I think it depended on where you were and with whom you fellowshipped. For some it started right away, for others later. The first year we were married our BL was interim 7th WC, a very legalistic young man, whom we largely ignored.
There was a lot of grace in Charleston most of the time. Less in North Carolina. None in FWC or WA.
But see that was our experience. Another person might say there is a lot of grace right now and always has been, because they have never met up with a truly legalistic person in a leadership position in TWI. Lucky them.
Oh, yeah and Fellowlaborers? There again, my first year there was a bit of wiggle room for grace, but darn little. The second year, new LC, no grace unless you were female and attractive. Lots of rules and regs. No common sense.
A lot of times it seemed that there were folks who extended grace to themselves and their close personal friends, but not to the rest of us.
The farther away TWI doctrine distanced itself from a loving God, the more legalism developed to take love's place.
To me it was always legalistic..By the time I entered in the late 70's, you were expected to do a number of things everyday, Awake before 7, read "the word', speak in tongues, pray for the first 1/2 hour at least everyday, witness, go to fellowship (enthusiastically), volunteer for class crews, tithe, abundantly share, rake the limb coordinators yard.hang only with 'believers' ..etc etc..etc etc etc
No matter what they said --It was 'the law' to do these and ahundred other things or you were looked on unfavorably...To me looking back to then THAT was extreme.....even though it hadnt reached the completely bizarre and absurd levels of the 90s yet, they were well on there way from the beginning
I think that for most new people, no matter when they got involved, the legalism wouldn't seem to be present, partly because they didn't know what legalism was, and the expectations for newbies was lower. In my observation the legalism got more extreme as time went by, but that might have been my perception due to an increasing dissatisfaction.
One thing that I've noticed here at GS is that no matter what time frame one poster views as an ideal time, someone else was just getting out because things were getting bad.
I got involved in 1978 and thought things were pretty good, but I've talked to people who got out then who were convinced that it had all gone to h#ll long before that. A lot of people who got in when I did looked back at the early 70's as a time when things were really hot spiritually, but there were a few posters a few years back who were out by '73, swearing that it had all fallen apart by then. And we've got people here who got involved in the early 90's and thought things were okay then!
The individuals and local leaders that one was surrounded by made the biggest difference of all.
When did The Way get extremely legalistic? I remember when I first started attending fellowship it was a joy because we were taught freedom in Christ. Yet in the mid 1990’s you could not go to the grocery store alone because of the 2 by 2 rule. When did this legalism first start?
E. W. Bullinger
I believe this is a prime example of some TWI leaders who originally took some good advice and wisdom but made it legalistic. Of course, if you're someone who has made a lot of enemies, it might be wise to take someone along with you no matter where you go.
I think that for most new people, no matter when they got involved, the legalism wouldn't seem to be present, partly because they didn't know what legalism was, and the expectations for newbies was lower. In my observation the legalism got more extreme as time went by, but that might have been my perception due to an increasing dissatisfaction.
One thing that I've noticed here at GS is that no matter what time frame one poster views as an ideal time, someone else was just getting out because things were getting bad.
I got involved in 1978 and thought things were pretty good, but I've talked to people who got out then who were convinced that it had all gone to h#ll long before that. A lot of people who got in when I did looked back at the early 70's as a time when things were really hot spiritually, but there were a few posters a few years back who were out by '73, swearing that it had all fallen apart by then. And we've got people here who got involved in the early 90's and thought things were okay then!
The individuals and local leaders that one was surrounded by made the biggest difference of all.
So true.
While inresidence, I remember hearing wierwille sharing about the early twi years......and, even in the early 60s the Ohio congregants would fade away after the novelty of wierwille's preaching wore off. That's why.....on those old Sunday teaching tapes, wierwille makes a big deal of singling out certain of the faithful who came to the BRC week after week.
And then.....Peter J. W@de cut ties with wierwille right after pfal was filmed. Differences in doctrine? Or, differences in where he knew it would lead?
Me?.............From what I experienced, by PFAL '77......the rules and regs increased. More corps, more structure, more marketing, more propaganda, more conformity..........more corps training locations, more power and control for wierwille.
Also, by 1977........wierwille was 60 years old and striving for his narcisstic agendas and legacy.
