Excuse my ignorance here, who was Johnny Townsend?
If I said he was a Wierwille clone it would sound like I was trying to be disparaging, but, I mean it in a more literal sense. He imitated the mannerisms and speech patterns of VPW in a rather extreme way when he taught. To be fair, a lot of us picked up little bits of Wierwille's idiosyncrasies unconsciously. We sometimes put more emphasis on theatrics than content . JT went to the extreme and tried to pull off that "aww, shucks" kind of image. I'm just stating the obvious here. It's embarrassing now to admit but, if we're honest, a lot of us had a tendency to do it, at least to some degree. My first branch leader, on the other hand, was a very straight shooting guy with a rather stoic, academic approach, who was focused on content and relevance. The contrast was stark. Just another red flag I willingly chose to ignore.
If I said he was a Wierwille clone it would sound like I was trying to be disparaging, but, I mean it in a more literal sense. He imitated the mannerisms and speech patterns of VPW in a rather extreme way when he taught. To be fair, a lot of us picked up little bits of Wierwille's idiosyncrasies unconsciously. We sometimes put more emphasis on theatrics than content . JT went to the extreme and tried to pull off that "aww, shucks" kind of image. I'm just stating the obvious here. It's embarrassing now to admit but, if we're honest, a lot of us had a tendency to do it, at least to some degree. My first branch leader, on the other hand, was a very straight shooting guy with a rather stoic, academic approach, who was focused on content and relevance. The contrast was stark. Just another red flag I willingly chose to ignore.
If I said he was a Wierwille clone it would sound like I was trying to be disparaging, but, I mean it in a more literal sense. He imitated the mannerisms and speech patterns of VPW in a rather extreme way when he taught. To be fair, a lot of us picked up little bits of Wierwille's idiosyncrasies unconsciously. We sometimes put more emphasis on theatrics than content . JT went to the extreme and tried to pull off that "aww, shucks" kind of image. I'm just stating the obvious here. It's embarrassing now to admit but, if we're honest, a lot of us had a tendency to do it, at least to some degree. My first branch leader, on the other hand, was a very straight shooting guy with a rather stoic, academic approach, who was focused on content and relevance. The contrast was stark. Just another red flag I willingly chose to ignore.
Flunky see flunky do…don’t think I ever shared this before…not long after I graduated from PFAL , I put on a suit and tie and practiced hand gestures and body language in front of the mirror imagining I was in front of an audience telling them how PFAL can change their life…funny to reflect on that spiel now…I remember being clueless to the fact that PFAL was just the beginning of changing my life for the worse.
Flunky see flunky do…don’t think I ever shared this before…not long after I graduated from PFAL , I put on a suit and tie and practiced hand gestures and body language in front of the mirror imagining I was in front of an audience telling them how PFAL can change their life…funny to reflect on that spiel now…I remember being clueless to the fact that PFAL was just the beginning of changing my life for the worse.
Hi, my name is T-Bone and I’m a cult survivor.
Early on I was so zealous of position. Then I was assigned to the cabinet. Teaching a sts was one of the worst experiences cause it was micro managed down to every word. I had similar aspirations though. Now I realize my walk as a Christian is very personal and not subject to micro management by dunderheads.
Excuse my ignorance here, who was Johnny Townsend?
JT was also around pretty early, from not long after vpw hijacked the hippies. Apparently, they recruited him. JT was quoted back in "The Way-Living in Love".
JT was also around pretty early, from not long after vpw hijacked the hippies. Apparently, they recruited him. JT was quoted back in "The Way-Living in Love".
Gotcha. I need to go read that one again...been a long time...or at least peruse it...not sure I can stomach the propaganda again.
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it meaning. Surely we can see that this is a basic reason for many different denominations. They have different interpretations of Scripture.
People interpret books and make decisions about what the books mean based on lots of factors, such as the times in which the book was written. We're talking about reading literature here.
I'll say the obvious: Bibles are collections of pieces of literature. BTW, some Bibles have different pieces of literature in them compared with other Bibles.
People who understand what literature is and who were not brainwashed by Wierwille, realize that books don't "interpret themselves." People interpret books.
But because many of us who were vulnerable PFAL students and considered VPW as some great Biblical scholar, when he said that nonsense, many of us believed it. BTW, he's not the only Bible teacher who passes along that thoughtless statement.
