johnj

John Lynn’s letter titled The Way, It Was repeats and defends the most arrogant of TWI's assertions- that TWI was “one of the most significant movements in the history of the Christian Church (p. 1) ..... (it) stands out on the spectrum of Church history as an amazingly significant Christian movement." (P.4) Lynn does not seem to understand the ramifications of the valid criticisms of TWI that he himself raises, nor know what a "significant Christian movement" looks like. Jesus Christ warns us, "Watch out for false prophets. Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.... Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 7:15-21) Lynn himself lists many kinds of bad fruit in TWI, "Yes, there was more doctrinal error than I ever realized while I was in TWI, and there was corresponding practical error that became more evil than most of us involved ever imagined, Yes, many people were terribly abused. Yes, there was dishonesty about Scripture, there was plagiarism, and there was rampant sexual sin, all of which contributed to many people choosing to turn away from God and His Word." (P.1) "egregious evil" (p. 4) "TWI failed to teach us that we can have an intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus" (p.3) "abuses they themselves committed" (p. 4) (Link to) "a detailed list of biblical subjects I think TWI mishandled" (p.5) Just these things (to say nothing of all the things he doesn’t mention here) should be enough to convince anyone the whole way tree was bad (along with its offshoots which came from the same root). We have a new article examining Lynn’s extremely rosy view of TWI at www.abouttheway.org click on "New" to find the link

Revelation 21 does not say that the bride will live IN the city. It says that the bride IS the city: "(the angel said) "come, I will show you the Bride, the Wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away.... and showed me the Holy City" (21:9) It does not say, "he showed me the wife IN the city," but rather, ""I will show you the bride... he showed me the holy city." The bride and city are the same beings - those who believe in Jesus Christ. The account further emphasizes that the city is people by saying that the gates had the names of the tribes of Israel and the foundations were the 12 apostles. It does not say that the tribes walked in the gates nor that the apostles built the foundations, but rather that they ARE those things. In other words, the city and the bride are the people of God of all eras- Jew and Gentile. The image of a city is also used of God's people in Matthew 5:14-16- on a hill just as the city in Rev 21 is. This is much like Ephesians, in which believers are descirbed as the bride/wife (5:22-33) AND as the building (2:19-22) We don't have trouble understanding that the bnuilding in Eph 2 is the people of God, nor should we have trouble understanding that the city in Rev. 21 is the people of God.

When people think Israel is only those physical descendents of Abraham, and that Gentiles (those not physically descended from Abraham), they fall into the same trap that Jews do. They divide the world based on who your momma (and/or pappa) is. The Jews were sure that their birth was their ticket to glory. Jesus hammered away at this idea. He said, "you are not Abraham's children" but they were instead sons of the devil. But how can anyone be a son of the devil, who is not a human and has no human body to reproduce with? Jesus was saying that faith in him made people sons of Abraham (Israel), not physical birth. Paul described Jesus' point in even more detail. He said: - Israel are those who believe, not those who are physical desendents of Jacob - sons of Abraham are those who believe God's promsies as Abe did, not those desended from him - the blessing of Abraham goes to all who believe- before and after pentecost, whether Jew or Gentile. - what counts is faith in the Messiah, not physical birth (Jew or Gentile) nor time period you lived (before or after Pentecost. In other words, the blessing, and who gets the blessing, is the same in every age and for all people-- faith in God's promises which come by grace. The "rules" are the same always, for all people. There are not two blessings for two different peoples, at two different times. There is one blessing, to all who believe, in any time period. God always offers grace, and people always receive it by faith (or reject it). "There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23) There is no difference. There is no difference. There is no difference. "He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles thru Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:14). That the blessing given to Abe (not a different blessing) might come to us. The Same blessing. "Understand, then, those those who believe are children of Abraham" (Gal 3:7) Those who beleive are children of Abe, not those who are geneologically related. Ephesians says you WERE (past tense) "excluded from citizenship in Israel" but now you are "fellow citizens with God's people" (2:12,19) He plainly says that "Israel of the flesh" counts for nothing, only those who are Israel by faith.

