Why I left the Christadelphians
Andrew McFarland
members of this group with good memories will recall, I was a pretty
active Christadelphian, both on the Internet and off. My beliefs
haven't changed. I left because of Christadelphian practice. I've just
posted the story on my blog[1], along with supporting material.
I still feel very cautious about discussing this in public. It is the
sort of thing where I could very easily violate the charter, as well as
(for example) Titus 3:2. Please forgive me if I am somewhat taciturn on
this thread.
I don't believe I am violating the charter (or Titus 3:2) by mentioning
the name of my accuser here. If I am I apologise, but I expect the
moderator will catch this post before it goes live (I've posted so
rarely recently I think I'm on manual).
The blog post reads as follows:
About 5 months ago I left the Christadelphians, the church I had been a
member of for nearly 12 years. Since I left, a few people have asked
why I left. The circumstances surrounding my departure were very
stressful - someone calling himself "Mike Kragman" attempted to
blackmail me, and my church supported him rather than me. I haven't
wanted to talk too much about this, but now seems like the right time
to say something.
Today, I'm making the email from "Mike Kragman"[2] and my reply[3]
available, partly to help control the rumours about me.
Of course, the main reason why I am doing this is because I believe I'm
not the first of Kragman's targets, and I don't think I'll be the last.
If you have been threatened or intimidated by this person, whether or
not he calls himself "Mike Kragman" at the time, I want to hear from
you. If you get an email, or letter, or anything like that, contact me.
I believe "Mike Kragman" is destroying the Christadelphian community,
and if his victims stand together we may be able to stop him.
[1] http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/blog/2005-09-25
[2] http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/kragman/email
[3] http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/kragman/reply
Andrew
--
We can't change the past, but each of us, by challenging prejudice
and intolerance, can help to change the future.
- Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Address at Holocaust Memorial Day,
Westminster Hall, London, 27th January 2005
Debbie
<aamcf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of course, the main reason why I am doing this is because I believe I'm
>not the first of Kragman's targets, and I don't think I'll be the last.
>If you have been threatened or intimidated by this person, whether or
>not he calls himself "Mike Kragman" at the time, I want to hear from
>you. If you get an email, or letter, or anything like that, contact me.
>I believe "Mike Kragman" is destroying the Christadelphian community,
>and if his victims stand together we may be able to stop him.
Have you contacted the police about this?
--
Debbie posting as Debbie
Andrew McFarland
> Have you contacted the police about this?
Yes. Was one of the first things I did.
The police have provided excellent support - made me proud to be a
taxpayer, actually!
Andrew
Michael J Davis
Andrew McFarland <aamcf...@gmail.com> writes
>Back in August, I mentioned that I had left the Christadelphians. As
>members of this group with good memories will recall, I was a pretty
>active Christadelphian, both on the Internet and off. My beliefs
>haven't changed. I left because of Christadelphian practice. I've just
>posted the story on my blog[1], along with supporting material.
Thank you, Andrew. My personal sympathies for your distress and lack of
support from your church. Of course, the like (false accusations) have
occurred throughout the history of the Church (and indeed in all human
organisations).
I am sure that placing your trust in God will strengthen your faith. I
will pray that you find a better place to worship[1].
Blessings
Mike
[1] If that's what Christadelphians do when they meet(?)
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Religion is worthless unless it helps us rise above it to get closer to God
<><
Gordon Hudson
news:1127687951.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Andrew,
I read through your article, but I can't see why this incident would cause
you to leave the Christadelphians.
If someone emails you anonymously and threatens you he is probably just a
crank.
Neil Davey
<aamcf...@gmail.com> jumped up and down excitedly and wrote the
following:
>About 5 months ago I left the Christadelphians, the church I had been a
>member of for nearly 12 years. Since I left, a few people have asked
>why I left. <snip>
Having read your blog I understand why you felt you had to leave. I
hope you are able to sort this out quickly with all concerned. I'll be
praying for you in this situation.
Cheers
Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use daveyneil_at_yahoo dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Gareth McCaughan
> I read through your article, but I can't see why this incident would cause
> you to leave the Christadelphians.
