|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Trouble at Cwmbran / Richard Taylor
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
EE is certainly drawing out the very best in all other contributors here.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
One of my touchstones on this whole revival issue is Mike Pilavaci's observation that the view from mountain tops may be great but not much grows there. Growth occurs more in valleys. Martin Luther King may have originated that thought when coming back from receiving a Nobel prize. He observed that he'd been to a kind of mountain top but "the valley calls".
Valleys are the places of mess and struggle and imperfection and engagement with the life. The high view, the dramatic event, can be very encouraging as a source of perspective and hope. For a little while it may even feel like the kingdom has come.
But it passes and in its wake there is often disappointment and disillusion. I've seen a lot of that over the last 40 years.
A wise missionary of my acquaintance observed that 'many start well but not so many finish well'. It is easy to overlook that perseverance is an essential fruit of the Spirit. To quote Bob Dylan, 'keep on keeping on'.
The same missionary had another touchstone. 'Hear God and plod'. I like that too. Christian work and witness seems to avoid painful crashes if we also avoid the blandishments and attractions of 'the fast lane'. And get stuck into the challenging prosaics of life.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Barnabas62
Good points there. I've seen the same thing in some Buddhist circles, that people have 'peak experiences', but are warned not to try to turn those into their life-path.
I've seen tons of people have such experiences, but then they have to go back to their ordinary lives, and integrate the experiences. This is quite difficult, to accept the 'plod'.
There are many Zen stories about this - for example, the monk who becomes so enlightened, that birds come to sing to him. His teacher is very annoyed with him, and recommends several more years meditation, after which the birds have gone.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
The Rhythm Methodist -
So... you have given your verdict on Richard Taylor, that he is a deceitful man, because he knew full well that he was committing an act of deceit.
OK. You have presented your case, and let us assume that you are right (despite the fact that only God knows the hearts of men and women, and only He knows our true level of moral accountability. You seem to think you can delve into someone else's consciousness and pronounce on their guilt. Fine. I assume that you believe that the Almighty agrees with your assessment and respects your abilities?).
Now what?
Are you suggesting that someone like DJ MONK is deluded in thinking that there has been an outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Victory Church in Cwmbran?
And, judging by your moniker, can I take it that you are actually a Methodist? If so, perhaps you would like to read this post along with the latter half of this follow up post on the same subject.
And then please draw the relevant conclusions from this historical fact in a way that is entirely consistent (as integrity demands) with the method you have applied to the Cwmbran case.
Thank you.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Provoking even more good works. An unintended good work in itself. Keep it up EE!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Yes, Martin, moral consistency is a good work. I am extremely pleased to be in a position to encourage this - as it certainly needs encouraging!
My fight against double standards goes on...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Oh, and Rhythm Methodist, you may also like to read some of the material in this post and check out this article.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are you suggesting that someone like DJ MONK is deluded in thinking that there has been an outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Victory Church in Cwmbran?
Since you insist in casting this whole discussion in the vocabulary of a court of law, the jury is out as to any outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
That is not the point.
Unless you think that "outpouring of the Holy Spirit" is a kind of trump card that grants immunity to any wrongdoing and authorises all possible means, including deceit, to save some.
Do you?
The point is that there is clear evidence of bad practice (plagiarism) from the leading proponent of the outpouring, and clear evidence of non-communication about less than glorious events on the part of the church.
In fact, to my mind, if this was a genuine outpouring of the Holy Spirit (and that's certainly what was claimed), that's all the more reason to intervene.
As I wrote to the church trustee: "my firm conviction is that the proclamation of the Gospel and the authentic work of the Spirit have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from every effort being made to act with integrity and to be seen to be doing so."
Do you disagree with that?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh, and Rhythm Methodist, you may also like to read some of the material in this post and check out this article.
Precisely how does Wesley's plagiarism justify not calling Richard Taylor on his plagiarism?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Eutychus -
Victory Church's dealings are with God, not with you.