I know what you are asking. For me the line to look for in questions that refer to events like you're describing is:
Are those rules based on love and concern.
Are those rules based on some twisted desire to control and/ or manipulate and/ or dominate.
These options are the extremes with many peoples' opinions usually being somewhere in between. That's just the way that I think about the questions you pose, but I would be interested to hear some good recollections in response to your questions.
I agree with what has been posted so far... so much depended on your individual experience and perspective.
I joined in the early 80s and saw a great deal of freedom for myself and even in the College Program, while seeing that if you were WOW or Way Corps you pretty much had someone running your life for you.
Yet, I got talked into Corps and thought somehow I could make it work.
I would call the 90s an earthly form of h@ll but then again, I didn't experience them as "joe believer" but as corps on the field, expected to talk the talk and walk the walk and conform to my leaderships' every whim and demand, no matter how invasive or ridiculous. But as for newbies being cut any slack in the 90s... not so much... that was the era of "we are looking for quality believers: folks who already have their lives pretty much together". (again, a completely nonsensical notion)
I saw legalistic elements right from the start. But I thought they were either rare, or specific and for a good reason, or something I could fix from the inside out. --- I was wrong on all counts.
I saw legalistic elements right from the start. But I thought they were either rare, or specific and for a good reason, or something I could fix from the inside out. --- I was wrong on all counts.
Join the club.
So Jeff wants some stories huh?
Ok, I've got a few minutes...
One time in band camp...wait...wrong story....Ok here we go...
One winter not too many years before I departed, I was attending a fellowship with mom just to be with mom. The fellowship folks suggested that we go out and do some pre-"ho ho" caroling. Our TC got out a Christmas song book and passed it around. "Let's choose some songs to sing". It was all very cozy. We had all known each other for many years and although I had been in the Corps I was not trying to take over anything (I was as I said on my way out). But my indifference allowed my TC to be somewhat comfortable with me there.
Anyway, several fellowships passed and each time the caroling idea was brought up it was promptly forgotten by the TC. Finally the entire fellowship cornered him after twig one night and asked him if we were going to go caroling together or not as Christmas was fast approaching. Basically he told us that we didnt sound good enough to go out caroling and he would be embarrassed to be seen with us. He was very good at acting superior.
One could not be seen in public if one was not dressed correctly, including the expensive shoes and if one opened their mouth one must not draw disfavorable attention to oneself. It was the law here for quite a while. There were lots more laws, like: never get caught by another believer in a casino (So why was he/she there to catch you? The whole "I got revelation" thing didnt fly with me.) We weren't allowed to work in a casino for any reason. But we had to find enough money to purchase our clothing at Macy's.
Shortly after this incident I started my own twig again and took a good portion of his twig with me. I didnt ask. I just did it. Who was the BC that was going to argue with me the former AC? Is that elitism or using the power that they gave me to do what I felt was right?
I really hope you were completely right, and did what you had to do. For whatever it's worth to you, it sounds to me like you were right, I don't have any reason to doubt you.
NOW ; BACK TO THE SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING...........
Jeff if I had time to tell you the entire story behind this guy and all that he did...but I thank you for taking me at my word with what little I have told you and how little you actually know me. That is something that I personally havent experienced in quite a while. Thank you.
Truly some of the folks in that twig would have probably resorted to violence had I not "stolen" them away and he did not fight me at all in the matter. He was probably glad to see us all go. As it was a few years later (after I had officially left) he kicked my aging mother out of twig because she wouldn't stop talking to 10 of her 11 children, including me. He was a real gem!
You know that hypocrite had the huevos to attend her wake? Grrr!!!
I don't know if everyone agrees but our little derail seems good to me. I've faced a lot of the same scepticism you have, or at least a lot of similar stuff it sounds like. It's nice to be treated as honest and decent folks, isn't it? I appreciate it too! It does my heart good.
NOW, maybe back to the scheduled programming..........
I'd say it was always there as testified by Peter Wade's depature, but it never reared it's ugly head too publically in order to further the cornfield huckster's agenda.
