|
Post by cassandra on Feb 7, 2014 12:38:20 GMT -5
It appears that Graham Thompson has resigned from the ministry on the grounds of conscience, apparently because his repeated attempts to bring issues to the attention of the overseers have fallen on deaf ears.
The culture which he describes is one that we can recognise amongst the overseers of our fellowship all around the world, a culture of cronyism, sycophancy and defensiveness, that in the leadership group of any organisation, provides a breeding ground for corruption and abuse of power to flourish. But it does not have to stay that way! It is devoutly to be wished that the overseers world-wide may learn some lessons from the resignation of a courageous man and prayerfully reflect on how they might challenge this prevailing and pernicious culture - one that is in such marked contrast to the honesty and openness we read about in the ministry of the New Testament (and for which Acts 15 and Galatians 2 provide some marvellous insights), where sharp disagreements could be brooked without being the end of the road and where an older apostle had the grace and humility to accept criticism from someone quite new to the work. It would be wonderful if this situation could inspire our overseers to seek to return to the spirit of the new testament ministry, where one overseer could challenge another freely (and even be encouraged to do so) and where the concerns of less experienced workers and friends could find a receptive and listening ear.
We have never met Graham Thompson, but living half-way round the world from New Zealand, we feel indebted to him. It seems that alone amongst our fellowship in the whole world, he had the courage to stand up and state publicly what needed to be said about CSA. Our family has been affected by CSA and I can vouch for the fact that his message in Auckland in 2012, has brought some measure of healing to us - the assurance that concerns will be listened to in the future, not swept aside, and that this issue will be dealt with very differently in future, from how it has been dealt with in the past. For this alone, I believe that friends and workers world-wide owe him a great debt. "How far that little candle throws his beams" indeed!
We do hope that very soon the overseers will address Graham, not as "very unwise, very stupid and let's face it, dumb", nor even "technically correct but with the wrong spirit", but rather as the apostle Peter once addressed Paul, having been given a very rough ride by him, as "our beloved brother Graham".
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Feb 7, 2014 12:59:55 GMT -5
It appears that Graham Thompson has resigned from the ministry on the grounds of conscience, apparently because his repeated attempts to bring issues to the attention of the overseers have fallen on deaf ears. The culture which he describes is one that we can recognise amongst the overseers of our fellowship all around the world, a culture of cronyism, sycophancy and defensiveness, that in the leadership group of any organisation, provides a breeding ground for corruption and abuse of power to flourish. But it does not have to stay that way! It is devoutly to be wished that the overseers world-wide may learn some lessons from the resignation of a courageous man and prayerfully reflect on how they might challenge this prevailing and pernicious culture - one that is in such marked contrast to the honesty and openness we read about in the ministry of the New Testament (and for which Acts 15 and Galatians 2 provide some marvellous insights), where sharp disagreements could be brooked without being the end of the road and where an older apostle had the grace and humility to accept criticism from someone quite new to the work. It would be wonderful if this situation could inspire our overseers to seek to return to the spirit of the new testament ministry, where one overseer could challenge another freely (and even be encouraged to do so) and where the concerns of less experienced workers and friends could find a receptive and listening ear. We have never met Graham Thompson, but living half-way round the world from New Zealand, we feel indebted to him. It seems that alone amongst our fellowship in the whole world, he had the courage to stand up and state publicly what needed to be said about CSA. Our family has been affected by CSA and I can vouch for the fact that his message in Auckland in 2012, has brought some measure of healing to us - the assurance that concerns will be listened to in the future, not swept aside, and that this issue will be dealt with very differently in future, from how it has been dealt with in the past. For this alone, I believe that friends and workers world-wide owe him a great debt. "How far that little candle throws his beams" indeed! We do hope that very soon the overseers will address Graham, not as "very unwise, very stupid and let's face it, dumb", nor even "technically correct but with the wrong spirit", but rather as the apostle Peter once addressed Paul, having been given a very rough ride by him, as "our beloved brother Graham". Cassandra, welcome to TMB! sometimes we get all wound up on here and sometimes we say things that others don't quite understand, etc Just like any group of humans, you might say. I AM very glad that comfort has been given to you through Graham's efforts, sermons,etc MY biggest fear is that once he is out of the work that it won't be long until he has to give up and leave the fellowship OR he will be punished severely for his efforts and pushed out of the fellowship! This is the normal process tese past some odd years. I hope you read the thread "Vietnam" and you will see again how proud and arrogant workers have caused serious division, and even caused some of the natives great burdens when demanding to be taken care of in the style that they are in the Western developed world. One such lovely lady lost her government stipend by borrowing money to make demanded dinner for the overseer and his lackey.....sad! we hope exposure will indeed bring those Canadian overseers out of VN and allow the 2 older native workers to continue their work of exhorting and comforting the younger workers and the friends. Talk about GT leaving the work due to conscientiousness, we have uncle Hoa in the VN thread seems to have done the same thing....perhaps they might be an inspiration to the workers in all countries to do as GT and uncle Hoa have....then the overseers worldwide will be sitting on their hands and leaning back on their thumbs without staff to schedule here and there and inversely friends' homes will not admit them anymore.....
