Quote
SpeakTruth
RRMod:
"Of course such elections are done by secret ballot in the overwhelming majority of Protestant churches. And they are done according to a church constitution with bylaws, which provides for this process."
-I made the point you are referring to because it is possible that open voting occurs within the board of elders only. I have never had an opportunity to vote in any way. I also am aware that in specific instances people have tried to question this and that (details are vague so I'll let someone else fill it in) about what's going on in the church (finances, leadership, accountability), and they were either squashed, ignored, or "warned about" as dangerous.
-I think if anything, it's important for people to know the details about what is going on in the church leadership. The workings of the church should not be so hidden. I have seen at times that RLC is open (annual business meeting, I believe all of the finances are exposed), yet so many things are "secrets" that affect the whole body.
-Of course I'm in favor of independently audited annual financial reports that disclose all salaries, compensation and expenses paid out from church funds! In fact, this info should be available by walking in and requesting it. Perhaps it is, I just haven't tried. Someone go in and try and then report it. I don't feel like wasting the gas.
-Concerning pastoral education, I think to school (conceptually) is acceptable, if you want Bible lessons and Tony's teaching. Most of it had been good (what I experienced at SOMA). But students must realize that it is not accredited, which means its completely useless as an educational background for careers. In other words, it's fine if someone wants to learn more about the Bible, but it is not college. And it is an expensive Bible study. I don't see why the changes could not be made to make it an accredited college, unless the curriculum accountability is to much. That would be my only guess. Personally I was pissed off when I started getting letters to collect my dues, but that's another story altogether. When a church has it's own independent and unaccredited college, it is not accountable to anyone else expect for itself, which could also pose as a problem. Tony does know the Bible well, anyone who has heard him teach before knows that. It's the side stuff that gets off track at times. I think if he made himself truly accountable, and the body responded without "fear of man" to keep him accountable, then maybe these issues could actually be addressed.
P.S. Seriously, if I get another collection letter for SOMA, I might just have to crap in a bag, light it on fire, put it at the doors at the bowling alley, and ring the doorbell...
Also, I agree that this whole thing is not a perfect process!
Whatajoke:
I am close to the man that gave the baby away... there was a span of about a year when we did not talk much because it was all so weird. But the circumstances are different now. In other words, he does not even belong to that church anymore. That would be the driving reasoning behind me saying to ask him personally about it, or referencing it separately from that church. It seems like you missed alot of the story after the drama... (and there was plenty of drama). But the crap already hit the fan, so to speak.
A question I have for you to address regarding this: If, oh say, Pastor BM were to leave the church today because of being fed up with the politics and whatever, leaving it all behind him and moving on, would you continue to warn people about what has happened in the past? Or would you forever equate him with that church and never acknowledge him as able to change. I would also use this example regarding myself, since I was in leadership and have since left the church because I felt led to no longer "submit" to that authority. That was my choice for my family and I. Or consider some of these great men of God you speak of (you previously listed them off) who have already left. You must acknowledge that at one time they were all in deep and had fed into it all. But the point is, they did leave. It's not fair to tag them once they are gone, you should remove that label! Am I wrong? Transparent. were you not once deep in the leadership? You cannot tell me you weren't because I already know. Now you might see where I am coming from.
SpeakTruth, this is a very productive and helpful post on your part. As for the godly men that left, I think they did the right thing and I no longer label them as Radiant Life because I know them and they want nothing to do with Radiant Life. if you are concerned that you are being labeled as representing Radiant Life it is because you are speaking on some issues and defending RLC on the issues. I don't really care about the shit hitting the fan stuff. Whether he has regrets now or what it doesn't matter. He was in leadership there and represented himself to be something he is not. I believe Paul can change and maybe he has but that doesn't equate to RLC changing. The great men who left are not being tagged as RLC but are being tagged as wise men who finally saw through the smokescreens. So me bringing up the baby issue has to do with radiant life and the leaders involved during this whole thing. If it was a mature church this whole thing would have gone nowhere. And know as you have had issues, the baby issue is not the sole issue it is just one that I have pointed out and is very serious. Anyway, I appreciate your forthright posts and know that I purpose of my posts is as a warning to people currently there and people who are new. They can judge for themselves. I just know what so many have gone through and hope that others do not have to go the same route. It is easy to get drawn in there because it can be like going to an Amway convention at times.