How do you know that they have not repented* before the only Person, who actually really matters as far as this is concerned?
* See! I acknowledge that they have done wrong (not that I have ever disputed that anyway).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
Precisely how does Wesley's plagiarism justify not calling Richard Taylor on his plagiarism?
It doesn't.
And your point is? (Considering that I have never said that you should not have called them out on it. What I dispute is the huge complaint you have built on the mere fact that they did not respond to your communication with them. You have claimed at times that I have been reading something into your words, but you are doing exactly the same here. Just pack it in, will you!)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Eutychus -
Victory Church's dealings are with God, not with you.
Which is why the jury is out on whether the Holy Spirit was being outpoured.
quote:
How do you know that they have not repented* before the only Person, who actually really matters as far as this is concerned?
I think this is possibly where you are mistaken. You conflate sin before God with wrongdoing with regard to other people. They are connected, but can be distinguished.
They may have said sorry before God. It's not up to me to judge the sincerity of any repentance in absolutum.
However, it is up to me to make a judgement call about whether, say, to recommend the church to people in my congregation who have heard about it (and yes, someone has been, and no, I didn't ban them from going).
In that respect, I think a good sign of repentance would be restitution. Which in this case, would involve telling the people affected (such as the leader who took the blog as a sign that he was dealing with "genuine" and "godly" people, and subsequently invited Taylor to an extended mission at his church, and the congregation he exposed to Taylor) of that change of heart on their part.
Similarly, the church should at least announce, not attempt to conceal, the change in leadership.
quote:
* See! I acknowledge that they have done wrong (not that I have ever disputed that anyway).
I'm not sure about that. What I am sure about, as has been widely pointed out, is that you have constantly sought to minimise its seriousness.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
Precisely how does Wesley's plagiarism justify not calling Richard Taylor on his plagiarism?
It doesn't.
And your point is?
My point is that you keep bringing it up as though it was relevant (or somehow disqualified all self-proclaimed Methodists from commenting).
Why do you keep bringing it up?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I dispute is the huge complaint you have built on the mere fact that they did not respond to your communication with them.
I have not built anything on that mere fact (something which apparently I'm going to have to keep on repeating until the eschaton).
That "mere fact" is indeed the least important of four elements, the first of which is the very existence of the plagiarism in and of itself.
Please read my latest correction of this systematic misrepresentation on your part, here.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So... you have given your verdict on Richard Taylor, that he is a deceitful man, because he knew full well that he was committing an act of deceit.
OK. You have presented your case, and let us assume that you are right (despite the fact that only God knows the hearts of men and women, and only He knows our true level of moral accountability.
I think you are confusing multiple things here. As an illustration why, consider how church discipline as laid out in the NT is supposed to function if the requirement is that we first gaze into the hearts of the offenders. Discipline proceeds somewhat on the basis of probabilities, mainly on the basis of what can be said, and doesn't seek to pronounce on the culpability of someone before God.
We don't consign someone to hell, but we are called to judge their suitability for leadership based on what we can see.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Eutychus -
Actually I have engaged with whole four-fold package.
Firstly, I have written extensively on the subject of plagiarism, and that this offence can be the result of human weakness and not necessarily wilful deceit. That is why I gave the example of John Wesley's plagiarism, which you seem to want to sideline - perhaps even suppress.
The other three points are really one point, namely the lack of public response and acknowledgment. I have also dealt with that by suggesting that there is another plausible explanation (which may or may not be true).
It could indeed all be a cover-up. I have always affirmed this possibility. But what we simply CANNOT say is that it definitely IS a cover-up.
That is why I am prepared to cut these people some slack. You are not.
And yet my more nuanced and less binary approach has elicited numerous unwarranted assertions and false accusations concerning my position. I find that rather tiresome, to say the least.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
To chris stiles:
But I'm sure EE will argue (and will correct me if I'm wrong...) that church discipline is an internal matter for the church and none of our business. And that unless we are prepared to subject church discipline in all denominations to the same level of scrutiny, it is unfair to put the spotlight on Victory Church.