There are a few problems with contrasting Israel as the bride from Christians as the body. Especially, the Bible doesn't separate them this way. The message of the NT is continuity with Israel/ OT and completion, not separation or replacement. First, Eph 5 and 2 Cor 11 plainly say the Church is the bride. Eph 5 calls the Church both bride and body in the same paragraph- it does not contrast them as though they are two different sets of people. If "Body" is used more often, this doesn't begate the fact that bride is used as well. Second, people seem to get so distracted by laws in the books of Moses that they completely miss the fact that grace (not law) is the primary, central, number one theme in the whole OT. WHile the Mosaic law included laws, grace dominates. For example: - the Passover is God freeing his people from Egypt just because they asked, not because they were devout. This was before the law was given. The blood of the Lamb on the doorposts prefigures Christ and the cross, not the law that Israel must obey. - most all of the temple sacrifices were GRACE. The perfect lambs were sacrificed (killed) so the worshipers who deserved to be judged coud live. This is grace. On the day of atonement, the priest laid his hands on the head of the animal and confessed the sins of the people over it. Sins were in essence transferred to the innocent animal which was killed or driven out, while the guilty worshipers were cleansed. This is grace. - much of the law of Moses is only describing the mechanism of grace- temple sacrifices. It was assumed that the law was inadequate to save people (because of sin), so the temple sacrifices were all about grace. The three festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Booths) were all thanksgiving for God's gracious gifts (of freedom, provision through harvest, and provision in the wilderness followed by fulfilment of the promise of a new land), not week-long lists of duties to obey to earn approval. - the prophets called people to obedience, but their dominant message was that there was grace for them because no obedience in the future could fix past guilt. Isaiah: "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow." Hosea- a picture of how God as husband takes back his prostitute wife (a symbol of Israel) again and again, when he justly could have divorced her. Ninevah, which knew nothing of law or obedience, was forgiven by God, by grace. This is amazing grace. - Elijah healed Namaan the syrian, raised the son of a non-Jew, spies saved a prostitute in Jericho who knew nothing of the law, etc. Story after story of God's grace saving those who did not know or refused to obey the law. - the Father of all, Abraham, was called by God though he worshiped idols and was promised a land and a people long before he was circumcised- all 600 years before the Mosaic law. He believed the promise (faith, not law). Paul repeatedly used Abe as an example of a man saved by grace through faith, not of a man who obeyed the law. This is all grace. - read Psalm 103 and count the expressions of God's gifts and grace. The imagery of grace in this Psalm is one of the most powerful descriptions of grace in the entire Bible, including the NT The whole OT is an age of grace. The only difference between OT grace and NT grace is that the sacrifices of the OT (animal lambs) point toward fulfilment in Christ, while the NT points back to the finished work of Christ (the human Lamb).

Yes, we are brothers (the Greek word in the plural means both brothers and sisters, not just males) and sisters, sons, body, wife, bride, branches, sheep, servants of the King, etc -- ALL of these at the same time. These are all figures of speech, not literal, which is why we can be wife, brothers, sons, sheep, etc all at the same time, all right now. Each symbol carries usually just one or two main thoughts about some aspect of our relationship with Jesus Christ (eg- wife = love, faithfulness, commitment). I think the reason there are so many pictures regarding our relationship with Christ (and some that on the surface seem contradictory, like wife and son) is because our relationship with Jesus Christ is so multi-faceted. This is different and far greater than our other relationships, which are for the most part pretty narrow in focus. (For instance, our employee-boss relationship is very narrow in scope, other brother-sister is narrow, etc). It is truly amazing and inspiring to meditate on how broad and deep our relationship with Jesus Crist is (or is meant to be). And it impresses me that it is a whole lot more all-encompassing than the world or TWI ever pictured it to be. Their loss. But a great treasure to all Christians who love the Lord Jesus.