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 7, 2014 15:37:08 GMT -5
I wonder if GT sort of tipped his agenda by letting a surrogate (Stevenz) "leak" the "stupid, dumb" quote which in my opinion was sort of a "gotcha" action on GT's part and was a sort of a reverse nastiness. I'm not defending the comment, but somehow this decade long debacle seems to have started in Australia where GT was at the time and where some real problems seem to have been occurred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 15:50:14 GMT -5
I wonder if GT sort of tipped his agenda by letting a surrogate (Stevenz) "leak" the "stupid, dumb" quote which in my opinion was sort of a "gotcha" action on GT's part and was a sort of a reverse nastiness. I'm not defending the comment, but somehow this decade long debacle seems to have started in Australia where GT was at the time and where some real problems seem to have been occurred. I'm sure stevenz can respond better but I have been fortunate to have been reading some of GT's correspondence over the last couple of years. One thing you have to bear in mind is that GT hasn't just suddenly released all of this, but what you are reading these days are from informal "archives" that have been read by a certain number of people who have chosen, until now, not to release any of it into the public sphere. From what I can see of GT, he has an anti-secrecy policy for anything he writes and is always prepared to be fully accountable for what he writes. I believe that the decisions for release are being made entirely by others, not GT. I can confirm with 100% certainty that the idea to release the "stupid, dumb" quotation did not come from either GT or stevenz because I know exactly who it came from. I don't even think we can say there is a "campaign" going on here, except to get the story out.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Feb 7, 2014 18:31:13 GMT -5
I'm sure stevenz can respond better but I have been fortunate to have been reading some of GT's correspondence over the last couple of years. One thing you have to bear in mind is that GT hasn't just suddenly released all of this, but what you are reading these days are from informal "archives" that have been read by a certain number of people who have chosen, until now, not to release any of it into the public sphere. From what I can see of GT, he has an anti-secrecy policy for anything he writes and is always prepared to be fully accountable for what he writes. I believe that the decisions for release are being made entirely by others, not GT. I can confirm with 100% certainty that the idea to release the "stupid, dumb" quotation did not come from either GT or stevenz because I know exactly who it came from. I don't even think we can say there is a "campaign" going on here, except to get the story out. While GT is not deciding what is being released on TMB, here is Graham's reply to us when we asked him if we can share what he wrote to us: You asked about sharing something I wrote, and thanks for asking. I don't mind anything I have written being shared with anybody - my feeling is that if something is right and stands on a good foundation then there is no reason why we should fear it being shared or known. And if something is not fit to be shared, then I shouldn't be believing it or saying it. So, please feel free to share anything at your own discretion.
So, I will share here what Graham said to us back in November regarding our concerns (CSA cover ups and leaving those found in immorality/abuse in the ministry): Sadly, my experience here over the last number of years up till the present gives me little hope of any change in the attitudes of the overseers. Unfortunately they seem to be blindly supported by the rest of the workers here, without any regard for the soundness of what they are doing or the position they take. And they seem quite incapable, or totally unwilling, to listen anybody or to entertain any thought of needing to change. Sometimes it seems that pressure induces them to be open to some readjustment, but it is very sad to me when only pressure is able to motivate whereas the love and fear of God and the care for His people should urge them to be true.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Feb 7, 2014 21:45:20 GMT -5
So, I will share here what Graham said to us back in November regarding our concerns (CSA cover ups and leaving those found in immorality/abuse in the ministry): Sadly, my experience here over the last number of years up till the present gives me little hope of any change in the attitudes of the overseers. Unfortunately they seem to be blindly supported by the rest of the workers here, without any regard for the soundness of what they are doing or the position they take. And they seem quite incapable, or totally unwilling, to listen anybody or to entertain any thought of needing to change. Sometimes it seems that pressure induces them to be open to some readjustment, but it is very sad to me when only pressure is able to motivate whereas the love and fear of God and the care for His people should urge them to be true.
This attitude and source of the problem goes well beyond the overseers and their fraternity. In any of the concerning cases you look at, the overseers were not acting alone in the CSA coverups, excommunications, false witnessing, etc. Where were the other men of conscience besides Graham? It seems that the doctrines of "perfect way" + "only way" + "unchanging way" incubate this kind of environment that rejects any reform.
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 7, 2014 22:27:09 GMT -5
Over the last few weeks, since Graham's resignation, we have read over and over again about the problems with the overseers and their reluctance to deal with issues Graham has brought to their attention, and as a result he felt he could no longer continue in the work..
Apparently Graham stated that the CSA was not the reason for his resignation, so that in mind WHAT are the issues that the overseer is not dealing with. I want to understand this from his perspective so I would like something more specific than just 'issues'. Can you help Stevenz??
