Ezekiel34
10-19-2004, 10:02 AM
(See Part 1 of this thread for the beginning of the story!)
My last letter (today, waiting for answer now):
Dear pastor A,
Your lines do no less astonish me than mine do astonish you. Although I can understand that memory weakens with increasing age; and also, that the stronger one is not always fully aware of the instances when he tramples the weaker one under his feet; I am still astonished that you should no longer have any memory of your former behavior towards me. For me, still suffering from the long-term consequences, the perspective is of course different.
In 1993, the elders and pastors of that time sent me unanimously as a missionary candidate to Peru. [i](Note: Pastor A. was not yet in that church at that time.)[i] One year later, I was expelled from the mission because of false accusations. Pastor B, the leader of the Missions Department of the local church at that time, withdrew then also every support from me, without investigating the accusations against me. Then certain members of the mission in Peru put pressure on the leaders of the Peruvian church (who where very dependant on the missionaries, both psychologically and financially), to expel me also from their church. – All this falls under the term „Spiritual Abuse“, as it has been defined very accurately by Jeff Van Vonderen and others.
That was the situation when I contacted you. I hoped that you, as the senior pastor at that time, would investigate the situation in an unbiased way, find out the truth, and accordingly judge in a just manner. But you did not do this:
- You took from the beginning the side of the mission and based your judgement only on their (false) statements about my person.
- When I asked you to hear the leaders of the Peruvian church as witnesses and take into account their statements, you answered: „I am not interested in the opinions of Peruvians.“
- You allowed silently (and therefore supported) leaders under your leadership to abuse their power.
In a last personal conversation with you, I did no longer ask for a just judgment, but simply for the permission of leaving the church with a written statement that we are separating in peace. But you denied me even this; i.e. you first denied me the spiritual covering of my own church, and then denied me also the possibility of finding help from another church. (This is another mark of spiritual abuse, that members are considered as „property“ and they are denied the possibility of looking for help from people outside the leader’s sphere of power; or they are made feel guilty when they do it. – This means of course also, that since then we are personally no longer in peace with each other.)
You said then: „I cannot give you my blessing“, and you expressed that without this blessing I would experience failure, both personally and in ministry. This was another abuse of your leadership position; psychologically it was manipulation, and spiritually it was a curse you spoke against me and my ministry.
[i](Note: In spite of that curse and the church’s denial of support, I was able to return soon to Peru and to slowly begin a new ministry.)[i]
In 1998, several incorrect actions committed by the mission were discovered, and the Peruvian leadership of the churches got their due authority back. In consequence, the involved leaders revoked their former letter against me, and declared in writing that that former letter had been the result of pressure from the mission. I sent you this clarifying letter, asking at the same time for a conversation about redefining my relationship with your church. You were still the senior pastor. You denied with the words: „From my part, there is nothing to redefine.“
Some weeks later, pastor B. contacted me on his own; he recognized that his earlier decision about me had been a mistake, and revoked it. (Note: He was still leader of the Missions Department). Thanks to this initiative of pastor B, I can now feel in peace with him and with the church in general. From your part, however, I never received any sign of willingness to talk, even less of acceptance.
So, what I would expect from you, is that you at least would revoke the curses resp. „negative prophecies“ you spoke against me, so we can return to a brotherly relationship. I would of course be glad If you were also willing to change your opinion on some of the other points mentioned.
With these lines I have answered to your first petition, which was informing you about the points which should be cleared.
Your second petition, a conversation under four eyes, I must deny. Such a conversation has already taken place, in 1994, with the unpleasant outcome I described above. Please understand that I will not take this risk again. According to Matthew 18, the second step must now follow, which is a conversation before witnesses.
I would like to add here that in cases of abuse, the victim is always in need of protection. Therefore, from considerations of counselling and care, even the first conversation should take place before witnesses. (In the same way as it is not proper to have a victim of rape talk with her abuser under four eyes.) Sadly, your letter is still speaking the language of abuse (for which I was forced to develop a skilled ear in the meantime). I would like to paraphrase your statements, in the way they reach my understanding:
„Dear Ezekiel, I want you to do things in the Biblical way. Since I am the leader, I define what exactly is the Biblical way in a given situation. If you do not accept this, you are rebelling against me, and therefore against God, since I am God’s representative. I do not like our problem to be exposed before witnesses, since this is uneasy for me and I prefer to maintain an appearance of peace towards the outside. If you still want to talk, then I would like to have first an opportunity of working personally upon you, so you will be less rebellious. I want an opportunity of convincing you that in reality there is no problem, but that just you with your talk about „clearing relationships“ are causing a problem. If you are against my suggestion, then I will simply prove you wrong by the fact that you are not doing things the Biblical way.“
For the mentioned reasons, I maintain that our conversation must include pastor Z. as a witness.
With kind regards,
Ezekiel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[i]Note: It may be possible (although not very probable) that I am over-interpreting pastor A's letter. Therefore I qualified my statement with "in the way they reach my understanding". Even though, I felt necessary to "decode" this "coded" language very directly - especially for pastor Z. (who got a copy) to open his eyes for the "game" which was being played.[i]
Now I am waiting if pastor A. keeps refusing to talk with witnesses...
