doctrine, just that something about the way he did it was sneaky. He must have been dealing with the old Wierwillites even then and was weaning them off Wierwille. I don't know what to think.
But I appreciate knowing that there was a time when Craig did listen to constructive criticism. By the way, Craig's habit was to rail on people in public, so I have no problem with anyone doing that back to him. If he doesn't do it in private, neither should he expect any other treatment or favors.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think the Craig of the '70's and the Craig of the '90's were two different people, entirely.
Thanks for your response Eagle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
OLdiesman,
I have to give you that one. I have viewed tapes of him in the 70's and the 90's. (As well as the 80's), and I have to agree that he was a much better and loving type in the 70's. The POP came in April 1986, almost 20 years ago, and from that moment on, there was an incessant attack on LCM from people all over the ministry that supported Chris Geer. In order to save his presidency from false accusations (I believe a lot of Geer's accusations were made up in POP, IMHO), Martindale then saw his ministry was split and he could not win them over. He sent out the loyalty letters in 1989 and removed those who wouldn't back him.
However from that point, he began to set himself up as absolute in power, perhaps to defend himself out of paranoid delusions, I do not know. Then by 1990 and on he was a tyrant perhaps believing anyone who challenged him was trying to remove him from power.
In the end, his own abuse of power and sexual harassment got him booted. He left a problem in that he taught too many people to be like him or believe his way or marking and avoiding people, being ruthless against them, and not seeing the love of God anywhere.
He certainly did change in the 90's. I was so sorry to see that because I was one of his biggest supporters. After the sexual abuse allegations, no moral support came from me.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
OR Eagle, he was a screw ball and a bully drawing a line in the sand and expecting people to grant him complete loyalty.
Maybe some of us knew back then how volitile and unpredictible he was. Some of us had previous experiences with him going off half cocked and issuing cruel judgements without bothering to apprise himself of the facts.
Some of us knew from personal experience that he was not trustworethy enough to swear an oath of loyalty to.
I think that he got the suprise of his life when people woke up and realized that they owed their loyalty to NO man .... especially one who would say ...*and don`t give me that standing with God crap*
That single statement alone in the demand of loyalty awoke thousands.
I think that you may be giving LCM way too much credit here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I believe it was trained OUT of him gradually over the course of the 70s.
Reading his OWN account of the 70s ("vp and me in wonderland" thread)
has convinced me of that.
I'd like to point out that the "swear loyalty to me or you're fired" thing
was FIRST done by vpw, to the corps, in front of lcm.
lcm never went beyond what he was taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Hi rascal,
I was not there until 1980, so the 1970s experience was only viewing videotapes of him, of course, in front of a camera he was at his best. By the 90's even that did not seem to matter.
I think I have to give you that one as it seems you know a lot from the 70s and experienced more of him in the early days.
One believer did tell me something about LCM after the Athletes of the Spirit showing. VPW had viewed it and the expansion of the devil spirit thing, kind of glorifying the presence of devil spirits, and came into his house to talk to Dotsie, his wife. There were Corps people and some major Twig coordinators from Columbus who had been invited there to the house. Apparently Mrs. Wierwille was making cookies for the group and VPW came in and at least a few overheard the following:
"I think I picked the wrong man for the presidency."
For those that were there that day, I would sure like to confirm this. It was always taught that VPW went to God to pick him, and then later I heard VPW actually asked the Corps who they wanted and LCM won hands down.
Anybody out there know more on this?
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
I can't answer your questions Eagle. If it is true that lcm's "nice" was trained out of him. That would just make me think of how evil Wiewille was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Eagle, I only got involved in 79. What I know was from correspondence, as app and spouse corpes. He once wrote me an incredibly venomnous hatefilled letter, without having EVER met me or aprised himself of the facts in the situation....(I was following the leadership in my branch directed) ...I was inconsolable after he declared me a spiritual loser...
He then 3 months letter wrote me a smarmey *welcome to the corpes house hold letter* I was God`s best, spiritua elite...yadda yadda...completely unaware of the spiritual filth he had declared me to be in his earlier letter...
I was also in Ks when he declared all of the fellowships in our city were no longer associated with the way.
He based his decision and rage on false information recieved from ONE brown nosing suck up who wanted to look like a big shot that sought him out during a visit to Emporia....without bothering to check with the lc the bc or the long standing dedictated believers of that town.
