I agree, it was about believing the Word of God that Dr. Wierwille was teaching.
All those who chose not to believe, left.
This concept is not different from many religions who stick with their own ideology and interpretations and those who disagree or cannot accept those ideologies, leave.
The church of my youth is like that, among others.
I actually agree with the premise of what you're saying here, Oldies.
There was a TWI dogma that had to be accepted in order to continue in TWI. (Their version of orthodoxy)
There is a set of dogma that is required to believe in order to be in the Catholic Church. If you don't accept that set of dogma, then you have essentially excommunicated yourself (please to note, though, unless those heterodox teachings are very publically proclaimed, you aren't formally excommunicated)
But, in truth, though, we would see that in pretty much any splinter group from the eastern or western schisms. Particularly in the west, that's why there are so many different denominations and unaffiliated groups.
I think the real issue is that TWI doctrine deviated so severely from so many aspects of commonly accepted orthodox (small "o") Christian dogma that it essentially became some kind of a gnostic sect, rather than a Christian group.
Now as to the original question, the "keys" to research that were taught through TWI were set up in such a way that it would be very easy to arrive at the conclusions that were derived. The basic technique was incorrect, and so the old computer premise of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" would apply.
Let's look at it a minute (now, I don't have any TWI materials so I'm doing it by memory):
First of all, the study was based upon a version of the Bible that used a form of language that is not in common usage. (i.e., KJV) It is indeed a beautiful rendition, but it is so old that it doesn't make sense to the modern ear that well any more.
Secondly, the first order of interpretation was "in the verse." -- If one takes a verse and reads it out of it's context, it can totally distort the meaning of that verse. We don't think and speak in sentences (not really). We think and speak in paragraphs. That was the way that most of the books in the Bible were written.
Next, it depended upon word studies. We might think it important to distinguish between dunamis and energeo (or whatever), and place that word study above and beyond the context within which a usage was given. Unfortunately, the tools that the TWI researcher used were primarily the greek/hebrew-english concordance and an interlinear. The TWI follower wasn't encouraged to consider the grammar involved and how the language was constructed.
An emphasis was given to orientalisms. That's good, in of itself, but one of the primary sources for those orientalisms came from a former member of the "Indian Orthodox Church," a person who grew up on the subcontinent. The problem with this was that the culture of Palestine and of Mesopotamia, to say nothing of Greece and Egypt, was nothing like the culture of India. But the information was to be taken at face value. Corollary to this was the utter rejection of writings by the Church Fathers (particularly those pre-Nicene Church Fathers who wrote from 100-400 AD). The heterodox teaching about baptism would have never come up had even cursory attention been paid to one document: the Didache (written somewhere between 57 and 75 AD -- still "the first century church").
Next, the over-emphasis on the teachings of one man: Bullinger. Bullinger did some good work, but on a lot of things, he was way out in left field. Two examples: the over-emphasis on Figures of Speech (which TWI even took to the next level IMHO) and ultra-dispensationalism.
The last thing I'd bring up (there are more, but I have little time tonight) is the old "literal according to usage." This perversion (and yes I mean perversion) totally twisted the meanings of a number of words so as not to be recognizable. "Agape" means affection. It doesn't mean "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation." That is a private interpretation. And it twists the meaning of the word. And it is not accurately usable in all circumstances.
Like I said...there's more, but I don't have time to list it all.
But the point is that the framework set up by the TWI "research" technique would cause the "researcher" to arrive at largely the same conclusions as those done up in TWI orthodoxy.
I agree, it was about believing the Word of God that Dr. Wierwille was teaching.
All those who chose not to believe, left.
This concept is not different from many religions who stick with their own ideology and interpretations and those who disagree or cannot accept those ideologies, leave.
The church of my youth is like that, among others.
see... there's the "rub" if you will... they actually were the very thing they were claiming not to be, the very thing they were subversively setting you against.. it was very clever...
So ok, I didn't wanna get this deep...but.........
VP's "keys to interpretation" actually represent a very literal interpretation of the bible. You know......"the word of God is the will God, says what it means, means what it says, etc." So he was very adamant about that.
But...........BIG BUT HERE........when it came to certain subjects, for example SIN, FAITH, and many other topics I could list if I think about it long enuff, the hermeneutics differed.
But the inconsistency, was blatant, and confusing to most of us novice bible studiers.
Hence, all the unaswered questions about life, the bible, the pursuit of God. And the contradictions in theology.
My belief is that, VP's own conflicted beliefs and lifestyle, account for the contradictions.
