An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part I

One of the criticisms of the Bible that is tossed about is that there's no proof that any of it happened, or that there's no contemporaneous confirmation of its contents. One of the most attention getting statements that I have read in recent years is there are indeed historical documents regarding the life of Jesus Christ...the four gospels. To those of us with a non-religious orientation that statement sounds ridiculous. Of course they're not historical documents, they're religious texts! The people who wrote them had an agenda! Yes, both of those statements are true, the gospels are religious texts and they were written by people with an agenda. We've all heard the saying "History is written by the victors", which is just a different way of saying that history is written by people with an agenda...always. 

Over the last few years I listened to a few history-themed podcasts - the history of Rome, of Byzantium, of the successive Persian Empires. In each of them I was struck by how often the only information that we have about an event was written decades or generations after the event took place. How there are often gaps in lists of rulers that can only be filled in by speculation. How the only contemporaneous documentation of an era has been long lost and all we have are fragments by historians quoting earlier historians. While there are exceptions, for the most part ancient historians were employed by their rulers to make them look good, or to make the ruler's opponents look bad. Or it was a citizen of the winning side wanting to paint his people in glory. Or maybe it was the losing side trying to depict their people as something other than abject losers. Yes. They had an agenda.  

The writers of the Gospels had an agenda too, which doesn't make them any better or worse than any other writings from that time period. The first of the surviving Gospels, "Mark" was most likely written around 70 C.E., i.e, around 40 years after Jesus' ministry. This gap in time is brought up a lot to disparage the authenticity of the Gospels, but it was not unusual, especially since it is likely Jesus' early followers were illiterate or at least not educated enough to put together a narrative like you see in any of the Gospels. So a written account during or immediately following Jesus' life would not be expected. The utter lack of any originals of the Gospels or even the epistles, or even any copies dating any earlier than hundreds of years after Jesus' life is also cited as problematic, yet you'd be hard pressed to find an original edition of any of the classical writings, or any writings that have as many extant manuscripts as does the Bible. 

 Historians will examine any historical document to determine, not only its authenticity, but to discover any biases that the author had; they also have a number of ways to test the reliability of the claims made in any history, any ancient biography. Unless one is of the opinion that The Bible is the revealed Word of God, inspired by God Himself, it makes sense to subject The Bible to the same scrutiny that any other historical document would be. 

For most people, however, The Bible is an either-or proposition. Either it's God's Word delivered via prophets of God to His people, or it's a book of fables with no truth in it whatsoever. (Of course there are intermediate positions - some believers admit that some passages in The Bible may be metaphorical while some disbelievers accept that there's some decent morals and ethics in it.) 

In this series I take the position that there is good reason to accept that there was an historical Jesus that the New Testament was based upon, but that not only are there contradictions regarding him among the different books, but that Jesus wasn't who most people think he was. I'll be touching on the milieu in which Jesus lived, the Jewish scriptures that he was taught, contradictions between how the Gospels differ from the message of Paul in his epistles, how how it all morphed into "The Church". 

And off we go!

Part II

Sports

Despite having removed "being a sports fan" from the lists of things that describe me, I have absolutely no problem with people who are sports fans. Even the "rabid" ones, but I just don't get it any more. (By the way, if you see me wearing my NY Mets cap - I know absolutely nothing about the current version of the team and only wear it as a sign that I am a New Yorker)

There's a lot of things that perplex me about sports fandom. I'll start with New York fandom, since a lot of people in my adopted state of Nebraska think that the fact that I'm not from here explains my disinterest in the local college sports teams, especially the football team.

New York Football Teams: in my view, there's only one New York NFL team, and that's the Buffalo Bills. Both the "New York" Giants and "New York" Jets play their home games in New Jersey, and have for decades. Yet New York football fans happily refer to both teams as New York teams. They're not only out in the suburbs of their eponymous city, as many sports teams are, but in a whole 'nother STATE! It's true that both teams started their existence in New York City, but the Giants have been a New Jersey team since 1976 and the Jets followed soon thereafter. 