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 7, 2014 22:50:42 GMT -5
Over the last few weeks, since Graham's resignation, we have read over and over again about the problems with the overseers and their reluctance to deal with issues Graham has brought to their attention, and as a result he felt he could no longer continue in the work.. Apparently Graham stated that the CSA was not the reason for his resignation, so that in mind WHAT are the issues that the overseer is not dealing with. I want to understand this from his perspective so I would like something more specific than just 'issues'. Can you help Stevenz?? I don't know if I can help you as you don't seem to understand that which has been written here on TMB in various posts explaining what is wrong with the current role and method of operation of the overseers. You have commented on some of those posts yet now seem to not have any understanding of the issues. Graham has written in 2010: I did make the remark to D on Saturday that the overseers will not get anywhere towards putting things right (or even, possibly, seeing clearly how much needs to be put right) until they are prepared to get up before the people and make the clear statement "we are wrong". D asked the question to clarify, "do they need to say 'we have done wrong' or 'we are wrong'?", and I was emphatic to him that the statement must be that "we ARE wrong". D's reaction to that was to go back again to old ground of wanting it to be agreed that there does have to be someone co-ordinating plans etc, which is not contested and with which I have repeatedly confirmed I agree. I have never contended that it is out of order to have those who function as leaders and co-ordinators among us, just that those who do so should do so in the spirit of Christ - serving in humility as brothers and shepherds amongst the flock. Back in 2008 he wrote: I bring these things to notice not from the perspective of personal grievance, but from a concern for the Kingdom and the fellowship of the Saints. 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.
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 7, 2014 23:04:42 GMT -5
Yes I have commented and that was to say that this appears to be a very one sided discussion and that is still my point. Saying they must get up and say we are wrong' about WAHT?? You cant just say 'leadership in general', there must be specific things that Graham feels the overseers have done wrong.
'Sickness in the eldership' What is the EXACT problem he is referring to.
Sorry Stevenz but this is all way to general for my liking. How can we as a church put these things right, if we don't know exactly what's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 7, 2014 23:09:01 GMT -5
Readers may wonder whether Graham Thompson's issues with the overseers are relatively recent problems, or relate to a specific matter.
As an illustration that they go back many years, I will outline a story from around 1987.
I understand that Les Hawes was the overseer of Singapore and adjacent countries such as Sabah where Graham was working. Les said something that Graham felt was not in accordance with scripture, so Graham wrote to him (with some trepidation, as Les could be quite abrupt at times) to say that he did not agree with Les's position. Les replied, saying that it was a serious matter, and could Graham spell out his concerns in full. Graham wrote back to Les outlining his understanding of bible teaching on the matter. Graham also sent a copy to Nathan McCarthy, the overseer of New Zealand, Graham's home country.
Nathan replied that what Graham had written was sound and was undoubtedly on a safe footing, BUT the way it would be handled had been decided and that should be followed regardless of the wide variation in viewpoints. He also noted that he hoped there would be a convergence of views / unity about the matter some time in the future.
Les replied, thanking Graham for his views and saying that the night before Graham's letter arrived, Les had been pondering the matter and it had opened up to him the same way as expressed in Graham's letter.
What a difference: One overseer would follow a decision even though he could see that it lacked merit.
The other overseer was open to review, realised the need to change his previous position and was humble enough to do so.
In future posts I will try to spell out more clearly the issues which arose later in South Australia and New Zealand.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 7, 2014 23:25:05 GMT -5
Why hasnt Alan sat down with Graham many years ago and spent as long as neccessary to discuss the issues in a spirit of love and brotherhood? Instead it seems that he has remained on Planet Overseer while Graham has been struggling with his concerns.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 8, 2014 4:52:16 GMT -5
Yes I have commented and that was to say that this appears to be a very one sided discussion and that is still my point. Saying they must get up and say we are wrong' about WAHT?? You cant just say 'leadership in general', there must be specific things that Graham feels the overseers have done wrong. 'Sickness in the eldership' What is the EXACT problem he is referring to. Sorry Stevenz but this is all way to general for my liking. How can we as a church put these things right, if we don't know exactly what's wrong. Are you sincerely interested in putting things right? This is much bigger than Alan Richardson. Its a world-wide problem of unaccountable overseers. I suspect you won't see anything wrong with Dale Shultz's letter below, in which case you're unlikely to comprehend what Graham has been struggling with for decades. You may think its irrelevant but its a well documented example of how overseers encourage obedience to themselves more than obedience to God. It troubles me greatly that friends and workers accept this as sound doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 8, 2014 7:35:04 GMT -5
Yes I have commented and that was to say that this appears to be a very one sided discussion and that is still my point. Saying they must get up and say we are wrong' about WAHT?? You cant just say 'leadership in general', there must be specific things that Graham feels the overseers have done wrong. 'Sickness in the eldership' What is the EXACT problem he is referring to. Sorry Stevenz but this is all way to general for my liking. How can we as a church put these things right, if we don't know exactly what's wrong. Suggesting that there is another side to the story and that the details are vague and not issues that can be acted on has been mentioned in the past but the information is still not forthcoming. The statement "...I was emphatic to him that the statement must be that "we ARE wrong." does not give anyone much to go on. And what is the point? It is like forcing a toddler to say they are sorry after taking a toy. Does anyone thing the toddler is sorry or simply saying what they need to say to get back to their activity?
