I would love to see a response to the letter you posted, the Petitor, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable request for someone to make given the previous friendship. It's a bit unchristian to not even acknowledge the letter even if the meeting were out of the question, for whatever reason.
This so-called anointing that the privileged few have seems to me to be the last kind of gift anyone would desire since it seems to wipe out all need for conscience, caring, love, grace, forgiveness, humility and any other trait which the rest of us consider are admirable and desirable Christian traits.
That's very much the point, isn't it. This wonderful 'anointing' is not building the kingdom of God in individuals, as a church or in society. It creates selfish individuals who do not attract people to Christ and offer no social benefit to the world. Their whole philosophy appears to be that if one sheep out of a hundred wanders off it should be ignored so that they can concentrate on trapping the remaining 99.
It is not really surprising that CJ has not replied to the letter as he is a Director of the organisation, and his response (or lack of it) reflects the overall policy. The thing that annoys me is that they will not admit to having such a policy however.
I have spoken to a number of members of congregation over the years, and not one has actually believed the leaders do shun people in this way. All the ex-members I have spoken to have seen evidence that they do, but the current members are so insulated that they cannot see it. That is simply wrong - they have to tell current members what their policy is. Members of the interchurch fellowship might also be interested in this, and so might parents at the school. What if one of the teachers is suddenly targeted for shunning? Might that not affect the relationships in the school?
That is where the hypocrisy comes in - that they act one way, but manage to fool people into thinking that they are not really that sort of person. I am not claiming there is anything more sinister going on, but is that not the story of a huge number of acts of unfaithfulness, criminality or abuse - that those around said, "I can't believe they did that, they were such nice people."
.. but things that they have managed to hide are now coming out into the open. They now either have to:
1) talk to the people they have shunned, or
2) confirm that they have a policy of shunning people who do not conform to their peculiar and ever-changing standards
If it is number 2, I look forward to reading the policy, the standards that apply and the appeal mechanism!