Sports vs. Education: I fully understand that professional sports teams, and even popular college teams are good for business. It makes a certain kind of sense for donors to pour their discretionary funds into new stadiums or even for cities to offer big tax breaks rather than funding its educational institutions. Sorts fans spend money. But high school sports? I'm not criticizing the existence of high school sports, but the priority that is often placed on them. When my step-daughter was in high school she participated in several sports. Coaches thought nothing of requiring players to devote many hours to practice or to observing other teams when homework got neglected. Out of town games kept them up late on "school nights". The track team regularly pulled team members out of class to go to most-of-the-day meets. Class was sometimes cancelled to facilitate a tournament. 

The Two Sides of Criticism: Sports fans love to criticize every move a coach makes, but at the same time will get nasty if criticism comes from the wrong quarter. The fans of a team that isn't doing so well will spend hours debating the relative merits of their team's game day strategy.  They call for the coach to be fired over losses. They wait in the queue to comment on sports radio talk shows. But some fans will try to shut down criticism with the position that unless you're actually a current or former coach or player you have no grounds to criticize, because you can't do any of it yourself, so you have no grounds to point fingers. (My position is that if you have a high-profile job that depends on thousands of people being excited about your work, and you accept the adulation when you're doing well, accepting the criticism is part of the job) College sports isn't much better, although more of the anger is directed at the coaching staff since players, being students, get rotated out every few years. Some fans will defect complaints about a team's losses by pointing out that "they're just kids", while having no problem putting those same "kids" on a pedestal and subjecting them to hero worship when the team is winning. 

"It's OUR Team - Why Aren't You a Fan?": I saw this as a transplant from the East Coast to Nebraska. Even when I was a sports fan, football never interested me, so I was indifferent to the local college team. This apparently wasn't good enough. Obnoxious local fans intimated that there was something wrong with me for not enthusiastically rooting for the home team. This introduced me to a phenomenon that I'm sure exists wherever there are sports teams - the locals expect new arrivals to jettison their loyalties to their former city's teams and taking on the local boys, while locals, if they move away, fully expect to retain their team loyalties. One of those mysteries. 

The Glory Days: In any sports league, division or conference there tend to be "dynasties". One team, for various reasons, dominates and wins a few championships. These sports dynasties don't last forever though. For various reasons the top dogs get replaced by the new dogs. This leads to two differing yet related behaviors. Fans of teams who were regularly beaten by championship winners experience a sense of schadenfreude when their former tormenters aren't so good any more. While beating them while they were on top might have been an accomplishment worth bragging about, beating them years after their winning days have faded away isn't much to brag about. The other side of this is the fans of the former golden boys haven't forgotten those glory days. When they are being mocked by their opponents for being thrashed in a blowout, their retort is to brag about championships that took place before the current players were born. My own local college team is in this category. Teams that easily beat them today are giddy with celebratory excitement that they beat a struggling team with a losing record, while the loser's fans console themselves that at least they're has-beens and not never-beens despite being losers in the present. 

Loyalty Doesn't Go Both Ways: Once upon a time a player on a professional team might spend a majority of his career with one team. As a fan, it was easy to have your favorite players - you might even switch teams if the team had the audacity to trade your favorite. (My dad was a New York Rangers hockey fan. In his youth they traded his guy to the Montreal Canadiens and he became a lifelong Montreal fan) These days players are compensated better and have more opportunities to get the best deal for themselves by negotiating with different teams. They are, rightly so, more concerned with their own future and lack a loyalty and connection to the cities where they play. Many don't even live in their team's cities in the off-season. So, have fun cheering on your team, but they don't really care about you or your city.

Everyone has something that entertains them. For many that's sports - not me though! 

Science and Religion: Do They Have Objective Existence?

Not too long ago I read a Facebook post that claimed that Religion did not exist without people to believe it, but that with Science, it didn't matter whether people believed it or not. I ended up getting into an augment with a guy who attempted to "prove" (his version of) religion by repeated utilization of strawmen, goalpost moving and appeal to authority among other logical fallacies. 

