Andrew McFarland > Blog > Some More Details
September 27, 2005
Sunday's post has generated quite a few emails for me. There are a few more details I'd like to add to this story.
- The two emails are the only communication between me and Mike Kragman. I am still prepared to discuss the issue with him. I am prepared to forgive him for what he has done, and keeping that path open was one of the intentions of my reply to him.
- Mike Kragman passed the details of his accusations onto a member of my church. His accusations were spread in my church, and my church was prepared to take action based on those accusations. I felt that this directly opposed the teaching of Matthew 18:15-18. That is why I left.
- There is no deeper reason for my departure.
- I do not believe that Mike Kragman is my accuser's real name. If I did I would (probably) have replaced his name with a pseudonym before publishing his email.
- Slander doesn't necessarily mean that lies are told, but I'm not going to present a public rebuttal of any of Kragman's accusations. Those are issues between me and him.
- Update 1st October 2005 I did not resign immediately on being confronted with Mike Kragman's accusations, nor did I refuse to discuss the issue. On the 10th April 2005, when I was initially confronted by a member of my church who had recieved Mike Kragman's evidence, I told him I would discuss the matter with my original accuser, and only my original accuser. On the 17th, I made a statement that explained what was happening to me, and each member of the church appeared to accept it. However, they still supported acting on Mike Kragman's accusations, which was when I resigned.
Comments
Posted by: Len on September 27, 2005 03:14 PM
You say, "my church was prepared to take action based on those accusations." Does that mean that they were acting on hearsay with no evidence? Or did your anonymous blackmailer provide evidence to back up his claims? If the latter, then your ecclesia was in the uncomfortable position of being faced with proof of wrong-doing, even though the guy providing the proof also did wrong. Once they are aware of wrong-doing, they have no choice but to act.
Posted by: Andrew McFarland on September 27, 2005 03:59 PM
Len,
You make an interesting point, and I will address it in my next blog post.