The legalism started en mass when Wierwille took control of Jimmy Do*p's and Steve He*fner's ministry and then kicked them to the curb, (where's the grace and love? apparently the practice of indescriminate firings so prevalent in the 80's and 90's got their start here) so he could keep all the money and the future free meal ticket of the people's ABS. He even rejected a plan from C Geer and EM in NY to only keep about 10-15% and let the twigs keep the rest, but even that amount was too low for him.
He was also into trolling for skanks, hence the trip out to San Francisco, the questions he asked JD about orgies, and the lust for acquiring the huge numbers of the young free hippies from JD's ministry both for exploitation, all in order to fulfill his agenda of control, money, power, accolade and promiscuity.
When did imposed legalism start? When Donnie Fug*t started wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase.
Thanks for all of your input. I guess I was fortunate with regard to the leadership in my area. It seemed that things were good until the mid 1990’s when all of the crazy rules started to come into play. I remember there was a girl in my twig who wanted to take an adult education cake decorating class and she had to get permission from the Limb coordinator!
The rules about reading the bible and witnessing never bothered me because I always thought that these were things that you were supposed to do as a Christian.
I don't really think it's a matter of "when" the organization itself became legalistic.
(My own opinion is that it was legalistic from day #1.)
I think it is a matter of "when did they stop cutting you slack as a "babe" and start to require that you put the welfare of the organization above your own?"
For some that happened rather quickly.
I was made a twig leader within months of first being "witnessed to"
(Due largely, I believe, to the fact that I was an adult with a job, apartment and a car, in an area that was predominantly high school students.)
I went from being a long-haired, blue jean clad, guitar toting hippie to a clean cut, suit and tie wearing, briefcase toting salesman twig leader within months.
I guess they figured my "gestation" period could be abbreviated because of my age.
This was in the early 1970s.
My introduction to legalism came relatively early in my involvement.
By the time I got to fellow laborers in 1975, I was expected to tow the line of "legalism".
I will concur with Watered Garden that our first year in FLO was really more a matter of a strictly disciplined lifestyle than an exercise in legalism.
After that, though, you had to walk the line or else!
Or Else means you could be rousted from bed in the wee hours of the morning and told to clear the state line before the day was over. (That reallyallegedly happened more than once.)
I'd say it was always there as testified by Peter Wade's depature, but it never reared it's ugly head too publically in order to further the cornfield huckster's agenda.
The legalism started en mass when Wierwille took control of Jimmy Do*p's and Steve He*fner's ministry and then kicked them to the curb, (where's the grace and love? apparently the practice of indescriminate firings so prevalent in the 80's and 90's got their start here) so he could keep all the money and the future free meal ticket of the people's ABS. He even rejected a plan from C Geer and EM in NY to only keep about 10-15% and let the twigs keep the rest, but even that amount was too low for him.
He was also into trolling for skanks, hence the trip out to San Francisco, the questions he asked JD about orgies, and the lust for acquiring the huge numbers of the young free hippies from JD's ministry both for exploitation, all in order to fulfill his agenda of control, money, power, accolade and promiscuity.
When did imposed legalism start? When Donnie Fug*t started wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase.
I think that small amounts of legalism were installed from the beginning-specifically BY vpw,
as you can see. (The groovy Christians who arrived early on, who went from denim to suits and briefcases
like DF...) I think the evidence is in that vpw wanted everything under his thumb from the
beginning, and never liked it otherwise but tolerated that it couldn't START that way.
However, he could make adjustments to keep making it MORE legalistic over time.
That it was GRADUAL made it harder to see and object to.
So, vpw set up that the corps were to learn CONFORMITY and ENFORCE CONFORMITY.
(Some remembered God's Love despite this.) Then he set everything up so that it was seen
as THE Big Thing to enter the corps. Meanwhile, he centralized everything so all the money
pointed towards him, and authority proceeded from him. As time passed, more corps grads
were "on the field", in leadership positions, able enforce the conformity they learned.
(That was the plan, and it worked, just gradually.)
The "temperature" was also ramped up slowly, as they thought up new rules, eventually ending
up with grass that can't be walked on, and mandatory hat-wearing. Grounds eventually piled on
so much legalism it resembled a work-release prison program more than a Bible program.
This trickled down as graduates entered the field, very slowly.
