Talk:The Way International/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Abundant SharingTithing

I was recently reading a chapter about The Way, International in a book alleging that TWI is a cult. The book stated "The Way teaches a 15 percent tithe called "abundant sharing"." This article indicates that the tithe is 10 percent. Do we have any clear evidence on which it is? Citation (Larson, Bob: Larson's Book of Cults; The Way, International; pg 178). (joey 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Larson is quite controversial, to say the least. If he says 15% and other sources say 10%, I'd really be inclined to believe the other sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly unfamiliar with Larson. I didn't want to seem like something was wrong I just wasn't sure what other source was used. If Larson is controversial you are correct, it is best not to use it. (joey 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

I can't claim a source beyond myself but here goes. The tithe was always taught (in probably the majority of churches) as being 10%. What was referred to as Abundant Sharing is ANYTHING over the 10. Therefore literally speaking 10.01% is in the category of Abundant Sharing. The Way never taught (meaning from their headquarters) that 15% was a natural figure. What probably happened is this (assuming Larson thought he was correct of course)

Local leaders are given a ton of autonomy in some areas. What this means is that the potential for abuse of power can be present. A local leader can change doctrine in slight ways and might not ever be questioned. There are checks and balances to stop this from happening, but it is more than possible. In fact it happened a lot while there were leadership fights going on in what was called The Fog years which is why it is hard to seperate what might have been taught by the Way itself or what was propogated by a local leader when there is no source mentioned. Lsjzl 13:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

TWI has had DIFFERENT policies on this at DIFFERENT times. Under VPW, the breakdown was: tithe is 10%, mandatory, and required-required by God Almighty. Abundant Sharing was anything above 10%, and effectively earns brownie points with God. And if you gave them ALL your money except what you needed to live on, that's Plurality Giving. Under LCM, all three terms stayed in existence, but more than 80% of the members had left early-on in a number of waves from the start of his term of office. So, incoming $cashola was way down. LCM then added some new doctrines, one of which increased expected giving by those remaining- he redefined the tithe as 15%, and IIRC, had re-redefined it to 20% just before he was removed from office. As far as I know, it's currently standing at 15%. There were other policies that brought in more money, too, but you didn't ask about them. As for difficulties to document due to no source being mentioned, blame TWI directly. They've got a history of making clear, documentable statements hard to pin down. (I can give examples if you want.) That's because they hate being quoted on some of them, and on others, they prefer to be able to change them completely without offering any explanation (or any GOOD explanation.) Other groups have little or no difficulty giving their official stances on doctrine and practice. Pete Snowball 13:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I can fairy categorically state that officially there has never been a change in the def. of a tithe to anything above 10%. I can believe that Ex-Rev Martindale suggested any true believer give more, he was like that. But the "biblical" definition of tithe was never changed. I am involved in the group. It is still 10% as it always has been. Yes the Way may pride themselves on things you said. But what you said has nothing to do with this fact. Tithe is 10. Lsjzl 04:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've done some specific digging on this. Before 1990, LCM as President stated that "plurality giving" (giving them everything other than what you need) should be the goal for all Christians. (Heard him say that MYSELF.) AFTER 1990, the tithe itself did remain as 10%, and was mandatory as always-but enforced more. Furthermore, LCM as President (as opposed to just some dude with the microphone) said that under the Law Administration they gave 10%, so under Grace we should give more, and began specifying 15% as the minimum to expect of ANYONE in the Grace Administration. He still said everyone should aspire to "plurality give." His famous comments about the Tithe itself (10%) is that "that's the seed. That's the bare minimum", and that God's blessings were withheld at 9% or less- "Below that, God won't even spit in your direction." I'm still looking for a verifiable source for the statement "10% gives you protection, 15% gives you revelation", which is currently unverified as another of his statements. (Someone confirms having heard it and it was a popular theme of his, but can't specify a tape#.)

