[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Hope

Now I must ask. What are you trying to protect?

This question deserves a response. I am trying to protect the ability of those who were abused at the hands of your fellows (fellow leaders in the LC) to speak up here and know that they will be given full opportunity to speak even if some of their facts aren't perfect. I am trying to protect that.

The substance of what they experienced was real and it was abusive to the soul and spirit. There are a lot of men who are still in love with the concepts produced by the LC. I am trying to protect those who were dropped in the pit and left to die against those who still love the concepts.

This is an honest response. You may not like it or what it implies, but it is given honestly.

Originally Posted by Hope

Matt, what did your three anecdotes demonstrate.

I think I stated my actual point, but I will restate it here for your benefit.

I resisted the oppressive environment successfully in these cases, but even those who were "rebels" around me didn't have the strength to do it. Most just were dominated by the environment to the destruction of their souls.

Originally Posted by Hope

Baylor university did not allow women to wear shorts on campus.

Baylor didn't allow it in the 60's? 70's? Which one? I'm referring to the 90's.

At least they told them before they went to school there. That was at least fair. If you accept it before you go, then you agree to it in advance and have a right to make a choice not to go if you don't want to live by that rule.

Originally Posted by Matt

1. We were all told we could wear shorts at one conference. We showed up only to have this decision reversed. It was the middle of summer in Texas and the heat was sweltering. I defied them. I walked out in my shorts to the next meeting after the decision was reversed. I knew I might be sent home, but it was worth it. They were executing psychological manipulation. Within a few hours everyone was in shorts and it didn't get re-reversed.

Originally Posted by Hope

Come on Matt. Psychological manipulation???

To tell an entire group of kids who have already been abused in a system that they can wear shorts before the camp and then to revoke it after you get to the camp is a form of psychological manipulation. It's a kind of conditioning to enforce bad authority.

So, Come on Hope.

Originally Posted by Matt

2. Without being told that there was a seating order for the kids... Girls on one side and boys on the others side, everyone always segregated. I didn't. I went and sat by the one person who I had been in babysitting with since I was 6 years old. Even she was a little concerned about my presence. I told her that it was fine and that they needed to learn how to grow up. We didn't live in a prison camp. One brother started to approach me. I shot him a look and he turned and walked the other way.

Originally Posted by Hope

Come on Matt. Prison camp because girls and boy at junior high age self segregate.

This was anecdotal evidence that the psychological tactics (concious or subconcious) of the leadership were working. Young people didn't even have to be told to separate. They just did it. This is because they understand the cultural environment and follow the unspoken rules blindly.

So, Come on Hope.

Originally Posted by Matt

3. Each night before bed they would go around the room in prayer. Each person would pray something and then go to the next. I sat in silence when it reached me until the next person started praying. The silence lasted for 30-40 seconds. After two nights of this one of the "brothers" decided to talk to me about it. I told him, "You are free to pray. I'm not comfortable with it, so just leave me alone."

Originally Posted by Hope

Come on Matt, prayer in the cabins one by one is a long standing practice at Christian camps.

My explicit point in this case was about the coerciveness and pressure to pray AND NOT the idea that prayer would happen in Christian camps. We were expected to pray, one at a time as you circled the room. This meant that anyone who didn't pray would be noticed and accounted for. It didn't stop with this simpler peer pressure or coercion, but it went further. I was called aside and questioned as to why I wouldn't pray. More coercion.

I think you will remember the signature sheet for the 1986 letter of idolatry. It had each elder's names listed with a signature line on it. That's coercion and you were coerced by it as were many others. If you didn't sign, you were noticed.

Am I still speaking Greek here?

So, Come on Hope.

You really don't want to go down the path with me about how much abuse there was of children in the LC, including Dallas. It won't be pretty. It's not a topic I have ever emphasized or tried to draw out, but it definitely happened. I don't base this just on my own perceptions. I base it on the fruit. Look at how many kids struggled to survive and develop a relationship with the Lord.

If your own children could be 100% honest with you, what would they say? Would they say that the LC was as you say? Would they say that it helped them develop a relationship with the Lord? What things would they point to as being problems for them?

Honestly, I'm protecting the truth as best as I am able. I think you are trying to do the same. Due to the differences in our perceptions we have a very different thought about the underlying truth. Who wins? I hope neither of us. I hope that others win as a result of our dialogue. This is what I am trying to protect. The freedom for them to dialogue in an environment that allows them to heal.

Matt