I knew that the leadership in our state had been fired....I knew why... I didn`t even really have a problem with it. I knew that when hq sent letters to the believers that they flat out lied as to why our limb leaders had been fired and sent packing.
So I had a pretty good precedent for knowing that lcm was quite willing to be extremely viscious without provocation by the time the loyalty oath letter came out .... I also had first hand experience with hq telling an entire state of believers an out and out lie.
So when we got that letter Eagle, I could see the bully for what he was....it didn`t matter though we loved the ministry and respected the man whom we believed that God had chosen...and would have done ANYTHING asked as committed dulous.
We might have even written a letter swearing allegiance...knowing that we would never forske God`s ministry or his leader, knowing that we had always jumped and never asked how high.
EXCEPT for one line....he demanded that we swear loyalty to stand with him and the ministry which had taught us God`s word....*and don`t give me any of that standing with God crap*
My spouse sadly shook his head and told me that we would ALWAYS stand with God :(
When we didn`t reply to his satifaction....we recieved a letter declaring us salt that had lost it`s savor (worthless) fit only to be cast in the street and trod under the feet of the beasts..this to people who had served faithfully for 10 and 15 years respectively....precious in God`s sight..meek people who simply wanted to serve God to the best of their ability for their entire lives.
This is what he said to the people who displeased him...It was just more evidence in my book of his instability....we still fellowshipped and supported twi in every way that we had for the last decade....we just weren`t recognised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
rascal,
By the time the loyalty letters came around, he must have lied to us at HQ. He said he simply wrote letters requesting if they would stand with him as president of the Way or not, but did not mention "standing with God crap".
I believe what you said. The way he handled it was awful. He could have said something like, "I think it is admirable you want to stand with God, but do you feel you can do it with this ministry with my lead? If not, then the Way is not for you. I need people to back me up moving God's Word in this ministry, and if you don't feel comfortable with me, that is fine, just let me know this. You should, however, not expect to be leading in this ministry if you feel this way and should find an appropriate church or ministry that suits your needs and ideas. I wish you all the best success in any endeavor you may choose.
Wishing You God's Best,
L. Craig Martindale
(That is HOW he should have written it, or something like that.)
However, he chose to draw a line in the sand like it was a 50-yard line and dare everyone to come into his end of the playing field. Standing with God is not "crap".
At this time these letters came out I was solidly behind LCM not knowing any of this. I am so sorry, rascal, for any abuse sent your way. And that goes for anyone else at GS. I almost feel like I was part of it.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
((((Eagle))) Please please do not feel bad.... I am just so glad that we all are beginning to understand that not everything was as it seemed.
It wasn`t that we were unwilling to stand with the ministry, it wasn`t that we ever considered not supporting lcm..... We were sold out committed doulos`s and had never considered a life that didn`t have the ministry central and for most.
We loved God, We loved his word We loved the ministry and We believed in our leadership. We would have done ANYTHING asked.....but that just wasn`t good enough....in the end we were maligned and treated as suspicious.
Eagle, the sad thing is that you are entirely correct, had he aproached folks in a different manner the alarms wouldn`t have been raised.....But he was such a bully about it all.... belligerantly making demands and then throwing a tantrum like a two year old when he didn`t get the results he desired.
In his second letter, it was a form letter I believe, sent to all who either hadn`t written their loyalty oath or hadn`t done it the way he wanted.... at the time it seemed like he was doing his darndest to hurt us by any means within his power....
He stripped fellowships away...stripped corpes status....called us vile names.
It was very very sad. At the time, we grieved for the harshness that God`s people were being treated with....but still supported him and stood with twi for years....trusting God to sort it all out....in the end, they simply
didn`t want us anymore. We were cast aside as worthless.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Eagle, he did write 2 letters, one in March and one in April, 1989, asking way employees and corps to stand with him in the movement of the Word, and if folks couldn't do it, to be honest about it and resign. He didn't lie to you or hq about that.
If he wrote a letter subsequent saying "and don't give me any of that standing with God crap" I can understand where he was coming from and can envision him saying that. And I agree with it and it makes sense to me.