So, yes, officially, the definition of tithe has consistently been 10%. (An expectation of a mandatory 15% was never labelled a tithe officially.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Snowball (talk • contribs)

I remember him saying that as well but for accuracy he said (and I believe VPW always said)that anything less than 10% not at 9 or less was not a tithe and was dishonest or something. (As was giving anything without a cheerful heart they stated) I also read the same digging you did, as the question was posed by Tom Strange on Greasespot. You know as well as I that LCM's spewfests at times set doctrine where none was technically meant both by the force of his speech as well as the adherence of "his" followers or just the fact that he let himself spew all the time. (You know what I mean by this even if not said perfectly) In fact (off topic) one reason for the reported snore fests at some STS are due to probably the rigid adherence to what has been practiced so no longer does someone's POV get into the teaching. Anyway, the ministry of The Way does not currently teach anything about how we should be giving 15% even if a quote can be found on an old tape. (Am I writing off a quote found on a tape? No. But I know that even on Greasespot that if found, there would still be debate as there already is about whether or not it was policy. These types of argument are not technically what Wikipedia is for from what I can tell. At least on the article page anyway. It IS what Greasespot or this talk page is for though. So at this time I don't know what could be added to the article. I suppose we would have to wait to find out what the specific quote is and see if it fits into a page about The Way now. Maybe if not it would fit into a page on LCM himself to show an aspect of him or something?) Please do me the favour of not reading into what I wrote here. Not that I expect that YOU specifically will but as this will prob be reposted and repeatedly looked into for "meaning" or "whitewashing" let's just state now that it isn't. Thanks Pete. Lsjzl 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I never recall in my 15 or so years in the ministry hearing that anything above 10% was the "new tithe" or any words to that effect. It had always been as long as I was in, 10 percent was the tithe, it was the minimum if you expected to see God's blessings, and anything above and beyond that was abundant sharing. I do recall hearing of Plurality Giving, though I never really understood that concept. I hadn't pursued that concept much though.

On the concept of less than the tithe, yes I do recall hearing in effect, that anything less than 10% wouldn't net you anything. Also the idea of giving with a cheerful heart - that notion was expressed many times and was stressed as important.

As to Pete Snowballs statement that LCM changed the tithe to 20% I never heard that one either. If anything it was a strong encouragement by LCM to the believers to encourage them to seriously consider abundantly sharing more, and he evidently considered 20% to be a good goal. In fact that was a goal I reached without any harm and much benefit in fact. Especially when considering my previous financial situation was relatively dire. Pushing oneself to grow in the word has always been the goal of the ministry and I am sure it still is --natipal 09:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find the storied tendency of ex-twi'ers to attack every utterance of a twi'er to be as exaggerated as some of the stories WE hear. Greasespot DOES come in handy for endless discussion on a subject and covering all angles (even the "VPW was perfect" one), and to a more concise extent, so does this page. I agree that everything should be worked out OFF the actual article. One person attested to local leadership being instructed to (1997/1998) check PERSONALLY into the amount of money a person was giving, and long before that, some people were ordered to write it as a check (which leaves a paper trail). That's STILL not relevant to the actual wording we're discussing, so all of that actually stays OFF the article until the article brushes up on the specifics. Not that I'm thrilled about that, but a neutral POV does not mean "It lines up with only what I say" or I'm no better than out ninja editors. Pete Snowball 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally get what you mean Pete, and thanks for the response. And I do see your point. If the article grows into the direction of specifics (which it may or may not do. I have noticed that if the article gets too long it will be reviewed for either splitting the article up into new ones or trimmed) then the experiences of people from all POV could come into play even if just during the discussion phase. Signed: "The (almost) Pillar of saltiness" Lsjzl 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Natipal, you're late to the discussion. As you can see from reading the ENTIRE discussion, the OFFICIAL policy under LCM was that 10% was the bare minimum, and 9% wouldn't be honored by God. Since "we're in the Grace Administration", we SHOULD be giving 15%, or (less often) 20%. He DID also specify that the goal of EVERY SINGLE TWI'er--and he taught this in the mid-80s onward- should be "plurality giving", or "giving TWI everything beyond your bills and absolute needs". That was not REQUIRED. There was a varying amount of pressure to give 15% or 20% or plurality give, but the official MANDATORY policy WAS 10%. And please review the mechanism for "signing" your posts-it's easier than what you're doing now. Pete Snowball 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Secret Messages?

