Class by John Hendricks

[Goey]

Hi,

I recently sat in on "The Class" offered by CRF which was formerly led by John Hendricks (now deceased). I believe this class was recorded

sometime around 1997.

The class theme was "To Know God" but it was pretty much a remake / knockoff of PFAL with a few minor deviations. While John Hendricks seemed to make an effort to "make it his own," it was pretty much just PFAL.

Four crucified, Paul's thorn in the flesh, and many other PFAL teachings were presented almost exactly as in VPW's original class. Hendricks even honored VPW by using "thaaaaats riiiiight" and "I didn't write the book" on several occasions, but VPW was never mentioned by name.

The purpose of this class is get people to speak in tongues. This is because (according to Hendricks understanding of scripture) the only way to know God and to worship God is by speaking in a tongue or in several tongues. As in PFAL, the "Law of believing" is presented as an indisputable and immutable spiritual law that is more reliable than gravity and that it works in the negative just as exactly and indisputably as it works in the positive.

Beginning about session 6 or 7 pressure to want to speak in tongues is subtly applied when certain scriptures are tied together and made to imply that is is a commandment of God to speak in tongues, and not to do so is sin.

Here's the logic construct used for that.

Paul says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues, ..." 1 Cor 14:5

Paul says, "... I speak in tongues more than ye all" 1 Cor 14:8

Paul says, "Be ye followers of me,..." 1 Cor 11:1

Paul says, "the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" 1 Cor 14:37

Like some others, when it is convenient for shoring up a teaching, Hendricks changes the "I would" in 1:Cor14:5 to "God would".

So when Paul says "I" its the same a God saying "I". Therefore it is God's will that "ye all spake in tongues" and that you do it a lot (14:8)

Paul says "be ye followers of me" and since what Paul wrote were the "commandments of the Lord" it is God's commandment that we follow Paul and do what Paul did (speak in tongues a lot). And we all know that to break Gods commandments is "sin". Therefore not to speak in tongues a lot is sin. And of course sin separates us from God. So to not speak in tongues (a lot), separates us from God.

Of course if we use this kind of logic everywhere in the Bible then we would have a real mess. With this kind of logic I can prove that God himself speaks in tongues. Just change the "I" in 1 Cor 14:8 to God, like it was done in verse 8. If Hendricks can do it one place, I can do it another. right?

This is similar to what TWI and others have done with 3 John 1:2.

"Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth."

The "I" is changed from John the elder writing to Gaius in a personal letter... to God speaking to everyone in a universal declaration of his will. It is therefore not really "John the elder" writing a personal letter to Gaius, (verse 1) but rather God speaking to all, especially Christians. So it is reasoned and concluded that God, more than anything else, wants all Christians to be financially wealthy and to be in perfect health. (Of course this sometimes can only be done by tithing 10-20 percent to the group teaching this) . Will ye rob God?

This kind of intellectually dishonest handling of scripture takes a simple and common greeting used in personal letters in NT times, (be well and prosper) and changes it to become the foremost declaration of God's will for all Christians. It then becomes the foundation for a Christian doctrine/dogma of "wealth and health". This doctrine then becomes the center point and focus for those groups, rather than the true Gospel of Christ. In some groups, Jesus Christ is relegated to little more than a name at the end of their prayers for more money, fancy cars, big homes and nice bodies. Gimme Gimme Gimme.

Let me be clear here. My point was to show how the scriptures were handled and not to suggest that CRF is a money oriented ministry. I suspect that it is not. (The CRF ministry is now run by one of Hendrick's daughters.) While Hendricks, like Wierwille, did handle 3 John in the same manner, there was only a little talk of personal wealth. Offerings were made available after session 3 and it was made clear that CRF was not a tax deductible charity. Hendrick's & CRF focus seems to be tongues and manifestations ( power) rather than money. And I sensed among those running the class a real desire to help folks "get to know God." They sincerely believe the best way to do that is to run Hendrick's class.

Evidence of PFAL and Wierwille's influence is scattered all through this class. There were a few "that's rights" and other VPW sayings mimicked in the preaching parts . Hendricks even tells some of the same stories VPW told in PFAL as if they were his own experiences. He speaks of having been a teacher at an unnamed seminary school ( TWI/Corps) , then in the same manner as VPW he belittles and mocks seminary schools. I don't think any part of TWI can be legitimately be called a seminary. To me that is less than honest and is unnecessary to make the point he was trying to make which was more or less that seminaries teach people that the Bible is flawed and unreliable.

It is quite clear that Hendricks was a big believer in the manifestations and in "all 9 all the time" for everyone. Hendricks mentioned changing the weather and even took personal credit for making a major Hurricane change course and miss the area where one of his advanced classes was running. This kind of talk makes me uncomfortable. Of course, it can't really be proven one way or the other, like the snow on the gas pumps.

