"laestadian, apostolic, gay, lgbtq, ex-oalc, ex-llc, llc, oalc, bunner" LEARNING TO LIVE FREE: When Leaving is the Right Thing to Do

Thursday, March 06, 2008

When Leaving is the Right Thing to Do

There has been some to and fro about marriage, and I thought exoalc had a great point:

"Sometimes divorce isn't a failure, but the most courageous step one can take. And on the flip side, staying in a dead-end, abusive, traumatic, explosive and soul-sucking marriage is the cop out for being the person you were created to be."

Once a therapist (yes, I saw a few, to great benefit) told me something along these lines "the success of a relationship is not only in its duration." A window opened in my mind.

How does this apply to our relationship to our former churches? Isn't leaving Laestadianism like a divorce (for some of us, quick and for others, long and drawn out)?

Can we reconsider our relationships to Laestadianism as successful, in some ways if not in ways that kept us there?

From this perspective, I can be grateful for my childhood in the OALC. It helped make me who I am. By giving me the experience of being an outsider, for example, it actually enabled me to become an outsider to IT, and to have the courage of my convictions when they are not shared by others.

99 comments:

  1. Growing up in an alternate, parallel, or counter-culture is not always a bad thing. Having the courage of your convictions when not shared by others - invaluable! Although it was often very painful to grow up this way, I knew that if I required my kids to think carefully and reject a lot of what their peers were doing, it would not hurt them. And although I'm still in a Laestadian church, I've 'divorced' myself from some of the erroneous assumptions and beliefs that came along with it.

    My mom had a good story about learning to make homemade bread. My grandmother taught her to never use a knife when dividing the bread dough, and my mother thought it was because it would ruin the dough in some way. It wasn't until years later that she realized it was because her mother didn't want her to cut herself with the knife, and nothing to do with how the bread would turn out. It was a false assumption.

    That's the problem with the 'traditions of men' and why they deserve to be examined...!

    Good topic, Free.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In some ways I think leaving the OALC is harder than a divorce. A divorce is the undoing of a choice one makes; leaving the OALC, especially having been born and raised in it, is the undoing of something in which we had no choice. Combine that with no support from long time friends and family!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Free, I hope at some point I can be grateful for my childhood in the OALC. That's a tough one for me. I was discouraged from doing so many harmless activities. I was raised with so many unnecessary fears. Things were confusing - it didn't matter what the behavior, as long as people were going to church, they were welcomed and those behaviors were normalized. On the flipside, otherwise decent people were "worldly". I work at accepting the past and what I cannot change, but haven't come so far as to feel grateful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, gratitude isn't easy for me, either. I still feel resentment . . . not much anymore for what I was denied as a child, but for what my own children are now denied.

    I think anger toward any group that is oppressive, disallows dissent, discourages family bonds, and demands exclusivism is an appropriate and healthy emotion.

    The use of that powerful emotion is the key. It can destroy us with bitterness, or energize us to create new lives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On one hand, I have moved on significantly from the resentment I had at being raised Laestadian, and I do appreciate some of the Laestadian aspects of my upbringing. On the other hand, I still wouldn't choose to have been brought up Laestadian.

    It can also be confusing to identify what exactly was Laestadian about ones upbringing and what was just your particular family's situation. The way we turn out isn't just the result of Laestadianism--you could be just as much a social butterfly or a nerd or anything else had you been raised non-Laestadian.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't post much about my resentment and anger. It seems to trigger a backlash of emotion, and I just try to let it go, to move forward.

    I know I had an immense amount of resentment toward the church and certain individuals when I left. The anger spilled out toward organized religion in general, and toward God. I made the mistake of tarring them all with the same brush at first. I thought ALL Christians were hypocrites (not the ones associated with the LLL church). I still had the scornful attitude toward "worldly" churches that I learned in the LLC, but I didn't see the LLC church as something I wanted either.

    But anytime I discussed my anger, it was always turned back around on me..."it's a matter of the heart. Your heart isn't in the right place, then. You have a problem. You're the problem. You need to come back to church and God will help you. You should be unhappy." I resented that! I resented that I wasn't heard. I was always the problem. The only thing that mattered was that I was outside the box.

    Honestly, there are things that I am glad I learned there, but I regret growing up with so much fear, and feeling so much different from everyone else. I felt like a social misfit all my life, and I believe a good part of that comes from the overprotection I lived with.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did you know?

    Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

    Doubt that this will make it far. It would be interesting to see how many people would still be willing to post. I don't think there would be ten.

    ReplyDelete
  8. LLLreader sez: If I had to reveal my idenity in order to post, I would do it in a heartbeat!! I'm not ashamed of anything I have ever said here over the years (little bit embarrassed about my spelling). Those years of being afraid of "what will people think" are long gone Pal.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aahhhh LLLreader. I aspire to your contentment :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. When I first discovered this blog, I posted using my given name, because like LLLreader I felt I had nothing to hide and certainly nothing to be ashamed of. I realized eventually however, that it could cause a serious ruckus in my family if it were discovered that I am actively participating on this "antiOALC" blog, and I didn't want to cause a rift. Some know anyway but my mom probably does not and I don't want her to. The harmony that exists in my "mixed" family (actives and ex'es) is a fragile thing and I do not want to jeopardize it. I've generated my share of confrontation! Here's to peace and harmony. Many Trails Home

    ReplyDelete
  11. To MTH from LLLreader--if my wonderful Mom were still alive, I would be VERY careful about what I said here. She cared so much about "what people thought" that I just wouldn't bring her any discomfort through voicing my opinions. I'm a lucky one--my family members that are in the OALC "love me anyway", so I am free to yak away! I know it's different for everyone--we protect the people we love--and that's only right. Thank you MTH.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Could someone tell me who the current preachers are at the OALC?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why the Sam Hill do you want to know that? I used to be a member but been gone several years. I could post many of their names, but not sure what purpose that would serve....

    ReplyDelete
  14. If I were to ask for the name of the minister at the Baptist church down the street from me, would you have the same kind of answer for me? Lighten up Buddy! You may have left the church, but you are hanging on to the defensive attitude. My question is innnocent. An elderly friend who who had many friends in both the Hockinson and Brush Prairie churches was reminising and wondered if any of the families she knows have produced any preachers. Nothing sinister here. Geez!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I didnt know I sounded THAT bad!
    Does everyone think the names should be posted? Please respond. I believe the OALCers would consider that persecution, but does that matter?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't see what the big deal is, but I know that in the church it seems like its always supposed to be hush hush when someone is chosen to be a preacher. Like it would be bragging or something? I don't know. They don't like to advertise that information for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Since when are the names of the preachers a secret?

    What harm would identifying them do?

    To disparage or defame them by name would be wrong, but simply posting their names would not, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It would probably also depend on which locality you were referring to. ALso, for some of us that would not want to be identified too easily, naming names could date or place us... just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  19. How would identifying the OALC preachers reveal your idenity, or date and place you? I am seriously considering posting their names for those who are courius. I wonder if Free has an objection. I cant think of a good reason not to.

    ReplyDelete
  20. They are a private group. Yes, posting names of Baptist ministers would be different. Out of respect for privacy I would not post OALC preachers names on this site. Just my opinion. Happy Easter. -Bunless

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have no objection to listing OALC clergy here. I only ask that the information be accurate and spell-checked.