I see one of our ninja editors has been removing verifiable information (as they do) and has requested I email him PRIVATELY. If I wanted secret communication, I could have stayed in TWI. If he has something to tell me, he can tell me HERE, where ALL can see it. He is likely the person who just sent me the following message:

"You guys can't make cultic assertions when 1) you've never read any material from The Way, 2) you don't know anyone who works there or has attended their fellowships, 3) you've never been to their headquarters or any of their fellowships, 4) you seem to have a clear bias against religious organizations you think might be a cult, and 5) it has already been deemed counterproductive to maintaining NPOV by throwing the "cult" word around. You seem to be trying to define this organization by the rumors and stories from a handful of people who have clear bias and animosity towards TWI because of events that happened 10-15 years ago. Why not get some info from people who are attending their fellowships TODAY and who are working their TODAY ... you can even find some of Victor Paul Wierwille's books on eBay?"

This is a clear display of ignorance, since he presumes we never read any material of theirs-and currently DON'T (wrong again), never attended their meetings, never attended their classes, & never attended their headquarters, have no current information on them or from them, and don't communicate with current attendees. Wrong on every SINGLE count. Since he repeatedly used the word "cult" and claimed I used it, he's wrong AGAIN, since I don't use the word because it carries lots of emotional charge. and we can ALL see it.

Now, if he DARES to actually engage in discussion, he may be surprised. Lsjzl has communicated here and hasn't turned into a pillar of salt YET- perhaps he'd survive 2-way communication.

Pete Snowball 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

YET? tsk tsk :) Lsjzl 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I expect he'd say it was just a matter of time... and it IS true it hasn't happened yet. :) Pete Snowball 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross

One link to the Rick Ross site was supposedly for the Boston Herald. A search of all of their stories from the day in question (April 10, 2000) does not show this piece ever. There are court transcripts I believe that say that allegations were made etc. So I am not removing a source because I don't like the content but because by himself Rick Ross has been noted as a source to not be linked to directly. For his content he links to..well it would be awesome to actually find it on the sources direct page. Lsjzl 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, Lsjzl. I've e-mailed Ross at the address on his website to ask for an explanation. (If I had to guess, I'd say he probably got the text and the sources of some articles switched around, so that it appeared in a real paper but the Herald isn't that paper. Unfortunately, that doesn't give many clues useful for tracking down the actual appearance of the article...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I bet http://www.greasespotcafe.com has the reference articles. I am a bit busy at the moment or I would check..but I do believe I remember them being there. (Court documents I think they are) Lsjzl 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Herald" article must've been from a Massachusetts paper, given the first line. (I keep wondering, is it possible that it really was in the Herald and just not on the site for some reason? I may be able to get to a library where they'd have back issues of the Herald...) Anyways, in looking for a newspaper site that still had articles on the lawsuit, I found out about two other lawsuits, one of which revolved around the same point (sexual misconduct by Martindale) that the "Herald" article was cited to support, and both the two sexual misconduct lawsuits were referenced by court documents in the third, such as this one (PDF format). So, even if we can't get the "Herald" article, we still have solid sourcing for that point. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading these discussions with interest. While Way-bashing isn't called for, turning a Wikpedia article into a Way ad isn't either; as I get my bearings around here, I expect to be contributing Ten of Swords 20:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Considers itself a church"

