Idealism

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Freedom

One of the new articles is titled Being Overcomers with a Vision, Not Idealists with a Dream. In that article, there is an excerpt from a message that Ron gave. He states: "Related to the church, there is a difference between a visionary and an idealist. An idealist has an ideal of what the church is supposed to be, and when they first come into the church life, they think they have found utopia. But gradually they discover that the church with all the saints is not a perfect place." This is a perfect example as to how the LCM works to misconstrue the legitimate and valid reasons that has led former members to leave.

First of all, whether we were raised in the LC or joined later on, I think most of us were told at some point how things were "supposed to be." This was the "vision" that we were supposedly following. The cause for concern came about when the environment didn't match the so-called vision. So in reality, what Ron is really doing here is blame-shifting. The simple fact is that the LC has failed its members. Anyone who has dared to point that out is attacked as being disillusioned, critical, too idealistic, etc.

After my last post on the Shepherding Words thread, I thought that I would start a separate thread on this topic, because I believe that idealism is a fundamental flaw within the LCM as a whole. As I mentioned, Ron tries to characterize former members as being idealists. So maybe some of us did expect too much from the LC. But why was that? Were there just too many people who came into the LC with too high expectations? Was that really the issue? Or were those expectations developed based on what we were told?

I for one, thought that there was a "vision" that I was following. What did that "vision" encompass? It was a lot of things, it would be hard to define that in exact terms. But much of it involved what the LCM believed itself to be. Here are some examples of what I mean:
1) They believe that there exists a cookie-cutter path to unity.
2) They believe that their notion of unity is a achievable here and now.
3) They believe that their movement is a pinnacle of everything that has come before them.
4) They believe that their movement has been unduly persecuted and is destined to emerge and become overwhelmingly successful.

I'm sure the list could go on. All of these things represent overly idealistic notions and ideas that existed within the LC. Of course, we weren't allowed to question those things. We weren't allowed to doubt that the LC would be successful in the way that they said. Anyone who did so was labeled as someone who did not "see" the vision.

The position that so many former members have found themselves in has been that of simply recognizing and feeling the need to point out discrepancies that became apparent, and the LC criticizes former members for doing this, saying that it's not perfect. Here is another way to look at the issue. If the LC claims that it is following a certain "vision", but never lives up to that "vision", that would indicate one of two things: 1) The "vision" was never achievable in the first place or 2) The movement has failed itself. It could be combination of both as well, but either way, it is time for them to stop blaming others.

[Freedom]

Regarding ideals, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with them. In fact, I would say that there has to be some amount of idealism in order for Christianity to progress, otherwise it would become complacent.

Here's the thing - in a normal environment, there exists some form of feedback by which ideals can be assessed. The important questions of what is working and what isn't can be asked. Likewise, it could also involve being open to what the Lord is leading and not trying to "tell" others what the Lord's leading is.

In other words, when there isn't anything wrong with the environment, idealism becomes a non-issue. It becomes an issue when feedback is ignored, when brothers and sisters are not allowed to follow the Lord's leading at an individual level, and when there is the blind pursuit of ideals just because.

The LC is guilty of downplaying the basic tenants of the Christian faith, saying that something higher - a "vision" must be followed. And when they talk about vision, they mean something completely different than what Paul meant. They ascribe their own idea of how things should be to that word. In essence, they are leading members on a wild goose chase. Some come to realize that sooner than others, but there is something in common with everyone who does - they get blamed for doing exactly what they were taught to do.

In the LS of Genesis, WL told everyone that they should be "dreamers" like Joseph and not worry as to whether or not their "vision" was fulfilled or not. It is this type of allegorization that is so destructive. WL succeeded in equating "vision" with whatever he wanted it to be and then keeping people from questioning that, not caring as to whether or not any of it worked out.

[OBW]

I think that the kind of idealism that the LCM is about is something unique to them and to their "speciality."