Early on, vpw had kicked out 2 different classes of corps, and allowed one of them back,
so long as the members were willing to write out an oath of allegiance. lcm learned most of
his twi "leadership" from vpw, so he ended up a more "refined" bad leader, two-fold the
child of hell vpw was. In 1985, lcm's leadership was challenged. His eventual response
was to demand an oath of allegiance from all the corps, and their blind loyalty.
(One poster here spoke to him personally, and lcm expected blind loyalty to him, period,
no qualifier.) He learned it from vpw, but lacked the wit to see what would happen if he
took something that worked on a handful of the most faithful, and applied it to hundreds of
people having doubts. This proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back, and 80%
of twi walked in 1989/1990.
Once they were gone, the next few years were a slow tightening of the screws, and MORE
legalism went from staff and corps to every "follower". Now, EVERYONE was expected to
conform to corps standards they never signed up for. 1994, it seems was when lcm really
went into overdrive, stacking on the draconian rules, putting the corps on as full-time staff,
etc. Now corps were required to spend large blocks of time delving into people's private
lives. Soon after that came the "two by two everywhere" and "your entire day must be
scheduled in 15-minute blocks" things.
Yes, a few people were still leaving each year, either from being thrown out, or being
sick and tired of being sick and tired. However, the changes were so slow, most of the
new people had no idea that this was the same group that once had a bunch of hippies
just pleased to get together, and talk about God and pray together.
When did The Way get extremely legalistic? I remember when I first started attending fellowship it was a joy because we were taught freedom in Christ. Yet in the mid 1990’s you could not go to the grocery store alone because of the 2 by 2 rule. When did this legalism first start?
I would say, generally, in the mid-1990's when you couldn't go to the grocery store alone because of the 2 by 2 rule. :D
Contrast this to January of 1976 when in the six corps, I asked Craig if I could hitchhike ALONE from headquarters to Emporia because my hitchhike buddy and I didn't get along. (Hitchhiking in twos was required.) He agreed to it, and took practically 1/2 the time for me to get back (18 hours as opposed to over 30 hours getting there.)
I also think legalism can be in the mind of the beholder if one defines it that way. I was once accused of being legalistic by a twig coordinator, when in the early 1990's shortly before my departure from twi, I insisted that my fellowship start on time instead of 1/2 hour later to get mellow and wait for everyone to arrive. It wasn't legalism I was insisting on it was honesty. You say you're starting at 10:00 then start at 10:00. But they called it legalism.
I saw as early as 1979 it being taught that obedience to leadership = obedience to God ....Peter walking on the water was the example given. You should remember oldies, you were there at that ark limb meeting for wows.
I saw harsh legalism as early as 1981. It got steadily worse depending on which area you were in.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
4
4
6
Popular Days
Jan 14
22
Jan 17
20
Jan 16
15
Jan 15
8
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 12 posts
T-Bone 4 posts
Eyesopen 4 posts
JeffSjo 6 posts
Popular Days
Jan 14 2008
22 posts
Jan 17 2008
20 posts
Jan 16 2008
15 posts
Jan 15 2008
8 posts
mstar1
weird double post--original below
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I think it depended on where you were and with whom you fellowshipped. For some it started right away, for others later. The first year we were married our BL was interim 7th WC, a very legalistic young man, whom we largely ignored.
There was a lot of grace in Charleston most of the time. Less in North Carolina. None in FWC or WA.
But see that was our experience. Another person might say there is a lot of grace right now and always has been, because they have never met up with a truly legalistic person in a leadership position in TWI. Lucky them.
Oh, yeah and Fellowlaborers? There again, my first year there was a bit of wiggle room for grace, but darn little. The second year, new LC, no grace unless you were female and attractive. Lots of rules and regs. No common sense.
A lot of times it seemed that there were folks who extended grace to themselves and their close personal friends, but not to the rest of us.
The farther away TWI doctrine distanced itself from a loving God, the more legalism developed to take love's place.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
i dont know what the question is
When did the legalism start?
or When did it get extreme?
