|
Post by stevnz on Feb 2, 2014 5:06:52 GMT -5
The question I would like answered is this: Does Alan Richardson know of people who have committed CSA or other indictable offences and has not gone to the police about? And does GT know that Alan knows of these people? Graham Thompson wrote to Alan and mentioned an Australian matter: "a case of child abuse which I raised with Stan (as it had come to my ears) in a letter, giving only a brief outline but suggesting that we should talk about it. Stan went ahead and took the matter into his own hands without ever talking to me about it (until April when I brought it up and forced the discussion), and in so doing failed to obtain vital information about the person concerned. He had been on his own to visit with perpetrator (without the full knowledge of the situation, and without support), and bungled the whole thing, leaving us all open to allegations of illegal covering and of failing in our moral obligation to all. "In another letter Graham wrote: ... it has come to my notice that there has been some criticism of things that were spoken in the Mid-year meeting in Auckland last year. Please take notice that what was said was carefully and deliberately worded, and was thoroughly appropriate and necessary to be voiced. The statements made were true, and the speaker stands by them and is ready to repeat them at any time. Let it also be noted that now, nearly a year later, there is even greater reason to believe and to express these things than there was at the time they were spoken.Alan has not publicly acknowledged Graham's sermon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2014 8:11:49 GMT -5
Dare to be a Daniel, Dare to stand alone! Dare to have a purpose firm! Dare to make it known.
Having been taught this rhyme from infancy, in my experience I am here to assert that it just is not well accepted among most in the 2&2 worker/follower group. It does not work for people, who, for whatever reason, find themselves run afoul of the "infallible priesthood" concept of a new testament group of preachers, attempting to mix the Hebrew priesthood with Yahu'shuah's (Reportedly historically His actual name meaning: God-Savior) message carriers. Nor are they the only group to have erroneously made this attempted elevation of man to priesthood/messenger mixture and status following the old Hebrew priesthood customs.
For myself, by all accounts reported here of him, I perceive uncle Hoa in Vietnam as a shining example of a new testament messenger of the risen Christ. One following others of the New Testament examples, not yet corrupted by this "priesthood" concept begun even as early as that New Testament Church period. I am thinking here of the pride taken by James (the Lord's brother who did not believe in Him until after His resurrection) in those New Testament Hebrew people in Jerusalem claiming the blood of the Lord, mixed with zealousness in the old testament law as recorded in Acts 21.
Paul yielded to his advice that would have resulted in returning to animal blood shed in those rites of purification, and most know that the Lord put a stop to it by allowing him to be taken prisoner. Later someone wrote Hebrews making some minor errors there that I personally believe could only have been made by someone not completely and clearly taught the Old Testament location of items in the temple/tabernacle. (For you women reading here, in no way am I putting that person who I believe to be a woman down for those errors, rather thankful for having that OT in a nutshell as recorded by them with emphasis on the LORD.)
Personally, I believe that letter to the Hebrews was written by a very close and honorable well educated female friend of Paul's possibly someone like Phoebe, or Chloe. Then too, Paul wrote in another letter purportedly written after Hebrews; "the salutation of me Paul by my own hand which is the token of every epistle so I write.".
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 2, 2014 9:59:27 GMT -5
The question I would like answered is this: Does Alan Richardson know of people who have committed CSA or other indictable offences and has not gone to the police about? And does GT know that Alan knows of these people? Graham Thompson wrote to Alan and mentioned an Australian matter: "a case of child abuse which I raised with Stan (as it had come to my ears) in a letter, giving only a brief outline but suggesting that we should talk about it. Stan went ahead and took the matter into his own hands without ever talking to me about it (until April when I brought it up and forced the discussion), and in so doing failed to obtain vital information about the person concerned. He had been on his own to visit with perpetrator (without the full knowledge of the situation, and without support), and bungled the whole thing, leaving us all open to allegations of illegal covering and of failing in our moral obligation to all. "In another letter Graham wrote: ... it has come to my notice that there has been some criticism of things that were spoken in the Mid-year meeting in Auckland last year. Please take notice that what was said was carefully and deliberately worded, and was thoroughly appropriate and necessary to be voiced. The statements made were true, and the speaker stands by them and is ready to repeat them at any time. Let it also be noted that now, nearly a year later, there is even greater reason to believe and to express these things than there was at the time they were spoken.Alan has not publicly acknowledged Graham's sermon. The first example here would be a great one to add to the list of specifics, if anyone's keeping such a list!
