A question for the posters

[stripes]

I want to pose an important question to the board (BTW, though I've only started posting recently, I've been reading for almost a year) ... but onto the question:

Do we want a forum where we can have two-way discussion and debate even when we sharply disagree?

As others have noted, some on this board can be unfriendly at times to opposing views, especially those offered by current EN people. Clearly there are more of us posting that are "out" of EN, but I would like to engage in civilized discussion and debate with those who want to.

It also makes it much easier for curious people to browse the various topics. When two posters are attacking each other, it's tempting to skip the thread altogether ... and in so doing, possibly miss good information.

Clearly some people want/need to use this board as a place to vent, share stories, etc. while others use it to leak "insider" information. I think both are good (or can be).

BUT, there's also a need for a place where people can air their ideas, have their logic challenged, and sincerely exchange ideas.

For the EN posters out there, do you want to engage in honest debate? If so, what "debatable" topics are you willing to discuss? It might be good for us to discover what's not worth debating. On some topics, our beliefs supercede the rules of logical debate, and we end up in different circular arguments.

If you're game, then ... En garde!

[bill_mack]

"Do we want a forum where we can have two-way discussion and debate even when we sharply disagree? "

So what is Factnet if it is not a forum for two-way discussions? Could you please elaborate a bit more.

Personally, I would like to see open debates with full video equipment and witnesses. It will eventually come to that, I'm sure, but for now, I'm more than satisfied with the open forum format of FactNet. The only thing that can't be done here is exchanging of documents, audio and video, but most people on this board are not at the level where they could use it anyway.

Books are out since you have to get people to go to some outlet and buy them. Radio broadcast, like the counter-cult apologetic types that are aired in Minnesota and elsewhwhere are very helpful to give folks a general overview, but no depth can be elaborated upon due to commercial breaks and time constraints. The internet has broken the barrier that has been held by the bad guys for centuries. Despite what the naysayers rant about, if you use your head, one can get accurate up-to-the-minute reports in hours instead of being sidetracked for decades like it used to be.

Take a look at this article regarding the success of counter-cult apologetics on the internet (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cesnur/cowan.html).

Besides, the bad guys have already trashed themselves by what they have done in the last 30 years and over 50 years if you count the rest of the NOLR, so why another 2-way forum. What advantages are you wanting over what currently exists. Get specific and list them, OK?

"BUT, there's also a need for a place where people can air their ideas, have their logic challenged, and sincerely exchange ideas."

So what do you think we've been doing here? Haven't people had their logic challenged, aired their ideas and have had very sincere exchanges of ideas. Anybody who reads even the last 3-months worth of postings can see these attributes.

--Bill

[speakword2004]

With regard to this being a forum for open debate my opinion would be "yes and no". It doesn't offer much structure or security for people who may feel vulnerable or exposed. It also has become difficult for some people to follow or reference very easily. For those of us who have been around for some time we have a feel for the place. Also after submitting posts for any length of time one has less trepidation about jumping in the deep end.

Sometimes this place can have the atmosphere of a poker tournament on a pirate ship.

I can understand Stripes concerns. Should he/she feel that they can add information helpful to the dicussion, then we all should allow that without flaming or making personalised attacks, comments etc. This dialogue has many viewpoints etc.

Although I have personal dialogue with some people who come here, I am less open to personal dialogue with some others. I am always open to new discussions with any one at any time:
ruffledfur1@yahoo.co.uk without disrespecting Factnet as a forum.
But also due to other reasons I do not publish my name or give out my personal email address here. Not only to protect myself, but also others both in and out of the church.

Factnet is a very useful site for discussion and debate. Unfortunately no person within EN with any noticable desire for authentic constructive debate and discussion has posted here (except for "Actually" who's comments have been instructive)

[stripes]

Bill
"Besides, the bad guys have already trashed themselves... so why another 2-way forum. What advantages are you wanting over what currently exists. Get specific and list them, OK?"