    Years ago, I posted a photo of the elders with their names. Some readers objected to that.

    My bias, however, is toward sunshine and transparency. Information-sharing can have a very wholesome impact on everyone when done with respect.

    The cure for misunderstanding is more discussion, not less.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well then let me be the first to share some information that I know. The community that I come from, which is Minneapolis MN, currently has 5 preachers. Their names are Amund Peterson, William (Bill) Homola, Jim Rivers, Brian Efraimson, and Clayton Tapani. Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A change of subject - on the issue of shunning, and for those of you interested in a good book, “Plain Secrets, An Outsider among the Amish”, by Joe Mackall, is a nonfiction account of the Swartzentruber Amish, the most traditional of the various Amish groups. If a member of their sect chooses to leave, shunning is strongly encouraged and considered their last show of love. Some believe that if a child leaves the group, it means that the parents aren’t doing their job properly. Apparently they believe that shunning strengthens the community, reinforcing that the weakest link has been removed.

    In the book is the story of one young Amish man who left the group. His outsider friend, referred to as the “English”, who helped him “believes that Amish life prevents parents from getting to really know their children – that they do not communicate with them, that the life prevents them from helping their kids solve their problems.” I found this interesting because, like some OALC parents, the church is of utmost importance – everything else falls somewhere below that on the list of priorities.

    ReplyDelete
  24. RWB here...

    Nothing can stop anyone from posting the identity of someone else in any form or format, positive or negative, except for the moderator of the site possibly. First, if you a going to post names of otherwise private people without their consent it would be courteous and kind to post your own name along with that. To do otherwise lacks integrity in my opinion. Second, if the moderator of the site allows this anonymous posting of names then that moderator (FREE) should openly disclose their name and take whatever comes of it. There are no apparent positives to posting someones name, especially without their knowledge or consent...NONE! Shame on anyone who does this and shame on the moderator for allowing this! I think I know the name of the moderator here and if I did a little digging I could verify it for sure. So, Free, let's see some of that sunshine and transparency on your part. Let us know about the wholesome impact it has for you. I can guarantee if I posted the names of the moderators/contributors to this site that I know of, the post would be deleted. I wouldn't do it, but just to prove my point I have mentioned it.

    RWB

    ReplyDelete
  25. RWB, with all respect, you are comparing oranges to apples. This blog is not a church.

    The OALC is a tax-exempt nonprofit serving the public. (Interestingly, our country so values the good work that churches provide, they don't even have to prove they are doing good work. We take their word for it.) Isn't the job of a pastor to serve people (populus)? Isn't it by definition public?

    Joseph Ratzinger would not object, I am fairly sure, to you knowing his name (he's the Pope). Religious leaders do not have the same expectation of privacy as their parishioners. In my town, clergy names are printed in the newspaper with phone numbers and email addresses. As if they wanted people to call them for spiritual guidance!

    (By the way, the privacy of parishioners varies depending on the church. In 2004, the Republican Party asked its volunteers to submit their church directories to party headquarters. So if you are getting unwanted mail from the RNC, you might want to have a talk with your pastor!)

    A blog is a different animal. It provides a place for discussion without identity (for better or worse). Personally, I have considered posting here under my own name, but having an email attached means I'd get a lot of junk mail. I have given curious readers enough personal detail to identify me, and I welcome one-on-one conversations anytime (extoot @ gmail.com).

    RWB, I respect the fact that you and most posters here prefer pseudonyms -- either to keep peace in your family or to focus on issues, not personal details or family history.

    I just don't see the harm in posting clergy names. No phone numbers. No email. No personal attacks. No making fun of non-Finnish surnames.

    I'm open to persuasion, though. Sock it to me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. RWB here...

    IMO,the bottom line here is there is obviously no intent to do anything positive for those OALC preachers whose names would be or are written here. Is there? Really, is there? Their "job" is hard enough as it is. I see the possibility for lots of negatives just by the very nature of this site.

    Ever wonder why the pope changes his name when he becomes the pope? Not that it has anything to do with anything, just a curious bit. The pope is a very public figure and the Catholic Church is heavily into manipulating and shaping public and foreign policy. Due to the very nature of this activity and the sometimes controversial nature of it the pope is provided with a staggering amount of security. I don't think OALC preachers are packin' any heat. To say that somehow the pope and the preachers of the OALC are similar in the public sense is ridiculous. The OALC preachers don't seek out their pastoral duties, they are placed there by the congregation and Elders. They don't have any formal religious training. They are not paid for their service. They don't retire. I know you (Free) know the differences, but I list them for others to see that it is not the same as many other churches and parallels are not so easily drawn.

    Churches are listed in the phone book and newspapers where I live to. I don't think listing the names of preachers along with that is necessary, but maybe some do. At that point it becomes their CHOICE. It is there because they want it to be there.

    That is not the case when it comes to this blog. I know, I know...this blog is a "different animal" and "clearly a mixed bag" so it is OK and will be help you and others work through your differences with the OALC and its teachings; right? At least I thought that was the intent here. It is easy to find personal addresses and phone numbers via the internet if you have a name.

    If someone was in need of spiritual guidance through the OALC they could come to church on any given Sunday and talk to a preacher if they wanted. I'm not even sure they would need to exchange names.

    RWB

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, RWB, if you want openess and sunshine, let's start by you posting under your own name! You know that your own church, the open and sunny OALC, preaches that the Internet is sinful. You know that you are told by your own church not to read or post here!

    So, I'll wait for you to identify yourself and then we who post here will follow suit. I won't hold my breath!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. I hope people do not reveal their names. It takes away from the discourse here. Pretty soon we will all be like " I knew your mom's sister Lucy back when we worked at Montgomery Wards together.." Lets just all agree to remain anonymous unless an individual wants to out his or her self.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you were here, RWB, you will recall that I was outed on this very site.
    And the post was not deleted.
    Because I am not ashamed...

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am standing up applauding my dear niece Helena... XOX

    ReplyDelete
  31. LLLreader sez: Guess I'll weigh in on this publishing the names of the preachers thing. Most people would say that a church should have the names of their leaders available--just seems logical. Well, the OALC operates under the assumption that the world is out to get them. Growing up in the OALC taught us that. The fact that none of us jumped in with the list shows that we understand that mindset. So be it--the preachers identities can be protected if they are more comfortable that way--it's OK with me.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Interesting dialog. I grew up in the "living faith", my mother was a christian. We lived in Seattle and were removed from the daily life in southern Washington. The people are good and the prechers I knew in in Brush Prairie in the 70s during confirmation were good men. I don't think a person wanting to be annonymous should be an issue or feel that saying the names of preachers is somehow a bad thing. I sense a little anger in the string of comments. Are any of the contributers from the Brush Prairie church? Did anyone go through the issue of a dual life, life outside of the church growing up and side that had to act differently around the relatives?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Welcome 7:38--a bunch of the posters are from the Brush Prairie OALC. If you have a chance, look back and read some of the older posts. I think we have a very diverse bunch of folks here, and it's good to hear a new voice once in awhile. Hope you stick around. Duel life? Yes indeedy!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I read more, happened to google looking for information on the church. Feels good. Maybe Was just in Brush Prairie for my great aunts funeral. I did not know the preachers any more. They did seem to lack something that the preachers I knew had. What is this blog site about? Are you still in the church or out of the church?