> If someone emails you anonymously and threatens you he is probably just a
> crank.
Well, what Andrew said was that ...
| someone calling himself "Mike Kragman" attempted to
| blackmail me, and my church supported him rather than me.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Andrew McFarland
> Well, what Andrew said was that ...
> | someone calling himself "Mike Kragman" attempted to
> | blackmail me, and my church supported him rather than me.
Gareth has it 100% right. Had my church supported me I would not have
left.
For the record, as my situation has become more widely known in
Christadelphian circles I've had a lot more support. I might yet
return, but I wouldn't hold my breath...
Andrew McFarland
<snip>
> I will pray that you find a better place to worship[1].
<snip>
> [1] If that's what Christadelphians do when they meet(?)
Well, its what I used to do, and its what my mother, Aunt and I now do
every Sunday :)
way...@uku.co.uk
1. Do you have any evidence that you are "not the first of Kragman's
targets" or that MK is "destroying the Christadelphian community" as
you suggested? If so, what is that evidence?
I ask as a concerned Christadelphian.
Chris Maddocks
Peter R
news:1127769080.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I have thought a bit about this and I have a question too.
You say that this fellow was "blackmailing" you, but that word normally
implies that the individual doing the blackmailing stands to gain something
as a result of his victim complying to his/her demands. Now forgive me if Im
a bit dim but after having read your post and followed your links, I cannot
see what this MK fellow hopes to gain from his actions???
Peter R
Kendall K. Down
"Andrew McFarland" <aamcf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back in August, I mentioned that I had left the Christadelphians.
Sorry to hear it, Andrew. I can't say that I'm sorry you left the
Christadelphians, which I regard as seriously wrong, but sorry that it was
in such distasteful circumstances. If I may, I would like to suggest two
things:
1. Continue to walk with God. He has not forsaken you.
2. Continue to believe what you understand to be right, whether or not it
has the backing of a formal church organisation.
Remember, men may take away your church membership, but they cannot take
away your membership of God's kingdom.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Gareth McCaughan
> I have thought a bit about this and I have a question too.
> You say that this fellow was "blackmailing" you, but that word normally
> implies that the individual doing the blackmailing stands to gain something
> as a result of his victim complying to his/her demands. Now forgive me if Im
> a bit dim but after having read your post and followed your links, I cannot
> see what this MK fellow hopes to gain from his actions???
Is that required, for something to be blackmail?
My reading is that MK really believed he was doing what he did
for Andy's good, to save his soul. But how does that stop it
being blackmail?
Richard Emblem
<aamcf...@gmail.com> wrote:
That sounds like "church" to me.
I was so pleased to see your name back on ukrc as I always used to
enjoy your contributions Andrew, I'm only sorry to hear your news.
However I would endorse what Mike, Ken,Neil and others have said
already.
--
Richard Emblem
"God loves you and there's not a thing you can do to change that."
(Rev Tom Van Culin, Honolulu)
Andrew McFarland
> You say that this fellow was "blackmailing" you, but that word normally
> implies that the individual doing the blackmailing stands to gain something
> as a result of his victim complying to his/her demands.
Actually, it doesn't. One definition of blackmail is
extortion or coercion by often written threats esp.
of public exposure, physical harm, or criminal
prosecution
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blackmail
That sounds pretty close to what Kragman was trying to do to me.
> Now forgive me if Im
> a bit dim but after having read your post and followed your links, I cannot
> see what this MK fellow hopes to gain from his actions???
I'm not sure I could speculate about his motives without violating the
charter.
Andrew McFarland
> If I may, I would like to suggest two things:
<snip>
Thank you, Ken. Your thoughts are appreciated.
Andrew McFarland
> That sounds like "church" to me.
I guess if it looks like an orange, smells like an orange, and tastes
like an orange... :-)
> However I would endorse what Mike, Ken,Neil and others have said
> already.
Thanks.
My faith is as strong now as it has ever been, possibly even stronger.
