Thanks for that, counselor.

Okay, I admitt I was a little put off when I wrote that last post. I thought I would let you know exactly how I felt. Just having an emotional reaction however is not right. I am in the wrong for that. I do think my intentions are misunderstood though. I did have a point I wished to make. I think it does have value which is not insulting or for the sake of just bothering people. For one, I want to communicate that I do not want to be labelled as someone trying to be a spokesperson for TFI. Doug's previous post seemed to me to suggest that. I felt that people reading that may get the wrong idea that I have presented myself as a representative for TFI. Maybe I misunderstood him.

Please let me be very honest with you.

I have had deep suspicions that Trinity is a cult. I emailed Pete at Trinity a couple years ago telling him I felt as if I was being taken by a cult.(I won't write what he said here without his permission) Needless to say, when I asked him that, it seemed I hit a soft spot. This was long before I knew of Doug or Wendy. I have been very taken by the teaching there, because it seemed to independently confirm a few personal spiritual experiences I have had. I felt too taken though. If you read the previous issue of the Wittenburg Door Magazine, they printed a letter of mine in which I said that. I have felt that they see the scriptures very honestly, without putting their own ideas or qualifications on it. When I really believed God was a reality, I read the words of Christ and saw how radical they were compared to what modern evangelicals practice. I sold my stuff, and saw that Jesus told me to abandon my life. This was before I paid any attention to TFI. So when I heard Ole, I was amazed that he seemed to be preaching the actual Gospel, without condition. I have though had serious questions about some it, ie. teaching your mind is the anti-christ. Which admittedly is the kind of doctrine that has 'cult' written all over it. I seriously wonder if in 1 John(where the spirit of the anti-christ is mentioned) that the author was intending what TFI has said. I give room though for what they are saying, because other scriptures do say that the mind of man is futile. I have experienced that, and continue to experience it.

Maybe I have too readily believed that to oppose TFI is to oppose the true Gospel. Maybe unfairly also I have believed that Wendy's book has been born of a victimhood and an unwillingness to face the things Jesus said. I see the Gospel as a very severe message in some ways, and I felt that TFI has not shyed away from that. Maybe this is the crux of the matter, [b:910f93ecd0]that I find it nearly impossible to believe that anyone could preach what Ole does, and yet fail to exhibit the reality of it in their actions.[/b:910f93ecd0]
I have percieved what Ole teaches to discard everything that is not authentic about Christianity, and that he has only spoken of a discipleship founded upon laying down your life for those around you. Ole seems pretty hard on anything that is less than that. I have believed that is why people get so offended by it. Maybe I am wrong...

I hope this gives you an idea of the place I am coming from, in a manner that is both constructive and respectful. I would like to also say, that I value what you have to say Doug, Larry, and Brian. I realize I may not have done that, or at least shown that up to this point. I don't want to be at enmity with you guys because of my own pride. I mistrust myself because, I see that we can often believe our intentions are better than they are. Forgive me if my intentions have not been in love. I appreciate what you have to say, even if you are wrong, because I feel it offers some balance to TFI and people like myself that is valuable. It has also caused me to realize that my faith is something that would continue to exist, even if I discover the disappointing reality that Trinity is just an abusive, cultish group. That would break my heart though.

Anyhow, this is the moment you've been waiting for. I am going to send you my address and buy the book in order to respectfully understand what you are saying.

Quote

Okay, I admitt I was a little put off when I wrote that last post. I thought I would let you know exactly how I felt. Just having an emotional reaction however is not right. I am in the wrong for that. I do think my intentions are misunderstood though. I did have a point I wished to make. I think it does have value which is not insulting or for the sake of just bothering people. For one, I want to communicate that I do not want to be labelled as someone trying to be a spokesperson for TFI. Doug's previous post seemed to me to suggest that. I felt that people reading that may get the wrong idea that I have presented myself as a representative for TFI. Maybe I misunderstood him.

Wow! I feel like we are seeing the real Nathan for the first time. I appreciate what you say here. Of course I know that you are not the official spokesperson for Trinity, but you mentioned emailing Gary so I thought they may have been using you somewhat. Besides, since you were pleading their case you kind of became the [i:28686b41e9]de facto[/i:28686b41e9] spokesperson for Trinity for purposes of this message board, even if you had no official capacity.

Quote

Please let me be very honest with you.

I have had deep suspicions that Trinity is a cult. I emailed Pete at Trinity a couple years ago telling him I felt as if I was being taken by a cult.(I won't write what he said here without his permission) Needless to say, when I asked him that, it seemed I hit a soft spot.

Steven Hassan says that nobody ever decides to join a cult, they just put off the decision to leave. I became fascinated with the whole concept of self-deception after leaving Trinity, how a person can know something and yet be in denial about it at the same time. In reality you already know that there is a problem with Trinity, it’s just that you don’t want it to be true. And, the fact that Pete is so defensive speaks volumes.