    ReplyDelete
  35. LLLreader sez: Read Free2b posts, she explains the blog very clearly. We are out, mostly, and represent all of the branches of the Laustadian churches. Mention has been made several times about the old preachers we remember fondly, Walt, Ole, Axel, among others. The new breed carries a tone of anger that didn't used to be there--I was thinking that maybe it's because they have to do that to keep hold on the members. Rachet up the fear factor to keep the members heads down. Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anon 8:29, you've mentioned something that I've always felt and have discussed before. I remember those old preachers (and I'm not from BG, BTW), and always had the impression they could and would be stern, but it was in a loving way. They spoke of doctrine and it wasn't a message of fear and hatred and anger. The swing starting in the late 1960s toward the finger pointing preaching was one of many reasons why I left the OALC.

    Not to say there wasn't always some finger pointing, even in those early years. I knew of an incident back in the 1950s where my Grandad was called to a meeting with the preachers during some meeting time. He never spoke of it, but another family member recently told me that another "Christian" from the community -- well respected, lukkari, yadda, yadda, yadda -- had listed in a notebook all of the sins he thought others -- including my Grandad -- had committed! The preachers reportedly told the man to burn that book immediately and to never, ever do anything like that again!

    BTW, the "Christian" was the grandfather of some of the most vitriolic of today's OALC "preachers". Sorry, but I can't help but think of what you get when you plant bad seed.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Seriously, this whole issue of naming or not naming preachers needs to be dedramatized somewhat and put into proper perspective. After all, the identities of the leading preachers in Sweden (where they are, as you know, called elders), Finland, Norway and North America can hardly be classified information since they're named in every issue of Rauhan Side, the quarterly magazine published by the Finnish branch of the movement. The leading preachers of each country appear as as the signatories of the letters the different national branches send to each other several times a year. These letters are, of course, published in Rauhan Side. RS publishes as well detailed information about the travel programme of the leading Finnish preachers (lähetysmiehet) for the season. The newest issue, for example, lists in detail their travel programme for the rest of the winter and the spring. Note that only the leading preachers (that is, those who are called to preach at other localities as well than their own and who are in regular contact with the leading preachers of other countries) are systematically listed. Local preachers may occasionally be named in articles if the context warrants it. Each issue of the magazine has, after all, only about 24 pages and I guess that naming each and every local preacher in every issue would simply take too much space.
    The names? Here you go, first Sweden: Levi Larsson, Lars Larsson, Gunnar Persäter, Odd Minde, Ulf Bolsöy, Bror Erkstam, Håkan Gustavsson, Göran Larsson, Hans-Olof Wettainen and Sven-Åke Blombacke (Evald Larsson, who was born in 1917, passed away four days before Christmas). Norway: Hans Stormo, Jakob Pettersen, Ludvig Johnsen, Jens Jensen, Martin Trondsen, Odd Fagerjord, Roald Bolle, Otto Skog, Erling Reinslett, Kjell H. Stormo, John Skog, Aarild Aasberg, Sigurd Trondsen, Arvid Horn, Knut Lindgaard, Rolf Trondsen and Karl Nikolaisen. North America (USA and Canada): Wilbur Koistinen, David Hendrickson, Daryl Redinger, Paul Heidegger, Harold Homola, Max Williamson, Don Homola, Terry Hilliard, Randy Blakeman, Lason Lindberg, Ryan Wantaja, Leo Tanninen and Charles Lobbestael. Finland: Pekka Liuksiala, Tapio Laukkanen, Pauli Väänänen, Raimo Haimilahti, Seppo Parviainen, Heikki Purtanen, Eino Ruusula, Seppo Karhu, Sakari Siltala, Olavi Simolin, Toivo Kärki, Markku Oksanen, Pauli Nuutinen, Reino Haimilahti, Unto Rantanen, Arvo Konttinen, Veli-Matti Koskimaa and Timo Hämäläinen. Remember: as I said, these are just the leading preachers. And, just to be sure that everybody has understood: as this comes from the official publication of the Finnish branch, this is definitely NOT classified information. I haven't named any preacher that would be active only at local level, but I'm certainly not aware of there being any sort of taboo against naming them as well. The local preachers of the LLC congregations, for instance, are named on their websites. I simply don't see why any person with an intact sense of proportion should make an issue of this.
    Another Finn

    ReplyDelete
  38. In defending his/her position as to why we should not post the names of OALC preachers, RWB said this:

    "The OALC preachers don't seek out their pastoral duties, they are placed there by the congregation and Elders. They don't have any formal religious training. They are not paid for their service."

    What does that have to do with posting names of preachers who serve congregations in a public non-profit church? What does not being paid or not being educated in the Scriptures have to do with privacy?

    If you give a check to the OALC church, you can take a tax deduction on that gift. To me, that makes the OALC and all tax-exempt churchs a public organization. The names of the preachers should be a matter of public record.

    Private, indeed!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. "A matter of public record".
    Quite. I second that. Makes sense to me. This said, I'd like to add that my comment about not understanding why the names of the preachers coulndn't be mentioned shouldn't be interpreted as hostile criticism of RWB:s point of view. It's clear that RWB is acting in good faith and, as I see it, erring on the side of caution in a way that has the unintended consequence of making the OALC look even more secretive than it really is. It seems to me, if RWB will pardon the expression, a case of being more catholic than the pope...:) But this blog certainly needs someone like RWB: a bona fide member of the OALC who can present their viewpoint intelligently, articulately and, last but not least, patiently.
    Another Finn

    ReplyDelete
  40. Interesting, I will read more over the weekend. I have good memories of Nester and Ole. It is nice to hear what others have to say about the church. I feel that I grew up very conflicted about God,sin, going to hell. I think my mom did give me a strong faith in God and the ability to forgive easily.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sam Hill, I must say, that is a most peculiar moniker. I never heard anyone but my dad use that expression, or expletive (As in, "What the Sam Hill are you doing?") And that was 40+ years ago! Blast from the past. Well, I hope you stick around.
    Many Trails Home

    ReplyDelete
  42. RWB here...

    Patience...yes patience.

    Anonymoust 5:48pm:
    I try to post in response to things that I see differently, as a member of the OALC, than what most of the posters here have experienced. I try not to post in such a manner that it would matter what my name or position is. There is so much misinformation here and it is a direct result of the anonymous nature of this site. Anyone can say whatever they want whether it is true, opinion, lies, etc. I know some of you know that that what you are doing is harmful...the undertones of mischievous glee in some of the posts are obvious. You all can post what you want, but if you want throw someones name out there it would be best to do it with your own name attached.

    Helena: You were "outed" and that was I'm sure not what you wanted as you still post under an anonymous name...nobody knows who you are that did not see the post that "outed" you. Does this make it right or wrong to put the names here? Again I see no positive benefits to putting the names here.

    I never said that the names were not a matter of public record. LLLreader said "Most people would say that a church should have the names of their leaders available" I can't say I disagree, but the question I again pose: What good will come of posting the names on this obviously anti-OALC site? I guess we shall see, as it has now, in part, been done....by a conveniently anonymous poster....of course only anonymous to us.

