This is the sort of
response that may be expected when attempting to brow beat and intimidate
others within an organisation.
Sadly it was between
a Churchgoer and the committee.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Monday, 14 July 2014
Thankyou for your well
considered letter dated June 29th. I presume that as a committee you
live and operate not only by the laws/rules of Man but also by that which we
profess as a part of our faith and fellowship
On that basis I feel it
fair to point out firstly the commandment Jesus himself made ‘do unto others as you would have them
do unto you.’ (1) And ‘let he/she who is without
sin cast the first stone.’
(1) I take it by the tone of your
letter that you have granted me the right respond in kind. (do unto others.)
1. if you wish to quote chapter and verse then I suggest you consult
the scriptures and be guided by them. You quote protocols and procedures.
Might I take this opportunity to point out that the Anglican Church purports to
be governed by the laws of God and the scriptures. Which clearly states…
Galatians 6:1
Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.
Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.
What I see here is a
witch hunt of self aggrandisement that has lead to a Kangaroo court. Which it
appears in a fit of self righteous peek has acted as judge, jury and high
executioner. See John 8: 1-11.
For the record as a
published author, speaker and acknowledged creator of many successful business
platforms I take serious umbrage at your character assassination and
denigration of my professional standing. MISSIVE INDEED?
Had it not been assumed
that the so called ‘missive’ was a deliberate and unconsidered desire to
circumvent the said (unspecified) protocols and procedures you would have been apprised of fact
the two copies of the article existed. One of which you are aware and was intended
for printing and distribution to the parish upon dispensation from the
committee.
The second, an edited
version for publication in the public domain, is a purely journalistic view of
this Church and drawn largely from what the committee was aware of. Under
Journalistic license I take offence that it is assumed that the publication of
the incorrect copy was deliberate. I draw to your attention my fifteen years of
broadcast journalism in the 1970’s and 1980’s and ask your reflection on the necessary
understanding of researching, compiling and presenting such materials ‘on air’
Furthermore my continued attendance to regulations regarding publication of
materials in a subsequent similar period that followed.
Again I say let he/she
who is without sin cast the first stone. As a purportedly representative of
‘the Church’ I also point out your failure to identify supposed
inaccuracies. This is not a good reflection of the calibre of tomes
originating from an institution it purports to represent.
If we are considering
correct protocol and procedures then I draw your attention to the improper and
inappropriate addressing of the correspondence of your Church. Once again this
demonstrates a failure under due diligence to follow ‘correct’ protocol and
procedure. As such I again draw your attention to the fact that this is
adequate reason for the committee to step down.
If it was so important
that I read your tome then surely it would not have been too difficult to have
expended a few minutes, or even a phone call to ascertain the correct address.
Which incidentally is not my formal mailing address.
Declined the committee?
To the special committee. There are several members who are quite
clearly aware of my reasons for declining to stand for the committee. Because
of their background they would fully understand the reason I declined. On two
counts it relates to serious health issues. Again I say that to place that in
your letter is defamatory and discriminatory and shows a complete lack of the
faith and Church you purportedly represent.
There are two very
essential things to consider here. The first is the purpose of the Church,
specifically your Church. There are many issues that the Church is
currently facing. Two of which are adding to the size of the congregation and
secondly being able to keep the doors open.
On the first issue I
would point out that almost forty years of training in personal, professional
and spiritual growth has been beneficial in working with people and developing
business models. (see letter not published below) Helping them achieve
meaningful objectives in the lives of their families and communities. More
importantly teaching them how to duplicate the process. Something which the
Church could really benefit from right now. If we weren't so bound up in the
‘book of mans rules’ that we have lost sight of Jesus teachings.
Jesus is more relevant
in the world today, if not then I ask why the people of the largest population
in the world, China, are embracing him as their saviour, while we pay him lip
service and bow to the altar of the great God Mammon and the ‘book of rules.
From a purely
scriptural and Christian standpoint I draw your attention to the following
passages.
‘enter not into judgement lest you yourself be judged.’ Next time
you are preparing for communion you may wish to keep that in mind when asking
for forgiveness for the things we have done and have not done.’
I call into question the draconian, reactive attitude that has judged my actions in absentia.
(See relevant policy)
A ‘special’ meeting! Should I feel honoured?
Whilst on the
subject of protocols and procedures it is best to first ensure our own
understanding is comprehensive and our communication reflects each regulation
clearly and specifically.
TO THE POINT:
To assume something and not firstly seek clarification with information, which
would have answered this purported problem is not only a failure on the part of
those who want to quote some vague, nefarious and non specific protocols and
procedures. More importantly it is grossly negligent and a failure of due
diligence. As such those conducting the special meeting should acknowledge
these failing and immediately step aside until these failings are addressed. I
suggest consulting the Churches Constitution on the matter.
IN SUMMARY
1. The ‘special’ committee failed under due diligence and acted under
the assumption was deliberately and fallaciously published. When in fact it was
a simple error.
2. The Churches ‘letter’ is a reflection of inconsistencies and
errors both in its’ planning and execution in that…
o No consultative process was entered into regarding the matter.
o It failed to correctly identify purportedly breached protocols and
procedures.
o It failed to correctly identify the recipients address.
While as a Christian we are called to
practice forgiveness.
Since you feel it necessary to both impugn my character and professional
standing I respectfully draw you attention to the comments of people who have
over many years of association have taken to the time get to know this Man and
member of your parish.
Yours faithfully,
Leighton Anthony.
No comments:
Post a Comment