To which I reply that this is a public matter due to the church's very public profile, the public nature of issues such as the plagiarism, and its emphasis on a special access to the Holy Spirit.
[ 03. September 2014, 10:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But I'm sure EE will argue (and will correct me if I'm wrong...) that church discipline is an internal matter for the church and none of our business. And that unless we are prepared to subject church discipline in all denominations to the same level of scrutiny, it is unfair to put the spotlight on Victory Church.
Sure - but I'm just pointing out that his reasoning for why critique from outside is in some way invalid could equally be applied to any and all types of church discipline.
And yes, I would agree with you that as it was a public ministry some kind of outward statement is necessary. It is also a further example of why the celebrity model doesn't really gel very well with the model of how the church is supposed to function.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Eutychus -
Actually I have engaged with whole four-fold package.
In the most recent instance, you said quote:
the huge complaint you have built on the mere fact that they did not respond to your communication with them
Do you withdraw that, or not?
quote:
Firstly, I have written extensively on the subject of plagiarism, and that this offence can be the result of human weakness and not necessarily wilful deceit.
You have not answered The Rhythm Methodist's point that deceit is an example of human weakness, and not an entirely separate category. It's not either-or (i.e., it's not binary!). What do you say to that? quote:
That is why I gave the example of John Wesley's plagiarism, which you seem to want to sideline - perhaps even suppress.
Unless you can show how Wesley's plagiarism was an example of weakness and not deceit, I don't see that it's relevant at all. Can you do so?
quote:
The other three points are really one point, namely the lack of public response and acknowledgment.
No they aren't. The lack of private acknowledgement is not the same as a lack of public acknowlegement, and both of those are made much more significant by the fact that the blog disappeared. quote:
But what we simply CANNOT say is that it definitely IS a cover-up.
It may possibly not be a deliberate cover-up, but the fact is that what has happened has been entirely covered up.
And the fact that the church has so far behaved very similarly with regard to the alleged dismissal of Taylor does not do anything to reassure me.
It would appear they feel no compunction to report major developments, but instead are doing their best to pretend to the outside world that Taylor never existed. This does not encourage me to believe what they do write and claim.
quote:
That is why I am prepared to cut these people some slack.
Can you explain precisely what you mean by "cutting them some slack"? Does it mean "let them carry on unremarked-on as if nothing had happened", or something else?
[ 03. September 2014, 10:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Martin, well, EE's posts have contributed to my absence and withdrawal from this thread (apart from this interjection) so that can certainly be seen as 'bringing out the best' ... ie. driving me away!
That's surely a benefit all ways round!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
"When someone is caught having committed an offence, then let him who is faithful to God cast the first stone, and let him who tries to defend the culprit be shunned and condemned."
Thus endeth the reading. (Can't remember what Bible verse this is, but I am sure it is there somewhere!!)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Does that constitute your answers to my questions above?
And who (if anybody), precisely, do you see "stoning" anybody here, and how?
Are you casting yourself in the role of "defending the culprit"?
If so, how do precisely do you think you are defending him?
Also if so, how do you see yourself being shunned?
How do you see yourself being condemned?
If you aren't casting yourself in that role, what is the point of your above post?
[ 03. September 2014, 11:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hoist with your own petard as usual EE.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
So... you have given your verdict on Richard Taylor, that he is a deceitful man, because he knew full well that he was committing an act of deceit.
My "verdict" (as you put it) is that it would seem extremely unlikely that he wouldn't know plagiarism is wrong. But - on the off-chance he somehow didn't know that fact when he presented others' work as his own - he certainly knew that after he received the correspondence from Eutychus. To then pull the articles - without an apology on that same forum for misleading his readers - is certainly deceptive. He has continued to allow his readers to believe he wrote that stuff, even after he's been called on his plagiarism.
