Broken Arrow

Do any of you remember Victor Barnard, Way Corps 14.

Not that it really matters, but I'm pretty sure Barnard was WC12. He was once used as an example of how someone could start home-based fellowships. In another group setting, I saw him confront leaders about how they conducted themselves publicly around women. I felt very sorry for his wife who was also present.

See....a "man of God" is legit scripturally,

Yeah, the phrase is in the Bible, but it doesn't have this specially anointed connotation Wierwille put with it. I think the phrase applies to women as well. If you're a Christian, Jesus Christ is supposed to be Lord meaning that if anyone is THE Man of God for our day and time, it's Him! Again VP preached the "absent Christ". Call it what you will, but it's not Christian doctrine by anyone's definition.

Wayfers would sing that to anyone who had been visiting and was leaving and wave their napkins at the end.

You think they sang that to Craig?

You know, I could never again hear "Roll Away" and I would be just fine. That and "Happy Trails".

Lining up a butter knife:

Table etiquette in the programs had to follow a strict set of rules called Christian Etiquette. There is even a booklet that outlines all the details. I still have a copy. All the eating utensils had to be precisely placed. There was an exacting protocol that had to be followed regarding seating, passing food,asking for seconds, and on and on. Now, I'm not saying that table manners are a bad thing, on the contrary. But, holy mother of pearl, every meal has to follow a strict regimen? In FellowLaborers, we ate with these same 50 people, day in and day out, year after year. Was it really necessary to say "mother, may I?" every time you wanted a second helping of deliciously steamed millet deluxe or wilted endive and flax seed salad? What was supposed to happen if you didn't follow the rules, spiritual flatulence or something?

Hmm, maybe that's my problem.

I just thought of something. Do you think that during the 1st century, when the believers in Rome had to meet in the catacombs, that there was some elite group who went ahead of everyone and did set-up? You know, like taking string and making sure all the rocks were aligned and were decent and in order? Then they'd get ripped by the Apostle Peter if a rock were out of place?

Peter: "Dammit! You call yourself Corps? How am I supposed to preach the gospel with a rock out of place?"

Peter: "Why is there dirt all over the floor? The lighting is terrible and there's a musty odor in here. Why's that?"

Believer: "Um, because we're meeting in a cave to hide from the Roman authorities who are trying to kill all of us."

Peter: "Well, I'm sorry, the Word just won't move without things being decent and in order. I can't teach here. I'd like to, but the Word can't be taught in such a dirty place. Sorry, I'm off to Galatia".

I WOULD LOVE TO READ THAT BOOK VP AND ME! I wonder if it's ever sold on ebay? I wouldn't pay through the nose for it, but I'm going to keep my eye out for it.

It's not a book you can buy. It was a gift from LCM to VPW when he was installed as prez. Of course, the Corps was privileged to spend hours upon hours listening to it read.

Reminds me....

In "vp and me", lcm documented how vpw went into another one of his senseless rants,

this time over free labor.

The corps was taking time off of their jobs, and traveling at their own expense to

the ROA site for Corps Week, and set up the entire site for the ROA, then returning

home after Corps Week-probably because they had no time left off of work.

vpw, naturally thanked them for all the free labor and sent them off blessed

tore into them for not remaining the following week and continuing to work for free

for an additional week at their own expense.

Some people can't think of others as people. Small children, I think, really only

see others in relation to THEM- how they affect the child, and their lives really

revolve around that to the child. Some adults, however, never seem to actually

view others as people and grow past being a small child. We see it more in 18-24

year olds, who sometimes grow up eventually. However, some adults don't WANT to

go past that. So it was with vpw.

In effect, he complained:

"You didn't work for free ENOUGH. One week of free labor isn't enough, you

have to double that at your own expense."

Naturally, neither he nor lcm- neither of whom ever held down a normal job-

could get why people were UNABLE to get more time off. Their entire adult

lives went from school to ministry, with no time in-between to live like

the people they took for granted.

