|
"Speak What God
Gives You!" — NSE In the delayed Jan/Feb 1999 issue of Servants' News, Norman Scott Edwards titled an article, "Speak
What God Gives You!" He begins by writing, "I believe this matter is
very important to independent ‘COG' believers. I hope you will take the
time to read this article from beginning
to end before judging its content (author's emphasis)" (p. 17). I did.
I read the article in its entirety before I began to reflect upon the subject
manner. I had heard about the subject, but I had not before read how the matter
began—the exposure of Jim Rector. I do not know Jim Rector. I have
never heard him speak. I have not knowingly read anything he has ever written.
He was and is to me another ex-WCG pastor who practices precept-upon-precept
exegesis as taught by Herbert Armstrong. Thus, even when encountering his name
in context with others who have independent ministries, I haven't been
interested in hearing what he or they have to say. For through teaching
precept-upon-precept the drunk priests of Ephraim caused a nation to stumble,
fall backwards and be snared. This same reading strategy caused the Worldwide
Church of God to stumble backwards, fall and be broken by a few clever
arguments dredged up from early in the Reformation. I teach using typological
exegesis. Therefore, during the past few years as typology swept past where our
Puritan Ancestors left it, I haven't been particularly interested in those who
teach using precept-upon-precept exegesis. With the above qualifying
paragraph stated perhaps more forcibly than necessary, and with Rector no
longer being a timely subject matter (I hope Jim is again doing a work, that he
learned and recovered from the mauling he received), I want to consider the
perverseness of Edwards' Matthew 18 action. Not of the action itself, which
seemed to produce the fruit such an action is intended to have. Rector had done
wrong, and he admitted having done wrong when confronted by Edwards, who was
affected through having distributed Rector's tapes. So Edwards had a
justifiable reason for bringing Rector's actions to Rector's attention. So far,
Edwards had not behaved as a For those who are unfamiliar with
the article, Mindy Diller sent an e-mail query to Edwards asking if Edwards
would take on a living person who had plagiarized another's works with the
vigor with which Edwards was attacking Herbert Armstrong for plagiarism.
Edwards answered her, and recommended that she begin a Matthew procedure with
the person guilty of plagiarism. Mindy responded and said that the person would
not actually admit plagiarism, and would only admit to utilizing the work of
another. Mindy wasn't sure whether she should drop the matter. She was
concerned about speaking lashon hara
against the person. Edwards then asked her for the name of the person, and she
gave him Jim Rector's name. Edwards purchased the book Rector
allegedly plagiarized, and asked Pam Dewey to read the book and compare it to
Rector's tape series on the same subject. She determined that Rector was
reading large passages from the book, "changing a word here and there,
pausing to add commentary at times" (SN
19). Edwards then read the plagiarized book. He writes, "Before I even
read any significant amount of Bevere's book, I realized my own Matthew 18
process must begin. I was offended that Jim was doing this" (20). Thus, on
March 23, 1999, Edwards sent Rector an e-mail letter, asking that he, Rector,
"be the first one to tell [his] mailing list the source [he] used in [his]
teaching" (20). Edwards went on to write, "You should probably
explain why you did not give the source to begin with, then explain that it was
a mistake … we never have to fear doing what is right. Servants News lost some subscribers when
I wrote about taking bread and wine more than once a year. More are
discontinuing as a result of our writing about Herbert Armstrong. If it turns
out that I need to look for something else to do to support my family other
than Servants News, I will do
it" (20). If it turns out that I
need to look for something else to do to support my family other than Servants
News, I will do it—this line
needs remembered, for Servants' News
failed to support Edwards, who then came up with the SEE program. On March 28th, Rector sent Edwards
an apology and a statement of repentance, which wasn't enough for Edwards. So
Edwards "informed four of Jim's friends and supporters and they went to
him privately" (SN 20). And here
Edwards' Matthew 18 procedure seems to go awry. Rector had committed an actual
crime. He had transgressed copyright law. And Edwards had not informed the
copyright holder of this transgression. Rather, Edwards sought to apply an in-house procedure to a criminal matter
involving another, without informing the crime's victim of the crime. Edwards
makes himself an accessory-after-the-fact to a real crime for which prison time
is possible. He shows little love to the victim, the person who authored the
text that was plagiarized, and the fact that Edwards felt offense is legally
meaningless, and somewhat morally offensive in itself. Edwards places the
offense he felt above the interests of John Bevere, author of Victory in
the Wilderness. Said bluntly, Edwards'
love for himself exceeds the love he has for Bevere, who should have been