You may have been able to convince yourself that there is a possibility Mr Taylor didn't know that plagiarism is deceitful - but even you must realise that it is inescapably deceitful to continue the charade after it has been exposed.
quote:
]Are you suggesting that someone like DJ MONK is deluded in thinking that there has been an outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Victory Church in Cwmbran?
I don't recall mentioning DJ MONK (or "someone like him") or, indeed, making any suggestions about delusions. I can only assume that you find it more to your taste to introduce this particular red-herring, than you would to answer my point about deceit versus human weakness.
On the subject of red-herrings, we then have this:
quote:
And, judging by your moniker, can I take it that you are actually a Methodist? If so, perhaps you would like to read this post along with the latter half of this follow up post on the same subject.
Having failed to side-track Eutychus, Gamaliel et al with this historical and contextual irrelevancy, you decided to try it on me. Perhaps you thought I'd bite because of my screen-name: alas, I'm not a Methodist....sorry to disappoint. Not that Wesley's behaviour could have any bearing on this discussion, even if I were the head of that organisation.
I hope this has addressed your points. Perhaps you could now address mine?
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
But - on the off-chance he somehow didn't know that fact when he presented others' work as his own - he certainly knew that after he received the correspondence from Eutychus.
Just to be absolutely clear, I wrote to a trustee of the church, not Richard Taylor directly.
The reason for this was that I had no direct contact details for Taylor and no confidence my correspondence would not be opened by office staff or some such. So I found a trustee who I could get in touch with directly, to a personal address, having phoned them to get their details and give them a general idea of what was coming (I also felt a trustee would be a better person to address the issue face to face, and make their own judgement as to whether it was worth dealing with at all).
What is clear is that the blog disappeared immediately thereafter. That suggests to me that my letter was deemed worthy of action. This constituted pulling Taylor's personal blog in its entirety and not replacing it, so he could hardly be unaware of what happened.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Thanks for the clarification, Eutychus. As you say, he could hardly be unaware of his personal blog being pulled, could he?
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist
Having failed to side-track Eutychus, Gamaliel et al with this historical and contextual irrelevancy, you decided to try it on me. Perhaps you thought I'd bite because of my screen-name: alas, I'm not a Methodist....sorry to disappoint. Not that Wesley's behaviour could have any bearing on this discussion, even if I were the head of that organisation.
I hope this has addressed your points. Perhaps you could now address mine?
Ah I see.
Double standards again. You may have decided that the historical evidence I presented is irrelevant, but clearly it is not. Plagiarism was illegal when Wesley wrote his pamphlet and it is no more illegal today. There is a clear parallel here. If we are going to impugn the integrity of a church leader today who has committed this offence, then we should have the basic decency and honesty to apply the same rules to other church leaders, even those long departed.
This is suppression of evidence. It's a cover-up. It's called censorship.
You have taken it upon yourself to accuse another person of deceit. I am arguing that the offence could be the result of human weakness. I am taking the merciful route, you are acting as an accuser. I have presented evidence that indicates that plagiarism, committed by a church leader (even an Oxford educated one) was clearly an act of human weakness, and yet this is ignored.
As for making this huge case based on the fact that the church did not respond, well, given the hostility toward them, can you blame them? Of course, they will correct their mistakes, but the principle of "being wise as serpents" requires any intelligent Christian to avoid advertising their errors such that their enemies (and I mean 'enemies') cannot exploit this.
If I were an ex-offender in Richard Taylor's position (or in the position of his trustees) and I received a letter that clearly insinuated that my Christian testimony was bogus, I certainly would not enter into any correspondence with the author of that suggestion. If that person had shown me that I had made a mistake, then, yes, I would rectify that, but I would certainly not give any fuel to those who were clearly trying to undermine me and call my integrity into question. This is just basic common sense, and it really does flabbergast me that others here just cannot see this.