Some people will just take and take and take forever if you let them-

then loot your belongings and hope they're in your will when you drop dead.

I believe the exact wording was something like, "Corps, if you can't stand with me during the Rock, then don't bother with standing with me at Corps Week either" (sniff sniff) A couple of years before that he sent out a Corps letter which stated, "If you have to choose between ROA and Corps Week, Corps Week is the priority". Well, I guess the revelation changes as the circumstances change.

Too bad. We could've used this wisdom later on.

Funny how the emotion Anger was acceptable - even desirable, as it showed how "spiritual" you are.

One's spirituality was considered in direct proportion to how loud and angry they could sound during a teaching. We would walk away from those teachings saying, "Wow! He really 'nailed' it"!

But I'm really wondering if this is going to crack the pretend world they live in, or if they will just go on in their little bubble.

I would predict the latter.

I generally know that, when I see these unlinked, partial sentences quoted

by certain posters, that it's a sure sign the full sentence said something

important that got dropped in the partial quote,

akin to quoting the Bible as saying "there is no God" when the full

sentence is "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'".

Here's what the sentence read a post or so up:

So, John's insinuating-once again, refusing to state his opinions

outright, but slyly suggesting them without the courage to state them

outright- John is insinuating that the administration acted

appropriately in what they did and did not do.

John INSINUATED that it would have been wrong to have "punished" the

alleged perpetrators, and that the remaining actions and halts

were appropriate....which would mean he thinks it's just fine that

the school refused to investigate when matters were brought to their

attention- and that it was totally appropriate for the school to have

SHAMED AND EXPELLED the alleged victims when they came forth.

Most schools would have taken a different tack. They could have turned

the entire matter over to local law enforcement, and that would have been

fine. They could have conducted their own investigation, taken limited

action, and THEN turn the entire matter over to local law enforcement.

Instead, they just sat on the reports.

In the case of the second claim, we don't have a lot of information to go

on, so, until more information is presented, it's premature to go into a

lot of detail as to what the best specific actions would have been.

However, in the case of the first, there was a witness who was a school

staffer- a security guard who was required to have reported what he

observed- which was an obvious aftermath of a rape or similar crime

(pending confirmation by police investigators who should have been

called in immediately.) The alleged victim went to the hospital,

where the details of her report and their treatment were logged- and

she went to the police, where the details of her report were logged.

At that point, there's a curious disconnect, since the school never said

"We have a potential crime scene. We don't know if a crime happened here

or not. You're the experts, so you find out." The school SAT on their

end of things. Then, when the student returned to school, complete with

black eye and broken arm, the administration expelled her.

So, she was expelled- "punished"- automatically because she REPORTED a

crime. So, according to John, it's awful if someone is automatically

punished if accused of anything- but it's also preferred for accusations

to be quietly buried, and the ACCUSER is AUTOMATICALLY punished if

accusing anyone of anything.

That's conducive to an environment that shames the victims, empowers

the victimizers and felons, and covers the tracks of the felons so they

can escape consequences and commit more felonies down the road. Since

it does that, there's also an environment present that encourages other

possible felons to commit felonies- since they will face no consequences.

Civilized society is supposed to work a lot differently.

Why would an ex-twi'er and vpw supporter find it acceptable for an

institution to bury felonies, punish and expel victims, and allow

felons to escape consequences?

It's also the bright light that gets shined on stories where victims

were expected to just accept being shamed, punished, and expelled,

and institutions and individuals just expected them to fade away.

When abuse of power is done, the internet gives victims and eyewitnesses

the voice they were denied- so appropriate action can be taken.

Naturally,

once an institution had tried to silence and punish victims-

a clear abuse of their power-

while refusing to investigate claims-

a clear violation of their responsibilities-

it's in their best interests to later LIE once everyone's been made

aware something happened, and claim this is the first they'd heard

of it. It's obvious, it's transparent, and few people would

actually be fooled by their claims-

generally people who had a vested interest in automatically assuming

any official statement would be nothing less than the unvarnished

truth.