In Undertow I show my experience in realizing that books don't interpret themselves, people interpret books. I highlighted that point mainly for readers who were indoctrinated in The Way. Readers who never bought into Wierwille's propaganda know that already.
vpw's entire premise of the Bible interpreting itself was based on a False Dilemma- that there were exactly 2 possibilities AND NO MORE-
1) the Bible had no interpretation
2) the Bible interpreted ITSELF
Surely, EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN RIGHT, no "private' interpretation would have meant there was a "PUBLIC" interpretation. (That bugged me a long time ago.)
All of that's academic- since vpw was wrong about what that meant. Since he used the archaic KJV's wording, he was able to twist things to sound like they meant what he wanted- even if the Greek was completely different or the Hebrew was.
In this case, as GSC regulars know, the verses were talking about HOW WE GOT THE SCRIPTURES, their ORIGIN. They said NOTHING about how we are to approach them. The word "interpretation" was an awful translation- which is obvious when vpw claims that "private interpretation" is "one's own letting-loose like you let loose the dogs on a hunt." There was nothing about "interpreting" in vpw's colorful digression into dogs on a hunt.
wierwille was a charismatic cult-leader…and by charismatic– I do NOT mean a movement in the Christian church - I mean he exercised a compelling charm which inspired devotion in others.
In a 2013 digital article “What is character and why it really does matter” on Fordham Research Commons, authors Thomas A. Wright and Tyler L. Lauer wrote: “The cult of personality phenomenon refers to the idealized, even god-like, public image of an individual consciously shaped and molded through constant propaganda and media exposure. As a result, one is able to manipulate others based entirely on the influence of public personality. Max Weber long ago referred to this power of personality as ‘‘charismatic authority.’’ It is becoming evident that the charismatic leader, especially in politics, has increasingly become the product of media and self-exposure. At variance with traditional approaches to character that emphasize a moral based framework, the cult of personality perspective focuses on the often shallow, external images that many public figures cultivate to create an idealized and heroic image.” ( see full article > here )
To understand wierwille’s origin story is to peer through the smoke and mirrors of wierwille-mythology and comprehend the fascinating backstory. It is a very complicated narrative unfolding on Grease Spot Café that continues to reveal stuff about a sexual predator, a malignant narcissist, a megalomanic, an unabashed plagiarist, a chain-smoking drunkard, a pathological liar, a money-grubbing-glory-hound thief, and self-deluded cult-leader. If all this is news to anyone then please check out WordWolf’s thread The Way: Living in Wonderland...also in a perceptive post on another thread PFAL TodayWordWolf observed that wierwilleportrayed himself as a maverick like Jesus Christ, in order to characterize the Establishment, religious authorities and all other Christian teachers as wrong. And for history’s sake don’t forget to readSkyrider’s thread – The wierwille legacy: who will write the book?
I cannot emphasize this point enough - a harmful and controlling cult of personality like The Way International is so detrimental to one’s well-being because it is empowered with malignant narcissism. In case you’re not familiar with the term - “Malignant narcissism is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial behavior, aggression, and sadism. Grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines families and organizations in which they are involved, and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate.” From: Wikipedia: malignant narcissism
wierwille was a charismatic cult-leader…and by charismatic– I do NOT mean a movement in the Christian church - I mean he exercised a compelling charm which inspired devotion in others.
I maintain that it was a form of hypnosis ... not unlike that used by demagogues in contemporary or past times.
Quote
During hypnosis, a person is said to have heightened focus and concentration[12] and an increased response to suggestions.[13] Hypnosis usually begins with a hypnotic induction involving a series of preliminary instructions and suggestions.
This youtube short from Ryan Holiday (author of several books on Stoic philosophy, including The Obstacle is the Way) stands in stark contrast to the propaganda from Johnny Townsend who I remember expounding on how simple life was for him.
Do you know which page? There's no index in the book. I'd love to dig up a quote from Townsend.
Page 234-235, quoting wierwille.
Quote
Then Johnny Townsend, another young man who had the class in the army, came here that summer in 1969. He stayed here for two years. Like so many of these young people, he'd rather read than work...
Quote
It's like stepping stones--one person to another. There are lots of Christians around, but they don't know what they have in Christ. If someone comes into the ministry, we don't drop them, we stick with them. We never kick anyone out. They kick themselves out, if they want to go, But they're always welcome back.
When I think of Townsend, I always remember hearing him talk about "your basic simple man."
FACTS regarding what we know now, 50 years later (TW:LIL was first published in 1972) about wierwille's claim demonstrates beyond ALL doubt at the time twi could not deal with life's ambiguities and paradoxes.