You note a real problem in applying any human image to God - human beings twist it. In that way, the wife/ husband image has its shortfalls. But every other human-like image does, too. God as Father is tough for anyone who had bad fathers. God as chicken ("I wanted to take you under my wings (to protect you) but you would not," Jesus said) is tough for anyone who's raised chickens. God as King is tough for anyone who's lived under a dictator. The strength of human images is that we can relate to them. The weakness is that humans twist everything good, no matter what it is. With every image, we have to teach God as the ideal husband, the ideal chicken, the ideal Father, etc. This is the biblical view of God/Christ as husband. Everyone who has had pain from a husband/Father/ etc also has at least a rough mental image of what they'd like one to be. This is the image we work with. By the way, the converse of the "bad husband" image is the "bad wife." I don't think Christ wants us to treat him as little respect, love, kindness, etc, that many wives show their husbands. So even in the "wife" image of what we are supposed to be to Christ, we have to look at the ideal not the typical human version. (Another digression- women were reated much better, and had more rights, in jewish society in the first century than people commonly think today. One evidence of this was the Bar Kochba letters found in a cave by the Dead Sea.) The image of wife is very, very common throughout the OT (eg- Hosea) and NT. It's a powerful image to teach mutual faithfulness, love, commitment. It's just as important as "head." The two images teach different, but equally valuable, things. I don't see any value in ranking them.

there is a saying that applies to allegories, metaphors, parables and figures of speech in the Bible. It is "don't make it walk on all fours." In other words, each story/ figure has mainly one central point. So don't push the figure to an extreme by trying to imagine what every detail of the story means. For example, the picture of bride of Christ primarily points to love he has for us (and us for him), commitment and faithfulness (esp- not worship other gods). We shouldn't take it to an extreme by saying... "what does "bride" suggest about children- are we supposed to have children with Christ? What does it say about sex? What about the family we leave to marry Christ? Does marrying Christ mean not marrying a man or woman (as nuns didn't)? There was a hint of this in Twinky's first post where she suggests "problems" of logic that occur in picturing us as being both body and bride. Just get the central point of the parable/ metaphor, which is probably all the authors intnded, and don't puch the metaphor to extremes. PS: Sometimes as a preaching/ teaching device you can wangle extra details from a metaphor. But when you do, it's good to be wise about it and state openly that you're pushing it beyond what the apostles intended, as a teaching device. One illustration of this is the "Shepherd of Hermas." It was written in the first century and almost made it into the New Testament, because it was so highly respected and used by early Christians. "Shepherd" takes the image of believers as stones in God's building (as in Ephesians 2) and imagines different kinds of stones. Rough ones are believers who have sins and bad habits to be trimmed, broken stones are people who were unfit for the building because of unbelief and were rejected, masons are church leaders, etc. It's fascinating reading and has good things to learn in it. But it's a good teaching device rather than being Scripture.

If we understand the reason Paul (and other apostles) wrote epistles, then we understand better why "body" is used so often in the epistles. Many of them address conflict in the church (esp 1 & 2 Corinthians), and how believers should interact with each other- especially a hard topic since the Church was both Jew and Gentile, which had a history of not understanding each other and getting along. "Body" is an image especially strong on interaction between believers (members of the body), while "bride" is more focused on the relationship we have with Jesus Christ. By contrast, the Gospel of John is much more focused on our relationship with Jesus rather than our interaction with believers, so the images there emphasize relationship with Christ much more than the epistles.

Twinky- It seems to me that your question is based on a false assumption- that the Church can't be both the body of Christ and the hride of Christ at the same time. It doesn't ignore Ep 5:30 (that we are the body) to also accept Eph 5:23 (that we are the wife/ bride). As a matter of Fact, Ephesians uses many other images to describe the Church, such as stones in a temple (2:21-22), citizens in Israel (2:12), and children of light (5:8). In all there are probably around 30-40 images of the Church (such as salt, light, lampstands, etc) in the NT. You mentioned this yourself- "we are also sons and brothers". It's not that just one of these is correct (like body) and all the others are wrong, but that each image has something unique to add about what believers in Jesus Christ are like. We add them together, not pit them against each other. There are other verses on we being the bride- someone posted one (2 Cor 11). There is also parables such as the 10 virgins, in which Jesus Christ is the groom. But again, it's not a matter of counting up to see which title is used the most, choosing it, and throwing out all the other images, but of accepting every image even if it is used only once. TWI's ultradispensationalism ("administrations) sets up many false dichotomies. A nice paperback about ultradispensationalism (Wierwille got the idea from theologicans who were a lot more competent than him) is the H.A. Ironside book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. Note that the book/ booklet was written around the time VP was a kid, yet thwe term "Rightly Dividing" was in wide use then.