My conclusion:

This class (Audio) by John Hendricks is a good remake of PFAL . Mostly the same verses of scripture were used, and it was taught in the same order and same manner. Heteros and allos were handled better. And "all without distinction" was dropped in favor of a term that made more sense. Some of the arguments made by Hendricks were the same (word for word) as those made by VPW in PFAL. Although Hendricks did seem to try to "make it his own", VPW's theological stamp was all over this class. I

f you liked and still like PFAL and TWI/VPW style teachings you will probably like Hendrick's class. As for me, I kept what I found to be good (quite a bit) and disregarded the rest (also quite a bit). I'm glad I sat though it, but doubt that I would do it again.

Classes and ministries are not or should be about the teacher or leader but rather about the content and the message. To make them about the leaders is carnal. ( 1 Cor 3:4). Hendricks, like VPW and any other person claiming to teach the word "rightly divided" is human and subject to human errors and biases. While they seem certain and confident that what they are teaching is "indisputable", where their reasoning and logic is flawed, any resultant "indisputable truths" based upon that reasoning and logic will also be flawed. They have no more handle upon the truth and no more ability to"rightly divide" the scriptures than anyone else that is honestly trying to understand the Bible , the Word of God, and ultimately "to know God"

I have to believe that anyone truly seeking will find, regardless of whose class they take, whose books they read and whose ministry they choose to associate with.

Goey

[Rejoice]

What is CRF??

[Goey]

What is CRF??

Christian Research and Fellowship

[leafytwiglet]

I am just gonna throw this out there because I am curious, how does he get from I wish that Ye all spake in tongues

which sounds like Paul's Wish is that they all spoke in tongues

To GOd's Commandment is that everyone of them speak in tongues..

to clarify in case the question makes no sense..

how does desire or a wish turn into a commandment is there some translation issue there or just THE teacher jiggering the bible to say what they want it to say.

Sorry if I sound like I am nit picking but...well, I guess I am.

I understand the part about changing I from Paul to God.. but is it just a natural direction in light of that change that they also go from wish to commandment.

edited for sentence structure.

Edited December 7, 2009 by leafytwiglet

[Goey]

I am just gonna throw this out there because I am curious, how does he get from I wish that Ye all spake in tongues

which sounds like Paul's Wish is that they all spoke in tongues

To GOd's Commandment is that everyone of them speak in tongues..

to clarify in case the question makes no sense..

how does desire or a wish turn into a commandment is there some translation issue there or just THE teacher jiggering the bible to say what they want it to say.

Sorry if I sound like I am nit picking but...well, I guess I am.

I understand the part about changing I from Paul to God.. but is it just a natural direction in light of that change that they also go from wish to commandment.

You are not nitpicking. If something doesn't make sense or seems like a leap in logic it should be questioned.

Wierwille used the same argument and logic construct. It looks like this.

1: Paul says ....be followers of me

2: Paul says ... what I wrote are the commandments of the Lord

3: Therefore we are "commanded" to follow Paul

4: Paul spoke in tongues

5: Speaking in tongues is "following Paul"

6: Therefore speaking in tongues is a "commandment of the Lord"

VPW used this kind of logic when it supported his case. But as almost anyone can

see it is seriously flawed. Some of the verses used are unrelated and in a different context.

If we follow this course of logic , we must also conclude that it is a commandment of the Lord

for us to do everything that Paul did, not just speaking in tongues. This would be absurd.

[penworks]

For more about this TWI offshoot read:

[leafytwiglet]

Thanks Goey and Penworks

I am often surprised on here to see the difference in what the Bible says versus what we were taught in PFAL .

All that jumping from verse to verse and no real reading of the actual book seems to have created a lot of errors.

[Tzaia]

Thanks Goey and Penworks

I am often surprised on here to see the difference in what the Bible says versus what we were taught in PFAL .

All that jumping from verse to verse and no real reading of the actual book seems to have created a lot of errors.

So much for reading "what's written on the page" and "context".

Such a rude awakening!

[leafytwiglet]

So much for reading "what's written on the page" and "context".

Such a rude awakening!

\\\Exactly Tazia... I sometimes think we were kept busy hoping from subject to subject just to blind us to the real truth.. not to mention being discouraged from reading the word on our own... I can't tell you how many times I was told to go read the blue book again, rather than reading on my own.

[geisha779]

Let me be clear here. My point was to show how the scriptures were handled and not to suggest that CRF is a money oriented ministry. I suspect that it is not. (The CRF ministry is now run by one of Hendrick's daughters.) While Hendricks, like Wierwille, did handle 3 John in the same manner, there was only a little talk of personal wealth. Offerings were made available after session 3 and it was made clear that CRF was not a tax deductible charity. Hendrick's & CRF focus seems to be tongues and manifestations ( power) rather than money. And I sensed among those running the class a real desire to help folks "get to know God." They sincerely believe the best way to do that is to run Hendrick's class.

