Quote
Truthtesty

No one yet has shown me the verse or verses that Thieme claims 1 right pastor has sole authority over his own congregation. Thieme teaching [b:8c45bc0c81]just that[/b:8c45bc0c81] identifies Thieme\Berachah as a cult.

That was not how it was. The Pastor of the church is the sole authority on what was to be taught. Elected Deacons were the administration authority. Thieme could be voted out at any time.

Quote

I was wondering if brainout, Ephesians, and Genez, would like to explain Thieme's teachings about "[b:8c45bc0c81]A wife is obligated(by scripture) to do anything, AND THAT MEANS [u:8c45bc0c81]ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING[/u:8c45bc0c81] that her husand wants from her in the bedroom[/b:8c45bc0c81]" How's that for Thieme's emotional disturbance? Would you like to explain?

Explain what? That was not what he taught. Why not get some tapes on his several marriage series. Get some first hand info for once? You keep throwing out malicious hearsay.

It won't cost you a cent. And, you will see for yourself how foolish you sound to those who do know his teachings. I think that's what you need. To hear him for yourself. Who ever heard of accusing someone with only second hand smoke?


In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
HenryL

Do I consider Berachah a cult? Yes! I was in denial about this for several years not wanting to admit that I was taken in. Having said that, I think the association was a positive one at that particular time in my life. The rigid militaristic methodology gave me some stability and direction that was sorely lacking in my life at that time. Isn't that the appeal of most cults for the rudderless souls in the world?

What has that got to do with anything? "Strict" = cult? Thieme was strict in how he taught, and it was in print at that time that he was strict in how he taught. He was all business when it came to his teaching.

Jesus said that they way that leads to life is "strait and narrow." The word "strait" is not old English for straight. The word translated "strait" could be translated as 'strict.'

There is a certain protocol to the proper teaching of God's Word at a certain stage in a believers life. We need strictness at some point as to be pointed into having a disciplined life. Later on in his teaching, that strictness disappeared. It was during the years when all the ex hippies and drug users were finding Christ and was needed for many of them to get their bearings back in their casing. There is a time for strictness. It does not make it a cult. He was not strict like this in his early years. Nor, in his latter years. It was primarily during the hippy days when the USA was falling apart in a million different directions. When being anti authority was in vogue. You don't remember this time and all its chaos?

Quote

I'm sure my Southern Baptist Background tempered my view of the ministry as opposed to those who were raised in it. I brought certain beliefs with me that made more objective than those that were raised in it.

Being Souther Baptist often times brings lots of ingrained legalism into the picture. I came in as an ex Jew. I had no notion of any Christian denominational pre-conditioning. I found Thieme to be a breath of fresh air in a stagnant world of traditions of men.

I learned more about Judaism from him than I learned from Jews. Even my parents (who initially disowned me) found Thieme to be a man they could listen to. They (like myself) mocked the prevailing element of self righteousness and stupidity in most preachers that were around at that time. That's what got Thieme in hot water. He exposed errors that were commonly accepted... and yet, he had some of his own, as well. No man is perfect in all he teaches.

Quote

But let me make it clear, I was deceived as many others were. I can only imagine the damage and hurt by those who were raised in the church.

We have no idea who you are. I remember Catholics saying the same things after they returned to Catholicism, after spending time with evangelical Christianity. Your words are strictly subjective.

Quote

Berachah, though a cult, is not a lot different than most "orthodox", evangelical ministries. How it differs is in degree. What Thieme promoted at Berachah was no less than a [b:9fc4abc68c]priesthood[/b:9fc4abc68c]. Thieme promoted the idea that the word of God was unknowable without the gift of a "pastor/teacher" who was trained in the original languages. Ironically, this is believed by ninety percent of evangelical Christianity.

Everyone gets this wrong? He taught that you, unless you have the gift of pastor teacher, can not understand vast parts of Scripture for yourself UNTIL AFTER YOU MATURE! We can all read things in the Gospel and understand it. That's not what he used to harp on. Can you read the Book of Kings and know what was really going on? Know how many pastors can teach that? Very few. You know that if you had been exposed to Thieme's level of teaching.

Luther wanted the common man to all have their own Bible in their own language. Yet, he also lamented and was angered by how many could not read the Bible and interpret it correctly for themselves.

You first need to be taught by someone God raised up with the gift to teach to give you what you need to know before you can read it for yourself. Thieme NEVER said you will always be dependent upon your pastor to read the Bible for you. [b:9fc4abc68c]You need to submit to your pastor until you mature enough to read the Bible for yourself! [/b:9fc4abc68c] Its like a parent does not hand his ten year old the keys to the car. You need to grow up first.

Quote

The degree comes through some of the "doctrines" espoused to foster the idea of the professional priest class. First, the pastor teacher was beyond criticism.

