Sondra speaks out.

[Oscar]

Sondra and others,

Folks who wish to interact with Sondra about matters that concern her, please do so here.

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Hi All,

I just wanted to let everyone know that Verne and I have exchanged emails a time or two.  We are going to take a week or so and catch up on some personal matters and then touch base again.  We did already get one important issue resolved.  Verne retracted the statement about despising me.  He said I could post the retraction.  He said that he didn't despire me, that it was just something he said in the heat of the moment.

I was very glad to hear him clarify that.   So, I think we are making good progress.

Lord Bless,

Sondra


Very cool.

[editor]

I don't know what it represents, to tell you they truth I just like it.  It was my avatar back in the day, and with the new board up, I was snooping around, looking at the new ones, and I saw it and decided to wear it again.

Nostalgia, that's all.  Means nothing.

Brent

[moonflower2]

Doctrine / The Bible / Re: Emptied Himself?  on: February 18, 2005, 11:17:22 pm 
Hi folks,

2. I am going to start a new thread called "Sondra speaks out".  Those who wish to interact with Sondra about whatever she has to say may go there and do so.

Thomas Maddux
                                             

AND SO, HERE WE ARE NOW:

A QUOTE MOVED FROM THE THREAD ENTITLED:
THE TRUTH ABOUT RUN AMUK CAMELS AND CANNED WORMS:  
 

Maybe you guys should seriously consider opening a zoo.   

Sondra

Don't need to.

Moonflower

[moonflower2]

Sondra and others,

Folks who wish to interact with Sondra about matters that concern her, please do so here.

Thomas Maddux

'nuf said

[Oscar]

Sondra,

 I started this thread for two reasons:
1.To give you a place to express your feelings about this board and the people who post here.
2. To allow threads on other subjects to focus on those subjects without distraction.  That is the meaning of "#3".

I have not disclosed the content of your e-mails to anyone.

Thomas Maddux

 

[M2]

Sondra,

I believe you when you say that you were wrongfully labelled as an adultress.  Verne spoke out in anger and wrongfully called you some hurtful names.

Marcia

[M2]

I really would like you to think about what you are saying here, Marcia.  Take some time.  I'm really glad you offered this response.  Think about the difference in just out of hot temper slipping up and saying something wrong - and - over a period of two years, using different words at different times that give the readership the idea that Verne, an elder, ??  knows some dirt about me.  This, in my mind makes it lies and makes it pathological.

No one wants to take seriously the lies he told of the very same nature against Pastor Jon.  He has a lying spirit, I think.    I don't like those "heavy" terms, but I think he may.

Sondra

Sondra,

You were both going at it so I cannot make a judgement call on this. Sorry.

Marcia

[al Hartman]

Oh no.  Don't be sorry.  I understand that most folks over here are blinded by bias.  You are family - I understand that.  Known that for a long time.

Sondra, Admin www.soaringwiththeeagles.com

Sondra,

Having read over everything you have posted as Ruth, I am confident in conceding that you have been wronged on this board, sometimes severely, sometimes consistently, and not just by one of us. 

Besides that, you have made some very revealing points, right on the money, about the source(s) of some of those wrongs.  In my opinion, the biggest hindrance to your getting a fair hearing on this board was not the substance of your complaints, but the manner in which you presented them.  What I mean by that is that:

[1] You insisted on carrying on a personal discussion on a public forum, rather than privately.

[2] Debating publicly, you then insisted that no one else had the right to enter the discussion, and sometimes rudely treated those who did.

[3] You have insisted that everyone on this board is part of a tightly-knit fraternity that shares the same mindset, shortcomings, sins.

[4] You don't offer these thoughts as your opinions, but purport to "know" them to be fact, as quoted above.
("You are family - I understand that.  Known that for a long time.")

I don't know what kind of family you grew up in.  Mine was most unpleasant, godless, and difficult.  The only real family I've ever known is the family that Christ included me into, and the household that my wife & I have had as a result.  The family of our Lord functions on a basis of love, but that doesn't make it a bed of roses.  The basic dilemma with it is that it consists of people who are not yet fully perfect ("not yet fully" covering the broadest imaginable spectrum).

My point is that we don't all agree on this board-- not by a long shot.  I can't imagine that you read over here with any regularity and don't recognize that.  Because we love each other, we are long-suffering with one another (ideas differ on how long we are to suffer!).  We sometimes put up with what seem to be some blatant character faults because many of us are learning that to control someone's behavior is not necessarily to change one's heart.  Sometimes more is accomplished through prayer and patience that by the best-intentioned confrontation, so that is our tactic of choice.

Some of us here are hotheads; some are "fright risks;" some quite brilliant; others not so; some quite well-read; others not; some outspoken; some shy; some just browse and never post.  Many of us try to give to each his/her due respect.  But others may not.

I am not writing this to specifically address your claims of injustice done against you.  Rather I am appealing to you to recognize that we are composed of numerous individuals, none of whom agree on everything, some of whom agree on little.  Please take pity on us and try to address us each according to our individual interactions with you.  We are not a gang, not mafia or yakuza, nor an organization, but merely an accumulation of God's children who have come together seeking comfort and help.