Funny thing, I graduated from the Way Corps, and never knew what the word meant either, til I started reading REAL bible scholars after leaving the way. I had never heard of "Christology," or "Eschatology," either. Kind of odd, seeing as how the corps program was supposed to be the best Christian Leadership Training program available from a "biblical research ministry."
Sheesh. Biblical research, yeah, right......
VPW claimed that the bible could be interpretted literally most of the time, except for figures of speech. I think that was in PFAL. But anyway, that's what he claimed. Yet, when it came to major topics in the bible of interest to any Christian, the story changed. As I mentioned before, SIN wasn't really sin, it was something else. FAITH wasn't really faith either. It was the "law of believing" and other such nonsensical things.
And let's not even mention the subject of adultery. "Adultery" in the bible didn't LITERALLY mean Adultery, doncha know.
It's ridiculous. But I was a naive kid who didn't know any better as most of us were.
The biggest thing I got from PFAL, was that I can read and study the bible for myself and understand it. I don't need a priest or a phd, or anybody else to explain it to me. For that, I am grateful. And I did learn how to use lexicons, and concordances, and study materials. Yay.
The biggest thing I got from PFAL, was that I can read and study the bible for myself and understand it. I don't need a priest or a phd, or anybody else to explain it to me...And I did learn how to use lexicons, and concordances, and study materials...
Yeah, me too.
I think that it's not arguable that PFAL taught a basic biblical study methodology, what is open to discussion is just how valuable the 'keys' were. The 'keys' taught in PFAL, if nothing else, got many of us to view the bible as something that could be understood. That's why I titled this thread 'Did The Way Int'l REALLY promote biblical research?, rather than ask if they taught biblical research.
Even the posters who claimed that they learned how to do biblical research through PFAL make my point: one talks about how they did word studies and such in a fellowship removed from the control of the Way Tree, and another talks about how anyone who disagreed with what Wierwille was teaching just left (or should have left). The point is that the organization (including its leader, Vic Wierwille) did not promote or encourage biblical research by its followers, other than exercises that confirmed what had already been taught, or had not been touched upon by 'official' teaching.
What's ironic is that in many cases it was the use of PFAL learned 'research skills' that gave people the ammunition to take on leadership at times, and gave many the reasons to leave TWI. My own initial questioning of Way doctrine in 2000 & 2001 was entirely within the confines of Way-taught 'research keys'. problems that I found with martindale & later Wierwille's teachings was based on internal contradictions, not on failure to match 'orthodox' Christianity.
But here is the travesty of the whole situation, to me.
Studying the bible, can never replace the relationship that we are to have with our Lord and Saviour. I know you are agnostic, and I don't have a problem with that. Honestly.
What makes me sad, is that there were those of us who were led on a path of ..........like, I don't know....learning? acadamia? knowledge? devoid of real life, eveyday, experiencial living that distanced us from relationships with others, and actually had not too much to do with our real lives.
It's sad, because I think the point of all study and research is to lead us to Jesus Christ. Who is the expert at relationships, and helping us get along in life, "being better." Somehow, it didn't happen in the cult. Just makes one wonder.........
In retrospect, I get the impression that the Way didn't really have a clear idea of what they actually wanted to be.
They spread themselves out too thin. Personally, I think the Way might have done better had they stuck only to pursuing "Biblical research", to improving and expanding their academics and offering their "teachings" to anyone and everyone who requested them (no matter how good or bad the results) -akin to simply a publishing house -but had adopted a strict "hands-off" policy pertaining to the area of social activity and co-ordination and "fellowship". or. meddling with peoples' lives and telling them what to believe and how to live.
That should have been left up to the individuals comprising us, along with the choice of whether or not to accept or reject their "teaching".
I mean, had they wanted to be a biblical research "corporation", fine - then they should have extended the logic of not calling themselves a "church" to "ministry", and ceased trying to "play church".
They didn't want to be called a "church" yet they "played it" nonetheless.
They wanted to be known as a "Biblical research" body, but ultimately they didn't even "play" that all that well.
It's ridiculous, looking back on a group which constantly tossed the word "commitment" in our faces - that they had so little actual "commitment" toward defining themselves as a body.
Little wonder the outfit collapsed under its own weight.
Talk about a "lack of vision" (lol) - the Way now resembles a confused, blurred hallucination bobbing in a bottle of Drambuie.
Amen, Danny. I agree wholeheartedly. You expressed it well.
Nll, You ask some fantastic questions. Maybe a thread in the Doctrinal Dungeon could help answer some?