I'm aware that TWI teaches that we are not the bride. How they overlooked the several times in which Jesus and Paul both speak of Jesus Christ as husband/ groom, I don't know. The fact that the NT mentions the body of Christ more often doesn't mean that the image of the bride/ wife is any less important. TWI misused the "counting" method in its teaching about Jesus Christ also. Just because "son of God" is used many times doesn't discount the other images or terms used of Jesus, suich as deity, Lord, I am and so forth.

Christianity is very much about relationship with Jesus Christ. The branches are connected to the Vine. Jesus says he's the good shepherd, and his sheep (not other sheep) hear his voice and follow. We are children, God is our Father. Christ is the husband, we are the wife, as Ephesians 5 and other passages describe. These are close, loving, personal relationships, esp the ones on children, wife, and sheep. WAP and PFAL deftly shifted the focus from a relationship with Jesus Christ (the personal Word) to knowledge of the written word. The new WAP class briefly says that Jesus is the center. But then it contradicts itself by totally avoiding describing His nature, work, relationship with us today, etc. Instead, it suddenly launches into talking about the written word. TWI promotes a relationship with the Bible, but not with the One to whom the Bible points, nor to a relationship with Him. It emphasizes impersonal "Laws" for people to manipulate instead.

TWI makes a careful distinction between the words tithing and abundant sharing because they are different actions (10 percent vs. more than 10 percent, with different results (material vs. spiritual blessings).The problem is, the word "tithe" never appears in the Church epistles, and there is no Greek word for "abundant sharing." Not to worry. TWI inserts the word "abundant sharing" and "tithing" into verses in which they do not exist.: "II Corinthians 8:4:... that we would receive the gift [abundant sharing]..." "1 Corinthians 16:1-3:... then I will send to bring your liberality [gift- abundant sharing] unto Jerusalem..." "Galatians 6:6:... Let him that is taught in the word communicate [share fully]..." "Ephesians 4:28: ...that [purpose] he [that believer who is renewing his mind] may have [God wants our need met] to give [tithing is minimum] to him that needeth." Note: the words in square [parentheses] are added by TWI. The Greek word for "gift" or "liberality" in II Cor. 8:4 and I Cor 16:3 is charis, a very common word for grace, favor or gift which is used over 150 times in the NT. It is most often used of God's grace in Jesus Christ and is very seldom used of financial gifts. WAP ignores the actual Greek usage and implies that it means explicitly giving more than 10 percent of income, not any other kind of giving (such as giving less than 10 percent). WAP inserts words including "tithing" and "abundant sharing" into verses in which they do not exist, thereby adding Way leaders' ideas into Scripture in an attempt to force Scripture to say what it does not. The Way Int's word means what it says and says what it means.

Did you get a nice bronze statue of VP? Is it proudly displayed on your mantle yet today? A nice ego stroker for VP, but I wonder if they made or lost money on its production and sale?

TWI teaches that the Old Testament was addressed to Jews of the Law administration, not to born again believers of the Grace administration. This is a problem for TWI, because tithing is never once mentioned in the Church Epistles. The few references to tithing in the NT are in Matthew, Luke and Hebrews, and refer to OT practices, never to principles believers should follow. In fact, tithing is only criticized, not honored, in Matthew and Luke because the tithers were not living a life of love, nor following Jesus Christ. WAP is stuck with devaluing the OT while quoting only it to teach tithing. The reason tithing is not taught in the New Testament is because tithing is not a law or requirement to be followed by born again believers in order to obtain financial prosperity or for any other reason. If this was an essential principle for believers, the NT would certainly say this repeatedly, but it does not

TWI operates on a pay-back system. Believe, and you will be paid back in proportion (receive). Tithe, and you will be paid back (material prosperity). ABS, and you will be paid back spiruitual prosperity. Pay back. No gifts or grace. In contrast, the NT picture of God is recklessly geneous, givingar beyond what we "earn" by believing, tithing, etc. Jesus said "God sends rain on the just and the unjust," not "God sends rain on the just because of their believing but sends drought on the unjust because of their fear/ negative believing." The good news is in the generous grace and mercy of God, treating us better than we deserve, not in TWI's pay-back system. This is the message of the cross, "God shows his love for us in this, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Grace doesn't stop and switch to laws (of believing, etc) either before or after you become part of the family of God. PS: It looks like I'm up late because the forum server is 3 hours ahead of my (Pacific) time.

