|
Post by stevnz on Jan 31, 2014 1:02:39 GMT -5
[Graham Thompson has said "I have no concerns about it being copied or shared with anyone - it is intended to be 'open' as it says". It was released about 4 November 2011]
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Around convention time in New Zealand last year, serious moves were afoot to cast me out of the Ministry. It was to this end that Alan Richardson requested Graham Snow come from the other side of the world to support him in the action that he had in mind. In the event the intention was not carried through, though Graham Snow did come from Europe for the purpose. This was all planned and carried out (as far as it was) in secret, with absolutely no communication on the subject with me before or since. Rather astoundingly, there was also no discussion of this possibility with my co-worker either.
This will not happen again.
Seeing that the overseers are relying on their own private counsel, it seems evident that they are reacting to my position regarding the errors in their administration system; otherwise they would have discussed the case with my co-worker who would surely be the one most able to furnish comment on other matters, such as difficulties of doctrine, companionship, or field matters (etc). Nothing new at all had been raised in the year prior, however, that could have precipitated such a reaction - they have been made fully aware of my concerns for several years now and chosen to ignore them.
In July 2004, as a result of abuses within the eldership which I could see were working to the detriment of the Fellowship, I was compelled to write to Alan Richardson and Ray Corbett to appeal that something be done about these abuses. I knew that in doing so I was putting my future on the line, but believed that among the overseers there would be some, at least, who would be ready to take a stand for Truth. Sadly, to this day I have found not one. It has been demonstrated that the priority is to save their own skin and uphold their own standing - individually and collectively - and there is scant regard for the principles of Truth or for the welfare of the Fellowship. As a result of experiences, and of long reflection on the Scriptures and the teachings and examples contained therein, I have for some years now had a very strong conviction that the structure of the eldership system in the Ministry, the way it operates, and the attitudes concerning it, are not in line with Christ. These concerns have been communicated very openly to the overseers of the Ministry in New Zealand, Australia, and some in Europe and elsewhere, with observations always accompanied by explanations, evidence, and Scripture as appropriate, but they have mostly met with no response and generally not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. In my letter to Alan and Ray it was specifically noted that if things were allowed to remain as they were and nothing was done about the situation, the end result would have to be that it become an open matter before the Church. It is now more than 7 years since that warning was first sounded and it has been repeated a number of times - there has been ample warning and opportunity to act in a timely and appropriate manner.
In 2007 the following written statement was forwarded to the overseers in New Zealand;
I believe that we have received the Word of Truth, and through it we have Life. I believe that the Gospel we have is true. I believe that the Ministry of which I am a part is the true Ministry, and I believe that the fruit of that ministry in the Word of Truth is the true church.
But I do not believe in the administration manifested presently in the eldership system. I do not believe it is part of the Kingdom, nor part of the Gospel. I do not believe it has any foundation in Scripture – not in the word of the Lord nor in any parallel or precedent that can be found in the Apostles’ traditions. I have no confidence in the uprightness of any of the decisions that are being made. I believe the current administration is nothing more than a hierarchical body which pursues a very dubious agenda and it does so by political processes and without the will to do what pleases God alone.
I have come to the place where I have no allegiance or loyalty to, nor any trust in nor respect for the administration system. In fact, I feel that the only way I can preach the Gospel without making a hypocrite of myself is to denounce the eldership system completely. This is because not only does it not fit in to the standard of Truth in Jesus; it is in fact at enmity with it.
This is a true and fair summary of my position on the matter since that time, and it was not only conveyed in writing to the NZ overseers but reaffirmed in person with them.
In early 2008 the following statement was written to the overseers of the Ministry in the Australian states and New Zealand;
I believe that the sickness in the eldership is the most serious factor affecting the health of the Fellowship today, and that it is also the greatest threat to the future of the Fellowship. In your pride, and blindness of self-delusion, you have given yourselves such a place that you obviously feel you can act with wanton disregard for the Word of God, the principles of sound judgment, and the spirit of the brotherhood. This place which you claim for yourselves is one which our Lord Jesus never took Himself – and straitly commanded His disciples never to take. You have set yourselves on a throne upon which God alone should be seated, and – not content only to rule over the Lord’s heritage – you even desire and demand that you be worshipped.
The most recent communication to the New Zealand overseer on the matter carries the observation that "Your administration system (note that I write not in reference to the true Ministry of Jesus Christ, but to you who separate yourselves and make yourselves an upper echelon above the servants of God) exhibits very strong elements of cultism, and many of the characteristics of false religion."