Martin Biddiscombe
:I guess if it looks like an orange, smells like an orange, and tastes
:like an orange... :-)
Then it must be one. :-)
<M>
--
Peter R
>> I have thought a bit about this and I have a question too.
>> You say that this fellow was "blackmailing" you, but that word normally
>> implies that the individual doing the blackmailing stands to gain
>> something
>> as a result of his victim complying to his/her demands.
Gareth
> Is that required, for something to be blackmail?
Probably not if one is going to use some strict dictionary defination, but
my feelings are that "common usage" is different from what Andrew is
proposing. It seems to me that blackmail is normally used in a very
pajoritive<sp?> manner and I cannot see what this MK fellow is doing which
is so bad. (see my example below)
>
> My reading is that MK really believed he was doing what he did
> for Andy's good, to save his soul. But how does that stop it
> being blackmail?
If my best friend was having an affair and I said to him; "look if you don't
either, desist from seeing this mistress of yours and seek help for
yourself, or come clean with your wife who is also someone I love as a very
close friend, I'm gonna go and tell her about it myself".......would I be
"blackmailing" him or giving him an ultimatum to help both himself and his
wife?
As I say above, I'm sure one could come up with a dictionary definition
which supported the argument that it was blackmail, but personally I don't
think it would be a fair or helpfull choice of words in that situation.
I think I think the same in this situation.
Peter R
Peter R
>> You say that this fellow was "blackmailing" you, but that word normally
>> implies that the individual doing the blackmailing stands to gain
>> something
>> as a result of his victim complying to his/her demands.
Andrew
> Actually, it doesn't. One definition of blackmail is
>
> extortion or coercion by often written threats esp.
> of public exposure, physical harm, or criminal
> prosecution
Yes I agree it does but see my reply to Gareth.
Peter R
Richard Emblem
No, it could be a
Tangerine
Mandarin
Clementine
Ugli
Kumquat
Minneola
Satsuma
Tangelos
or even an ortanique
And an orange might be
a navel orange
a Valencia orange
or a blood orange
;-)
Andrew McFarland
> If my best friend was having an affair and I said to him; "look if you don't
> either, desist from seeing this mistress of yours and seek help for
> yourself, or come clean with your wife who is also someone I love as a very
> close friend, I'm gonna go and tell her about it myself".......would I be
> "blackmailing" him or giving him an ultimatum to help both himself and his
> wife?
It depends on how you did it.
If you did it in such a way that the police felt it was worth their
time investigating you, I'd be inclined to say that you had overstepped
the mark.
I'm not going to comment on whether or not I think Mike Kragman had my
best interests at heart. He has certainly not contacted me to try and
fix the damage that his actions have caused.
FWIW, in the situation you describe I personally would avoid saying
anything to anyone, but that is a whole new thread :-)
way...@uku.co.uk
I noticed that you didn't answer my last question; I assume you didn't
have time. When you get round to it, here are a few more questions for
you:
1. You say that you have gone to law (the police) against your brother.
Can you please explain how this is not a direct violation of 1 Cor
6:7; Mat. 18:15-18, and the Commandments of Christ number 3 of the
BASF, which you say you accept?
2. Is it true that when your former ecclesia - which you now call a
"church" - approached you on the matters raised by MK, you simply
walked out on them (no reason given), refusing to discuss anything?
That your ecclesia wanting to discuss the issue with you was neither
anonymous nor improper?
3. You complain about anonymity. But isn't your website anonymous -
formerly using the psuedonymn "Gareth Chambers"?
4. What grounds do you have then, to complain about MK?
I look forward to your answers, as a concerned Christadelphian.
Chris Maddocks
Gareth McCaughan
> Dear Andrew,
>
> I noticed that you didn't answer my last question; I assume you didn't
> have time. When you get round to it, here are a few more questions for
> you:
While we wait for him to answer your questions, perhaps you
could answer some questions yourself:
1. What, if anything, is your connection with the person who
contacted Andrew using the name "Mike Kragman"?
2. What is the source of the information to which you
appeal when you ask "Is it true that when your former
ecclesia [etc]"?
3. These are your first posts in uk.r.c. For how long
have you been reading uk.r.c, and why did you start?