    Anonymous 2:35....
    The point I was trying to make was this: The OALC preachers don't "seek out" or have a "calling" to preach...they are placed there by the congregation. They don't want to be recognized for any of their service or what alot of you would say disservice (in reference to CVOW's comment about bad seed). They want to remain a lowly servant of God and the congregation.

    RWB

    ReplyDelete
  43. RWB, I take umbrage at your statement that we "know that what (we) are doing is harmful." I for one have positive intent and would never participate in this forum if I thought it was intentionally "harmful" to anyone!!! But I am not so surprised that you would say that. Part of the "theology" of the OALC is a paranoia, a judgmentalism, a phony humility thinly veneering a sense of superiority that I am grateful to have escaped. And I directly thank God, the Holy Spirit and our Lord Jesus Christ for that guidance. And I do wish "God's Peace" to you as well. But be careful that you are not "judged by your own righteous judgment."
    Many Trails Home

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon 2:35 here.

    To RWB,
    I did not miss your point. The fact that OALC preachers do not seek out their positions is well known to me. I spent many decades in that church and I doubt you can teach me anything new about it. However, the preachers names are not secret and certainly can be posted here. You sound a little paranoid to me. The preachers names that have been posted here have not been abused in any way. Most of us know these names well. I have many friends in the church to this day and I do not wish to do harm to anyone.

    RWB, I think you need to relax about our intentions here. While most of us have left the OALC, most of us also believe that if it works for you that is fine!

    All I ask of you is to not deny my own experiences and beliefs. I am much better off after leaving the OALC. Obviously you are happy there. So be it!

    I believe cvow said once in responce to a poster who argued about the one true faith: " I believe there will be room at the table for all of us".

    God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  45. RWB,
    What do you mean I was outed and that was clearly not what I wanted?
    If you will recall, it was during a time of profound grief for myself and my family, and although the cowardly ANONYMOUS person who posted my name clearly didn't have respect for that, free did and graciously asked me if I wanted her to remove the post.
    At the time, it didn't matter, and it still doesn't. So who cares if I sometimes post under exoalc so I don't receive personal attacks that are simply par for the course. I am not ashamed, just sometimes not in the mood.
    Also, XOXO to the family member that posted above. Thank you!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. LLLreader sez: On Wed Apr 02, at11:40 Many Trails Home submitted a post that gets right to the heart of the matter. Amen Sister!

    ReplyDelete
  47. RWB here...

    MTH: I'm sorry that you take "umbrage" at my statements. You obviously see and look at things differently. I can only state what I believe to be the truth. You stated: "Part of the "theology" of the OALC is a paranoia, a judgmentalism, a phony humility thinly veneering a sense of superiority that I am grateful to have escaped."

    I won't take "umbrage" with that statement, but I will say I think that is your intrepretation of the OALC and not it's "theology". Is that how you felt as a member?

    The anonymous poster after you said: "While most of us have left the OALC, most of us also believe that if it works for you that is fine!"

    At some times that may be the way you feel, but I don't think that is all true. When I see the types of posts as found in many places here it is to disparage and discourage. I don't think anyone was telling "W" to just let her "contraband" close friend go and believe the way he wants to believe because it works for him. It was more along the lines of showing him "the way out".

    I agree with exoalc: When someone anonymously posts anothers name (when there is clearly no intent to do them any good) that "someone" is clearly a COWARD if they are not willing to post their own name. Again I don't agree that the preachers names are a matter of public record. Yes I understand that the law allows for this, but I have also explained how these preachers are different in the sense that this is not their full time, paid occupation. They don't personally get any tax breaks because they are preachers. You might as well say that under the justification for posting their names you could just freely post any church members name. If that happens will FREE try to contact those people to ask if the post should be removed? No.....I think the better policy would be to not name names.

    RWB

    ReplyDelete
  48. It is not their clergy tax status but the reason for that status that is relevant here. OALC preachers are public figures because they (sadly, without training of any kind) wield considerable power over others: they counsel people on when and whom to date and marry, when divorce is okay, when to seek or refuse psychiatric help, when to report things to the authorities, what technology is okay, and when and how to shun "worldlies." Just for example.

    While these may not be the terms they use, they also counsel people on how to live simply, love one another, and seek God.

    So, RWB, what is the harm you fear? Do you think the preachers will be harrassed? Audited by the IRS? Hounded by the Fair Hiring folks or Child Protective Services?

    You say the intent here is to harm, but how?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Wow, we are almost having a real-time conversation here. I can't for the life of me figure why RedWhiteBlue is so opposed to printing preachers' names. Seems to me it is purely informational; no one is commenting upon their personalities, preaching styles (wouldn't mind saying a thing or two on that count myself), or some private "sin." Sheesh. I don't get it. What's the big secret? MTH

    ReplyDelete
  50. RWB,
    I'm curious - how old are you? Are you married? Do you have children? Do you have sons and/or daughters-in-law? Grandchildren? Have you ever been faced with a trial in your life in which you went to the preachers for help? I'm asking these questions because life experiences shape people in various ways.
    Twenty years ago, when I was in the church, I don't think I had a clue that 20 years later I'd choose to leave. Though I was taught growing up to have faith in the OALC preachers and teachers, when I went for counsel, though I believe it was heartfelt, it lacked in substance and understanding. This is not criticism - I'm merely stating my experience - I realize the preachers don't have the training to deal with many situations.
    As a child, I was subject to the nasty and mean-spirited behavior of a local preacher, which in later years affected my love for the church. No one defended me and protected me from him. You may call this criticism, I'll accept that, but there is no justification for a preacher like that.
    In later years, when I married and moved, I learned the hard way that so-called loving Christian families can be destructive and unsupportive. This is not criticism, but rather my experience as I lived it. Though forgiveness is supposed to be the answer, forgiveness without acknowledgement of wrongdoing, or without any attempt to change, or without remorse, etc., grew troublesome to me. This is not criticism - I'm relating my experience of it. I began to question many things.
    When an OALCer begins to question, I learned real fast that it's not acceptable. OALCers are not supposed to question. They're supposed to have childlike faith. I understand that too. It keeps people "in line" and it keeps dissension to a minimum.
    So a lifetime of experiences, a few mentioned above, shaped my decision to leave.
    Not sure where you are in your life, and the church may work for you your entire life, but consider that others may have experiences far beyond your own.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dear RWB,

    There will always be a chasm between my thinking and yours. Here's why. Awhile back I used this example to explain it: There is a Christmas song, "Toyland", that goes, "Toyland, toyland, wonderful girl and boy land......but once you pass its borders, you may never return again."

    In the OALC, one is taught to have a childlike faith. Once one leaves that innocence behind by questioning what is taught, a person can never go back to not-questioning. It is like asking a 10-year-old to stop questions to stop seeing the world through older eyes and be like the 4-year-old and just accept what we tell them.

    You can't reclaim innocence.

    I think that is why someone who leaves the church because they want "allowances for sin" (do things that are preached against) is more likely to return to the fold than someone who left because they questioned the teachings.

    That's why the latter is the greater sin, according to the church. It is MUCH more difficut to overcome.

    Sometimes I envy those with a childlike faith. Their life seems so much easier. But that is not my lot in life: I question. It's been painful for me because I am a pleaser. I want people to approve of me, to like me, to accept me. In the OALC, one is approved of, liked and accepted ONLY if one toes the line and keeps quiet. I couldn't do it.

