"laestadian, apostolic, gay, lgbtq, ex-oalc, ex-llc, llc, oalc, bunner" LEARNING TO LIVE FREE: A Bond Beyond Ideas

Friday, May 18, 2012

A Bond Beyond Ideas

The last two comments on the last post are so timely for my life that I want to highlight them here:

"Jesus's strongest message was to love one another and he did not specify that we all had to believe the same things! So I cut my fellow travelers some slack and try to love them as I love myself." SISU

"When you take a look at the history of the the Laestadian movement and all the different splits, and all the people hurt in the process, I believe the majority of this would have been prevented if they put their focus on loving others, instead of judging someone else's faith and beliefs." EXFALC

Heck yes, I said upon reading that. But I asked myself, as I have many times recently: how have I shown love to my Laestadian relatives? How have I cut them slack? 

As a young woman, I distanced myself from family for very good reasons. (When you are told "you have the devil in you," leaving is self-preservation.) In leaving, however, I lost all the myriad and priceless things that come with the support of an extended family: the advice and stories, the shared adventures, lawnmowers, business contacts, childcare, celebrations, and memories. The hugs. The mementos. (The only tokens of my history I possess are a faded blanket and a baby rattle.)

Was it worth it? 


In most ways, yes. I learned myself. I gained the integrity and equilibrium that would not have been possible otherwise. I was able to weave a life of my choosing, with family, friends, jobs, education, hobbies, travel and experiences that would have been impossible in the church, with its terribly narrow scope. But it hasn't been easy and has often been lonely.

This blog has helped. I feel understood in a fundamental way by the friends I've made here. The death last January of one of those friends, a man who had become a kind of surrogate father to me, made me ponder my relationships with my blood relatives. My friend, also former OALC, remained close to several people in his family despite their differences. He spoke lovingly and frequently of them. He wrote an autobiography that was clear-eyed about the failings of his upbringing in the church, but gracious toward its people. 

He called me a few weeks before he passed away, and said "it isn't easy for a Finn to say I love you, but . . . I love you." I said it back and we laughed.

It was his example that inspired me to reach out last month to an OALC relative with whom there had been oceans of hurt.  I wrote a letter that said: "we may disagree on the details, but we agree on the most important thing and that is love." 

He received this warmly, with no argument, and I think our renewed trust gives us both contentment. (If he wishes I were different, he is keeping that to himself, for which I'm grateful.) Don't we all want to be loved for more than our ideas, our unreliable and often contradictory notions and emotions? I think so. I want to believe it, but even it it isn't true, acting as if it were true is beneficial to everyone.

Have you ever had a "let's agree to disagree" discussion with your Laestadian loved ones? How did it work out?

--Free

44 comments:

  1. I am not quite sure the space of "agreeing to disagree' really exists. It is like rising to a level where you can agree, while fundamentally knowing there are huge gaps in awareness and beliefs.

    I get why it is desirable to meet in someway, which is better than estrangement, but not too sure how deep a relationship you can have.

    And perhaps, if it is only religious matters, it works. But, if there is abuse mixed in, it then becomes an issue of personal boundaries.

    While I have missed out on all the trappings that come with being part of a family, I had to let them go, in exchange for not carrying on the family's abusive behaviors and patterns.

    I am sorry for your loss of your surrogate father...and happy you both were able to share your feelings. He was there to help you becomes strong enough to make it on your own.

    Thanks for sharing and giving many a space to air their differences.

    Beth (Huhta) Jukuri

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for commenting, Beth. I agree it would be different in other situations, particularly where abuse was involved. In this case, the divide was only ostensibly about religion. It was primarily, I think, about pride, where we each placed a high premium on being right. With age we softened and cut each other some slack. It may not be a deep relationship, or capable of heart-to-hearts, but it is better than what preceded it. Note that this detente hasn't happened with all of my relatives, whether inside or outside Laestadianism. Ironically, it is easier to feel close to those who "believe differently" but treat each other with respect and compassion than those who profess a similar philosophy but are a pain in the butt to be with! This goes for every sphere of life, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I had a positive experience today in this regard that I would like to share. A dear friend of mine in the LLC called me and said he was going to be in the area. We went out to breakfast today after not talking to each other since I published the book. The silence was partly if not mostly on my end; I just didn't feel comfortable engaging him because I know the church means a lot to him and know he was saddened by my departure.

    Well, we met and there was just the same old great conversation, laughing, and understanding. The friendship is right where we left it. Of course we have this major disagreement; we even talked about it some. But we sat there and just understood each other: he about me and my struggle to make sense of a post-Laestadian life, me about him and his family and all the joys and challenges of life as a Laestadian. He welcomed me and my family to visit him and his family, and meant it.

    It can be done.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That is lovely, Ed. Thanks for sharing that experience.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What I just read in a book by Mark Nepo, is that the German Root of the word FRIENDSHIP, is "Place of highest safety".

    As I thought about this, it came to me, we hang with people we feel safe with. And ironically, we cling to folks who want to keep their truths at bay or the ones who want to explore it.

    The friends I had while I was in denial, were perfect, for they too had something to hide or a truth they didn't want to face. So we were friends who didn't want to look to deeply at anything.

    Then, when my father was exposed as a pedophile, I no longer was comfortable within the relationships that didn't want to sit fully in the truth.

