|
Harry’s quote (in bold blue letters) is at the very bottom of this letter. ----- Original Message -----
From:
Harry Osborne Brother Belknap, Your post starts with one tone and ends with another. My hope is that the ending one is the one which will prevail. To that end, let me propose a beginning point. Brother Mo Hafley is there in a meeting as I understand it. If you will give me a time to call you by phone with Mo as a witness to the things said, maybe we can resolve some of the matters at issue. If you would prefer, I am prepared to fly up there and address you and let Mo and the brethren at Beckley witness it. Your response took this matter to a level that cannot remain where it is. I am ready to do whatever is necessary to see that the truth is fully shown. I am taking brother Smith off of the cc line because I intend to be very frank with you in expressing my disappointment in your handling of this matter. I think you would do well to sit down with an older preacher like Mo Hafley and ask him whether he thinks you have acted properly towards your brethren. Until some of these matters are resolved, I cannot have confidence in you. Please consider a few comments about your last post. You said: >>> In my response to your examination of my article, I gave you the benefit of any doubts I had about your beliefs and simply asked you questions as to what you were saying.<<< No, you attributed a position to me which I did not hold and made clear implications that I was trying to be evasive. That is false to the core! Later you say you still think I teach a "second, mental putting away" even after I have plainly noted that is a misrepresentation. How is that giving me every benefit of the doubt? It is misrepresenting me. There is a big difference between the two. You said: >>> You say, I "misrepresented Ron and waited until he was out of the country to do so." That is a charge I do not take lightly, as it impugns my motives and casts doubt upon my integrity.<<< Brother Belknap, you have a habit of waiting until a matter cannot be fully discussed before you bring it up. When Mike Willis was there in a meeting, you did not talk with him about this matter of concern to you all week until you were on your way to the airport. Now, you could have called Ron for some time. You could have sent him the material you sent around the country within 24 hours of his departure. That can only be intentional or an oversight. Did you know he was going out of the country or not? When you made implications about my beliefs on a "second, mental putting away," did you check to see what I actually believe? Where is there one shred of evidence that I teach such or believe such? I do not make charges lightly and I am prepared to prove them with your words and actions as widely as necessary. You have chosen to start this matter and I will not let you get by with it unopposed. You said: >>> Brother Harry, at about the same time that I received my March issue of GT, Pat Donahue sent me a copy of a letter that Ron had sent to you (Wayne Goforth was a recipient of this e-mail exchange, as well). In this letter, Ron informs you that J.T. Smith told him that my articles were written with him in mind. Therefore, when you responded to my article, it is clear that you knew who I was referring to. However, in your response to me (which you sent at roughly the same time Ron left for the Philippines), you mentioned that I gave no "names" or "reviews," which seems to imply that I had been building a straw man. How was I to respond to that? Because I have responded to your enquiry (which was made at the very time you knew brother Halbrook was leaving the country), you say: "Brother Belknap has also misrepresented Ron and waited until he was out of the country to do so." That does not seem fair and honorable to me. In addition, you asserted that I misrepresented Ron. Perhaps it would have been better if you had stated the instances in which I misrepresented him instead of making unfounded (and unverifiable) accusations. <<< Your reasoning does not make sense. How does Ron's leaving the country keep me from writing you about your misrepresentations? If you had been leaving the country, I would have waited for your return or talked with you well in advance of your departure, not send material across the country to people within hours of your departure. Further, how does my knowledge of J.T.'s statement to Ron about your target enter into this matter, except to make the case clearer against your actions? Let's look at the facts. You write articles with Ron in mind, but do not name him. Ron starts to leave the country and then you send posts all over the country with material supposedly showing that Ron is teaching doctrinal error and trying to cover it up. In your response and in the material sent you refers to Ron's "completely open and forthcoming" statement in a way which clearly implies you are charging him with being less than such. You do me the same way in your response. If you were not trying to call us both liars without using the word, you ought to express yourself more clearly. Be honest with yourself. That is exactly what you were trying to imply and the message comes through loud and clear. When I call someone's actions deceptive as I did your actions, I send it to the man. I do not refuse to give him a copy before it comes to print publicly. As to your misrepresentations of Ron, my post already made clear at least two: accusing Ron of deception and accusing him of believing in a second, mental putting away. You said: >>> You wrote, "My article expressed the point that I do not believe the civil proceeding equals biblical putting away." I believe that this is what needs to be discussed in an open and non-personal way.