Some people apparently responded to his request "I stand with God". That response was insulting and nonresponsive to his request for folks to make up their mind who they stand with, either the trustees or Geer, or someone else. He wrote in his March 1989 letter that standing with God means to do his word and will, and each of us must decide with whom we want to do that. And so, the response "I stand with God" was crapola, unresponsive and insulting.
When the boss of a company asks for your loyalty and wants you to stand with him as best you can on a project, and you answer "I stand with God"... what do you think the boss will say?
"Don't give me any of that standing with God crap"... or "ask God to send you a paycheck"
You stand with God ... Great! So do 8,000 other religions.
Where do you stand with me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Oldies:
I do understand the loyalty letter to paid employees of TWI, it was the way he handled the matter. I have personally seen this man in action at that time and after, and all he did was go downhill from there. I agree those that would not stand with him as the head of an organization he is running should be asked where they stand, and I know of one limb leader that did respond "I stand with God". LCM sent a second letter and said what he said in a harsh way. An appropriate god-like attitude to this should have been done. Also, since Geer was doing what he was doing, it should have been appropriate to ask for the resignation in order for them to join whatever organization he ran separately from TWI. The guy just REACTS and does not think.
Yes, ultimately, had this happened to me, I would have let them go first, but only after correspondence and a personal invitation to meet. I probably would have let them come en masse to TWI and let them speak their minds on what bothered them. If any was of my own fault, I would have changed. But I believe a lot at that time was exaggerated against LCM so he should have not reacted in such the way he did. He might have kept a lot of people. There is one person I would have let go from the outset...Geer. I would have called him into my office and asked what his intentions were and why he was badgering the trustees. This POP letter should have been recognized for what it was...a fictitious piece of paper.
I think the trustees finally realized that later on AFTER all the damage was done. LCM was NOT the right man for the job. Clearly someone else with a level head, not as much ego, more intelligent and not a Wierwille worshipper should have been the pick.
I don't know who that could have been.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You didn't call lcm and ask him
"Exactly what did you mean by this?"
As it happened, someone did exactly this.
"When I asked if this letter was a call to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM,
he said I had been doing this ALL ALONG."
So, lcm didn't send some reasoned discourse asking people to search their consciences.
If he did, people would have wondered who ghost-wrote it.
lcm was known for yelling whenever he wanted to- not appealing to
reason. And that was in the 80s. (In the 90s, he REALLY got to cursing and screaming.)
What lcm did was DEMAND BLIND OBEDIENCE,
and he EXPECTED BLIND OBEDIENCE.
At least,
THAT'S WHAT LCM SAID HE MEANT.
Now, you or I could interpret that further, but disregarding
what he HIMSELF said he meant is just silly.
There's no rationale for discarding his own explanation.
That makes a lot of sense, and is very instructive.
When demanded to choose which MAN to give their blind obedience to,
many Christians said they refused to choose to give any man blind obedience.
Did they CENSURE lcm for making such a contraBiblical demand?
No-but it WAS an indication they disagreed with the question being posed.
Had he just gone about his business, he would have retained their
freely given loyalties to twi-but not himself.
What they did NOT say is as instructive as what they DID say.
Did they get fed up and leave? NO. They stayed right where they were,
but expressed discontent with the contraBiblical demand.
If they wanted to insult him, there were many, many ways to do it.
They could have insulted him by mail, by phone, or to his face,
to name 3.
A) It was not insulting.
"I stand with God, you microcephalic babboon!"
would have been insulting.
B) It was not "NONRESPONSIVE."
It addressed his demand directly.
lcm offered two options only.
They rejected both options and offered a THIRD option.
Not every question can be answered with only 2 options-
especially when both answers are WRONG.
("Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no only, please.")
Therefore, their answers told him as much-or more-than a simple
choice between men.
C) It was not a "REQUEST", it was a DEMAND.
Technically, it was not illegal to make such a demand of those directly
on twi payroll-although it's Biblically QUESTIONABLE.
Demanding this from all the non-payrolled twi'ers he demanded this of-
like the entire corps- was morally wrong and there's not even a legal
rationale for it.
Technically true-although being FORCED to choose is wrong,
and the sign of an immature Christian pretending to lead.
HE may have considered it so, but that didn't change the reality of things.
Just like some people thought that lcm was sane and rational then,
but the reality was that he was a tipped turbolaser ready to fire in any direction.