There's alot of info "out there" about what you asked. I'm sure there are posters here who have looked into those questions. Maybe they could share some of their findings?
Asking these kinds of questions, is ALWAYS GOOD, in my book.
I have some questions that I have never resolved and that hamper my belief in the Bible still. Here are four of my biggest problems:
1. People living to be 900-something years old.
2. Noah finding 2 of every single species on earth and jaming them onto a 450 boat.
3. Fossil evidence of plants and creatures much, much older than genesis.
4. Fossil evidence of an evolving human kind, and the very very slow increase in human kind's intelligence and creativity.
What's up with this? Did anybody ever "research" this stuff?
There are numerous churches that have very convincing debates about the old-age of Patriarchal men.
Some animals were collected in sevens and not just in twos.
Genesis claims that there was an Earth before the Garden of Eden, and it appears to have be populated with something. If some of that life left fossil record, okay.
It doesn't. But it was implied through "the gap theory" concerning Gen.1:1 and 1:2 (as we had accepted from the beloved prophet Wa'shua, and had given unto you).
I must confess - despite the grammatical arguments flying back 'n forth on the theory, pro and con - that the whole idea of history repeating itself - over and over and over again - is actually quite an interesting idea.
Have we held this same conversation before?
Are we holding this same conversations millions of years from now?
Has this same discussion happened a thousand times over, and will occur again another thousand times,
again and again and again and again?
Like that movie "Groundhog Day"?
I wonder...
are we frozen into a "gap" along with those fossils?
Swinging from a comma between "today" and "Paradise"?
Stumbled into an unforeseen chasm between "the salvation of the Lord"
"Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"
well, mine did... and did I learn how to research the bible under the teaching of twi? yup, I sure did. the problem was that I didn't use what I learned on them! I guess you could say that they taught it but then, by the methods so many of you have cited, they didn't really promote it... ya think?
I have a better library of Biblical Research tools from additional resources. Plus I name outside sources by author much better than VPW and LCM ever could imagine in their little pea-picking brains(wonder if wierwille plagurized materials for his Master's thesis at Princeton, I think not or else he would have been expelled and flunked in all subjects).
Recommended Posts
markomalley
I actually agree with the premise of what you're saying here, Oldies.
There was a TWI dogma that had to be accepted in order to continue in TWI. (Their version of orthodoxy)
There is a set of dogma that is required to believe in order to be in the Catholic Church. If you don't accept that set of dogma, then you have essentially excommunicated yourself (please to note, though, unless those heterodox teachings are very publically proclaimed, you aren't formally excommunicated)
But, in truth, though, we would see that in pretty much any splinter group from the eastern or western schisms. Particularly in the west, that's why there are so many different denominations and unaffiliated groups.
I think the real issue is that TWI doctrine deviated so severely from so many aspects of commonly accepted orthodox (small "o") Christian dogma that it essentially became some kind of a gnostic sect, rather than a Christian group.
Now as to the original question, the "keys" to research that were taught through TWI were set up in such a way that it would be very easy to arrive at the conclusions that were derived. The basic technique was incorrect, and so the old computer premise of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" would apply.
Let's look at it a minute (now, I don't have any TWI materials so I'm doing it by memory):
First of all, the study was based upon a version of the Bible that used a form of language that is not in common usage. (i.e., KJV) It is indeed a beautiful rendition, but it is so old that it doesn't make sense to the modern ear that well any more.
Secondly, the first order of interpretation was "in the verse." -- If one takes a verse and reads it out of it's context, it can totally distort the meaning of that verse. We don't think and speak in sentences (not really). We think and speak in paragraphs. That was the way that most of the books in the Bible were written.
Next, it depended upon word studies. We might think it important to distinguish between dunamis and energeo (or whatever), and place that word study above and beyond the context within which a usage was given. Unfortunately, the tools that the TWI researcher used were primarily the greek/hebrew-english concordance and an interlinear. The TWI follower wasn't encouraged to consider the grammar involved and how the language was constructed.
An emphasis was given to orientalisms. That's good, in of itself, but one of the primary sources for those orientalisms came from a former member of the "Indian Orthodox Church," a person who grew up on the subcontinent. The problem with this was that the culture of Palestine and of Mesopotamia, to say nothing of Greece and Egypt, was nothing like the culture of India. But the information was to be taken at face value. Corollary to this was the utter rejection of writings by the Church Fathers (particularly those pre-Nicene Church Fathers who wrote from 100-400 AD). The heterodox teaching about baptism would have never come up had even cursory attention been paid to one document: the Didache (written somewhere between 57 and 75 AD -- still "the first century church").
