Well said DJ …. But will folks
listen? Probably
not.
Part of the reason I stopped posting is because
good words of admonition like below fell on prideful, and at times, deaf ears,
drawing only flames from those of differing opinions.
One of the problems of human nature I
suppose. RangerNet
is no different. Many of the more ‘audible’
posters tend to be well versed on their own opinions and don’t mind
sharing them, regardless if those opinions may or may not have collective value
to the body of readers... much less, support the leadership that God has in
place.
We’re all guilty of it now and
again, but for the past several months I’ve chosen to lurk, rather than
dive in… keeping my heart and mind guarded from being ‘baited’
into discussions that don’t bring harmony and bear fruit… This uniform issue is like many others
that come and go…
we’ve all seen it, and the admonitions are usually sent in by
those of humble spirits who have hearts for God… but some times, us human
creatures tend to forget our place in the grand scheme of this fine ministry we’re
called to.
As Duane has said so many times… keep
the main thing, the main thing…
Blessings on y’all
Parson.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of D.J. Holland
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 11:21
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The heart of the issue?
WAS: [RR] The Ranger Kids Commanders uniform
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see a different issue, here.
"Obey your leaders and submit to their
authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an
account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for
that would be of no advantage
I don't see anywhere that you submit only to the parts
you agree with, like, appreciate, understand or want to. We as leaders
have an example to set before the boys we minister to. Do we teach them
to submit, or to argue and criticize and condemn policies set by leaders?
If they don't agree with policy, there is a way to change it from within.
Or they can leave the program and elsewhere. To change National policy on
Outpost, sectional, district, regional or any other level is to initiate a
different program NOT Royal Rangers as set by the National Staff. There
is a time and a place to debate and initiate change. Rangernet is not
necessarily the place. Although I love Rangernet, those in high places
who make policy are probably not lurking, or involved. Therefore, this is
not the forum for continuing to flagellate a deceased equine (beating a dead
horse). There is also an attitude and Spirit in which it should be
done. A defensive, *stop me if you can* attitude is not the way to change
things. The place is within
Royal Rangers, I do not know the steps, but I remember they were given here a
while ago. The attitude is one of compassion for the ministry, and the
boys to whom it is aimed. What is best for them, are we doing the best,
and how can we move to where we are doing the best that God would have us do?
If, in your local outpost, you had certain standards,
for example, If you don't help with preparations (show up at outpost meetings
on Wed., raise funds, learn skills needed for an event, etc.) then you
don't participate in a certain event. What would the reaction be from the
boys if a couple of kids showed up for an event, KNEW the standards ahead of
time, and expected to participate? What the reaction if they were allowed
to participate? Of course, this would *never* happen on the local level .
. . only the national level <grin>. Would you as the leader of this
event continue to serve in this capacity with joy? (see above
scripture) Would you realistically expect the other boys to forget this
neglect of and lack of respect for the standards and go on with the
program? If this continues to happen, would you really be surprised when
the boys who do the prep finally get tired of it and go elsewhere (youth, for
example)?
It seems to me if a commander, outpost, sectional,
regional or any other position, doesn't agree with the policies set forth by
National Office, they should strive from within to change the policies.
Or they should turn in their khakis and go elsewhere.
Personally, am I perfect? NOT ON YOUR BEST DAY!!
Do I agree with all policies in the manual?
Probably not.
Do I follow them? I strive to. If I, out
of ignorance, perhaps, don't, I try to fix it as soon as I realize I do
something against policy.
Does it irk me when long-time commanders don't follow
policy now, when they have eons ago? Very much so.
Do I speak out against it and try to change
things? Not as much as I should, I guess.
Does that bother me? Again, very much so.
Our pastor said it last week from the pulpit, "to know right and to not do
it is . . . sin.".
(Coming back to add a little here. My wife, who
grew up trying to convince her parents to move to Australia so she could be a
Royal Ranger, read this and gave me some thinkin' points.)
