|
Post by philiprosenthal on Dec 20, 2006 12:26:22 GMT
Attention: Philip Rosenthal Postnet 114 C/O Private Bag x18 Rondebosch 7701
18 December 2006
Dear Philip,
We write to you regarding the very sad matter of the moral failure of Paul Daniel in 1993. As you will recall there was a meeting in Johannesburg in October 1996 to address some unresolved aspects of this matter. In this meeting an agreement was made that a communication was to be sent or made by Ray MacCauley to an agreed list of people. It has only recently come to our knowledge that a significant number of people never received this communication. We should have ensured that this agreement was properly carried out but did not. As a result, we realise and acknowledge thatt we have failed to fulfill all righteousness in this matter and have also failed you as a result.
We wish to humbly and sincerely apologise to you. We regret the hurt and disappointment that this failure may have caused over and above that which you already had to face. We ask for your forgiveness.
We also enclose a statement that has been issued to our national pastors as well as all our leaders and staff in our church in Cape Town. This communication is something we deem to be an appropriate action following our repentance before God and that is aimed to make right this wrong of the past, before God and man.
We are also committed to retracing the steps that should have been followed by contacting the people that should have been communicated to.
We pray that God will restore your soul from any unnecessary sorrow, hurt or disappointment that you have had to endure as a result of the above.
Yours sincerely
Roger Pearce, Gareth Stead, Willem Nel National Leadership His People Christian Ministries (South Africa)
|
|
|
Post by philiprosenthal on Dec 20, 2006 12:57:22 GMT
MY RESPONSE TO HIS PEOPLE 'APOLOGY' FOR COVER UP OF PAUL DANIEL FIRST SCANDAL
My response to the 'letter of apology' above is that it is completely inadequate. If it is a step in the direction of true and full repentance, then I am encouraged. If it is all that is going to be said and done, then I would say it is just damage-control.
The 'apology' is inadequate in the following respects:
"We write to you regarding the very sad matter of the moral failure of Paul Daniel in 1993"
* The above fails to mention properly explain the sin which Paul Daniel committed. 'Moral failure' can mean lots of things. In this instance it means an adulterous physical relationship between the leader of the ministry and someone under his authority in the organisation, plus lies, serious threats and various manipulations used to cover up that sin. The above is whitewashing sin.
"As you will recall there was a meeting in Johannesburg in October 1996 to address some unresolved aspects of this matter."
* The meeting was not to 'address some unresolved aspects of that matter'. The purpose of that meeting called by the prosecuting pastors from outside His People was to bring Paul Daniel to biblical discipline i.e. public rebuke and removal from office according to due Biblical process. This euphemism is whitewashing sin.
"In this meeting an agreement was made that a communication was to be sent or made by Ray MacCauley to an agreed list of people. It has only recently come to our knowledge that a significant number of people never received this communication. "
* Again whitewash - not the whole truth. The entire process with Ray McCauley ended up as a cover-up itself. It was not due Biblical discipline. There was not a 'true agreement'. Firstly, His People rejected Ray McCauleys initial call for Biblical discipline. Paul threatened to pull His People out of the IFCC. Ray McCauley sadly gave in to this pressure, with the weak excuse that the IFCC constitution 'had no teeth'. (He didn't really need the IFCC constitution to publicly rebuke Paul Daniel, as the Bible already gives such authority in 1 Timothy 5:20). Secondly, the prosecuting pastors did not accept the compromise agreement between Ray McCauley and His People pastors. They sent Ray a letter of objection. Therefore it would not be fair to appeal to imply an agreement in the process .
Thirdly, and more seriously however, the 'sending a letter to an agreed list of people' is not legitimate biblical discipline. 1 Timothy 5:20 requires the man be publicly rebuked. An agreed list of people is not making it public. In particular this was hidden from Pauls church congregation, who would never have tolerated an adulterous leader in office had they known.
Fourthly, biblical discipline would require an adulterous leader to be removed from office. This was not done. Sending a letter to an agreed list of people is just a weak attempt at 'cover-up'.
This is an attempt to put church authority above biblical authority and a grave disobedience to the scriptures.
"We should have ensured that this agreement was properly carried out but did not. As a result, we realise and acknowledge thatt we have failed to fulfill all righteousness in this matter and have also failed you as a result."
* The above apologises for failure to post some letters. That is a trivialisation of the real problem. The main issue is that a wicked man spiritually unqualified to serve as a church minister was allowed to lead the organisation for an eight year period after being found guilty in a church court with the collusion and protection of various other ministers in the organisation - many of whom are still in office.
"We also enclose a statement that has been issued to our national pastors as well as all our leaders and staff in our church in Cape Town. This communication is something we deem to be an appropriate action following our repentance before God and that is aimed to make right this wrong of the past, before God and man."
* Again, a failure to be open and properly inform everyone who has a right to know, both in terms of 1 Timothy 5:20 and in terms of their trust being violated. Not much is being done here other than 'damage control', since most of the leaders already know the truth as a result of prior exposure by others in the organisation. This perpetuates an elitist culture where the sheep are considered to stupid to know the truth - and more 'cover-up' can continue.
"We are also committed to retracing the steps that should have been followed by contacting the people that should have been communicated to."
* This implies legitimacy to a completely illegitimate and wicked manipulated original 1996 church discipline process. It was totally fatally flawed. No reason to go back to it again.