I'm sure there are some "bad guys" in the mix, BUT having fallen prey myself to twisted thinking and logic, I appreciate that some of the EN folks are simply blind. Some are exactly where God wants them, for reasons HE may not reveal any time soon.

I know people who are currently attending EN churches, admit that all is not right, and are seeking what to do. For those people, this board is a resource.

When I wrote the initial post on this thread I had two instances in mind:

1. In the discussion about Ron Lewis and the definition of adultery, it seems the one guy who questioned the definition (i.e., does adultery necessarily involve physical contact?) got blasted for his questioning ... which seemed like reasonable questions to me.

2. I think we could have been a little more hospitable to just_a_thought who said he's not going to post anymore. And with someone like twainicus we shouldn't blast him, but rather, see how willing he is to truly get to the issues.

Bill - you are right that there has been a lot of valuable exchange of ideas. The one element that seems to be missing is the ability to challenge one of the bold posters without being labeled an opponent.

I can disagree with your NOLR emphasis and still be just as opposed as you are to the control, manipulation, financial impropriety, etc.

I can disagree with the conclusion that Ron Lewis committed adultery soley based on piecing together a timeline of his divorce and remarriage, and yet still disagree with the "special treatment" he has received (i.e., for what some guys get ostracized for, Ron Lewis simply got transferred).

[strongapostolic]

If you're game, then ... En garde!

Bravo Stripes, I have the same sentiment.

[philiprosenthal]

To respond to the question at the top. I think the issue raised above is extremely important. Factnet posters should encourage sensible debate and try to correct those who use it just to vent anger/ mudsling/ hurl abuse/ gossip about EveryNation leaders. Doing the latter will not help reform the organisation, but will simply undermine credibility of the forum in the eyes of good leaders in EveryNation. Spiritual abuse can work both ways. Leaders can abuse followers and followers can abuse leaders. Any factnet posters who throw abuse at EveryNation leaders need to be asked to correct their posts. By abuse of leaders I mean issues such as:
* the posting of unverified and possibly inaccurate hearsay;
* the posting of private information about leaders not useful to reforming the organisation;
* the use of abusive words to describe leaders.

Responding to abuse with counter-abuse will not help reform EveryNation. It will just sow more unreasonable hurt and bitterness that will lead to more abuse.

Some parts of this site read like a Soap Opera/ or a Personality magazine - as if some people get some sort of pleasure out of following the private lives of celebrities. I argue this is not constructive.

Let us focus on the issues that need repentance and reform and use decent language to do so. Let us discuss things in such a way that a non-Christian reading the site can see that we 'Love one another' despite our differences of opinion.

If you reading this have posted abuse against EveryNation leaders on FactNet, please go back and delete it.

[john_r_jones]

Dear Phil,
where do you propose those who need the space to come to grips with their anger go? Oprah? Why don't you blog 'till your hearts content-elsewhere and police that space!
John

[philiprosenthal]

I will not deny that those posting on this site have valid reasons for being angry. Nevertheless, expressing anger in public is often not constructive for dialogue. Constructive dialogue, prayer and activism is what is needed to heal the organisation.

My suggestion is that those who need to vent their anger do it:
1. in private discussion with some Christian friend or spiritual counsellor
2. in writing which is not posted on the internet.

And then, if they feel it would be constructive, post the same factual concerns on the internet without the unnecessary insulting language.

[philiprosenthal]

For the record, His People/EveryNation leaders have criticised me at times for expressing too much anger, although I have not used unnecessary insulting language. We all make mistakes at times, but we must seek to do our best as Christians. It is difficult in a situation of extreme hypocrisy and abusiveness to restrain anger, but if we want be heard, we need to control our emotions.

[j2theperson]

***My suggestion is that those who need to vent their anger do it:
1. in private discussion with some Christian friend or spiritual counsellor
2. in writing which is not posted on the internet.***

Personally, I don't think those are very good ideas. Not everyone has a Christian friend to go to, and even if they did a Christian friend might be well-meaning and compassionate but won't necessarily understand where the abused ex-EN person is coming from. And counsellors are expensive--sometimes prohibitively so. It can also be very difficult to find a good counsellor.