    SISU

    ReplyDelete
  52. SISU, I couldn't do it either. I posted just prior to your post above. Like you, I've often said it's much easier for those folks who just accept it, believe what they hear, and keep going. It's not in me to keep quiet when I see or hear things that make no sense. I'd rather live true to my convictions.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hi Sisu and Anon, if anyone thinks leaving the OALC is a lark, all they have to do is read posts such as yours. Most of us really had no choice (speaking for myself).
    Ah, lost innocence. How we pine. Yet is "childlike faith" really the same as innocence? Perpetual innocence is simply not our lot as humans, and is probably not appropriate (any more than, frankly, virginity at 40 - not something to brag about). Anyway, "childlike faith:" I think of childlike openness to God's influence as a purity of perception, a refusal to be buffaloed by the pronouncements of men. Seeing that the "emperor has no clothes." So no, I do not think that blindly accepting what you are force-fed as truth is the same as "being as a little child." In fact, they can be quite the opposite.
    I would hate to think that either of you is still suffering some residual guilt. Despite the cynics and the fear-mongers, "God is love." And he knows what we know, what our intentions are, and whether or not we love. Many blessings to you both. Many Trails Home

    ReplyDelete
  54. LLLreader sez: Sisu, I think you are right with your comment that people who leave to "do sin" are more apt to come back, especially when they get tired of "doing sin". If they leave because they have examined their spiritual life and realize this church is more focused on following the traditions of their ancestors, rather then the word of God, going back is not an option.

    ReplyDelete
  55. RWB,
    I'm sure happy you're here with us, because you obviously make your case after a good deal of thought. You've had an interesting set of experiences yourself, and thank you for sharing! I'm also very glad for you that you have a path before you that you can believe in and live, in the OALC. My path is different now, but I also believe in it, have great faith in it, and am satisfied that this is what the Lord has planned for me right now.

    Your comments about convictions and traditions are interesting too. I've always held the belief that God allows each of us to grow in a way and at a speed that he has determined -- and sometimes as we mature, or grow in understanding, or are "ready" for further revelation, he gives it to us -- Boy, does he give it to us! I think our faith is a living and growing thing, and often change comes about completely unsuspected, unanticipated, and often unwanted by us. Rather than being dismayed by that change (and we all hate change don't we?) I think we should embrace it, and rejoice in the fact that God surely does love us and think of us, as he has set something new -- be it a challenge or an opportunity -- in front of us to consider.

    Peace be with you all.

    ReplyDelete
  56. And also with you!

    ReplyDelete
  57. RWB,

    I haven't been posting much lately, but since you wanted to know what church we all attend: I'm an Orthodox Christian. In the English speaking world also called "Eastern Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" or "Greek Orthodox" because traditionally it has been the predominant church in the "East", where also the homelands of the Russians and the Greeks are located. However, it's really a universal church, and as I'm against using the ethnic and geographical attributes, I prefer to say just "Orthodox Christian" (that's the term used in most other languages anyway). It's a church that doesn't have any other founder than Jesus Christ, i.e. there's no Orthodox equivalent of Luther or Laestadius. The Orthodox church has been there all the time since the time of Jesus. There's been some maturing or "evolution", just like when a child becomes older and grows up, but no dramatic changes. We believe the Orthodox church is the original one all the other churches have split from, but this doesn't mean we have any right to say no-one else except us will be saved. God is allmighty, he will save whoever he wants, God is all-seeing, he sees who's his own.

    Hibernatus

    ReplyDelete
  58. RWB, you answered the questions and you sound like a thoughtful, interesting person. The fact that you're not afraid to dialogue on this blog says a lot about you.

    One assumption most OALCers make when someone leaves the fold is that they are no longer a Christian and they have lost their Christianity. This is simply not true. I have family members who no longer consider me a Christian, yet I am a Christian and have not forgotten and forsaken my Christianity. My Christianity is stronger today. I've left behind all those silly man-made rules. My heart is with Jesus' suffering and dying for my sins. I'd venture to say that is true for the majority of those who leave.

    Setting all other differences aside, I find this to be the most offensive. No man has any authority to be claiming who is and who is not a Christian, or who will or will not be saved. I realize many churches do the same, but it doesn't make it right.

    The OALC could choose to do better by preaching and teaching its members to embrace others rather than fear and reject them. Think about the church's use of the words "Christian" and "worldly". Its members are referred to as Christians, all others are worldlies. I'm no more worldly today than I was when I was going to the OALC.

    I occasionally attend a Lutheran church.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dear RWB,

    Thank you for coming on this site and sharing your thoughts and beliefs with us. It helps us clarify our positions as well.

    I'm sorry I misread your reasons for writing. I now realize that you came here to try to understand your family members who left the fold. That is a GOOD thing.

    I think you have a kind and generous heart. It will keep you in good stead wherever this quest takes you.

    God Speed.

    SISU

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dear RedWhiteBlue, since you asked, I now consider myself a Quaker but this is a recent affiliation and I have to "belong" for a while before I can request "official" membership. I feel right in a Quaker meeting because everyone is an open pipeline directly to God; no one has exclusive claim to the truth. Everyone is respected. But I am really quite ecumenical (On one Easter, I went to 4 Easter services at different churches); this is a bad thing to those committed to a black-and-white interpretation of everything. I fully recognize that, and for some, church-hopping is just plain shallow. But I request guidance and follow to the best of my understanding the promptings of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit has shown me that: All religions / churches have some truth and none have all (even ones I used to disdain, such as Mormons). There is one path to God (despite my moniker) and that path was laid down by Jesus when he said "Love the Lord. . ." etc. That is the "true church," consisting of everyone who walks that path, by whatever doctrine or belief system. Ask and it shall be given, knock and the door will be opened . . . . I live my life by these promises and they have never failed me. The Comforter is with us always.
    Many blessings to you, RWB. Many Trails Home AKA BWG (can you guess?)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dear RedWhiteBlue, since you asked, I now consider myself a Quaker but this is a recent affiliation and I have to "belong" for a while before I can request "official" membership. I feel right in a Quaker meeting because everyone is an open pipeline directly to God; no one has exclusive claim to the truth. Everyone is respected. But I am really quite ecumenical (On one Easter, I went to 4 Easter services at different churches); this is a bad thing to those committed to a black-and-white interpretation of everything. I fully recognize that, and for some, church-hopping is just plain shallow. But I request guidance and follow to the best of my understanding the promptings of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit has shown me that: All religions / churches have some truth and none have all (even ones I used to disdain, such as Mormons). There is one path to God (despite my moniker) and that path was laid down by Jesus when he said "Love the Lord. . ." etc. That is the "true church," consisting of everyone who walks that path, by whatever doctrine or belief system. Ask and it shall be given, knock and the door will be opened . . . . I live my life by these promises and they have never failed me. The Comforter is with us always.
    Many blessings to you, RWB. Many Trails Home AKA BWG (can you guess?)