If such an accusation came from someone within my church, then I would sit down with that person and discuss it face to face - which is the proper way of doing things. Confession operates within a framework in which there is confidence that forgiveness will be forthcoming. An accusatory letter from a stranger - Christian or otherwise - is not a communication operating within that framework. Therefore silence is the wisest policy. There is no obligation on anyone at Victory Church to confess anything to those with whom they are not in fellowship, unless it is clear that that person is the direct victim of some particular offence (for example, if Richard Taylor had driven dangerously and knocked down a stranger).
If it's a case of being concerned for the flock at Victory Church, then why don't people here start taking a look at the actual leadership practices within the church? I would be more willing to listen, if the leadership was being criticised for demanding tithes in a heavy handed way, or splitting up families as happens in cults. I would be more than willing to listen to criticism of certain ministry practices, such as deliberately pushing someone onto the floor when they went forward for prayer (as happened to me in the local Elim church).
The truth is that the plagiarism issue is just a red herring. It's the lazy route, that does not involve actually going to Victory Church and checking it out for oneself. The whole approach smacks to me of a smear campaign, rather than an honest investigation, that involves real commitment, time and effort to assemble facts properly and with integrity.
It stinks.
I think I have said enough on this topic. I am personally satisfied that I have set out my case well and with coherent arguments.
I rest my case. Carry on saying what you like. I am not wasting any more time with this nonsense.
I can only hope and pray that people who may come on this site, who have been visiting VC and been blessed through the ministry of that church, are not poisoned by all the accusations and negativity. I have done my best to stand up for an accused brother. Someone has had to do it.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, I'm back in on this point ...
EE, the issue of Wesley's plagiarism was addressed fairly and squarely on a previous exchange. No-one was seeking to elide it. Some posters with knowledge of the historical facts presented evidence to show that Wesley acknowledged he'd been in the wrong.
The matter was sorted out.
The issue with VC Cwmbran has yet to be resolved.
That's the difference.
There is no censorship involved, simply people disagreeing with you. Get over it.
You may believe that you are presenting a balanced view and correcting accusations and imbalances from other Shipmates ... I don't doubt that this is your sincere intention.
However, rightly or wrongly, it comes across as if you are issuing a 'get out of jail free card' purely on the basis that a 'move of God' has been claimed for Cwmbran.
Granted, you readily acknowledge when things are wrong in charismatic and Pentecostal settings you've experienced yourself - as per the incident you've described with the attempt to push you over.
Yes, you make some good points and I agree that it would behove all of us to go and visit and see for ourselves. I might well do that when I'm South Wales next ... although I'll admit there are a lot of other things I'd rather do with my time when visiting my home-town and its environs ... the green, green grass of home ...
However, for whatever reason, you don't seem to have presented a convincing case as to why we should treat VC Cwmbran as some kind of special case.
It's not as if we've let Wesley off the hook for plagiarism. If I remember rightly, nobody here attempted to do that.
I really don't understand why you've made such a big deal and issue out of this. Nobody here has aligned themselves with the gloating websites that seem to crowing with delight at Richard Taylor's apparent disappearance from the scene.
Nobody here has said that there is nothing valuable or 'of God' about VC Cwmbran.
I really don't understand why you appear to have felt so honour bound to deflect what strikes me as a perfectly balanced and valid set of questions as to what's been going on down there.
Still ... that's your prerogative. As another son of the Valleys said, 'These are my truths, show me yours.'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Host Hat On
EtymologicalEvangelical
Your previous post is not just an argument in defence of Richard Taylor, or VC. In my opinion, it is also a clear personal attack on the integrity and honesty of a Shipmate. Here is the language which confirms me in that view.
quote:
If we are going to impugn the integrity of a church leader today who has committed this offence, then we should have the basic decency and honesty to apply the same rules to other church leaders, even those long departed.
A clear attack on Eutychus' standards of decency and honesty.
quote:
This is suppression of evidence. It's a cover-up. It's called censorship.