    So, as we look at friends in the context of religion, they too serve us a place of high safety as far as our Faith is concerned. But, if you leave and are no longer part of that religion, our old friends no longer feel safe, or let's say their faith doesn't.

    Within my family home as a child, with an abusive father, it was not a friendly (place of highest safety) so I wasn't able to have a correct meaning of what a friend was.

    What I also find, is that each of us grow and evolve, so too will our friendships. Those that are not able to change at the same time....a separation grows. I believe it is more authentic to honor that, then to pretend to find a place to stand "like old times".

    Truth is always honorable...perhaps uncomfortable if your expectations are to change inside but not show it on the outside.

    Which is why few will change....it requires you to change your outward actions...not just thoughts.

    Beth

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, Beth. That was beautifully said. SISU

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wise words, Beth. They remind me of Bertrand Russell's advice to teachers that includes:

    "Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter."

    Certainly the most satisfying relationships are those with whom one can be completely honest and capable of expressing differences without fear.

    --Free

    ReplyDelete
  8. It would be nice if one could have a civil friendship with former Laestadian friends. However I found that given their baseline beliefs which include non-members being 'hellbound' and ex-members being 'fiery hellbound' I would have to question the purpose. Even if a former friend is open minded they undoubtedly will feel a need to cover up the fact that they have renewed a friendship with an ex-member. If outed they will often have to either verbally minimize the extent of their friendship or state how they have tried to convert one back into the fold. If some one can make this kind of friendship work then by all means do so. In my case I did have some peripheral Laestadian friends but I found that since I was out of sight I soon became out of mind too. I would guess that former AP peers have matured over the decades since one left and things may be different but with time a lot of water goes over the dam and those who remain in the Laestadian fold tend to have much different lives than those who left.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for commenting, anonymous, although your post makes me very sad. I would like to say that by maintaining friendships with Laestadians, we have the opportunity to show them the tolerance they deny us. But friends really should provide a refuge, my example notwithstanding. While Laestadians and other religious traditions emphasize socializing with people of "like mind," it is interesting that the Buddha, when giving advice on friendships, emphasized choosing friends based on their actions: "a friend endowed with seven qualities is worth associating with . . . he gives what is hard to give. He does what is hard to do. He endures what is hard to endure. He reveals his secrets to you. He keeps your secrets. When misfortunes strike, he doesn’t abandon you. When you’re down and out, he doesn’t look down on you." The Buddha also said solitude is better than being with people who are not interested in cultivating positive qualities. That is a lesson I am still learning.
    --Free

    ReplyDelete
  10. Free, the previous post was by me....Old AP. I forgot to add my name de guerre. Hope I did not make you feel too sad with my comments. Sometimes ex-members can be in a blue mood & they can reminisce about old friends & times when they used to be part of their respective Laestadian clan....and that life there would be much simpler-or would it? True, there was that unique closeness that is hard to replicate with friendships outside of one's Apostolic Lutheran Church. But I also found that those whom I had considered Laestadian 'friends' could also become a source of gossip about other people's personal lives themselves...necessitating great caution in sharing things. I found that my new Christian friends outside of Laestadianism often had a much higher level of self esteem and a better internal 'locus of control' than what I had grown up seeing. I began to realize that Laestadians seemed to be very 'needy' in that they had almost always had had to be part of a church group or clique. As I finally began developing my own locus of control and internal sense of self I found myself tackling interests and activities that appealed to me as well as well as finding others of the same ilk. I remember seeing a book titled, 'How to be your own best friend', some time back. I never read the book but the title made me think that achieving self actualization can entail periods of frustration for ex-members. Old AP

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm so glad that you (Old Ap) made reference to the fact that ex-members can feel blue sometimes as they are remembering old friends and old times. Being that I have only been gone from the FALC less than 5 years, I'm often wondering if I'll ever get over these feelings or will I always have them. I was told by and ex-FALC member who has been gone a lot longer than I have, that I am naive. I wasn't sure what they had meant by that, seeing I had only been gone from the church such a short time, and my feelings and emotions were so new and very raw.

    The friendships that I am developing now are so different than the "friendships" that I had in the FALC and I'm finding it very refreshing and at first was so unsure of how to handle them because they are so different from what I thought how "friendships" were supposed to be.
    There are good people in the FALC, they are the ones who come and say hello and ask with great interest how we are doing when we do see them, those are the ones I miss.

    Life outside of the FALC was and still is an adjustment in many ways for me, and as I look back to what I had, and as I look forward to what is to come, I swell inside with something so profound that I can't even describe it. One of my daughter-in-laws recently said to me "I can't believe for the first time ever we're free to go anywhere we want, do whatever we want". That actually sounds so sad, but considering where we came from it's a joyous statement.

    Finally Free

    ReplyDelete
  12. There's an old saying, "You can take the boy out of the country, but you cannot take the country out of the boy." I would argue to say, "You can take the (wo)man out of Laestadianism, but you can't take the Laestadian out of the (wo)man.

    I've seen it happen that people leave the church, but they don't necessarily change some of the aspects of their characters that is shaped by the social conditions in the LLL churches.

    Old AP's observations, "But I also found that those whom I had considered Laestadian 'friends' could also become a source of gossip about other people's personal lives themselves...necessitating great caution in sharing things" and "I began to realize that Laestadians seemed to be very 'needy' in that they had almost always had had to be part of a church group or clique" really rang true for me in the last several months.