"Yours sincerely,
Roger Pearce, Gareth Stead, Willem Nel National Leadership His People Christian Ministries (South Africa)"
* While there is no objection to these three men signing the letter, these names are not the people who were responsible for the 1996 cover-up. The letter does not publicly rebuke them (as required by 1 Timothy 5:20). Nor does it mention them or include any apology from them. Rather they are protected. Other people apologise on their behalf and Ray McCauleys name is used. Again, inadequate.
|
|
|
Post by philiprosenthal on Dec 20, 2006 13:02:30 GMT
I have been in dialogue with certain His People leaders and have expressed my concerns privately about the need for full and not just partial repentance. That dialogue has included discussion on the issue of futher actions of repentance and I hope that this will in time result. I thus don't come in an adverserial spirit, but in the hope of working together to deal with this issue.
WHAT REAL REPENTANCE IS NEEDED?
The His People organisation needs to undertake true repentance including and not limited to the following: * Full disclosure of the truth of the facts of what happened (excluding pornographic details and the name of the young woman involved). * Disclosure of the names of the leaders involved in the cover-up, with public rebuke for their wrongdoing and with an apology from them also. * Telling the truth to everyone in the His People congregations (not just leaders). * A serious effort for organisational repentance for these and other sins. It is suggested that it is appropriate to have a period set aside for public fasting and prayer to God to forgive the sins of the organisation and return his blessing.
|
|
|
Post by cupatea on Dec 22, 2006 5:33:04 GMT
Phil,
I'm interested that you say: "excluding ... the name of the young woman involved" I'm not quite sure why you are excluding her when she is not an innocent party. It take 2 to commit adultery so why should he be exposed and she not? If "full disclosure of the truth of the facts of what happened" is what you want then I think her name should also be disclosed.
The concept of an organisation repenting of "organisational sin" is something that I don't really understand. It classifies an organisation with the same fuzzy logic as a corporation - ie an individual as per the law. I can understand individuals repenting for their own sins, but I really don't understand an organisation repenting. It's kind of like saying, "The organisation made me do it." Which takes the ownership of the sin and the responsibility for it's consequences away from the individual. And I know that this is not what you are trying to achieve. The men who covered up the sin were the ones who committed the sin not the organisation. The ones who failed to carry out biblical disciple and the ones who sinned not the organisation. Organisations can be restructured to protect against future abuse, but ultimately the sinners must be responsible for their actions.
I'd appreciate your clarifications.
Tnx
|
|
|
Post by philiprosenthal on Dec 22, 2006 6:28:26 GMT
Cupatea 1 Timothy 5:20 requires public rebuke of leaders. It does not require public rebuke of followers. The girl has repented to her other new spiritual leadership. She has now moved on and has a new life and a family. It would not be kind to drag them all back into this and nothing useful would be gained by it. While she did evil, she is also in a sense a victim in that she was seduced and manipulated by someone with strong spiritual authority over her. She was also cruelly victimised by Paul and the organisation in her unsuccessful efforts to bring Paul to justice. With regard to organisational repentance - yes exactly, God does judge groups and not just individuals - he judges the world, nations (e.g. Israel in OT), churches (e.g. Revelation 2-3), cities (Jeremiah 29) etc. Yes the analogy of a corporation is a good one. everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1146572014See another thread on this.
|
|
|
Post by cupatea on Dec 22, 2006 23:35:20 GMT
Thanks for a little more background on this for me. If she has repented then what you say is legitimate. I find it interesting that she tried to bring PD to justice. Who knocked her back in these efforts?
Is it fair to say that what you are after is the public rebuking of PD and ultimately a public apology from him?
Whilst I agree that God judges groups I feel in this case it would be too easy for the perpetrators of this abuse to hide behind the group rather than owning up to their own wrongs. It is easy to apologies on behalf of the organisation as you can remain detached from the sin. But by acknowledging our own personal shortcomings we must come to a personal repentance not just corporate. I guess what I am saying is that I think organisational repentance could be a cop out for these leaders.
|
|
|
Post by philiprosenthal on Dec 23, 2006 11:21:45 GMT
The senior leadership of His People in 1996 knocked the girl back in her efforts to bring Paul to justice. When she first brought up allegations, Paul slandered her very seriously and possibly the other leaders may have believed the slander. First, I am told that she was branded as 'demon posessed' and telling lies. Then when she proved her case, she was told to be 'a vixen' who had seduced Paul. Being such a strong personality, I would find it easier to believe that he seduced her. Nevertheless, even when she presented proof of the affair in a church court of South Africas top Charismatic leaders (which is quite a brave thing to do) and Paul pleaded guilty, then the senior His People leaders continued to support Paul Daniel and keep him in office - without telling the congregation. Those who helped Paul cover up included Bill Bennot who now has oversight for EveryNation Africa. I personally don't think he is competent to hold such a position given that record. Can he be trusted to properly execute church discipline on other errant ministers in future or will there be more cover ups? It would be a bonus to get a public rebuke of Paul and an apology from him, but I think a public rebuke of those who covered up for Paul (at least) is also needed - plus serious organisational repentance and reform to stop reoccurence. Both individual and organisational repentance is needed. Please also read the following thread which contains a lot of information you may have missed. everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1156407556
|
|