An attack on the integrity and ethical standards Eutychus has used in making his arguments.
quote:
If that person had shown me that I had made a mistake, then, yes, I would rectify that, but I would certainly not give any fuel to those who were clearly trying to undermine me and call my integrity into question.
A personal attack by insinuation of base motives to Eutychus.
quote:
The whole approach smacks to me of a smear campaign, rather than an honest investigation, that involves real commitment, time and effort to assemble facts properly and with integrity.
It stinks.
Again a repeated attack on the honesty and integrity of Eutychus.
You are not criticising his arguments and methods of arguing. You are maligning a Shipmates with whose methods and arguments you disagree.
In my opinion, these quotations demonstrate, in a very clear way, a personal attack on a Shipmate, despite prior warnings to take all such activity to Hell.
Formally, I believe the post contravenes Commandment 3, Commandment 4 and may also contravene Commandment 6.
The contents of this post will be submitted formally to Admin for consideration of further action.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
(xposted, hence the edit)
[ 03. September 2014, 15:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Hello. Shipmate 15091 withanannoyinglylongname: you are hereby suspended for crimes against the SoF Commandments, especially in light of previous warnings about such behaviour. The permanence of your suspension to be debated in the Adminisphere.
RooK
-Admin
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It's a shame that EE has not been able to contain his arguments within the bounds of the 10 Commandments.
I don't want to make the most of his inability to respond to counter the substance of his arguments, but I thought it worth picking up on this comment:
quote:
why don't people here start taking a look at the actual leadership practices within the church
To my mind, communication, both within and outside the church, forms part and parcel of leadership practices.
Quite apart from the historic plagiarism issue, Victory Church's current approach to communication reminds me of something I experienced in the church movement I used to be part of (some readers will know which one, but that's immaterial here).
During my time with them there was a major parting of ways with a member of their "apostolic team" who oversaw oodles of churches across an entire subcontinent.
Not long afterwards, a report came back that things were much better now, because the word in the churches was "we don't talk about so-and-so any more". I was disquieted by this. Shortly after that, the movement's magazine had a cover story entitled "a new day in [subcontinent]". The entire article was written as though the departed leader had never existed.
This appeared to me firstly to be fundamentally dishonest - they could at least have written something like "following the departure of X" to acknowledge his existence - and secondly to be farcical, since virtually the entire readership of the magazine would have been well aware of that person's existence and the scope of his ministry.
Through its magazine, a movement that prided itself on openness, transparency, and integrity was indirectly but loudly giving its membership the message that it was ok to cover inconvenient stuff up and pretend it never happened.
(I often wonder whether my complaining about this led to me suffering a similar fate to that leader in the end).
This matters to me because as far as I can see, having confidence in what those in authority in the Church say is absolutely fundamental to christianity, perhaps especially so for those for whom the authority of Scripture is seen as particularly important.
We believe in a "faith once delivered to the saints" - trusting that what has been delivered has been reliably passed on.
If the Church at large appears indifferent when those communicating on its behalf seem to have little regard for the truth, even when it's inconvenient, it's little wonder people have trouble believing in the integrity of the gospel message. I'm not a literalist by any means, but I sincerely hope those original authors had more scruples than some of our contemporaries.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I would submit that such care and concern for transparency is of equal importance if one is big on scripture, big on Tradition or big on both ...
However we cut it and whatever our churchmanship, these things are important and we should do our utmost to handle them with the utmost clarity and integrity.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Have you guys seen this ? It's an article about Andrew Parsons, Richard Taylor's sidekick at Cwmbran.
I have no idea as to the veracity of what they are saying, but the tone of it is appalling. It makes EE look positively courteous!
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes.
All too often, the Church seems to veer between complete silence and utter, uncorroborated vitriol of this nature. There has to be a better way. We have to learn how to deal with conflict and wrongdoing better.