My conviction on these matters stands unshakeable, and I am ready to be held accountable for what has been said and written. Accordingly, by this letter I submit these matters, and also my own self, to judgment. But this judgment will not be carried out behind closed doors by the overseers, for they may not sit in judgment on matters that relate to themselves and, besides, I have proved them to be habitually dishonest. Nor will it be before the Ministry only, for by the very nature of the problem the Ministry as a body tends to be too much beholden to the views of the eldership. Judgment will not be in secret, but open before the eyes and ears of the Church. As Paul said, "For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them". If it is thought better that I no longer have a part in this Ministry then it is only needed to tell me: there is no need for a cloak-and-dagger operation to be mounted with secret scheming and special people being flown around the world.
My concerns are not at all in any personal consequences of the experiences of the years, but that these experiences have revealed that there are men in the Ministry who feel that they by Divine appointment have a place, and the right to behave in ways, that the Son of God Himself did not allow; and that these men would have themselves lifted up in the Church among those who know that our Lord Jesus Christ only is the One worthy of all honour and glory and praise and dominion. In the former they show themselves to be in error, and in the latter they would bring the whole Church into error.
A brother and servant,
Graham Thompson
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Jan 31, 2014 1:05:43 GMT -5
This letter has been posted following the suggestion from Lozza that letters should be posted in full rather than just excerpts. If you wish to have copies of correspondence then you could ask Alan Richardson or Graham Thompson or any other author. My point is: Why do you only post parts of a letter(s) and not the full letter(s), that is all. I understand if you don't have permission to post the full letter but how is it that you are only prepared or have permission to post part of a letter(s). I am not being smart or vexatious here but really the whole picture needs to be given in context don't you think? I am just trying to get a balanced view on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Jan 31, 2014 5:28:13 GMT -5
Note to Admin: I suggest that Graham's letter is of such concern and relevance to the church that it deserves to be pinned as a "sticky" to the front page of this board.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2014 6:48:18 GMT -5
I may have missed something, but the accusations against the "eldership" seem to be short on specifics. Who did what, when? Yes, I understand they set themselves over the other workers, feel they have a divine appointment to do so, and act in ways that Jesus himself did not.
- abuses within the eldership - attitudes about it - dubious agenda - not taking a stand for truth - priority is saving their own skin - scant regard for principles of Truth - scant regard for the welfare of the Fellowship - system and the way it operates not in line with Christ - wanton disregard for the word of God - etc.
That's pretty vague.
Try reading each of those with these words following each one: "...as evidenced by what?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 7:50:59 GMT -5
I may have missed something, but the accusations against the "eldership" seem to be short on specifics. Who did what, when? Yes, I understand they set themselves over the other workers, feel they have a divine appointment to do so, and act in ways that Jesus himself did not. - abuses within the eldership - attitudes about it - dubious agenda - not taking a stand for truth - priority is saving their own skin - scant regard for principles of Truth - scant regard for the welfare of the Fellowship - system and the way it operates not in line with Christ - wanton disregard for the word of God - etc. That's pretty vague. Try reading each of those with these words following each one: "...as evidenced by what?" There is a bit more info (more detail than the above) on the other NZ threads on the Board, but we certainly don't have the full story here. StevNZ's messages are valuable because they are actual quotes and documents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 9:39:09 GMT -5
I may have missed something, but the accusations against the "eldership" seem to be short on specifics. Who did what, when? Yes, I understand they set themselves over the other workers, feel they have a divine appointment to do so, and act in ways that Jesus himself did not. - abuses within the eldership - attitudes about it - dubious agenda - not taking a stand for truth - priority is saving their own skin - scant regard for principles of Truth - scant regard for the welfare of the Fellowship - system and the way it operates not in line with Christ - wanton disregard for the word of God - etc. That's pretty vague. Try reading each of those with these words following each one: "...as evidenced by what?" I believe it all started off with the intended appointment of a worker to overseer level and who wasn't suitable for the job.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Jan 31, 2014 11:27:13 GMT -5
