And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

—The Gospel According to Luke

According to some fundamentalist groups, only they are true Christians, and only they are going to heaven, while the rest of the world’s “so-called” Christians, including those in other fundamentalist groups, are going to hell.

—Edward T. Babinski, Leaving the Fold

† “The Holy Spirit first leads us to the communion of saints and within the pale of the congregation, under whose caretaking He exhorts us and takes us to Christ–the Holy Spirit having a special congregation on this Earth. This is the mother who gives birth to and sustains all Christians with the word of God. I believe that there is on Earth a small holy flock and congregation, under one head, Christ, called together by the Holy Spirit, in one faith, one mind, and one understanding. They possess various gifts, but are of one mind in love, without factions or divisions. I also am a part and member of this flock and a sharer in its blessings. To this flock the Holy Spirit has led me and joined me because I have heard and continue to hear the Word of God. This then is the first step toward entrance (from VOZ, 1/1980).

† The power to forgive sins “has not been given to the pope, but to the flock in living faith which is scattered around the whole world of all peoples and tongues. The sermon of repentance and forgiveness of sins is established with them” (Raattamaa, sermon given 1894, from Kulla 1985, 181).

But it would not be long before the Laestadian movement would undergo its first major fragmentation and the factions on opposite sides of the Tornio river would associate “living faith” with “one living congregation.” The Firstborn and the Conservatives were closer to each other doctrinally than they were to any other religious body on Earth. Thus their spiritual rejection of each other could not help but entail a rejection of everybody else as well. The sermons of Väinö Havas attest to how firmly in place the exclusivity doctrine was by the early 20th century:

† “The Holy Ghost is always a gathering power. It melts believing men to a living fellowship. It does not beget isolated Christians, one into one corner, and another to the next, but it forms one flock around the Good Shepherd” (Havas [1935], 18).

† “There is but one Congregation of Christ. It is according to the Bible the Fellowship of believers that the Holy Spirit has called, gathered, enlightened and by the true Faith protected in Christ. It is the Savior’s Body and, therefore, one and indivisible here on Earth. Outside of this Congregation no one can be saved” (Havas [1938], 16).

† “This foundation of the living Church stands, for this holy temple is not built upon great earthly property of church organizations or high civilization, nor broad knowledge of the doctrine of Divinity, neither upon the support granted by the stately power, as important factors as they may be when looked through the natural point of view. Every member of the family of God is built upon the unwavering rock foundation of God’s Word, the holy writings of the prophets and the apostles” (Havas [1940], 14).

† “Conservative Laestadian Christianity has moved from the early Raattamaa line to the line of a single congregation” to be false in every respect. “I had been believing over 15 years during Raattamaa’s lifetime and had traveled at services in the north, in the south, in the east, and in the west, and the congregational doctrine has not changed at all since that time. No one would have been believed that Raattamaa would have had a line or two of several congregations” (Jussila 1948, 119).

† “The spiritual body has and will always remain a mystery to man, because he has sought salvation through spiritual leaders and has not recognized that true salvation is found in the communion or fellowship of the body of Christ, where He himself dwells” (VOZ, 6/2006).

† “Throughout the Bible, various names are used for the congregation of God’s people on earth: the Kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, New Jerusalem, kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, etc. the Psalm writer uses the term ‘Zion.’ Regardless of the name however, one key characteristic is that God’s people are a united flock or group and are spiritually separate from all other religious groups. It remains God’s will that His people are spiritually separate from other groups, as He said to Moses and the wilderness travelers: ‘I am the Lord your God which have separated you from other people’ . . . the Kingdom of God is always a mystery to man’s own mind. Sometimes man has imagined the kingdom to be strictly an earthly or political entity. Other times man has expected a utopia or perfect outward kingdom” (VOZ, 7/2007).

† “With the human mind one may appear to see signs of right faith in many churches. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit reveals one faith and one fellowship of believers” (VOZ, 12/2008).

† “Isn’t that the same kind of reaction we sometimes hear today when we speak about God’s Kingdom? ‘You really think this is the only place where forgiveness is found? Do you really think that you are the only group that is traveling to heaven, the only group of believers? Do you really believe that?’ And of course, to the rational mind it does seem like an awfully simple way to believe, doesn’t it? When we look around us in this world and we see the people and the churches and the deeds that people do and all of these outward things, certainly we can understand that to the carnal mind our faith is so foolish. That’s what Paul found too, when he preached. He said we preach Jesus Christ and him crucified, and to the Jews it’s a stumbling block, and to the Greeks it’s foolishness.”

Frantti attempts to defend the doctrine in the face of its incredible implications by invoking Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 1:18-23 about the preaching of the cross being foolishness to them that perish. But that is an entirely different subject than sectarian exclusivity. One wonders what Paul, who in the same chapter exhorted the Corinthians to all agree and have no divisions among them, would have thought about the claim that Christ’s suffering and death would become utterly ineffectual in all but one of the tens of thousands of Christian denominations that would emerge over the next 2,000 years.

† Jesus “is the Good Shepherd who has a flock, a precious flock of sheep, a sheepfold here on earth, a kingdom of grace, His living church and congregation to which He brings converted souls, to which He has brought each of us when we were gone astray” (Paul Heideman, Greetings of Peace, 6/1954).

† “at the beginning of the New Testament[,] God shows the scribes and pharisees that God’s Kingdom has approached them. Even they now had the opportunity to repent and believe the Gospel,” but Christ’s “doctrine and His church became an offence, foolishness, [a] stumbling stone to those who did not believe. And so they were not saved.” In our time, by “the office of the Spirit” and “a foolish preaching in the eyes of men”, “it has pleased God to save those who believe. Salvation is attained through this, and nowhere else. Thus believing according to the will of God, the eyes of the soul are opened, that there is salvation nowhere else, no faith, no true fruits of faith. You realize that God can not be found anywhere else as a merciful and forgiving and healing God than in Israel (2 Ki 5:15). That is in the Kingdom of God (Lk 15:17). Be there questions of churches, denominations, revivals, or any other. Christ is not divided (1 Cor 1:13).” We teach, Rimpiläinen concludes, “that everyone who has broken his covenant of baptism and has fallen into unbelief, must repent and the congregation of the Holy Ghost declares absolution to him” (Greetings of Peace, 3/1957).

† “moves from one believer to another and it must move from a believer to the unbeliever to be received. Never can an unbeliever bring this gospel to another unbeliever but it is revealed as we heard ‘from faith to faith.’ This also supports and strengthens the teachings of all scripture that the Kingdom of God is a single unity of Spirit and faith, from which fellowship the gospel is proclaimed unto all nations. First there must be a believing and living member of the believing and living fellowship to bring this gospel” (Peter Nevala, Greetings of Peace, 3/1971).

Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that “we are members one of another?” [Ch. 46]

† “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou has the words of eternal life,” he “knew that there is no one else to go to, and no other place to go. The only place one can go to find the Lord Jesus is in His kingdom. We also want to remain like the disciples of Christ, keeping faith and a good conscience” (VOZ, 5/2000).

As in so many other quotes throughout this collection, the quoted writer is injecting words into a Bible passage to narrow its plain meaning into a sectarian interpretation. Peter is talking about his decision to continue following Christ himself (“to whom shall we go”), not any particular group of Christians. Indeed, at the time of Peter’s statement, there was not yet a single group of people calling itself “Christians,” just followers of Christ himself.

the Society continually impressed on everyone’s mind that “There is nowhere else to go.” Although complaining is forbidden, still many times during my long association with the organization I had heard small groups of Witnesses murmuring their disagreements with the Society; these conversations always had the same ending–frustrated voices would sigh, “But there is nowhere else to go.” So thoroughly indoctrinated were the congregation members with this mindset that no other options existed, that rare was the person who challenged it. [2002, 273]

The writer of the next quote, from the October 2002 Voice of Zion, takes a text that would seem to oppose sectarian exclusivity (Rom 10:13-17) and attempts to qualify its plain meaning:

† “The first sentence ‘For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’ is often quoted by those in self-righteousness. It is certainly appealing to the mind of man to stop at this point in Paul’s letter. However, the invitation [by Philip to the skeptic of anything good coming out of Nazareth in Jn 1:46] to ‘come and see,’ is essential. As Paul writes [in verse 14], ‘how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?’”