    Case in point, I joined a community group shortly after I left one Laestadian group that was soon joined by a leaver of another Laestadian group. At first, the friendship seemed like a Godsend! Here was a person who I felt I was able to share the issues I had with leaving the church and the fallout one experiences with one's family in what I perceived to be a safe environment. It felt like having a big sister, even a mentor, since she was older and I perceived wiser and kinder. We developed a new network of friends in the same circle. Later, I started realizing my confidences were not kept private, and other people seemed to know or hint about things I had only told her. Small, subtle betrayals began to appear with greater frequency. At first, I thought perhaps I was taking it the wrong way or even imagining it. So I set about having a discussion with her, and asked her if I had done anything wrong, since she had seemed to get a bit cold and distant with me. She assured me everything was okay, she had just been busy and preoccupied. Then, there was a group trip that we were to all go on that I initiated that she took over in planning, and suddenly, I was no longer included. The relationship pretty much ended when a third party emailed me and asked me to stop gossiping about them to this particular woman. (There was a particularly delicate situation that transpired that I cannot go into that I entrusted this woman to handle and it was something that she needed to know lest she perceive it to be something rather than what it was.) I realized after several troubling months that this woman had long been making trouble for me, when I loved and trusted her as a dear, dear friend, and I person I greatly admired and considered almost as family. I've had further evidence that the relational aggression has not stopped, but am putting it all behind me.

    I've been very hurt, and Old APs observations have been very helpful in understanding how very difficult it is for many to leave the behaviors that are learned after several decades in the church. Put a Laestadian into a new clique or social group, and unless they've made a serious introspective look into themselves and their own behaviors, they'll always do what they've always done. How would they know any better? And how can I, as a person, avoid these same pitfalls.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Finally Free....my guess is that it would take most people a decade or so to clear the cobwebs of Laestadianism out of their system after they left as they were probably never allowed to mature as person in a full sense. I think adolescents in AP churches are only allowed to 'mature' in a limited sense up to the level of the group norms of the church. People tend to marry some one at their own level of sanity so given the young ages of marriage within the confines of most Apostolic Lutheran Churches my guess is that there are some rather primitive and rudimentary levels of norms and beliefs being reinforced within the churches. To some extent being a member of a Apostolic Lutheran type Church is sort of like being a member of a 'support group' as the group provides meaning for living and canned explanations about the complexities of life. Each person is different though & I think a lot depends on the individual, their occupation, family status, geographical location etc... In some cases I think an ex-member might have twinges of 'loss' the rest of their lives. I do know two people who actually went back and rejoined after a long hiatus. Both cases ended badly with both guys adamantly stating that they would 'never return' to their respective Laestadian group. Basically what happened is that they found out that the things that they REALLY DISLIKED & which had made them leave the first time were still there. One ex-member told me that they do not fit in inside the church yet they do not fit in outside the church either. Maybe that describes all of us ex-members to some extent. Old AP

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, so true, Old AP. Way back when we first started writing on this blog, I remember us having a discussion about being Strangers in a Strange Land, never feeling comfortable. In many ways, I'm still in that place of not fitting in anywhere. SISU

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am reading John Shelby Spong's book, Eternal Life, and the following quote relates to much of the discussion here:

    Anger never rises out of genuine commitment; it is always a product of threatened security. The human NEED to believe in God and in such ultimate matters as life beyond death, I concluded, must be greater than the human ABILITY to believe these things. When people get to the point where they do not really believe what they are saying, they still seem to believe in believing in what they are saying! They do not recognize the difference. P. 3 SISU

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sisu, I think when I finally was able to shed that feeling of not belonging anywhere was when I made a hard break. I love my old OALC friends and family, but I have made it excruciatingly clear to all that I am not there anymore. I live my life, I do things that are true to my heart, I do nothing for the sake of "not hurting somebody else" -- because that is living a lie, and I apologize to no person who has an issue with that. I reached the point where I refused to allow other folks' problems be my problems. I extend the hand of friendship, and if it taken as such, great. If it's not, great. I try to live by a mantra that states that I answer to two people -- my Lord Jesus Christ, and the man that looks back at me out of the mirror. When I'm comfortable in doing that, all else is just white noise.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I like your thinking, CVOW. You always have a way of strightening out my crooked thinking! BTW, I spent the night in your town in April and may do again soon. Interesting place...SISU

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sisu you hit the nail on the head for me about it being like "Strangers in a Strange Land", it's funny tho, after reading your comments I don't feel so alone.
    One thing we have always told our kids, my husband mostly, is that "When you have yourself figured out, then you can worry about the rest of us". I like your thinking too CVOW.
    What happened to you Anonymous is what I hope to avoid, maybe that why we haven't found a church yet, too many similarities to what we just left. But, that's okay, still trying to figure things out one step at a time.

    Thanks for all the feedback.

    Finally Free

    ReplyDelete
  19. Great discussion! The treasure trove of comments on this blog over the years was a valuable resource for me, and I'm glad to see more being added to it now.

    SISU, Spong’s statement refers to what Daniel Dennett calls “belief in belief”:

    “Many people believe in God. Many people believe in belief in God. What’s the difference? People who believe in God are sure that God exists, and they are glad, because they hold God to be the most wonderful of all things. People who moreover believe in belief in God are sure that belief in God exists (and who could doubt that?), and they think that this is a good state of affairs, something to be strongly encouraged and fostered wherever possible: If only belief in God were more widespread! One ought to believe in God. One ought to strive to believe in God. One should be uneasy, apologetic, unfulfilled, one should even feel guilty, if one finds that one just doesn’t believe in God. It’s a failing, but it happens” (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, p. 221).

