| God's Move in Community
Chapel and Bible Training Center
(a flier from the Chapel to prospective Bible College students) A few years ago several families in suburban South Seattle found that their hunger for God's Word was not being fulfilled in denominational churches. They longed for dynamic spiritual power in their lives but got sterile and distant sermons in the church services. As the spring winds of 1967 blew across Puget Sound, many of these hungry hearts were drawn together to a budding midweek Bible study group in the home of Donald Barnett, a trained Bible scholar. When this handful of Lutherans, Baptists, and Catholics discovered God's presence and power and began to seek Him earnestly, the Lord graciously poured out the Holy Spirit upon them. As they returned to their regular churches, they discovered that their newfound joy was met with doubt and mistrust by some, but with wide-eyed interest by others. Through the summer of 1967,
the scope of these Bible studies increased and it became apparent to the
participants that they could not be satisfied remaining in their respective
denominations. Fall approached and the Lord led them to step out and start
their own assembly. They asked Donald Barnett to officially assume the
role of pastor; God had already been dealing with him to shepherd this
flock that they would not be scattered. Thus, in November of that year,
the first church service was held in the cozy living room of the Hartley
residence, and Community Chapel and Bible Training Center became a reality.
As families stepped from the crisp autumn air through the door to the meeting
room, their hearts were warmed by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Songs
of praise filled the crowded room and it became obvious that God had a
greater work in store for this group than to become "just another church."
As the name indicated this assembly was to be a training ground in God's
Word.
In the late summer of 1969, the large basement was so packed at times people had to look in through the open windows, since there was no room inside. By this time the new church building was nearing completion. Construction had begun in January, by faith in God alone, for there was no financing available to an unaffiliated group such as this. But God had promised to meet the needs and the saints believed. Many had been sacrificing their time to get the building ready. As God moved on hearts, they sacrificed anything they could to help in God's plan. Some sold their housewares, others records and ski equipment, and still others their second cars. Some cashed in stocks, bonds, and insurance policies, and a few even declared themselves willing to sell their homes. No fundraising pleas were made, and offerings were received only during the Sunday-morning services. The congregation was asked not to give unless it came from their hearts. This was a work of the Spirit, free from the coercion of man. Even before the church building was completed, God laid it upon the pastor's heart to start a Bible College. There were already several qualified instructors available, so a catalog of courses was quickly printed and registration was opened for Community Chapel Bible College. In August 1969, the completely paid for new church building and educational unit was occupied amidst joyous songs of thanks to Him who is faithful to His promises. A month later, 37 students took their desks on the opening day of Bible College classes. Many of these had laid aside their university careers to study God's Word. After the first school year, a new library and a larger lecture room were added to the facilities. The first chapel service, in the fall of 1970, opened with a 250 percent increase in students. Even though there was virtually no advertisement, students were drawn by the Lord from as far away as California, Wisconsin, and Hawaii. Since then we have continued to add to our facilities, student body, and teaching staff at a rapid rate. We at Community Chapel Bible
College understand that God has a plan for us in these last days, and we
wish to be totally absorbed in this work. We want our call to reach all
who have a burning desire to know the Word of Truth. We have a vision.
As a part of the Body of Christ, we must prepare ourselves for the days
ahead. We are already experiencing life giving showers and we see great
bright clouds on the horizon. Our hearts leap for joy as we hear the
sound of abundance of rain.
|
| Is there a scientific hypothesis
or theory that says, "For every action, there is an opposite and equal
reaction."?