Quote

This was long before I knew of Doug or Wendy. I have been very taken by the teaching there, because it seemed to independently confirm a few personal spiritual experiences I have had. I felt too taken though. If you read the previous issue of the Wittenburg Door Magazine, they printed a letter of mine in which I said that.

I have felt that they see the scriptures very honestly, without putting their own ideas or qualifications on it. When I really believed God was a reality, I read the words of Christ and saw how radical they were compared to what modern evangelicals practice. I sold my stuff, and saw that Jesus told me to abandon my life. This was before I paid any attention to TFI. So when I heard Ole, I was amazed that he seemed to be preaching the actual Gospel, without condition. I have though had serious questions about some it, ie. teaching your mind is the anti-christ. Which admittedly is the kind of doctrine that has 'cult' written all over it. I seriously wonder if in 1 John(where the spirit of the anti-christ is mentioned) that the author was intending what TFI has said. I give room though for what they are saying, because other scriptures do say that the mind of man is futile. I have experienced that, and continue to experience it.

Yes, there is much that is good and true in the teaching, but also some things that are not. When I first met Ole and started attending the Bible studies back in the late 1970s, the group was not even a body yet—we just referred to ourselves as a “fellowship.” There was no community, only the doctrine. And, it was the doctrine itself that drew me in. In that respect I differed from the people who arrived later, who were attracted to the community. I bought into to the idea that what Ole was teaching was the spiritual truth in as undiluted a form as could be found on this old spinning rock, and that was what I was seeking.

Quote

Maybe I have too readily believed that to oppose TFI is to oppose the true Gospel.

I believed that once, too. However, if God is not going to share His glory with flesh then that includes Ole’s flesh. The irony here is that Ole once knew and taught that all heresy is based on bringing the Kingdom down and attaching it to something temporal—to literalize the parable. Yet, in later years he began to refer to the children born to the members of the Trinity Foundation as having been “born in the land (i.e. the promised land).” In other words, he began to literalize the parable of the kingdom and attach it to something temporal—the Trinity Foundation. Once you fall into that trap, it is easy to believe that if people oppose you they are fighting against God, and then to start to act that way. At that point, you are not too many steps away from burning people at the stake.

Quote

Maybe unfairly also I have believed that Wendy's book has been born of a victimhood and an unwillingness to face the things Jesus said. I see the Gospel as a very severe message in some ways, and I felt that TFI has not shyed away from that.

The Gospel is indeed a radical message, and Jesus makes radical demands on our lives. But, all too often, other people—who are themselves fallible sinners—think they have the right to play the role of the Holy Spirit in your life. Even if Wendy has failings that show through in what she has written (and she has readily admitted that she does), that does not give you or anyone else who claims to be a believer the right to dismiss her. I am very disappointed in Trinity’s response to the book. By their attitude of bemused condescension they have as much as called us “Raca.” (See Matt 5:22 in either the KJV or the NIV).

BTW let me make one point about the Gospel. The word itself means “good news,” as I’m sure you know. I can hear a little of the Trinity approach when you talk of the Gospel being “severe.” Radical, yes, but the word itself means GOOD NEWS. They seem to have forgotten that at Trinity.

Quote

Maybe this is the crux of the matter, that I find it nearly impossible to believe that anyone could preach what Ole does, and yet fail to exhibit the reality of it in their actions.

Nathan, that is indeed the crux of the matter. I am with you on this one. The main thing I can come up with (and it does not answer all of the questions raised by this conundrum, even to my own satisfaction) is that there is a breakdown in accountability. It may just be that we humans are so weak and broken that we have a need for constant accountability, so prone are we to falling into error. Actually, I think Ole would agree with that proposition, but nevertheless he is not really accountable to anyone. Sure, he has a board of directors, but the board consists of mostly his own disciples. He does not have any kind of oversight, nobody he talks to for advice, nobody he even considers a spiritual peer—much less anyone he looks up to. He has started something that is completely removed from the institutional structure of the visible church. He is a Lone Ranger for God, although he himself has said many times that there are no Lone Rangers in the Kingdom of God.

Quote

I have percieved what Ole teaches to discard everything that is not authentic about Christianity, and that he has only spoken of a discipleship founded upon laying down your life for those around you. Ole seems pretty hard on anything that is less than that. I have believed that is why people get so offended by it. Maybe I am wrong...

Well, that is certainly what Ole and his disciples seem to think. They essentially say, “If someone leaves, it could not possibly be that we have done anything wrong. They just could not handle the brutal demands of the Gospel.” They even have a term for their casualties: “Almost Disciples.” I think they have missed the spirit of II Timothy 2:24-25, though:

24: And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing,
25: correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth…

Quote

I hope this gives you an idea of the place I am coming from, in a manner that is both constructive and respectful. I would like to also say, that I value what you have to say Doug, Larry, and Brian. I realize I may not have done that, or at least shown that up to this point. I don't want to be at enmity with you guys because of my own pride. I mistrust myself because, I see that we can often believe our intentions are better than they are. Forgive me if my intentions have not been in love. I appreciate what you have to say, even if you are wrong, because I feel it offers some balance to TFI and people like myself that is valuable.

