Wierwille: Teaching vs. Behavior

[Oakspear]

[markomalley]

You missed one selection:

His teachings were wrong AND they enabled his behavior.

[Oakspear]

There is a lot of arguing about how to relate to Wierwille's behavior to what he taught.

Personally, I think that they're separate issues. Some of what he taught was right, some wrong, none of it has anything to do with his morality, ethics, motives, or anything else, the teaching stands or falls on its own.

I do believe that his consistant and repeated lying about matters great and small makes it difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything. He is not a source to be trusted.

I also believe that his predatory actions, his shabby treatment of people, his plagiarism, and many other things make him someone that is unworthy of respect, and therefore someone who should not be followed.

There were undoubtedly times when Wierwille was a great guy, and personally helped and "blessed" people. There were also undoubtedly times when he was a consumate S.O.B. who used and abused people. At times the former was am open door for the latter. To me, this is not someone desrving of respect and admiration.

PFAL was without question helpful to many people and was the vehicle with which they got to know more about the bible. It's also a rat's nest of shaky logic, false assumptions and bad research, full of assertions that cannot be documented, the foundation being the reputation of 'the teacher'. There is so much error mixed in with the truth that it's not worth the effort IMHO to untangle it.

Was TWI, based on both PFAL and Wierwille's charismatic leadership, an organization where people were able to grow, learn, and enjoy 'sweet fellowship' and get prayers answered? For many, sure. It was also a place where lives were sucked dry wasted.

Just because Wierwille plagiarized, lied, raped, drank, and told bad jokes doesn't invalidate whatever was truthful in PFAL.

Just because some people "got blessed" doesn't validate it either.

You missed one selection:

<font face='serif' size=3>His teachings were wrong AND they enabled his behavior.</font>

I'm sure I missed more than one, my mackeral-snapping fellow poster - you make a good point, but it wasn't really where I was going.

[ex10]

No oak, it doesn't validate anything. But some people want to find the pearl in the midst of the uh, um, how should I put it tactfully? pig excerement?

I think the easy way out is to say the way was pig excrement with nothing worth saving.

It takes a little more intensity of thought and character to walk away with something worth keeping. In any situation that stinks like rotten eggs.

As always, YMMV.

[ex10]

PS I can't vote on your poll. Nothing covers my experience.

You shoulda put "some of his teachings are right, some are wrong, and it has everything to do with his character."

[T-Bone]

I think teaching and behavior are tightly woven together. Some Scriptures come to mind that align spotting those who teach wrong doctrine by looking at their lifestyle: II Peter 2: 1-22; I Timothy 3: 1-13; 4: 1-16. I also think of Matthew 5: 19 where Jesus says "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be great in the kingdom of heaven..." It's interesting - Jesus put it two different ways but it says the same thing - what you do is the message that gets through...Ralph Waldo Emerson had a pretty good one liner too: "What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say."...Alright - so you know how I voted - his behavior invalidated his teachings!

Edited April 11, 2006 by T-Bone

[Tom Strange]

what's "YMMV" I get the "Your", I get the "May Vary" I think that's what they mean... what's the first "M"? Thanks.

[WordWolf]

what's "YMMV" I get the "Your", I get the "May Vary" I think that's what they mean... what's the first "M"? Thanks.

"Your Mileage May Vary."

Like with cars and exactly how many miles to the gallon you get

when actually driving the thing.

[dmiller]

You missed one selection:

<font face='serif' size=3>His teachings were wrong AND they enabled his behavior.</font>

Well -- I tend to agree with the second half of that statement.

But --- NOT FOLLOWING THE CATHOLIC BELIEF -- I can't agree that they were ALL wrong. :)

(Just my IMO -- as usual).

[Goey]

Here is how I see it.

Some teachings were right some were wrong. Some wrong teachings were not influenced by his character, while others were. Some of his wrong teachings along with his ungodly behavior are enough to cause doubt as to his "mogship." The wrong teachings were so wrong that that it leavened the whole loaf.