I don't think any of us have been helped or comforted by attacks upon you or anyone else, nor do most of us wish to defend anyone's inappropriate actions or words.

You said, "I understand that most folks over here are blinded by bias."  I suggest to you that most of us here wish to be biased only toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and blinded only to His (therefore also our) enemies.

I have no idea what would actually have happened had you approached this board civilly and presented your complaints in a reasonable, unemotional format.  We will never know, because you had been provoked and you responded in kind.  But it is not too late for us to take off the battle gear and sit at the peace table together and conduct ourselves without malice and antagonism, trusting in the faithfulness of our Lord.

That is my request of you:  Please stop lumping us all together as a distasteful mob, and give us a chance as individuals.  You are welcome to contact me personally via PM or EM (address below), or publiclly if you prefer.  It has been quite some time since we communicated privately, and the Lord has been teaching me since that time.  I could wish that I had learned as faithfully as He has taught, but I am who I am and there is a natural stubbornness and reluctance to change within me that is slow to respond to Him sometimes.  If He is willing to endure it, I can only be grateful.

At any rate, if you would care to offer me a new opportunity, I would welcome it, but if not I will accept your choice and try to be understanding.

Because of Christ Jesus,
al Hartman

[M2]

Hi al et al,

It suddenly hit me yesterday that Sondra's zeal to expose Verne, is very similar to the zeal we have displayed to expose assembly leadership.  In early 2003 her zeal was her knowledge of Verne while in the Champaign assembly; today it is about that (I think) and the CMA matter.

What I have discovered is that while BBs provide a good forum for discussing matters of "interest", they are not the proper mechanism to hold people accountable for their actions.
Also, I have discovered that I can discuss the matters of "interest" with another, whether or not that person has some sort of history.  I might qualify that re. George and Betty, but if Tim Geftakys presented himself on this board and wanted to discuss various topics, I might enter in to the discussion provided he was not overly rude or something.  So my certain knowledge of a person's history does not keep me from discussion with him/her.  In fact discussion may help each of us to reach a more "enlightened" opinion.

Re. to the CMA matter I suggest that those in the vicinity, who have a burden for this, deal with it objectively.  It looks like there are 2 camps and that each camp has made up their mind.  When I left the local assembly here, I really appreciated the ones who were willing to get my side of the story as well as the other side and then make up their own minds on my motives for departure.

God bless,
Marcia

[editor]

Hi al et al,

It suddenly hit me yesterday that Sondra's zeal to expose Verne, is very similar to the zeal we have displayed to expose assembly leadership. 
God bless,
Marcia

This exact same thought dawned on me a few months ago.  I realized that George and so many around him were totally blind, for whatever reason, and were unable to hear truthfull criticism.  That was easy to comprehend.

However, what was not so easy was to realize that I could very well be in the same boat.  Afterall, I was trained to be like that, for a long, long time.  Could it be possible that was getting to be like George, minus the babes and cash? 

Yep.

Good post Marcia.

[M2]

This exact same thought dawned on me a few months ago.  I realized that George and so many around him were totally blind, for whatever reason, and were unable to hear truthfull criticism.  That was easy to comprehend.

However, what was not so easy was to realize that I could very well be in the same boat.  Afterall, I was trained to be like that, for a long, long time.  Could it be possible that was getting to be like George, minus the babes and cash? 

Yep.

Good post Marcia.

Brent, I do not know if we are saying the same thing here.

I was not equating Verne with assembly leaders, more like equating Sondra's zeal with ours.
If Verne is to be vindicated, then honest objective evaluation of both sides by the 2 camps will settle that.  There are many who do not want to be objective and stick with their perspective, and there is nothing one can do about that.  Also, it is very difficult to get the other side of the story when one makes the effort and then receives the silent treatment.

Marcia

[moonflower2]

This exact same thought dawned on me a few months ago.  I realized that George and so many around him were totally blind, for whatever reason, and were unable to hear truthfull criticism.  That was easy to comprehend.

However, what was not so easy was to realize that I could very well be in the same boat.  Afterall, I was trained to be like that, for a long, long time.  Could it be possible that was getting to be like George, minus the babes and cash? 

Yep.

Good post Marcia.

I can agree to similar zeal, but I hope no one is really saying that "we" are following Verne and protecting a phony? Verne's credentials aren't the issue and are not a pre-req for posting on this BB.

SJ thinks she "exposed" Verne? Does anyone here really believe that? Even if all she claims is true about Verne, so what? But anyone comparing him or the situation here to GG and his fiasco, is doing Verne and everyone here a great disservice, to say the least.

Does anyone think SJ "cleared her name"? I never thought she was an adulteress, but I think less of her now, after her immature tirade, than I thought I could of an adult. By trying to make herself look good by putting someone else down, she accomplished the opposite. By her screeching and clawing, her actions speak so loud that I can't hear what she says.

Why didn't SJ give Verne the week to respond like she said  she would. She went back on her "word".