    This of course is true for belief in belief in Christianity, in Lutheranism, in a particular flavor of Laestadianism. In all those cases, it is often the nodding of the head that is valued, not what might be going on inside the head.

    ReplyDelete
  20. EX FALC say

    From EOP: "In all those cases, it is often the nodding of the head that is valued, not what might be going on inside the head."

    Exactly!! When you peel back the curtains and see what it really is, you see a bunch of people who are trying to appear on a pedastal above all of us, but in reality when you know the truth about what really goes on in the church, there are some are hiding some dark secrets to protect their image in the church, and the image of the church. I am aware of someone in the LLC who has been sexually abusing for at least 30 years. He never did anything to me and I don't personally know who the victims are, so it would be hard for me to report, but I've been told people have reported him to the head of the church numerous times. Some of his kids have drug and alcohol issues because of what his father did to them...and of course the LLC judges them as "worldly" and "sinful". Maybe if they could bring it into the open and deal with it their could be peace and healing, but that will never happen, because images need to be protected, So either way they are screwed. I feel sorry for those kids. Just image the burden they have to carry.

    I have been out of the church many years. I would have to agree it takes at least 10 years to get rid of the control this religious system had on my life. Some it will always affect my life in some ways. It took me a long time to develop friendships outside of the church. But, those friendships I have now are much better than what I had in the FALC. I love being able to discuss religion openly with people and question and ponder everything. It is crazy when I see a Laestadian family, with 10+ kids, I think that it could have been my life. But it isn't, the cycle of religious abuse is not a part of my family and will not be passed down to my kids and I am SOOOOO thankful for that!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous said,...'Case in point, I joined a community group shortly after I left one Laestadian group that was soon joined by a leaver of another Laestadian group. At first, the friendship seemed like a Godsend!' Then she related how she was basically burned by her new found ex-Laestadian friend. I too have worked with ex-Laestadians over the years, we shared some stories, compared a few notes but I did not ever get close to them as I felt it best to keep some distance. I want to keep moving forward and not backward. Perhaps they felt the same need or perhaps they were affected by the hell fire outlook most Apostolic Lutherans had towards other splinter Apostolic groups. Long ago I learned that Apostolic Lutheranism seemed to be synonymous with viral and vicious gossiping with no one seemingly wanting to hear what the truth was. IMO even innocuous things seemed to end up twisted around into something devious and damaging & I found myself feeling 'empty' after any social interaction with Laestadians and/or worrying that something we had talked about would end up being all twisted around in the rumor mill. Psychology shows that abused people may not like the abuse but they go back for seconds and thirds because they are 'uncomfortably comfortable with being abused' even if they hate the outcome....remember the preface 'abused people.' Rather than get back into those kinds of uncomfortable social interactions I chose a path where I have little to no interaction with Laestadians except for the rare few who truly seem to have Christ in their heart. The best place to meet new friends for me seemed to be at larger conservative Christian churches where there were lots of people my own age who seemed to be genuinely happy & have healthy personal esteems. The bottom line is I found they believed in Christ. But I did find it took a while to stop being an old Finnish wallflower though. Old AP

    ReplyDelete
  22. Old AP, you truly have sage wisdom. Yes, your observations, "Long ago I learned that Apostolic Lutheranism seemed to be synonymous with viral and vicious gossiping with no one seemingly wanting to hear what the truth was. IMO even innocuous things seemed to end up twisted around into something devious and damaging & I found myself feeling 'empty' after any social interaction with Laestadians and/or worrying that something we had talked about would end up being all twisted around in the rumor mill" definitely rang true in my interactions with the other ex-Laestadian. Thanks for your wisdom. I now feel a bit less sad, and actually quite feel a bit sorry for her.

    I've been perusing a bit more of this site lately, and there have been other posts about some of the "side effects" living in a Laestadian community has had on its women. The combined effect of having a large number of children, and often under the thumb of an authoritative husband, often lead to the only locus of power is to bully other women, often in forms of gossip and social aggression. In the church, I noted that there were certain sub-groups that appeared in the form of birthday clubs and other clubs, and unlike "worldly" churches, where such gatherings would be posted on the bulletin board and open to all women, in our congregation, you had to be invited by a member of these subgroups to join in on these gatherings, which was the cause of many hurt feelings. Sometimes it was almost comical. One family I knew had three sisters and two were vying to get into a "sub-club" that appeared to be made up of several of the most financially prosperous females in the congregation. The two sisters were extremely hurt that a cousin, who had just moved into town, was immediately invited to join this church-women's group. More social maneuvering was in order, as one of the sisters convinced the cousin to allow her in the group, which left the other sister stewing, until both sisters were part of the "club." Interestingly, the third sister was never invited. I suspect it was never her "thing" as she is a rather independent-minded gal and we shared a good laugh over it once.

    There are many, good, non-gossiping Laestadians that I keep in close company with, yet today, and I feel free to share my observations about the church. I still in many ways love the church even though I don't go anymore. How can you hate anything that was once such an important part of your life? I accept the best that its made of me, and feel free to question everything. That, it itself, has made me feel free.