<<< Then why did you chose to write your response refusing to openly share it and make charges personally against Ron and me? If you are now interested in such, I will gladly discuss such. However, you are not going to get by with charging me with doing the very thing which you actually initiated and have spread across the country. You said: >>> Whether or not I am "adding to" the word remains to be seen, but please do not impugn motives and "slander" my name. <<< Jeff, your actions speak for themselves. If we took an objective group of people and laid the facts before them, the timing and content of your response and posts across the country would be sufficient to convince them of malice and misrepresentation. At this point in time, I cannot accept that you have dealt honestly with this matter. Your response clearly marks Ron and myself as dishonest and unworthy of fellowship. I have had numerous discussions, but the only other one to do that with me was Marshall Patton. I did not tolerate it from him and I will not tolerate it from you. You said: >>> I believe we ought to give some input to help brother Smith organize the focus of our articles, as he suggested, without personalities. I ask you, brother Osborne, to forgive my ignorance about what are unacceptable terms (in your eyes) for me to use, when asking about your position. The terms that you (and Ron) use are ones that are relatively new to me. I don’t know of any other source that uses such terms for these actions, and I have always referred to them in one way. I honestly do not know how to express your position in an inoffensive and concisely understandable way.<<< If this is the tone of our conversation and your next communication, I believe we can openly discuss matters. If it is not, I will discuss them with those who will seek to understand me before attributing a position to me which I do not hold. I will be praying that our next communication will be in pursuit of this suggestion. My personality is not to hold grudges against those with whom I have had conflict, but who showed themselves honorable men. My hope and prayer is that we can get to that point. As far as whether I am using new terms, I am 45 years old and have heard brethren since I was a child express the same concepts with the same words I have used. While in my early 20's, I asked brother Cogdill if he thought the civil divorce was equal to biblical putting away. He said that he did not view it as such. Since I was 16 and first opposed Bob Melear teaching error on divorce and remarriage (guilty party can remarry), I have discussed and debated the issue on numerous occasions. The view I hold and the terms I use have been held by many sound brethren. I have discussed my concepts with Maurice Barnett and Tim Haile recently. Neither of them understood me to believe in a "second, mental putting away." I have plainly stated that one may be put away without their agreement and that such is still a putting away, yet you have implied that I thought all must agree to it. That is not a fair way to deal with one's words. You said: >>> My understanding is that when one is civilly put away (unscripturally or scripturally), they are put away, whether approved of by God or not. That is why I say that it is a second putting away.<<< That assumes the first putting away is done by the procedure prescribed by civil law. I deny that it is. Where do you find a legal proceeding, court action, a court or the judicial procedure in God's word as it pertains to divorce and remarriage? They are not there. There are, however, principles which show us what is involved in biblical putting away, sundering of the marriage or the other synonyms used in Scripture. As I have already stated, that is the only time "putting away" takes place. If fornication has not preceded it as the cause, no one has the right to remarry. The cause cannot occur later and be attributed back to the sundering of the marriage nor can a second sundering (putting away) take place for a later cause. You assume what you have not proven, that the civil proceeding are equal to biblical putting away. Then, you attribute to me the result which you think would follow based on your assumption being true. That is not proper and it is recognized as a form of misrepresentation in debate. With your next communication, we will see which way we will go. May God help us both to make proper choices.
Sincerely, |
|