I may have missed something, but the accusations against the "eldership" seem to be short on specifics. Who did what, when? Yes, I understand they set themselves over the other workers, feel they have a divine appointment to do so, and act in ways that Jesus himself did not. - abuses within the eldership - attitudes about it - dubious agenda - not taking a stand for truth - priority is saving their own skin - scant regard for principles of Truth - scant regard for the welfare of the Fellowship - system and the way it operates not in line with Christ - wanton disregard for the word of God - etc. That's pretty vague. Try reading each of those with these words following each one: "...as evidenced by what?" Since the effect of all this is to bring it before the entire church, and the church is represented to some degree on this forum, then before anyone can render anything beyond conjecture, Graham T. must open the box which he's placed before the church. Because the church is affected worldwide by the allegations, as distasteful as is seems, one place to do such a thing might in part be here. (It seems a closed and secret meeting of overseers cannot get the job done and would probably be met with skepticism at this juncture). I personally don't relish having to sit in judgment of something 160 degrees away, I certainly wouldn't want to do it alone in a mushroom cellar. So, I concur with Gene's post. Please provide evidence. I gather that the ministry in the trenches and the body of saints in NZ do not agree with GT. This isn't the "eldership" but those of his peers. I wonder if it would be possible for that group to at least give the other side of the story. The other side of the story, though, in my opinion, should address the specifics to the assertions. It should not be simply limited to GT broke the mold and that is uncomfortable. Then and only then can the body heal. As an aside, this forum is as active as it is, again in my opinion, because the "eldership" does not address openly issues. Particularly those issues that pertain to that very "eldership". I'm open to an open letter to us signed by respected overseers. I don't expect to get a personal call and audience, but I'd like to know that matters are addressed and that some closeted meeting isn't held in Tennessee or some other place which everyone seems to know was held, and then is never discussed again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 11:58:34 GMT -5
My thoughts have some similarity to stargazer’s.
I have been watching this Board over the last month with increasing concern.
Now I am suddenly seeing an open letter presumably sent to the church here in NZ. Why haven’t I seen it previously? I am disappointed that Graham did not do a better job in distributing such a letter in 2011. He expresses clearly his belief that something has gone wrong in our church and, that being so, it is disappointing that many of us have been left in the dark for so long.
This thing is not going to go away is it? Long after it ceases to be the chief topic of conversation, people are still going to remember what Graham supposedly identified, and that it was then not attended to (or defended), by the overseers. Very unsatisfactory all round, I say.
I see an obvious solution.
Graham and Alan both have lots of relatives and friends and I am sure some of them know what is going on on Boards such as this and what is being discussed in peoples living rooms.
Graham and Alan should meet in a public setting with topics for discussion (set by themselves) and chaired by someone independent they both trust for the job. And let the friends listen to what they have to say. In the early days of our fellowship we held such public meetings on occasion with the local clergy, when they felt attacked by the workers message in their district. So surely we can have a public meeting now when problems arise amongst ourselves and have become widely known.
So Graham and Alan, what about it. This church isn’t your church. This is our church and we deserve this to be properly handled. Certainly a lot better than what we’ve had up to now.
Graham, you have said that your “conviction on these matters stands unshakeable, and I am ready to be held accountable for what has been said and written. Accordingly, by this letter I submit these matters, and also my own self, to judgment”. Presumably you would be available to attend and answer for yourself in a public setting chaired by an independent person of your and Alan’s choosing. If not, I’d like to understand why not, in light of your above quote.
So Graham my friend, you should signal to one of your friends that you will indeed stand by your accusations in a public setting and thus let this Board, the church and Alan know so that it could be arranged accordingly.
Now Alan. You have been quoted at convention this last year “Better judgement if it is brought out in the open. Otherwise it can become like a festering sore. You know what a festering sore is like. Eventually it needs to be lanced. And probably it needs to be lanced sooner rather than later.” Well, my friend, you have an ugly old festering sore that you have left unattended for a very long time now, as far as us in the fellowship is concerned. So can you signal that you are willing to have this brought into the open in a public setting so your recent observation can be fulfilled, viz that this sore can be lanced sooner rather than later. Again you can let this Board know via your brother worker who is still looking at this Board. There are accusations to answer and you do not help our church by hiding away, however appealing that option might be to you.
The meeting needs to be open for anyone of the NZ fellowship to attend. Other overseers (Australian) can also attend if they wish, as they also stand accused by Graham.
Without both Alan and Graham offering such a meeting to a church I’m sure they claim to care for so much, there is going to remain an unlanced sore for many many years to come. That wouldn’t feel very caring to me. The church needs this opportunity for cleansing and healing. A minister resignation based on conscience, that’s left unexplored, is unacceptable within any church.
