Attempting to SEEM inclusive

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC pretends to be inclusive, but their actions are indicative of exclusiveness. They can color things any way they want, but I think most people can see the LC for what it really is.

As relayed by Indiana in recent past, a brother from the Church of Moses Lake (which broke it's affiliation with LSM in 1986) went to visit the Church in Ephrata, this brother was not welcome to meet.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

As relayed by Indiana in recent past, a brother from the Church of Moses Lake (which broke it's affiliation with LSM in 1986) went to visit the Church in Ephrata, this brother was not welcome to meet.

The LC is anything but inclusive. They can put a spin on it any way they want, but the facts speak otherwise. How could a group that kicks out members for publishing their own materials be considered to be inclusive? How could a group that kicks out members for failing to only use LSM materials be considered to be inclusive?

I'm afraid that many of those who join the LC think they are joining a group other than what it really is. Just look at any website for LC campus clubs these days. They try hard to obscure any linkage to the LC, that fact is only made known gradually after people have been involved for some amount of time. It is both dishonest, and it also is a subtle admission of the fact that the LC image promoted publicly is not the LC known to longtime members.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC is anything but inclusive. They can put a spin on it any way they want, but the facts speak otherwise. How could a group that kicks out members for publishing their own materials be considered to be inclusive? How could a group that kicks out members for failing to only use LSM materials be considered to be inclusive?

The LRC has only been inclusive when it steals people, songs, or teachings from the greater body of Christ.

[Intothewind]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The LRC has only been inclusive when it steals people, songs, or teachings from the greater body of Christ.

Ah, this would be great in the double standards thread.

Note also that in rv hymnals those written by WL are denoted with an asterisk, nee by across (please correct if wrong)

A great example of inclusivity lip service was that on our campus all the christian clubs tried having an interclub gathering. Christians on campus was not present....save a member or two not repping the club. a couple other groups reach out to us to collaborate on such things as public prayer open to any passing students, public singalongs etc.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

A great example of inclusivity lip service was that on our campus all the christian clubs tried having an interclub gathering. Christians on campus was not present....save a member or two not repping the club. a couple other groups reach out to us to collaborate on such things as public prayer open to any passing students, public singalongs etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFXlsK3CX6g

The link is another good example of being inclusive.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

A great example of inclusivity lip service was that on our campus all the christian clubs tried having an interclub gathering. Christians on campus was not present....

Christians on campus is such an inclusive group that they won't meet with anyone not as inclusive as they are. Which unfortunately means everyone.

But hey, someone has to testify for the oneness of the body of Christ.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Christians on campus is such an inclusive group that they won't meet with anyone not as inclusive as they are. Which unfortunately means everyone.

But hey, someone has to testify for the oneness of the body of Christ.

I probably sound like a broken record when it comes to Christians on Campus, but it just disgusts me how disingenuous they are. I was involved at one point, as a minion for the church elders (yes elders) on the campus, all the while claiming that we were "just Christians" with no outside contentions. LCers know very well that the campus work is run by full-timers or elders. I knew it was wrong, but what could I say or do? Eventually I just had to "disappear". And that was my reaction as a "church kid", not as a student who didn't understand the group.

Those who meet Christians on Campus are innocent students seeking a Christian fellowship. Instead they are presented with LSM literature, and with teachings that are brand new to them. I've heard it said on a number of occasions that the goal of the LC campus work is to get students, bring them into the church life and then send them to the training. What if new members were told of their predetermined path at the onset? How many would run away? Of course that doesn't happen, because they are gradually warmed up to the group, so it doesn't trigger the reaction that it really should.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I probably sound like a broken record when it comes to Christians on Campus, but it just disgusts me how disingenuous they are. I was involved at one point, as a minion for the church elders (yes elders) on the campus, all the while claiming that we were "just Christians" with no outside contentions. LCers know very well that the campus work is run by full-timers or elders.

Seems your campus wasn't much difference than UW. Christians on Campus was essentially run by serving ones/deacons or elders in training.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I've heard it said on a number of occasions that the goal of the LC campus work is to get students, bring them into the church life and then send them to the training. What if new members were told of their predetermined path at the onset?

Suppose one does meet with the Church in ____ as their assembly for Sunday services, but as a prospective FTTA trainee is not part of their future.
I think the perception will be they're meeting with the Local churches, but not part of the Body of Christ.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC is anything but inclusive. They can put a spin on it any way they want, but the facts speak otherwise. How could a group that kicks out members for publishing their own materials be considered to be inclusive? How could a group that kicks out members for failing to only use LSM materials be considered to be inclusive?

In all fairness, I feel and believe as many as 99% meeting with the local churches want to be inclusive. It's the 1% who aren't inclusive that happen to be the decision makers (coworkers/elders). In localities, there may be deacons and elders who are part of the 99% don't want to "upset the apple cart" so they go along with the program. Besides after 30-40 years meeting with the local churches, where would they go?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

In all fairness, I feel and believe as many as 99% meeting with the local churches want to be inclusive. It's the 1% who aren't inclusive that happen to be the decision makers (coworkers/elders). In localities, there may be deacons and elders who are part of the 99% don't want to "upset the apple cart" so they go along with the program. Besides after 30-40 years meeting with the local churches, where would they go?

I do think that many of the rank and file members want to and strive to be "inclusive", but they are limited both by leaders and their notions about what the LC should be. By its very definition, the LC purports to be something better than it is. They think they express "oneness" and everyone else is in division. That kind of mindset leads to exclusivity whether or not anyone wants to be exclusive.

It's not that LCers sought out to be that way, it's just the principle upon which they are founded is exclusive. The notion of "recovery" implies everyone else is degraded. So naturally, that is how everyone on the outside is viewed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I do think that many of the rank and file members want to and strive to be "inclusive", but they are limited both by leaders and their notions about what the LC should be. By its very definition, the LC purports to be something better than it is. They think they express "oneness" and everyone else is in division. That kind of mindset leads to exclusivity whether or not anyone wants to be exclusive.

Who wants to be the one to tell their elder(s), you're being exclusive in your speaking?
Of course elders may not see their speaking as being exclusive, but being "absolute for the ministry".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Who wants to be the one to tell their elder(s), you're being exclusive in your speaking?
Of course elders may not see their speaking as being exclusive, but being "absolute for the ministry".

I will repost here what I posted on HERn's thread yesterday, because I think it is pertinent. These are descriptions of what I've seen elders/leading brothers do:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Some time back, there was a community church that sent out flyers about an event they were holding for the community. A brother brought this flyer to a meeting and used it to attack what they were doing, saying how in the LC we don't have such "gimmicks". It made me feel sick inside to hear him speak that way. Here was a community church opening their arm to the community to have such an event. In contrast, the LC is so exclusive that they hardly have any contact wit the community. They think they're too good for that. Sad, sad, sad!

I remember being in a meeting where a brother stood up to say how we don't speak the "low gospel" like Billy Graham, Greg Laurie or Rick Warren. When I think about how often I've seen empty seats in LC meeting halls, it disgusts me to think they would criticize others like that. They criticize the so-called low gospel, yet their "gospel" isn't relevant to most people. What hypocrites LCers are!