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 3, 2014 1:06:34 GMT -5
I cant help thinking that this is all too one-sided. As with every situation there will be 'the other side' of the story that we are not hearing. Graham knows full well that if his story is published on this site there will be no contradicting reply from Alan- he has every ones full attention!!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 3, 2014 1:12:20 GMT -5
Surely Alan has some reply, or conversations in regard to the issues over the last 10 years or so.
Could you share some that you know of? That would help us have a more complete picture.
There must be quite a few people that have been aware of this situation over the course of time. Everything I have read is pretty much what I have heard before it being posted here.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 3, 2014 4:21:30 GMT -5
I cant help thinking that this is all too one-sided. As with every situation there will be 'the other side' of the story that we are not hearing. Graham knows full well that if his story is published on this site there will be no contradicting reply from Alan- he has every ones full attention!! I doubt that Graham is looking for your attention. He simply lives according to his conscience. Do you think with Jesus' crucifixion, there was another side of the story?
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 3, 2014 6:19:38 GMT -5
Hardly a suitable or wise comparison!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 3, 2014 7:09:19 GMT -5
I cant help thinking that this is all too one-sided. As with every situation there will be 'the other side' of the story that we are not hearing. Graham knows full well that if his story is published on this site there will be no contradicting reply from Alan- he has every ones full attention!! I doubt that Graham is looking for your attention. He simply lives according to his conscience. Do you think with Jesus' crucifixion, there was another side of the story? Most definitely. It is a story recorded by the christians and passed down by the christians for 2,000 years. The recorded story tell what the christians wanted people to know.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 3, 2014 13:17:49 GMT -5
Hardly a suitable or wise comparison!
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 3, 2014 19:15:11 GMT -5
I cant help thinking that this is all too one-sided. As with every situation there will be 'the other side' of the story that we are not hearing. Graham knows full well that if his story is published on this site there will be no contradicting reply from Alan- he has every ones full attention!! Graham can't know that there would be no contradicting reply; I'm sure he would welcome a response to his correspondence, even if contradicting. In fact the whole church would welcome a response, as noted by stargazer veryconcerned jondough and others. Here are the responses from some overseers: ------------------------ The entire reply from one overseer in early 2008 was; Dear Graham. Have received the package you sent too me. At this stage I have no comment to make. Stan. ------------------------ (~2008) Upon consideration of a letter written by Graham Thompson, the church elders in South Australia felt there was a case to be answered and called a meeting for that purpose to which the overseers were summonsed. The principle purpose of that meeting was to air the matters raised in Graham's letter concerning deficiencies in the overseer system and to give the overseers the opportunity to answer these and to speak for themselves. The only remark which came near the matter was Robin’s observation of Graham, “You said some very serious things”, to which Graham replied, “I did” – and was left wondering why, if Robin realized how serious they were, did neither he nor anyone else attempt to put forward their case for consideration. ----------------------- Graham Snow said to Graham T, “while the things you have said may be technically correct, the spirit of it is wrong” ----------------------- Alan wrote to Graham 10 December 2009: For several days the thought has been in my mind of whether or not I should approach you for a talk about the differences which have arisen between us. It's now 12 months since we last talked about these matters. My thoughts have been that it's too soon for us to talk, seeing I feel there has been insufficient change from 12 months ago in Sth Australia to have satisfied your perception of the problems there and desirable results. However if you yourself do feel that it's better that you and I have a visit, I would be willing to do so later during this convention (Sunday onward). I do wish to tell you that we do need you in this Gospel work, Graham, and I believe the Lord needs you also. ------------------------ Graham replied, then 4 days later (14 December 2009) Alan wrote: Receipt of your letter delivered to me this morning is acknowledged, Graham. I will ponder over what you have written.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 3, 2014 19:29:52 GMT -5
One worker's response to Graham's concerns:
"He should come on his hands and knees, begging for forgiveness"
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 3, 2014 19:43:59 GMT -5
