Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
In order to expedite the transition back into civilian life, the "Labor" would not necessarily follow univ. graduation, but could be based on the participants' own schedule, facilitating necessary lifestyle adjustments both before and after the "Labor." This was a definite improvement to LSM's arrangement, which FTTA was never willing to accept. Needless to say, for numerous reasons including this one, many FTTA trainees had much difficulty assimilating back to the normal church life in their localities. LSM always blamed the local elders for this, especially in the GLA, since there could never be a problem with "Brother Lee's Training."
|
LSM will accept nothing less than absolute commitment (and that is what they value). That's probably the big difference between Titus Chu's "labors" and the FTTA. I don't think it was really about which one was better, it was about the fact that FTTA attendance necessitates that trainees drop everything to attend. If you can get someone to drop everything for two years, that is indicative of a long term commitment to the system. Even if disillusionment sets in somewhere down the road, there will be some who are so deep in the system that there aren't many paths out.
When members are wholly committed to a system such as the LC, anything goes. They can be told where to move, whether to work or serve. They will turn a blind eye to abusive leaders. It is something that really gives the LC a lot of power. Without members who serve as "enablers" for LC leaders, the LC would probably just be a quirky system, becoming rapidly irrelevant. The whole situation of Samuel Liu in Ontario is something that would never be allowed to take place in most churches, and it is just an example of some of the factors at play behind the scenes that allow for that kind of abusive behavior.
No one in their right mind should accept that kind of behavior from a church leader, or any kind of leader period. Nevertheless, those in the LC were accepting of it. Why? Members are conditioned to not speak up. More importantly, members are committed. Speaking up has consequences. If someone has years of their life invested in the LC, the possibility of being label as "negative" doesn't look too appealing, even if it means tolerating unseemly behavior.