Jesus came to give us freedom. Not freedom from the Law, as the Ten
Commandments would no longer apply. Rather, the Ten Commandments are
still the Commandments, not Suggestions, Guidelines, or Recommendations,
etc. We have freedom from the consequences of breaking the law. The
consequence of DEATH. There are Jews who worship Jesus for what He said
He was, the Son of God. They still observe Jewish Laws/Torah
(not necessarily laws given by *religious* men of the Jewish
faith) because that is the law given by God, and Jesus Himself said
"I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." We as
Gentile Christians are not bound to those laws because we are not Jewish
Christians. Neither are we to force our personal beliefs on others and
cause them to stumble. However, law is law. God has place authority
over us to make, change, revise and uphold the law (we call them policies,
today). However, when we agreed to be leaders in Royal Rangers, we knew
the policies and agreed to them. If we didn't know the policies when we
signed up, we should've gotten out when we learned of them and had a problem
with them.
I have only been part of Rangernet for a couple of
months and I have noticed a recurring topic. That is (in my abbreviated
words) that National Leaders don't know squat! Policy is wrong.
Women should be allowed to do whatever they want in Royal Rangers. Anyone
who disagrees in in danger of being criticized or shot down here on Rangernet
(possibly elsewhere, judging by perceived attitude). I have seen some try
to explain, clarify or defend policy and subsequently be shot down by others
here. I also realize I am putting myself in this position; the position
of being flamed, slammed, shot down, criticized and scorned, among
others. And yet, I feel the need to speak out, even though I'm not sure I
really want to.
The words of James come to mind:
Brothers, do not
slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him
speaks
against
the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it,
but sitting in
judgment on it. There is only
one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy.
But you-who are you to judge your
neighbor? (James 4:11-12)
So, what is the issue here? National policy or
individuals confronting others? Not what I'm seeing.
Could the issue possibly be our willingness to submit to the
authority Almighty Y'shua has placed above us?
In His Grip and totally with His love,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [RR] The Ranger Kids
Commanders uniform
>
> --- Jonathan Trower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> National policy is the issue here,
> > right?
>
> Nope.. *The problem is when individuals confront others in a
> "official" capacity to enforce something un-published and
un-said.
>
> Because we all are in the fog about gender issues, some assume they
> have the right to hunt down a Lady in Khaki and hassle them. That's
> plain wrong. The other perplexing thing is the twisted logic that
> permits obvious discrimination, for zero purpose.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >Women freely come to serve boys as leaders. Allways at the local
> > >level they are welcome, and given full respect. They often are
the
> > >helpmates of a Commander, and have sons in the program.
> >
> > And they do a wonderful job as leaders. I don't think you would find
> > much
> > disagreement here with your statement -- and certainly not from me.
I'll
> >
> > come back to this statement at the end of my comments. This is also
not
> > the
> > issue here.
> >
> >
> > >So called "National Policy" a fabrication of upper
management being
> > >stuck between a rock and a "Hard" place, of their own
makeing.
> >
> > Not so. This may be a poor analogy, but in our denomination, we have
> > never
> > allowed boys and girls to go swimming together, right?
>
> I don't know... I remember something about that in 1960 mayby..
> I also remember have girls hired as Lifesavers at NW Powwow, so
> the logistices or policies may be spotty!<G>
>
> Why? That's the
> > same
> > reason boys, men, and women don't go camping together in Royal
Rangers.
> > Simply put, we have a higher standard than the world does. It may be
> > O.K.
> > for secular buckskinning groups, or Boy Scouts, but it's not O.K. for
> > the
> > Assemblies of God ministry to boys.
>
> Men and Women do go camping togather.
>
> But you are right, The Assemblies of God USA and it's prejudeces..
> are more important than common sence leadership princeipals in place
> elsewhere even in our own and kindred fellowships.
>
>
>
> >
> > It's easy to say that we can easily have separate camping areas and
> > restroom and shower facilities for ladies on camp-outs, but that's
not
> > always true, especially in areas that Rangers have to camp in. Having
> > women
> > on camp-outs introduces all sorts of complexities that distract from
the
> >
> > main purpose of the camp . . . ministering to the boys. And THAT's
what
> > it's all about.
>
> Well, then don't make it an Issue by forming POLICY on it!
>
> Let's say a Commander is wheel chair bound.. while it's un-likely
> that he can rock climb without special gear.. It's also no reason
> to exclude him from NTC. My Point is that Women are not a handicap
> but in fact a additional blessing to leadership. A *Positive and
> never a *Negitive. *They ADD and not subtract.
>
>
>
> >
> > Let the leadership of the camps focus on the boys,
>
> Sorry.. you can't have it all. The focus is on MEN ministering
> to whoever shows up. The point of excluding women is to promote
> Man/Boy relationships for hopefully good reasons.. that I think are
> *shallow..