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 8, 2014 13:47:33 GMT -5
fixit you asked 'do I want to put things right' how can we put things right if don't know EXACTLY what's wrong! we read over and over again on this board about the need for workers to be open and transparent yet graham is not being transparent either. I want to know exactly what the CURRENT issues are in NZ that are a problem. an account of something that happened many years ago involving 2 men now both dead doesn't help at all.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 8, 2014 14:25:07 GMT -5
fixit you asked 'do I want to put things right' how can we put things right if don't know EXACTLY what's wrong! we read over and over again on this board about the need for workers to be open and transparent yet graham is not being transparent either. I want to know exactly what the CURRENT issues are in NZ that are a problem. an account of something that happened many years ago involving 2 men now both dead doesn't help at all. You mean dead men such as Irvine and Cooney? Both dead, but still an unresolved issue for the church. If the issues you are referring to were never addressed and corrections made, assurances that such issues would be immediately resolved in the future..... then yes.... that account would still be relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 8, 2014 14:41:05 GMT -5
Wrong doctrine abounds in the workers preaching. Believing they are beyond questioning is another. Denial that they were started by a man but claiming they were started by Jesus and are a continuation of His church is another error that needs to be put right. Some things of which GT had allured to.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 8, 2014 14:45:56 GMT -5
fixit you asked 'do I want to put things right' how can we put things right if don't know EXACTLY what's wrong! we read over and over again on this board about the need for workers to be open and transparent yet graham is not being transparent either. I want to know exactly what the CURRENT issues are in NZ that are a problem. an account of something that happened many years ago involving 2 men now both dead doesn't help at all. You mean dead men such as Irvine and Cooney? Both dead, but still an unresolved issue for the church. If the issues you are referring to were never addressed and corrections made, assurances that such issues would be immediately resolved in the future..... then yes.... that account would still be relevant. One thing obvious about your statement, is that there are two men now dead (and I am not referring to Irvine and Cooney, but elder brothers that passed away in the last 10 years), and an issue concerning those two men was brought forward to the senior workers concerning them, the issue was never resolved. This is obvious if both men have since passed away in the meantime. Since we have statements that Graham was asking/demanding/pleading/exhorting/etc for somewhere around 10 years regarding these issues, I would say that clearly shows a lack of concern on the part of the 'senior brothers' to deal with issues that are brought to their attention. Surely this should raise a big red flag for anyone that is considering going into the work, and a red flag for members of the church. Not only does this show a lack of concern from the 'senior brothers' for younger brothers facing issues in the church, it also emphasizes the fact that similar action/lack of action happens elsewhere within the church. Take for example the plight of the couple who have tried to get answers and assurances from 'senior brothers' regarding placing sexually immoral workers in the homes of unsuspecting members of the fellowship. They have met with a similar lack of concern or action from most 'senior brothers'. They have now taken the issue to the church, much as is being done here in Graham's case. As with Graham, the process started with them meeting with a local overseer concerning the issues that they knew of, then it was taken to other senior workers, and now they have taken it to the local church. And the result? Well..... similar to this one. People listened, but the issue is still unresolved. The result? Probably another family gone from the fellowship, plus others who have been watching that situation either leaving the fellowship...... closing their homes to workers..... and at best (and it could be considered worse) cutting off all influence of workers in their lives. Sure.... they may continue to go to their local fellowship meetings, but not to gospel meetings, and no more support for any workers other than those that they know as INDIVIDUALS to be honest and trustworthy. I do know that many simply refuse to believe that this is taking place, as they either don't see it happening around them, or they simply ignore the empty seats at convention and gospel meetings. And yet, they see those people in their local fellowship meetings.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Feb 8, 2014 15:24:29 GMT -5
I wonder if GT sort of tipped his agenda by letting a surrogate (Stevenz) "leak" the "stupid, dumb" quote which in my opinion was sort of a "gotcha" action on GT's part and was a sort of a reverse nastiness. I'm not defending the comment, but somehow this decade long debacle seems to have started in Australia where GT was at the time and where some real problems seem to have been occurred. I am missing he facts of this problem. Does anyone know? I don't like to put a puzzle together blindfolded.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 8, 2014 16:03:57 GMT -5
One person has indicated that part of what Graham was seeking a resolution to was the issue of Divorce and Remarriage, and whether people should be allowed to have a part in meetings if they were in that category. I haven't heard that from any other source, nor seen it addressed in any of the emails which I have read.
I just thought that I should share that I had heard it was one of the issues that he was seeking a resolution/answer to.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Feb 8, 2014 17:03:15 GMT -5
I think that the concerns raised by reallyandtruly, christiansburg, rational, and others, are fair and reasonable.
So far what we’ve got is portions of Graham’s letters spread across various threads and muddled with musings, opinions, questions, and other posts. The result is that the issues get confused, difficult to determine (or have never been clearly stated).