Which in this case, amongst other things, would involve Victory Church putting something reasoned out itself.
(By the way, in view of my involvement on this thread I have recused my hosting role on it, but I would strongly advise against quoting any content from that blog in order not to fall foul of Commandment 7. I think we can do a bit better than that standard of "debate").
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
That's the same chap who wrote the gleeful blog on Richard Taylor's apparent 'downfall', isn't it?
Truly the foaming graceless lunacy is strong in this one ...
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Through its magazine, a movement that prided itself on openness, transparency, and integrity was indirectly but loudly giving its membership the message that it was ok to cover inconvenient stuff up and pretend it never happened.
I have a lot of sympathy with this, and your position on this thread.
I am wondering if there can sometimes be other dynamics going on sometimes though. I have no desire to go into specifics, but I have been in a similar situation, where, as part of a group, one of the other 'leaders' (for want of a better word) had to be asked to leave for various reasons that I wouldn't want to go into here, but let's just go with 'moral failings' for simplicity.
This was a very difficult situtation for me personally. There were a lot of mutual friends involved, and there was blame thrown in my direction. My primal desire was to shout to the world about what this person had done, in a desire to vindicate myself. I had to go through a lot of soul searching during that period.
I was caught between a rock and a hard place. To bad-mouth this person would have been to go against the forgiveness process I was trying to hold to. I felt it would have been wrong to tell mutual friends what this person had done, even though it was the truth, and I was sure I was in the right (as much as anyone can be; nothing is ever black and white).
I can see how, to an outsider, this would look like a lack of transparency. However, in the case of that group, it would have been none of their business. Other people, who (for example), had a vested interest, yeah, that's different. But I was constantly questioning my motives. Am I telling X about this person out of a desire for transparency, or out of a desire for personal vengeance?
Years later, I feel my path of only confiding in those few that I felt needed to know was the right one. There have been a few inteactions with people that confirm this. But those choices weren't easy.
In terms of Victory Church, the plagarism stuff is pretty cut and dry to me. In terms of the communication regarding Richard's disapperance from the church, however, it's possible there are other dynamics going on. Perhaps the remaining leadership feel let down by RT, betrayed and hurt, and are trying to navigate that process. Perhaps something else is going on, who knows?
In my view, if RT has been removed from his position, and for good motives (they don't want to bad-mouth him, or shout about his 'sin' or whatever else), they don't want to be totally and utterly publically transparent and honest about everything that has happened (total public transparency is not always the correct or wise choice), then the very least they should do is be clear that he has left, perhaps with as simple an explanation as 'for reasons that are personal, that we feel are inappropriate to share here'. That would, for me, be enough. But you are right. Total silence is not the right path. Nevertheless, the motives for that total silence might be more nuanced than the desire to cover up, as I've detailed above.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Most wise.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I was caught between a rock and a hard place. To bad-mouth this person would have been to go against the forgiveness process I was trying to hold to. I felt it would have been wrong to tell mutual friends what this person had done, even though it was the truth, and I was sure I was in the right (as much as anyone can be; nothing is ever black and white).
I think the game changes when leaders are involved. When I was the victim of spiritual abuse, I told my story in anonymised form because I was convinced I was not the sole victim of the movement behind it. I did not name names of those directly involved because I did not want to slam the protagonists publicly, and in case they ever came around.
As it happens, years later, two of them repented, and I'm glad I didn't name them. But the story is still out there, and I get several e-mails a year along the lines of "I'm so glad you put that out there, because I thought I was the only one".
quote:
But I was constantly questioning my motives. Am I telling X about this person out of a desire for transparency, or out of a desire for personal vengeance?
It's definitely a good idea to question one's motives. At the same time, for one thing I personally think that in situations like this we are called to cultivate a merciful attitude, but forgiveness is conditional on repentance.
I also think that mercy involves confronting the person with the truth. And if the person is unrepentant and in a leadership position, then the Church at large needs to be warned, as I did by publishing my story. However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution here and these are complex issues.
