[Vision2020] RE: Commissioner Paul Kimmell (In Re: Oversight by

[I Feel the Earth Move Under My Feet]

Come now, Mr. Enerbretson.

Christ Church . . . " . . . a church that actually holds people to their 
convictions"??????????????????????????????????????????????????

A church providing solitude in times of strife and resolution for past sins is 
appropriate, certainly not fiscal guidance to member(s) of the County Board of 
Equalizaiton.

Huh?

Earth to Mr. Engerbretson.  Come in, Mr. Engerbretson.

Houston, we have aproblem.

Take care,

Tom Hansen

> Dear Tom, Rose, et al,
> 
> I'd like to put in my 2 cents on this issue. After reading it, you may
> 
> decide it was 2 lira worth, but
> I'll take that chance.
> 
> Now, I don't know the context from which the offending statement--“Doug
> 
> Wilson reported that Paul Kimmell, in his role as County Commissioner,
> 
> is open to oversight from the elders on certain issues.”  in the 
> minutes was *taken*. I am sure
> the full context would alleviate a bit of the concern. But that is not
> 
> my point.
> 
> My point is that I'm not sure that you all understand the way churches
> 
> were designed to work, and what the point of being a member of a church
> 
> is.  I am pretty sure that you wouldn't want for County Commissioner 
> the kind of man who would join a church and then not consider oversight
> 
> from its elders. That man would be either very confused about what it 
> means to join an organization, or he would have an extremely flexible 
> morality.  If you want an easily confused, amoral man to be your County
> 
> Commissioner, go ahead and vote for one-- but I don't think you do.
> 
> Now, if it was true that every other person in your city and county 
> government was completely and absolutely neutral on every issue, and 
> had no opinions or philosophical leanings, and Paul K. was the only 
> "religious" one, then I would think you had a good point.  But the fact
> 
> is, that kind of disinterested, altruistic neutrality does not exist in
> 
> the form of anyone in your government.
> 
> Do any of your other city/county officials happen to be members of a 
> church?   When someone joins the average Christian church what he is 
> saying is that he respects the leaders of that church enough that he 
> wants to regularly listen to their teaching, and that he will accept 
> the advice, oversight, and authority of those elders/pastors concerning
> 
> his sin, should he fall into sin that needs to be corrected.  Almost no
> 
> one in a church agrees with every single word that is preached, or 
> every single precise interpretation of scripture that is laid out.  He
> 
> says "this is a place that I respect and I will listen to these people
> 
> and worship with them as long as what they are saying is in line with 
> what the Bible says".  The church member will not go against his 
> conscience to do something commanded him by the church leaders-- if he
> 
> was "commanded" to do anything, he would say "this is seeming like a 
> cult" and would leave the church.
> 
> Paul K. is a man of conviction and a man of integrity who absolutely 
> will not bow to pressure from anyone to do anything that he thinks is 
> not right.  He has a clearly defined morality, and he will vote in 
> accordance with it.  It may not be a morality or interpretation of 
> equality that you agree with, but that does not make him unfit for 
> office.  By being a member of Christ Church, he has simply said that he
> 
> is "open" to the oversight of the elders. That is what everyone who 
> joins a Christian church is in effect saying.  He is saying "hold me 
> accountable to the morals of the Bible, hold me to my convictions".  He
> 
> will be open to the advice/admonishment of the elders, and will search
> 
> his conscience concerning any oversight they give him.  If what they 
> are saying is simply a reminder to him to hold to his Biblical 
> convictions, he will say "thanks for the reminder", and vote his 
> convictions. If he felt that his elders/pastors were asking him to do 
> something that was questionable ethically or morally, he would say 
> "sorry guys" and quit the church-- and continue to vote his conscience.
> 
>   Christ Church would only provide "oversight" to Paul K. if he was 
> voting for something that the church considered sinful or against God.
> 
> They would tell him "you are being a double-minded man-- knock it off".
> 
>   If he continued to "say" he believed one thing and vote the opposite,
> 
> the church would say "you are persisting in being a man of no 
> integrity, please leave our church"-- "we will pray that God causes you
> 
> to repent and live in accordance with your convictions, and that day we
> 
> will welcome you back".  This is the way Biblical churches work.
> 
> This is very little different from the situation any other church-going
> 
> member of your government has placed him/herself in. Now, there may be
> 
> church-going politicians who go to churches whose leaders would never 
> dream of admonishing a member who was walking in a persistent sin. 
> Whose church leaders wouldn't dream of telling them if they were voting
> 
> the opposite of the convictions they claimed when they became church 
> members.  There are many churches that are little more than social 
> clubs and who do little to convince their members to do anything other
> 
> than feel good about themselves.  There are other churches who say "God
> 
> was serious when He talked about sin, and it is our job to hold you 
> accountable when you are caught sinning or voting for sin."
> 
> **What kind of person do you want for County Commissioner??  One who 
> doesn't have enough convictions to join a church? Or one who after 
> joining a church, and making a statement of faith, would then vote the
> 
> opposite of what he said his convictions were?  Do you want a city 
> government with absolutely no church goers?  Or only wishy-washy people
> 
> who go to impotent churches?  But wait, non-church goers have opinions
> 
> and worldviews, too... and they, too, are "open to oversight" from 
> people they look up to. So who can we vote for??!  Please don't pretend
> 
> that there are unbiased people out there.
> 
> Do you want a city government with only people who share the exact 
> opinions you do? Yes-- we all do.  So we vote for them.  But I thought
> 
> that the city government was supposed to represent the people...  so we
> 
> have to have some church-goers in the government.  What we need are 
> people who have convictions, but who understand the ethics of office. 
> 
> People who will vote their convictions, but will compromise when 
> necessary and not step over the bounds of propriety in pursuing the 
> kind of society they long for.  We need people who if they are 
> church-goers will keep one eye on their elders, and one eye on the 
> Bible.
> 
> I believe our current city and county government is filled with just 
> such people. And Paul Kimmel is one of them.
> 
> If Paul Kimmel is not your kind of man, then come up with a better 
> person, hype the heck out of them, and
> vote for them.  If Paul Kimmel did something unethical, then prove it,
> 
> and vote him out.
> 
> But please don't pretend that because Paul goes to a church that 
> actually holds people to their convictions that he is therefore unfit 
> for office.  Everyone is biased, and everyone votes accordingly-- 
> welcome to democracy. Welcome to diversity.
> 
> Can we give it a rest? Maybe find a hobby?
> 
> 
> Eric E.
> 
> 



---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.net/