Attempting to SEEM inclusive

[boughtbyJesus]

Not sure under which category to put this attachment under. My husband has started changing his verbiage a little, and even though I was initially a little pleased, I soon realized he was once again regurgitating was is been spoon fed to him to repeat!:crazy

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by boughtbyJesus

Not sure under which category to put this attachment under. My husband has started changing his verbiage a little, and even though I was initially a little pleased, I soon realized he was once again regurgitating was is been spoon fed to him to repeat!:crazy

It is not at all uncommon for LCers to pay lip service in order to make others happy. For example, when I was a college student and we had a LC Christian club, newcomers always wanted to know our affiliations. Our response was usually along the lines of "we are Christians of various backgrounds". It was a misleading statement that while not false, gave people the answers that they wanted to hear.

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.

[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 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.