    ReplyDelete
  23. To be sure, all of us who leave an institution that we grew up in will experience varying levels and lengths of transition. As I've posted elsewhere, I grew up in a very tolerant family, one where there was constant and ongoing relationships with people outside the OALC, gossip be damned. Our associations were primarily -- though not exclusively by any means -- with other members of the local Finnish community, whether they belonged to the OALC, IALC, or, in some cases, no church affiliation at all. It simply didn't matter. That, I recognize, gave me a huge leg up when it came to transition time.

    I married a cradle Roman Catholic, but still retained my OALC affiliation for 10 years or so, gradually drifting away from it, but not really picking anything else up in its place. Finally, I started attending Mass with my wife and children, and became very comfortable with the mix of strong tradition, yet in a forward thinking environment. When a priest finally asked why I didn't join the RCs -- since he thought I was more Catholic than many of his Catholics :-), it made a lot of sense to me. After a very short period of time, in large part because of my strong love of learning and teaching -- and the need to understand -- I began teaching in the RCIA program, Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults to the Roman Catholic church. I have learned over the years that the best way to learn something is to teach it, because it forces you to investigate, question, and learn from inquiring minds as much as you teach. From that, I really have gained a deep understanding and appreciation of this "new" faith for me -- now 25 years and counting.

    Obviously the RC faith may not be an answer for all of you. However, a similar approach with another church might help if you are still searching. From understanding comes comfort, and my journey has led me to a good home.

    As I mentioned in my earlier post, I cut the ties in a way that left no ambiguity. I do not pretend to have any affiliation to the OALC, as I see no reason to live that kind of a lie. I value the friendships that have survived -- and they are many, actually, praise be. I extend the hand of "God's Peace" to any -- and those who reject it for whatever reason or discomfort they have -- take that upon themselves -- it is not on me.

    Peace be with you all, on this Sunday of Pentecost. May the Holy Spirit be with all of us, strengthening us and leading us to understanding and tolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lots of interesting comments these days. I notice that this site waxes & wanes in a cycle which leads me to wonder if that somehow all of ex-Laestadians are somehow hardwired in some way so that our interest in blogging or not blogging always seems to coincide with each other? Maybe there is a thing called 'Laestadian telepathy.' Well anyways, I used to wonder about this internal turmoil many of us felt over having left the church & then there are still others who have not left but they still read this blog wondering if they should join us. I have tried to look at the kernel of the internal angst amongst those who have left & my observation is that it stems from what is termed 'separation anxiety.' Separation anxiety is a term in psychology where a child begins to learn to separate from their parents emotionally but especially from their mother. As a child begins to explore more they grow comfortable w/longer periods of separation & they also learn to make decisions for themselves. Those who cannot adapt are termed to have separation anxiety. From what I can remember many of the Laestadian parents had so many preconceived notions of God's punishment & a sort of fatalism that they kept their kids on a short leash never letting them get far beyond the confines of the local Apostolic Lutheran Church. As the children grew older I began to see that the church itself along with peer relationships began to supplant the parents role but again in short leashed and stunting way. In other words Laestadian children seemed to grow up with a very primitive outlook on life and on their relationship with God. There seemed to be a dysfunctional psychological hold that many guilt ridden parents would pass down to their children so that the child would never learn to be 'free' that was reinforced through 'the forgiveness of sins' which is an euphanism for confession & absolution. The end result is that many adolescents never seemed to learn how to make good life choices that they felt comfortable with, hence they had this internal struggle between what they wanted to do and what they felt obligated to do. I think that a lot of people on this site were caught up in this situation and they decided to go with what they felt was right inside versus the church obligation option. To me it seemed like a warped type of church moral code was imprinted into the youth at a young age instead of a Biblically based moral code that allowed a child to grow into the 'fullness of Christ' which Paul discusss in Ephesians. A guilt ridden mother is very likely to produce a guilt ridden child. So the internal angst seems to boil down to figuring out what one really believes and then having the courage to make the right/best decisions about life and then following through with one's choice without having to run back to mommy (and the church)to get their approval and blessing. I think most people on this site are intelligent enough to make the right decision for themselves. Old AP

    ReplyDelete
  25. I love the discussion here and the acceptance of many points of view. It tickles me to think of a Laestadian telepathy, as I just met two former Laestadians at a festival in Seattle, and it felt as if I had known them a very long time.

    I am currently learning about psychosynthetic therapy, as it appeals to me as a way of understanding my struggles with depression. The basic work of psychosynthesis is aimed at recognizing and harmonizing "subpersonalities," so that we are no longer helplessly controlled by them, but can bring them increasingly under conscious direction. One learns to "dis-identify" from all that is not the self, and "self-identify" with the centre of our awareness (or soul).

    In Laestadianism, we were taught that one's primary self-identification is negative and shameful, a fallen soul constantly in need of redemption (through other people!). Redefining that basic reflex is a lifelong process. No wonder we so often feel like strangers in a strange land.