There were other, more logical arguments from others, but the way that the meme was worded left a lot of room for imprecision. For example, what was meant by "religion", or for that matter "science"? There are a lot of things about religion that you have to "take on faith", i.e., there is no way to prove or disprove them. Science, on the other hand, is all about proving things, even though there's a great number of things that cannot be proven (yet), but scientists have put forth their best estimate, based on available observations. Yet "science" is not a thing, it's not a belief, it's a process for determining how things are. The thing about science is that its conclusions change in the face of new evidence. While it does take people, i.e. scientists, to work out the truth, the whole goal is to discover how things are, based ultimately on observations. The observations lead to predictions, which, if they turn out to be correct, lead to a theory of the way things are. Can a scientist draw the wrong conclusions from the evidence? Do scientists disagree among themselves as to what the underlying truth is? Yes and yes. But that underlying truth is true is what it is no matter who believes it. 

Religion, in all it's myriad forms, is also in some way an attempt to explain why things are the way they are. Unlike science, religion usually doesn't change its doctrines in the light of new evidence, but doubles down on its original explanations and attempts to make the observable facts fit the preconceived doctrine. While a true believer may insist that the existence of their god is an objective fact, in reality there is no objective test to verify the existence of any god. This would be fine if believers would be content to act on their faith, to live according to the ethical tenets allegedly handed down by their god, privately. However, many religious people insist on requiring everyone to adhere to their interpretation of their religion, and making religious texts the law of the land. Such people set out to prove scientifically that their religion is true, or at least indicate how scientific theories are not inconsistent with their religion. 

Before I go on, let me make clear that I have no problem with people basing their lives on their religion. There's a lot of good in most "holy" books, and great ethical and moral guidelines and examples of how to live a good life. I have a problem when they try to force their beliefs on the rest of us, or suggest that those who disbelieve are stupid for not believing. I look askance at those who act ethically only because a god allegedly told them to act ethically, or due to fear of divine wrath, rather than because it's the right thing to do. 

During my discussion with the aforementioned religious guy on Facebook, I was treated to all manner of attempted debunking of my points as well as attempts to "prove scientifically" that the Bible, and therefore Christianity, is true. I had made a statement that if all the adherents of a religion died and all their literature disappeared, then that religion would cease to exist. That seems pretty straightforward, but he repeatedly challenged me to prove my point, which he insisted was unscientific and without evidence. Of course it's without evidence! It hasn't happened! It's a hypothetical situation that's self-explanatory. It's axiomatic: if there's no one left who believes in a religion's tenets, and all evidence of their existence is gone, in what sense would that religion still exist? And that's the difference between science and religion in the context of objective existence: what we know about the world due to science is still true, and could still be proved to be true, if every scientist and everything written about their discoveries were to disappear from the face of the earth. It might take a while for anyone to figure it out again, but it would not be any less true. Religious belief does not exist independently of the believers. Believers might believe that it does, but they can't prove it. 

Many believers, unsatisfied with living a moral life according to the teachings of the faith's profits, want to find physical proof that their holy books are factual accounts. (It's part of their mission to impose their "truth" on the rest of us) They have gone about this in a variety of ways.

One method is by "logical" argument. My discussion opponent last week brought up Aquinas. Aquinas'  first proof stated that since we can see things changing all around us, and that each change was initiated by something else, and that chain of causation can't be infinitely long, there must be something that causes change without changing itself. According to Aquinas, this everyone understands to be God. His second proof is similar. In this proof, he observes that everything has a cause, and, like the first proof, he states that the chain of causation cannot be infinitely long. He concludes that there must be a "first cause" that was not caused by anything else. Again, like the first proof, he assumes that everyone understands that this is God. What is generally not understood about Aquinas’ “proofs” are not only not proofs, but he did not intend them to be viewed as such. Aquinas believed not only that the existence and attributes of God were not self evident, but were beyond mankind’s ability to understand. They were, on the other hand, a way to explain God “in layman’s terms”, possibly as much to himself as to anyone else. Think of a much simpler explanation (which is probably apocryphal) - St.  Patrick’s explanation of The Trinity by comparing it to a three leaf clover. The analogy didn’t prove anything, but assisted in understanding. Most attempts at “logical” proofs for God are like this: they’re less evidence-based and more like a way for a believer to convince himself, and is unlikely to convince a skeptic. Check out this link for a list of various "proofs" for God's existence. A further weakness in any "proof" is that they generally "prove" the existence of a generic creator entity. Even assuming that there must be a creator to have a creation, a first cause in order to have any effects, there is nothing to require that the creator is specifically your version. 

