An Open Letter to the Board Members of CEM: Willie Oxendine, John Beasley, C. Roderick Martin, Jon Garnant, John H. Currier, Richard Crow and Larry Watkins at 312 W. Main St. Whitehouse, Texas 75791, and to other concerned Brethren,
We, Gary and Dianne McDonnell, both Church of God members, recently received a phone call from a CEM board member that we would soon be receiving a legal summons regarding a home which Allie Dart willed to us.
This summons is directly related to Christian Educational Ministries wanting half of Allie Dart’s Estate and not settling with an offer made by Cathy Gibbons and the two remaining Dart relatives on October 18, 2018. Mrs. Gibbons offered to give CEM 100% of a home willed to her by Allie Dart, a home valued at more than our house, if CEM would take Philip Hufton and us out of the Family Settlement Agreement. Her generous offer would have excluded us as dedicated church members from the litigation.
It read in part, “I (Cathy Gibbons) and the surviving Dart/Driver families are requesting that CEM allow these three parties to fully have what has been willed to them….I believe that the selling of these properties will create a hardship specifically on the McDonnell’s and Philip Hufton who are members of the Church of God faith… Please consider this request as an act of Christian love…”
But on December 5, 2018, one of CEM’s lawyers replied, “The CEM board declined the offer. I apologize that was not clear from our prior communications.”
It is a great disappointment to us as contributing, long-time members of Christian Educational Ministries that you, CEM board, did not first reach out to us regarding this matter. We have considered many of you our friends and we called out to you by your first name at Holy Days, Sabbaths, and in personal fellowship. We, Gary and Dianne McDonnell, together have been in the Church of God for a total of over 86 years! We are your brethren. Mr. Dart was a great teacher and we are fortunate to have known him. He was fond of 1 Corinthians 6:1-6.
“If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life? Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother takes another to court and this in front of unbelievers!”
We know that you are aware of this scripture and the many other ones that warn about bringing your brethren to court. We believe that the Bible instructs us to sit down together and talk about our differences and try to settle this as Paul wrote. No lawyers. No recordings. No secret legal angling. Just Brethren together working out an important issue. We understand that many of you are scattered across the country and for your convenience we offer to meet with Larry Watkins or whoever else from our faith you feel will represent your side. Meeting in Tyler will entail us driving and flying many hours to meet you in this manner. We are willing to make this effort and discuss this face to face. We hope you share our commitment. Peace to you.
Dianne McDonnell
Gary McDonnell
Kennon McDonnell
28 comments:
The principle is that people have a right to justice. Pauls 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 assumes a just church person and experience/training in such legal matters. I believe that such people are rare in today's churches.
The author should know better than simply quoting scripture without reference to all the assumptions in that scripture.
Looks like it’s off to the lake for the CEM board members, the Lake of Fire, that is. I don’t even have words to describe them.
BB
As usual, the what you say is normally the opposite of what they do, especially when money is concerned. To the board members of CEM, I say, shame on you. You have revealed your true colors by this despicable action.
The McConnell family seems to have no conscience problem with holding on to stolen property. Allie had no legal right to will that property to the McConnell's, as we saw from the earlier exchange of correspondence here on Banned. Instead of quoting 1 Corinthians and demanding that because they are Christians they must not suffer hardship, wouldn't the McConnells be performing an act of Christian love, demonstrating their faith, if they were willing to suffer a hardship in order for Ron's wishes to be carried out? That is, if they love Ron more than the house, as they claim in their letter.
It read in part, “I (Cathy Gibbons) and the surviving Dart/Driver families are requesting that CEM allow these three parties to fully have what has been willed to them….I believe that the selling of these properties will create a hardship specifically on the McDonnell’s and Philip Hufton who are members of the Church of God faith… Please consider this request as an act of Christian love…”
Translation: "Love ME by letting me keep property that isn't rightfully mine, and reward Allie for defrauding the beneficiaries of Ron's will. Don't love the people to whom Ron made bequests."
