In Reply to: To Susie posted by Three cheers on August 26, 2005 at 11:39:17:
I think Black Elk summed up things well below. Chancellor knows enough that should horrify him & that he should write openly about. But if he truly steps out of his safe zone & castigates the Family, he will be removed from 'most favored' theologian status & not have access . . . & as an aloof & 'fair-minded' academic 'impartially' chronicling the Family & recording history, continued access is paramount, if he wants his name attached to theirs as the expert who gave his expert opinion on a controversial NRM.
But what dear Mr. Chancellor must know in the troubled conscience below his exterior is that in the process of 'expertly' presenting their history, he is wittingly or unwittingly expediting their acceptance & expediting the whitewash coverup of their sordid past.
No,no, he says to Jules, if ever my day in court comes, I will speak the truth even of the bad stuff I have seen and been told.
In the meantime, let's see about being a big expert who wittingly or unwittingly helps cover up their past in the media. Funny that a Baptist theologian can be so fair-minded & impartial about the horror he must read of victim's testimonies on MovingOn.
Oh. He doesn't read them.
But to balance all this, I admire Monger who is willing to point out that Chancellor is trying, in his own way, to be fair. I don't see Monger's opinions as a 'tile' put out, & I think it's ridiculous to chide someone for giving a contrary opinion, whether I fully agree with him on every point or not.
Chancellor has not (to my knowledge at least) sunk as low as Gordon (slip-me-some-cash) Meltdown.