immediately informed of the plagiarism—and whose responsibility it was to
bring a Matthew 18 (or criminal) proceeding against Rector. Note the above: Edwards showed no
love toward his neighbor, John Bevere, in the whole affair. As a result,
Edwards is as the priest and the Levite were in the parable of the Good
Samaritan. Therein lays the taint of the
Edwards/Rector affair: Edwards usurps Bevere's authorial rights. His love for
himself and his righteousness exceeds the love he has for a personally unknown
brother in Christ. Matthew 18 wasn't intended to be a horn blown by Rector's acknowledgement of his
wrong-doing wasn't enough for Edwards, who seemed to smell blood and was going
after it. He kept after Rector to tell his mailing list the "whole
story." And on April 20, 1999, Jim Rector admitted reading from Bevere's
book and said that he would be contacting the publisher and author of the book
concerning the incident. He admitted deception, and he wrote, "I was dead
wrong in what I did, and I am absolutely resolved that it never happen
again" (SN 21). The incident was
over, almost. In actuality, the incident was just beginning for it wasn't
Edwards' writings that Rector had plagiarized. Little more had been
accomplished than if Mindy had contacted Bevere, and had brought Rector's use
of Bevere's work to his attention. Bevere would, most likely, have sent a
letter to Rector addressing the problem with a cease and desist demand. When is enough enough? This will
be a question those of us here at Port Austin will have to address this spring
of 2005. Although Edwards hasn't yet acknowledged wrong-doing, he daily comes
closer to doing so. If a For Edwards, Jim Rector's public
humiliation wasn't good enough. Edwards apparently wanted Rector to admit to
every incident of plagiarism—and Edwards took what should have been a
private proceeding public. I am convinced that God remains
involved in the affairs of His children even as these children mentally enter
their spiritual teenage period. So I now find it curious that in a different
matter I am doing to an unrepentant Edwards what Edwards did to a staggered Jim
Rector. While it is not my intention to defend Rector—apparently what he
did was as wrong as he said it was—every person out of love for the other
person needs to allow the repentant sinner to save what face as can be saved.
Once a person is beaten, a person needs to let the other up. None of us are so
pure that we do not need mercy extended to us even after we repent. Edwards knew what copyright law
said about plagiarism this past summer when the music camp, with its
intolerable behavior, used the songs of Elizabeth Drieman. He knew, but he used
her songs anyway. However, my understanding is that since posting my commentary
about What remains to be returned is
about $300,000 to the other three trustees. I suspect, though, that Edwards
will plead some form of intentional vagueness about whether he really owes that
much. Today, he owes his liberty to the charity of the other three trustees. I do not have a great speaking
voice; therefore, if Jim Rector wants to use material I have written in a tape
series, I hereby extend permission to him to do so. Matthew 18 is not about a third
party to an action taking offense and thereby having hurt feelings. It is about
maintaining the unity of faith against lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness. The
condition required of Matthew 18:15 is if your brother sins against you. Until
Edwards provided me with the legal basis for having a complaint against him, I
was not in a position to bring an accusation against him. And then, a Matthew
18 proceeding required that Edwards be a brother, a status he formally lost in
September 2004. Here at Port Austin, Edwards has been one committed to Satan
ever since October 31, 2004. Therefore, the affected party in a Matthew 18
procedure must be party to a real transgression that amounts to actual
lawbreaking. Hurt feelings are not enough. So the procedure only properly
applies between—in the Rector case—Bevere (and other authors) and
Rector. Third parties have very limited
rights to become involved in Matthew 18 proceedings. If the wronged person
doesn't pursue the matter once the matter has been brought to his or her
attention, then no Matthew 18 proceeding can go forward. A third party should
not initiate a proceeding on behalf of the victim, for the victim has the
prerogative of silently suffering the wrong. Therefore, the Texas blowhard
mocks God when he elevates his slighted feelings to the importance of them
being bound or loosed on earth and in heaven through initiating a Matthew 18
proceeding. The entirety of Edwards' right to
become involved in Rector's plagiarism stems from the fact that Edwards was
distributing Rector's tapes. Edwards could simply have declined distributing
the tapes, while bringing Rector's use of Bevere's book to the author's
attention. He could have then waited to see what course of action Bevere chose
to take. Bevere might have given Rector permission to continue distributing the
tapes on some sort of a fee basis. Instead, Edwards placed himself in the
position of being wronged by Rector. Again, he usurped Bevere's authorial
right—and this usurping of rights by third parties to create bogus Matthew
18 proceedings needs to stop. * * * * * |