    ReplyDelete
  62. LLLreader replies to RWB: I went through a stage of reading everything I could find about LLL. I have the New Postilla and The Voice Crying in the Wilderness by LLL, as well as History of the Living Christianity in America by a committee of OALC members. I have tracked down as much information about the man as I could from other sources as well. I did it partly to assure myself that I wasn't missing something--that there wasn't something in his words that would draw me back. If anything, his writing made me more sure that God didn't want me in the OALC. I don't want a preacher getting between me and God. I know that He wants me to come to him as HIS child, not as a child of any particular church. I am a child of God first, and a Methodist second. I have a wonderful minister who teaches the word of God, but neither he, nor I, believe that he is somehow needed to speak to God FOR me. I can pray and read the Bible and know that God is always available to me--he is with me. I have a good book called, A Godly Heritage, about the development of the Apostolic Church in the US that you might enjoy if you are interested in the history of the church.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Bunless here returning from business trip.

    You all know I am Catholic, which is the "sister church" of the Orthodox Christian Church - both of which are the original church Christ founded - Hibernatus may disagree.

    I just have to mention that RWB appears to be in the top 1% of OALC in regards to education level, articulateness and rational thought.

    ReplyDelete
  64. rwb: as someone who left the church and has family that still attend I can say that I would love to have my family ask me about my experiences and really get to know me and my heart; (and not assume they already know) its such a heartfelt chasm in our relationship when there is no loving communication. you mentioned you dont know why your family members left; have you ever asked and just listened or dialoged with the desire to truly understand? To me there would be no greater act of love from my family. (alas I do not have that, but I wish for it)

    ReplyDelete
  65. RWB:

    Thanks for sharing your story. To me the tragedy in the story of your family is that what OALC teachs produces a situation for folks who cannot (for whatever reason) stay in your church where they believe (as it is taught there) that attending other churches is somehow worse than not going to church at all. It produces a situation where folks who are seeking have little to no opportunity to place themselves in the hearing of the Word/Gospel. I will pray for your family members.

    As for me and my house we serve the Lord and we are members (with other saints) of a reformed (theology)presbyterian (government)church.

    Peace be also with you.

    ReplyDelete
  66. This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness. -- The Dalai Lama

    ReplyDelete
  67. Bunless said: "You all know I am Catholic, which is the "sister church" of the Orthodox Christian Church - both of which are the original church Christ founded - Hibernatus may disagree."

    Well, I do disagree, but just slightly. :) Objectively seen, there are three churches that can make the same claim, i.e. that they have always been there and that they are the original church: the Byzantine Orthodox (=me), the Roman Catholic (=you) and the Oriental Orthodox. But as the Byzantine Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox reached an agreement in the 1990s and are in the process of being gradually united, there might soon be just two "original" churches left: the Orthodox church and the Catholic church. Which one of them really is the original one is difficult to solve objectively. Both churches see it from their point of view. From our point of view, Rome left us, but from Rome's point of view, it looks a bit different. Kind of like the ALC and the OALC... ;)

    Anyway, although I do believe, the Orthodox church to be the original one, from which Rome seceded, I still love also the Roman Catholic church and know wonderful Catholics I really respect and see up to as Christians. And it's no secret that I'm also of the opinion that there are things in the Catholic church we Orthodox should learn from.

    Hibernatus

    ReplyDelete
  68. Two unrelated comments:
    1. Has anyone seen any parallels between the OALC and the Fundamentalist LDS sect in Texas that is currently under siege? I know I'll take flack for this, but I did see one: both lie to their congregations about "the world." The FDLS teaches their women (especially) that the world will force them to cut their hair, wear, wordly clothes, and have sex with lots of men. The OALC teaches that the world "hates the Christians." This strikes me as similar to Bush's statement that terrorists "hate Americans for their freedom." BS, all around.
    2. I had a call this weekend from a "girl" I've been friends with since kindergarten. I never knew until yesterday that she was a "Laestadian" of the "Michaelsen" congregation (I don't know what they are officially called; we only knew the other two sects as Heidemanns and Michaelsens). I never considered her any differently than any other Protestant and certainly not a "religious cousin." I also discovered on my trip to Uganda that the youth minister in our group is a Saami, his family were Apostolic Lutherans and he is a descendent of Michaelsen! It didn't mean much to him but it really rather blew me away. Many Trails Home

    ReplyDelete
  69. Stylux here to MTH....

    I guess it depends on ones definition of “lie”, a word that has been so abused lately to mean someone saying something that we disagree with. Usually lying implies deliberately saying something known by the teller to be untrue. Dealing with Bush first…. It is worth repeating that much of the enmity towards the US held by radical Islamists has to do with our Western way of life and the freedoms which they find so threatening… freedom of the press, competing religions, women’s equality and our cultural freedoms in general. I can perfectly understand that you may not agree with Bush’s assessment of the situation but categorizing it as lying, I believe, misses his point.
    It has not been my experience with the OALC that they do not believe what they say when it comes to their fear of the “outside” world and its way of life. I believe that their view is an exaggerated one certainly and it comes from a particularly insulated place… but it certainly is not a “lie”. Adherents to doctrines are particularly vulnerable to dislike and hatred when there is a high degree of tension between their beliefs and those of the predominant faith around them. Hatred of Christianity and of the more strict sects and persecution of such has been a mainstay of the faith since its inception.

    ReplyDelete
  70. RWB here...

    It is interesting to see how many different directions you have all gone. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist, part time Lutheran, and one's own mind (the Dalai Lama quote). Many different directions and many different doctrines, but it seems in many ways some of you still have not found peace. I have had much the same experience with my family and friends who have left. They also have not been able to find peace. I can say this because it is apparent to me through their actions and words and I have seen the same here. The last comment by MTH is a good example of this. It is an another attempt to disparage...to bring shame upon OALC. THIS is what I try understand about many of those that have left...why do they do this?

    Perhaps this is what is meant by the following words from the Bible:

    Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

    Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

    Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

    MTH...we are not lied to about the world....quite the opposite...we are told the truth. I'm sorry that you see things in such a negative way and want to cultivate those feelings and pass them on to others.

    I take comfort in the following words of Jesus: Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

    RWB

    ReplyDelete
  71. Oh Pshaw, RWB. It is a conceit to think the world "hates" you. They could care less about you, for the most part, and except in areas such as Brush Prairie where there are large numbers, the world does not even know you exist. They certainly did not hate us in Michigan. That's why I call it a lie. I think you are taught the world hates you because that puts you in a special category, according to the Bible, and therefore despite evidence to the contrary, you WISH to believe the world hates you. What kind of nonsense is that? If I took a poll here on extoots, I think 99% of us would say that we do not believe the world hates you. You just want it to. Many Trails Home
    PS I am NOT disparaging the OALC. I am just making an observation which appears to me to be truth, and truth is not disparaging except in the eyes of he who does not see it as truth. MTH

    ReplyDelete
  72. RWB:

    What is your objective evidence that those outside the OALC do not have peace? You don't have any evidence because there isn't any. The peace of God in Christ surpasses understanding because it is a gift of The Most High God. This I wish for you and all of the people in the world (including all members of the OALC). You have to believe we have no peace in order to maintain your church standing and understanding, but it has nothing to do with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hey no one slammed me for my comment about the OALC lacking intelligence. What gives? -Bunless

    ReplyDelete
  74. MTH, I've noticed the same similarities between the OALC and the FLDS as you mentioned above. :) I think I've said it here before, but I see many similarities between the "latter day saints" movement and the Laestadian movement, and I also think learning about the different branches of the latter day saints movement might help to put Laestadianism in the right perspective. They are like "two berries from the same field"! :)

    As for the Mikkelsen faction, isn't there something in the "History of the Living Christianity in America" about a Mikkelsen guy in the Lake Norden area who first was with the OALC but later decided to join the ALC with some others? I remember he had a Norwegian last name, not sure if it was Mikkelsen, though.