I feel the tone of this communication is completely different from some of what you have written before. I can see that your heart is right, and I, in turn, ask your forgiveness for any impatience I have shown toward you.

Quote

It has also caused me to realize that my faith is something that would continue to exist, even if I discover the disappointing reality that Trinity is just an abusive, cultish group. That would break my heart though.

Imagine if you had given 20+ years of your life to the place. There are several broken hearts out here, and that is one of the things I have been trying to say to you. When you truly understand how this thing has impacted people it is frightening.

Quote

Anyhow, this is the moment you've been waiting for. I am going to send you my address and buy the book in order to respectfully understand what you are saying.

You may not agree with everything, and you certainly don’t have to. I just pray that you will listen with an open spirit.

Amen. I hope I have an open spirit too. In some sense I've believed I've been standing up for a worthy cause. Who knows, I may continue to believe that. I am not going to pretend to know things I don't. I would like to say that I have never felt like Gary was using me to speak for them as you suggested Doug. I would also like to say that Pete was not ultra-defensive when I said they seemed like a cult. As I said before, I don't want to repeat what he said without permission. I inferred though that it was a sensitive issue. He may not in fact even remember that email.

Another point, I reread the interview with Rick Ross in the Door today. He makes the point of distinguishing between a cult following(ie. Trekkies) and a destructive cult. Usually people consider the latter term when the word cult is used. It is yet to be determined in my view if TFI is in fact a destructive cult. Certainly rereading that interview made me consider if Rick was unwittingly describing some cult elements taking place at Trinity.

The strongest point you make Doug is the one about Ole. He does not appear in the Bible Studies to have peers always. As you say, he has disciples. In all the hours I have spent listening in, I can't remember ever hearing Ole back down on an issue. I did question Gary on this point, and again I can't repeat what he has said. This is just personal to me, but he actually gave me a pretty good answer.

Externally, Trinity has always appeared to me to be open to critical inquiry. Maybe that is a facade. Maybe if I spent enough time there I would suffer for questioning things too much. Maybe reading the book will give me a better understanding of such issues.

Quote

The strongest point you make Doug is the one about Ole. He does not appear in the Bible Studies to have peers always. As you say, he has disciples. In all the hours I have spent listening in, I can't remember ever hearing Ole back down on an issue. I did question Gary on this point, and again I can't repeat what he has said. This is just personal to me, but he actually gave me a pretty good answer.

They’ve had years to come up with an answer, so I suspect they have a good one by now. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Ole sees himself as above his followers. They are spiritual infants from whom he has little if anything to learn. Of course, this begs the question, “If your disciples are still spiritually immature after 25+ years of being discipled by you, Ole, whose fault is that?”

Quote

Externally, Trinity has always appeared to me to be open to critical inquiry. Maybe that is a facade. Maybe if I spent enough time there I would suffer for questioning things too much. Maybe reading the book will give me a better understanding of such issues.

On the surface Trinity tries to appear open, but there are some structural problems there (like Ole’s lack of accountability) that preclude any real openness. The very closed and defensive way they have dealt with Wendy’s book and Glenna’s article are cases in point.

It will be interesting to read the book.

It will be even more interesting to read your comments after you read it.

My source tells me that TFI has now sold a 49% share of [i:4d654328a6]The Door[/i:4d654328a6] to some company (she/he didn't know which one) and are in exchange recieving $25,000 per month indefinitely. This sale bailed them out financially. They do however get to maintain a controlling interest. My source tells me that his/her impression of TFI nowadays is that they are a hollow shell of an organiztion that outside of the investigations doesn't really exist to do much of anything, other than keep Ole's celebrity going. She/he tells me that there has been a purge of homeless and panhandlers from the nearby Fair Park area (as there is every so often, especially when there's some new exhibit or sporting event in Fair Park) and that the Colubia Avenue area has been inundated with homeless and panhandlers lately. TFI seems willfully oblivious to this, and only "takes in" the homeless that they can potentially recruit.

[www.trinityfi.org]

That Dallas project thing is a joke; there's homeless sleeping within fifty yards of where TFI's offices are and what does TFI do for them?? Zero. That's how they got that guy Jeff...Jeff, I hear, will be heir to a large sum of money someday (I hear his family got wealthy in the perfume business) and my speculation is that that's the reason they keep him around, for the potential $$$ someday. So now Ronnie D. is doing my old job, and Jeff is doing Suzette's old job...he is the "official Block landscape designer". Jeff has an easy gig...surely he does more than just water flowers all day. Probably not though.

My source will continue to give me info as she/he gets it.

I can speak with some authority on this because I helped found the Dallas Project and was its first Executive Director. The idea was never for Trinity to take in all the homeless people, but rather to challenge the churches to do so. It is unfair to say that Trinity is responsible to deal with all of the homeless people displaced by whatever insensitive thing the city is doing at Fair Park.

I beg your pardon, C47.