4. When you say that Andrew "complain[s] about anonymity",
what complaining do you have in mind? (I've read fairly
carefully through what he posted here and through what
he wrote on his blog, and can't find anything I'd characterize
in that way. Perhaps I missed it.)
*
If I have understood you correctly, you say that
Andrew's decision to involve the police in an
intra-Christadelphian dispute is "in direct violation
of ... number 3 of the BASF". So far as I can tell,
clause 3 of the BASF says
| That the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth on the earth was
| necessitated by the position and state into which the human race
| had been brought by the circumstances connected with the first
| man.
which doesn't seem relevant at all. In fact, I've just
read through the BASF and can't find anything relevant
other than the very last "doctrine to be rejected", which
seems to me clearly not to cover this instance. I am not
a Christadelphian and may therefore be unfamiliar with
some special principles of interpretation that are applied
to the BASF -- can you enlighten me?
way...@uku.co.uk
Yes, I'd be happy to answer your questions!
1. What, if anything, is your connection with the person who
contacted Andrew using the name "Mike Kragman"?
I am not Mike Kragman,and I had no part in their (read the letter
again, you will see that he is plural) letter or actions.
2. What is the source of the information to which you
appeal when you ask "Is it true that when your former
ecclesia [etc]"?
Members of his former ecclesia.
3. These are your first posts in uk.r.c. For how long
have you been reading uk.r.c, and why did you start?
The first I knew about uk.r.c was when Andrew drew it to my attention
on another chat-group. I started reading because I was interested in
what he was saying here.
4. When you say that Andrew "complain[s] about anonymity",
what complaining do you have in mind? (I've read fairly
carefully through what he posted here and through what
he wrote on his blog, and can't find anything I'd characterize
in that way. Perhaps I missed it.)
I have in mind Andrew's own written complaint elsewhere and implied
here that he was approached anonymously, which he feels does not fulful
Mat 18.
*
If I have understood you correctly, you say that
Andrew's decision to involve the police in an
intra-Christadelphian dispute is "in direct violation
of ... number 3 of the BASF". So far as I can tell,
clause 3 of the BASF says
No, I didn't say that at all; you miss out part of what I wrote.
Please read my post again, you will see that I asked Andrew to explain
how his actions were not in direct violation of "the Commandments of
Christ" section of the BASF, Clause 3. Try looking there. Also, I
brought Bible verses to bear, and asked Andrew to explain how he was
not violating them by his actions. He might be able to do so, I don't
know. But certainly 'going to law' has always been shunned by
Christadelphians, especially against each other, on Scriptural grounds.
I await Andrew's response with interest!
Chris Maddocks
Michael J Davis
way...@uku.co.uk writes
>
>No, I didn't say that at all; you miss out part of what I wrote.
>Please read my post again, you will see that I asked Andrew to explain
>how his actions were not in direct violation of "the Commandments of
>Christ" section of the BASF, Clause 3. Try looking there. Also, I
>brought Bible verses to bear, and asked Andrew to explain how he was
>not violating them by his actions. He might be able to do so, I don't
>know. But certainly 'going to law' has always been shunned by
>Christadelphians, especially against each other, on Scriptural grounds.
Andrew said (in his blog, repeated here) the following:-
'The circumstances surrounding my departure were very
stressful - someone calling himself "Mike Kragman" attempted to
blackmail me, and my church supported him rather than me. I haven't
wanted to talk too much about this, but now seems like the right time
to say something.'
If the church failed to support him, he had little option, IMHO.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Gareth McCaughan
> Yes, I'd be happy to answer your questions!
Thanks.
> 1. What, if anything, is your connection with the person who
> contacted Andrew using the name "Mike Kragman"?
>
> I am not Mike Kragman,and I had no part in their (read the letter
> again, you will see that he is plural) letter or actions.
Are you personally acquainted with any of the people
in question?
[SNIP: some answers; thanks.]
> If I have understood you correctly, you say that
> Andrew's decision to involve the police in an
> intra-Christadelphian dispute is "in direct violation
> of ... number 3 of the BASF". So far as I can tell,
> clause 3 of the BASF says
>
> No, I didn't say that at all; you miss out part of what I wrote.
