|
-------- Original Message --------
| From: |
Harold Lance |
| To: |
Bob |
| Subject: |
Thanks for your note of response |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:09:44 -0800 |
|
Good morning Bob:
CONFIDENTIAL FYEO DO NOT RESEND
Thank you for addressing my question of the Biblical base of the process as
being essentially a Mathew !8 effort. IN my round three note I made
reference to how Jesus dealt with several(Judas, Simon, Mary M, and the
woman at the well) people that he really "had the goods on" because of his
divine insight. He was very careful not to spread the embarrassing facts to
the others close by. I was trying to suggest that concept to your team. I
truly have no knowledge of the true facts or a predetermined outcome on any
of the issues or we (ASI) are attempting to resolve.
We are concerned that in the determinations made by 3ABN that the process
may not have been complete, that information that should have been
considered was not, that from what may have been a flawed conclusion
against LS and that other inappropriate actions relating to employment and
Church status were taken. On the other hand what was done may have been
entirely appropriate. We don't know, but there perceptions out there that
makes our process important. We believe there is a very logical connection
between those issues and 3ABNs membership in ASI. There are several possible
outcomes that could impact on their membership. None of the other issues
under discussion relate in that way.
I suppose what troubles me personally is the tone of the efforts against
3ABN and its' leadership. There is a willingness to equate rumor with fact.
Forget for a moment the methods of how Christ dealt with the guilty, even
the civil process guarantees the accused the presumption of innocence that
requires proof in a court before conviction. That seems to be absent here. I
realize how strongly you folks feel your position is grounded in fact. But
it may just not hold up as well as you think. On the issues ASI has agreed
to address it is clear that ALL sides think they are right. The fact is
that is not true, someone is WRONG.
I looked over your 3 memos(12 2-4 ) to me in response to "round three". You
are right you did not mention ascending liability, in fact no one did,
except myself as I grouped the issues of both you and Greg on the TS matter.
In both your December 4 and 6 memos you did discuss information relating to
a concern over the conference academy move to Thompsonville making for a
potentially dangerous situation and expressed concern over the
"interconnectedness" of the Church and 3ABN. Those concerns I believe
relate to ascending liability issues. Greg wrote more directly his
concerns on the conference "getting stuck" for 3ABN activities. Based upon
the present information I have seen, if it's all true, there could be no
ascending liability to the Church. Obviously, if the presently asserted
information is true and new facts are built onto it liability could attach.
But that is a lot of speculation.
There was a visitor yesterday from our community in the SS class I teach.
He had been a patient in the local SDA hospital recently and was visited by
a volunteer lay chaplain. He is a frequent viewer of 3ABN on the local
cable hookup. This is a frequent occurrence in SDA Churches. Their impact
is significant. It is important that they are properly operated, but there
could well be a mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater too.
Courage
hjl
| 