Bag of manure! I wrote several times to Berachah with criticisms. I received answers. Pastors ordained by Thieme are free to disagree with teachings if they found solutions to what Thieme missed. Theieme welcomed OBJECTIVE criticism. Not emotionally reactionary subjective attacks.

I recently attended a church where a pastor openly criticized certain teachings. He was ordained in Berachah. He also was one of the prize students under Dr. Walvoord at DTS. Thieme never condemned criticism. He only condemned uninformed biased criticism. I used to correspond for years with Pastor Ralph G. Braun. DD, DTS. He knew his Hebrew and Greek. He did not always agree with Thieme. Yet, he also made it clear that very few men are qualified to evaluate him. And, Thieme was recommended to me by Professor Stan Ashby. Professor of Ancient Languages [Harvard]. Professor Ashby strongly criticized some teachings of Thieme, openly. Yet? he also recommended him to me. Men of that level of understanding are objective in what they do, if they are living as on to the LORD.

Quote

Anyone guilty of such was subject to "triple compound discipline" which was administered by the Lord himself. And when I say criticism, I don't mean any malicious gossip, but rather disagreeing or questioning anything that was taught. How does that compare with Paul who commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures to prove his words "whether the the things were so?" Acts 17:11

Here we go. Making doctrinal differences the criterion for declaring someone else a cult! If what you say were the reason? Then every denomination that disagrees the others is a cult! All denominations are a cult! They can not agree doctrinally.

Quote

This idea of the absolute authority of the pastor was furthered by an angry, bullying persona from pulpit. Thieme publicly dressed people down from the pulpit for talking, looking around, or even looking disinterested.

You were free to leave at any time. Were you not? Cults do not allow for that. He did not tolerate those who came there who were not interested in learning. Came to be critical. Or , came there because SOMEONE TALKED THEM INTO ATTENDING! He wanted people there by their own free will. He even apologized from the pulpit to some whom he felt had been talked into attending by a girlfriend or friends. he wanted only those who anted to be there, to attend. he hated when someone did not want to be there. They , he would tell them, should go find a church where they could feel comfortable. He would then explain that this church was designed only for those seeking serious study of God's Word. You took it. Or, you were free not to come back. Cults do not want you to leave. They want to run your life.

Quote

Thieme with his appeal to the "original languages" stood in judgment scriptures by acting as a substitute for the scriptures. He also created his own theological vocabulary to "more accurately" interpret the scriptures. Much of this vocabulary was thinly veiled Greek philosophy. Gnosis as apposed to "epigosis", the epignosis being the higher knowledge as interpreted by the "pastor/teacher. This is no less than the "secret knowledge of the "initiated" of the Greek fraternal system.

I even heard a Catholic priest teach on epignosis. He said basically the same thing. He never heard of Thieme.

Again, you are getting into issues of doctrinal disagreement. This does not constitute a cult.

Now? If Thieme taught against the Deity of Christ? The Deity of The Holy Spirit? Salvation by works? Then, those doctrinal issues may be entered as evidence of a cult. Have any of those?

Enuf already...

In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
HenryL

Second only to his Bible correcting and standing in judgment of the scriptures, was his doctrine of "Impersonal" love. I think this doctrine was responsible for the inordinate amount of divorce that was present at Berachah. According to Thieme, God deals with out of fellowship believers through impersonal love, never personal love. I won't go into detail, only to say that the idea promoted an indifferent, stoic, dead Christianity that was absolutely destructive to marriages. As members of the body of Christ, and sons of God, the Father cannot deal with us with anything other than personal love. Even in discipline. There is so much more I could say about the my time at Berachah but I'll stop here as it's getting late. Looking forward to hearing from other X-Berachites.
.

I was just looking through a family picture album. I saw pictures of a family gathering from the time when Thieme was introducing the understanding of what God's impersonal love was. (Being able to love the unlovable out of virtue, not personal preference).

Guess what? Almost three out of five of the younger couples shown in the album? Are now divorced at least once. Only a very few were listening to Thieme at the time. And, one that was is still married. How do you explain those divorces?

See how subjectivity blurs our thinking when we hold hatred in our hearts?

Feelings are not the criterion for determining what is a cult. Knowledge, is. Correct knowledge of the facts.


In Christ, GeneZ

GeneZ:

Here is a good working definition for a destructive cult as defined by a doctor that once taught at Harvard Medical School.

See [www.culteducation.com]

"Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

Here are some "warning signs" regarding a potentially unsafe group or leader:

See [www.culteducation.com]

Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

The group/leader is always right.

The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Here are some additional "warning signs" concerning those who become involved with potentially unsafe groups and leaders:

Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.

A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

To whom it may concern:

It is alright to cite/quote scripture for the purpose of exegesis regarding a specific point conerning a certain group or leader.