> Please read my post again, you will see that I asked Andrew to explain
> how his actions were not in direct violation of "the Commandments of
> Christ" section of the BASF, Clause 3.
(What you actually wrote was "... and the Commandments
of Christ number 3 of the BASF". I had some trouble
parsing that, hence the qualification "If I have
understood you correctly"; it turns out that I hadn't.)
I've obviously been looking at the wrong thing, then,
because none of the documents I can find that call
themselves the "Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith"
(which seems to be the standard meaning of BASF in
this context) has any such section.
However, I've now found what appears to be a
Christadelphian document called "Commandments
of Christ", and #3 does indeed have some relevance;
thanks.
> Try looking there. Also, I
> brought Bible verses to bear, and asked Andrew to explain how he was
> not violating them by his actions. He might be able to do so, I don't
> know. But certainly 'going to law' has always been shunned by
> Christadelphians, especially against each other, on Scriptural grounds.
Understood. My own (only tangentially relevant, since
I'm not a Christadelphian and am therefore under no
sort of obligation to take a position consonant with
Christadelphian doctrine or traditional practice)
is that, as for 1 Corinthians 6:7,
- Paul's argument was basically "You shouldn't need
to go to the secular authorities; the church can
deal with this".
- According to Andrew's account of things, his ecclesia
dealt with it in a manner he found altogether unjust.
- Indeed, Paul says "Why not rather be wronged?", meaning
(I take it) that fostering disunity within the church
is worse; but it's not clear what range of wrongs that
encompasses. To take an extreme example: if a fellow
Christadelphian threatens your life and your ecclesia
says "well, he can kill you if he likes; we don't care"
then nothing in the Bible nor in what I've read of the
BASF and CoC seems to me to exclude asking the police
for help.
- (I suspect the following ia a very un-Christadelphian
view.) Circumstances change. In Paul's time, the state
was explicitly pagan and therefore anti-Christian,
whereas the state to whose officers Andrew appealed
is, at least in name, actually Christian. In Paul's
time, the church was tiny and liable to total dissolution
if it were subject to much dissension, whereas now the
church is enormous but already very deeply divided.
For these reasons -- especially the first -- I think
it is simply a mistake to infer from 1 Cor 6:7 that
Christians' differences now much all be settled internally.
(It might still be true, but further argument is needed.)
I'm not sure what Andrew could do to follow the
instructions in Matthew 18, in this case. His reply
to "Mike Kragman" went unanswered; a commenter on his
blog says that mail to that address now bounces. So
he can't approach that person or group individually,
with or without witnesses. He has no way of telling
the appropriate church authorities, since he doesn't
have any way of telling (so far as I can see) what
ecclesia "Mike Kragman" belongs to.
(I am assuming that Andrew's account of what happened
is accurate, here; that's all the information I have.)
way...@uku.co.uk
My only association with Mike Kragman is that we are all
Christadelpians (notice the letter used the word "brethren").
For Clarification, the BASF is a document which forms the basis of
fellowship for Christadelphians, being a listing of some Bible
doctrines which all Christadelphians are bound to accept,and some
teachings of men which they are bound to reject.
It contains Doctrines to Be Accepted, Doctrines to be Rejected, and The
Commandments of Christ. The complete document is made up of all 3
sections, although for some unknown reason, some versions on the web
lack either the 2nd or 3rd or both sections. 1 Cor 6:7 specifically
comments adversely against those who go to law against their brethren.
You are quite wrong to assume that the ecclesia was tiny in Paul's day;
in fact the opposite is true; read the Acts of the apostles; the
ecclesias then were much larger than Andrew's former ecclesia. The
inspired words of Paul are just as relevant today, as they were when
they were penned. The remedy prescribed by Paul is to "suffer
yourselves to be defrauded".
In my post, I asked Andrew to explain how his actions do not violate
this principle, and the BASF which he says he accepts. I look forward
to his reply.
Chris Maddocks
way...@uku.co.uk
>If the church failed to support him, he had little option, IMHO.