We know that you are aware of this scripture and the many other ones that warn about bringing your brethren to court. We believe that the Bible instructs us to sit down together and talk about our differences and try to settle this as Paul wrote. No lawyers. No recordings.
What? 1 Corinthians 6 says nothing about not recording the proceedings. For that matter, notice how the McConnells use the word "warn" as a threat, a very Armstrong-like maneuver. Notice the manipulative tone and presentation of this letter. Yes, it's a shame that Allie Dart created this mess by her neglect of the law, but now that the mess is made it seems that both sides in the dispute are more interested in maximizing their physical gain than in making the spiritual growth that would come from agreeing not to profit from another person's crimes.
Disgraceful situation. The CEM board are only harming themselves in the long run.
Born To Sin??
Both Ron Dart and Allie would be disgusted by the actions of the CEM folk. How nasty and greedy can people be? Oh wait, this is church members we are talking about. 1st century Christianity setting the example in the world today. Barf!
Anon 11:01 AM, you are half right. Ron Dart would indeed be disgusted by the actions of the CEM folk, just as he would be disgusted by the actions of (1) Allie who acted in self-interest to disregard Ron's will, and (2) the McDonnells who are using manipulative language to claim falsely that it would be an act of Christian charity to let them hold on to property that someone else stole.
So I guess the Allie Dart estate doesn't have the cash to make up for these properties? Sad.
So I guess the Allie Dart estate doesn't have the cash to make up for these properties?
It turns out that Allie was yet another of those people who go through life trying to convey to others the impression that they are wealthier than they actually are. There's a word for that: worldly
BORN TO LOSE
Is it a sin to go to a stone mason to be fitted for your millstone on the sabbath?
Does CEM have a Wikipedia page that we can edit to reflect this savagery?
On what planet in what solar system in what galaxy can these people believe this is Christ-like behavior? This is the sort of arrogant behavior that the tithe entitlement gravy train of Armstrongism always leads to.
BB
Byker, that arrogance is visible on both sides. One side says, "I'm holding stolen property and it's your Christian duty to let me keep it." The other side says, "We screwed up, earlier, and now you must suffer for our screwup." Hardly Christian behavior from either party.
We, Gary and Dianne McDonnell, together have been in the Church of God for a total of over 86 years!
They, Gary and Dianne McDonnell, together show no understanding of the Parable of the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). Their opponents might be in the Church for 1 year and be in the right, or might be in the Church for 87 years and be in the wrong.
Anonymous at 9:47
While your statement regarding that parable's lesson is correct, you're completely ignoring the context of your cited quote. Those 86 years are not invoked as a source of authority, but to show "We have considered many of you our friends and we called out to you by your first name at Holy Days, Sabbaths, and in personal fellowship." "We are your brethren."
@ 10:53 AM, years of time in church doesn't make someone "brethren." It's the Holy Spirit that creates brethren. A vulture sitting next to me in church, waiting to grab my property, isn't a "brother" whether he has been waiting for 1 year or 86 years.
Anonymous at 10:53
Again (if you're the same person), you're inferring an assertion that isn't there. The writers of this letter aren't using their many years in the church to *prove* they are their alleged antagonists' brothers. Instead, they are calling upon a shared history to frame their appeals.
Your misplaced vulture analogy hints at their point, however. It must sting a bit more when the one who turns against you has been called "brother" for years.
The thing is, 5:17, a benevolent party proposed a neutral, win-win situation in which CEM board would have gotten the moneys to which they feel they are entitled, and some little lambs could have been spared hurt and damage. CEM board members refused to even consider it. WWJD? If those board members were concerned for others than themselves, and had demonstrated the spirit of sacrifice, I am sure that God would have blessed them, making up the difference and then some. As things stand, they may have brought a curse on their ministry. In fact, we’ll probably learn that that is indeed the case as we watch this unfold.
It would be easy to conclude that CEM board is attempting to punish someone, an individual who actually does have a Godly conscience.