I think the best solution would be to create a dedicated thread where Graham’s letters are published in full (As Maja points out, GT has given consent to that) so that the audience can then read the complete letters and get a clear sense of the issues.
The thread should be locked to prevent replies (other threads can be created for discussion), so that the letters don’t get lost amoungst the other posts.
Also, I suggest that it ought to be pinned, ensuring the letters remain easily accessible to new comers (I anticipate there’ll be a few as word gets around about where the letters can be read).
This is simple, open, and honest.
If TMB administration are not willing to accommodate this, I’m sure that there are various other website proprietors who’d be happy to.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 8, 2014 17:06:50 GMT -5
One person has indicated that part of what Graham was seeking a resolution to was the issue of Divorce and Remarriage, and whether people should be allowed to have a part in meetings if they were in that category. I haven't heard that from any other source, nor seen it addressed in any of the emails which I have read. I just thought that I should share that I had heard it was one of the issues that he was seeking a resolution/answer to. A similar issue that I imagine G.T. would be interested in is what happens in the matter of someone marrying outside the fellowship. Different overseers still have different positions ranging from banning participation in meetings to nothing at all. Another reason why our church not only loses current members but fails to gain new ones.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 8, 2014 20:36:25 GMT -5
Wrong doctrine abounds in the workers preaching. Believing they are beyond questioning is another. Denial that they were started by a man but claiming they were started by Jesus and are a continuation of His church is another error that needs to be put right. Some things of which GT had allured to. Alluded? I think the comments are saying why allude to these things rather than just stating them directly?
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Feb 8, 2014 22:27:56 GMT -5
One person has indicated that part of what Graham was seeking a resolution to was the issue of Divorce and Remarriage, and whether people should be allowed to have a part in meetings if they were in that category. I haven't heard that from any other source, nor seen it addressed in any of the emails which I have read. I just thought that I should share that I had heard it was one of the issues that he was seeking a resolution/answer to. A similar issue that I imagine G.T. would be interested in is what happens in the matter of someone marrying outside the fellowship. Different overseers still have different positions ranging from banning participation in meetings to nothing at all. Another reason why our church not only loses current members but fails to gain new ones. If only there was some sensible resolution in the ridiculousness of that 'rule'! (By sensible I mean stop making up rules as they go along!)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 9, 2014 0:28:55 GMT -5
A similar issue that I imagine G.T. would be interested in is what happens in the matter of someone marrying outside the fellowship. Different overseers still have different positions ranging from banning participation in meetings to nothing at all. Another reason why our church not only loses current members but fails to gain new ones. If only there was some sensible resolution in the ridiculousness of that 'rule'! (By sensible I mean stop making up rules as they go along!) An individual emailed me the following account of how Graham handled a situation in regard to D&R: A girl grew up in the f/ship, 'went wild', married outside, the marriage fell over. She later met a man who had no previous knowledge with the f/ship and married him. They later came to gospel mtgs and professed. He was allowed to take part in mtgs but she wasn't (the 'standard' procedure in West US, NZ etc) Well then he wanted to be baptized GT was in the field and would not baptise him. So later on another NZ brother did. That is GT's view on this poor guy and his situation! I wonder if GT would remain the TMB 'darling' if the regular TMB poster knew that?..... What would be great if GT would prepare a concise statement of what is wrong in NZ and what needs to be done to correct it. I honestly don't know what he wants!
This is what readyandwilling, gene, rational, christianburg etc are all asking for, why aren't you also asking for it?I do think it would be good to have a list of things that Graham brought to the attention of Alan. If I am understanding correctly, these issues go back several years (10?), and evidently were never resolved, which led up to Graham leaving the work Of real interest to me, would be the chronological order of when the issues were brought to Alan's attention, and then when Alan responded to him, and what the outcome of that was. I am reluctant to start a new thread about this, and in fact have considered combining a few threads, as we have the same issues being discussed on numerous threads now.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 9, 2014 0:29:45 GMT -5
Graham Thompson and overseers - Part 2 In a previous post I mentioned a incident from ~1987 where Graham saw the difference between an overseer who was willing to reconsider his point of view, and another overseer who could see what was right but preferred to follow the ruling of overseers from many years ago. This report relates to the change of overseers in South Australia. Around July 2003, Stan Cornthwaite, the South Australian overseer, informed Graham Thompson that he felt that Ian Taylor would have to be taking responsibility in South Australia, stating that “you have your health problems, and I have always got on well with Ian”. Stan added that he hoped Graham would be able to work with them, and “there is no reason why you shouldn’t be able to as he is a good man”. Graham already knew of this proposal as Stan had previously discussed it with some of the friends. In October 2003 Graham Thompson had a serious discussion with Stan expressing concerns about the proposed appointment of Ian Taylor as overseer of South Australia. Graham advised that it was his purpose and prayer that he would be a help to Ian