[dmiller]

Some of his wrong teachings along with his ungodly behavior are enough to cause doubt as to his "mogship." The wrong teachings were so wrong that that it leavened the whole loaf.

Ahh -- and yes ----

"A little leaven" *does up the whole lump* ---

(or sumpthing like that!)

[GrouchoMarxJr]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?...

Was it his hedonistic, self centered, egotistical, behavior that caused him to mis-interpret the scriptures?

or was it...his mishandling of the scriptures that led him into a sinful lifestyle?

The way I see it...

Wierwille was a con man...he impersonated a "spiritual man". The guy was a drunken womanizer who stole the works of other Christian writers and tried to palm them off as his own work. Had he been an honest workman of the bible, he never would have so blatantly plagiarized. How would he know if his teachings were right or wrong? He simply copied them from other people in whom he was impressed with. Thus, the mistakes in his teachings are more of a reflection of the mistakes of those he stole from...

...Both his teachings and his behavior are a relection of the fact that his heart was far from God to begin with.

Edited April 11, 2006 by GrouchoMarxJr

[Rejoice]

"The wrong teachings were so wrong that that it leavened the whole loaf."

YIKES, that's the first time I ever considered that idea! Talk about being so brainwashed that many of us forgot that scripture when considering the source!

[sprawled out]

i think if you're honest you gotta agree with groucho. peepee was damaged goods from the start. he wanted to be somebody so badly, he'd do just about anything to get there. the whole thing began with lies (snow and more snow), and was built on plagarism (from the very first book). he realized early on that he wasn't going to make a name for himself spouting mainstream christian doctrine, so he went for the "splashy" and "iconoclastic." (which i believe are his own words--from the intro of JC is not God?) and THAT became his standard for truth. i think it was most important to him that what he taught was different, shocking--he didn't care so much about it being right. or accurate. or original, obviously.

it turned out to be a pretty shrewd idea--because thousands and thousands of us bought into it. it had a certain appeal. i think probably a huge chunk of us dug thinking that we knew something special--which meant there must be something special about US, to recognize that what most christians believed was wrong. i don't mean to say that we weren't honest in our quest for the truth. just that there was something about peepee's particular brand of bs that resonated with us: "we're right, and the whole rest of the world is wrong." it's just a textbook example of a cult mentality, i guess.

[ex10]

Well, I think I'm honest, and I don't agree with Groucho. ;) Even though I think he's a great guy. (Groucho, not VP.)

I don't think VP was the master grifter, or the best religious con man around. I think that's giving him too much credit.

My opinion, of course, but I don't think that the Way would've had nearly the "success" that it did, unless God and Jesus Christ were in it somewhere. (Of course, the definition of "success" is up for debate, I guess.)

Sure they may have been relegated to the back seat, but SOMETHING worked. Not all of it, was BS. I don't think VP was smart/talented enough to build what he did all on his own, and deceive thousands of people. Whatever. I don't feel like arguing with anybody either.

[markomalley]

Sure they may have been relegated to the back seat, but SOMETHING worked. Not all of it, was BS. I don't think VP was smart/talented enough to build what he did all on his own, and deceive thousands of people. Whatever. I don't feel like arguing with anybody either.

My personal thing is that I don't believe it to be intentional on his part either. However, he took a bit from this and a bit from that and a bit from the other. He was educated in the _____ (Reformed?) Church, but then abandoned much of the orthodoxy from that denomination, taking on bits and pieces that worked for him.

That much is pretty much what he said about himself in the Whiteside book, isn't it?

What happens if the bits and pieces he took from this and that left out the critical parts of each piece that kept it within some type of orthodox Christianity (by this, I am not meaning Eastern Orthodox, or anything else, I'm talking about broader...)

