Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I think it's interesting that Kangas chose to call Steve Isitt a "man of death." Why didn't he call him a "man of sin?" Because if he did that he'd have to specify his sin, and he can't do it because there is none.
What, exactly, is Steve doing wrong? As aron said, who said WL, or RK, or anyone else are the only ones authorized to speak? Steve is speaking as a prophet according to his conscience. He claims seem reasonable and well-thought-out. Kangas is obligated to take them seriously and address another Body member's concerns with respect. He has no right to act as if he is above reproof. What is so troubling about Kangas and other Recovery officials is how they are seemingly devoid of genuine Christian humility.
But by categorizing Steve (and those here for that matter) as sources of "death," the accusation becomes nebulous, feel-oriented and arbitrary. It's simply mud-slinging.
Drop the vague "death" language, Ron Kangas, and specify Steve's sin. Then we can discuss it as the Body. My money is on the fact that you can't specify a sin, and would lose any discussion about one if you did. That is why you are resorting to feeble "death" claims.
|
Interesting for all I have heard from the audio on Ron's disparaging words towards Steve and words spoken locally by appointed elders regarding Steve, for all Steve has wrote, NOT ONE has called Steve a liar.
Which is why Ron cannot specify Steve's sin only to call Steve a man of death. Physiologically we are all men of death including brother Ron. It's a statement of our own mortality. However the tone Ron is speaking with is meant to disparage, to slander, and to defame.
How many brothers from North America attended that conference in Ambato, Ecuador? The brothers in attendance bear repsonsibility to for allowing the lawless speaking to go unhindered.