I like these message boards because they are populated with people who have experienced the same sorts of things that I have and understand where I am coming from--whether or not they have responded to the trauma of EN in a similar way to how I have.

I would not have anywhere else to go to find help in understanding and recovering from my experience at EN. Why would you want to take that away from me?

In many instances anger is a part of the recovery process. It is an expression of deep pain. Why is is so unseemly that it should never be displayed except in front of a close friend or a counsellor? Why shouldn't Rice B and co be allowed to see the deep pain and trauma that they have inflicted on other people? And why shouldn't curren EN members be allowed to see the pain caused to those who weren't able to live up to the EN "standards".

[coppertree]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi Phil, I think if you read these posts, you may see that the things you with much well meaning have suggested we have done. And in spades, God showed more that than once at corporate meetings; but some things from the Holy spirit where not seen. But somehow individual come to see the light thru His grace.}

[philiprosenthal]

Coppertree. I don't understand what you are saying. Please explain more.

[40days40years]

Philip I agree with J2 and John, this is the place to vent I have already vented to sincere individuals who were nice but had no real idea what I was talking about. You come across a little like a kindergarten teacher when you post against stuff like.* the posting of unverified and possibly inaccurate hearsay;

I say post it and let the truth eventually come out, the ministry thrives on secrecy it always has. If they are going to be secretive then let them reap the fruits of that secrecy. SPECULATION--it is good medicine for EN.

[philiprosenthal]

I will concede that in some instances, if other attempts to get questions answered may have failed, there may be a place for speculative questions. In such instances I would suggest:
i. Frame it as a question rather than a statement. 'I heard this. Does anyone know if it is true?'.
ii. Consider carefully the impacts such speculation could have on other people. Am I treating these people the way that I would like to be treated?
iii. Remember that we too will be judged by God for what we say and do.
iv. Is there value in getting the questions answered or is it just gossip?

[j2theperson]

Philip, it seems to me that you are trying to put people into a box. Within any group of people there is a wide variation of personality types. All of those people will respond to hurt and trauma in different ways, and all will have different motivations for the various actions they take. People post speculation for a variety of different reasons. Yes, some people might post things they know or suspect to be false with the intention of gossiping or hurting EN leaders. Personally, I think that most people here are not doing that.

People who post what you call "speculation" on these boards do so for any number of reasons. They want to warn others, they want to show the EN leaders they know what's going on, they want to know if it's true or not, they want to be able to show that EN is still a bad place and they were right to leave, they want to call other people to arms, or they are wounded by these new stories and reminded of their past pain and want to relieve their hurt by telling others what they have heard.

Almost everyone on this message board is seeking informational truth, but beyond that, many of us are also seeking emotional and spiritual clarity. Although information could be gained by the rules you put forth in your post above, I do not think emotional or spiritual truth could. Those only come by questioning not simply what happened but why it happened. Speculation is part of that process.

[coppertree]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi All- Catching up. Thank Jperson for your lastest posts, and your others also. Phil, in all due respect, I think that as I see this you are looking for a factual answer to a spiritual problem. That you want to see things solved and problems come to order, is good commendable, to say the least. but as I see it many chances are given and still given to those whom can see and hear.}}

(Message edited by coppertree on March 17, 2006)

[lisa_harrison]

Phil, I appreciate your sentiments and do agree that we should not use blatant foul languag. I'm new and I know I probable won't be on this for long. So I'm getting out some anger and some hurt and telling some truth that I experienced first hand---no lie. You can believe it or not-- your choice.,,I agree that some of the people may be right where God wants them. I was and I wasn't there but maybe 4 years, but I was changed because of my own experience with God.

[maranatha1984]

Here is where I am coming from:

The turnover at EN/MSI/;MCM has to be close to 100% every four years or so.

There fore EN Lurkers and Posters will one day be EX EN LUrkers and Poster.

MY objective: to show them a door that they can leave by and to be there for them when they have to pick up the peices.

For EN?MSI/MS will chew them up and then spit them out as sure as the sun comes up