Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacerdotal
I don't see this as an affirmation statement coming 'full circle' as has been stated. I see this as an organization in trouble for not enforcing what was already in the bylaws. If the liars had been honest on their a.s. this wouldn't have been a problem for them. If the dishonest officials had enforced what they were elected to do this wouldn't be a problem for them.
There are liars on affirmation statements. There are cowards in board rooms. There is trouble in the camp. One leads to another and the result should be no surprise to anyone.
|
Please view this reply with this in mind: I we as AGAINST the resolution, AGAINST any form of television in our midst, and AGAINST anything that smacked of television ministry, advertising, viewing, etc. I am labeled by some as a con, and by others as an old-fashioned moderate--and I tend to come down closer to Larry Booker and J. R. Ensey than I do some others who would be considered libs or "progressive."
That said, I have some problems with you post. It seems as if you are viewing this through the wrong set of glasses. The org was founded as a union of those who differed in many things but could rally around
Acts 2:38 with tongues and the Oneness of the Godhead as their central doctrines--even though they did not all agree on every aspect of that.
Men who are honest understand that this org was a strategic alliance, not a dogmatic sect of one type of thinking. In order to hold it together, allowances and compromises had to be made. 'Compromise' in this manner is not a bad thing. It allowed men to promote something so precious that the world needed to hear. It allowed them to support each other in so doing. It brought unity and harmony so long as we did not continue for our differences to the disunity and disharmony of the whole.
Board members were elected to use good judgment in carrying out the office to which they were charged--not to dear down, tear up, or tear apart--but to PROMOTE unity.
Bro. NA Urshan was a fine man of integrity and quality, who was known by all as, yes, a man able to hold together the politics, while preserving the central doctrine. He played the game, and played it well, and thank God for him. Kenneth Haney and others played it right along with him, learned from him, and now are attempting to hold this thing together.
IF TOO MUCH PRESSURE IS EXERTED FROM ANY ONE SIDE, THE WHOLE THING BUSTS.
Yes, I am afraid that too much pressure was exerted from the tv side at this time, when, if they had waited just a few more years, there would have been a smooth transition because the issue would have become a moot point.
But now, this deal is done. The worse thing in the world that we could do is to try some new deal to exert pressure back the other way. That would result in catastrophe. We need unity worse than ever...even if it means dividing across organizational lines so that we may maintain our brotherly love and honor towards each other. This is why I have a problem with your post...it comes across very condemning of men who do not deserve it.
I have never agreed with AS, while I have NO trouble signing it. I have problem with make such a pointed attempt to force a certain paradigm onto those of another.
I think you are looking at this through one set of glasses.
NOT my brother.
Linear Mode