To me it was always legalistic..By the time I entered in the late 70's, you were expected to do a number of things everyday, Awake before 7, read "the word', speak in tongues, pray for the first 1/2 hour at least everyday, witness, go to fellowship (enthusiastically), volunteer for class crews, tithe, abundantly share, rake the limb coordinators yard.hang only with 'believers' ..etc etc..etc etc etc
No matter what they said --It was 'the law' to do these and ahundred other things or you were looked on unfavorably...To me looking back to then THAT was extreme.....even though it hadnt reached the completely bizarre and absurd levels of the 90s yet, they were well on there way from the beginning
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
No simple answer.
I think that for most new people, no matter when they got involved, the legalism wouldn't seem to be present, partly because they didn't know what legalism was, and the expectations for newbies was lower. In my observation the legalism got more extreme as time went by, but that might have been my perception due to an increasing dissatisfaction.
One thing that I've noticed here at GS is that no matter what time frame one poster views as an ideal time, someone else was just getting out because things were getting bad.
I got involved in 1978 and thought things were pretty good, but I've talked to people who got out then who were convinced that it had all gone to h#ll long before that. A lot of people who got in when I did looked back at the early 70's as a time when things were really hot spiritually, but there were a few posters a few years back who were out by '73, swearing that it had all fallen apart by then. And we've got people here who got involved in the early 90's and thought things were okay then!
The individuals and local leaders that one was surrounded by made the biggest difference of all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I believe this is a prime example of some TWI leaders who originally took some good advice and wisdom but made it legalistic. Of course, if you're someone who has made a lot of enemies, it might be wise to take someone along with you no matter where you go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
So true.
While inresidence, I remember hearing wierwille sharing about the early twi years......and, even in the early 60s the Ohio congregants would fade away after the novelty of wierwille's preaching wore off. That's why.....on those old Sunday teaching tapes, wierwille makes a big deal of singling out certain of the faithful who came to the BRC week after week.
And then.....Peter J. W@de cut ties with wierwille right after pfal was filmed. Differences in doctrine? Or, differences in where he knew it would lead?
Me?.............From what I experienced, by PFAL '77......the rules and regs increased. More corps, more structure, more marketing, more propaganda, more conformity..........more corps training locations, more power and control for wierwille.
Also, by 1977........wierwille was 60 years old and striving for his narcisstic agendas and legacy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Yup! What Oak said!
And what WG, MStar and WTH said for that matter. Much of this stuff is dependant upon where we were, who was there as well, and how we percieved it.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
It never ceases to amaze me at how old that creep was! Ich!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
bible + money = legalism
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear E.W. Bullinger,
I know what you are asking. For me the line to look for in questions that refer to events like you're describing is:
Are those rules based on love and concern.
Are those rules based on some twisted desire to control and/ or manipulate and/ or dominate.
These options are the extremes with many peoples' opinions usually being somewhere in between. That's just the way that I think about the questions you pose, but I would be interested to hear some good recollections in response to your questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
I agree with what has been posted so far... so much depended on your individual experience and perspective.
I joined in the early 80s and saw a great deal of freedom for myself and even in the College Program, while seeing that if you were WOW or Way Corps you pretty much had someone running your life for you.
Yet, I got talked into Corps and thought somehow I could make it work.
I would call the 90s an earthly form of h@ll but then again, I didn't experience them as "joe believer" but as corps on the field, expected to talk the talk and walk the walk and conform to my leaderships' every whim and demand, no matter how invasive or ridiculous. But as for newbies being cut any slack in the 90s... not so much... that was the era of "we are looking for quality believers: folks who already have their lives pretty much together". (again, a completely nonsensical notion)
I saw legalistic elements right from the start. But I thought they were either rare, or specific and for a good reason, or something I could fix from the inside out. --- I was wrong on all counts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Join the club.
So Jeff wants some stories huh?
Ok, I've got a few minutes...
One time in band camp...wait...wrong story....Ok here we go...
One winter not too many years before I departed, I was attending a fellowship with mom just to be with mom. The fellowship folks suggested that we go out and do some pre-"ho ho" caroling. Our TC got out a Christmas song book and passed it around. "Let's choose some songs to sing". It was all very cozy. We had all known each other for many years and although I had been in the Corps I was not trying to take over anything (I was as I said on my way out). But my indifference allowed my TC to be somewhat comfortable with me there.