TWI was more honest about its "degrees" from the way college of Emporia than VPW was about his "doctorate." Emporia couldn't grant any degree. But, they said, if you already had an AA (or BS) degree from an accredited college, you could say that you had an AA in theology from the way college. Of course, if anyone ever checked it, the college that granted an AA degree would have to admit they had no theology program, so it still amounted to a falsehood. I wouldn't be surprised if VP, who didn't have any interity when it came to degrees, lobbied for Emporia to give BA degrees, even though it had no accreditation. VP and TWI liked short cuts to education. They bought the buildings at Emporia but tried to get the accreditatruion and bequests the older Presbyerian college had along with them. It didn't work, and TWI never had the academic ability to develop a real college or degree program. VP's "doctorate" was worth no more than Emporia's "degrees," but he had no quams about claiming a doctorate anway.

VP was apparently ashamed of his "doctorate." If you read TWI's author bio's, they name his other schools but not the place of his "doctorate." Here's a sample from the RTHST flyleaf: "...at Princeton Theological Seminary where he was awarded the Master of Theology degree in Practical Theology. Later he completed his work for the Doctor of Theology degree." He didn't list the place because he didn't want people to know where it came from There's a photo of Pikes Peak Seminary on the home page of www.abouttheway.org It's a house in a residential neighborhood. The reason real seminaries get accreditation is to separate themselves from disreputable schools like Pike's Peak.

Someone mentioned Mrs. Wierwille's book on early history of VP and TWI... She is much more honest than VP was in "The Way- Living In Love." She doesn't lie and exaggerate like VP does, and she doesn't corraborate some of his self-promoting claims. But on the other hand, she walks the fence on some things and doesn't tell the whole truth, either, so as to avoid contradicting "Doctor." (I've found her practice of calling him that rather odd, as though it suggests distance between them. I'm sure there was distance, since she was surely aware of his spending the night in his coach, with women coming and going, even when he was at home in New Knox. I have a legitimate doctorate, but my wife doesn't refer to me as "Doctor") The various "laws" of believng, tithing, etc, show VP's lack of discernment. They are based on New Thought theology, in which "God" is not personal, that is he (it) cannot think, reason, decide, communicate, perceive or judge anything (like the Brahmin or oversoul in Hinduism). He didn't understand that it contradicted the very foundation of Bible tecahing, that God is personal, can think, decide, communicate, etc. He had the "itching ears" that 2 Timothy 4 speaks of, "men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn away from the truth and turn aside to myths." Tithing and ABS suited his "own desires" for money.

This debate about whether VPW inviting a few speakers to Ohio in the 1950s shows he didn't think he had the whole truth from 1942 is based on at least one big and false assumption. Just because VPW said in the 1960s that God spoke to him audibly in 1942 and told VPW God would "teach him the Word as it had not been known since the first century" doesn't mean it happened then or ever. VPW was playing V. P. Barnum to big-eyed Elena Whiteside as he drove around Ohio showing off. If you have the book, read that section- it's obvious he's nothing but a used car salesman (in the worst sense of the word). He said many things in that conversation designed to inflate himself and impress her (and her readers) which were patently false. For example, he said he took ALL the courses Moody Bible Institute had to offer (Moody records NONE). VP said he hauled ALL his books to the dump in about 1950 so he could study the Bible by itself without others' commentary, but we know for a fact he plagiarized several books after that date (Up to at least two years before he died). Notice all the "ALL"s, a dead giveaway they are yarns. More examples are in my book "From Vesper Chimes to TWI." Dressing up a pig in a tuxedo. VP lied through his teeth to promote himself and get converts and money from them. So what of audible voices in 1942? It's another in a string of lies to Elena (and us her readers) that week. Can anyone show where he told this story in this way anywhere near 1942? (Some of his stories he told in different ways, seemingly inflating them as time went on. For example, the version in the 1967 25th anniversary booklet didn't sound near as fantasmic as the yarn to Elena and there's a distinct loss of humility between the 1954 and 1957 editions of RTHST.) No use talking about speakers in 1950s when 1942 was a fairy tale told decades after VP said it happened. "The record" says he told the big yarn in 1972, not 1942.