Preaching for the purpose of converting people at the board is not allowed, i.e. proselytizing.

Ok, since now we're talking behavior, lemme share a few things about what behavior I saw at Berachah during the four years I was physically there. (Have been a taper before and after, 34 years continuous, now age 53).

I saw the most silly idolizing of a man who didn't invite it. I also saw the most silly ICONOCLASTIC arrogance against that same man. Same guy, same stuff said, all of it live on tape, so you don't have to rely on hearsay to know what he did or did not, say. I couldn't stand the two extremes; those who rejected him were among those who initially introduced me to him, in college.

These people were in the minority. (The bulk of the people just came every night, studied, and left. The majority were just there to LEARN BIBLE. They were quiet.)

I watched these people turn into blobs: the idolizers would just parrot Thieme, understanding NOTHING of what he taught. The iconoclasts did the same, but they also disintegrated mentally, to the point where they could not hear, could not read, and interpreted everything as an offense. I see that very same behavior here in this forum and had resolved to leave it. I didn't stay at Berachah, and I don't want to stay here, for exactly the same reasons.

Difference is here, I don't see pro-Thieme idolizers. I see reasoned arguments based on Scripture, on outside research, on independent thinking. That surprised me greatly. I had expected parrots and self-proclaimed pariahs, in this forum. I see no parrots.

I have seen 8 people close to me literally disintegrate mentally because they reject 1Jn1:9 and whomever was their right pastor (2 of whom should have been under Thieme). Some of these people understood 1Jn1:9 meant filling way before Thieme even graduated. To them, 1Jn1:9 is simple in context of 1Jn1:5-10 -- can't be in a state of sin and filled with the Spirit at the same time. Back in the 1930's, this was widely understood. So among these individuals who KNOW about 1Jn1:9 and REFUSE to use it (because they TOLD me, else how could I know) -- I can barely stand to watch as they spiral down.

Those who reject their right pastor (not Thieme, necessarily, I don't know who's right for them) -- they KNOW that too, and have told me -- and man, they soon stopped using 1Jn1:9 also, and now it's a real challenge to even have a conversation with them.

Physically, the disintegration is kinda like leprosy. It hurts too much to describe it.

Hatred consumes. If you hate, you are not filled with the Spirit, obviously. If you hate ANYONE, especially a pastor -- never mind if he is right or wrong -- you incur Matt7:1-2 bigtime. That's where the "triple compound discipline" idea is sourced. Larger context is Lev26.

So to whomever it applies, go ahead -- hate. But pardon me, if I won't watch it. I'm seeing enough, up-close-and-personal, already.

Another theme of both your comments had to do with the topic of whether you can read Bible on your own -- HenryL, maintaining that Thieme imposed a cult-like popish stance, and GeneZ, that Thieme's teaching enables you to READ BIBLE FOR YOURSELF as you mature.

Um, it should be common sense that if someone bothers to tell you HOW an interpretation is derived by recourse to the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, spending lots of time on what most people consider boring stuff -- like the fact that Heb10:15 uses the EFFECTIVE PRESENT TENSE of martureo -- that person means you to LEARN, just as in math class or any other class. YOU learn, not just parrot. Kinda hard to get all gushy over someone who drily teaches you Greek-and-Hebrew geek stuff. Most people's eyes glaze over. Mine didn't. I didn't understand UNTIL I saw dry stuff like that, what was being taught.

I'm proof of that latter truth. I haven't heard a 'tape' in months, yet I'm always living on what I learned. Right now, I'm RETRANSLATING Isaiah 53 and all of 1Jn, because of what I learned from Thieme. I can read seminary textbooks and BibleWorks and understand them and read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew. I spend a lot of time doing that -- more than I should, way more than an hour a day. And all throughout, breathing 1Jn1:9 as I do so (I have no brain, else) -- I am constantly REMINDED (John 14:26) of something Thieme said in exegesis. I have no native memory, my family teases me relentlessly about that.

So you can visit the websites I wrote and decide for yourself whether I can read Bible in Greek and Hebrew. Or not -- I'm not the issue, myself. Point is, ANYONE is to be trained to read Bible VIA the teacher, because the TEACHER the HOLY SPIRIT, wrote the Word. His Head in our heads 24/7 is the objective. No matter what mere human teacher, THE Teacher assigns to you.

Buy all that or do not, I don't care one way or the other. But this is the BEHAVIORAL result of learning the Word of God in God's System:
[www.geocities.com]

rrmoderator, I really appreciate that faq.html and your last two posts. I can see why some, going by reactions they hear in others, would deem "x" a cult.