My last letter (today, waiting for answer now):
Dear pastor A,
Your lines do no less astonish me than mine do astonish you. Although I can understand that memory weakens with increasing age; and also, that the stronger one is not always fully aware of the instances when he tramples the weaker one under his feet; I am still astonished that you should no longer have any memory of your former behavior towards me. For me, still suffering from the long-term consequences, the perspective is of course different.
In 1993, the elders and pastors of that time sent me unanimously as a missionary candidate to Peru. [i](Note: Pastor A. was not yet in that church at that time.)[i] One year later, I was expelled from the mission because of false accusations. Pastor B, the leader of the Missions Department of the local church at that time, withdrew then also every support from me, without investigating the accusations against me. Then certain members of the mission in Peru put pressure on the leaders of the Peruvian church (who where very dependant on the missionaries, both psychologically and financially), to expel me also from their church. – All this falls under the term „Spiritual Abuse“, as it has been defined very accurately by Jeff Van Vonderen and others.
That was the situation when I contacted you. I hoped that you, as the senior pastor at that time, would investigate the situation in an unbiased way, find out the truth, and accordingly judge in a just manner. But you did not do this:
- You took from the beginning the side of the mission and based your judgement only on their (false) statements about my person.
- When I asked you to hear the leaders of the Peruvian church as witnesses and take into account their statements, you answered: „I am not interested in the opinions of Peruvians.“
- You allowed silently (and therefore supported) leaders under your leadership to abuse their power.
In a last personal conversation with you, I did no longer ask for a just judgment, but simply for the permission of leaving the church with a written statement that we are separating in peace. But you denied me even this; i.e. you first denied me the spiritual covering of my own church, and then denied me also the possibility of finding help from another church. (This is another mark of spiritual abuse, that members are considered as „property“ and they are denied the possibility of looking for help from people outside the leader’s sphere of power; or they are made feel guilty when they do it. – This means of course also, that since then we are personally no longer in peace with each other.)
You said then: „I cannot give you my blessing“, and you expressed that without this blessing I would experience failure, both personally and in ministry. This was another abuse of your leadership position; psychologically it was manipulation, and spiritually it was a curse you spoke against me and my ministry.
[i](Note: In spite of that curse and the church’s denial of support, I was able to return soon to Peru and to slowly begin a new ministry.)[i]
In 1998, several incorrect actions committed by the mission were discovered, and the Peruvian leadership of the churches got their due authority back. In consequence, the involved leaders revoked their former letter against me, and declared in writing that that former letter had been the result of pressure from the mission. I sent you this clarifying letter, asking at the same time for a conversation about redefining my relationship with your church. You were still the senior pastor. You denied with the words: „From my part, there is nothing to redefine.“
Some weeks later, pastor B. contacted me on his own; he recognized that his earlier decision about me had been a mistake, and revoked it. (Note: He was still leader of the Missions Department). Thanks to this initiative of pastor B, I can now feel in peace with him and with the church in general. From your part, however, I never received any sign of willingness to talk, even less of acceptance.
So, what I would expect from you, is that you at least would revoke the curses resp. „negative prophecies“ you spoke against me, so we can return to a brotherly relationship. I would of course be glad If you were also willing to change your opinion on some of the other points mentioned.
With these lines I have answered to your first petition, which was informing you about the points which should be cleared.
Your second petition, a conversation under four eyes, I must deny. Such a conversation has already taken place, in 1994, with the unpleasant outcome I described above. Please understand that I will not take this risk again. According to Matthew 18, the second step must now follow, which is a conversation before witnesses.
I would like to add here that in cases of abuse, the victim is always in need of protection. Therefore, from considerations of counselling and care, even the first conversation should take place before witnesses. (In the same way as it is not proper to have a victim of rape talk with her abuser under four eyes.) Sadly, your letter is still speaking the language of abuse (for which I was forced to develop a skilled ear in the meantime). I would like to paraphrase your statements, in the way they reach my understanding:
„Dear Ezekiel, I want you to do things in the Biblical way. Since I am the leader, I define what exactly is the Biblical way in a given situation. If you do not accept this, you are rebelling against me, and therefore against God, since I am God’s representative. I do not like our problem to be exposed before witnesses, since this is uneasy for me and I prefer to maintain an appearance of peace towards the outside. If you still want to talk, then I would like to have first an opportunity of working personally upon you, so you will be less rebellious. I want an opportunity of convincing you that in reality there is no problem, but that just you with your talk about „clearing relationships“ are causing a problem. If you are against my suggestion, then I will simply prove you wrong by the fact that you are not doing things the Biblical way.“
For the mentioned reasons, I maintain that our conversation must include pastor Z. as a witness.
With kind regards,
Ezekiel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[i]Note: It may be possible (although not very probable) that I am over-interpreting pastor A's letter. Therefore I qualified my statement with "in the way they reach my understanding". Even though, I felt necessary to "decode" this "coded" language very directly - especially for pastor Z. (who got a copy) to open his eyes for the "game" which was being played.[i]
Now I am waiting if pastor A. keeps refusing to talk with witnesses...