All scripture is "God-breathed" (Theopneustos). Paul said so. What do we really know about Paul, aside from what he, himself, declared about himself?

There's stuff written about him in Acts, for starters. He didn't write Acts as you know. Peter also makes reference to him in his writings and besides this, there is information in profane writings.

[

I

I thought the article was fascinating.

What did you find fascinating about the article?

You certainly do have a great disdain for higher education, don't you, John. Why do you suppose that is? Is it, perhaps, because we were conditioned to adapt this attitude in the PFAL class? I can't remember which particular session it was in, off the top of my head. Maybe someone here can supply that information. At any rate, I would have hoped you would have come away from the book with a realization that The Way, and Wierwille in particular, were not what we thought they were.

He went two weeks without "missing anything"?

hahahahahahahah!

Maybe what he went 2 weeks without missing was sexual gratification from the women he seduced.

(Remember, John, as a professed Christian, that would make these women your sisters in Christ. How does that make you feel, knowing he treated your sisters with so little respect?)

I think John makes a good point albeit maybe it could have been put a little differentally. Most people think their beliefs are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Anyone who disagrees with their point of view must be deficient in knowledge. Or, as the writers of the article say, "against knowledge". The authors of the NYT article implying that evangelicals are close minded etc. is the pot calling the kettle black.

Just a question, who are "those people"?

I think "those people" John is referring to are the writers of the NYT article that was linked to Penwork's original post.

TWI counts on the ignorance of people looking for "answers" and captures their minds not only for alliegence to TWI but for the broader movement called "fundamentalism."

Perhaps some people here will appreciate this article on why even some evangelicals fear fundamentalists.

Read here: The Evangelical Rejection of Reason

With respect to the New York Times article you referenced, I have to chuckle whenever I hear of those who criticize evangelicals for being a "non-thinking" group. Then they point to things like climate change and evolution and shake their heads pitifully and accuse evangelicals of being "against knowledge", and "rejecting reasoning". I chuckle because in truth it's the critics themselves who are opposed to having their own beliefs questioned. They speak of evolution and climate change as hard facts and speak of anyone who questions these premises as ignorant and stupid. I'm not going to go into the arguments themselves except to say there are very intelligent people who with sound reasoning and logic question these two theories. Evangelicals have come under fire for wanting to present creationism as an alternative to evolution. Doing so draws ire from those who are "open-minded" and "pro-knowledge". Rejection of reason...give me a break! Having said that, yes, there are evangelicals who are extremists whose viewpoints are certainly questionable. Evangelicals aren't the only group that has those who hold extreme viewpoints.

I think dabobbada has a point. :)

But with only 21 people "liking" him, it has to be people either in the ministry or people who doesn't know his background. Probably the former.

He even came to one of the sunday morning teachings at Emporia on his motorcycle. Had to be like the Vicster ya know.

Couldn't handle the "long walk" across campus, eh?

Sure. That's how I wound up living where I am. I could have left long ago but things just snowball...You know?....get married, buy a house, job commitments, kids, etc., etc., etc......Never did really like this place, though. Even after 35 years, I still call Cleveland my home....I'm weird like that.

edit:

I started a thread on this topic a few years ago.

HERE

That's just silly i.e. your "services weren't needed". So were your "services needed" in the city you currently reside? Why did you not choose a city closer to your home like Akron, which is closer to Cleveland?

[ I'm having a terrible time getting this to work right, sorry!

Double post.

Sorry...didn't fully read previous post before posting.

This thought just hit me.

After I graduated from FellowLaborers, my services were no longer required in my hometown.....But they sent W.O.W.'s there instead of sending me back!!

They told you that? Did they tell you where your services were required?

They named a road after the guy??? Sounds like a little bit of worship.

I don't think the road was name after VP Wierwille. I always assumed (as many roads in Ohio are) that it was originally named after the family that had a farm there. In other words, it was called Wierwille Rd. before VP was born. I could be wrong but is a common practice in rural areas.