Is the phrase "The Way now considers itself a church..." correct? I'd always thought that they were adamant that they weren't a church Ten of Swords 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup that is correct. Lsjzl 13:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the part about them previously being adamant about not being a church also correct? That sounds interesting; why did they not consider themselves a church, and when/why did that change? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What I say is of course not ex-cathedra but still: From what I remember TWI didn't want to be called a "religion" or a "church" in the normal way of saying it because they wanted to be known as different. I don't mean that they had their own word as they were a "ministry", but said that religion now-a-days meant non-thinking follower of a denominations interpretation. (That is into my words but I think for instance Pete would agree that the thinking followed those lines) So they adamantly said "no we are not another church but followers of Christ, followers of "The Way." (the reference taken from a scripture) Of course using the English language purely you can then say: "Oh, ok..so um. Like, you are a church though?" and the answer of course has to be yes. I track it down to the "us and them" mentality that some religious groups go through. To point again to this mindset if someone asked: "So, you read the bible? Oh, so you're religious then?" (What does that person really mean? Simply, oh so you are into religious things. Aka God. Aka The Bible. Aka Going to church. Not a problem) The answer most often given by someone in the Way was "No, I am not religious" (aka to them - non-thinking)followed by some "but I do read and study the bible" answer which confuses people. As to when it changed, well I am not sure. I know the current prez of this ministry went to a religious conference where other ministries discussed ways to fight religious intolerance in places like France etc and the comments disseminated through the leadership body of the Way said things like "it's all of us together to fight things like that, we can't do it on our own." So yes it is some sort of change and no longer are they saying we are not a church. That is my own POV from what I have heard but hope it doesn't come across slanted. I think that's how it went for the average person? Thanks for letting me rant I guess Lsjzl 15:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't come across slanted -- it explains things well. It's almost (if I can try and summarize my understanding) as if they said "we are not a church" because they expected "we are a church" to be heard as "we are just another church"? I appreciate the explanation, even if it's not ex-cathedra; if you find something that we can use as a formal reference, I think this would be great information to add to the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• They do not consider themselves to be a church; as a matter of fact, I remember firsthand an issue where there was punishment for church drawing. Here are some links to sources and quotes claiming that The Way is not a church or a religion: [1] and [2]. With some more digging, we can probably source it enough to change it to "The Way does not consider itself to be a religion or a church; instead, its leaders have described it as a bible research facility" or something like that. Which is absolutely ridiculous, since The Way has more organs, singing, etc. than any church in the world. Way Productions did some good numbers though.....minus the religious opiate for the masses claptrap, but that's my POV :) — Deckiller 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that their president is involved in dialogue with other groups.

I'd like to see some kind of documentation or quote from Ms. Rivenbark or other Way spokesperson before I was comfortable with the statement that "The Way now considers itself a church". True, there never was anything REALLY different about them that would make them NOT a church in the eyes of an outside observer, but THEY (The Way) always went to great lengths to separate themselves from "churches" and "denominations". Including that statement would indicate to anyone familiar with the organization a significant turnaround in their attitude. Ten of Swords 22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that I source like you suggest would be great. But I do know the day to day feeling and that if for instance I am out with another person whose in The Way, and someone asks us if we go to church.. guess what the answer is 9 times out of 10? Yes we do. It's non-denominational and called The Way etc. I was also involved with the group when the answer would be a loud "No!" but believe me or not that has still changed even if only in this way. Lsjzl 11:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect your insight as an insider; but over the years I've seen a diference in what went on "on the field" and what was officially promulgated from New Knoxville. Is the Board of Directors saying that you should identify yourself as a church? Or are the rank & file members just doing it because it is the path of least resistance? Ten of Swords 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe language like this:

While The Way has always drawn a distinction between themselves and "denonminations" and "churches", some followers now consider The Way a church. Like mainstream churches, The Way ordains clergy and performs weddings. Ten of Swords 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I never responded, I for one think that sounds great. Lsjzl 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks & No problem...I assume that you have a life!Ten of Swords 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Way Corps/Classes

Under the heading classes, the article read that "The students travel to Camp Gunnison, Colorado to learn how to teach and minister" - I changed it to "...for their training".

I also added this phrase: "...or fullfil other assigned responsibilities, or remain at Hedaquarters or Gunnison as "staff". >>after this sentence: "The graduating Way Corps are can be sent out to different states or countries to start fellowships..."Ten of Swords 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the new claim that VPW founded the Way Corps based on the US Marine Corps. VPW made this claim-but it was written as if this is an ESTABLISHED FACT. (ANOTHER non-NPOV edit...) Further, it's worth noting that when VPW made this claim, he had no background with any branch of the US military-including the USMC- and no background with any kind of training program whatsoever, and neither did LCM, the man he handed the program off to. It sounds pious to make the claims he did, but they don't seem to reflect a position of knowledge, nor-in practice-any resemblance in the finished products.Pete Snowball 12:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There were some remarks that were removed that looked like they came from a Way Corps brochure. Ten of Swords 04:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)