    --Free

    ReplyDelete
  26. One of the ways that I have coped with leaving the church, is how I framed leaving in my head. It's a little like how my dad finally quit smoking (that Laestadian scourge). How he finally quit smoking was by telling himself that he was not quitting smoking, he was just not smoking TODAY. And he woke up every morning and repeated that to himself, until he finally quit for good, going on 10+ years now. When I have felt anxiety about leaving the church, I've approached it about the same. When I feel anxiety about it, I tell myself I can ALWAYS go back if I WANT to, I'm just not going to go this weekend. It's had a calming effect and I've experienced much less stress.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes, Free, that self-loathing is a key part of Laestadianism. I grew up hearing it in, though I have to say that many people in the LLC seem to look past the pious rhetoric and have a pretty healthy sense of self. I certainly heard a lot of it when I visited the OALC: The ten minutes or so of lamenting about wretchedness seems to be the standard OALC preacher’s warm-up act to his sermon. What an example to set for impressionable children struggling with their sense of identity!

    I’m afraid viewing humans as fatally flawed and corrupt is really an integral part of Christianity in general, arising from the doctrine of original sin. Here’s what psychologist Marlene Winell tells us what we are doing to ourselves with this kind of thinking:

    The key is that you are considered fundamentally wrong and inept, beginning with the doctrine of original sin. Everything about you is flawed, and you desperately need to be salvaged by God. The damage to self is more than hurt self-esteem. Your confidence in your own judgment is destroyed. As an empty shell, you are then open and vulnerable to indoctrination because you cannot trust your own thinking. Your thoughts are inadequate, your feelings are irrelevant or misleading, and your basic drives are selfish and destructive. [Leaving the Fold, 1993, p. 74]

    As I note in my book, the slander is not just against ourselves as creatures, but against the creator, for those who follow that line of thinking. Genesis 1 tells us that God created “man in his own image,” male and female, and saw that everything that he had made, including man, “was very good.” Yet he was helpless to prevent the serpent–one of his creatures–from corrupting man, the supposed crown of creation. The entire human race would become so utterly depraved from a single act of its ancestors as to be worthy only of an eternity of unthinkable torture at the wrathful hands of its creator. (Or at the hands of Satan and his minions. It’s the same thing either way, since almighty God is the one allowing it to happen.) Robert Ingersoll dryly observed, “A god that cannot make a soul that is not totally depraved, I respectfully suggest, should retire from the business. And if a god has made us, knowing that we would be totally depraved, why should we go to the same being for repairs?” (Lecture on Orthodoxy).

    ReplyDelete
  28. When I was contemplating leaving my respectve branch of the Apostolic Lutheran type church I kept asking myself why I was leaving. It finally dawned on me that I had never heard any member state how they had been born again in Christ and how this had changed their life. When I asked about this I was told, 'we have the forgiveness of sins' aka confession and absolution as if that was some authoritative principle that exempted them from every other Biblical teaching. Oh, I heard all about temptation, sin, fear of God, to consider one's life etc...Then for a number of years after I left my respective Apostolic Lutheran group I wondered what was wrong with them? or was it me? I finally was able to confirm my internal suspicion that they did not really believe in an internal transformation and living for Christ. Instead the people's lives seemed to be a based on a crude mimicking of the Bible based on rote memory of basic church dogma. An earlier anonymous commentator stated, 'One family I knew had three sisters and two were vying to get into a "sub-club" that appeared to be made up of several of the most financially prosperous females in the congregation.' I saw the same types of things myself let alone if a minority person aka 'a non Finn' walked into church. In other words the people in the 'only true Christian Church' did not seem to be very concerned about the salvation of souls but more so in their standing in social circles. I read a book on cults and sects later on & I finally realized that Laestadianism had evolved from its original tenants into a mix between a cult and/or a sect of a varying degree depending on the church and denomination. The Old Apostolic Lutherans, New Awakenists and some of the Haedamens appeared to me to be more on the cultish side whereas the Independent Apostolic Lutherans seemed closer to a sect (no offense meant to anyone, it was just my personal feeling). Modern day Laestadianism is what it is... my father stated to me that overall their beliefs were not that much different than they were 90 years ago. He told me that he felt they would be saved but spiritually they would not amount to anything. I do not think it is wise for ex-members to go back and try to 'witness' to former friends and members, rather my experience has been that I actually get something done for the Lord by reading the Bible and being a minister of the gospel where I am now with my evangelical Bible Church. Others who read this post may see things differently and I respect your beliefs and views. Old AP

    ReplyDelete
  29. I was talking to an ex-Laestadian recently, and inquired about another person who I had wondered if he, also, was ex-Laestadian as well. He said, "Yeah, how did you know?" since we come from three different branches of the movement. I said, I don't know, it sometimes feels a little like what they call "gay-dar" in the LGBT community in a way. We decided to coin a new term, "lae-dar."

    ReplyDelete
  30. EOP, I just read your comments on original sin. It is interesting that Original Sin, along with The Trinity and some other beliefs, didn't come along until several centuries after Jesus. And yet the church treats these concepts as having been accepted from Day One. So, what else are(n't) they telling us? SISU

    ReplyDelete
  31. "I would like to say that by maintaining friendships with Laestadians, we have the opportunity to show them the tolerance they deny us."

    Free, for myself, I feel it's best not to care about showing the Laestadians anything. I'm focused on what makes my own life better, and it is irrelevant what a tiny cult-like blip of a community thinks of my choices.

