Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I have been reflecting on what took place this week. On one hand I am very thankful to the Lord for this opportunity, ever since I learned of this event I have wanted to talk to Ed about it. I feel I was able to release my burden and that is something that makes me feel much better.
Thinking about Ed I feel he was ashamed about this incident. I don't want to speak for him but that was the sense that I came away with, he did express shame over this. That to me is encouraging because it tells me that his conscience is actively convicting him. I don't know what to think about the "he doesn't want to deal with this now" and questions about whether I was going to bring this up during the meeting. It seems like fear, but again, I don't want to assume too much.
|
If anything, I think it's easier to put ourselves in Ed's shoes from the perspective of the present. IF I were Ed, I would be ashamed of my past actions. If that is the case with him, then he has a difficult decision to make. No matter how sheepish or ashamed he feels about what he did, I'm sure he must realize that admitting his mistake in a forthright matter would make him a target. It could destroy his credibility with LC members and put him at odds with his blended peers. So that part I completely understand. It's not by any means an easy position to be in.
Perhaps the biggest mistake Ed made in signing the apology letter, is not his reasons for doing so, but his not considering that they would need to answer to their decision at a later point in time. Now, 30 years later, when Ed is confronted, he doesn't know what to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
What was most disturbing to me was the entire attitude of "how dare you talk to Ed". Ed is not someone of diminished capacity or mentally unstable or going through a great deal of grief at this moment. I could understand if Ed was mourning the loss of a very close relative and the meeting was a memorial service. I could also understand if Ed had been committed to a mental health facility for years and had just been released. In those cases I could understand the outrage as a lack of empathy and the appearance of trying to take advantage of someone at a moment of extreme weakness. But Ed is an Elder of a respected church and has been in that position for 30 years. I am pretty sure he can handle a one on one conversation with me. The actions of Dennis were very clearly in accordance with the wishes of the elders of the church in NY. This was the most cultic action I have ever seen done by this particular church. If I, a person who knew Ed back in 1978-1981, a person who like Ed also was a trainer in the Full Time Training (I in Taipei, Ed in Anaheim), a person who has a close personal relationship with him (so much so that he gave me his car), if I cannot "talk to Ed", then any pretense to fellowship in that church is just that, a pretense.
|
2 Cor 4:5
For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.
What I find striking are the implications of how this brother Dennis acted. The church in NYC hosted a visit from Ed. As a brother who travels around and ministers in different LC's, those who host Ed should take Paul's word in 2 Cor 4:5, and view Ed as "
your servant" instead of someone who needs bodyguard protection. He's not the president for crying out loud. There is no reason that anyone there couldn't talk to him.
The whole situation with being told that you shouldn't talk to Ed is bizarre and really shows just how twisted the LC has become. Why does an elder need to sit around and supervise who talks to who? I can say that I've seen the same type of thing happen before. I remember this one time I was having a conversation with someone about drums and an elder came and changed the subject (because drums are "worldly". Apparently, freedom of speech doesn't apply in LC meetings, even though LC meetings are often called "open meetings". If nothing else, Ed is completely capable of deciding who he wants to talk to.