I had to go look for this one, as I thought FB would alert me (I had a tip-off). Peter Hawkins of the UK United Church of God (UCG), an International Association resigned Monday from the ministry of UCG.
He somewhat addresses the continued question of why the ministry did not try to work it out privately with the COE:
The issues causing this rift have been misrepresented in Q&A sessions to members that we have heard. What was needed was a humble response to private letters of concern last year. Well over the 25% of elders also signed a petition to the Council to reconsider what had happened in Latin America, and instead of being allowed the opportunity to have the matter discussed, threats of expulsion for causing division were issued.
He then repeats that threats of expulsion were made even though denials to the contrary were being circulated.
The full text is at the AC web site on the Resignation Letters page.
Do you think this will mean another set of "response" letters from Cincinnati?
@Anonymous: That could very well be.
Maybe repentance rather than response would be in order.
I don't think there's a COG organization out there that doesn't need to repent of something. In fact, I haven't met anyone who is perfect and not in need of repentance either, including the person who looks back at me in the mirror in the morning while shaving.
I have been slowly trying to seperate the facts from the emotion in this whole situation, blogging about it as I go. The more I look into the situation, the harder it is for me to accept the reasons being given for resignations. What leads me to that conclusion is not the defences given by the COE, but the documents that are being presented by those who have left ("What really happened…", etc.) to justify their decisions. I agree with the Hawkins about "emotive derogatory descriptions have been used in letters to the membership", but that is about all right now. The COE have been put in a very awkward position. They may not have helped themselves, but that doesn't justify what has happened. I encourage anyone to think carefully about what is fact and what is allegation/assertion/insinuation when judging this situation.
@shortfriction: I caught one of your articles. While I don't come to the same conclusion, I do want to commend you for trying to see all sides.
shortfriction does bring up two ideas that have a great deal to do with how to view situations.
"emotive derogatory descriptions have been used in letters to the membership."
"I encourage anyone to think carefully about what is fact and what is allegation/assertion/insinuation when judging this situation."
I believe using emotive language is not wrong, it's when and where to use it that makes all the difference.
Having read some of shortfriction's blog I have to agree with how things are being looked at. I would say it's worth a read.
However the big problem I see within those two ideas is people "think carefully" to varying degrees. In my opinion it's something that's learned through practice.