If the issue is a really major one (and I can speak from experience here, too) then my recommendation is definitely to form a coalition made up of as diverse individuals as possible to challenge one another, pray, and hold each other back from acts of stupidity.
I think this is one of the things lacking in the vitriol blog linked to.
quote:
In terms of the communication regarding Richard's disapperance from the church, however, it's possible there are other dynamics going on.
I agree. I can think of both better and worse scenarios than the ones speculated on here. quote:
the very least they should do is be clear that he has left, perhaps with as simple an explanation as 'for reasons that are personal, that we feel are inappropriate to share here'. That would, for me, be enough.
It would certainly be enough at least for now, I think, until the dust settles. It would be a huge step forward from where they are now. But the longer the total silence, the more reservations I have.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I have no idea as to the veracity of what they are saying, but the tone of it is appalling. It makes EE look positively courteous!
Personal attacks in Purgatory violate commandment 3.
This includes personal attacks against someone who cannot respond.
No more personal swipes of any nature on this thread please. If you can't stick to discussing the issue, don't post.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John316
Apprentice
# 17741
|
Posted
Originally posted by EtymologicallyEvangelist
'They didn't even manage to fill the stadium and so footage of the event involves careful camera work to avoid any images of the large rows of empty seats. You can go on YouTube and watch videos of the event - just search for Noel Richards Wembley 1997 (I can't watch these videos for very long, because they turn my stomach. It was almost all fake. Matt Redman's contribution was a bit more genuine and sincere, but that was about it, as far as I was concerned.)'
I can confirm, as I have been present when orders have been given to carry this out, that Richard Taylor instructs the residents of the rehab to sit with one seat empty between them, in order to make the church look more full. How do you compare this with event you describe? I am genuinely interested in your answer
Posts: 5 | From: Wales | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Shipmate with the long and difficult to spell name - we call him EE for short - is no longer posting here, John3:16. He has been barred for reasons you can find upthread.
So I wouldn't expect an answer from him soon.
On the practice of trying to get the numbers on camera to look more impressive - I can't speak for VC Cwmbran but I've heard of that happening in a similar church some relatives were once involved with. It became particularly apparent the more people began to leave ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If that is a piece of amateur Hosting on my part, I apologise and will step back for the actual Hosts to explain.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the game changes when leaders are involved.
This is true, but, as you say, these are complex issues. In most churches it's obvious who is a leader, but there are also plenty of other positions that make things more blurred. And there are people who might be influential, despite not having a very high position of responsibility. And perhaps it's that influence which is more pertinent than someone's job title.
In the situation I found myself in, it wasn't a 'church' thing, though we all happened to attend the same church. This too made things difficult. Since we were all members of the same church, did that somehow make it a 'church' thing, even though the group wasn't directly anything to do with church? In that case, what was the role of the church leader? He had nothing to do with the situation directly, but we were all part of his flock. As it was, he did very little to intervene, despite being aware of the situation. I'm not sure if that was helpful or not.
Anyway, yeah, these things can get very complicated. It's not always obvious what the right course of action is when things like this happen, especially when you're in the middle of it. Hindsight can make things clearer, but even then, it doesn't illuminate everything.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
On the silence re RT's disappeance might it be to protect his family and any possible "victims"?
It may even be an Elim policy I'm aware of another Elim pastor who's been removed for some kind of moral failing with the church being kept very much in the dark regarding the nature and circumstances
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
On the silence re RT's disappeance might it be to protect his family and any possible "victims"?
It may even be an Elim policy I'm aware of another Elim pastor who's been removed for some kind of moral failing with the church being kept very much in the dark regarding the nature and circumstances
I am sympathetic to discretion as to the "nature and circumstances" of any failing, but I still don't think it's good to pretend he has not left or indeed that he was never there, which appears to be the line currently taken by the church.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