The response "I stand with God" was actually true, honest, and from the heart.
It was A response, albeit not the response he wanted, and was a way to avoid
insulting someone they disagreed with but still attempted to show respect towards.
That he interpreted any or all of it as some plot against him is a measure
of how unstable and irrational he was tracking-
thus demonstrating picking HIM, at least, was a bad answer.
Knowing then what we know now, only the most obstinate could say
"If I knew then what I know now, I would have stayed, because he
wasn't going insane at the time."
Well,
it's a strange thing to answer in a COMPANY.
In a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, a CHURCH,
with the loyalty of believer/zealot/martyr,
the power dynamics are VERY different from
a company, office, business.
Most people can see that they're different in
practice and application, and muddying the
differences between the two does not change
that.
Well, to give a religious answer to a secular company is to
pretty much invite sanctions. At that point, you're not serving
the secular company. (Although I HAVE been requested to pray
by secular employers, more than once, more than one,
and one requester was not a Christian.)
"Don't push this issue."
That's not the answer lcm wanted, but it WAS an answer.
It would have been more honest if he HAD just said
"where do you stand with me?"
However, the asked Christians saw it that way-which was
what he meant. He expected them to
"BLINDLY FOLLOW"
him.
They refused to do so, but still showed him the respect
of his office. A smart man could easily see he was driving
himself to the edge of a cliff, and dropped the subject,
knowing that to do otherwise would be to shove away those
who still respected him.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
The root of the problem with Martindale's "loyalty oath letter" was his total lack of spiritual understanding. Christ is the head of the body...not any organization or any man. If a Christian leader functions correctly within the body of Christ, there is no need for him to ask the question that Martindale asked.
It was egotistical and only demonstrated that twi was nothing more than a worldly organization. If you were one of those poor souls who depended upon getting a paycheck from twi...then perhaps the question was appropriate...but again, it only underscores the reality that the household of twi was "something different" than the household of God as depicted in the bible....
...Receiving a paycheck from an incorporated denomination is not the same as being a minister of Christ who walks by the spirit...if you cannot see the difference, perhaps it's not too late for you to sign the loyaty oath?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
While the answer of "I stand with God" is the right one for a Christian who doesn't want to blindly follow a man, we were all part of an organization that expected just that from us, if not from day one, then from very early on. Wierwille demanded it as well, but was smart enough to (usually) cloak it in more diplomatic tones. Attempting to remain within TWI without agreeing to blindly follow its head ignored the way things were. Trying to "stand with God" could best be accomplished with TWI by ignoring its true nature.
Martindale screwed himself by not reigning in his true nature, by believing his own press clippings, and demanding what Wierwille was able to get from us with honey, rather than vinegar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Except when some/most of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, are possibly/probably thinking that the leader is ineffective, off the wall, corrupt, worshipping other gods, etc.
At that point, a line has to be drawn. It is incumbent upon the leader to ask/request/demand of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, where they stand.
If they do not "stand with me" -- please make up your mind, be honest, and get out -- go stand with someone else you don't have a problem standing with.
An employee stands with and supports their employer, whether they are a minister of Christ, or not.
If an employee can't or won't be loyal to and support their employer, they really should move onto something else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I missed when we stopped talking about a church and started
talking about a MILITARY ORGANIZATION.
Supposing you're right,BEFORE that,
there's a need for open dialogue.
If there's a confidence problem with an officer in the military
and the men under his command,
discussion DOES begin.
Then again,
since this was not a MILITARY ORGANIZATION,
but a CHURCH,
dialogue would be MORE expected.
If you're unable to picture how honest dialogue would go-
meaning "I want to hear what's on your mind"-
I can produce samples.
And if there's problems, there are avenues for communication
and dialogue that resolve them so that it doesn't come to
"declare your loyalty or you are fired".
That twi was woefully deficient in such processes was the
deliberate plan of vpw-
who DISSOLVED his advisory body because he didn't want dialogues-
and shows that an education of twi-ONLY
crippled lcm in his ability to function as a leader.
lcm probably had no idea how inadequate his abilities in
this area were in comparison to the AVERAGE Christian leader
in a SMALL LOCAL congregation, let alone a higher-up.
When it comes down to cold organizations, true.