There are two sides to every story. The ecclesia (not church) did not
support him with reference to MK, because whatever you may think of
MK's communication, he provided evidence of his claims (which claims
are detailed on Andrew's own blog) to his ecclesia, which they were
duty- bound to question Andrew about. They did not "support" MK
either, they rather approached Andrew with reference to MK's claims.
In my previous post, I asked Andrew if it were true that when they did
so, he simply walked out on them (no reason given), and left the
Christadelphian Body. I look forward to his response to that question.
Chris Maddocks
Gareth McCaughan
> My only association with Mike Kragman is that we are all
> Christadelpians (notice the letter used the word "brethren").
Noted.
[SNIP: various things; thanks for the clarification about
what is and what isn't part of the BASF.]
> You are quite wrong to assume that the ecclesia was tiny in Paul's day;
> in fact the opposite is true; read the Acts of the apostles; the
> ecclesias then were much larger than Andrew's former ecclesia.
I have read the Acts of the Apostles, and I don't see anything
that tells us how many people there were in, say, Corinth; and
in any case I think the relevant figure is the number of
followers of Christ, not the number of Christadelphians.
Of course, if you consider that all the rest of us are simply
unbelievers then you will disagree.
> The inspired words of Paul are just as relevant today, as they were
> when they were penned.
There are several kinds of relevance. If you mean that they
apply as *directly* now as they did then, then I think you
need to do more to prove your case than just appeal to
inspiration -- Paul was, first and foremost, writing to
the people of his own time, and it seems terribly unlikely
to me that God somehow prevented him writing to them on
any subject where the best way of behaving might not be
the same for all time.
> The remedy prescribed by Paul is to "suffer
> yourselves to be defrauded".
Yes, defrauded -- which is presumably what the Corinthians
Paul was criticizing were trying to avoid. So, what we know
(assuming the inerrancy of scripture, which I don't actually
believe but am willing to assume for the sake of argument)
is this: Paul told some people who were going to law to
protect their finances that it would be better for them to
be defrauded than to involve the secular authorities. That
doesn't tell us -- even assuming inerrancy -- any of the
following things:
- That he'd have said the same if the state weren't
pagan and thoroughly anti-Christian.
- That he'd have said the same if the offence had been
something different.
- That it's only the individuals who choose to involve
the secular authorities whom he's criticizing, and
not the (local) church as a whole for not providing
a better way.
- That when he wrote he was intending to give universal
instructions for every Christian contemplating legal
action against other Christians, regardless of the
offence and the nature of the authorities involved
and the actual ability and willingness of the local
church to judge fairly.
(My guess is that he *would* have said the same sort of
thing about an instance of blackmail as he did about whatever
kind of fraud was an issue in Corinth, that he *wouldn't*
have said the same thing if the secular authorities had
not been anti-Christian, and that he *might well* have said
that it's best to keep things within the church even if
the church doesn't provide justice.)
> In my post, I asked Andrew to explain how his actions do not violate
> this principle, and the BASF which he says he accepts. I look forward
> to his reply.
So you have said, multiple times. I think we have all got the
message that you think Andrew is afraid to answer. It seems
to me that he may simply be reluctant to be harangued.
(Me, I rather like being harangued, provided I get to
do some haranguing in response. :-) )
Gordon Hudson
news:878xxeq...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
I always assumed that Chrstadelphians would not take each other to court bu
they would take a non Christadelphian to court.
In any case what would they do if one member stood up and murdered another
in the middle of a meeting?
Would they not involve the police?
Or, what if they knew the next door neighbour was a terrorist?
There has to be some accommodation of real modern life with these doctrines.
Andrew McFarland
<snip>
> In any case what would they do if one member stood up and murdered another
> in the middle of a meeting?
> Would they not involve the police?
Yes.