I cant help thinking that this is all too one-sided. As with every situation there will be 'the other side' of the story that we are not hearing. Graham knows full well that if his story is published on this site there will be no contradicting reply from Alan- he has every ones full attention!! Graham can't know that there would be no contradicting reply; I'm sure he would welcome a response to his correspondence, even if contradicting. In fact the whole church would welcome a response, as noted by stargazer veryconcerned jondough and others. Here are the responses from some overseers: ------------------------ The entire reply from one overseer was; Dear Graham. Have received the package you sent too me. At this stage I have no comment to make. Stan. ------------------------ Upon consideration of a letter written by Graham Thompson the church elders in South Australia felt there was a case to be answered and called a meeting for that purpose to which the overseers were summonsed. The principle purpose of that meeting was to air the matters raised in Graham's letter concerning deficiencies in the overseer system and to give the overseers the opportunity to answer these and to speak for themselves. The only remark which came near the matter was Robin’s observation of Graham, “You said some very serious things”, to which Graham replied, “I did” – and was left wondering why, if Robin realized how serious they were, did neither he nor anyone else attempt to put forward their case for consideration. ----------------------- Graham Snow said to Graham T, “while the things you have said may be technically correct, the spirit of it is wrong” ----------------------- Alan wrote to Graham: For several days the thought has been in my mind of whether or not I should approach you for a talk about the differences which have arisen between us. It's now 12 months since we last talked about these matters. My thoughts have been that it's too soon for us to talk, seeing I feel there has been insufficient change from 12 months ago in Sth Australia to have satisfied your perception of the problems there and desirable results. However if you yourself do feel that it's better that you and I have a visit, I would be willing to do so later during this convention (Sunday onward). I do wish to tell you that we do need you in this Gospel work, Graham, and I believe the Lord needs you also. ------------------------ Graham replied, then 4 days later Alan wrote: Receipt of your letter delivered to me this morning is acknowledged, Graham. I will ponder over what you have written. My view is that dates are important to keep replies in context to GT writings. Like what constituted the package Stan received? 12 months from when (AK's statement)
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 3, 2014 20:12:39 GMT -5
I cant help thinking that this is all too one-sided. As with every situation there will be 'the other side' of the story that we are not hearing. Graham knows full well that if his story is published on this site there will be no contradicting reply from Alan- he has every ones full attention!! Another side to the story is that a former overseer of Vietnam wrote to Graham 29 September 2010: I thought better of you. You are very very stupid, very unwise and lets face it, you are dumb.Graham replied 24 January 2011: I probably should have replied to your email before this, but I didn't hurry to do so for I felt sure that anyone who would write like that could not fail to have a visit and discussion when we later met at convention. In the event, that didn't happen as you know. It may very well be the case that what you have said in your email is correct, but we will have to leave it to God the Judge of all to answer that. Whatever the case regarding that, either way, it doesn't alter the facts put forward nor refute the conclusions drawn from them which are undeniable. So there are things that urgently need to be dealt with and so far that has not happened, which means that the issue hasn't gone away (and won't). I guess there is really nothing more to say about that just now. I trust this finds you well and things going well for the Work there. A brother, Graham.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 3, 2014 21:06:48 GMT -5
My view is that dates are important to keep replies in context to GT writings. Like what constituted the package Stan received? 12 months from when (AK's statement) I edited the post to add dates
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 3, 2014 21:07:33 GMT -5
Another side to the story is that a former overseer of Vietnam wrote to Graham: I thought better of you. You are very very stupid, very unwise and lets face it, you are dumb.Graham replied: I probably should have replied to your email before this, but I didn't hurry to do so for I felt sure that anyone who would write like that could not fail to have a visit and discussion when we later met at convention. In the event, that didn't happen as you know. It may very well be the case that what you have said in your email is correct, but we will have to leave it to God the Judge of all to answer that. Whatever the case regarding that, either way, it doesn't alter the facts put forward nor refute the conclusions drawn from them which are undeniable. So there are things that urgently need to be dealt with and so far that has not happened, which means that the issue hasn't gone away (and won't). I guess there is really nothing more to say about that just now. I trust this finds you well and things going well for the Work there. A brother, Graham.Date? I have edited the post to add dates
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 21:33:06 GMT -5
I wonder if this satisfies participants who want "the other side" posted?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 3, 2014 21:40:34 GMT -5
I wonder if this satisfies participants who want "the other side" posted? I would think that pretty much sums up the attitude of some of the senior workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 21:44:47 GMT -5
I can just feel the love from the VN overseer (ex). Maybe he could have asked himself "What would Christ have said to GT?"