Anyway, several fellowships passed and each time the caroling idea was brought up it was promptly forgotten by the TC. Finally the entire fellowship cornered him after twig one night and asked him if we were going to go caroling together or not as Christmas was fast approaching. Basically he told us that we didnt sound good enough to go out caroling and he would be embarrassed to be seen with us. He was very good at acting superior.
One could not be seen in public if one was not dressed correctly, including the expensive shoes and if one opened their mouth one must not draw disfavorable attention to oneself. It was the law here for quite a while. There were lots more laws, like: never get caught by another believer in a casino (So why was he/she there to catch you? The whole "I got revelation" thing didnt fly with me.) We weren't allowed to work in a casino for any reason. But we had to find enough money to purchase our clothing at Macy's.
Shortly after this incident I started my own twig again and took a good portion of his twig with me. I didnt ask. I just did it. Who was the BC that was going to argue with me the former AC? Is that elitism or using the power that they gave me to do what I felt was right?
So how far
am I?
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi eyesopen,
I really hope you were completely right, and did what you had to do. For whatever it's worth to you, it sounds to me like you were right, I don't have any reason to doubt you.
NOW ; BACK TO THE SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING...........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Jeff if I had time to tell you the entire story behind this guy and all that he did...but I thank you for taking me at my word with what little I have told you and how little you actually know me. That is something that I personally havent experienced in quite a while. Thank you.
Truly some of the folks in that twig would have probably resorted to violence had I not "stolen" them away and he did not fight me at all in the matter. He was probably glad to see us all go. As it was a few years later (after I had officially left) he kicked my aging mother out of twig because she wouldn't stop talking to 10 of her 11 children, including me. He was a real gem!
You know that hypocrite had the huevos to attend her wake? Grrr!!!
Ok so...sorry about the derail...continue on...
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi eyesopen,
I don't know if everyone agrees but our little derail seems good to me. I've faced a lot of the same scepticism you have, or at least a lot of similar stuff it sounds like. It's nice to be treated as honest and decent folks, isn't it? I appreciate it too! It does my heart good.
NOW, maybe back to the scheduled programming..........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
When did the legalism start?
I'd say it was always there as testified by Peter Wade's depature, but it never reared it's ugly head too publically in order to further the cornfield huckster's agenda.
The legalism started en mass when Wierwille took control of Jimmy Do*p's and Steve He*fner's ministry and then kicked them to the curb, (where's the grace and love? apparently the practice of indescriminate firings so prevalent in the 80's and 90's got their start here) so he could keep all the money and the future free meal ticket of the people's ABS. He even rejected a plan from C Geer and EM in NY to only keep about 10-15% and let the twigs keep the rest, but even that amount was too low for him.
He was also into trolling for skanks, hence the trip out to San Francisco, the questions he asked JD about orgies, and the lust for acquiring the huge numbers of the young free hippies from JD's ministry both for exploitation, all in order to fulfill his agenda of control, money, power, accolade and promiscuity.
When did imposed legalism start? When Donnie Fug*t started wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase.
Edited by but now I seeLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
the day i joined
Link to comment
Share on other sites
E. W. Bullinger
Thanks for all of your input. I guess I was fortunate with regard to the leadership in my area. It seemed that things were good until the mid 1990’s when all of the crazy rules started to come into play. I remember there was a girl in my twig who wanted to take an adult education cake decorating class and she had to get permission from the Limb coordinator!
The rules about reading the bible and witnessing never bothered me because I always thought that these were things that you were supposed to do as a Christian.
Sincerely,
e. w. bullinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't really think it's a matter of "when" the organization itself became legalistic.
(My own opinion is that it was legalistic from day #1.)
I think it is a matter of "when did they stop cutting you slack as a "babe" and start to require that you put the welfare of the organization above your own?"
For some that happened rather quickly.
I was made a twig leader within months of first being "witnessed to"
(Due largely, I believe, to the fact that I was an adult with a job, apartment and a car, in an area that was predominantly high school students.)
I went from being a long-haired, blue jean clad, guitar toting hippie to a clean cut, suit and tie wearing, briefcase toting salesman twig leader within months.
I guess they figured my "gestation" period could be abbreviated because of my age.
This was in the early 1970s.
My introduction to legalism came relatively early in my involvement.