but it was not long before it was painfully obvious to Graham that Ian was not equipped for such a place and never would be on account of the kind of spirit he bore and his disinclination to accept any kind of advice or counsel whatsoever, and also Ian’s attitude toward the saints and fellow workers. Graham noted that in all his years in the work he had never met anybody who so vigorously, relentlessly, and unashamedly promoted themselves nor had he met anyone who could act with such contempt and disdain for everybody, whether saint or servant. He had never met anyone before him who could be so injurious to the brethren, seemingly without any feeling whatsoever and found him to be insincere in both conversation and in preaching, having acted since the day his arrival in South Australia as one who presumes himself to have authority, and wielded it unabashed. Ian showed a remarkable propensity to change things (from day one) and meddle with things that he did not understand. Thus it was not a question of whether Graham was able to work with Ian, as Ian had shown that he had absolutely no intention of working together at all having not even acknowledged email correspondence from Graham. Graham also told Stan of a serious complaint that Ian had mishandled - a matter to do with another worker, in a process which led him to being sent back to another state, without Ian ever speaking to that worker about the matter. Graham also mentioned another serious issue that he had previously advised Stan, about Ian’s handling of another matter and which Stan had at the time agreed was an error. Stan had noted that he had personally failed in not keeping better rein on things. Graham then advised Stan that if it remained his intention to install Ian, then Graham was formally requesting Stan to take this matter to all the overseers for review and asked Stan to advise them that he had no confidence in Ian whatsoever. Even though Graham knew these sentiments to be widely spread among the workers in South Australia he did not implicate other workers in his representation to Stan but felt that he should be willing to bear the matter on his own. Graham had followed what he felt to be the correct process with such a matter and did not agitate privately or behind-the-scenes nor make a public issue of it. In April 2004 Stan visited Graham to address a grievance he had regarding a letter Graham had written to Ian explaining his reasons for not wishing to join Ian speaking in a gospel meeting in December 2003. Graham asked Stan whether he had pursued Graham’s request of asking other overseers about the proposed appointment of Ian as overseer of South Australia. Stan advised that he had not talked to all the overseers but to some. Under further questioning he advised that he only discussed it with Bill McCourt, the West Australian overseer. Graham asked Stan why he had done that, since he knew that Bill hated Graham. Stan confirmed that he knew that Bill didn’t think much of Graham and that he had no idea why, and confirmed that he had never had a problem with Graham’s Ministry. Graham was devastated to find that his overseer, who he expected to be trusted to act responsibly towards the workers in that field, had known for a decade that Bill was against him but was perfectly comfortable not knowing any reason for it and had never bothered to find out what the reason might be, if indeed there was one. Graham told Stan that Bill had slandered Graham, both to overseers and also South Australian friends and although Bill has made no secret of the fact that he held something against Graham, Bill has never ever approached him or told him what he is supposed to have done to incur such ire. Graham noted that Bill had not followed Biblical direction on how to handle such matters. Graham told Stan that Bill is well known all over the world as a man who has always sought place, with Stan replying that he does know that to be a fact. Graham also noted that Stan’s confidence in Bill is not shared by his fellow overseers (which Stan confirmed to be a fact) and that Bill is well known for giving too much place and having dealings too close with certain of the sister workers on the W.A. staff, which Stan also affirmed to be a fact. Graham asked Stan why did he refer Graham’s matters to Bill and not to all of the overseers as requested, and of course there was no answer. To make further comment about Bill’s attitude to Graham personally, Stan told Graham that he had at one time proposed to Bill that Graham be invited for a visit to Western Australia, but Bill had ruled it out, not as an administrative expediency (not now) but as an objection in principle (not ever). Graham told Stan that Ian is Stan’s favourite, to which he readily agreed. Graham also charged Stan that he has treated Ian as a favourite, to which Stan readily agreed. Stan claimed that a reason that he had not passed Graham’s request to all overseers was that it was only Graham’s voice on the matter and that others hadn’t spoken to them about it. Graham told Stan that all three of Ian’s younger companions since Ian had been in South Australia had made comments indicating that they had trouble with Ian and that many of the sisters had spoken in the same way. Stan asked whether Graham could name any elders who had spoken of difficulties with Ian, so Graham supplied three names. One young companion of Ian spoke quite openly about hoping that he could see it out to the bitter end with Ian and of the fact that it was hard going even to get through a couple of weeks. That young companion was replaced with a young worker who had just commenced, indicating Stan’s lack of appreciation of the complaints against Ian. When Graham mentioned to 2 other workers that Stan had made it clear that he intended that Ian should have responsibility in South Australia, one of them put his head into his hands and said “O No” and both said they had no confidence in Ian as an overseer. One of them passed the remark that none of them would choose to be with Ian as a companion and noted that Stan had not discussed the matter with them. In July 2004 Graham wrote to Alan Richardson, the New Zealand overseer, with a copy to Ray Corbett, saying that it was a desperate situation and they needed his help. Graham noted that taking an issue to the church is never the first step in resolving problems but it is commanded by