Those who hold to the belief that something must have created everything, or at least set in motion, subscribe to the corollary that although everything else had to have a precursor, somehow God was exempt. That God did not need to be created, that he always existed. But once you postulate that there exists something (or someone) that always existed, what prevents there from being other somethings that always existed? There are strains of theoretical physics that theorize a universe that did not have a moment of creation. 

Proofs based on archeology have become pretty popular. They’re also incredibly feeble. No one is suggesting that none of the people and places mentioned in The Bible existed. It can be confirmed that there was a Roman official named Pontius Pilate around the beginning of the Common Era. There is an inscription on a monument dating around 900 B.C. referring to "The House of David". Some of the cities mentioned in the Old Testament have been dug up. But archeology minded believers will latch on to any discovery that confirms that a place or a person existed as if that confirms everything in The Bible. Never mind all the archeology that disproves parts of The Bible, or historical records that contradict the biblical ones. Those believers will insist are wrong. Why? Because they contradict The Bible. Even if every person in The Bible can be verified to have existed, that does not confirm that the supernatural events or entities therein are real. Anyone can write a book that is set in historically verified milieus. Back in my late teens I read James Michener's book, "Centennial" as well James Clavell's "Shogun". Both made use of real people, events and locations out of history. But all of the main characters in both books were fictional and the stories were made up as well. I can't claim that the family tree in "Centennial" is accurate just because there really is a state called Colorado or a tribe called the Cheyenne. Or that the adventures of Blackthorne actually happened just because Shoguns were a real thing in 16th century Japan. To cite a more ridiculous example: Spider-Man isn't real just because I happen to know from being there that Forest Hills, Queens is a real place. 

The difference between science and religion is that science isn't attempting to explain the world by spinning plausible (for a certain value of plausible) but unprovable stories. Science is about constructing a framework that helps us understand the nuts and bolts, the "what" and the "how". That framework is looking at the world and making predictions based on what can be seen and adjusting those predictions based on ongoing observations. Religion is based on the construction of a framework more on how we want things to be, rather than how they necessarily are. Religion at its best is about hope, it's about how to live peaceably in the society of others, how to treat others, how to be the best person that it's possible to be. It's about building a philosophy that enables us to do all those things. If it helps someone to believe that all that is the plan of some invisible and objectively undetectable entity in order to be a good person, then so it is. But the best of religion doesn't require a god, it only requires that one acts in a godly way. 

Managers - Post Pandemic #5 - What the Hell Happened to Customer Service?

Once upon a time business competed mainly on one aspect of their business: value. Was the quality of the product worth the price they were charging? Was the product of such sterling quality that the price was out of reach for most consumers? Was the price super-affordable but the product broke down soon after purchase? Companies looked for the balance between price and quality and battled with competitors on that basis. Then came Walmart. Most retailers couldn't compete with Walmart on price, and were often selling the same products, so they had to emphasize that ephemeral aspect of the buying experience: customer service. 

The phrase "the customer is always right" predated Walmart, but surely came into its own as a strategy to lure people away from the Bentonville Behemoth. No action was too servile if it meant keeping a customer from defecting to the low price leader down the street. Retailers in effect trained their customers to be assholes, since that was a surefire way to get what you wanted.  Customer service in the Walmart era meant that customers could scream profanity at retail workers or outlandish demands and managers would acquiesce afraid of losing just one customer. The whole system was out of balance.  

The roots of change can be traced back to 2015, when the unemployment rate started to flirt with the 3% level. It accelerated when, during the pandemic and immediately after, when service workers realized that they had the power to set the terms of their own employment. Knowing that if they quit or were fired, another job with similar pay could be had in short order, many did quit if they didn't like the work environment. The management-employee dynamic became more balanced, if not skewed toward the employee. Overall, this was a good thing. Employees with a solid work ethic were no longer content to be enslaved by their employers. The problem is that not all employees had a solid work ethic.