By the time I got to fellow laborers in 1975, I was expected to tow the line of "legalism".
I will concur with Watered Garden that our first year in FLO was really more a matter of a strictly disciplined lifestyle than an exercise in legalism.
After that, though, you had to walk the line or else!
Or Else means you could be rousted from bed in the wee hours of the morning and told to clear the state line before the day was over. (That really allegedly happened more than once.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i despise the leap from a loved up newbie to a dog soldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
i got "in" in 76
and i feel the same way ex does
thanks honey!!
i repeat....day one and went down hill from there
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think that small amounts of legalism were installed from the beginning-specifically BY vpw,
as you can see. (The groovy Christians who arrived early on, who went from denim to suits and briefcases
like DF...) I think the evidence is in that vpw wanted everything under his thumb from the
beginning, and never liked it otherwise but tolerated that it couldn't START that way.
However, he could make adjustments to keep making it MORE legalistic over time.
That it was GRADUAL made it harder to see and object to.
So, vpw set up that the corps were to learn CONFORMITY and ENFORCE CONFORMITY.
(Some remembered God's Love despite this.) Then he set everything up so that it was seen
as THE Big Thing to enter the corps. Meanwhile, he centralized everything so all the money
pointed towards him, and authority proceeded from him. As time passed, more corps grads
were "on the field", in leadership positions, able enforce the conformity they learned.
(That was the plan, and it worked, just gradually.)
The "temperature" was also ramped up slowly, as they thought up new rules, eventually ending
up with grass that can't be walked on, and mandatory hat-wearing. Grounds eventually piled on
so much legalism it resembled a work-release prison program more than a Bible program.
This trickled down as graduates entered the field, very slowly.
Early on, vpw had kicked out 2 different classes of corps, and allowed one of them back,
so long as the members were willing to write out an oath of allegiance. lcm learned most of
his twi "leadership" from vpw, so he ended up a more "refined" bad leader, two-fold the
child of hell vpw was. In 1985, lcm's leadership was challenged. His eventual response
was to demand an oath of allegiance from all the corps, and their blind loyalty.
(One poster here spoke to him personally, and lcm expected blind loyalty to him, period,
no qualifier.) He learned it from vpw, but lacked the wit to see what would happen if he
took something that worked on a handful of the most faithful, and applied it to hundreds of
people having doubts. This proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back, and 80%
of twi walked in 1989/1990.
Once they were gone, the next few years were a slow tightening of the screws, and MORE
legalism went from staff and corps to every "follower". Now, EVERYONE was expected to
conform to corps standards they never signed up for. 1994, it seems was when lcm really
went into overdrive, stacking on the draconian rules, putting the corps on as full-time staff,
etc. Now corps were required to spend large blocks of time delving into people's private
lives. Soon after that came the "two by two everywhere" and "your entire day must be
scheduled in 15-minute blocks" things.
Yes, a few people were still leaving each year, either from being thrown out, or being
sick and tired of being sick and tired. However, the changes were so slow, most of the
new people had no idea that this was the same group that once had a bunch of hippies
just pleased to get together, and talk about God and pray together.
Could you imagine the two groups ever meeting?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I would say, generally, in the mid-1990's when you couldn't go to the grocery store alone because of the 2 by 2 rule. :D
Contrast this to January of 1976 when in the six corps, I asked Craig if I could hitchhike ALONE from headquarters to Emporia because my hitchhike buddy and I didn't get along. (Hitchhiking in twos was required.) He agreed to it, and took practically 1/2 the time for me to get back (18 hours as opposed to over 30 hours getting there.)
I also think legalism can be in the mind of the beholder if one defines it that way. I was once accused of being legalistic by a twig coordinator, when in the early 1990's shortly before my departure from twi, I insisted that my fellowship start on time instead of 1/2 hour later to get mellow and wait for everyone to arrive. It wasn't legalism I was insisting on it was honesty. You say you're starting at 10:00 then start at 10:00. But they called it legalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I disagree entirely.
I saw as early as 1979 it being taught that obedience to leadership = obedience to God ....Peter walking on the water was the example given. You should remember oldies, you were there at that ark limb meeting for wows.
I saw harsh legalism as early as 1981. It got steadily worse depending on which area you were in.
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.