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 3, 2014 21:45:27 GMT -5
I wonder if this satisfies participants who want "the other side" posted? It might not be what was expected, but it certainly needed to be posted. It illustrates that on the part of least one person, it was more than a matter of doctrine or process, but it was personal and at least at the moment it was written was hateful. Once again, I don't know precisely what was being responded to. It wasn't posted by the other side whose silence is deafening.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 3, 2014 21:54:00 GMT -5
I wonder if this satisfies participants who want "the other side" posted? I would think that pretty much sums up the attitude of some of the senior workers. When the overseer group tried to push Graham into submission in 2005, one of the Australian overseers wrote "we do feel that unity must be the overruling factor". To system-minded people, unity is more important than conscience. Ironically, when the Vietnamese overseer wrote the following email he was doing in Vietnam what Graham was warning against. In terms of politics and saving his own skin, yes Graham was very unwise. In terms of conscience, Graham was doing what needed to be done.
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 3, 2014 22:09:40 GMT -5
I am in no way disbelieving of what Graham has said but there is a lot of accusations and generalisations being made here by people on this forum, when really we only have limited knowledge. You simply cannot read a few selected comments and emails and make a 'fair' and accurate judgement. In many cases we don't even know what the writers were responding to or what Graham's issues were. I'm very glad God is the judge - I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the 'internet court'!!
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 3, 2014 22:20:56 GMT -5
I am in no way disbelieving of what Graham has said but there is a lot of accusations and generalisations being made here by people on this forum, when really we only have limited knowledge. You simply cannot read a few selected comments and emails and make a 'fair' and accurate judgement. In many cases we don't even know what the writers were responding to or what Graham's issues were. I'm very glad God is the judge - I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the 'internet court'!! nor I, but absent that, as things are currently handled there seems to be little left but the court of unbridled imagination.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 3, 2014 22:25:34 GMT -5
I wonder if this satisfies participants who want "the other side" posted? It might not be what was expected, but it certainly needed to be posted. It illustrates that on the part of least one person, it was more than a matter of doctrine or process, but it was personal and at least at the moment it was written was hateful. Once again, I don't know precisely what was being responded to. It wasn't posted by the other side whose silence is deafening. The background to the statement is that Graham wrote to all the expected overseas visitors to NZ conventions that year (the ex-overseer of Vietnam being one of them) warning them about matters in the eldership and that they needed to be careful not to just support something without looking into the background, to avoid becoming involved in giving their support in something they later may realise was not sound. Most of them made no meaningful response.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 3, 2014 22:28:08 GMT -5
I am in no way disbelieving of what Graham has said but there is a lot of accusations and generalisations being made here by people on this forum, when really we only have limited knowledge. You simply cannot read a few selected comments and emails and make a 'fair' and accurate judgement. In many cases we don't even know what the writers were responding to or what Graham's issues were. I'm very glad God is the judge - I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the 'internet court'!! When senior workers who are entrusted with the welfare of the church refuse to respond not only to members who ask questions, but also those questions asked by other workers....there isn't a whole lot else to go on other than the internet court. I too am glad that God is the final judge of all of us. However, while here in this life, we do have to rely on available information, listen to those who ARE wiling to discuss matters, and then make informed decision based on all available information. So far, the senior workers are on the losing side of most discussions. Not because the information being shared is flawed, but because the lack of any response to serious issues is seen as the flaw. This isn't as if what is being judged in this world is coming from a bunch of 'bitter exes'. It is what is coming from those who are in the fellowship. Don't you see a problem here? Is the problem the fact that professing folks are questioning the decisions (or lack thereof) of the overseers? When we DO have access to both sides of the discussion/issue, I agree that we can make a more informed conclusion as to the issue. However in this case, from what I have heard from that part of the world, the friends think more highly of Graham then they do of the overseers and other senior workers in that area. He is more trusted, preached a more clear message, and isn't afraid to discuss the issues within the church. Based on that, I would say that the problem lies with the senior workers who refuse to address the issues brought before them individually, and then when ignored, brought to their attention again plus with other senior workers, and then taken before the church when still ignored. Sounds pretty scriptural to me.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 3, 2014 22:32:24 GMT -5