Reporting of a crime, or a potential crime, is part of being a well
behaved citizen. After all if you can't expect honest reports from
followers of Christ, who can you expect honest reports from?[1] Many
years ago, the Christadelphian Hall in Belfast was burgled.[2] The
police were duly informed. A few years ago, my house was burgled. Again
the police were informed. In neither case did anyone suggest that 1 Co
6:7 was relevant. Where 1 Co 6:7 *is* relevant is in civil disputes
between followers of Christ.[3]
The police, in my experience, do not generally intervene in disputes
between two indivduals *unless* that dispute is likely to become
illegal in some way.
[1] It's not as clear cut as that in some cases. For example, if it
became illegal to read the Bible, then I can't see any follower of
Christ reporting people for reading the Bible. Normal cases, like
theft, murder, vandalism, blackmail, etc would always be reported.
[2] IIRC some wine and some toilet rolls were stolen. Odd.
[3] And no, I'm not planning any civil action against any of the
individuals who have slandered or libelled me in the past six months or
so.
Richard Emblem
<aamcf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Reporting of a crime, or a potential crime, is part of being a well
>behaved citizen. After all if you can't expect honest reports from
>followers of Christ, who can you expect honest reports from?Many
>years ago, the Christadelphian Hall in Belfast was burgled.[2]
<snip>
>[2] IIRC some wine and some toilet rolls were stolen. Odd.
There has t o be a joke to be constructed on that. Any offers?
Andrew McFarland
Personally, I've been trying for years.
However, I suddenly saw some humour in Mike Kragman's actions today.
See http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/blog/2005-10-01
Peter R
>> If my best friend was having an affair and I said to him; "look if you
>> don't
>> either, desist from seeing this mistress of yours and seek help for
>> yourself, or come clean with your wife who is also someone I love as a
>> very
>> close friend, I'm gonna go and tell her about it myself".......would I be
>> "blackmailing" him or giving him an ultimatum to help both himself and
>> his
>> wife?
>
> It depends on how you did it.
>
> If you did it in such a way that the police felt it was worth their
> time investigating you, I'd be inclined to say that you had overstepped
> the mark.
Ummm.....can you give me an example of how I might do that?
> I'm not going to comment on whether or not I think Mike Kragman had my
> best interests at heart.
Well it seems to me that by the use of the word "blackmail" you are loading
your comments to imply that he most certainly does not.
>He has certainly not contacted me to try and
> fix the damage that his actions have caused.
If there is such a person as this MK then I think you need to consider the
damage you may be causing him by broadcasting this stuff for the whole world
to see. (and your church for that matter)
I'm going to be frank with you here; On the basis of the information you
have given I can't see anything that has happened to you, or anything that
either MK or your ecclesia has done that I would consider "wrong". Perhaps
you can enlighten me with what you think is so bad in all this?
You are obviously hurting about what has happened and, as one who has had to
leave a church that I felt was my home for 20 years, I know the feeling, but
ISTM that there is no blame to be attributed here either to MK, your church
or to you. If what MK says about your involvement with the web site is true
(and I note you have made no attempt to deny that) your position within your
church was always going to be precarious, and sooner or later the truth was
always going to come out. What I can't fathom is why it was such a surprise
to you that the people in your group were unable to support you when they
found out. If I had been them I suspect I would have been rather miffed as
well, and if the boot were on the other foot I suspect so would you have.
> FWIW, in the situation you describe I personally would avoid saying
> anything to anyone,
I would "avoid" it too. But I would do it if I had to cos ISTM that what
friends are for.
Peter R
Gordon Hudson
news:1128196930.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
As an interesting side comment, I sued to work near the meeting rooms of the
Edinburgh Christadelphians.
The sign out side said "Edinburgh Christadelphian Church", which always
surprised me as a friend who is a Christadelphian would never ise the "c"
word.
Peter R
>> However, I suddenly saw some humour in Mike Kragman's actions today.
>> See http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/blog/2005-10-01
Gordon
> As an interesting side comment, I sued to work near the meeting rooms of
> the Edinburgh Christadelphians.
Wow you must have really wanted to work near those meeting rooms huh? :-)
Peter R
Gordon Hudson
news:4342...@news.maxnet.co.nz...
yep, my typing is gradually getting worse.
One day I managed to type one key to thje left of every key for most of the
day.