You don’t need to be in “self-righteousness” to see that people cannot believe in something that they’ve never heard of. There’s nothing surprising or spiritual about the “good news” of Jesus being spread by “the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things” (Rom 10:15). Paul’s was an era when words could only be conveyed in the minds of messengers or the few bits of writing they could carry–writing that almost nobody could read. That has nothing to do with the verbal proclamation of forgiveness that the quoted writer has in mind.

† “In God’s kingdom there is no ‘beating around the bush’ so to speak. One is either inside of the kingdom or outside of the kingdom. If one has not received the love of the Christians regardless of whatever excuses or alibis, that person is lost and must come unto repentance” (Quentin Ruonavaara, sermon given 1975).

That seems like a local emergency room refusing admission to a dying man until he makes a statement that none of the other hospitals around would be suitable for his treatment. And, to continue the analogy, he is sternly discouraged from investigating the merits of those other hospitals!

Thirty years later, even though the writings had toned down somewhat, one’s private thoughts on the topic would remain the subject of concern:

† “It is no small matter when an individual or group, either secretly or openly, begins to believe that the house of God is not necessarily ‘the pillar and ground of truth’ in all matters of soul and conscience or that there is more than one saving faith” (Walt Lampi, presentation given 2007).

convinced of the righteousness or exclusiveness of salvation to this church. They are careful to keep this idea to themselves, however, for they know it isn’t safe to express it to others. Anyone who verbally makes an unacceptable statement like that is immediately suspected of not having “the right Spirit” and they are shunned or avoided and people are encouraged not to spend time with them. [2004, 201]

In private discussions, Conservatives seem similarly unconvinced. To paraphrase one friend who has gotten to know too many “worldly” friends and attended too many of their funerals to remain believing they are all going to hell: We are better individually than our doctrine makes us collectively. But there is the same motivation Lewis noted to keep one’s opinions to oneself.

Does not each religion claim to be the only one? And does not the priest of every religion, with infinite impudence, consign the disciples of all others to eternal fire?

—Robert G. Ingersoll, Lecture on “Which Way?”

The main belief of the Christian Conventionists “is that their church is the only true church, the only way to heaven, the body of Christ” (p. 1). “They believe that only those with the right Spirit can understand the scripture. The right Spirit is only obtained through the workers” (p. 3). “People raised in this church have been taught that this is the only ‘Way,’ that they are the only ones on earth with an understanding of God’s Word” (p. 85).

The workers of the Christian Convention Church “don’t like ‘Christian’ activities,” accusing “those who do charitable works of being in bondage and trying to work their way into heaven” (p. 25). They “encourage people to criticize other church practices, doctrine, histories or failures” (p. 58). On the other hand, the “workers build enthusiasm with effusive glamorizing of the fellowship” (p. 61) within their group.

As with all of these high-demand groups, submission is important. “Anyone who exercises his own viewpoints or logic will be rebuked or looked down on if he verbalizes it” (p. 68).

Like Conservative Laestadianism, the Churches of Christ have had a “strict emphasis on ‘correct’ Biblical doctrine and disagreements,” with the same result: numerous schisms. Yet “their core group still has the audacity to claim to be the ‘one true church’” (Simpson 2009, 42). Condemning all “mainstream denominational congregations” as unscriptural, the Churches of Christ likewise “do not join in ecumenical events for charitable, educational, counseling, or religious service activities” (p. 6). Simpson found that members

cannot carry on a legitimate conversation about religious matters with members of other faiths because they enter those conversations automatically assuming that the other person is wrong and going to hell. From a religious perspective, theirs is a different kind of friendship with people of other faiths. It’s not about developing a close personal relationship based on mutual interest but rather about exhibiting patience and tolerance until a lost soul can be saved. [p. 87]

have a full immersion Baptism usually around [age] 7-9 or so unless an adult is renewing his faith. Baby baptisms don’t work because a baby cannot understand and confirm its faith. You have to be able to speak the fact that you are a christian and believe in the trinity (we went to a class the Saturday before and they told us what to say) before you can become baptized and also before you become a full member of the church.

Fundamentalists believe that their religion is under mortal threat from the secularism of the modern world, and they are fighting back. They may resist in different ways, but they are all essentially oppositional; they have to have an enemy.

—Peter Herriot, Religious Fundamentalism

The separation is not just social, but mental. The evil (or at best, misguided) outsiders are labeled and caricatured in church writings, sermons, and everyday conversation among believers. “As soon as people have created a category called us,” write the social psychologists Carol Tavris and Eliot Aronson, “they invariably perceive everybody else as not-us” (2008, 58). And once that categorization has been made, attitudes and actions follow: “The very act of thinking that they are not as smart or reasonable as we are makes us feel closer to others who are like us. But, just as crucially, it allows us to justify how we treat them” (p. 59).

Robert M. Price writes about a moment when the “them” and “us” distinction collapsed for him:

I found myself in a Cambridge café having supper with some friends. . . . As I looked at the secular students gathered there, I suddenly thought, “Listen, is there really that much difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’?” I had always accepted the qualitative difference between the ‘saved’ and the ‘unsaved.’ Until that moment, it was as if I and my fellow seminarians had been sitting in a “no damnation” section of an otherwise “unsaved” restaurant. Then, in a flash, we were all just people. [2003a, 148]

† “There are many who at conversion have literally had to give up homes, give up brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, wives and children.” He told of a “beloved old Christian brother” who said he had been “cast out of his home, and his father forbade him to ever return again.” Jesus’ words “are true for everyone who comes to a true conversion and a living faith.” At that time there “comes a parting of the ways with the former, unbelieving friends of the world. Also a parting of the way with unbelieving relatives in this respect that the Christian, the converted and believing soul, when he steps upon the pathway of light to follow in the bloody footsteps of the Good Shepherd, turns his back to the world and to the former sinful ways of the world.” Heideman concluded the sermon with the advice “to young Christians . . . that they might seek the company of Christian people, that they might also find fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters according to the promise of Christ” (from Greetings of Peace, 4/1959).

Nowadays, Conservative Laestadians are more integrated into society (especially in Finland), with careers that entail exposure to a lot of people from the outside. For all the aversion to liberalism and social change, Conservatives have benefited from society’s increased level of tolerance for all different types of people, including members of what can easily be seen as an oddball little sect. The shunning and being shunned by “unbelieving” friends and relatives that Heideman describes doesn’t happen so overtly anymore. Nor does the near-monasticism that Heikki Jussila seems to advocate:

† The “Great Teacher” admonishes “His disciples to shun the cares of the world as a sin of the heathens. When He has chosen them so that they might go out to work for the growth of the kingdom of God, He thus shows that to be the highest and noblest goal in the life of man. They do not have time to linger in small matters, when the great building of God’s kingdom is to be prepared. It is a sacrifice of love, to which only the true appreciation of the value of God’s Kingdom can induce. This goal for the life of a man is unknown to the worldly-minded people. They receive their good in this life, and do not think that they need the kingdom of God. But to us, let it be the highest goal of our life. Let us shun the cares of life, the delusion of riches, and the lusts of the world, which have caused the fall of many. It is worth while even for the young to sacrifice their whole life to God and to the service of His kingdom” (Greetings of Peace, 11/1943).

Instead, the Conservative believer seems to confess his or her faith more as a matter of conscience (confess Jesus before men so he confesses you before the Father), to avoid self-blame for condemning acquaintances whom one has grown to like and respect (“You can’t say I didn’t warn you!”), and to maintain the desired separation with the world:

† “You young people, children of God, do not be ashamed to confess yourselves as believers before the children of this world; you are asked, then there will pour forth the strength of heaven into your souls. Through this confession you become blessed. That is honest before the face of God. . . . Nothing is harder for the believer than when at home, he wishes to speak of faith and grace to an unbeliever and the necessity of conversion. That is very difficult. You often measure yourself, ‘What is the reason I do not know how to speak? I do not have strength, I do not have words.’ That is very noticeable but from this no one is left out. But when God with his love gives words to speak, then you have a thankful prayer to God that He gave you utterance” (Ville Suutari, Greetings of Peace, 9/1954).