I've just never heard that expression. To spoil something is to ruin it. Sounds harsh, like condemnation. A curios phrase. Must be a generational thing. Or a midwestern thing. Or both.
62. PFAL endorses a rigid mindset of fundamentalism – and the Christian lifestyle becomes more about having a relationship with a book than with a person.
Do you remember the PFAL session on the fall of man? wierwille contrasted knowledge that comes to us via the five senses as opposed to revelation faith.
He goes into Genesis 2andGenesis 3. Most Grease Spotters probably still remember the drill on the road down. wierwille’s narrative develops this imaginative and scary scenario of a devilish ploy to slowly demolish “the true Word” – and he insinuates that it is still used today: questioning “The Word”, changing “The Word”, adding a word, etc.
Few details are given – yet wierwille picks Genesis 3 apart like a CSI investigation. What was the forbidden fruit? The Bible doesn’t say. What was the tree of knowledge of good and evil? The Bible doesn’t say. How long was the prohibition to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be in effect? The Bible doesn’t say.
Since few details are given, one is hard pressed to create a clear and exact picture of what really happened. wierwille’s wooden interpretation of Genesis 3 makes it a simple case of not following the rule book – it’s just a cold, clinical analysis of how he sees God’s relationship with mankind. You’ve got to know the rules. Follow them to the letter. Doesn’t matter what you think or feel. Sounds like a warm relationship doesn’t it? Naw – I don’t think so.
In PFAL wierwille makes a big deal of Eve’s mistake to add words to the prohibition not to eat it – wierwille says that was wrong when she added “and you must not touch it”. I’ve changed my take on that. Perhaps Eve was being overcautious and wanted to make it more difficult to eat the forbidden fruit if she would not even touch it. I think we all do things like this. If someone has a problem with alcohol, they might have some self-imposed rules – don’t have a single drink…don’t even take a taste…avoid bars…etc. someone watching their weight might intentionally NOT look at the dessert menu…avoid fast food restaurants.
Here's another thing. wierwille makes such a big deal about them disobeying God’s Word. But I think that’s a shallow read of the intimate interrelation of God with Adam and Eve. What is disobedience? It’s a failure or refusal to obey rules or someone in authority.
Adam and Eve had a very close working relationship with God – the authority who set up this one rule. Their disobedience was a betrayal of trust - not being loyal to a person – God! It killed their relationship
I think this aspect of PFAL/wierwille’s fundamentalism reduces what is supposed to be a Christian’s transforming relationship with God, down to a one-sided relationship with a book. That “relationship” is not transformative – because the person relies on self-reflection based on how they interpret the Bible. There's no feedback from the author of the book.
There are many places in the Bible that speak of the validation of truth by the Holy Spirit when we consider the words of God and try to follow the message the best we can. The Bible then becomes necessary as facilitating a relationship with God. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Speaking of the fall of humankind – I just wanted to add a subset to # 62
62. A. PFAL endorses a rigid mindset of fundamentalism – and may give one a sense of pride and autonomy in “mastering” a book rather than submitting to a higher power.
One suggestion was that it was sexual – to support this theory some scholars point out the couple’s first reaction after eating the forbidden fruit was that they knew they were naked (Gen. 3:7) but the NICOT notes that we would have to apply sexuality to God for Gen. 3:22statesAnd the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
What also came to mind while reading this was wierwille’s screwy teaching in CF&S that the original sin was masturbation. I’ll tell you what – talk about hidden in plain sight – one way wierwille concealed being a sexual predator and to soften personal boundaries was to teach the class CF&S. Everything is cool – remember he claimed God would teach him the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century…Yeah – no need to be concerned that he’s a perverted old man – he’s a man of God…he’s got the title “doctor” and would never let you forget that.
The man was unabashedly obsessed with sexually explicit and inappropriate stuff and let everyone know it - but put the spin on it that he so renewed his mind that he was above having sinful thoughts.
