Keith

A very long time ago, Before even the "first corps" I think they did bring in speakers. Some of them were people like Bishop Pillai. After this brief time period it seems that most of the speakers were as mentioned above. But there was a time when they at least gave the impression of being willing to learn from people on the outside. This seem to have already disappeared by the early '70's.

Compulsory anything is usally not done from the heart and it's the heart that matteres.

I know from past postings that a lot of people made up their interpreations, so of course those seemed contrived. I rework this area about once every two years or so trying to keep an open mind and I've read a lot from other groups. I still find that Chapter 14 is pretty clear about how it is suposed to work. I think by having them all the time we increased the likelyhood of people just making it up. But I have had another idea as well, as I've noticed how different even my own tongues and interpreation is in the church I'm attending now (which is a RHEMA trained church) Maybe one reason we kept hearing the same things; like "I love you," "walk on and believe my word." "Let the peace of God work in your heart," "know that I am with you," is because we never really did them. God kept telling us to do them, and we kept believing the word of the ministry, and walking in strife with everyone around us. We put our trust in our believing, not God's ability.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Though I do also believe there is evidence it is perfect prayer and praise, it is at the spirits direction, not ours. SIT was given credit for being able to do things it didn't do. Even if we accept that SIT builds up the spirit of the inner man, it doesn't say it really does anything for the outer man. That's why without love it is unprofitable. SIT was never a Swiss army knife, it has definite uses. And from what I can tell, unlike we were taught in TWI, it can be and is counterfited.

I certainly isn't meant that way. But if you think about how TWI taught about love, it was really pretty selfish and they wanted most of it directed at them. However, I didn't write the first verse of I Cor 13. If I don't see growth in my life, that's one of the first places I check. There are many times when I would have said I was walking in love in my life, but I really wasn't. And with how I was taught to show love in TWI, I definitly wasn't. I can't make a judgement in another life that this is the problem; however if someone askes me why they aren't getting results in their lives that's usally the first area's I ask them to examine themselves regarding. Love is an area I still totally walk in. Some times the area of love we have the biggest problem with is "loving ourselves." (this is beginning to get doctornal) In TWI we were often so condemned, that we were often ready to condemn ourselves and others, rather than loving ourselves and each other for who were were.

I don't think most of us really knew what love was while we were in TWI.

I don't want to get off on a doctrinal discussion. But I will say that I agree with this statment. TWI did try to apply SIT differntly and in situation that didn't warrent it. What I really want to point out is that SITing often wasn't done in love and that makes it basicly unprofitable. So it's not much wonder we didn't see growth in ourselves or others.

I won't say a whole lot, beyond I do believe there is a lot of power in SIT, but as I remember I Cor 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men or of angels and have not love I am as a sound brass or a tinkling cymbal." I had a friend put it this way. SITing without love is like pumping with an unprimed pump, it doesn't really do anything. There were a lot of unprimed pumps around.

Why I have never heard it called this anywhere else the idea seems to be very common in faith circles like Kenneth Hagin, Derek Prince, Kenneth Copeland and others. The closest they get to calling it the idiom of permission is to say if you study this closely you will see that God doesn't cause the evil, but he allows the evil to take place. Which is basicly a rewording of the "idiom of permission." While the term is not used by them, the belief seems to be there.

I was a WOW (regional Minitman really)in Billings 75 - 76. Wouldn't mind hearing for some of the people who were there then. I often wonder what happened to them all.

Can't remember if I ever told how I got out. It was early on.... the first time around the late 70's. I hosted, but didn't run a twig at my appartment. The leader kept calling people and telling them they we were going out witnessing or something like that. He would call everyone but me. So there I was, with the chairs set up, and nobody came. Happened almost every other week. I guess finally they just moved the twig and never told me. So I just stayed home, and never told them. I did go back for a while in '90. Was appalled at what I saw and heard and left again after several months. But not before firing of a letter to Craig about how they had lost the love they used to have. God Bless you had become a greeting without out feeling. And they had become the denomination they said they never were. Of course I expected something closer to the what I saw in the 70's. My first trip back was to HQ, where I sat in the front row of the Auditorium, dressed in blue jeans and a T-shirt. Feeling very out of place. I guess I owe the the Corps appology. I hear he read part of the that letter to them and reamed them out pretty good for being un-loving. I can't believe I stayed several months after that, When I left they spent quite a while trying to get me to stay even though I complained loudly about the quality of the teachings and what was being taught. Weird.

I know this might be hard to believe, but I had a list of friends that I want to see leave TWI. I spent type praying for them and just asking God to open their eyes. Out of at least about 16 people all but one left within two years. Of those all but one appologized to me for some of the things they had said to me.

The Way isn't the only group that preaches a No Debt doctrine. However TWI is the only group that makes it almost a requirement for everyone, and makes you feel guilty if are in debt. Most of the other groups that I know that teach a No Debt doctrine also add, that right now there may not be a choice on big items like houses and cars, but include teaching on how, both spirtually and financially to get out of debt and they certainly do not make it law. That said, I'm not sure that TWI's No Debt policy was at least partly a means to control you and make you feel small compared to the "heavyweights of leadership."

I have an associates degree, but the deciding not to go had nothing to do with TWI. I was a colledge wow taking a two year program, finished the program and got my dream job. I did start going after a Bachelor's but they kept moving me up at work, and I love what I do.. I decided why spend the money.