It could be that Hendricks made his money another way. . . . off the backs and sweat of people slaving for him while he was a big shot in TWI. Pretty sure that is a distinct possibility. Yep. . . positive.

He had a gold buying venture in the 70's and used to send the faithful out in a van to buy gold on the cheap and then re-sell it at a substantial profit. Didn't have to pay employees either. . . you got a place to stay.

Hate to tell you what happened to the fool who bought some gold plate by mistake. . . . . I assure you it wasn't "Well, do better next time."

He had a landscaping buisness in the 70's and 80's in NC & SC. For a while his "employees" all TWI faithful. . . . crowded into a little trailer in the backyard of a comfy home. . . . several grown men packed in like sardines. . . . nil quality of living. . . working for him at slave wage.

Eventually they got out of the trailer, one said "forget this" albeit in more colorful language. . . . the rest were strategically placed to oversee his business. He had some big accounts in the Carolinas.

I know if you displeased him. . . . the "nearly nothing" wage went down to "next to nothing". No overtime pay. . . . plenty of overtime work. . . . no benefits. . . . . and I also know that anything that threatened that almost free labor was treated as highly diseased.

Possesed. . if you disagreed with him or stood up to him. After all, VP refered to him as the Corps Corps. . . Kind of like a man's man. He never took a salary from TWI's coffers as limb leader. . . but, he had no problem abusing TWI's "labor pool"

John Hendricks didn't lack for money and knew how to use people to get it.

He hid money and gold under his bed. I know this because whenthe limb home caught on fire someone had to go back into the burning building and get it. That is where it was. . . under his bed!!

And while the home was being repaired. . . . he stayed in a hotel while the rest of the peons who lived there got bronchitis living at the smoke damaged home.

Ironic. . . I heard he went to some kind of seminary?? It is ironic because he actually really struggled with basic reading, writing and grammar. Not exactly a biblical scholar.

He surely did claim to have stopped hurricanes. . . personally meet angels(The guardian of the east coast no less). . .and control the weather. He was after all. . . . a MOG. . . he really, really believed it.

What a load of BS!

So much for not speaking ill of the dead. I still hear his name and have a cringing reaction.

[RumRunner]

So much for not speaking ill of the dead. I still hear his name and have a cringing reaction.

I don't think it's speaking ill of the dead if it is/was fact. For instance I do not think it is speaking ill of the dead to say that victor paul wierwille was a drunken, woman abusing, raging, loud-mouthed, ill-tempered, arrogant rapist. However it probably would be speaking ill of the dead if I said I hope he is spinning so hard in his grave because of GSC that his corpse could run a power turbine to generate electricity for all of southwest Ohio.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

So much for not speaking ill of the dead. I still hear his name and have a cringing reaction.

When I hear his name, it's more a feeling of disgust. When our paths crossed in North Carolina, I was struck by his total lack of compassion towards others...he also seemed like a dumb bell to me.

[Goey]

Groucho, Rum, Geisha

Thanks for the feedback,

It seems like quite a few of the men that VPW considered to be good leadership material were hard, abusive, calloused, insensitive, dictator types of questionable intelligence. VPW also seemed to esteem brown-nosed loyalists quite a bit too.

What irked me the most about this "class" was that after he taught the "keys" he would abandon them when necessary or convenient. And then after torturing both English and Greek grammar ( to force things to "fit like a hand in a glove" ), would confidently declare his interpretation to be the "indisputable" or "irrefutable" truth ...... (and therefore the rightly divided word of God.)

I sensed some pompous arrogance there and imagined that anyone that got in his way would have been run over in one way or another.

If you want to know how a MOG or WOG truly is, disagree with them on something trivial and then wait to see if the fangs come out. If they do, run like hell.

Hendrick's daughter Rochelle now runs the CRF ministry and I have heard that she is very kind, loving and compassionate.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Goey

[geisha779]

Hendrick's daughter Rochelle now runs the CRF ministry and I have heard that she is very kind, loving and compassionate.

I was tempered in my opinion of JH, but to his credit. . . . he married into a lovely family.

We have nothing but kind memories of his brother-in-law, sister-in-law and his wife. Really, in TWI out of TWI . . . I don't care. . . they were always just wonderful people. His brother-in-law's old business partner and family. . . just the same. . . down to earth and good.

Rochelle was just a baby back then. . . I am sure she is lovely.

JH is gone on to whatever just reward awaits him.

Me. . . . . I just wouldn't be learning any bible from them. . . any of them. . . that's all.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

It seems like quite a few of the men that VPW considered to be good leadership material were hard, abusive, calloused, insensitive, dictator types of questionable intelligence. VPW also seemed to esteem brown-nosed loyalists quite a bit too.

Yeah...I think you hit the nail on the head...

...afterall, he was that way himself.

[cheranne]

Again! Beating the dead horse!