Troy Waller is a liar, and has obvious issues.  How else to justify someone spending so much time attacking a church they left 20 years ago.  I feel bad for him.

"Troy Waller is a liar, and has obvious issues.  How else to justify someone spending so much time attacking a church they left 20 years ago.  I feel bad for him."

You feel bad for him? The dude just spent the last few weeks at beach resorts in beautiful weather with his gorgeous family. You should feel bad for me! I'm 'attacking' you eight years after leaving Revival when I should be outside in the pool with the kids. And if you mean by 'attacking' exposing their big swag of 'prophesies' that never came to be thereby giving another example of the type of ignorant men who run that organisation, then so be it. But I'm confused as to why 'lying' on his part would be the justification for doing so. Have you even read any of his blog which, by the way, was a swan-song of sorts.

Feel bad for him no more! And enjoy your day! I'm going for a swim.

Guest,

How else to justify someone spending so much time attacking a church they left 20 years ago.  I feel bad for him. 'Bully' for you, but I seriously doubt that Troy cares a tuppence for any laments that you may direct his way. If you want us to take you seriously, put your name to your accusations.

Goose.

Ian 

 "and I've never recognised anything that remotely resembles the church I attend."

I'm not sure you actually understand the meaning of the word 'remotely'.

Good evening, Guest.

I don't care, he's welcome to his opinion, and his little fan club. Well I don't think anyone would accuse me of being a member of Troy's 'fan club' (!), but I'm happy enough to support his opinions on those subjects that you clearly disagree with; I've found his research to be much better informed on Revivalism than it is on Christianity. Every group of people on earth has ex members, that RCI has some, proves nothing about the group that could not also then be said of every other religious group, every political party, every sporting club, any gathering of people that's ever existed. Of course. It's just that the RCI has thousands more 'ex' members than it has active members. And it would be quite the stretch to attempt to dismiss all those people as being improperly informed about your group. At the end, I just hope that no-one reads the ill informed stuff he writes, being based on a poor understanding of how the church worked 20 years ago, and assumes that anything he says has any basis in fact, or anything to do with any RCI meeting they could attend today (or indeed, could have attended 20 years ago, when we may well have made the mistake of openly speculating about possible meanings of bible prophecy, but we sure never put anyone out for disagreeing ). Are you aware that Simon Longfield admitted at a post Convention pastor's meeting some years ago, to the senior RCI leadership setting dates for Christ's return? It's interesting, but I clearly remember the 'no we didn't!' brouhaha that circulated online at the time. Your fellowship has a history of denial, which leads me to conclude that it suffers from a very short corporate memory. By the way, I've yet to read a public admission or recanting of the date setting nonsense.

What difference does a name make? If I told you my name was Fred, would that help? I suppose you providing your name would be a demonstration of good faith; it would certainly go a long way towards garnering a little credibility for your views. It's just an example of the sort of cheap shot that's so easily taken in online discussion, usually by people who love the sort of personal attack that I've seen first hand at the hands of Troy Waller, et al, and precisely the sort of reason that, having stumbled on all this, I'm happy to make a few comments, and trust that they will be allowed to stand, but then to not get sucked in to this web. I hope you'll forgive me, then, for not simply taking another anonymous claimant at his/her word.

I hope that (again) any one who stumbles on these pages, remembers how easy it is for anyone to put their opinion on the web, and how easy it is for a view, even a well intentioned one, to be based on ignorance, so that if anyone wants to know what RCI stands for, they'll take the time to find out by asking RCI members and/or attending the meeting, or otherwise have the integrity to admit that their opinion is based on the heresay of ex-members, who obviously have their own axe to grind. Some of the commentary circulating about your fellowship is based on more than simply hearsay, and then from people with no axes to grind. Some of it is based on extensive and meticulous research; I would certainly claim my views to be in such a category. By-the-bye, I've not been party to the RCI for approaching 22 years, yet I can guarantee that I know considerably more about the sect's history, doctrines, practices and policies than the vast majority of current members, possibly you included. So please don't simply presume that ex-members are necessarily 'pig ignorant' of the 'true workings' of your group, as a good many of us aren't. It's amazing how many people can 'remember' 'abuse' when they have the expert coaching of people who want to lead them to that conclusion.  I've read a lot of anti RCI websites, most affiliated with Troy in some way, and I've never recognised anything that remotely resembles the church I attend. Perhaps you don't get out much?

Don't simply react. Think first.

Ian