The above is how I feel. I’m sure I won’t be alone in seeking some meaningful closure here. Sorry about the length.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 12:28:54 GMT -5
What Graham identifies is not a localized problem, it's worldwide. While there is no direct connection to the VN problems that we are clearly seeing here as related by the VN people themselves, in fact the problems identified by Graham are at the root of the problems in VN, even though VN is controlled by Canadian workers.
While a sort of summit with Alan and Graham would be welcome, even better would be a worldwide examination of the issues that GT raises. Regardless, something like what veryconcerned proposes could serve the purpose of informing the worldwide church of the problems that plague everyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 12:34:17 GMT -5
CD, I'm with you. In watching how the local problem we knew about was handled in secret leaving those in the affected local churches to wonder what in the world was going on (and calling everyone they knew to see if anyone knew the 'why' behind the changes), this 'protect the kingdom through secrecy' policy needs to end for the good of the church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 12:41:15 GMT -5
CD, I'm with you. In watching how the local problem we knew about was handled in secret leaving those in the affected local churches to wonder what in the world was going on (and calling everyone they knew to see if anyone knew the 'why' behind the changes), this 'protect the kingdom through secrecy' policy needs to end for the good of the church. I have seen and heard of too many ill advised and disastrous "backroom justice" activities to think that these are localized problems.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 31, 2014 13:18:11 GMT -5
As an aside, this forum is as active as it is, again in my opinion, because the "eldership" does not address openly issues. Particularly those issues that pertain to that very "eldership". I'm open to an open letter to us signed by respected overseers. I don't expect to get a personal call and audience, but I'd like to know that matters are addressed and that some closeted meeting isn't held in Tennessee or some other place which everyone seems to know was held, and then is never discussed again. Where else besides TMB can innies express their concerns? Those who could make changes are so sure that God is in control. Open letters could help to provide some assurance that overseers are at least trying to be on God's side, not just assuming that God is with them because of their position.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 31, 2014 13:24:00 GMT -5
Graham and Alan should meet in a public setting with topics for discussion (set by themselves) and chaired by someone independent they both trust for the job. And let the friends listen to what they have to say. When have problems between workers ever been discussed openly before the friends?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 13:44:40 GMT -5
Graham and Alan should meet in a public setting with topics for discussion (set by themselves) and chaired by someone independent they both trust for the job. And let the friends listen to what they have to say. When have problems between workers ever been discussed openly before the friends? I actually think this is a very good idea. I understand there was a public meeting before friends involving worker/overseer a number of years ago (let's say 20) in India. One like this now would be excellent.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 31, 2014 14:03:35 GMT -5
When have problems between workers ever been discussed openly before the friends? I actually think this is a very good idea. I understand there was a public meeting before friends involving worker/overseer a number of years ago (let's say 20) in India. One like this now would be excellent. I'm all for communication. It would need to be conducted better than this one though...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 31, 2014 14:38:35 GMT -5
I may have missed something, but the accusations against the "eldership" seem to be short on specifics. Who did what, when? Yes, I understand they set themselves over the other workers, feel they have a divine appointment to do so, and act in ways that Jesus himself did not. - abuses within the eldership - attitudes about it - dubious agenda - not taking a stand for truth - priority is saving their own skin - scant regard for principles of Truth - scant regard for the welfare of the Fellowship - system and the way it operates not in line with Christ - wanton disregard for the word of God - etc. That's pretty vague. Try reading each of those with these words following each one: "...as evidenced by what?" It seems that you want a chapter book Gene. Perhaps that will come one day.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 31, 2014 14:51:25 GMT -5
Graham and Alan should meet in a public setting with topics for discussion (set by themselves) and chaired by someone independent they both trust for the job. And let the friends listen to what they have to say. When have problems between workers ever been discussed openly before the friends? From what I have seen here, never. It seems as though the overseers feel it is beneath them to explain anything they do to the friends. I think they should remember that they are out of a job should all the friends find sustenance somewhere else. Having a transparent ministry from now on is going to be important because so much has been hidden in the past and is now coming into the light because of the internet. The trust and integrity of the ministry is sorely damaged. That will not be easy to regain.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Jan 31, 2014 21:03:36 GMT -5
I may have missed something, but the accusations against the "eldership" seem to be short on specifics. Who did what, when? Yes, I understand they set themselves over the other workers, feel they have a divine appointment to do so, and act in ways that Jesus himself did not. - abuses within the eldership - attitudes about it - dubious agenda - not taking a stand for truth - priority is saving their own skin - scant regard for principles of Truth - scant regard for the welfare of the Fellowship - system and the way it operates not in line with Christ - wanton disregard for the word of God - etc. That's pretty vague. Try reading each of those with these words following each one: "...as evidenced by what?" There are lots of specifics, some of which have been posted in other threads, and some which are yet to be disclosed. There are so many pages of documentation that it is quite difficult to concisely address the matters mentioned, but they will be disclosed to the fellowship via TMB as there is no other means of communicating with global members of the fellowship. What matters is the substance of the issues, such as; • Is GT a nutter pursuing a personal vendetta with no valid basis? • Have the issues been handled by the overseers correctly? • Has GT handled the matter the wrong way? • Have the overseers made their decisions on the basis of Jesus teachings? • Have the overseers been honest and truthful? • Is unity more important than truth? • Should we sit back and do nothing? • Should any preacher refuse to work with another who is acting and preaching according to the bible? • Has Alan done everything he should? • Should overseers make 'rulings' that are not based on Christ's teachings? • Is autocracy the bible model for church administration? My answer to each question would be No.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Jan 31, 2014 21:49:05 GMT -5