When one group is anti-, and another pro- in a forum, when they talk to each other, it tends to LOOK LIKE a prosyletizing on both sides. So the permission to cite some third source (here the Bible, since this is about a Bible teacher) is welcome relief. That way a proponent or opponent needn't take the next step and claim he/she is right -- there's a third source everyone can look at, and decide for himself.

Whew. Thanks.

Gene, reading your post brings me back to may years at Berachah. I would have defended him just as you are and would have considered any criticism as heretical. And you're right, many people attending Berachah misconstrued many things Thieme clearly taught. I often wondered if we were listening to the same man. And, I, like you, found his defining much of the "holy" language of mainline churchs refreshing. However, the fact remains, it is a cult.

I agree, there is the gift of pastor/teacher. I agree the pastor has certain authorities granted by the word of God. But a pastor's job is to lead the flock through the scriptures, not stand in judgement of them or in place of them. The fact is: most people at Berachah do not read their Bible. Why? Because Thieme has talked them out of it. Don't tell me otherwise, I was a member for nearly ten years sitting "face to face." The Bible is not the final authority at Berachah, Thieme is!

Why would anyone read their Bible when they've been told it is pitiful translation(King James Bible) and the only way to understand the bible is to have a pastor/teacher explain it to you from the original languages. I took a year of classical Greek for a Cambridge trained PHd. at the University of Houston. I carried my 26th Addition of Nestle-Alland Greek New Testament bible class every night. Does it make me Greek scholar? Absolutely not! But I could follow his exigesis and I'm here to tell you it [b:58b6d43bbe]added absolutely nothing to my understanding of the text.[/b:58b6d43bbe]

The many exigetical tangents he undertook (six years in the book of Ephesians) were nothing more than a Platonic ruse to con the people in the pew to think they were getting [b:58b6d43bbe]the real word of God.[/b:58b6d43bbe] And by the way, Thieme used the critical text (minority text) which is largely taken from two manuscripts Aleph and B which are allegedly the oldest, they are not, and have been proven to be corrupt by people like Wilbur Pickering (Dallas Theological Seminary). Thieme is also not the Greek scholar he would have you believe. He made glaring mistakes his publication the Integrity of God.

You want to know why so many people at Berachah constantly asked for applications of doctrine? Thieme made the Bible an abstraction. That's why! His non-biblical vocabulary and esoteric teaching devices completely negated the the Bible's authority. The doctrines come from the words, not visa versa. The Bible has a name for people like this. They're called Nicolaitans - nico: conquer laitans: laity (people in pews).

Southern Baptist legalists? You must be kidding. The Southern Baptist Church is where the Charismatics were twenty years ago. Believe me, they're not legalists. But one thing is for sure. Berachah was about as antinomian as it gets. And why not? Thieme taught how one felt about ones sins were inconsequential. As someone pointed out earlier, rebound was nothing short of a confessional. He said guilt was a sin. The fact of the matter is: If there is no contrition, there is no repentance. Because how you feel about you sin does matter. You have sinned against the one that bought your salvation and the one you profess to love. Your conscious is the nerve ending of your spirit and as such is barometer of where you are spiritually(grieving the Spirit). To ignore ones conscious is the path to searing ones conscious.

Now I hear that there is no need to confess ones sins. Can someone confirm this? I wouldn't be surprised. You now what the Bible says about a little leaven.

If you have recourse to Thayer's or Bauer Danker lexicons -- two of the most respected Greek lexicons in the field among pastors worldwide -- you can look up "haphe", a witty term Paul uses for "pastor", in Eph4:11-16, esp. v.16. If you look up the term in the lexicons, you learn that a "haphe" is used in Greek in both the biological and the construction sense. So the "haphe" joins together BY INSTRUCTION (clever Greek verbs sumbibazw and sunarmologew in the same verse), usually truncated in translation as "knitted and held". But again, the lexicons (particularly Bauer, Danker) show you WHAT KIND of "knitted" (sumbibazw) and WHAT KIND of "held" (sunarmologew) is meant.

This is very common knowledge, what depends on a 'joint' in the body or construction. The "right" comes from WHICH 'joint' it is. For example, my arm 'joints' are right for my arm. My arm cannot be part of my body, apart from those joints. Same for the Body of Christ.

Again, this is very common knowledge, and if you look up in the lexicons you'll find references to related verses and to theologians you can respect on the interpretation of Eph4:16.

Finding a teacher 'right' for you is an instinctive quest. Whether rabbi, imam, pastor or guru, seeking a teacher 'right' for you is something people have long known about and done, since the idea of "God" first hit our heads.

So it's not something some one pastor invented. Again, Thieme did NOT write Bible, he just repeats what it says and does the exegesis.

If you have BibleWorks software (standard for pastors, I bought mine at a seminary), you already have the above lexicons in it, and a good many more independent study materials -- so you can independently confirm what's said here.