Let's divert for a moment to define "customer service". I would define it as giving the customers what you advertised you would give them - this includes stock levels; and interacting with them in a civil, polite, manner - including dropping personal conversations or cell phone use when a customer needs some help. In my view a friendly demeanor is a plus, but not required. I'm not shopping in your store looking for friends. 

Back to comparative work ethic. 

Mainly due to the perception among managers that "nobody wants to work" and various corollaries as well as the very real low unemployment rate, managers are afraid to fire bad employees. No manager wants to be short staffed. Staff has to work harder to make up for missing people, or work simply doesn't get done because there aren't enough people to do it. Corporate executives don't want to hear what they term excuses and usually are not interested in altering expectations to accommodate the new reality. When I ran a grocery store the standard in the in-store bakery was for an employee to take a customer's doughnut request and remove it from the case and bag it up for them. The result was that one employee was tied up during peak times and one customer with a large order could cause a line - when customers would be just as happy to get their own doughnuts. Eventually, after many years, the corporate office figured it out, but not because anyone at the store level complained about it. 

So what do managers do? Two things: (1) They hire using the "warm body" principle and (2) They put up with what should be unacceptable behavior from employees. #1 is because they are in a hurry to get someone hired, and #2, they are terrified that someone is going to quit and they'll be short staffed until they can hire another warm body that incidentally they don't have the time or the staff to train properly. 

Employees at  entry-level jobs are not stupid. It doesn't take them long to see that there are no consequences to not doing the job that they were hired to do. A bad employee will just get worse seeing that management ignores them and a good employee will soon see that working hard and following company policy just means that they're doing the work of the bad employee. Overall productivity and customer service levels plummet. Whose fault is this state of affairs? The managers.

When I say "managers", it's ultimately the fault of the level of management that makes decisions. A store manager has to have the guts to set standards and stick by them. If an employee is not doing their job, the manager can't be terrified that the sky will fall if the employee terminated and they are short-staffed. Corporate management has to be flexible enough to allow their retail-level managers the freedom to adjust expectations in response to changing situations, and not wait for months of meetings to green-light a decision that the leaders on the front lines know must be done. Earlier in this post I mentioned that in the Walmart era companies trained their customers to be assholes. In this post-pandemic era, companies have trained their employees to be bad employees. The solution isn't to update the employee handbook, or to embark on a search for the perfect employee - rules are ineffective if they're not enforced and "perfect" employees quickly devolve into horrible employees if they see that being a bad employee is the easier path. 

It's not an employee problem, it's a manger problem.

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Follow Up - Part XII - The Ethics of Deprogramming

I've been blogging about cults for several years now - my own history in one cult, The Way International, as well as more generic discussions of cult methods and practices. I'll argue that cults are generally bad things and people shouldn't get involved in them, but is it justified to forcibly remove cult members from the a cult?

No.

During my involvement with The Way International my parents considered "deprogramming" me in order to "free" me from my supposed mental imprisonment. They went so far as to consult with a deprogrammer, who actually talked them out of the attempt, pointing out that failure would mean that I'd likely never want to have anything to do with them ever again. They chose not to risk it. Mom and Dad never spoke of it, but many years later one of my sisters spilled the beans. At the time there was a lot of media focus on cults in the wake of the forced mass suicide at The People's Temple in Guyana. Parents whose children were in cults assumed that all cults were potentially going to end up like Jim Jones' followers. The cults that attracted the most attention also tended to have beliefs or practices (or both) that were far enough outside the mainstream as to appear "weird". The assumption was that the only reason that anyone would get involved in a cult was that they were brainwashed. Mind control was the only way to explain it.