My thoughts have some similarity to stargazer’s. I have been watching this Board over the last month with increasing concern. Now I am suddenly seeing an open letter presumably sent to the church here in NZ. Why haven’t I seen it previously? I am disappointed that Graham did not do a better job in distributing such a letter in 2011. He expresses clearly his belief that something has gone wrong in our church and, that being so, it is disappointing that many of us have been left in the dark for so long. This thing is not going to go away is it? Long after it ceases to be the chief topic of conversation, people are still going to remember what Graham supposedly identified, and that it was then not attended to (or defended), by the overseers. Very unsatisfactory all round, I say. I see an obvious solution. Graham and Alan both have lots of relatives and friends and I am sure some of them know what is going on on Boards such as this and what is being discussed in peoples living rooms. Graham and Alan should meet in a public setting with topics for discussion (set by themselves) and chaired by someone independent they both trust for the job. And let the friends listen to what they have to say. In the early days of our fellowship we held such public meetings on occasion with the local clergy, when they felt attacked by the workers message in their district. So surely we can have a public meeting now when problems arise amongst ourselves and have become widely known. So Graham and Alan, what about it. This church isn’t your church. This is our church and we deserve this to be properly handled. Certainly a lot better than what we’ve had up to now. Graham, you have said that your “conviction on these matters stands unshakeable, and I am ready to be held accountable for what has been said and written. Accordingly, by this letter I submit these matters, and also my own self, to judgment”. Presumably you would be available to attend and answer for yourself in a public setting chaired by an independent person of your and Alan’s choosing. If not, I’d like to understand why not, in light of your above quote. So Graham my friend, you should signal to one of your friends that you will indeed stand by your accusations in a public setting and thus let this Board, the church and Alan know so that it could be arranged accordingly. Now Alan. You have been quoted at convention this last year “Better judgement if it is brought out in the open. Otherwise it can become like a festering sore. You know what a festering sore is like. Eventually it needs to be lanced. And probably it needs to be lanced sooner rather than later.” Well, my friend, you have an ugly old festering sore that you have left unattended for a very long time now, as far as us in the fellowship is concerned. So can you signal that you are willing to have this brought into the open in a public setting so your recent observation can be fulfilled, viz that this sore can be lanced sooner rather than later. Again you can let this Board know via your brother worker who is still looking at this Board. There are accusations to answer and you do not help our church by hiding away, however appealing that option might be to you. The meeting needs to be open for anyone of the NZ fellowship to attend. Other overseers (Australian) can also attend if they wish, as they also stand accused by Graham. Without both Alan and Graham offering such a meeting to a church I’m sure they claim to care for so much, there is going to remain an unlanced sore for many many years to come. That wouldn’t feel very caring to me. The church needs this opportunity for cleansing and healing. A minister resignation based on conscience, that’s left unexplored, is unacceptable within any church. The above is how I feel. I’m sure I won’t be alone in seeking some meaningful closure here. Sorry about the length. When I first became aware of these issues I was similarly concerned. When I had a chance, I discussed the issues with a worker who seemed to be approachable. We had a pleasant discussion, but achieved nothing. His responses were: The workers have to work together as a team. (i.e. Graham hasn't done so because he has spoken out about the behaviour of others) Alan is a good man. (Yes, Alan is probably better than some previous overseers we have had but, like all of us, he isn't perfect, even if he thinks that he reads, prays and meditates enough that his words are inspired by God.) Alan decided that it was better to not respond to Graham's letters. (It would be intolerable in a business relationship or marriage to just ignore the other person, and I don't see any evidence that Jesus would have done so.) He understood some of Graham concerns, as do others who have listened to him. However they had confidence that Alan does and will justly and correctly address such as need addressing. (i.e. do nothing and leave it to the overseer, who has done nothing.) He needs to concisely state his present concerns and give them to Alan. What aspect of the correspondence does Alan not understand? Graham has worked himself up into a state. Graham has used some strong language, such as calling another worker a liar, but only when he has factual proof. He has written strongly critical letters, after many years of not seeing any sincere examination of the issues he has raised, much less resolution of them. I am sad about this, GT is a good man in so many ways. I doubt whether Graham cares what people think of him; he has unfailingly stood for truth. The criticisms levelled at him are that he has spoken out, he has been critical of the behaviour of others, he won't let matters drop, he won't 'leave things to God', he isn't working as a team. We all have zero desire to see him out of the work but options are getting short on it not coming to the place where there won't be a brother in NZ who will feel able to work with him. I believe that his companions since he came back to NZ have not had any complaints about him personally, or of his care for members of the fellowship, or of his preaching. One worker who has not been with Graham said "he should come on his hands and knees, begging for forgiveness". I find that attitude rather appalling. If we seek to address wrong things in a wrong way it will destroy us and it still doesn't address the issues.