† “In school, at work, or wherever we are, we gladly seek out the fellowship of other children of God. We receive support from each other. The unbelieving wonder at this segregation, but still they cannot for long tolerate the company of the children of God, especially then, if God grants the strength to speak to them of the necessity of repentance” (By Faith, 104-105).

The results of that lifetime of insularity are viewed with awe by Peter Nevala in a 1981 sermon:

† “This is one of the peculiar mysteries and gifts of God’s true kingdom, that those who are in this kingdom know one another. We can sense, we can feel the spirit of children in one another. It unites, it blesses.”

It would seem surprising to me if there were not some special bond felt between members of a small group of people who have associated almost exclusively with each other from childhood, refrain from any exposure to the religious experiences of others, and have deeply enmeshed family relations and common ethnicity. And it’s actually not something that is only felt by Conservative Laestadians:

Who, indeed, can describe the pleasure with which the members of Christ’s flock do meet each other face to face? They may have been strangers before; they may have lived apart, and never been in company—but it is wonderful to observe how soon they seem to understand each other, there seems a thorough oneness of opinion, and taste and judgment, so that a man would think they had known each other for years; they seem, indeed, to feel they are servants of one and the same Master, members of the same family, and have been converted by one and the same Spirit; they have one Lord, one faith, one baptism; they have the same trials, the same fears, the same doubts, the same temptations, the same faintings of heart, the same dread of sin, the same sense of unworthiness, the same love of their Savior. Oh—but there is a mystical union between true believers, which they only know who have experienced it; the world cannot understand it—it is all foolishness to them. [“The Character of the True Christian,” by J.C. Ryle (1816-1900), Anglican bishop]

constitute a full-blown subculture with a common language, belief system, and behavioral code. As with other subcultures, but even more so, it can be very comforting for members to find safety and understanding so widely. Within a denomination particularly, believers can travel to new places and fit into a church community immediately. Evangelicals worldwide share a purpose that unites them. In addition, every church or Bible group can be a social group with all the benefits of a community” (1993, 53).

But there has also been much frustration from a lifetime of wedging myself (and my family) into the insular mini-society of the LLC. Almost all of my peers were raised in happy, loving homes with 8-12 siblings who grew up and have had large families of their own. Their parents themselves have many siblings and have long supplied our peers with truckloads of cousins for their earliest friendships. All those relatives constitute a body of comfortable and familiar companions who share many attitudes–not just about religion but also politics, leisure activities, and education. They are there for Sunday afternoon visiting, holidays, celebrations, employment, babysitting, and weekend outings.

My family doesn’t have such a family social network, unfortunately. To get the attention of our peers beyond just visits over the snack table after services, we needed to compete with the extensive social networks that they have inherited. It gets tiresome. And the claim I’ve so often heard that I have a “true family” in the church convinces me no more than “the ostentatious claim that ‘The brothers and sisters are there for you’” did Diane Wilson when she heard it as a Jehovah’s Witness. To both of us–with a few happy exceptions–it is “really just a fantasy” (2002, 138).

The last time I heard that claim was in the meeting between myself and the local congregation’s Board of Trustees concerning this book’s June 2010 edition. My response was, “I have family in the church! Great! I’ll see you on Thanksgiving, at Christmas, on Easter.” But in the year following that meeting, the number of invitations my wife and I received to socialize with the families of those board members or anyone else in the local LLC congregation can be counted on a single hand.

† “In the text of the morning sermon we read: The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart. But how many such ones are there who have a broken heart? Perhaps one in a hundred or a thousand. The seven thousand in Israel who had not borne hatred, were scarcely one in a hundred, and the three thousand souls who were converted on Pentecost, were hardly one in a hundred, when compared to the great sorrowless flock. From this we can observe that the elect of God have at all times been only a few, and these few have been despised, hated and persecuted by the world. Do you think that any true Christian can live in the world without being ridiculed? Positively not! For that reason there are only a few who can truly claim some comfort to themselves from today’s text” (Fourth Postilla, 96).

Two sermons by Uno Makela paint a grim picture of believers suffering the hatred and intolerance of “the world”:

† “We are here in this world for a short while; we are not of the world but we are in the world. We are those peculiar people which the world ridicules and hates. We are the ones that are pointed out as the narrowminded, we are persecuted by the world. We know if we did not receive this persecution and ridicule the world would accept us. For that reason, Jesus Christ, Himself, said, ‘Do not marvel if the world hates you,’ for it hated Him more. So we understand that as long as the world ridicules us, we are still in the kingdom of God. The dangers begin when the world starts accepting us” (1979).

† “When we think how many people are upon earth, we are but a few and strangers and hated of all people. It is not a wonder that the world hates us, says Jesus; and they first hated him. We experience daily that the world has nothing to do with us. If we speak of the salvation of our soul, the man of the world does not want to hear it but wants to separate themselves from us. As long as we speak of other matters people can be friendly but they cannot stand it when we speak of the salvation of the soul. In this way, they have hatred towards us, for it disturbs their life and reminds them of the condition of their souls” (1985).

[N]on-believers’ criticisms of fundamentalist beliefs or actions indicate to the believers that they must be doing God’s will. Such criticisms simply confirm fundamentalists in their belief that they are right, since if the Devil assaults us, we must be doing God’s will. Conversely, if they start to be accepted or valued by “the world,” then they must be going against the will of God. Their self-esteem is therefore enhanced, both by the approval of like-minded believers and by the disapproval of “the world.” [2009, 177-78]

† “Some have believed and endured in patience, others have been choked by the thorns or by the sorrows of this world’s riches. The blackbirds have pecked the Word of God from the hearts of some. Some have not received the dew or moisture from heaven. But the drought of this world of unbelief has scorched and slain them. Truly God gives the moisture of Heaven to all those who pray, but it is their own fault if they have not receive moisture, when they have not prayed for moisture from the God of Heaven” (Raattamaa, sermon given 1896, from Kulla 1993, 67).

† “Much indeed is spoken of God and Jesus, but few know and, it even seems, care to know, how and where God is to be found. The kingdom of God, which should be sought for first (Mt 6:33), is therefore unknown and hidden. But as long as the kingdom of God is secret, it is impossible to know its King. The people grope for the wall like the blind, Isa 59:10. Here is one who in his imagination hovers in the heavens, hoping to receive something therefrom; here one in his chamber with his private prayers; here one at the root of a tree in the wilderness; here one says he bases all in baptism; another in his good works and deep devotion; another who boasts that he looks only to the word, and says he does not believe any man and explains that God does not need or use any middle hands to save the sinner. Thus outside of the kingdom of God there are in respect to the things of salvation ‘as many minds as men.’ The third article of the creed: I believe in the Holy Ghost, etc. is altogether an unknown secret” (from Greetings of Peace, 8/1950).

† “In these last times there are increasingly many who go about crying ‘Lord, Lord,’ professing that they have accepted [Jesus] as their personal Savior. They gather especially on the college campuses to distribute their literature, preach their doctrine and be seen of men. Beware of these people, especially you fellow Christian college students. They are hypocrites and false prophets in sheep’s clothing, inwardly ravening wolves who work iniquity and have their reward. Taking the name of Christ as a banner they have united with Satan in the work of deceit” (VOZ, 10/1974).

If blasphemy is defined as attributing to Satan the works of God through the power of the Holy Spirit, and if the Holy Spirit does indeed manifest Himself in the lives of the [outsiders], some within the Churches of Christ are treading on very dangerous ground in their tirades against these men of God. “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whosoever blessings against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mk 3:28-29). To deny the Holy Spirit’s indwelling of God’s anointed is to repeat the sin of the Pharisees in Christ’s time. [2009, 116]

† “Those who are in the dead faiths of this world seek to establish their own righteousness. They are unsure of their righteousness and have no security. They have the spirit of fear, but God’s children do not have the spirit of fear, but of power. We can hear and feel the difference between the sermons of those who are in the dead faiths of man and the living Word of God which is not of men but of God.”

As a former Catholic, Bloomquist is one of the rare converts to Conservative Laestadianism, so he has seen at least some of what happens in other religions. But his blanket statements about the “dead faiths of man” still annoy me on several levels. As the following two quotes illustrate, they are unfortunately still representative of what one reads and hears in sermons today:

† “Living faith is a precious gift from God. It is a childlike faith. As it was in Jesus’ time, many in this world today also have blinded eyes and hardened hearts. They do not see God’s kingdom through eyes of faith. With their own understanding they examine God’s Word, which may appear too simple, for it disregards their good works” (VOZ, 2/2008).