Next, the over-emphasis on the teachings of one man: Bullinger. Bullinger did some good work, but on a lot of things, he was way out in left field. Two examples: the over-emphasis on Figures of Speech (which TWI even took to the next level IMHO) and ultra-dispensationalism.
The last thing I'd bring up (there are more, but I have little time tonight) is the old "literal according to usage." This perversion (and yes I mean perversion) totally twisted the meanings of a number of words so as not to be recognizable. "Agape" means affection. It doesn't mean "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation." That is a private interpretation. And it twists the meaning of the word. And it is not accurately usable in all circumstances.
Like I said...there's more, but I don't have time to list it all.
But the point is that the framework set up by the TWI "research" technique would cause the "researcher" to arrive at largely the same conclusions as those done up in TWI orthodoxy.
Garbage in: garbage out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
see... there's the "rub" if you will... they actually were the very thing they were claiming not to be, the very thing they were subversively setting you against.. it was very clever...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Part of the problem, was the "basic keys to research" were not presented in their hermeneutical setting.
I don't think it was so much a problem of "error" as one of hermeneutics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
So ok, I didn't wanna get this deep...but.........
VP's "keys to interpretation" actually represent a very literal interpretation of the bible. You know......"the word of God is the will God, says what it means, means what it says, etc." So he was very adamant about that.
But...........BIG BUT HERE........when it came to certain subjects, for example SIN, FAITH, and many other topics I could list if I think about it long enuff, the hermeneutics differed.
But the inconsistency, was blatant, and confusing to most of us novice bible studiers.
Hence, all the unaswered questions about life, the bible, the pursuit of God. And the contradictions in theology.
My belief is that, VP's own conflicted beliefs and lifestyle, account for the contradictions.
Go figure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
So I would be safe in assuming that VPW never saw himself as any of the above??
BUt wait, He had that Doctorate right??
Oh dear my Head, My Head
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
dangit myseestorex10... you made me look it up!
her·me·neu·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hûrm-ntks, -ny-)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text.
hermeneutics
n : the branch of theology that deals with principles of exegesis
(courtesy of dictionary.com)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Wasn't that the fan club of Herman's Hermits?? :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Thank you, sir.
Glad to hear that we were not the only ones.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I have no doubt.
Your description of WC sounds about right. As for the fellowships, ... there are other ministrys even today that still do that.
:)
Bless you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Ha! My strange friend.
Funny thing, I graduated from the Way Corps, and never knew what the word meant either, til I started reading REAL bible scholars after leaving the way. I had never heard of "Christology," or "Eschatology," either. Kind of odd, seeing as how the corps program was supposed to be the best Christian Leadership Training program available from a "biblical research ministry."
Sheesh. Biblical research, yeah, right......
VPW claimed that the bible could be interpretted literally most of the time, except for figures of speech. I think that was in PFAL. But anyway, that's what he claimed. Yet, when it came to major topics in the bible of interest to any Christian, the story changed. As I mentioned before, SIN wasn't really sin, it was something else. FAITH wasn't really faith either. It was the "law of believing" and other such nonsensical things.
And let's not even mention the subject of adultery. "Adultery" in the bible didn't LITERALLY mean Adultery, doncha know.
It's ridiculous. But I was a naive kid who didn't know any better as most of us were.
The biggest thing I got from PFAL, was that I can read and study the bible for myself and understand it. I don't need a priest or a phd, or anybody else to explain it to me. For that, I am grateful. And I did learn how to use lexicons, and concordances, and study materials. Yay.
And I did memorize alot of verses.
All the other stuff, well, whatevah.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I think that it's not arguable that PFAL taught a basic biblical study methodology, what is open to discussion is just how valuable the 'keys' were. The 'keys' taught in PFAL, if nothing else, got many of us to view the bible as something that could be understood. That's why I titled this thread 'Did The Way Int'l REALLY promote biblical research?, rather than ask if they taught biblical research.
Even the posters who claimed that they learned how to do biblical research through PFAL make my point: one talks about how they did word studies and such in a fellowship removed from the control of the Way Tree, and another talks about how anyone who disagreed with what Wierwille was teaching just left (or should have left). The point is that the organization (including its leader, Vic Wierwille) did not promote or encourage biblical research by its followers, other than exercises that confirmed what had already been taught, or had not been touched upon by 'official' teaching.
