re the 'morals policy' and the split

While I can't speak regarding the motivations (machinations?) of those at the top of the RF organisational pyramid, I can say that for the dozens of the former RCI'rs I know who left to become part of RF, that policy was indeed the principle reason for leaving. The foolish (and somewhat corrupt) grooming of SL for the top job was obvious even to me outside 'the inner circle' in Melbourne, but that was not sufficient reason to leave.

In retrospect, various actions of LRL's *did* encourage the split eg telling the pastors in at least one regional meeting convened to discuss the isssue, "You're all out. If you want back in, you'll have to ask." Nevertheless, LRL's belief in "once a fornicator, always a fornicator" went back, according to evidence I've heard from a number of people, many years prior to '95.

What a shame that when their RF option became unviable, the "must speak in tongues" elastic drew these people back, instead of them being drawn by teachings of the bible towards orthodoxy.

 I was just remembering my very early days.

 I would hear people talk about Lloyd and I used to think why is a man placed on such a pedestal- he's just a man. 

On my first meeting of him he was at an out reach telling people they had no right to read the bible as it was effectively reading some one else's mail.

 I was pretty unimpressed and the Safari suit and white shoes he wore were an instant character warning that definitely unnerved me. 

But yet for all the gut feeling of things  not sitting right, I was so wanting to find God in a real tangible experience that changed my life and broke addictions, I was willing to overlook what would have been my natural instincts warning me. 

I think I just thought well if they want to look at Lloyd that way thats their problem but I never will. 

But slowly your life blends to the Revival way and before you realize it you've become just like everyone else. 

You effectively stop thinking for yourself. I do feel now like I've awoken from a comatose state and taken back control.

Reply to Didaktikon (12/11/2008 16:29:07)

Good morning, one and all.

Every so often some "well-meaning" Revivalist breaks fellowship with his former group (ostensibly for all the "right" reasons, we are quickly assured), and so goes off to create his own little "sub-brand" of the general Revivalist product. Of late we've been treated to two further such wannabes: Alf Neri, and the poorly-named "Jeremiah99". But here's the thing: every previous attempt at building upon the Revivalist's cracked foundation has come "a cropper". History has demonstrated, and then rather conclusively, that there is no such thing as a "safe" Revivalist option.

To be blunt, one can't establish "truth" on a foundation of "untruth". If one can't get the gospel correct, then how on earth can one expect the tangible and intangible benefits that ordinarily flow from spiritual regeneration?

In the end, leopards don't change their spots. Neither do wolves cease being wolves.

Blessings,

Ian