But idealism is important to the church. We should have the ideal that we are one in Christ. That this is superior to all the small things that divide us. When it comes to our interaction with all other Christians, it should be with this ideal in mind. This does not mean that there should be no theological debates, but that those are undertaken as being inferior to the unity of the body of Christ.

Our oneness should be exclusively in Christ, not doctrine, creed, practice, teacher, publisher, politics, race, nationality, etc. We may find that we tend to flock on the basis of some of those things. But that should not affect how we interact with those who are of different "flocks" yet still of the body of Christ.

This does not mean that there is never reason to stand up to serious error in some. Paul told the Corinthians to cast one from their assembly for serious sin that even the world would call sin. But the whole assembly was blighted with sin of quarreling and jealousy, but were not cast out. Elsewhere Paul said that certain kinds of persons should be refused as teachers. But he did not call them heathen or clearly state that they should be removed from the assembly. Yet if some persist at causing division, they should be removed.

Of course, if you discover that the ones that should be removed are the leaders, then you have little recourse but to either suffer in silence or remove yourself. With regard to the LCM, I would say to remove yourself. This forum provides some stand against them as well as fellowship to those who are seeking to be rescued from it.

There is an ideal. It is more universal than unique and peculiar. The LCM is really not participating in the ideal. Just substituting an inferior alternative. A faux reality. (Now there's an oxymoron if there ever was one.)

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the kind of idealism that the LCM is about is something unique to them and to their "speciality."


There is an ideal. It is more universal than unique and peculiar. The LCM is really not participating in the ideal. Just substituting an inferior alternative. A faux reality. (Now there's an oxymoron if there ever was one.)

This is the thing that WL never admitted. There already is a universal ideal, and I think that most Christian groups would be pursuing it to one degree or another. What WL didn't like about that is that there are multiple paths to reach the same goal. So it became convenient for him to characterize that ideal as being too "low" and then add in all these alternative pursuits/goals.

I suspect that WL knew all along that what he was teaching wasn't achievable. Or at least he knew that the main purpose of what he was teaching was to make the LC more "unique" than everyone else.

The main problem that created for himself and the LCM was the disillusionment that was bound to follow. For example, I mentioned WL's talk in the LS of Genesis about being "dreamers" and following the "vision" without caring if it was fulfilled or not. That was the early 70's, long before some of the later turmoils and disillusionment. The cycle was already present, if not in the U.S, then in Taipei and China.

WL knew that people were bound to call out the discrepancies, and discouraging people from doing so seems like it became a common theme in his ministry.

[Freedom]

When the LC talks about needing to have a vision, it is necessary to deconstruct what is really being said. Ask any LCer what the so-called vision is, and they might say "Christ and the Church" or "God's Economy." Maybe there's nothing particularly alarming about that at first thought. I tend to look at this a different way, however.

When someone becomes a Christian, by very definition, they have too "see" who Christ is. Likewise, if they join a community of Christians around them, they "see" what the church is and how it is part of life as a Christian. Telling people that they need to "see" something that they already do is ridiculous. To me, this implies that what the WL was really talking about is "seeing" and remaining faithful to the LCM.

The LCM was founded on the notion that other groups were inferior, and WL criticized all the problems that existed in other groups. When it came to his group, however, it became convenient for him to tell everyone that they were all following a vision and needed to remain faithful to that vision, especially despite any problems that might arise. So lets get this straight. The LC is a group founded on the notion that other groups have all these problems and such groups need to be rejected and shunned. If the LC has problems, however, you're not supposed to say anything about that, because doing so would mean not remaining faithful to "the vision." It's just so absurd when you really think about it.

Ron and others have repeated created this straw man to suggest that ex-members expected or still expect perfection from the LCM. In my earlier posts, I mentioned that any amount of idealism we might of had about what the LCM should have been more than likely came from what people in the LC (especially leaders) told us the movement was. That being said, based on the types of claims the LCM has made for itself I think we would have every right to have expected a greater amount of perfection. Ironically, however, I think that so many who have left were all too gracious in giving the LCM the benefit of the doubt, waiting around to see if things would change, when it probably would have been best to have left far sooner.