I am in no way disbelieving of what Graham has said but there is a lot of accusations and generalisations being made here by people on this forum, when really we only have limited knowledge. You simply cannot read a few selected comments and emails and make a 'fair' and accurate judgement. In many cases we don't even know what the writers were responding to or what Graham's issues were. I'm very glad God is the judge - I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the 'internet court'!! It is good that you believe what Graham has written. I, and many other people, found it hard to believe that overseers could be so unbiblical but we have been confronted with clear evidence that cannot be ignored. The question is what you, and I, and every other member of this fellowship are doing about ensuring that the issues are dealt with by the overseers and workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 22:45:43 GMT -5
I am in no way disbelieving of what Graham has said but there is a lot of accusations and generalisations being made here by people on this forum, when really we only have limited knowledge. You simply cannot read a few selected comments and emails and make a 'fair' and accurate judgement. In many cases we don't even know what the writers were responding to or what Graham's issues were. I'm very glad God is the judge - I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the 'internet court'!! First you make this challenge: Then you get what you are asking for and state this: . How much more do you want? Now, when an overseer makes this statement: then please tell me, what possibly could Graham or anyone else ever say that would deserve a statement like that? When my children were 6 years old, then never said anything near like that. How can this overseer, man of God, ever be justified to say that to anyone or anywhere? When are we going to wake up?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 3, 2014 23:04:00 GMT -5
The background to the statement is that Graham wrote to all the expected overseas visitors to NZ conventions that year (the ex-overseer of Vietnam being one of them) warning them about matters in the eldership and that they needed to be careful not to just support something without looking into the background, to avoid becoming involved in giving their support in something they later may realise was not sound. Most of them made no meaningful response. If the letter was as vague as this explanation it is not surprising that there was no response.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 3, 2014 23:04:45 GMT -5
Here is some correspondence which also includes a response. Text version: Saturday 10 August 2013 Dear It is necessary to share some information with everyone regarding the letter that Alan Richardson sent out last year on the subject of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA). Regrettably, the letter contained statements and advice that were wrong in many respects. This was conveyed to Alan at the time along with the suggestion that it was necessary to advise all those who would have received the letter that it was wrong and is withdrawn, but Alan chose to ignore that suggestion. As a consequence of this, and according to the notice given to him, over the past several months there have been discussions with officers of the Department of Child Youth and Family and also the New Zealand Police regarding the content of Alan’s letter. I’m sorry that it has taken this long to get this information out, but the matter was referred to the national Police Headquarters and it has taken some time for things to progress. All parties consulted agree that the advice given in the letter is wrong. There are a number of concerns, but one in particular that needs noting is that it is absolutely out of the question that any of us should attempt to interview a child victim, or to require them to tell us anything about what may have happened to them. This is a matter for trained, competent professionals only, and interference by anyone other than those in that category would most probably be very damaging to the victim personally and could very well prejudice and harm the prospects of further action that may need to be taken. Another thing which should be noted is the comment on what constitutes CSA (the statement which refers to “indecent touching”) is erroneous and misleading. The publication “Working Together” (Child, Youth and Family, available in print or on their website) provides reference on these points. One very pertinent statement which was made to me by a high-ranking police officer was, “Our advice always is that all matters which relate to criminality, or may do so, should be referred to the Police”. While this is always the case, it must be considered to be especially so when children are involved because of the duty of care towards victims who are powerless and vulnerable, and to safeguard others who may become victims. In addition to the content of the letter on that subject, there is room for great concern regarding the lack of understanding of the role of the ministry per se, and also what is revealed about the views in relation to the standing of overseers. It is evident that the writer presumes himself to occupy a position of authority and directorship – it is suggested that the Christians would be dependent on his directions in order to know what to do, saying that “it will become necessary for me before too long to give our fellowship friends some guidance on what steps to take in any case of CSA”. Clearly the letter – being wrong in many areas – is not the product of the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is the