Interpreting this Genesis account as an allegory seems to addressthe human conditionmore directly. In light of being a cult-survivor I look at this and think about when I was following a cult-leader, I basically followed what the cult-leader said was in my best interest and what was not.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
chockfull
BOD member during fog years. They expanded from 3 members to 5 adding Johnny and Ricardo Caballero.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ahh...that was pre-Oldskool...thanks!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If I said he was a Wierwille clone it would sound like I was trying to be disparaging, but, I mean it in a more literal sense. He imitated the mannerisms and speech patterns of VPW in a rather extreme way when he taught. To be fair, a lot of us picked up little bits of Wierwille's idiosyncrasies unconsciously. We sometimes put more emphasis on theatrics than content . JT went to the extreme and tried to pull off that "aww, shucks" kind of image. I'm just stating the obvious here. It's embarrassing now to admit but, if we're honest, a lot of us had a tendency to do it, at least to some degree. My first branch leader, on the other hand, was a very straight shooting guy with a rather stoic, academic approach, who was focused on content and relevance. The contrast was stark. Just another red flag I willingly chose to ignore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thanks!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Flunky see flunky do…don’t think I ever shared this before…not long after I graduated from PFAL , I put on a suit and tie and practiced hand gestures and body language in front of the mirror imagining I was in front of an audience telling them how PFAL can change their life…funny to reflect on that spiel now…I remember being clueless to the fact that PFAL was just the beginning of changing my life for the worse.
Hi, my name is T-Bone and I’m a cult survivor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Early on I was so zealous of position. Then I was assigned to the cabinet. Teaching a sts was one of the worst experiences cause it was micro managed down to every word. I had similar aspirations though. Now I realize my walk as a Christian is very personal and not subject to micro management by dunderheads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What was it about VPW that made us want to emulate him? Maybe that's really the greatest mystery in the world today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It’s so gratifying to get a direct answer to a direct question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
JT was also around pretty early, from not long after vpw hijacked the hippies. Apparently, they recruited him. JT was quoted back in "The Way-Living in Love".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Gotcha. I need to go read that one again...been a long time...or at least peruse it...not sure I can stomach the propaganda again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
vpw's entire premise of the Bible interpreting itself was based on a False Dilemma- that there were exactly 2 possibilities AND NO MORE-
1) the Bible had no interpretation
2) the Bible interpreted ITSELF
Surely, EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN RIGHT, no "private' interpretation would have meant there was a "PUBLIC" interpretation. (That bugged me a long time ago.)
All of that's academic- since vpw was wrong about what that meant. Since he used the archaic KJV's wording, he was able to twist things to sound like they meant what he wanted- even if the Greek was completely different or the Hebrew was.
In this case, as GSC regulars know, the verses were talking about HOW WE GOT THE SCRIPTURES, their ORIGIN. They said NOTHING about how we are to approach them. The word "interpretation" was an awful translation- which is obvious when vpw claims that "private interpretation" is "one's own letting-loose like you let loose the dogs on a hunt." There was nothing about "interpreting" in vpw's colorful digression into dogs on a hunt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If you're skimming when looking for him, and you come across a youth mentioning the Army, slow down and go back a page or so- that was JT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Ding ding ding ding !!!! That’s the $64,000 question!
And I’ll take a stab at it.
wierwille was a charismatic cult-leader…and by charismatic – I do NOT mean a movement in the Christian church - I mean he exercised a compelling charm which inspired devotion in others.
In a 2013 digital article “What is character and why it really does matter” on Fordham Research Commons, authors Thomas A. Wright and Tyler L. Lauer wrote:
“The cult of personality phenomenon refers to the idealized, even god-like, public image of an individual consciously shaped and molded through constant propaganda and media exposure. As a result, one is able to manipulate others based entirely on the influence of public personality. Max Weber long ago referred to this power of personality as ‘‘charismatic authority.’’ It is becoming evident that the charismatic leader, especially in politics, has increasingly become the product of media and self-exposure. At variance with traditional approaches to character that emphasize a moral based framework, the cult of personality perspective focuses on the often shallow, external images that many public figures cultivate to create an idealized and heroic image.” ( see full article > here )
To understand wierwille’s origin story is to peer through the smoke and mirrors of wierwille-mythology and comprehend the fascinating backstory. It is a very complicated narrative unfolding on Grease Spot Café that continues to reveal stuff about a sexual predator, a malignant narcissist, a megalomanic, an unabashed plagiarist, a chain-smoking drunkard, a pathological liar, a money-grubbing-glory-hound thief, and self-deluded cult-leader. If all this is news to anyone then please check out WordWolf’s thread The Way: Living in Wonderland ...also in a perceptive post on another thread PFAL Today WordWolf observed that wierwille portrayed himself as a maverick like Jesus Christ, in order to characterize the Establishment, religious authorities and all other Christian teachers as wrong. And for history’s sake don’t forget to read Skyrider’s thread – The wierwille legacy: who will write the book?