When it comes to the matter of problems in the church, it is worth noting that not all problems are created equal. It would be ridiculous to get upset over every small or minor problem that came up. By the same token, however, it would also be ridiculous for those who presume to be leaders to ignore every problem that came up, regardless of severity. The issue has never been that problems occur. The issue is that problems are ignored, downplayed, and mischaracterized. The more severe problems can often make it impossible for people to coexist in the same environment, making leaving an act of necessity. Not all problems go away by ignoring them. In fact it often compounds the problem into something much bigger. This is the thing that Ron and others just don't get. If they want to tell people to ignore all the problems that come up, then they shouldn't get so upset with all the drama and negativity that ensues.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When the LC talks about needing to have a vision, it is necessary to deconstruct what is really being said. Ask any LCer what the so-called vision is, and they might say "Christ and the Church" or "God's Economy." Maybe there's nothing particularly alarming about that at first thought. I tend to look at this a different way, however.

When someone becomes a Christian, by very definition, they have too "see" who Christ is. Likewise, if they join a community of Christians around them, they "see" what the church is and how it is part of life as a Christian. Telling people that they need to "see" something that they already do is ridiculous. To me, this implies that what the WL was really talking about is "seeing" and remaining faithful to the LCM.

The LCM was founded on the notion that other groups were inferior, and WL criticized all the problems that existed in other groups.

The criticism and pointing out the shortfalls of Christendom was a bad road to go down --- and at the end of that road we all got mugged! This was fleshly and prideful and automatically resulted in (supremely ironic) division. But the seeing of Christ and the seeing of the church is progressive, right? We see Christ initially, but then we progressively see more and more of His height and breadth and depth and length. The same is true for the church. We're just starting back into Ephesians in my group, and we've all been through it many, many times. (one bro said this morning he guesstimates he's heard 500 messages on the book) But we are all excited to see more!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

After my last post on the Shepherding Words thread, I thought that I would start a separate thread on this topic, because I believe that idealism is a fundamental flaw within the LCM as a whole. As I mentioned, Ron tries to characterize former members as being idealists. So maybe some of us did expect too much from the LC. But why was that? Were there just too many people who came into the LC with too high expectations? Was that really the issue? Or were those expectations developed based on what we were told?

This Shepherding Words website is pure political spin, classic word-smithing at its best. Every Recovery "storm" was followed by endless spin messaging. I lived thru the Max Rebellion, the Ingalls Conspiracy, and the Titus Quarantine There are so many similarities in each one.

There's a reason why LSM employs word-smiths at DCP and Public Relations specialists. Each of these Recovery "Storms" was followed by public deceptions to coverup up their unrighteousness, to blame-shift the responsibility, to minimize the exodus of members, to write history as the supposed "victors" of war.

The Roman Church did this for a millennium. It's called the "Dark Ages" for good reason. Rome got to write the history after it destroyed its opposers, the supposed "heretics." The genuine children of God, whether locked in a prison all alone or slaughtered en masse with their entire community, got to write very little of their own actual history. Sifting through what was actually written, honest historians would then be forced to piece together what really happened. For example, the account of some missing believer who "was disciplined for disrespecting the blessed virgin," would be understood to mean that "the brother was tortured unto death for refusing to bow down to marble Mary." That's how crooked religionistas spin history.

Fortunately for us, LSM can only damage one's reputation, not end their life. Some, however, might say that the loss of one's reputation is worse. For example, from ~1990 to 2007, almost without exception, every brother and sister in the Midwest and beyond, looked upon John Ingalls with contempt, as we would a Benedict Arnold. The internet has changed all that.

Jacob Howard has also publicly identified himself at great risk in order to expose their lies. This younger generation, those who have lived thru the FTTA, can be even more effective at reaching their peers. Use the web to write your own history!