BB
Since I know three of the board members personally, without seeing Ron or Allie's wills, I'll hold off on making a conclusion until more information is available. I do know that after Ron's passing the monthly newsletter began begging for money, something Ron never did. When I pointed that out to Allie I was immediately removed from the mailing list. Fair payment for the first local congregation to sponsor the Born to Win program I guess.
Kevin McMillen
I do know that after Ron's passing the monthly newsletter began begging for money, something Ron never did.
If you deliver a valuable product or service, you don't need to beg for money. People pay a premium for Apple products, Starbucks coffee, Lexus automobiles, etc. because they perceive value. Many people found value in Ron Dart's message, and gave accordingly. Sadly, this seems to have created in Allie a sense of entitlement to that money, enough so that in the hope of keeping Ron's income stream as her own she was willing to depart from the conduct Ron preached.
How does the intellectual property of Ron Dart figure into this? Was is part of Ron's estate or does CEM control it, or does it belong to a third party?
It is my belief that CEM is (and should be) the sole owner of Ron Dart's intellectual property.
-- Allie's estate makes no claim to it.
-- Ron's relatives make no claims to it.
-- The Ronald L Dart Evangelistic Association makes no claim to it. (As president of RLDEA, I signed off on the final settlement agreement acknowledging that CEM owns Ron's IP.
--Wes White
One of the websites carrying Ron’s programs indicates that they are copyrighted by Christian Educational Ministries, and used by permission. Oddly enough, the title “Born to Win” has been used by motivational speaker Zig Ziglar for decades, and the Ziglar materials come up if you Google that title. We used to listen to Zig tapes back in the ‘80s, as several of my bosses were fans.
The board of CEM could not control Allie, and it seems that that’s the rub here. She pretty much took the wind out of their sails prior to her death, and now the board is going after her beneficiaries. It’s got to gall them that apparently Allie entrusted Wes with Ron’s legacy more than those who felt imbued with authority on the board.
According to the information I have received from within the Tyler Texas CEM and CGI organizations (as a faithful follower of both) the CEM board is the sole owner of all of Ron Dart's intellectual property, along with the building in Whitehouse Texas and the CEM bank account. You would think that that would be enough for them. But apparently, no.
"You would think that that would be enough for them. But apparently, no."
That would depend on what Ron's will says. If he willed the properties in question to CEM and Allie somehow stopped that, then the answer is simple. It's CEM's.
But without knowing the contents of the wills the estate isn't ours to divvy up, not even theoretically.
Kevin McMillen
Wes White said:
It is my belief that CEM is (and should be) the sole owner of Ron Dart's intellectual property. -- Allie's estate makes no claim to it. -- Ron's relatives make no claims to it. -- The Ronald L Dart Evangelistic Association makes no claim to it. (As president of RLDEA, I signed off on the final settlement agreement acknowledging that CEM owns Ron's IP.
Wes White, can you elaborate on why you believe this "should be." Also did none of these groups make any claim in the past? Thanks.
Anon 5:48--
CEM should be owner of Ron's intellectual properties because it's what Allie determined before she died. She didn't like the way the CEM board came to be owner of Ron's IP, so she asked me to contact an IP attorney in Dallas. He told me Allie had two options: Either accept it or take legal action. Allie said there was no way she would take legal action with CEM on this issue. So she accepted it that CEM owned Ron's IP.
She could have started a legal battle over this while she was still alive and asked us to continue it after her death. She clearly chose not to.
When she tasked us with promoting Ron's materials after her death, she made it clear that our mission did NOT include pursuing Ron's IP. We have gladly complied with her instructions.
So the answer to your question is: "No, Allie's estate and RLDEA have never made any claim to Ron's IP. Never. We never even contemplated it for a moment." Further, to my knowledge, neither have Ron's relatives.
CEM is the owner of Ron's IP. Period. Case closed.
--Wes White
Post a Comment