I cannot emphasize this point enough - a harmful and controlling cult of personality like The Way International is so detrimental to one’s well-being because it is empowered with malignant narcissism. In case you’re not familiar with the term - “Malignant narcissism is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial behavior, aggression, and sadism. Grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines families and organizations in which they are involved, and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate.”
From: Wikipedia: malignant narcissism
Steven Hassan the author of Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves and Combating Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults has written another fascinating book about a cult of personality – but since politics is a no-no on Grease Spot Café I’ll leave it up to you to click on this hyperlink, that has been encrypted to protect the indolent > The Cult of Orange-Hole: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the Orange-Hole Uses Mind Control
Some other hyperlinks that might be of interest along the lines of why folks might follow cult-leaders:
Psychology Today: Why Do People Follow Bad Leaders?
Psychology Today: Dangerous Cult Leaders: Clues to what makes for a pathological cult leader
Psychology Today: Why Do People Follow Authoritarian Leaders?
Edited by T-BoneWant Ad for Charismatic Editor: boring typos need exciting revision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Maybe it was the pennies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Do you know which page? There's no index in the book.
I'd love to dig up a quote from Townsend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I maintain that it was a form of hypnosis ... not unlike that used by demagogues in contemporary or past times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
This youtube short from Ryan Holiday (author of several books on Stoic philosophy, including The Obstacle is the Way) stands in stark contrast to the propaganda from Johnny Townsend who I remember expounding on how simple life was for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don't doubt that - let's make that
66. PFAL was a form of hypnosis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Page 234-235, quoting wierwille.
When I think of Townsend, I always remember hearing him talk about "your basic simple man."
Edited by RockyFACTS regarding what we know now, 50 years later (TW:LIL was first published in 1972) about wierwille's claim demonstrates beyond ALL doubt at the time twi could not deal with life's ambiguities and paradoxes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
TW- LIL pg-234.
"Then Johnny Townsend, another young man who had the class
in the army, came here that summer in 1969. He stayed here two
years.
Like so many of these young people,
he'd rather read than work.
He learned the Word, and he learned to work and study here.
He'd spoil this, spoil that, and then he'd learn. Now he heads
the state of Kansas, and he is the spiritual coordinator of
the Western Region."
I don't know what the army teaches people about working, but I
get the impression that they work pretty hard there, even in
peacetime. vpw seems to disagree-at least at this moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What do you suppose this means? Spoil what? This? That?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Probably that he made mistakes. Everybody does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Indeed, everybody does make mistakes.
I've just never heard that expression. To spoil something is to ruin it. Sounds harsh, like condemnation. A curios phrase. Must be a generational thing. Or a midwestern thing. Or both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Speaking of the fall of humankind – I just wanted to add a subset to # 62
62. A. PFAL endorses a rigid mindset of fundamentalism – and may give one a sense of pride and autonomy in “mastering” a book rather than submitting to a higher power.
I’ve been reading a commentary of Genesis and on pages 163ff of The New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series – Genesis chapters 1-17 it mentions several theories that scholars have proposed as to what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was.
One suggestion was that it was sexual – to support this theory some scholars point out the couple’s first reaction after eating the forbidden fruit was that they knew they were naked ( Gen. 3:7 ) but the NICOT notes that we would have to apply sexuality to God for Gen. 3:22 states And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
What also came to mind while reading this was wierwille’s screwy teaching in CF&S that the original sin was masturbation. I’ll tell you what – talk about hidden in plain sight – one way wierwille concealed being a sexual predator and to soften personal boundaries was to teach the class CF&S. Everything is cool – remember he claimed God would teach him the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century…Yeah – no need to be concerned that he’s a perverted old man – he’s a man of God…he’s got the title “doctor” and would never let you forget that.
The man was unabashedly obsessed with sexually explicit and inappropriate stuff and let everyone know it - but put the spin on it that he so renewed his mind that he was above having sinful thoughts.
Back to NICOT…the theory that “the knowledge of good and evil” indicates moral autonomy. The commentary says this view appeals to many OT passages where “good and evil” is essentially a legal idiom meaning to formulate and articulate a judicial decision. So what it’s basically saying:
what is forbidden to humankind is the power to decide for us what is in our best interest and what is not.
Interpreting this Genesis account as an allegory seems to address the human condition more directly . In light of being a cult-survivor I look at this and think about when I was following a cult-leader, I basically followed what the cult-leader said was in my best interest and what was not.
Edited by T-Boneadding hyped-up hyperlinks :)
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.