Jesus as a last resort. Graham noted that it seemed very sad to him that this could come about all because of the stubborn insistence on an irrational scheme to install as an overseer the man who had earlier been judged as having to be moved out of New South Wales on account of not being able to work with responsible brothers there. Graham noted that he was being treated like an outcast by Stan, being spoken to rudely and going out of his way to make sure that Graham has no opportunity to talk to him about issues. One such issue was a case of child abuse which Graham raised with Stan in a letter, giving only a brief outline and suggesting that they should talk about it. Stan went ahead and took the matter into his own hands without ever talking to Graham about it and in so doing failed to obtain vital information about the person concerned. Stan went on his own to visit the perpetrator without full knowledge of the situation and without support, and bungled the whole thing leaving them all open to allegations of illegal covering-up and of failing in their moral obligation to all. In February 2005 Graham noted that he had been advised at the previous NZ conventions to “leave things in the hands of God” so he was waiting to see how things would progress. Graham noted that he had no response from Alan regarding his concerns about Ian Taylor and his feeling that he was unsure of being wanted in the work and that he had received no assurance regarding the matters surrounding Bill McCourt’s position. Graham noted that the suggestion that he should travel to Europe and 2006 or 2007 showed that the overseers were seemingly acting as if it was business as usual despite completely failing to address the matters that Graham had raised. Graham also noted that he could not understand how he could be sent abroad as a representative when he was not welcome in a neighbouring state, and when Stan has branded him as one who is “dividing the work in SA”, “too friendly with women”, “jealous of Ian”. In April 2005 Graham responded to a suggestion of being transferred to Singapore, noting that he was willing to go there or anywhere else that may be suggested and would be happy to proceed with that, but only once the matters he had raised had been resolved. Alan had written that Graham was obsessed with the matter and Graham confirmed that if that was the judgement, then he would willingly bear it. Alan had also advised that Graham should let the matter rest after bringing it up to Stan. Graham noted that he had done so but there had been no action. Alan also suggested that Graham had been outspoken on many issues in the past and so now that a big issue has come up Stan wouldn’t listen to him. Graham requested that Alan review previous correspondence including the matter of child molestation within the fellowship being inadequately dealt with. Graham noted that he had never sought to defend himself from the things spoken about him (such as those that drifted over the Tasman to Alan). In the next post we will continue with Stan Cornthwaite’s response to Graham dated 25th of July 2005.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Feb 9, 2014 3:27:22 GMT -5
I think that the concerns raised by reallyandtruly, christiansburg, rational, and others, are fair and reasonable. So far what we’ve got is portions of Graham’s letters spread across various threads and muddled with musings, opinions, questions, and other posts. The result is that the issues get confused, difficult to determine (or have never been clearly stated). I think the best solution would be to create a dedicated thread where Graham’s letters are published in full (As Maja points out, GT has given consent to that) so that the audience can then read the complete letters and get a clear sense of the issues. The thread should be locked to prevent replies (other threads can be created for discussion), so that the letters don’t get lost amoungst the other posts. Also, I suggest that it ought to be pinned, ensuring the letters remain easily accessible to new comers (I anticipate there’ll be a few as word gets around about where the letters can be read). This is simple, open, and honest. If TMB administration are not willing to accommodate this, I’m sure that there are various other website proprietors who’d be happy to. Absolutely agree with this: I think the best solution would be to create a dedicated thread where Graham’s letters are published in full (As Maja points out, GT has given consent to that) so that the audience can then read the complete letters and get a clear sense of the issues.
The thread should be locked to prevent replies (other threads can be created for discussion), so that the letters don’t get lost amoungst the other posts.
Please put all of GT's letters (and any replies) preferably in chronological order on TMB now rather than bits and pieces every so often. How about a new page on WINGS - dedicated to GT's efforts with CSA? His letters and their answering letters, as well as any action could be posted in chronological order.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 9, 2014 4:31:52 GMT -5
Graham Thompson and overseers - Part 3 In a previous post I outlined the correspondence where Graham requested that Stan arrange for the overseers to review Stan's decision to appoint Ian Taylor as overseer of South Australia, because of the widespread belief that Ian was grossly unsuitable, and also requested that Alan Richardson become involved. The animosity from Bill McCourt toward Graham was also noted. In July 2005 Graham received a letter from Stan Cornthwaite as pasted below. In summary, it - Advised Graham that all Elder brothers in Australia had been consulted (even though they hadn't);
- Objected to Graham's attitude toward 'rulings and suggestions that the overseers all agree to';
- Required Graham to give an assurance that he would accept the overseers' rulings;
- Required Graham to accept decisions that might be made in future;
- Left Graham to be based in NZ. i.e. not welcome back in Sth Australia;
- Noted that Alan Richardson and Robin Schofield had agreed;
- Noted that the most concern was that Graham did not accept the rulings of the elder brothers;
- Noted that unity must be an overruling factor;
- Noted that Graham's ministry had always been helpful.
- Advised that Stan was not being indicative [presumably meant to be vindictive].