Family members often point to how their loved ones "changed" after getting involved with a cult, not only their beliefs, but their behaviors and loyalties. But is that so unusual when new recruits to a cult are more likely to be young and actually looking to change their lives? Many people who have had family members join the military, especially those who have seen combat, could attest to the changes in the outlook of their loved ones. A new cult member typically is looking for some meaning in their life and a cult provides that meaning. Is it any wonder that they are often exceedingly gung-ho about their new life's focus? 

What about when the honeymoon period of cult involvement has ended and the cult member begins to experience some of the abusive treatment? Surely that's brainwashing? Not so fast! We can compare someone who stays in a harmful cult to someone who stays with an abusive spouse, sure that she loves the man who beats her every day, or is afraid that she won't be able to survive on her own. Or someone who hates their job but won't look for a new one. Justified or not, logical or not, people continue in harmful situations either because they fear that the alternative is worse, or have made the calculation that the perceived benefits outweighs the downside. I personally have done both - I stayed in a marriage that was mentally abusive because I was afraid that I'd lose my children and afraid to be perceived as a failure, rather than get out; I continued in a job that was terrible on many, many levels because I judged that the financial benefits outweighed the negatives that I had to endure. 

People join cults because they make a decision to get involved in something that they believe gives them what they want...whatever that may be. People stay involved in cults because they make a decision that staying in is the better alternative to getting out. Are they making the "right" decision? Who knows? Unless one knows all the variables in another's life, how can you decide what is best for that person? Spoiler alert: you can't. 

So what about deprogramming? You don't hear too much about deprogramming these days, or cults for that matter. But back in the eighties there were a lot of people making big money from the families of young people involved in cults. I know of several people who were the target of deprogrammers, some succumbed and left their cult, some escaped the deprogrammers and went back. What did deprogrammers actually do? Their first step was kidnapping the target of the deprogramming. Kidnapping! Often violently. The head deprogrammer would hire muscle to abduct the target who then be locked away from the world, often in an isolated farm house of hotel room. The abductee didn't usually even know what city they were in. They were allowed no contact with their fellow cult members, were not allowed to leave and sometimes were physically restrained. In extreme cases they were sleep deprived. Various methods of persuasion were employed - the cult's beliefs were questioned or mocked, accusations made about the cult leader, and in one case that I am familiar with, the abductee's fiancée was accused of cheating on him! The methods used by deprogrammers appear closer to what would be consider brainwashing than what the cults actually engaged in. 

If cults, in particular the one I was involved in, had brainwashed their members, it would stand to reason that it would be difficult for someone to leave. Yet during my own involvement I saw people freely walk away, new people, as well as those who had been in for decades. My own cousin, who got me involved, walked away within a year, presumably because she decided that it wasn't providing anything that she wanted or needed that she wasn't getting anywhere else. 

Finally, in the United States we have the right of free association, as well as the right to the religion of our choice. No one has the right to forcibly convert (or de-convert) someone else...even if they think the other's beliefs are harmful...or weird.

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Follow Up - Part XI - Hidden Knowledge & The Pseudo-Caste System

Among the many ways that cults use to recruit and retain members is by the hint of a special or secret knowledge that is only available to the initiate. It's reinforced by a hierarchical structure where more special knowledge is revealed as you move toward the center of power. 

The Way's initial appeal for many was that they claimed to be able to teach you the Bible "like it hadn't been known since the First Century". Anyone who has studied the Bible from a scholarly, disinterested point of view knows that t is full of contradictions. I won't spend time here pointing them out, but they are numerous. They range from historical and archeological mistakes to different Biblical authors describing the same events in mutually exclusive ways. There are also many instances where the average Christian believes something about the Biblical narrative that is totally at odds with what it actually says. The founder of The Way was well aware of these things and did a great job spotlighting them in his Power for Abundant Living (PFAL) class. His purpose, of course, was to undermine trust in mainstream Christianity and its leaders and traditions in order to substitute his own foundation for belief. 