>
> and not on the
> > details
> > of where the women will be camping, or where their restroom will be,
or
> > worse, having to deal with the occasional woman who intends to spend
the
> >
> > night in the camp with the boys (I've been on staff at more than one
> > sectional, divisional, and district camp where that has happened,
even
> > though it was well known that they were not to do so).
> >
> > We also have to worry about the safety of the women -- I was on staff
at
> >
> > one district camp where someone did disturb the women in their camper
> > during the night. By putting them away from the camp for their
privacy
> > (and
> > that of the men and boys) we exposed them to danger. Those are the
types
> > of
> > situations that begin to expose Rangers to legal liability. What if
> > those
> > women had been harmed? The lawyers would have started circling like a
> > bunch
> > of vultures!
>
> Then don't take boys camping, as they are even more trouble.
> The facts are that NO-ONE should be exposed to danger.
>
> Further if the Danger comes from Men acting out.. eliminate
> the MEN! I'm tired of hearing that Women in RR, tempt Men to sin.
> Give it a rest..
>
>
> >
> >
> > >As with any diplomatic solution, "official policy" is
debated behind
> > >closed doors, and perhaps run up the "flag pole" on
occasion, to test
> > >it's effects to draw *Fire..
> >
> > Are you implying something with your "closed doors"
statement? <G>
>
> Yes..
>
> There is little intrest in changeing the policy. In fact it serves
> National staff well to bold up the exclusionary verbage. This of course
> has nothing to do fairness.
>
>
>
> > Obviously national policy can't be hashed out in an open forum with
> > everyone involved . . . you would never reach any kind of consensus.
> > National policy is developed by the national executive committee and
> > approved by Brother Trask and Brother Crabtree.
>
> Why would any of these Brothers take up the issue as important?
> I would think they would likely overlook it as trivia.
>
>
> Every region has a
> > representative on that committee. Thus, everyone is represented in
the
> > discussion. If you don't like the current national policy on some
issue,
> >
> > talk with your regional coordinator. He's your voice in the executive
> > committee, and thus your voice in the debates on national policy.
>
> That's right Rev.Jimmy Burnett filters out the issues untill a generic
> consencus is reached. This is typical of unified organizations that
are
> not elected but appointed by the en-trenched leadership. Thus, when
> politic'n for a memorial with reguard to PFC Mitch Silvers.. the #1
> question asked by my Dist. was- "If he wasn't a NW Boy why do we have
any
> intrest?" the reuslt is a watered down note on a scrap of paper.
>
> (Used as a word picture to describe the politics in place)
>
> >
> > But there is nothing sinister about the fact that the executive
> > committee meetings are closed. Attendance has to be limited, or
as I
> stated above it
> > would be impossible to reach any kind of consensus.
>
> *Forgive me if *I used the word "sinister"... I didn't.
>
> As it was, there
> > were
> > about 20 folks at the last several meetings of the exec committee.
Women
> > at
> > Camporama was discussed at the last two meetings, and consensus was
> > reached
> > on all issues.
>
> Amen and Shalom!
> *I assume they found it made sence to exclude even international
> contingents of female Royal Rangers, allowing only Male
counterparts<G>
>
> >
> > Keep in mind that each district also sends up to six members of your
> > executive district staff to National Council each year. This year,
the
> > issue of women in leadership positions above the local level came up
for
> >
> > discussion on the Council floor. Two people spoke to the issue from
the
> > floor. . . just two. If people in the field feel strongly about this
> > issue,
> > you should also discuss your feelings with your district commander.
At
> > this
> > point in time, there was 700-800 people at national council last
month
> > who
> > nothing about the current policy. That was an open forum, and an
> > opportunity for folks to speak up. They didn't.
>
> I agree that when it's important, things will change. That also
> has nothing to do with whats right,fair and just when showing respect
> for all Adults and their rights as citizens in America. That no one
> spoke to the concerns, only shows that there isn't much intrest in
> asking hard questions.
>
> The Captian of the Titanic was responsible for avoiding the iceberg he
> could not see.. While he had every right to proclaim ignorance or lack
> of reporting from the lookouts, the resultant crash was more than
> regretible.. it was *Preventible.