What's ironic is that in many cases it was the use of PFAL learned 'research skills' that gave people the ammunition to take on leadership at times, and gave many the reasons to leave TWI. My own initial questioning of Way doctrine in 2000 & 2001 was entirely within the confines of Way-taught 'research keys'. problems that I found with martindale & later Wierwille's teachings was based on internal contradictions, not on failure to match 'orthodox' Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
You are so insightful, Oak.
But here is the travesty of the whole situation, to me.
Studying the bible, can never replace the relationship that we are to have with our Lord and Saviour. I know you are agnostic, and I don't have a problem with that. Honestly.
What makes me sad, is that there were those of us who were led on a path of ..........like, I don't know....learning? acadamia? knowledge? devoid of real life, eveyday, experiencial living that distanced us from relationships with others, and actually had not too much to do with our real lives.
It's sad, because I think the point of all study and research is to lead us to Jesus Christ. Who is the expert at relationships, and helping us get along in life, "being better." Somehow, it didn't happen in the cult. Just makes one wonder.........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
In retrospect, I get the impression that the Way didn't really have a clear idea of what they actually wanted to be.
They spread themselves out too thin. Personally, I think the Way might have done better had they stuck only to pursuing "Biblical research", to improving and expanding their academics and offering their "teachings" to anyone and everyone who requested them (no matter how good or bad the results) -akin to simply a publishing house -but had adopted a strict "hands-off" policy pertaining to the area of social activity and co-ordination and "fellowship". or. meddling with peoples' lives and telling them what to believe and how to live.
That should have been left up to the individuals comprising us, along with the choice of whether or not to accept or reject their "teaching".
I mean, had they wanted to be a biblical research "corporation", fine - then they should have extended the logic of not calling themselves a "church" to "ministry", and ceased trying to "play church".
They didn't want to be called a "church" yet they "played it" nonetheless.
They wanted to be known as a "Biblical research" body, but ultimately they didn't even "play" that all that well.
It's ridiculous, looking back on a group which constantly tossed the word "commitment" in our faces - that they had so little actual "commitment" toward defining themselves as a body.
Little wonder the outfit collapsed under its own weight.
Talk about a "lack of vision" (lol) - the Way now resembles a confused, blurred hallucination bobbing in a bottle of Drambuie.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
nolongerlurking
I have some questions that I have never resolved and that hamper my belief in the Bible still. Here are four of my biggest problems:
1. People living to be 900-something years old.
2. Noah finding 2 of every single species on earth and jaming them onto a 450 boat.
3. Fossil evidence of plants and creatures much, much older than genesis.
4. Fossil evidence of an evolving human kind, and the very very slow increase in human kind's intelligence and creativity.
What's up with this? Did anybody ever "research" this stuff?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Amen, Danny. I agree wholeheartedly. You expressed it well.
Nll, You ask some fantastic questions. Maybe a thread in the Doctrinal Dungeon could help answer some?
There's alot of info "out there" about what you asked. I'm sure there are posters here who have looked into those questions. Maybe they could share some of their findings?
Asking these kinds of questions, is ALWAYS GOOD, in my book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
There are numerous churches that have very convincing debates about the old-age of Patriarchal men.
Some animals were collected in sevens and not just in twos.
Genesis claims that there was an Earth before the Garden of Eden, and it appears to have be populated with something. If some of that life left fossil record, okay.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nolongerlurking
Where does it say there was an earth before Eden?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It doesn't. But it was implied through "the gap theory" concerning Gen.1:1 and 1:2 (as we had accepted from the beloved prophet Wa'shua, and had given unto you).
I must confess - despite the grammatical arguments flying back 'n forth on the theory, pro and con - that the whole idea of history repeating itself - over and over and over again - is actually quite an interesting idea.
Have we held this same conversation before?
Are we holding this same conversations millions of years from now?
Has this same discussion happened a thousand times over, and will occur again another thousand times,
again and again and again and again?
Like that movie "Groundhog Day"?
I wonder...
are we frozen into a "gap" along with those fossils?
Swinging from a comma between "today" and "Paradise"?
Stumbled into an unforeseen chasm between "the salvation of the Lord"
and "The Day of Vengeance"?
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
free2love
"Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"
well, mine did... and did I learn how to research the bible under the teaching of twi? yup, I sure did. the problem was that I didn't use what I learned on them! I guess you could say that they taught it but then, by the methods so many of you have cited, they didn't really promote it... ya think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
I have a better library of Biblical Research tools from additional resources. Plus I name outside sources by author much better than VPW and LCM ever could imagine in their little pea-picking brains(wonder if wierwille plagurized materials for his Master's thesis at Princeton, I think not or else he would have been expelled and flunked in all subjects).
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink 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.