At face value, he was substituting simply "reading what was written" for tradition. But the Bible is not a simple book. It's not "a" book at all, but a collection of more than 60 books by almost that many different authors. Despite his "keys to interpretation" that emphasized reading what was right there on the page, in the context, the contradictions and difficulties still existed. They called them apparent contradictions, and set about constructing logic-twisting explanations to harmonize the various discrepancies. One of The Way's more obvious doctrinal deviations from mainstream Christianity was a disbelief in The Trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine whereby God is a threefold entity, consisting of The Father, the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit. You can't find it detailed explicitly anywhere in the Bible, but is the result of centuries of early Christian theologians attempting the reconcile the conflicting descriptions of Jesus' nature set down in the Bible. The Way's unitarian view of Jesus was a similar attempt, albeit one that took significantly less time than the development of The Trinity. 

But the fact that a different conclusion about Jesus' nature was reached isn't the point, it's the use of that unique take, that special knowledge which was part of The Way's hold on people. The undermining of trust in mainstream Christianity, replaced by reading what was written, cemented a trust in what Way leadership was teaching, making it clear that The Way was the only place where you could find Biblical truth. If that was important to someone, that was a powerful tool to keep people from straying. In fact, so much emphasis was placed on the trustworthiness of the teachings of Victor Wierwille, The Way's founder, that any questioning of his conclusions were brushed aside. However, it was never framed as "Wierwille is infallible", but suggested that you should hold your questions "in abeyance" until you understood more, i.e. became as knowledgeable as Wierwille...which was effectively never. 

The special knowledge did not end with what was presented in PFAL. The class itself was only part of a series of classes, culminating in the "Advanced Class". This class was billed as training in more special, secret knowledge, including spiritual healing, discerning of spirits, and revelation from God. As I look back on it 40 plus years later, it was a bit of a disappointment, but Advanced Class Grads still had that elite cache, and got to wear a special nametag identifying them as such. (The Way was big on nametags identifying which caste you belonged to) But taking the Advanced Class only took a couple of weeks out of your life and a few hundred dollars. The next circle included participants in The Way Corps "leadership training program", which was effectively a lifetime of servitude. 

The structure and time commitment of Way Corps training varied during my time in The Way, but it was never less than two years, spent at one of The Way's properties. Graduates of the Way Corps training made up the leadership cadre of The Way. Upon their graduation they were given assignments, either at Way headquarters or "in the field", i.e. running fellowships, or state programs. Although initially billed as a program to turn out the best "Twig" (aka local fellowship) leaders, in reality, you were in it for life. Dismissal from the Way Corps was viewed as shameful, a failure. 

These Way Corps grads typically had a higher level of commitment and loyalty and helped standardize fellowships around the country and world. To the rank and file "believers", Way Corps leaders were the authorities. You didn't question leadership. They themselves were recipients of more special and secret knowledge that the non-Corps weren't privy to, tantalizing their egos and locking them more firmly into the system while simultaneously keeping the non-Corps in a state of obedience. If you weren't a Corps graduate you were conditioned to trust Wierwille and in turn, logically accepted the virtually infallibility of those he had deputized to lead in his place. There was a balance between feeling above the riff-raff of the world due to being holders of secret knowledge that the non-Way didn't possess and being inferior to the Way Corps who had even more secret knowledge and who were spiritually incapable of steering you wrong (God just wouldn't allow it). 

Those who came to The Way because they were lonely, or fell in love with the person who "witnessed" to them, typically did not stick around. The Way's appeal was intellectual. I don't mean that intellectuals were attracted to The Way, although some were, but that it was a search for answers based on logic (with the Bible's inerrancy as the basic premise) and not faith, that attracted the vast majority and kept them around, often for decades, if not their whole lives. The hook that snared many of us was the declaration that on one hand God's will was easy to understand and apparent to anyone who could read, yet at the same time hidden away from the ignorant hordes of mainstream Christians. 

The seeds of The Way's destruction were sown from the first days, although it took 40 years for them to come to fruition. The special, secret knowledge had always been based on the promise that The Bible was very literally an open book. Anyone could read and understand it without the aid of priests or theologians. This was never strictly true, but it was the selling point and it kept people around. The trust that was engendered in Wierwille and his successors sealed most people's compliance. But that required unity among the leadership. It also required a membership body that was unskilled in actual Biblical research. Wierille's "research" was shoddy and incomplete. He quoted scholars such as E.W. Bullinger without understanding the points that they were making and had no understanding of Hebrew or Greek grammar beyond what could be looked up in a concordance. His definitions of Greek words would have surprised anyone who had studied Biblical Greek. But most Way members had no such expertise, so they were easy marks. 