>
> If he had used "Leadership Larger than needed" he may have
slowed down
> in Ice Berg Country, and made up the time in the open.. Thus- the issue
> of gender is larger than my voice or concern, and is likely to come to
> a critical point under less than comfortable situations than the open
> mike at the NRRC.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >I don't beleve this has anything to do with effective Leadership,
> > >and has everything to do with man made *Domination, as it just
seems
> > >contrived.
> >
> > Domination? I don't see it.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> >
> > >The test for effective leadership is the resultant High
"Morale" that
> > >follows success and freedom, as in Victory over obsticals..
> > >since "morale" is the emotional force that gives drive
to group action.
> > >
> > >You can convince yourself that the sticking point is the uniform
or
> > >some other consideration, but the real issue is justice/ fairness
> > >and respect to all, by includeing every "Adult leader"
in all training
> > >and positions of service to the Lord, and the boys.
> >
> > Since national policy is that women do not camp in Royal Rangers (for
> > reasons stated above), it would be contrary to national policy to
> > include
> > them in training that involves camping.
>
> No.. Offering National Training to all builds a reserve of Leadership
> and awareness from start to finnish of the TOTAL MISSION! *It is
> usefull for your pastor to attend NTC, your Youth workers should and
> also *any RR leader reguardless of gender.
>
>
>
> They are welcome to any training
> >
> > Royal Rangers have to offer that is not camping-based.
> >
> >
> > >*If there are reasons for gender policies, I sincerly hope they
are
> > >clearly published and each individual given resources to have
them
> > >explained to their full satisfaction.
> >
> > They have been published, and explained. They have also been hashed
over
> > and over here on RangerNet.
> >
> > There is no way that the national office staff is going to be able to
> > convince everyone that the standards are just and fair, so you may
never
>
> > have things explained to your full satisfaction.
>
> Yea.. So say so...upfront.
> Don't wait untill a lady in Khaki flys into NTC to be told to go home.
> Be sure to have someone chase down every Lady in Khaki at National Camp.
>
>
> "The following policy is what we desire and will enforce period"
>
>
> But the current
> > national
> > Royal Rangers policies regarding women in Rangers were developed and
> > endorsed by our own national executive committee, with, as I
understand
> > it,
> > the full agreement of Brothers Crabtree and Trask.
>
> Makes you wonder if they have read the "position paper" by the
General
> Council.
>
> Good Chat Jonathan<G>
>
> Duane
>
> >
> > I agree with Duane that women are valuable assets in Royal Rangers. I
> > had a
> > lady on my sectional staff as SA/B coordinator the whole time I was
> > sectional commander (five years) -- she did a great job. For a while,
> > she
> > was even my senior commander (I know, I know, totally contrary to
> > national
> > policy <G> but she was the person who held that outpost
together before,
> >
> > during, and after the time my family was involved in that church). I
was
> >
> > senior commander when Straight Arrows was brand new, and I actively
> > recruited one of the young ladies in our church to be the leader of
that
> >
> > group . . . she ended up as my sister-in-law. She did a great job. My
> > first
> > exposure to leadership in Rangers was as a junior commander in the
> > Buckaroos group. I worked under a husband/wife team. Both of them did
a
> > great job. I've seen many women over the years doing a great job
> > ministering to the boys. But I support the current national policy on
> > women
> > in Rangers . . . I feel that it's the right policy for this day and
age
> > in
> > which we live.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > "Jose F. Rodriguez" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yesterday I went to the Official RR website and saw a
glimps of
> > the
> > > > uniform
> > > > > that the female (and probably the male) Ranger Kids
commanders are
> > > > going to
> > > > > wear. For those of you who don't know what I'm
talking about go
> > to
> > > > this page:
> > > > > http://www.royalrangers.ag.org/royal-rangers/applications.cfm and
> > > > click on
> > > > > "Page 1: General Information" (you of course
need an Acrobat
> > Reader to
> > > > view
> > > > > them). Once your one the first page of the All
New Transition
> > > > Brochure look
> > > > > closely at the picture on the lower left which should
show a group
> > of
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> =====
> *High MORALE is the Index of effective Leadership.
> --------------********+********--------------------
> Morale raises belief of the Leader in the follower,
> of the follower in the Leader, of each in themself,
> and both in the .....cause!
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
_______
> Let the Golden Rule be your daily rule.
>
> Please pray for your list sponsor: http://eBible.org/mpj/
>
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm
>
http://rangernet.org