For example, (and somebody who knows better than I can feel free to correct me)...but the Reformed church didn't practice "Word-Faith" a la the Televangelists. They didn't practice "Charismatic," either, did they?

Well, Word-Faith was the source of the believing=receiving heresy. It is very, very similar to the Word-Faith teaching, but not exactly the same. (That's possibly why so many here feel comfortable with Joyce Meyers and Kenneth Copeland -- it's pretty familiar territory) The Charismatic movement was the source of "all nine all the time" crock. Again, similar, but with distinct and observable differences.

(As full disclosure, I don't subscribe to either Word-Faith theology or the methods of Charismatic theology...but what I'm referring to here is not my disagreement with either...rather disagreements with the VPW perversions of them)

We've had boucoup threads where people have expounded on the negative impact that "the law of believing" had on their lives. Likewise, there are more examples than we care to think of on the impact of the application of the forced version of Charismatic doctrine. Put the two together and a very dangerous condition exists.

Combine that with a ego that enjoys adulation (we aren't sheep, we're SONS OF GOD)...and there is naturally an environment which begs for abuse. On those who are dominant, they feel self-justified. On those who lack self-confidence, an environment ripe for acceptance of abuse.

FWIW and YMMV...

[ex10]

For the record, Mark, I agree with you. I just don't think that's all there was to the picture.

[tonto]

Well, I've gone round and round in my mind on this one...but I don't think VP started out as a grifter. I also don't think his original intentions were entirely pure, either. I think he probably had some honest desire to do something for God, but he let his screaming, all-consuming need for recognition come first. I think that was the big trap door for him. The fact that he was known as "Doctor", when his doctorate was from a degree mill speaks volumes.

It's just so dam^ complicated...

[mstar1]

think teaching and behavior are tightly woven together

I'd go a step further and argue that behaviour was what was taught. We aren't talking about being taught auto mechanics here where someone teaches you to replace your brakes and they are either right or wrong, but christianity which is a way of life, not a mechanical ability to "work the word" or teach the word.

IMO Spiritual leaders are more than what they say but models in thier entire life of, "what it is". Many in TWI emulated VPW and took on not only his admonitions to 'work the word' but also as part of that package his characteristics, mannerisms, and personality traits --whether they were aware of it or not. The way TWI was setup VPW was a father figure -and for good or bad, like it or not he was the role model.

Sure people learned some interesting mental gymnastics in TWI that Wierwille taught---4 were crucified, Jesus died on Wednesday--blah blah blah-any myriad of subjects--that may or may not be true and were able to teach it. But in a more subtle way we also learned that if you had that knowledge that it superceded being honest in observing and living life and examining and dealing with your own character or its internal flaws. Many people picked that up and it was part of the unwritten but near all pervasive doctrine of TWI.

You are righteous now, and the cheap and easy forgiveness as taught by Wierwille, may or may not be true, (I dont really care anymore), were dishonestly used to justify and hide extremely abusive behaviour patterns. If you actively shared the word -then somehow the rest of your lifes actions no matter how heinous could be overlooked and hidden, was a message that was lived out loud and clear and doctrinally backed up.

If you could articulate a good teaching, kept your house clean, ABS'ed, said Bless you on cue to the right people, were ready with a scripture quote and knew what to wear at what meeting, your real struggles could be covered over and forgotten , as far as east is from west (even if you were a rapist). That all somehow made you 'spiritual'.

Behaviour is what was taught imo just not as overtly as the bible expositions.

We were taught to 'work the word', but we were also taught to justify our behaviour when doing it,

We were taught to speak the word, but we were also taught to look down anyone who didnt agree with us.

We were taught to pray but not to examine ourselves in the process,

We were taught that you could get away with almost anything if you just keep speaking 'the word'.