Internal dissension was usually handled by kicking people out, often in the middle of the night. And in pre-internet days, the dissenters might never be heard from again. In the late eighties though, there was a very public "civil war" amongst Way leaders in the wake of the death of founder Wierwille. Instead of one voice parroting what was coming down from the top, various leaders began developing their own followings and "ministries", people began to see this lack of direction and began doing what they had been promised they could do - read, study and understand the Bible and make their own decisions. Eventually this all began to be played out on message boards and websites all over the internet. The Way splintered into dozens of groups all competing to be the true heirs of Wierwille's mantle. 

The Way still exists, as well as a multitude of Way-derived groups promoting various versions of Way doctrine. But it's no longer what it was, and the control mechanisms that were in place for many years were no longer effective. I have no idea if the raggedy remains of The Way can still be considered a cult, since I have been out and away for over 20 years, but cults proliferate and they don't ahve to be religion-based. 

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Follow Up - Part X - Everyone Else is Wrong

One of the hallmarks of political social media is the straw man. Someone posts something that they allege the opposition said, when a teeny, tiny bit of digging would reveal the lie. They attack the lie, and then a bunch of followers pile on and they attack the lie, which they assume is the truth. It's especially egregious when the offender posts a link to a news article and the headline contains information that is at odds with what's in the article. Not so different in the word of cults. 

One of the basic moves of any cult is a form of Gnosticism, they claim that there is special, hidden knowledge that is available only to the cult, sometimes only to the inner circle of the cult. Related to this is a misrepresentation of what the mainstream believes in order to mock it. One of the core beliefs of The Way is that Jesus Christ isn't God. They aren't the only self-described Christians to believe this, but they are certainly a tint minority. This is one of the doctrines which they used to set themselves apart, to show their followers that they were adherents of the truth that no one else believed. Like today's social media conspiracy theorists, they cherry-picked the available information to come to their conclusion. The Way's leaders employed insults, calling mainstream Christians worshippers of a three-headed God and other misrepresentations of what people who believed in the Trinity actually believed. Granted, the actual theological doctrine of The Trinity is pretty complex and evolved over centuries, and the average Christian had not the slightest grasp of the nuances. From my vantage point of a disbeliever in the inerrancy of the Bible, I can see that the problem is that different writers of the various books of the Bible had different opinions of who and what Jesus was, and there was an evolution in what people thought of Jesus even within the pages of the Bible. However, both The Way and mainstream Christianity were of the opinion that what the Bible said about Jesus was Truth, and they had to find ways to explain away the inconsistencies and contradictions. They each resolved these contradictions in different ways with different endpoints. They both insisted that they were right.

The difference, at least in modern times as opposed to the early days of Christianity when the term "heretic" was being thrown around willy-nilly, is that most churches are part of a tradition in which, in their minds, the question was settled 2000 years ago. The Way is making their differing understanding of the question a central part of their identity. Any deviation from this interpretation of Jesus' nature would result in the 21st Century version of accusations of heresy within The Way. There is no question that they are right and everyone else is wrong. 

Another tactic where The Way was similar to today's "do your research" crowd is their constant encouragement to...do your research. Just like today's YouTube "researchers" pontificate as if there had never been any legitimate study of virology, Constitutional law, or climate science, The Way embarked upon research by people totally unsuited to the task. If you had a Greek-English concordance and a working familiarity with parts of speech you were a Biblical researcher. I could spend thousands of words giving examples of amateurs interpreting Greek words in novel ways -but this enabled Way members to promote their supposed superiority over those poor dumb Christians who studied their whole lives and built upon the work of others going back decades or centuries, learning Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Of course John Doe high school dropout knew the truth. 

So yes, in a cult, everyone but you and the people who agree with you are wrong. Everyone else is a sheep. Just like on the internet.