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.
|
Having had the preexisting relationship, why couldn't you talk to Ed, but that's besides the point. A brother of his responsibility in LSM and among the local churches considering the number of conferences Ed speaks at, he should be accessible to questions, criticism, or commendation.
Instead Dennis' reaction to our unregistered poster is that one of Ed should have a phalanx of responsible brothers to shield Ed.
It's as if blended brothers are above subjection to direct critical questions. There's willingness to be a "responsible brother", but not wanting all that goes with it.