Graham has followed the bible teaching of taking matters to the person concerned, and then if it isn't resolved taking it wider. He has shown incredible patience as this has been going on for ~10 years. I understand the concerns of those who have only just found out about these matters, but unfortunately our fellowship does not have any practical way of addressing the wider church, other than via TMB where many friends and workers read, even if they don't post. Many workers seem to have tried to destroy Graham by ignoring him and his concerns. The issues that Graham has raised that are of concern to him are concerning the ministry and specifically to actions and attitudes of some Overseers. I expressed a number of times during the course of those visits the conviction I have that I feel it is a matter that needs to be resolved by the ministry. This was in response to my suggestion that if the workers and overseers haven't been able to address and resolve the issues, then perhaps a group of elders should be used to mediate, as many have considerable experience in business in resolving conflicts. Thus it was made clear that us ordinary members should not be involved; it was up to the overseers to sort it out. Unfortunately they haven't. At the end of 2011 Alan involved 3 other workers in a discussion and review of the issues raised by Graham, then the matters were brought up at a meeting of all NZ workers at Masterton between the 2 conventions. Unfortunately that process was handled so badly that it achieved nothing. The details deserve a separate post, or thread.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2014 22:14:56 GMT -5
My thoughts have some similarity to stargazer’s. I have been watching this Board over the last month with increasing concern. Now I am suddenly seeing an open letter presumably sent to the church here in NZ. Why haven’t I seen it previously? I am disappointed that Graham did not do a better job in distributing such a letter in 2011. He expresses clearly his belief that something has gone wrong in our church and, that being so, it is disappointing that many of us have been left in the dark for so long. This thing is not going to go away is it? Long after it ceases to be the chief topic of conversation, people are still going to remember what Graham supposedly identified, and that it was then not attended to (or defended), by the overseers. Very unsatisfactory all round, I say. I see an obvious solution. Graham and Alan both have lots of relatives and friends and I am sure some of them know what is going on on Boards such as this and what is being discussed in peoples living rooms. Graham and Alan should meet in a public setting with topics for discussion (set by themselves) and chaired by someone independent they both trust for the job. And let the friends listen to what they have to say. In the early days of our fellowship we held such public meetings on occasion with the local clergy, when they felt attacked by the workers message in their district. So surely we can have a public meeting now when problems arise amongst ourselves and have become widely known. So Graham and Alan, what about it. This church isn’t your church. This is our church and we deserve this to be properly handled. Certainly a lot better than what we’ve had up to now. Graham, you have said that your “conviction on these matters stands unshakeable, and I am ready to be held accountable for what has been said and written. Accordingly, by this letter I submit these matters, and also my own self, to judgment”. Presumably you would be available to attend and answer for yourself in a public setting chaired by an independent person of your and Alan’s choosing. If not, I’d like to understand why not, in light of your above quote. So Graham my friend, you should signal to one of your friends that you will indeed stand by your accusations in a public setting and thus let this Board, the church and Alan know so that it could be arranged accordingly. Now Alan. You have been quoted at convention this last year “Better judgement if it is brought out in the open. Otherwise it can become like a festering sore. You know what a festering sore is like. Eventually it needs to be lanced. And probably it needs to be lanced sooner rather than later.” Well, my friend, you have an ugly old festering sore that you have left unattended for a very long time now, as far as us in the fellowship is concerned. So can you signal that you are willing to have this brought into the open in a public setting so your recent observation can be fulfilled, viz that this sore can be lanced sooner rather than later. Again you can let this Board know via your brother worker who is still looking at this Board. There are accusations to answer and you do not help our church by hiding away, however appealing that option might be to you. The meeting needs to be open for anyone of the NZ fellowship to