Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
But back to this crazy meeting. After Mel got a real lather worked up in the meeting (a froth really), he then revealed that there were three brothers ("you know who you are," he said) offending Lee's works, and they had a week to stand up in a church meeting and confess and repent before all, or be excommunicated.
The three brothers were, myself, Hosepipe, and Gene. Gene was a Jewish brother that converted to Jesus. He was well read in the scriptures. He was a gentle humble brother. He was a Specials-Reading instructor for the state corrections system. He freely gave away his gift and time to help children of saints that were having reading difficulties. He had three problems for Mel ; 1) He didn't accept Lee as an apostle according to his understanding of scripture. 2) He was friends with me. 3) He was friends with Hosepipe.
Of the three only Gene stood up in a meeting to repent. But it wasn't accepted, because he stood up and said, "If I have offended anyone in word or deed please come to me after the meeting." The "if" was rejected.
|
In any normal Christian church-life, what Gene said was reasonable and logical. What could be offensive to Mel, could not be offensive to another brother or sister. As I understand, if a person or persons were offended by something Gene said, Gene was making himself available for the specifc offense be brought to his attention.
As I see the problem Awareness brought forth, it is the conditional word "if". "If" Gene had done something to offend. Considering the era of the recovery, we took brothers at their word. There was no reason for skepticism. Unfortunately for Gene, the word "if" does not correspond with group think.
In the group think reality there is no conditional "if". The offense is unconditional. In the local church context, the local leadership is the group think. There is no room for contrasting points of view. Maybe it doesn't apply to every locality, but based on awareness' experience, this does seem to be the case.
Back to what I was saying, in this particular point in time what is offending Mel, as the #1 elder can say this offends the local church. A #1 elder can say this knowing the other elders and deacons know nothing about the situation. (Word given in the past "the church is not a democracy".) It can be said knowing a good portion of the local church have not been offended by anything awareness said. Has this scenario happened since? You better believe it has.