    For some people, leaving the OALC may not bring peace, while for others it may be like coming from a stormy sea to a safe haven. It all depends on what your experience in the OALC was and where you end up after leaving. In the end, no-one can say about another person if that person has peace or not. Only God sees the heart.

    Hibernatus

    ReplyDelete
  75. MTH, I think you need to cut some slack for RWB. I remember having a conversation with my mother when I was maybe 12 or 13, the gist of which was that we know we have the True Faith when we are persecuted and hated by the world. That is the evidence that we are God's favored ones.

    RWB has made comments about the world hating Christians. Maybe this is the way he/she clings to faith.

    Everyone works through these issues in his or her own way.

    RWB also made comments about never finding peace if one leaves the True Faith. Again, to me, this is his or her "clinging factor" and I understand it.

    God's Blessings to both of you.

    SISU

    ReplyDelete
  76. I checked it in the "History of Living Christianity in America", and the name was Estensen, not Mikkelsen, so it seems to have been another guy, not the one who founded the "Michaelsen" group MTH was referring to.

    Hibernatus

    ReplyDelete
  77. RWB here...

    First on the peace issue/question:

    Peace in your heart is not what I was referring to.

    One definition of peace is freedom of the mind from fear, anxiety, and annoyance. It is in this sense that I say some have no peace. This is proven by the example of MTH above where she attempts to start a discussion that draws parallels between the OALC and this Texas cult that has made the news recently. If you had peace of mind in your new path(s) or many trails would you not just leave it alone and go on your merry way(s)?

    There are many examples of this same sort of maliciousness to be found here. Some that I know personally who have left exhibit this same behavior.

    This brings me to the question of hate: I wonder if you do these things because you like us? If not, then why? "Us" is said in the sense that this means true and living Christians, whereever they might be found. Inside the OALC or outside the OALC doesn't matter....but it is the group we all collectively have personal experience with. The OALC teaches of that one God, one faith, and one baptism, whereever it might be found. I have searched many different religions. I have asked many questions of others about what their churches speak about faith, love, right, wrong, etc. I just listened to the answers. I have read many hundreds of pages of questions on many different church websites relative to church doctrine. I have read many different religious books. Many of the teachings and practices are the same. I don't doubt that there are people within those many other faiths who truly and firmly believe. I have not done this research because I question my own faith or the doctrine taught by the OALC, but because I want to understand why YOU and even some of those nearest to me want to tear the OALC down and not others. Why can't they leave it alone?

    In my search I can see that many other faiths speak of sin in a light way...or not at all...or that repentance can be strictly a personal matter. They leave many allowances for man to believe without true penitence or repentance. This is not to say it can't happen, but the nature of man is such that he will take the easy road many times if given the choice. If sin is not spoken to be sin the conscience is lulled to sleep. This is according to the Word of God and is what I see as the main difference between what our church teaches and what other churches don't teach. Like I said, many of the teachings are exactly the same, but I have not found that same twoedged sword as according to Psalms 149:6 "Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand."

    That search has also shown me that Jesus was hated by many in his time. Some of the Apostles were martyred by various means and accounts. Jan Hus was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for speaking the truth. Martin Luther spoke that same truth and nearly met the same end. Laestadius preached that same truth and caused a great awakening there in that "north country" from which the Christianity as we know it today has grown.

    That brings us here to our time or this period of visitation which will be the last as shown by the Bible. We now have the protection of government here in our land to freely worship so we do not have to worry about suffering such persecution, but it is still there. It may not be specifically directed at the OALC always. Yes we do tend to fly under the radar because we don't walk with this world and its many cares and doings. I don't walk down the street and look at other people and say to myself "they all hate me". But there is so much love for sin and so much corruption in the world today that I can't help but say that in this way "the world" hates us.

    RWB

    ReplyDelete
  78. RWB, I don't know why you say we want to "tear the OALC down." We can't, for one thing, that is certainly not in our power even if we wanted to. I personally think that it has its place in the world and so be it. It has a right to exist. But I also don't get why you keep insisting we should "leave it alone." If you were not reading our posts, you would not even know we were not "leaving it alone." We are not "persecuting" it directly. We are just discussing it, because we want to, because we have that right, and because we are trying by this means to understand our own relationship with it. Why does that bug you so much? I personally think that suppression of criticism is one of the most pathological aspects of the OALC, leading to among other things unreported, unpunished sexual abuse of young girls. Need I say more? Many Trails Home
    Sorry, Sisu, I just can't cut him much slack. I'll leave the gentler approach to you.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I think you all should know that the LLC is the congregation with living faith left. Between the splits through out the generetations the LLC is the only congretaion that still speaks true to the bible and God's Word. I think those that have left and are searching haven't found the right place yet. So I will tell you know. There is one right faith: and the church that follows that faith is the Laestadian Lutheran Church.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Wow, I didn't know that! So glad you brought us up to date. Now how do you plan on telling the 6 billion souls who disagree? Pardom me (maniacal laughter) for being one of them. Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  81. RWB said: "MTH above where she attempts to start a discussion that draws parallels between the OALC and this Texas cult that has made the news recently. If you had peace of mind in your new path(s) or many trails would you not just leave it alone and go on your merry way(s)?"

    I don't know about MTH, but my interest in the parallels between the OALC and the LFDS is purely from the perspective of religion research. It's just simply interesting to study different small sects and try to find similarities in human religious behavior. I don't hate either of them. The OALC people are fun to be with, and I'm sure the LFDS people would be fun to be with, if I knew any. Based on the freedom of religion, they all have right to exist and believe as they want to. I neither believe that the LFDS is as bad as the media makes it look like, and I'm afraid taking away kids from their LFDS families is a bit of an overreaction. So, from my part, comparison to the LFDS isn't a malicious attempt to find the worst possible sect to compare the OALC with, but I just simply see many similarities between them, some of those similarities might be even good, some might be neutral but unfortunately some of the similarities might be bad.


    RWB said "I want to understand why YOU and even some of those nearest to me want to tear the OALC down and not others. Why can't they leave it alone?"

    I can assure you there are many churches and religions I'd like to tear down. ;) And I can assure you I critisize other religions too, although not so much here because this site is about the OALC (and other Laestadian groups). The reason many of us concentrate on the OALC is that we either grew up there or have other close connections to it.


    RWB said: "In my search I can see that many other faiths speak of sin in a light way...or not at all...or that repentance can be strictly a personal matter. They leave many allowances for man to believe without true penitence or repentance."

    So, if they don't have the same list of sins as the OALC they are speaking about sin in a light way?

    Anonymous said: "Between the splits through out the generetations the LLC is the only congretaion that still speaks true to the bible and God's Word. I think those that have left and are searching haven't found the right place yet."

    I've been to the LLC several times, and I know it very well. In fact, my OALC grandmother occasionally went there because she had relatives there (for those of you who know me or are related to me: my *paternal* grandmother). It's pretty much the same as the OALC, with some minor cultural differences. If you've already rejected the OALC, there's nothing new and spectacular to find in the LLC.