attend. Other overseers (Australian) can also attend if they wish, as they also stand accused by Graham. Without both Alan and Graham offering such a meeting to a church I’m sure they claim to care for so much, there is going to remain an unlanced sore for many many years to come. That wouldn’t feel very caring to me. The church needs this opportunity for cleansing and healing. A minister resignation based on conscience, that’s left unexplored, is unacceptable within any church. The above is how I feel. I’m sure I won’t be alone in seeking some meaningful closure here. Sorry about the length. When I first became aware of these issues I was similarly concerned. When I had a chance, I discussed the issues with a worker who seemed to be approachable. We had a pleasant discussion, but achieved nothing. His responses were: The workers have to work together as a team. (i.e. Graham hasn't done so because he has spoken out about the behaviour of others) Alan is a good man. (Yes, Alan is probably better than some previous overseers we have had but, like all of us, he isn't perfect, even if he thinks that he reads, prays and meditates enough that his words are inspired by God.) Alan decided that it was better to not respond to Graham's letters. (It would be intolerable in a business relationship or marriage to just ignore the other person, and I don't see any evidence that Jesus would have done so.) He understood some of Graham concerns, as do others who have listened to him. However they had confidence that Alan does and will justly and correctly address such as need addressing. (i.e. do nothing and leave it to the overseer, who has done nothing.) He needs to concisely state his present concerns and give them to Alan. What aspect of the correspondence does Alan not understand? Graham has worked himself up into a state. Graham has used some strong language, such as calling another worker a liar, but only when he has factual proof. He has written strongly critical letters, after many years of not seeing any sincere examination of the issues he has raised, much less resolution of them. I am sad about this, GT is a good man in so many ways. I doubt whether Graham cares what people think of him; he has unfailingly stood for truth. The criticisms levelled at him are that he has spoken out, he has been critical of the behaviour of others, he won't let matters drop, he won't 'leave things to God', he isn't working as a team. We all have zero desire to see him out of the work but options are getting short on it not coming to the place where there won't be a brother in NZ who will feel able to work with him. I believe that his companions since he came back to NZ have not had any complaints about him personally, or of his care for members of the fellowship, or of his preaching. One worker who has not been with Graham said "he should come on his hands and knees, begging for forgiveness". I find that attitude rather appalling. If we seek to address wrong things in a wrong way it will destroy us and it still doesn't address the issues.
Graham has followed the bible teaching of taking matters to the person concerned, and then if it isn't resolved taking it wider. He has shown incredible patience as this has been going on for ~10 years. I understand the concerns of those who have only just found out about these matters, but unfortunately our fellowship does not have any practical way of addressing the wider church, other than via TMB where many friends and workers read, even if they don't post. Many workers seem to have tried to destroy Graham by ignoring him and his concerns. The issues that Graham has raised that are of concern to him are concerning the ministry and specifically to actions and attitudes of some Overseers. I expressed a number of times during the course of those visits the conviction I have that I feel it is a matter that needs to be resolved by the ministry. This was in response to my suggestion that if the workers and overseers haven't been able to address and resolve the issues, then perhaps a group of elders should be used to mediate, as many have considerable experience in business in resolving conflicts. Thus it was made clear that us ordinary members should not be involved; it was up to the overseers to sort it out. Unfortunately they haven't. At the end of 2011 Alan involved 3 other workers in a discussion and review of the issues raised by Graham, then the matters were brought up at a meeting of all NZ workers at Masterton between the 2 conventions. Unfortunately that process was handled so badly that it achieved nothing. The details deserve a separate post, or thread. "He needs to concisely state his present concerns and give them to Alan." "What aspect of the correspondence does Alan not understand?" If Alan had received no more specifics than what we've seen here, I understand and concur with the request for GT to "concisely state his present concerns."