Even there, it is understood the employer will deal
honestly and fairly with the employees,
or face CRIMINAL CHARGES.
Ask the Enron guys how they're enjoying the results
of treating their employees as disposable...
Let me know what the food in prison is like,
while you're at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Oh really?
The term blind obedience was not in the March or April 1989 letters, and I believe written documentation sent to thousands, trumps verbal hearsay to one. The terminology used in the letters is "stand with and support".
But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that Craig meant blind obedience...
You know what that means if you were in the corps. That was taught in the corps and all staff and corps know what it means and what twi means by it.
So, if one had a problem with that concept, one should have dealt with it way way before the concept may have been invoked or verbalized.
That is assuming he actually meant blind obedience... like "go shoot yourself in the head if I tell you".
When I think of Craig asking for blind obedience, it is in the context of moving the word... doing the work of the ministry... so I would read that into the context it was written.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I never received a letter demanding loyalty.
I WAS in the lunchroom the day LoyBoy went into a tirade and demanded obedience from his minions.
He screamed from the head table (as best as I can remember) "Your allegiance is either with me or the man across the sea (a reference to Chris Geer) and don't give me any of your 'God' crap!"
That's what he said Oldies. I'm not making it up, and not doctoring it to make it seem like something it's not. That's what he said (within a word or two).
It was not a well-reasoned, tempered response to insubordination. It was a temper tantram and a childish rant, demanding to have his way. It was REALLY silly and embarassing, to anyone with the least bit of circumspection.
I quit staff the next morning. Hey, THANKS Craig!
Gawd, if it wasn't for him and his big mouth, I might still be in WayWorld. Eeeewww...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"If a Christian leader functions correctly within the body of Christ, there is no need for him to ask the question that Martindale asked.
Except when some/most of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, are possibly/probably thinking that the leader is ineffective, off the wall, corrupt, worshipping other gods, etc.
At that point, a line has to be drawn. It is incumbent upon the leader to ask/request/demand of his sargeants, lieutenants, captains and such, where they stand."
Actually, Oldies there are other options. If most of year "sargeants" etc. are thiking that you are an ineffetive leader, off the wall, corrupt, etc. then maybe it is time to take a good hard look in the mirror, instead of just demanding they swear loyalty to you. In hind sight especially, this would have been a good idea.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Eagle... WE weren`t paid employees....we were simply corpes on the field... doing the best we could to love God and support his ministry.
He wasn`t paying us.... we were serving ... giving without stint....in addition to regular twi duties of time and , money, we wre proud to work at least one weekend many times more a month either at the limb or Emporia for years....
His belligerant demand, and subsequent viscious attack was completely uncalled for to folks who loved him in spite of his cavallier treatment of God`s people.
His viscious declaration accompanied with biblical documentation of our utter worthlessness and wish for destruction was uncalled for in addressing people who had given their utmost for decades :(
As far as your statement oldies, I am not making this crap up.....at the time it was a damned nightmare....I desperatly wanted the ministry to be ok....desperatly wanted to believe that God would work in craig and all would be well.......
You are trying to minimalise what he demanded. We all know what an oath of loyalty to craig meant .... if you were honest. In no place did it say loyalty to God... No...Swear loyalty to me and the ministry that taught you God`s word.....pretty ominous that the only mention of God himself was to refer to standing with him as crap......which in hind site is pretty telling.
Loyalty was always taught with the example of Dog soldiers staked out to die unmoving in battle. This was life and death jump when told don`t ask how high or how far....don`t doubt or question question or you`d sink like peter.
We know that there were at least to and possibly three different letters sent out at different times to different folks ....ours recieved on the field was thelast and most viscious.
This would explain your contradicting *reports* without having to call anybody a liar.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Abigail, you make some great points.
Also consider...what happened when folks DID toe the line...swear allegiance in order to stay active in the ministry....did his requirements stop at just moving the word?
O heck no as I remember that was the beginning of more ever insane demands....time sheets... vacation sheets...finances monitered....implicit obediance in all matters or m&a....families required to sever all connections with one another....
LCM had no right to demand loyalty to himself or anything else....that is something that you earn from folks.
I am with George, as tough as it was at the time...THANKYOU Craig.... that one single line in that rediculous letter was what FINALLY opened our eyes.
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.