† “People seek for happiness and peace with their own means, only taking them further away from God. A lack of roots and hopelessness increase with those things that numb the mind and from which people try to build their happiness” (VOZ, 4/2008).

have been unremitting in their hostility to their out-groups. They have therefore used their small groups to tie adherents in to the [beliefs, values, and norms of behavior] of the movement and to strengthen their social identities as movement members. Movements can then become more differentiated from their out-groups, thereby more effectively providing the self-esteem and certainty that motivate their adherents. The in-group will seek to make itself as different as possible from the out-group. To do so, it will create a stereotype of the out-group. . . . The stereotype is the belief that the out-group consists of people who all share certain characteristics, characteristics that firmly differentiate the out-group from the in-group. [2009, 143]

It’s not just something Conservatives do. Jerry Falwell was often “inventing a cabal of secularists where there was none, providing his congregation with something to define itself and unite against” (Welch 2009, 123). Once a group has differentiated itself from others, real or imagined, “[i]n-group conformity and cohesion, and stereotyping and discrimination against perceived out-groups, often follow. Oneself and others are depersonalised: perceived primarily as prototypical or stereotypical exemplars of categories rather than as individuals” (Herriot 2009, 282).

Ed Babinski offers another explanation for the bad-mouthing of outsiders. The believer is psychologically projecting what he knows is worst about himself onto them while blinding himself to the existence of genuine goodness in them. Because those outsiders are all going to hell, “there must be something essentially wrong with ‘them’ (otherwise they would not be ‘eternally damned,’ which they ‘obviously’ are–just look at what they believe)” (2003, 49).

For a church that writes off the 99.998% of the world’s people who are outside its boundaries as being destined to hell, Conservative Laestadianism seems ironically sensitive to the label of narrow-mindedness. And as we’ve seen, it certainly hasn’t hesitated to apply labels to those outsiders. Matti Suo did so in a defensive-sounding writing that indirectly addressed the church’s black-and-white thinking:

† “[I]f a christian should mention something of wrong doctrine, it is considered horror to some ears. Wrong doctrine, self-righteousness etc. should not be mentioned. It is stamped partiality, unjust, and a christian should not be partial. But if spiritual things are thus understood, then the Holy Bible can be a discarded book. What then can be the background for preaching if the Bible is forsaken which mostly teaches of right and wrong doctrine. Wrong doctrine, with other sins causes its followers condemnation. Christ’s doctrine brings its followers to the joys of Paradise. . . . But some have begun to broaden in their conception. God has become so merciful that all divisionals, be their trend of opinion anything, as long as some form of godliness is pursued, are suitable to be in the same stall. They should not be called divisionals, for fear that tender feelings of love are severed. Showing partiality is evidence of uncivilness, etc.” (Matti Suo [1861-1927], from Greetings of Peace, 9/1954).

Two more recent writings deal with the “narrow-mindedness” label directly, again seeming a bit touchy about it:

† “There has always been a division in this world between God’s kingdom and those outside of its walls. Throughout history, this division has been apparent. A continual warfare between Satan and God’s children has been taking place. Today Satan is combining the forces of various faiths into one ecumenical group. The ‘broad-minded’ ones see believers to be narrow-minded and judgmental” (VOZ, 11/2004).

† “Can a believer then have an unbelieving friend? Even an unbeliever needs a person to whom he can speak about his troubles. I think this kind of friendship does not need to be terminated. Many times school and work friends can even become close friends so that discussion can be trusting and open. It can be so that we are the only trustworthy person to that unbeliever. Maybe he or she will come to comprehend the grace of repentance when we tell about it to the person” (Siionin Kevat [1988], from VOZ, 3/1990).

† “[A]ll we have is from God and God has certainly blessed believers. Even in today’s prosperous economy, however, there are those who suffer from want and are in great need, greater than our own. We frequently think only of our own wants and forget others to whom we could give so much. For what we do for others we are also doing for God. . . . There are many ways in which we can serve the poor in our own communities. There are soup kitchens, food and clothing drives, giving money or time to charity, or various other community services” (VOZ, 7/2000).

† “For the most part, we see how the congregation approaches unbelievers only with the word of God. We really have not become accustomed to the idea that the congregation would direct its activity toward the unbelievers in any other manner, for example: by taking collections for unbelievers, for founding hospitals or schools for them, or by taking stands on political issues. But individual Christians need not look at this restraint by the congregation as a whole as an example for their personal involvement. Even so, it may be that this example is duplicated to some degree in our individual lives as well.”

That presentation was given a year after the 9/11 attacks. It was on the Sunday after those attacks that I saw the only instance of outside charity during my lifetime in the church before or since, a collection for the Red Cross.

One explanation for the lack of outreach, besides the movement’s insular nature, is provided by Welch’s observations about her evangelical companions: “There wasn’t much point in helping the needy if they were just going to end up in hell anyway. Focusing on corporeal problems made as much sense to Christians as offering people pool floaties in the middle of the ocean; getting them saved would allow them to live underwater” (2009, 140).

† “It seems tragic to think that only we will get to heaven. But we haven’t come here to judge. We can always hope and pray. [An unbelieving brother] is not here in vain. Surely God has given him a purpose” (VOZ, 6/2004).

But the vicious beast of predestination lurks in the tall grass of that seemingly kind sentiment. Jason Long, as usual, does not mince words in his critique of the God he no longer believes in:

God brings people into this world without a choice in the matter and expects us to do certain things, otherwise he’ll punish us severely without rest for an eternity. God’s omniscience must necessarily allow him to know which names will not be included in his book of life. Therefore, we can only conclude that he purposely brings people into the world with zero chance of avoiding Hell. Any deviation from this predetermined course would make God wrong, but since God cannot possibly be wrong, it’s impossible for us to deviate from the absolutely unalterable plan that he has already envisioned. Thus, Christians can only logically claim that we are exclusively involuntary pawns at the mercy of God’s whimsical decisions as to where we will spend our ultimate eternal destinations. This heartless exercise of brutality can only be the single most hateful crime any being could ever commit. [2005, 105, emphasis added]

The church is very sensitive to having itself discussed in anything but an officially sanctioned, devotional manner, on the Internet or otherwise. As I experienced from the hysterical reaction to my limited distribution of this book’s June 2010 edition–which had far less commentary than is present here–the consequences of individual, public critique are severe enough to make it practically unheard of. Thus the Internet discussions are mostly found in private, restricted groups or on blogs and forums where both the postings and comments can be made anonymously. That hasn’t found favor officially, either, with the SRK’s previous secretary-general Aimo Hautamäki concluding that “anonymous discussion is worthless discussion and worthless knowledge” (Ijäs 2010).

† it “is good to consider that our messages and comments can be viewed by all who have access to the site. A personal, loving message, even one calling to God’s kingdom, reaches beyond the intended recipient. The love for the undying soul expressed in such messages is understood by believers, but may seem insensitive or harsh to some. A personal card, letter, e-mail, conversation, or thoughts relayed through a close family member may be more appropriate” (VOZ, 7/2009).

You have said it [has] always been your desire to believe. If so then by all means you can. It requires one to acknowledge [you’re] in the wrong. It requires penitence over sin and even wrong understanding and unbelief. I would sincerely say to you that the mercy of the heavenly father is immeasurable and if it is your desire to believe then you can [be] free [to] do so and put away your unbelief. I would also like to add that there is nothing humble about denouncing the existence of god. I know it is fashionable in many universities to call ones self an atheist. Many people find a sense of broad understanding and a high intellect by having this view that athiesm [sic.] is the new and modern type of intellect. The devil doesn’t need to attack you any longer. The uneasiness and lack of peace in your heart is put there by god. Your conscience is telling you that something isn’t right with you. It isn’t the devil who is tormenting you. It is your knowledge that you are not currently a child of god. I am not “preaching” to serve myself . . . but because I care about your undying soul and would like to call you a brother in faith. I did not want to continue this conversation because of the evil research and beliefs you presented me and your attempt to dissuade me of my faith. If you would like to continue to speak about matters of faith I would be happy to continue. But I will not delve into works of evil men and look at articles referring to the bible being evil. It is your desire to believe . . . and I would encourage you to put away your doubts and unbelief. It is a joy being a child of god and it is said that when a lost sheep is found and gathered back to the flock that even the angels in heaven rejoice. You don’t need to continue on the path to destruction but your time of visitation is open yet and you can believe.