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Jan 31, 2014 22:31:42 GMT -5
Graham and Alan should meet in a public setting with topics for discussion (set by themselves) and chaired by someone independent they both trust for the job. And let the friends listen to what they have to say. When have problems between workers ever been discussed openly before the friends? Rarely. Here in the States there always has been the east west conflict between overseers. ken
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 31, 2014 23:54:17 GMT -5
"He needs to concisely state his present concerns and give them to Alan." "What aspect of the correspondence does Alan not understand?" If Alan had received no more specifics than what we've seen here, I understand and concur with the request for GT to "concisely state his present concerns." Gene, I agree. There is a lack of specifics and not much for anyone to respond to. This is over 2 years old. If there are specific complaints - state them.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 1, 2014 0:00:53 GMT -5
"He needs to concisely state his present concerns and give them to Alan." "What aspect of the correspondence does Alan not understand?" If Alan had received no more specifics than what we've seen here, I understand and concur with the request for GT to "concisely state his present concerns. I can see that you can't wait to get your hands on the chapter book " My Life In The Overseers Ministry" by Graham Thompson but to my knowledge it hasn't yet been published.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 1, 2014 0:06:01 GMT -5
I believe that his companions since he came back to NZ have not had any complaints about him personally, or of his care for members of the fellowship, or of his preaching. One worker who has not been with Graham said "he should come on his hands and knees, begging for forgiveness". A proud ministry won't bring people to Christ.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 1, 2014 2:16:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 1, 2014 7:22:12 GMT -5
So maybe this will help but is not intended to summarize the whole story. Please correct the things that may have skewed the issues. Additions to Stevenz post in this font Gene, I agree. There is a lack of specifics and not much for anyone to respond to. This is over 2 years old. If there are specific complaints - state them. I don't know why the issues have to be concise. I have more than 30 pages of correspondence that cover many issues in great detail. The process has been running for about 10 years. It shows that the overseers have had many opportunities to act and have repeatedly failed to do so. If you have read some other threads you might be aware of some of the issues. e.g. professing.proboards.com/post/566912/thread "In 2005 an overseer demanded it from Graham. The overseer said "...I cannot overlook this attitude toward the rulings and suggestions that all the overseers agree to. Unless you can give us an assurance that you will accept the above decisions that have been made when we met together and openly discussed your complaints about [X]. Also accept decisions that might be made in future. ... The thing that concerns me most is that you did not accept the rulings of the elder brothers. This is what concerns other elder brothers in Australia more than any thing".professing.proboards.com/post/567097 2005 objects to "[S’s] decision, is the statement that “Unity must be an over-ruling factor”. professing.proboards.com/post/567229 Holds that (X) was not qualified for a position given. No indication this was resolved.professing.proboards.com/post/567232 Holds as false doctrine this pervasive view "elders are men anointed of God to a special position – which confers on them Divine authority over the church and ministry." Or as put by a sister worker at a convention "those who have spiritual authority over us" . GT objects that this is contrary to teachings of Jesus.professing.proboards.com/post/567512 Challenged this position "It doesn't matter whether the person is standing up for Truth or not, it's not right to speak against an elder [overseer]?" professing.proboards.com/post/567522 Alleged that AK had made an incorrect (lied) statement to a group about GT and had not retracted the statement after much proddingprofessing.proboards.com/post/567679Threats and bullying. Wrote to an unnamed overseer regarding "hounding" a sister worker from the workprofessing.proboards.com/post/567926/threadChallenged decisions of 1938 meeting constituted "Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" "professing.proboards.com/post/568188 In 2009 or 2010 an overseer named Stan received a government pension while still active as overseer. Unclear why it was accepted by other overseers or if now (2014) it is resolved
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2014 7:52:07 GMT -5
Gene, I agree. There is a lack of specifics and not much for anyone to respond to. This is over 2 years old. If there are specific complaints - state them. I don't know why the issues have to be concise. If you are trying to make a point and it takes 30 pages you need to do some serious editing. I looked at the links provided. It seems like the person put in charge was not acceptable and the rest follow from there. Was the overseer entitled to the pension or was it being collected illegally?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2014 9:22:12 GMT -5
"He needs to concisely state his present concerns and give them to Alan." "What aspect of the correspondence does Alan not understand?" If Alan had received no more specifics than what we've seen here, I understand and concur with the request for GT to "concisely state his present concerns." Gene, I agree. There is a lack of specifics and not much for anyone to respond to. This is over 2 years old. If there are specific complaints - state them. Patience patience fellas, it will be rewarded. Why didn't you two make the same complaint about the VN story as it emerged over a period of months and still isn't all out there?
|
|