    With that said, it is hard to handle cultural dislocation. We're part of an epic journey from an isolated Samiland to a hyper-connected, urban world. Our ancestors lived for thousands of years in small, tight-knit communities, passing down traditional knowledge for generations. Several hundred years ago, they were forced to lose their traditional spirituality. Many were forced to lose their traditional livelihoods and take up large-scale mining, logging and construction. They were forced to leave their traditional lands and move to the city or even the USA, losing their language. In the USA, they were originally forced to stick together as immigrants in a sometimes hostile new home, but as assimilation slowly proceeded, the only way to maintain a sense of identity was to create an us vs. them dynamic, and if you didn't fit into a grotesque vestige of an old Sami society that was mutilated and warped beyond recognition, you were a "them."

    Today, as members of the mainstream world, everything is so connected and changing so fast, we have no sense of belonging to our personal tribe and traditional knowledge isn't enough to pay the rent. These cultural shifts are much bigger than us as individuals, but they are responsible for many of our difficulties. But it is as individuals that we are forced to process our losses and navigate our new environments.

    -Ilmarinen

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ilmarinen said, "I'm focused on what makes my own life better, and it is irrelevant what a tiny cult-like blip of a community thinks of my choices." I do not think I would have used such bold words myself but my sentiments seem to echo yours. The internal emptiness that some write of after they left Laestadianism, will only be filled when one finds the spiritual, career and lifestyle changes that one longs for inside. That my friends will take some trial & error as well as self motivation. Sure....you will make some mistakes on the way...I did but having grown up in a home where no internalized moral compass was allowed was difficult. Once I left Laestadianism it really took me a number of years to figure out what I really believed and felt since personal beliefs and feelings were crushed in my childhood home. I would not trade my new found life for those 'good old' Laestadian days. I now look on the old guard Laestadian religious enforcers as a bunch of quacks. There are still many conservative evangelical Bible based churches out there when one looks. One should not feel guilty for going out and finding the truth. Old AP

    ReplyDelete
  33. LLLreader here--Wow, so good to see old familiar names here. Hope you "old friends" are doing well in all areas. Love to all of you.

    ReplyDelete
  34. OK SISU, now you have me confused. I have not read EOP's writings, but to say that the Trinity and original sin were not mentioned until hundreds of years after the life of Christ just ain't so.

    Original sin is mentioned several places in the Bible, notably in St Paul's letters to the Romans, chapter 5, and to the Corinthian Christians in chapter 15. Paul wrote sometime approximately 50 years or so after Christ's death, and these books are certainly accepted by all Christians.

    In the first Epistle of John (and many other places), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are referred to, either directly with no room for ambiguity, or indirectly. The Gospel of John in particular refers to the three many times. Variously, it is believed that this gospel was written sometime between 50 and 100 years after Christ's death, but it through the Gospels that we all receive Jesus' words. (Pity Jesus didn't write things down himself, but there we are.)

    Perhaps I am really missing something, but to say these concepts weren't introduced until hundreds of years after Christ's death isn't correct. Now the fact that the words "Trinity" and "Original Sin" were not used verbatim, but that's really splitting hairs.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ilmarinen, so great to see you here again. While I mostly agree with your comments, we don't, any of us, navigate anything in isolation, but are always evolving in social units, either given or chosen. For those of us raising children within an extended family that includes members of that "tiny cult-like blip," ignoring their needs is not an option. Practicing compassion and tolerance -- as well as candor and boundaries -- is a balance that many of us must navigate. One of the benefits of this blog and the revitalized Sami-American community is a place to "process our losses and navigate our new environments" among others who, in spite of all our differences, understand. Or so it seems to me.
    --Free

    ReplyDelete
  36. Good points, Free. There are no simple answers, and I have it easier in a sense by being geographically distant and economically independent from my LLL family members.

    When you say, "ignoring their needs is not an option," is "their" referring to LLL family members? For myself, it is an option to reject their needs if their needs don't respect my boundaries.

    Laestadianism prioritizes group cohesion over individual autonomy, but for me, my needs come first. Even after leaving, I have been pressured to hide who I am in social situations involving people from the LLL community. The pressure will come in the form of calls for "respect," but I respect LLL rules in neither a positive (complying) nor a negative (reactively doing the opposite) sense. They are irrelevant to me.

    I can exercise compassion when I realize that hurtful things my my LLL family members have said and done can be blamed, in part, on the stresses experienced by the social unit of historically oppressed Sami peoples. But it's possible to understand the source of dysfunction in a community and yet still best off, emotionally and socially, cutting all contact. For those privileged to not be socially or economically dependent on LLL family members, offering to remain in contact is a choice.

    I have internalized that I have that choice and am prepared to use it, putting my needs and my non-LLL partner's needs first. I choose to remain in contact with the family members who respect my boundaries without requiring me to hide who I am. If a family member cannot do that, it will sadly not be possible to include them in my life, no matter how much I have compassion on them and understand why they are dysfunctional.

    -Ilmarinen

    ReplyDelete
  37. Beautifully expressed, Ilmarinen. I hope this is helpful to those who are still struggling with whether or how much to include their LLL relatives and friends in their new lives.

    While not dependent financially or otherwise on my LLL relatives, I choose to remain in contact -- to the degree that I do -- because I can do so without compromising my integrity. That was not possible when I was younger, when I felt pressured to hide my light, so to speak.

