Ahhhh, a voice of sensibility and reason in a storm of hot-winded opinion > "D.J. Holland" wrote: > > Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see a different issue, here. > > Hebrews 13:17 says: > "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 > to you." > > 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? > > Just thinkin' words. > > In His Grip and totally with His love, > > DJ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "EagleDad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 _______ 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