------------------------------- 25 July 05 Stan Cornthwaite Xxx Terrace Allenby Gardens SA 5009 AUSTRALIA Dear Graham. I find this is a very pain full experience for me to have too write these things. But after much prayer and agonizing of spirit plus also consulting with all Elder brothers in Australia and I feel I must do so. Because of your attitude and refusal to accept the suggested arrangements that were agreed to at our Overseers meeting April. Also suggesting that it was not handled correctly. I understand that this is the reason you have given for not accepting the suggestion that you go to Singapore to help out there for a period. Also the reason given for not accepting the invitation to attend some conventions in Europe next year. I could accept that you have some things against Ian Taylor, (from time to time I think most of us find it difficult to accept some other brother that does things differently to what we want or think should be.) How ever I cannot overlook this attitude towards the rulings and suggestions that the overseers all 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 regarding Ian. Also accept decisions that might be made in the future. It is suggested that you remain in New Zealand for another year. When the situation will again be reviewed. I will add that Alan and Robin have not had input into this decision but they have agreed to this suggestion. In making the above suggestions I do not want to defend Ian. He has his faults as I also have many faults. 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. I consider from my own personal experience and looking at other cases that the only way we can help another whom we think is erring is to try and talk with them and to show a right spirit towards them. This may not be accomplished on our first try but over a period of time it work out for the best. You told me that you could continue to labour here, while Ian was here. I find it difficult to see how this could be done in a way that will preserve unity of spirit. This decision leaves us very short of brothers, but we do feel that unity must be an overruling factor, and we will just have to do the best we can. This shortage is worldwide. Only our God can move more hearts to heed the call to labour in His harvest field. I have said before and I say again that in the past I have always found your ministry to be helpful. I feel that I am doing this in the over all interests of the kingdom. Therefore I do not feel that I am being indicative in anyway . Your brother in Christ. [signed: Stan Cornthwaite] -------------------------------- Graham then wrote to Alan Richardson on 30/08/2005. The following is an excerpt from the email: Dear Alan, The things that Stan wrote to me have given credence to the most vicious and bitter accusations that have ever been made against us by our most hostile critics, and - as I said to you - should these things be known by such elements the results would be explosive. I refer to the fact that it is emphasised that the main crime I stand accused of (and falsely so) is that I "refused a ruling of the elders", and that can not be tolerated. In making such a general statement (rather than comment on a specific issue) it seems clear that Stan, and possibly others, believe that every ruling by the body of elders is unquestionably right and binding on everyone in the Ministry, and that every one of us have no option but to comply with whatever may be handed down. This attitude makes the body of elders to be a heirarchical instrument of administration, something that has no foundation in the teaching and example of Jesus and no parallel in the tradition of the Apostles. I am reminded again and again (and have been for some time) of the words of Jesus about those "builders" who had rejected the Cornerstone - that Standard of Truth and Right and Judgement that is Jesus Himself. I believe that the current attitudes have the potential to cause, in the end, that the "house" be left desolate by God. I have not formerly commented, but I am completely astonished (and very concerned) that Leslie White has apparently been invited to this part of the world. This man is well known to be the chief representative of the worst schism that has wreaked the fellowship in our current era. Why is he coming? Is it true, as is being reported, that Bill has said he will have a talk to him about the issue before he begins the round? No doubt my astonishment is compounded by the fact that Stan wrote that I am being so dealt with because "the over-ruling factor must be unity". I trust this finds you well and mission work going well up there. We had a nice visit with…etc, etc. Your brother, Graham T
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 8:04:30 GMT -5
If only there was some sensible resolution in the ridiculousness of that 'rule'! (By sensible I mean stop making up rules as they go along!) An individual emailed me the following account of how Graham handled a situation in regard to D&R: A girl grew up in the f/ship, 'went wild', married outside, the marriage fell over. She later met a man who had no previous knowledge with the f/ship and married him. They later came to gospel mtgs and professed. He was allowed to take part in mtgs but she wasn't (the 'standard' procedure in West US, NZ etc) Well then he wanted to be baptized GT was in the field and would not baptise him. So later on another NZ brother did. That is GT's view on this poor guy and his situation! I wonder if GT would remain the TMB 'darling' if the regular TMB poster knew that?..... What would be great if GT would prepare a concise statement of what is wrong in NZ and what needs to be done to correct it. I honestly don't know what he wants!
This is what readyandwilling, gene, rational, christianburg etc are all asking for, why aren't you also asking for it? Your secret correspondent has a distorted idea of what the TMB is all about. The TMB is not all about examining a limited array of facts, nor is it all about making a "darling" of anyone. Instead of sneaking around with negative innuendo about Graham, I would like your correspondent to publish the all the facts he/she has on the baptism case in NZ, and let's have a look at it. What did GT tell the man who was refused baptism? What did he tell others as his reason to refuse baptism? Was it a delay or a permanent ban? Let's have the facts, it may have been justified, it may have been a big blunder. Another experience of Graham's that should examined is his handling of the case of Steve Blubaugh and Gary Johnston in ChCh in banning them from meetings. In both of the above cases, was Graham as dictatorial and authoritarian as the overseers he criticizes? It's a fair question and worth looking at.
|
|