    Now I can consider their needs (for affection, forgiveness, etc.) because I feel comfortable with our differences, and I suppose they feel the same way, to varying degrees. Even though the visits are entirely one-way (initiated by me), it feels better than it used to.
    --Free

    ReplyDelete
  38. CVOW wrote:

    Original sin is mentioned several places in the Bible, notably in St Paul's letters to the Romans, chapter 5, and to the Corinthian Christians in chapter 15. Paul wrote sometime approximately 50 years or so after Christ's death, and these books are certainly accepted by all Christians.

    Yes, I think you're exactly right about this. A lot of people associate the doctrine of original sin with Augustine [354-430 A.D.], but Paul's viewpoint in Romans 15 seems pretty clear. Also, Irenaeus articulates the doctrine in his Against Heresies, Book 2, Ch. 23 (link).

    I think you're mostly correct about the Trinity, too. It seems plausible that at least some of the Gospel writers envisioned a Holy Spirit as well as the Father and Son relationship so loftily discussed in the Gospel of John. However, the reference to 1 John for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is problematic because the 1 John 5:7-8 passage is almost certainly not authentic.

    ReplyDelete
  39. EOP said, "A lot of people associate the doctrine of original sin with Augustine." I took the time to read the teachings of Augustine & many of the other early Christian 'fathers', as they are referred to. Some of the early Christian writings were written as early as the year 75 AD by people whom actually knew Jesus and the Apostles. It was interesting reading indeed as I noticed a trend that taken as a whole, the closest modern church that I would associate with their writings would be a conservative evangelical Bible/Baptist type church (which is what I now belong to). I never once read in their writings any doctrines or beliefs that would be considered akin to modern day Laestadian teachings-or at least the ones that I recall. The major difference in tone is that the early writers seemed to have a very strong cornerstone of faith in Christ and an experienced new birth in Jesus. They all recognized the universal church as one body for by their time the church was already dispersed. All of their writings seemed to stem from their faith in Christ & they heavily footnoted the Apostle's letters. Some readers of this blog might want to take the time to read up on those early writers to find out what the early Christians actually believed versus what they were taught.
    Old AP

    ReplyDelete
  40. Old AP wrote: I never once read in their writings any doctrines or beliefs that would be considered akin to modern day Laestadian teachings-or at least the ones that I recall.

    Yes, exactly! It was quite a shock for me to discover this as well, not just from reading the earliest Christian writings but from books written about early Christianity and even about absolution specifically. I consider the results of my research on this to be one of the most important parts of my book, Section 4.1.2, and one of the most devastating for Laestadianism's claim of historical and doctrinal authenticity.

    ReplyDelete
  41. EOP said, "It was quite a shock for me to discover this as well, not just from reading the earliest Christian writings but from books written about early Christianity and even about absolution specifically." It was also an eye opener for me when I read the old writings. My father told me that during the big schisms here in America in the early 1900's one particular group referred to the other as being 'washboard Christians.' In other words the 'washboarders' thought of themselves as clean until their conscious began to bother them which made them dirty so then they had to confess their sins again to another Christian in order to become acceptable to God again. This did not make much sense to me so I asked more than a few about what would happen if some one's conscious was not quite clean and they had a car accident and died. I recall being told, 'Well God is the judge in those matters' or 'If they have not confessed their sins then they will go to hell' or a flat out, 'I don't know.' In fact a lot of people seemed to think that if one had a car accident it was God punishing them to begin with! As I grew up in my particular Apostolic Lutheran group I heard the self-depricating and self-loathing confessions but I also began to realize that they were all basically about the same things. It started to dawn in my head that there is really no assurance of salvation with these people in contrast to what I was reading on my own in the Bible. I began to figure out that literally anyone in the congregation could/should have made the same public confession not just a couple of guilt ridden folks. After I went to college and took some psychology courses I realized that the capacity to do evil is within us all, hence the periodic story about some heinous crime with everyone saying how they 'never thought that the person' could have done such a thing. An elderly Roman Catholic priest was interviewed not too long ago and he stated that if he knew a person's age he knew in advance 80% of the sins that they were going to confess in the confessional. The sum of what I am saying is really encompassed within well known verses of the Bible which states that we are indeed sinful but all the more important is the story about our Saviour. The ancient Christian writers do speak of personal confession but not in the context of washboarding. As hard as some of Laestadius' sermons sound, taken as a whole one can see that he always ends up speaking of Jesus. My guess is that the fear, shame and guilt (abuse?) & the accompanying washboard type confession of sins which is taught in many Apostolic homes is internalized at a young age as 'normal' given that there is no counterweight faith in Christ that is taught. Given the semi-isolation that the Laestadians grow up in they never realize that what is 'normal' to them is nowhere to be found in Scriptures. When I figured this out on my own I realized I had been duped. Old AP

    ReplyDelete
  42. Olipa hienoa löytää nämä sivut! Olin itse 20 vuotta mukana ja nyt yli 50 -vuotiaana edelleen pohdin menneitä. Näin myös 70 -luvulla Amerikan tilanteen ollessani vuoden siellä. Voimia teille kaikille!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kiitos. Ei ole monta täälä enen kuka osa käytää Suomenkielen. Minun Suomenkieli on kyllä huono, mutta viellä joitaki sanat tippuu kielestä. Jumalan terve teille!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Here is a quote which seems to ring true for ex-Laestadians, "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” Carl Sagan ---- Has anyone ever considered that it would simply be too painful for most present day Laestadians to admit that they were wrong and that their beliefs are not founded on the Bible? Old AP

    ReplyDelete