I have to disagree with the positive attribute ascribed to SJ's behavior here: "zeal". It was nothing more than the "me, myself, and I" virus.

It more aptly describes Verne's involvement with CMA. The woman involved misinterpreted a pastor's concern for her well-being. With more experience on the pastor's  part, he would have known to approach her in a different, less personal way. Verne heard her concern, and responded in the way that he felt he should. Just my 2 cents on the issue, but I think it's worth something.

[editor]

Hi All,

I was specifically referring to "zeal," and not Verne in my post below.  However, Verne as well as myself have exercised plenty of zeal during out BB tenure.

It's not always a bad thing, but has it's negative attributes as well.

For example, you want zeal from soldiers on the battlefield.  You want them to be blind regarding the enemies humanity, and committed to the cause of military victory.  That's not only good, it's necessary.

However, following this victory, if a leader maintains the same zeal I describe above, he becomes a dictator, a monster.

I am not suggesting that we are following Verne, nor am I implying that Verne is on par with George.  To the extent that I have set myself against assembly people, and mistakenly mischaracterized them...I guess that makes me a little like George.

However, the comparison is something on the scale of a paper airplane and an airbus.  Both fly, and land, and use the same principles of aerodynamics, so that makes them alike.  One is a little bigger than the other, however.

Herei is my main point in all of this.  Early on, it was necessary to fight with zeal and tell the truth about George, his assembly, and the many leaders who protected him by silence, collusion and cowardice.  Over the years, most of the people who had the ability to stop George had left, or were run off.  They were systematically slandered.  To combat this and get the truth out, we needed zeal.

However, now that same zeal has made it harder for some of the folks who are later in arriving at the same conclusions to work things out because they are put off by the tone.  I can say that my heart and motive has always been to help people, but I can certainly understand why someone would be put off by my tone.

When I was first trying to figure things out, in the mid nineties, if I had spoken to someone who said,  "George is a false apostle, and the Assemlby is demonic," it would have made me a little shy, to say the least.  What was needed to expose George wasn't a condemnation of his character, but a recitation of the facts.

What we have now, which is problematic, is that we often condemn the character of those who don't agree, but really don't have much in the way of facts to support our condemnation.  Sondra's treatment by Verne is a prime example.

I don't agree with the Deeper life stuff---no secret there.  However, just 'cause I don't like it, and think it is wrong doesn't give me the right to call her a murderer, drug addict or Satanic priestess. 

The broad brush of saying leaders were cowards is correct in one sense.  However, not all of them were, and not all were brave to the same degree.  At some point it has to be safe for these leaders to recover and reconcile with people.  However, it makes it difficult if everyone calls them cowards, etc. 

The war is over.  The organization is all but dead, and people need to be treated as individuals and not as part of the group.

Does this make sense?

Brent

[Oscar]

Brent,

Let me run an idea past you.  While it was obvious to everyone that Verne did not like Sondra, it was not obvious, (to me at least), that he was actually accusing her of immoral conduct.

The reason for this is that Verne's Calvinism.  Calvinism is based on one big idea which is then followed through its ramifications through all of their theological thought.  One of their ideas is that the Christian church is the spiritual continuation of Israel.  This is why they have historically been in favor of theocratic forms of government, where the church dominates the secular institutions.

One aspect of this is that many of them violently condemn ANY deviation from their understanding of scripture, as expressed in the Westminster Confession and the proceedings of the Synod of Dort, as heresy.  They also have a tendency to condemn heresy in OT language, which frequently describes it as "adultry", "whoring after other gods" and similar language.  This is because they see deviation from the "truth" as they see it as being on a par with the idol worship that brought judgement upon Israel.

When Verne began to fulminate about Sondra I figured he was speaking of her beliefs, not her personal life.  It is still not completly clear to me where to make the distinction.  Yes, he condemned her in very strong terms...but then...that is exactly how many Calvinists talk!  I know, being a Virulent Dog myself, I have been on the receiving end of some of this. 

That is also how Verne himself frequently talks.  Recall that during the debate about the Textus Receptus he adopted the position that virtually all of the scholars involved in textual criticism and Bible translation were part of a centuries-old New Age conspiricy to destroy Christianity! 

When I began seeing Verne's diatribes against Sondra, I just figured "that's how Verne talks", along with the guess that he was talking about her spiritual condition rather than her moral practices.  Frankly, it is still not completly clear to me exactly what was going on.

But let me say this as well...it isn't hard to understand why anyone who was on the receiving end of this kind of talk would take offense and get mad.  Especially someone who was alread mad about something from the past.
When Sondra collected all this stuff together and sent it to me in an e-mail, it wasn't pretty.

You said,

However, now that same zeal has made it harder for some of the folks who are later in arriving at the same conclusions to work things out because they are put off by the tone.  I can say that my heart and motive has always been to help people, but I can certainly understand why someone would be put off by my tone.

Do you actually know that the above is true?  Are there any individuals who can't work this about because of the "tone"?  Or are you saying that it could be true?

Thomas Maddux