This is grossly improper, and illegal from the standpoint of the IRS. No one except VP knew how much money was in the bag, nor how it was spent, nor was it likely accounted for in TWI financial records, nor was it likely reported to the IRS as personal income when VP used it for himself. This is an open door for VP to use the money for himself instead of the ministry. Let me contrast how our church handles funds: First, 99% of our offering are by check, not cash and are recorded by name of giver. This way givers can confirm that their offerings were in fact deposited by the church, not used by an individual. Second, at least two people count every offering, and those who count and deposit the offerings sign the deposit form so we know who counted it. Those who take in funds are different people than those who spend the funds. This eliminates the possiblity that someone will collect and use funds without anyone else being aware of what came in and how it was used. Third, those who spend funds don't have a pile of cash and use it as they wish without accountability. Expenditures have to be generally pre-aproved by appearing in the budget for the year. Before a check is written for an expenditure, or before a purchse is reimbursed, receipts have to be produced that show how the money was spent and how it was used for the church, not for an individual. Fourth, all checks have 2 signatures so no one can spend money without the approval and knowledge of a second person who is not related.. Weirwille broke all these rules and would have been prohibited from handling money in our church. It is also likely he would have been confronted for using money for personal purposes and for not reporting income/benefits to the IRS as income. He may even have been prosecuted for defrauding the church. I suspect that VPW saw nothing wrong with using offerings for personal purposes, because he figured that he "was" the way ministry, niot that he worked for it. A probable megalomaniac.

TWI celebrates as its anniversary the day VPW says "That's when He (Father) spoke to me audibly... He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century" (The Way Living in Love p. 178) Wierwille clearly is saying that no one since the 12 apostles knew the Word as VP did, and no one else was taught directly from God as VP was, nor heard God's audible voice as VP heard it.. VP was the only one in 2,000 years who knew all the truth. The only one.

Yes, there are other teachers/ groups that teach the health and wealth "gospel" and believing = receiving, too. Like VPW, most of them trace their doctrine back to EW Kenyon (Kenyon was one of the guys VPW plagiarized from). On this issue, they do damage to the Kingdom of God just as TWI does, and shift people's focus from faith to money. But for every one rich guy like Benny Hinn, there are 100 poor guys who teach the same thing and give him money to make him wealthy at others' expense. Thanks for mentioning Jesus' words, "where your treasure is, your heart will be also," meaning that we shouldn't desire or focus on material things which are part of this world that doesn't last. There are far more important things to focus on that do last and make a difference, like faith, hope and love, loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbor as ourself.

the saddest part of buying blessings by tithing (material prosperity) and ABS (spiritual prosperity) is that Jesus Christ is locked out. In TWI, it's all up to you and what you do. No help from the outside. All law, no Gospel (good news) By contrast, Ephesians 1 repeats often in various ways... "every spiritual blessing in Christ." Not "every spiritual blessing in your ABS." TWI is more like "Tith-ians" than "Christ-ians." Jesus Christ came to take the load off of us, not to pile it on higher as TWI does.

Was giving to TWI different than giving to VPW? Who benefited from, and who controlled money given to "TWI?" VPW was one of only 3 trustees, and his adoring brother and best friend were the other two, which in effect gave him virtually complete control over all the money. The givers had no say whatsoever in how money was used. The trustees answered to no one. All tithing and ABS went to the root, not to local staff. "TWI" money paid for all VP's food, lodging, travel, airplanes, mobile home, houses in Gunnison and Ohio, vacations, hunting, liquor, cigarettes, etc. While TWI paid other expenses and people's salaries, VPW by far got the greatest (and very large) amounts for what amounted to personal use. TWI's closed financial system encouraged him to use it for self-gratification, without any real oversight. By contrast, as pastor of a church, I do not control money. All members over age 14 vote on a budget and as a group have power over all uses and amounts. The church pays for none of my personal expenses at all (though I do receive a salary, the amount is set and publically known and voted on). I don't have a church credit card or funds to pay for my personal use of any vehicle, airplane, vacations, food, houses, etc. VP both controled and benefited from money given so "TWI," so giving to TWI was nearly the same as givng to him. Did Wierwille (or Martindale, or Rivenbark) ever pay taxes on, or tithe on, things TWI paid for which were essentially for personal use? I suspect they benefited from others' tithes, but seldom paid any themselves. No leadership by example?