It is completely in accord with Conservative Laestadian doctrine and was no doubt motivated by genuine concern. But even clean underwear is an awkward thing to see out in public.

All fundamentalists believed in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ, but the old guard had put so much energy into doctrinal and ethical purity that it left little time and room for effective evangelistic efforts.

–Calvin Mercer, Slaves to Faith

The work is driven by a genuine spiritual hunger by those out in remote areas who want to hear the preaching for themselves or share it with their friends and loved ones. Conservative Laestadianism is too restrained to impose itself much on disinterested strangers. That makes the mission work it does carry out genuine and unforced, welcomed by those receiving it. But it also limits the reach of the message.

For the past 20 years or so, there have also been broadcasts of sermons on local radio stations, especially during large, national service events. More recently, live and archived recordings of sermons have been made available on the Internet. In all of these cases, the forum for evangelism is the service led by a preacher. His words, once enclosed within the sanctifying wrapping of an opening prayer and a closing prayer (preferably also with some singing by the assembled listeners) become God’s Word.

Back when the following two statements were made in sermons, any outsider hearing them would have physically made his way into the church by invitation or accident:

† “God desires to enlighten to you that without the preaching of the gospel from God’s kingdom you will perish. Here God offers this grace gospel, and you need not perish in your sins. This is the greatest love for you, that you would be free from a bad conscience and receive your sins forgiven in the name and blood of the Lord Jesus” (Alajoki [1981], 141).

† “[I]f one would have come to the services here who feels he is not part of this living kingdom of God, God is calling you, dear friend, this afternoon. We can even say this that through your own power you have not been able to come to the services. God in His love has called and led you here and desires also to make known unto you His love” (Wesley Hillukka, sermon given 1985).

It was, and remains, a pretty limited and haphazard call. Yet, nearly invisible and devoid of results though it seems to be, it is how God chooses to do what surely should be the most important work imaginable, given the supposedly eternal stakes:

† “The work of the Spirit is to call sinners to repentance. Through the children of God, the Spirit speaks to the unbelieving world. God wishes that those in the darkness of unbelief could come to the light, repent, and believe the gospel. However, Jesus himself has revealed . . . ‘that men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil’ [John 3:19] . . . We understand that the Holy Spirit of God continues to function here on Earth until the work day is ended and it is no longer possible to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom” (VOZ, 7/1998).

† “God uses His congregation to assist Him in seeking man” (Uljas 2000, 13).

† “The time of visitation is not a matter that affects only one person, but an entire nation or community. Scriptures recount how the elect people of God had a time of visitation during the Old Covenant and even at the beginning of the New Covenant. The living congregation of God was in their midst. . . . History indicates that God has given different nations a time of visitation at different times” (Uljas 2000, 15).

† “[W]hen the children of Israel, for the most part, rejected the grace of the caller the invitation was then directed to the Gentile nations. In our time of visitation the same invitation is extended to those on the outside through the servants of God, His children. The same kinds of excuses are heard today as in Jesus’ time. One co-worker said to me that he could not ‘join our church’ because he would have to give up too many things that he enjoys in his life. In North America we have noted that few from the outside accept the invitation to come and hear the Word of God, even though God’s children, in many localities across this continent, have preached repentance for many generations. The fault has not been with the caller, but those who have been invited ‘began to make excuses’ (Luke 14:18)” (VOZ, 10/2002).

Luke 14:16-24 is, as the quote indicates, a parable about the Jews being invited to the “great supper” but making excuses not to attend, at which point the Gentiles were invited. The quoted writer extends that parable in an effort to address the fact that so few of those invited to the Conservative Laestadian version of the “great supper” feel any inclination to attend. It’s bad enough that only a tiny fraction of the world ever gets the invitation. How do we explain the overwhelming lack of interest on the part of those who do?

Usually, a person’s decision to remain outside (or leave) Conservative Laestadianism is attributed to an unwillingness to give up “worldly pleasures,” which avoids the need to acknowledge that the doctrine might have been found flawed, untrue, or unconvincing. But what sane person could possibly reject the faith for long–no matter what the cost–while maintaining a sincere belief that doing so is going to send him or her to eternal, unimaginable torment?

What he found, after undertaking the formidable task of learning their very different language and culture, was that his two-thousand year old story about Jesus had absolutely no impact on the Pirahã people. After listening, unimpressed, to an audio recording of a fellow Pirahã reading the Gospel of Mark in their language, they said, “Well, he has never seen Jesus. He told us that he doesn’t know Jesus and that he doesn’t want Jesus.” And with that simple observation, the Pirahãs signaled that Everett’s recordings of Bible readings “would have little or no spiritual influence” (p. 269).

Instead of Everett converting these “primitive” Amazonians, they wound up de-converting him. He lost “confidence in the universal appeal of the spiritual message” he was bringing. “The Pirahãs were not in the market for a new worldview. And they could defend their own just fine” (p. 269). He came to greatly admire the Pirahãs, including their hard-headed skepticism:

They were a sovereign people. And they were in effect telling me to peddle my goods elsewhere. They were telling me that my message had no purchase among them. All the doctrines and faith I had held dear were a glaring irrelevancy in this culture. They were superstition to the Pirahãs. And they began to seem more and more like superstition to me. [p. 270]

The “other countries” mostly refers to places where Finns have wound up going for work and have formed congregations, with a few conversions from the surrounding community. Even the Swedish association of Conservative Laestadians, the SFC, is made up primarily of expatriate Finns. There have been some conversions in Estonia, but only a few dozen of the converts remain (Palola 2010).

I remember being fascinated along with everybody else in church by the stories about African and South American Laestadians. And it was captivating to hear some of the new converts from Togo talking about their newfound faith, as two of them did during a tour of North American congregations. In addition to the novelty of an inward-looking bunch of Finns being exposed to an entirely different culture, there was a genuine feeling of joy at the salvation of souls. The presence of Laestadians in faraway places provided an emotional comfort–certainly not a rational one, given the tiny numbers involved–that God’s call was not quite so provincial and limited as we had thought. And, as Dennis MacDonald notes, conversions to one’s worldview provide a way of proving it correct: “We can’t be wrong if so many believe what we do. Never mind that so many who once found now have lost it” (2003, 114).

It is true, that even the Chinese will learn something of Christianity. But if it is difficult for every one to confess his sins and humble himself to repentance for his sins, yet this is especially difficult for the Chinese. For he is very careful to not “loose [sic.] face.” And the confessing of sins and begging forgiveness, means the loss of honor to the Chinese. And this he dreads more than death. And because of this attitude on the matter of confessing sins, which is so important in true and living Christianity, the work for God’s kingdom is extremely difficult. We have spoken of this matter with our Chinese pastor, but even he does not seem to understand anything about it. Other missionaries here have complained about the same matter. But we still can not leave the work where it seems difficult for the work is the Lord’s. And He is powerful to break down even the hard heart.

Conservative Laestadians turned down the offer for mutual work, but agreed on the importance of mission work and remained waiting for the time when God would provide opportunity for their own mission work. This position was held in spite of accusations and criticism. God’s time came thirty years later. [Uljas 2000, 117]

The movement was so allergic to either change or outreach that most of the sermons in the United States were delivered in Finnish until the 1960s. There was a hide-bound tradition of retaining what had become almost a sacred language in this second- and third-generation immigrant community. When the youth finally started learning English as their first language, that tradition was, for about a decade, more important than ensuring that those young people were able to fully understand what was being said in their parents’ own churches. In that environment, the problem of outsiders failing to adequately comprehend “the call to the Kingdom” could not have been the subject of much concern.

† “The gift of faith should be offered to all. It cannot be given if it is not offered. We should preach the word in season and out of season” (VOZ, 11/2004).

