Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Announcing a Change and a Reiteration.

Expand Messages
  • Tim Cunningham
    Dear Gerry May I suggest that you need to more carefully express your prohibition of bashing the wounded with respect to two points. First, may I suggest that
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 11, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Gerry

      May I suggest that you need to more carefully express your
      prohibition of bashing the wounded with respect to two points.

      First, may I suggest that you make it clear that you are not
      forbidding discussion of any historical, logical and exegetical
      errors in the arguments of those involved in the Effort or the
      circumstances that led up to it. Rather, you are only prohibiting
      character assassination (i.e. charges of sinful behaviour and
      attitudes on the part of the excommunicated that do not meet the
      biblical standards of proof).

      (And to be fair to both sides, I would also plead with those involved
      in the Effort that they be even more careful to restrict themselves
      to discussing any historical, logical and exegetical errors in the
      arguments of the Elders or those following them).

      Second, I think you, Gerry, have to make clear that if one poster
      (Walt Bre?) responds to your challenge to make good his claim that at
      least one of the X'd was lying, it should be, IMO, examined and if he
      can demonstrate that the accused individual did lie, that post should
      be allowed through. Although you are convinced that the elders have
      fallen into the Satanic snare of tyranny, you cannot be blind to the
      possibility that some on the other side may have also fallen into
      sinful behaviours in response.

      Grieving and praying for all in this mess.

      Tim Cunningham

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
      <ragingcalvinist@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Dear Julian,
      >
      > > Do you
      > > mean to say that there may be "bashing and badgering" of those
      who
      > > believe in the lawfulness of the Session of the RPNA (GM), and
      the
      > > lawfulness of the oath imposed on these people, for which
      refusing
      > > to take they were excommunicated?
      >
      > I would prefer there be no bashing by either side of this
      controversy.
      > It's gets sickening after a while. But I'm going to say something
      > right now that you may not understand given your position...
      >
      > When someone is abused, and hurt, and has been rocked, they tend to
      > say and do things that stem from their pain. Sometimes those things
      > are not nice things. This is not to justify those words or actions,
      > it's just saying how things tend to go. Many of the ex'd are in
      this
      > category. I intend to treat them with some degree of liberality,
      > giving them time and space to grieve and express their hurt.
      >
      > Will it sometimes sound like bashing to those who abused them and
      > support those who abused them? Maybe, maybe not. I would hope not.
      >
      > > Second, I would also know precisely what you mean by "bashing and
      > > badgering."
      >
      > I'm not going to take any time to explain what is meant by what I
      > said. It seems to me that any reasonable person who has been
      > observing some of the stuff going on here can figure that out for
      > themselves.
      >
      > "Stop punching that guy in the face!"
      >
      > "Ok, can you define 'punch'?"
      >
      > > Third, you seem to take it for granted that these people were
      > > unlawfully excommunicated, and that the Session of the RPNA (GM),
      > > is, for whatever reasons, unlawful.
      >
      > If by "take it for granted" you mean I've concluded, after looking
      at
      > the information available, that two elders in one country, and one
      > elder in another country, have acted high-handedly, unscripturally,
      > and unreasonably, and that they do not constitute a true session,
      then
      > ok, yes.
      >
      > > I ask whether this means that
      > > those who are of the opposing opinion are not tolerated here.
      >
      > Sure, so long as they lay off the wounded sheep. For example, the
      > post I got today for approval asking the excommunicated what in the
      > world their problem is, is not likely going to see the light of day
      > around here.
      >
      > > But if the forum itself is constituted on a
      > > principle of the "Covenanted Reformation,"
      >
      > From day one.
      >
      > > where this is understood
      > > and applied to mean that the Session of the RPNA (GM) is wrong,
      both
      > > with respect to its constitution and its recent excommunications,
      >
      > I'm saying that it means that those Covenanters, who still hold to
      the
      > principles of the Covenanted Reformation, who still hold to the six
      > Covenanter Terms of Communion, who have been excommunicated because
      of
      > their not being able to swear, in good conscience, an oath that
      > amounts to question begging and entrapment, are welcome here, and
      will
      > be safe here from any more hurtful words or abuse. That's what it
      > means, and that's the way it's going to be.
      >
      > > Answers to these questions should provide sufficient information
      for
      > > me to know whether I ought to leave, or if I could remain without
      > > sin.
      >
      > I'm not saying this to be funny, but have you asked your elders
      about
      > whether or not you may be here? I believe Elder Dohms left the same
      > day I posted the announcement.
      >
      > Merely trying to help the wounded of Christ's flock,
      > gmw.
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.