Personally, I compare everyone with Biblical figures or events, or discriptions, Even Harold Hill. Nothing wrong with that, you just have to compare them with the right person and/or for the right reason.

The best teachings I've ever done in fellowships or church were usally when I walked up with the notes I'd been working on for the last week, two weeks or more placed them back in the bible or threw them over my sholder onto the floor when I realized that wasn't what God wanted the people in front of me to hear and I just winged it, or as I would say, went where the spirit led. No wonder there's no life there. At least when one could just teach what was on their heart God had a chance of getting something in He wanted taught.

I still prefer wide margin bibles. Yes, I do mark them. I have every usage of lambano and dechomai marked, but not from the Holy Spirit Book which wasn't accurate and I have a slightly different definition of the two words from my working with them. I found it more interesting to mark the usages of logos and rhema, de (but/and) and kai (and) and alla (BUT). I don't mark up my bibles as much any more. I prefer to highlight verses that mean something to me. I might right a note next to a verse that says, something like. "remember this" or "That's me" Or something I want to remember if I'm teaching or sharing. My main study bible however is on my computer and every Greek and Hebrew word is marked and I put a lot more notes in this one, mainly because I can go back a correct my stuipid mistakes. I do have all my old bibles and sometimes it fun to see how my thinking and understanding has changed since I used them.

I'm not involved directly with CFFM, but I was on their CD mailing list for a long time. There was no charge for the CDs. I do remember them mentioning in their announcements special collections to help out needy families whose home was burned out and special events by their local to help the needy in their area. So I assume that they are doing things. Other things I've noticed. They are not afraid of using materials by people with differing backgrounds. Many times I heard reference to something they learned while reading a book by ministers and authors outside of the old TWI scope. They also seem to be willing to re-evaluate and examine all of their teachings. Two other happenings inpressed me. One was when Wayne Clapp was helping to put together their first tape class, he brought a copy of it to a small fellowship I was in to ask what the people there thought. The teaching was on the one body. Over all it was a good teaching and almost everyone there seemed to agree. When he asked me I said, it sounds bitter and angry at a certain point and it loses it focus and strays to the exact opposite of the point he was trying to make. Everyone was quiet for a second and I think I could have heard a pin drop on the carpet and then the discussion when on. Afterwards Wayne came up to and said. "Your right, that's exactly the problem with it. I need to re-record it and make that change." ... and he did. The second was song that was recorded at the end of a teaching which praised CFFM and thanked them for turning their life around. It was a very nice song and easily caught your ear. Someone pointed out to them,I don't know who, that it sounded like praise to the ministry and the praise should be to God. I never heard the song again. That was a while ago. I hope they are still the same.

While I think TWI ended up teaching as you said. I didn't have a problem with this statment, because in fact it was often true. Many Christian groups taught on the evils of riches and the value of poverty and how wonderful it was for God to teach you through illness and how you are supposed to bear the weight of the world. Most the people I meet who openly proffessed to be Christians in the sixties and seventies were almost exactly like VPW discribed them in the Class. In fact TWI was the first place I heard that it was necessary for a Christian to be poor. Then of course TWI begain turning people into exactly that, poor, rundown, often unhappy Christians who lived in fear of their leadership and often of God.

I received these teaching as an mp3 disc. Looks like the link above might go to video's of the teachings. I don't always agree with everything he teaches. Some of you may feel his teaching are very simular to TWI only with out control aspect.

Recently I listened to a series of teaching by Derek Prince on Demons and deliverance. (Yes, I still believe in the and that they are active) One thing I found interesting that he kept coming back to was witchcraft. He kept saying, if you are trying to control people, no matter what the means, or reason, you are guilty of practicing witchcraft. He shared this first in relationship to parents who use guilt and condemnation to control their children. However, he also shared that there were a lot of ministers, deacons, and elders … or their spouses that used religion and the word to control people rather than to try and deliver them. He felt that this was the worst kind of witchcraft. Interesting thought in light of what went on in TWI. Just thought I'd share this with you. Take it with as much salt as you want. He used a lot of examples to show what he meant and it seems that he made a good point.

While I basicly agree with this, you need to make sure you protect the people who donated to them in the process. I don't really know the law in this case, but I would want to make sure that in the process of this happening that people who gave to the ministry in good faith did not retoactivly lose their legal tax deduction for their donation. I do know any church can have its tax exempt status investigated and that if this happens they better have their book in order.

I don't know if the is the same person, but I just found this from the Bangor Daily News. http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/161025.html

AMEN. My point exactly, except I might have used "the guilty," instead of "idiots." I don't think an idiot means to do what they did. but then we're back to semantics about what guilty means.

I have never said that the BOD are like David. I simply pointed out that if God forgave David and still made known his sins in response to one of your statements. Why could we not forgive them, and still make known what needs to be known in the intrests of protecting and other and having justice served. There is a need to make known what happened to protect others and so that justice can be servied. It wouldn't be right of me to not make known to others a potinially dangereous situation. It would also be wrong of me not to allow justice to not be served. By forgiving them, I get rid of my bitterness. I don't get rid of what happened. If they are unrepentant and don't make a change it doesn't change what they are doing. From what I can tell, God doesn't cleanse us of all rightousness untill we ask for forgivness, it is part of receiving our forgivness. Untill then our sins are out for all to see. But He has already forgiven us in Christ. And, no offence meant, calling them f'ing idots, doesn't warn me of anything, but telling me what they did..does