If you believe that your contact with someone at your workplace, school, gym, barbershop, etc. is likely to be the only means by which God offers him or her the gift of eternal life, of avoiding perpetual, unimaginable torment in hell, one would think that you would indeed feel compelled to “preach the word in season and out of season,” using every opportunity to convince that person to accept this incredibly valuable offer. Yet how much does this actually happen? How many worldly acquaintances are even invited to services?

Let me be blunt: You certainly wouldn’t hesitate to interrupt some activity or risk being considered rude if you thought your worldly acquaintance was just about to eat some food tainted with E. coli, or even had an untied shoelace. So what does your reluctance to “offer the gift of faith” say about your belief that you are indeed the only means by which such a priceless gift can be offered? A certain quote, repeated in various forms and difficult to attribute, comes to mind: “Don’t tell me what you believe. Show me what you do, and I’ll tell you what you believe.”

The responsibility is evaded by appealing to God’s sovereignty:

† “Man cannot approach God or come to the Lord Jesus unless God calls him. . . . One cannot be self-invited. Through God’s kingdom the message of salvation is made known through the preaching and teaching of pardoned sinners. . . . The invitation to come into God’s kingdom is still being made through His servants around the world. The search continues for those individuals who seek a gracious God. ‘Yet there is room’ in God’s house for the sin weary, the conscience stricken, and those who labor under sin burdens. One day, however, the invitation will end. Enough guests will have been found to fill God’s house” (VOZ, 6/2005).

What about all the sincere prayers for salvation that are said by people who have no clue about any of this? You must feel a need to depart from the spiritual (or atheist) worldview that you inherited from your parents, something never done by the vast majority of people in the thousands of varieties of religion and culture around the world. Somehow, that dissatisfaction must lead you to pray for an encounter whose nature is entirely foreign to your current beliefs, with a person from a tiny sect you’ve never heard of. Then, that encounter must convince you–which it almost never does–that you need to renounce your previous self as a damned sinner and accept the “words of grace and forgiveness” along with the requirement for membership in this sect. This is how God carries out his desire for all men to be saved?

The evidence of conversion existed in the various and immediate physical and emotional expressions of the converted. Fast conversions, accompanied with vivid evidence, led to an emotionally charged form of religiosity with almost no intellectual or deep theological content.

—Calvin Mercer, Slaves to Faith

† “By faith we understand that true repentance contains three interrelated parts. First is sorrow over sin, the second is forgiveness for sins or absolution, and the third is a change of heart and mind, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘amendment of life.’ The depth of the feelings of sorrow is not the basis for repentance. It is sufficient to know that one is a sinner and is in need of God’s grace in order to be saved. In true repentance, righteousness or amendment of life is the result of the righteousness of faith. It does not precede the righteousness that comes by faith.”

The article downplays the importance of feelings of sorrow, but Laestadius greatly emphasized the need for sorrow over sin. Indeed one of his favorite terms for unbelievers was “the sorrowless.” For them to convert, a “great change must come . . . not only that they must first walk in hell and be in tribulation of conscience as was David, but they must cry from the depths unto the heights even as David has cried” (Fourth Rogation Day sermon [1856]; Fourth Postilla, 227).

It’s understandable that there might be a difference in emphasis about personal feelings associated with conversion. Claims about “unchanging faith” aside, there is a vast difference between the deep and fiery Pietism of Laestadius’s time and the subdued Christianity of current-day Conservative Laestadianism. And Luther was a bit confused about the role of human emotion–specifically the sense of humility–in his early writings, with contradictory statements about whether humility preceded or followed conversion (Harran 1983, 57-59).

† “Jesus told Saul to go into the city and it would be told to him what he must do. Saul needed to be led into Damascus, as he had lost his sight. God then sent a believing man, Ananias, to Saul. Ananias laid his hands on Saul and preached the gospel, and Saul was immediately filled with the Holy Ghost and received his sight. Not only did Saul receive his physical sight, but he also received spiritual sight” (VOZ, 1/2009).

† “If Thomas abides alone and seeks Christ in solitude, will Christ come to seek him there? I think, Thomas, that you must first come to the Christians’ meetings before Christ will come to show His wounds. You will not, in any case, become a partaker of the grace of resurrection before you come into the congregation. No matter how you would read the Book in solitude and keep prayers at home, you will surely not become a Christian there. But come first to the Christian meetings and seek first the congregation before you will find Christ” (Laestadius, Fourth Sunday after Easter sermon, 1859).

† “[W]here God is given to begin His work, to effect awakening, there sin begins to cause grief and trouble. The love and enjoyment of sin ceases. And the only question comes up[, ‘]What must I do that I might be saved? God, help, I perish!’. . . In [the] awakened state, man is helpless. It is not God’s intention to only awaken man, and then let him wait [for] what God does in heaven. No, but God is near to the awakened, is near in the word of the gospel. To the awakened the gospel brings the very heart of God, the love which He has shown when He gave His only son, the Lord Jesus, to repair the poor matters of the prodigal son, who had lost everything. . . . The consoling sweet word of the gospel releases the awakened soul from his feeling of worthlessness and leads him to behold the Sacrifice and to see the Father’s heart and the precious redemption-blood of the Lamb, how it is sprinkled in the gospel word. And what wonderful power there is in the sprinkling of the blood to the distressed sinner. It cleanses the soul, heals the wounds and brings about the miracle of life, which is called the new birth. The awakened soul experiences the great miracle of forgiveness, and God testifies to it by pouring the Holy Ghost into the heart.”

There’s never been any change in the position that conversion occurs by personal absolution and nothing else:

† “The fires of living faith can kindle only where recipients of the Holy Ghost, God’s own, have preached to a penitent sinner, by the command of Christ, all sins forgiven in His name and atonement blood.” Jesus did not forgive Saul’s “sins straight from heaven, even though He spoke to the man” because “the authority to forgive sins was already left upon the earth and God would not change His grace-order even toward the highly learned Saul. God surely took care of his matters and sent an ambassador of His kingdom to the blind and praying man, and by his proclaimed gospel the scales fell from the eyes of Saul and he regained his sight and was filled with the Holy Ghost” (Taskila 1961, 19-20).

† “True repentance is not possible without God’s kingdom and its preaching of remission coming from hearing distance” (Uljas 2000, 47).

Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happens to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one. . . . The religion we adopt is a matter of an accident of geography. [from Loftus 2008, loc. 1070-75]

According to Schimmel, most people acquire their religious beliefs “through a process of socialization that begins at birth, in one’s family and in the religious community into which one is born. The individual embodies the ideas, beliefs, values, sights, sounds, touches, and fragrances of the religion, and one practices its rituals for many years, long before he has sufficient cognitive ability to think about them critically” (2008, 168).

† “God showed his mercy to me. And led by two men, I sat down at the end of a table where they were just finishing their meal. And when the gospel was preached to me, the forgiveness of sins in the name and blood of Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit, a weight was lifted off of me like a ton rock. I shall never forget that moment.”

My grandmother Sophia Suominen had a conversion experience of her own, probably sometime around 1910. She recalls it in an article in the January 1968 Greetings of Peace:

† “I spent my childhood and the days of my youth in an environment where there was spiritual darkness. They were two of us schoolgirls who had an inward restlessness, and a longing to find peace for our souls, and the hope of salvation, but we didn’t know how. We went to the pastor and asked his advice; it was evening, and the shades of night were falling. The pastor was reclining on the sofa, when we came into the parsonage. When we said we wanted to talk with him, he received us very cordially. We related to him of our inward restlessness, and a longing to find peace for our souls, and the hope of salvation. Not knowing where these feelings came about, he asked a few questions, and together with us read the Lord’s Prayer, and that was all. We returned to our homes just as empty as when we left, and just as forlorn with our burdened conscience. We then began to partake of sinful pleasures, but even that was difficult to do with our awakened conscience. Then at 19 years of age, I came to America [from Finland], and God miraculously brought me into contact with His children. It was through them that I found what my soul was longing for. They preached the forgiveness of sins to me, and how blessed I was, then, and am still blessed now, even though in myself I have not become any better. Even yet all I have is through His grace, and I need to be blest again and again by the children of God.”

Another example was given by Hannes Kamula in a 1978 sermon:

† “I remember that marvelous day in my life when I stood before this mercy seat. One child of God was the spokesman there. I knew that the Lord Jesus was speaking through his mouth and for that reason I pledged on the knees of my heart before this altar to hear what is said unto a big sinner. And what did he say? ‘Your sins are forgiven unto you in Jesus’ name and blood for the peace and freedom of your soul.’”

In a “Personal Experiences” article in the October 2000 Voice of Zion, a convert from Catholicism wrote a detailed account of his conversion experience. He said he had distress of conscience already in his youth, when he would receive absolution from a priest and feel better,

† “but only for a little while. Shortly after doing my penance, my conscience would again start pointing out things until I felt I needed absolution every minute of the day.” He wrote of despairing of ever reaching heaven and knowing that the works of his hands would never earn him salvation. Then he “met a believer. After visiting some time, this believer made a comment that struck a chord within me. She told me, ‘I wish I could tell you how I believe.’ I asked her to tell me and in the next couple of weeks, she proceeded, along with other believers, to explain living faith.” After overcoming two remaining issues he found hard to accept–the thought that it was “belittling to God that even a child could be God’s mouthpiece in speaking the words of absolution” and how much his conversion would hurt his father–the “grace fountain flowed and I was reassured that I was now in living faith, that my unbelief and all my sins from that unbelief were forgiven in the name and blood of Jesus. The understanding of a child of God came quietly over the next few days. Many things that I used to think, say, and do, I no longer wanted. I had found a treasure in a field–living faith in God’s kingdom.”

The emotional impact of these conversion experiences is undeniable, but before allowing them to draw us to any conclusions about the unique validity of Conservative Laestadianism, we should consider how widespread and profound such experiences are in the religious realm generally. Consider the following testimonials, all by different people in different religious settings, from The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James:

I halted but a moment, and then, with a breaking heart, I said, “Dear Jesus, can you help me?” Never with mortal tongue can I describe that moment. Although up to that moment my soul had been filled with indescribable gloom, I felt the glorious brightness of the noonday sun shine into my heart. I felt I was a free man. Oh, the precious feeling of safety, of freedom, of resting on Jesus! I felt that Christ with all his brightness and power had come into my life; that, indeed, old things had passed away and all things had become new. [Lecture 9]

I felt myself in a new world, and everything about me appeared with a different aspect from what it was wont to do. At this time, the way of salvation opened to me with such infinite wisdom, suitableness, and excellency, that I wondered I should ever think of any other way of salvation; was amazed that I had not dropped my own contrivances, and complied with this lovely, blessed, and excellent way before. If I could have been saved by my own duties or any other way that I had formerly contrived, my whole soul would now have refused it. I wondered that all the world did not see and comply with this way of salvation, entirely by the righteousness of Christ. [Lecture 9]

At that instant of time when I gave all up to him to do with me as he pleased, and was willing that God should rule over me at his pleasure, redeeming love broke into my soul with repeated scriptures, with such power that my whole soul seemed to be melted down with love, the burden of guilt and condemnation was gone, darkness was expelled, my heart humbled and filled with gratitude, and my whole soul, that was a few minutes ago groaning under mountains of death, and crying to an unknown God for help, was now filled with immortal love, soaring on the wings of faith, freed from the chains of death and darkness, and crying out, My Lord and my God; thou art my rock and my fortress, my shield and my high tower, my life, my joy, my present and my everlasting portion. [Lecture 10]

I felt something solemn and sacred within me which made me ask for a priest. I was led to one; and there alone, after he had given me the positive order, I spoke as best I could, kneeling, and with my heart still trembling. I could give no account to myself of the truth of which I had acquired a knowledge and a faith. All that I can say is that in an instant the bandage had fallen from my eyes, and not one bandage only, but the whole manifold of bandages in which I had been brought up. One after another they rapidly disappeared, even as the mud and ice disappear under the rays of the burning sun. I came out as from a sepulchre, from an abyss of darkness; and I was living, perfectly living. [Lecture 10]

So I made one final struggle to call on God for mercy, with the same choking and strangling, determined to finish the sentence of prayer for Mercy, if I did strangle and die, and the last I remember that time was falling back on the ground with the same unseen hand on my throat. I don’t know how long I lay there or what was going on. None of my folks were present. When I came to myself, there were a crowd around me praising God. The very heavens seemed to open and pour down rays of light and glory. Not for a moment only, but all day and night, floods of light and glory seemed to pour through my soul, and oh, how I was changed, and everything became new. [Lecture 10]

I had attended a series of revival services for about two weeks off and on. Had been invited to the altar several times, all the time becoming more deeply impressed, when finally I decided I must do this, or I should be lost. Realization of conversion was very vivid, like a ton’s weight being lifted from my heart; a strange light which seemed to light up the whole room (for it was dark); a conscious supreme bliss which caused me to repeat “Glory to God” for a long time. [Lecture 10]

If there is a heavenly idea in the Catholic Church, looking at it simply as an idea–surely, next after the Blessed Sacrament, confession is such. . . . Oh, what a soothing charm is there which the world can neither give nor take away! Oh, what piercing heart-subduing tranquility, provoking tears of joy, is poured almost substantially and physically upon the soul–the oil of gladness, as Scripture calls it–when the penitent at length rises, his God reconciled to him, his sins rolled away forever! [from Capel 1884, 40]

The highly authoritarian individual is submissive to authority, aggressive towards out-groups, and holds tight to conventional values and norms of behaviour. Psychometric measures of authoritarianism are found to be highly correlated with measures of religious fundamentalism.

—Peter Herriot, Religious Fundamentalism

† “What then is the reason, why so many salvation seekers, do not accept the Kingdom of Heaven? The reason is, because he does not desire to lower himself to become a child, to forsake his own wisdom, and to become foolish before God and His Kingdom. He does not want to forsake his own righteousness, and become naked. And the gate is so narrow, that one cannot enter it as rich and great into the Kingdom of Heaven. Into this Kingdom one does not enter as great, and as a wise adviser, but as a small child, who is in need of aid and advice” (Leonard Typpö [1868-1922], from Greetings of Peace, 9/1956).

† “Different mindedness scatters the flock, but unity strengthens. Godly love builds up. Therefore harmony and unity in this wearisome land is strength, namely, when by faith we are struggling in united love against evil” (Matti Suo, Siionin Lähetyslehti [1923], from Kulla 1993, 151-52).

† “God’s grace-work has been great and wonderful in our behalf, but we have been disobedient children. We have rewarded the Heavenly Father’s patience and mercy with our unthankfulness and disobedience. We cannot boastfully expand our chest above others. With reluctance we must admit contrary to our proud nature that, ‘I am the greatest of the world’s sinners’” (Havas [1938], 72).

† “Certainly, we would not willfully be in contempt of the Spirit and love of the Christians, for again our humble prayer to God in all meekness is that His will be done and not our own. In no way would we want to hinder the work of God in His church or cause the Holy Spirit in us or in the hearts of other Christians to be grieved” (Alajoki [1970], 173-74).

† “But if the trumpet has a foreign sound, that is of the flesh. Brothers and sisters, it’s time for the congregation and its saints to take heed. And that is exactly what has happened, and let it continue in this way. We are told to hear what the spirit has to say unto the congregation. And that spirit does not lie. It’s God speaking, that is his mouth. We can believe this” (Peter Nordstrom, sermon given 1972).

† “We do not live like the world lives or participate in ungodly activities. If we strive to remain in faith and to keep a good conscience, we try to be obedient to the word of God. Even if we do not always understand the reason why something is preached as sin, we still strive to live in obedience. The word of God and the voice of the Holy Spirit in the congregation are above our consciences. God’s word is correct even then when it testifies other than what our consciences tell us” (VOZ, 11/1974).

the questioner is all too often told that he or she is to accept whatever the Society teaches and is not to “reason” about it, but must blindly and dogmatically fully accept whatever is taught. The individual’s reason, they stress, is “human reasoning,” but the Watchtower’s reasoning is “God’s reasoning.” If one does not blindly accept all that is taught–however foolish–often their spirituality is impugned, even for sincere and honest questions. One then learns that questions are not to be voiced. [Wilson 2002, 293]

† “discern that the Bridegroom of their soul, through His own disciples, has come to care for the fallen. The love of God constrains the believers to urge, that, make repentance dear brother or sister, of that error. The reproached have no thought even, that the power of the Lord is in those people. They just want to claim that such and such pointing out as being sin is the decision of only a certain few babbling old men. To anyone in that sort of condition there is a danger of becoming a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit. That is sin which is not forgiven in this or the coming life, since the grace of repentance does not come to one who has blasphemed the Spirit of Grace. The eyes are once and for all blinded from seeing that man without the Holy Spirit in the ‘old portion’ is altogether wretched and miserable, poor, blind and naked [Rev 3:17]. Such a man’s lot is truly among the hypocrites. The door is closed. The Lord no longer knows him as His own” (VOZ, 6/1979).

† “[M]uch evil has resulted when believers–preachers or others–have become puffed up in themselves and have begun to seek carnally a state of preeminence in the Kingdom, in the congregation” (Peter Nevala, sermon given 1981).

Preachers and elders do not accumulate any of the outward trappings of privilege and power that so many leaders of religious movements seem to covet. But in the mind of some at least, it was

† “very important for all of us to show obedience, respect and honor to the servants that God has chosen to serve in the administration of the house and church of God [1 Tim 3:15, Heb 13:17-18 cited]. If someone in the living church of God rises against the teachings, instruction and decisions of the Holy Spirit that God has spoken in the church through the mouths of His children, then that person has fallen into disobedience in his life of faith to the word and spirit of God” (Elmer Alajoki, presentation given 1995).

For the most part, the emphasis was and remains on obedience to the congregation rather than elders or preachers. For example, regarding the Internet, video, and video games,

† “We want to journey in obedience to God’s Word. If we have a different understanding of these issues than another family, we need to ask ourselves if we understand this matter as the Holy Spirit teaches in God’s congregation. There are not two different understandings of matters in God’s kingdom” (VOZ, 12/2005).

† “Someone may think that some matter is not sin to him, since his own conscience does not consider it wrong. Where, then, can the love between believers be seen?” (VOZ, 3/2006)

† “Through faith we understand to abandon individual understanding and reason when it does not agree with the Holy Spirit in God’s kingdom. In God’s kingdom we have one understanding and one spirit as it must be in the living congregation of God” (VOZ, 8/2007).

The theological education of my fellow nobodies who sat across the table from me at that board meeting consists largely of a lifetime of church indoctrination and dogmatically blinkered, selective Bible reading. Armed with that and a reluctant perusal of a book they wanted to ban, they casually passed judgment on the single most prominent member of “God’s Kingdom” in post-medieval history, the doctor of theology at Wittenberg whose writings encompass over a hundred volumes. Sorry, but it strikes me as laughable arrogance. I criticize Luther, too. But I don’t claim to have the true doctrine that Luther sadly failed to comprehend in significant respects while somehow maintaining that he was still a chosen leader of the church out of the darkness of 16th century Catholicism.

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

—The First Epistle to the Corinthians

† “In interpreting the word, preachers and Christianity have usually sat behind a table. One has read the text and the other has spoken of that text, as the Lord has seen expedient to reveal at that time to the hearers as well as to the preacher himself. The main principle in proclaiming the word, is this, that every preacher speak the pure word of God; that is, solidly stay in the Bible. He who speaketh, let him speak the words of God! In this portion, the servants of the Congregation of Christ have always had humble timidity. They have not dared to open the mouth to preach without the Holy Scripture” (Havas [1933], 35).

I remember being somewhat awestruck in my youth at how the preachers could just go up to the pulpit and start talking without any notes. It was often touted as evidence that the Holy Spirit was working in them. (In the last decade or so, however, they have been encouraged to do some study and mental preparation beforehand.) The problem is that other preachers who supposedly lack the Holy Spirit do the same thing, with the same claim:

In some mountain churches not only was education regarded with disdain, but also the practice of the preacher was not to prepare his sermons. Instead, he stepped up to the pulpit, opened the Bible, read aloud whatever passage his eyes landed on, and preached from that text, relying on the Holy Spirit to tell him what to say. [Teeple 2003, 352]

[S]ermons aren’t supposed to be “prepared” or eloquent. They are supposed to be spoken by the Spirit on the spot. At least that is what the older workers used to claim. [Lewis 2004, 259-60]

† “Always the goal in the work of the Lord is the glory of God, the salvation of the souls of men and building the Congregation of Christ. From all effectiveness of the word, the Lord alone receives praise. It is sickening to hear someone of us preachers, as if boasting, relate of large crowds of listeners who have come to his services; tens of converts whom he has blessed; and songs of praise which that in that minister has given of his sermons, etc.” (Havas [1933], 36).

† The usual custom is “that no congregation puts to preach such a one who especially desires this responsible office” (Havas [1939], 42).

† It “is always most necessary, in the matter of feeding the sheep, that the shepherd has a feeling of his own sinfulness. ‘Good’ shepherds, those who themselves never feel that they have also stumbled neither in doctrine or life, but who boast of their good Christianity, such shepherds do not feed the sheep. They preach more of their own selves than of Jesus Christ. . . . But the poor shepherds, who together with the sheep weep over their own sinfulness, are themselves hungry and gladly lead the sheep, faulty and sinful, even those who are in need of special guidance, to the green pasture, where the good-speaking blood drops of Jesus feed the hungry soul with the forgiveness of all sins” (Arvi Hintsala, Greetings of Peace, 11/1949).

† “There is yet a certain danger of the sin of pride of which we should be reminded. It is the swelling of the heart by pride over spiritual gifts. God grant that He would protect the workers of Zion from this sin, for it can bring about much offense” (Reinikainen 1969, 50).

Jon Bloomquist, who has been entrusted with positions of considerable trust and prominence in the LLC for most of his life, put the matter into memorable words that I haven’t forgotten in the more than ten years since hearing them: God’s Kingdom is not a forum for the fulfillment of personal ambition. Luther would have agreed: “Ambition is the rankest poison to the church, when it possesses preachers. It is a consuming fire” (Table Talk §414).

† “Every Christian, whether man or woman, who is a partaker of the Holy Spirit, is this kind of a royal priest who can proclaim the gospel, absolution from sin in Jesus’ name and atonement blood [John 20:21-23]. . . . Although every Christian, in this sense, is a priest, yet God has especially called and installed specific persons to perform the preaching office in His congregation” (Päivämies No. 42, 1978).

† The congregation’s board discusses a potential new preacher when the brother “is not present. When the board unanimously discerns the matter to be so, that he can be recommended to the congregation, then the matter can be presented to the congregation . . . It has always been considered embarrassing and strange in the kingdom of God if some have much eagerness to be preaching. It is often so, that it is with difficult persuasion and much encouragement with God’s Word, that the one who is weak in himself has been escorted to the place of speaking” (Päivämies No. 42, 1978).

† “We hope that there would always be a feeling of poorness and also the mind of a child so that one would only, as a weak servant, serve the Lord Jesus, that there would truly be this purpose, the feeding and tending of the Lord’s Zion, the children of God” (Alajoki [1983], 134).

The desire for a sense of reluctance and humility on the part of the selected preacher is consistent with Luther’s teaching that, “When the Christian is in a place where there are Christians, who have the same power and right as he, he should not thrust himself forward, but should rather let himself be called and drawn forth to preach and teach in the stead and by the commission of the rest” (Right and Power of a Christian Congregation [1523]; PE 4, 80-81). “God very wonderfully entrusts his highest office to preachers that are themselves poor sinners who, while teaching it, very weakly follow it” (Table Talk §73). I also find it a refreshing contrast with the naked ambition shown by so many Evangelical preachers of prominence today, and well in accord with Paul’s own sentiment expressed in 1 Cor 2:1-2 and quoted in the epigraph to this section.

† “It is marvelous when in openness and unity of Spirit the matter of calling servants [preachers] is pondered in the congregation among its members and board of trustees with prayerful hearts that God’s will would be done” (VOZ, 9/2009).

Unlike non-Amish ministers, who choose their calling, most Amish men–at least the Amish men I know best–hope beyond hope they will not be called, that the lot will not fall on them. If it does, the minister is a minister for life. The job comes without pay but with many responsibilities, serious ones. All the preparation that goes into the position is done on top of farming and family. The last thing Samuel wanted was to become minister, but he was chosen, so he has to serve. [2007, 115]