product of the mind of a person who sees themselves as being on a higher level than the rest of the ministry and the saints, and being so it serves to provide incontestable documentary proof of the hierarchy attitude which has been a concern for many years now. This attitude usurps the role of the Holy Spirit as the Teacher and Guide, and it puts man in a position which no man should ever dare to take. Alan himself, in his message at the past Masterton convention, referred to the Scriptures in Hebrews concerning the priesthood and remarked that whereas in the Old Testament there was a priesthood in which the priest stood between the worshipper and God, in the New Testament Christ is our High Priest and “everyone gets their answers directly from God” through Him, which goes directly counter to what he wrote in his own letter. The concerns around the fact that Christ’s position as Head of the Church and the Holy Spirit’s role as the Teacher were being degraded by the prominence given to men within the ministry was first formally raised in writing to Alan and Ray Corbett in August 2004. Following other developments which further confirmed the problem, continued discussions took place and from the middle of 2005 the term “hierarchy” (which describes a system of rank in which each level is led to be subordinate to that above, and has no other meaning) was used. In the workers meeting at Masterton in 2007/8 reference was made to this problem, quoting Alan’s own words on the matter (solely because it seemed to be the kindest and gentlest way to raise the subject, and to offer the least embarrassing way of acknowledging it and addressing it). This was no new issue, and neither was it in any way the result of a misunderstanding – Alan’s words were on a topic that had been under discussion for well more than 2 years, and his statement was affirming other remarks that had passed between us before. As the years passed and nothing changed, further communications continued in increasingly desperate terms and tone, culminating in a letter just before the convention season in 2011 which was followed by discussions between Alan, John Watt, Dalton McGuinness, Jason Robson and me. These discussions covered matters from the earliest date mentioned above (and before) until the current time. This all led up to the meeting called at Masterton between the two conventions in which Alan spoke at length about the oversight of the ministry. I understood the drift of his message to indicate that while there had been difficulties through misunderstandings and differences of views, things were largely resolved. This was quite surprising to me, given that only about 2 hours before the meeting I had plainly told Alan exactly these words, ”the concerns that have been raised have not been addressed and still remain”. The surprise, however, was nothing compared to that which I felt a few months later when Alan wrote to me and privately acknowledged that he had brought my concerns up at the meeting of overseers in Australia in April, thus indicating his understanding that they were still outstanding, and were valid and serious enough to warrant formal presentation to the overseer group. Alan’s letter is copied below, for the simple reason that it would seem almost impossible for anyone to believe that such a thing could be true unless they were allowed to read it for themselves. I do not understand how, after being in denial regarding these concerns for many years and even concealing them at the workers meeting called for the every reason of discussing these matters, Alan could later secretly acknowledge them. But I do understand that Alan’s letter represents a very serious admission that things are not right, they are now known by all the overseers to be not right, and that there is not sufficient concern to set matters right. And I also understand that we must confront the reality that what we are seeing only belongs to false religion and if there is no correction then we are not ministers of Truth. The concern all along has been that what we are seeing in the administration is not according to Christ, not according to Scripture, and not according to the Gospel that we present. This is how it was expressed at the workers meeting in 2007/8, and it is still the case. At that time a pleas was made “in the Name of Jesus (that) this matter be addressed”. Today that same plea is repeated. [signed: A brother, Graham Thompson] ---------------------- 30 April 2012 Dear Graham A few lines must go your way this morning. I had hoped to write to you before this. I was in Adelaide on April 12 for the get-together with eight Australian brothers. The composition of the brothers who meet has changed substantially over the years. Ray Corbett, Clyde Mackay, Allan Kitto and myself are the only ones who remain of the brother workers you met with at Fullerton Park, Adelaide, in July 2008. I shared with all the brothers there, in detail, your concerns about the workings and decisions of the eldership in recent years, as you expressed such in our talks together with John Watt, Dalton, Jason and me at the end of last year. They listened well and attentively to what I had to say about this matter. However I must let you know that, as yet, no decisions have been jointly reached by them as to how it would be best to address your concerns, in a way that would be mutually acceptable to you, me and themselves and would also benefit the Kingdom of God. I regret that I cannot give you any firm assurances at this point in time, but I have hopes for future days. I also have confidence that the elders desire that decisions they make will be godly and such as will promote the welfare of God’s kingdom and people. Please accept kind regards in Christ [signed: Alan Richardson]
|
|