    Hibernatus

    ReplyDelete
  82. RWB, there is always going to be enmity between Christianity and "the world". This is not exclusive to Laestadians. In the broadest terms, look at the hatred of Islamic extremists toward the West.

    The problem with Laestadianism is that the Law looms large. Grace is spoken of but the Law is preached right alongside, and there is such inherent contradiction in trying to have it both ways. As you are reading about all these other faiths also, you will find that many, many, many of them are still under the Law.

    About the true church - it is not a physical church, it is a church which exists in the heart. The Jews and the disciples didn't understand Jesus' message either - he did not come to establish an earthly kingdom, but an invisible one.

    ReplyDelete
  83. RWB, not sure I understand your point, or why you'd prefer people "leave it alone". What is it about discussion that makes you uncomfortable? I think it's safe to say that most of us grew up in an atmosphere in which disagreement (about the church) was not acceptable. The internet and this blog is the firt medium for most of us in which we can exchange and share experiences. I don't see it as a threat. As in any discussion, there are people who can be extreme one way or another, but for the most part (and I've followed this blog since its inception) the folks who post here are merely sharing their differences, their thoughts and experiences.

    Since you're married, surely you and your spouse disagree on some issues. How do you handle disagreement? Can the two of you discuss disagreements respectfully (by that I mean are both parties free to share their views) though the end result might be that you still disagree? Or do you prefer to "leave it alone" (thus not discuss it)?

    ReplyDelete
  84. I am not sure how it is that if someone points out what they see wrong in a LLL church it is seen (by the members of the LLL church) as not having peace in their heart. They say that the person doing the pointing does it because they are trying to justify where they are (darkness) and that person still knows that the LLL church is the only true church. Yet, they (LLL members) point out everything they see as wrong with other churches and say they are all wrong and in darkness. Couldn't it be said that the members of the LLL churches (almost all) that do this must not have peace in thier hearts and they do that because they do it for the exact reasons they accuse others of pointing at them for?

    Don't dish it if you can't take it. Or something like that :)

    ReplyDelete
  85. helena, with pride4/16/2008 09:44:00 PM

    Case in point: RWB
    "One definition of peace is freedom of the mind from fear, anxiety, and annoyance. It is in this sense that I say some have no peace. This is proven by the example of MTH above where she attempts to start a discussion that draws parallels between the OALC and this Texas cult that has made the news recently."
    It cracks me up that RWB has no distinction between casually calling this church a cult and the conversation we have here.

    In fact, I think it's hilarious.
    It really indicates a lack of peace that he would throw around such judgmental phrases and persecutive comments. I, for one, am highly offended.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Any Christian denomination who thinks they are the only "true living faith" and that they are the only ones going to heaven are not only blind, they are stupid! Number one: they dont read or study thier bible. How can they know anything about the word of God or be authorities on heaven when they are ignorant of what the scriptures say? Number two: they dont pray except the Lord's prayer in church. How can they have a close relationship with God when they never comunicate with him? Number three: They look down on non-church members and non-white races and are openly racist and discriminitory against other religions. Is that loving your neighbor as yourself? The OALC is nothing more than a deceived Cult. They dont ask the Lord to forgive them they ask thier uneducated and unqualified "Elder or Pastor" to forgive them. It is very clear in the Holy scriptures that only God himself can forgive sins! They are hypocritical and backwards. They speak of Christianity as if they are authorities and they have little if any knowledge of the scripture in the bible itself. When they employ non-church members they are unfair and discriminate openly and without hesitation. The OALC should start reading thier bibles and quit judging other people. They might learn how to be real Christians some day.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anon 11:40PM sounds pretty jugdeMENTAL to me!

    ReplyDelete
  88. re: not having peace or being 'bitter'. As a member of a Laestadian church (ALC), I think that the preaching that I hear is nearly always according to Scripture. It is when the emphasis changes from grace to law that I differ. The charges of not having peace or being bitter could be then be applied to me.

    But read the epistle of Paul to the Galatians. They had started out with the gospel of faith and liberty but had begun to return to works and law, and Paul is disturbed by this. This does not mean that liberty and grace means license to do whatever you want - it means a Spirit led life.

    I don't have peace when I hear law sermons, and I believe this is Biblical. We should stand firm on the liberty that Christ has won for us, and keep our focus there. It takes courage to confront those who would preach the law to us, and I don't have that courage. But I'm working on it :-).

    ReplyDelete
  89. "But there is so much love for sin and so much corruption in the world today that I can't help but say that in this way "the world" hates us."

    RWB, I went back and read some of your other posts here. I see that you have many thoughts and many questions, trying to understand all of these things. You are right, sin is so acceptable in this world and so many people revel in it. It is unbelievable what we as a society have grown accustomed to in terms of what is acceptable. But the answer is not a return to Old Testament Law.

    Read about the 5 solas of the Reformation. Wikipedia has a good explanation of them. By Scripture alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, Christ alone, glory to God alone. These principles are a solid rock, a guiding force when questions arise for me. It puts things in perspective. Faith is from God, to each person individually. We cannot control others, we can only be sure where we are grounded ourselves. There is found true peace.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Norah, you are right on.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Re the judgMENTAL comment (above): We Laestadians both toots and extoots are ALL judgmental (including, most likely, you, Anon). We were conditioned from birth to be judgmental and much of the time (speaking for myself anyway) we are not even aware of it. It is one of the great challenges of leaving to figure this out. Most of us have not attained perfection quite yet. We are aware we fall short and we continue to work on it. Many blessings to us all in this walk through earth life. May we slowly shed the scales of judgmentalism, yet maintain discernment and a passion for truth. In God we trust. Many Trails Home

    ReplyDelete
  92. Regarding the Pope's visit to America - I am not a catholic, but I was impressed that the Pope was apologizing to the victims of the clergy sex scandal. I thought to myself...would a leader in the OALC, or any other Laestadian demonination have the humility to do that? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Thank you Anon 2:06, liberty and grace is a bit of heaven on earth, isn't it!

    ReplyDelete
  94. Trails,
    What you wrote struck a chord with me -- about being conditioned to be judgmental. I think I suddenly understand myself a bit better. Thank you for that bit of insight.

    Of course you should be much wiser than me since you are older...

    heheheh

    ReplyDelete
  95. cvow, if I ever get close enough, I'll box your ears for disrespecting your elders (that is, after I finish that pasty! but hey, by then I may not be in the mood!) MTH

    ReplyDelete
  96. Trails, the B&B is always open to you! I just got a card from the LLC ladies that they are having a Spring pasty fundraiser. It just doesn't get any better than this! Let's see, one dozen or two...

    ReplyDelete
  97. In response to Anon 3:38 above, the same thought hit me as well. OALC preachers apologize for any wrongdoing? Why would they when they're always right?

    ReplyDelete
  98. cvow: my husband and I love vacationing at B&Bs! Would it be all right to know where you are located and perhaps drop by and visit? I dont want the general population here to know me by name, but Im fine with meeting on a one-to-one basis. Free has my email address :)

    ReplyDelete
  99. hp3,
    I'm afraid I've misled you -- there really isn't a B&B, but Trails is my cousin...and I know I can get her drooling when I mention pasties...

    That said, I have no problem with one on one contact if you're interested. Free can give you my email if you wish!

    ReplyDelete