Maybe Wierwille was technically right where some comma went or on various bible subjects ina superficial sort of way, but imo he was way off the mark in what he actually taught, which was to be a self centered over grandiose narcissist who carries a veneer of christianity on his outer shell to cover his insecurities

No thanks

Edited April 12, 2006 by mstar1

[rhino]

His teaching about adultry being "OK" in the physical, God only meant it in the spiritual sense ... is the most obnoxious of bad behavior becoming bad doctrine (bed doctrine). How could he say God's own analogy of pure sanctity (?) is the marriage, but God really meant it was OK to cheat. So I guess God meant it was OK to cheat on Him too?

Another main vice for him was alcohol, so there was that verse in the OT about strong drink for the Jubilee year, or something like that. So living more abundantly I guess allows strong drink all the time? I just remember the Jubilee thing about the big party being OK, or some such thing.

Smoking .... hmmm

That painting of him with the dog titled "the teacher"? (the trainer?) is interesting. The analogy was to his human dogs. Do a trick for him and get a pat on the head and a reward.

Just the desire to paint himself as Martin Luther or some such, while not even using his own material ... showed he leaned to finding different doctrine... which was good for the rebellious youth of the time. The ego to stand out may have led to some of the doctrine, but rebelling against church dogma turned out to be good doctrine many times ... maybe.

[sprawled out]

interesting approach, ex10! "i disagree, here's what i think, but i'm not gonna argue with you." :huh:

oh yeah? well, me too, neither!

[rascal]

Scripturally, vpw `s behavior completely eliminates him as a leader ...further more advises us to stay away from folks like him...I`d have to say that would be a pretty convincing argument as to why his teachings would be suspect as well.

You simply cannot live as a man of the flesh and expect to accuratly understand the things of the spirit and how scripture would apply.

[WordWolf]

That painting of him with the dog titled "the teacher"? (the trainer?) is interesting. The analogy was to his human dogs. Do a trick for him and get a pat on the head and a reward.

Just the desire to paint himself as Martin Luther or some such, while not even using his own material ... showed he leaned to finding different doctrine... which was good for the rebellious youth of the time. The ego to stand out may have led to some of the doctrine, but rebelling against church dogma turned out to be good doctrine many times ... maybe.

As usual, he ripped these off as well.

That painting was a ripoff of the cover of a book on dog-training.

It was either "Hunt Close" or another book's front cover design that was

completely copied, down to the pose.

*checks*

Yup, it was "Hunt Close."

From the "Hunt Close!" thread...

Hope R:

"Gawd- do you remember that painting called 'The Trainer'?

It looks just like the cover of that book,

except it's VP and one of his dogs!

Another TWI rip-off of someone else's original idea!"

And the caption of the painting was

"Training with love breeds loving obedience."

Now then,

as for his "I'm just like Martin Luther" kick,

he staged a pitiful ripoff of Luther.

Luther officially announced an attempt to open dialogue

and discussion on 95 topics when he nailed his 95 theses

to the door of Wittenburg Cathedral.

Each addressed something very specific, and all were sensible.

vpw announced-at the end of ROA '77-

that he was going to do much the same thing.

He claimed he was going to catalog (with full verses)

all the anti-Trinitarian type verses of Scripture,

and nail them to all the doors of the local churches.

What DID happen?

They ran around in a "Way coach", and posted a notice on

a bunch of church doors.

What did the notice say?

Was it the list of Scriptures?

Was it an appeal to logic, like Luther did?

NO.

It was a big sign:

"Jesus Christ is not God-never was and never will be"

and he placed an autographed copy of JCING at the foot

of the church door.

As I said, more of a bad photocopy lacking toner.

BTW,

I recommend the "Hunt Close!" thread.

It's got some FASCINATING stuff.

[ex10]

sprawled out

[SafariVista]

NO.

It was a big sign:

"Jesus Christ is not God-never was and never will be"

and he placed an autographed copy of JCING at the foot

of the church door.

As I said, more of a bad photocopy lacking toner.

Amazing… never heard about this… sounds like the far-reaching mentality typical to Way logic. And giving out poor quality material is shocking! :blink: