[Vision2020] Re: oversight=authority?

[Ted Ryan]

Is the post below the email that you want me to respond to?  If so, I see
only one question for me, which I will answer.  I don't think your anology
of walking in on a rape is of the same nature of which we are speaking.
Rape is a crime, in our case no crime has been commited.  You may claim that
you don't agree with what has been "commited", and can vote acordingly,
however, it is not a crime.  But that isn't even the point, why are we
allowing this to continue on the basis of documents obtained falsly?  And
really, what is so damning about oversight?  What do you think people go to
church for?  And if this oversight was a problem, you would think that it
would have manifest itself in Mr. Kimmel's decisions long before now since
this would have occured in '99 and you all are now just questioning this and
only because of the minutes.  It seems if the problem is as grave as you
say, it would have been apparent long before now, wouldn't it?  Why is the
statement on CC's website so important now, did they just post it, or has it
been there for a while?

I have said more then maybe I should on this topic, I originally posted in
order to point out the total lack of respect that has been shown to CC folk.
There has been an unwillingness of those in this forum to read ALL of what
is said in response to their accusations and consider it wisely, not in knee
jerk fasion.  It has not been my intent to sit in as defense for CC, they
are quite capable and qualified.  So for now, I am finished.  Unless of
course, I have still not answered the original question.

I do appreciate the tenor of your responses, they convey respect that has
not been shown to me by many in this forum.

Regards,

Ted Ryan


> Ted R. writes:
>
> "How is anyone here in any kind of position to judge what was meant from
> those church minutes?"
>
> I agree that people should not be snooping around and collecting
information
> on Church meetings. However, we are not debating methods of data
collection,
> we are debating the content of the data. If a person walks into the wrong
> motel room on accident and discovers that a women is being raped, should
> that person turn around and walk away without any action or comment
because
> their entrance was illegal? I think not. Is that person to reserve
judgment
> about rape? I think not.
>
> You are attempting to turn the debate about the content, to the methods of
> data collection, which there is no debate, most, if not all people agree
> that the information was collected improperly. However, that doesn't
forgive
> us from other moral obligations that we all feel we have for our society
and
> fellow humans.
>
> I don't think if the minutes of Christ Church were it would end this
debate
> because it is written in Public Forum on Christ Church's website, which is
> intended for public view.
>
> "Do you swear in the name of God to support the ministry of this church in
> its worship and work, submitting to its government and discipline, while
> pursuing its purity and peace?"
>
> In English, this means members of Christ Church must do what the Elders
tell
> them. Which is what we are debating.
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>