[Freedom]

I have mixed feelings about criticism directed towards a "central headquarters." On the one hand, yes there are churches, including the LC with an abusive HQ, but I also think that the issue is not so much the existence of a HQ per se, but more an issue of who is in charge. Take the RCC for instance. It's the quintessential group to criticize for having a massive, lavish and unaccountable HQ. Those things have always been points of criticism, but the interesting thing that I have noticed with Pope Francis, is that there has at least been some amount of effort to 'undo' some of the negative perceptions of the RCC. Of course, a lot of people aren't going to take that effort seriously, but he is obviously a much more 'progressive' Pope than any of his predecessors. Because of that, he has managed to gain some amount of public trust. Don't get me wrong, it could all be just a ploy on his part, but my point here is that who is in charge can make a difference.

LC history is punctuated by various points in time where members mustered up the courage to point to the existence of a headquarters or the fact that control/corruption that was taking place. Of course such things were vehemently denied by leaders, but it brings up an interesting question. What were members really reacting to? Was it the mere existence of a HQ? Or was it the abuse that was taking place through the HQ? As I see things, it could be argued that some members knew all along that there was a de facto HQ, but just couldn't bring themselves to admit that to themselves. When the GLA region protested LSM's control during the mid-2000's, that was not the first time the issue of LSM controlling churches have been brought to the table. It has come up previously, but was largely ignored by all except those who left.

At a basic level, I am inclined to think that a lot of the problem within the LC is related to an ongoing failure to correctly identify the real issues at hand. No one can really blame the rank and file members for that, but if it were acceptable among LC members to refer to LSM as their headquarters, then at least there could be an expectation of accountability relating to LSM. LSM is unaccountable partly because no one actually believes that LSM controls anything. So members and churches get stuck with a situations where they risk being accused of making "slanderous accusations" if they react to corruption/control on the part of LSM.

In various Christian denominations, the organizational structure is no secret. It can be expected that there are checks and balances in place for leadership at the top. Of course that isn't always the case, but at least there are underlying guidelines that members can point to if something goes awry. If a pastor is acting in a way that is subversive to the principles of the denomination, the denomination has the authority to remove him. If members or local leaders aren't happy with decisions made at the top, they can always leave the denomination, because they know exactly what is what. There isn't a whole lot of guesswork involved.

Recently, my curiosity got the best of me about two mid-20th century church buildings I see on a daily basis (the kind with really steep roofs and look very traditional). The names didn't indicate who these churches really were, but they both have 'modern' sounding names. So I googled them. I discovered one was Baptist and the other Methodist. Initially it bothered me that they were seemingly 'hiding' their identify behind a name. Then I realized that was only a matter of perception. Their identify is not hidden for those who wish to know. More importantly, the denominational aspect has been shifted to the background, Yes, behind the scenes there is a HQ that is 'controlling' things, but unless no checks and balances exist the 'control' is probably just administrative or making broad decisions about the general direction of the denomination. With that in mind, I realized that there is nothing to fear about groups that have more formal organizational structures. Of course there is the potential for bad, but I think the real issue is groups who make an ongoing effort to deny what they really are. That is my 2 cents.