The Communists often describe(d) their enemies as "reactionaries". Liberals also see many Conservatives that way. And mainline Christians see evangelicals, fundamentalists and (latter rain type) charismatics that way. And these perceptions have some merit. But it's easy for the spiritually lukewarm to criticize both the hot and the cold. The lukewarm don't have to struggle with proper use of utterance gifts - they're above that sort of thing. Believers, on the other hand, can't ignore these gifts. They're either for them or against them. The tendency in Charismania is that if a little prophecy is good, a lot is better. Seeing the folly of this, other believers despise prophecies, by either banning them or explaining them away. It's better to be cold than to be lukewarm. That doesn't mean it's good to be cold. But when your cold you're more apt to be uncomfortable, and thus open to correction. It's also not good to be scalding hot. But better to get burnt and learn not to touch the stove than to be comfortably lukewarm while walking into a dormant volcano that's ready to erupt. Churchianity (mainstream Christianity) has never manifested the works of Christ nor the greater works that Christ said his followers would do. That's not the problem, though. The problem is that Churchianity doesn't aspire to such works, but rather to be respectable to the world. This brand of Christianity doesn't cost much, and isn't worth much. To many zealous Christians, respectability in the world's eyes is not appealing. They want to be different than that which is manifestly dead. A fundamentalist once said, "Peale is appalling; but Paul is appealing". They who say such things seek a city whose builder and maker is God. I believe that most who came to the Chapel were seeking such a city. Many of us came from churches that tacitly replaced "seek the kingdom" with "that's all there is -- there ain't no more". We reacted to this by going head first into the only place most of us knew of that affirmed that there is more of God to be found. Of course, the results were disastrous. But at least we weren't lukewarm. |
| ". . . Each of whom had
more than a slight streak of the maverick in their temperaments." I'll
have to agree with you on this aspect of Don Barnett. In the last years
of my attendance at Community Chapel, I came to see it for myself. However,
I will still have to maintain, as part of the process of simple logic,
that somebody's temperament by itself still does not make beliefs right
or wrong.
I came to disagree with some of Don Barnett's theology, and yes, some of it is intertwined with his "maverick temperament," but that is separate from the doctrines of his systematic theology, which he got mostly during his upbringing, and maybe 90 or 95 percent of which I still agree with and believe. As for his "animus against mainstream Christianity," you should be aware that that did not begin in his upbringing or in the beginnings of Community Chapel. I'm not sure whether it was the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ or the Pentecostal Church, Inc., the two denominations that later merged to become the United Pentecostal Church, but for part of the time in his childhood and youth, his family was with one of them, then later they were with an independent church of the movement that at that time was called the "Latter-rain revival." Although the UPC today tends to have an aversion to the rest of Christianity and tends to consider them unsaved if they don't receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I remember Don explaining how it wasn't always that way. He said in the church he attended, they accepted the born-again experience of some of the mainstream churches, and that he grew up that way. What happened was later, after Community Chapel was established and had been going for a while, many other churches began to become hostile towards Chapel. At first DB's position was that they were still saved---I'm sure that's still his position to this day---but it was uncomfortable living with their hostilities. Then another problem began
to emerge. After he had lived and basked for so many years in the admiration,
adoration and pampering of so many of the people at Chapel, experiencing
how so many were so willing to do anything for him, right or wrong, and
how he would always get his way in every little thing and had absolute
power over them and their lives, after years of it, he began to corrupt.
That is no different from the way most human beings would react to that
situation, as much as we would like to believe of ourselves that it is
not true.
It was his fall into sin and not wanting to account for it, and his comfort of absolute acceptance in his own church that led to his later "animus against mainstream Christianity" which continues to this day in the Church of Agape. There's one other point I want to mention: In the years since I've been away from Community Chapel, I have come to realize that Don Barnett wasn't really the person who founded Community Chapel. Most of its founding came through his wife Barbara, though he took credit for it. She was the one who had such a close communication with God---ever since her early childhood---and even though God told her, "I have called you to be the pastor's wife," it was, first, her prayer life that brought that powerful wave of the Spirit that we all knew there, second God spoke directly to her about starting the church, and she even asked God, "What shall we call it?" and he told her audibly, "I want you to call it Community Chapel," and third, even the instructions from God to begin the Bible college came to her---and Don told her not to mention to the congregation that she was the one through whom the idea came. All or nearly all of the systematic theology came from Don. Most of what you see me having written above, I probably wouldn't know if it hadn't been for him. But the systematic theology wasn't the thing that attracted all the people. Even Baptist churches have systematic theology. That doesn't pull people in in massive numbers. No, what attracted all the people and made it the church it was was the powerful flowing of the Holy Spirit in the worship---and that came from God through Barbara. You know, even if Don and Barbara had never met, had never married, and if Barbara had married some other young preacher at her church, or at the church in Boise or wherever, this movement would still have happened, and even though she was born and raised in Lava Hot Springs, Idaho, it would probably still have come to be in the Seattle area, since it appears that that was a special leading of God. It would still have been called "Community Chapel" (but probably not "-& Bible Training Center"), that same flowing of the Spirit would still have been present in the services, but the difference is that without Don it would have been a lot less theologically oriented. I remember him saying about Barbara's mother (in the incident over the false prophecy about her sons in Korea), "She was not a very theological woman." It appears to me that Barbara wasn't either---at first, that is, until she married him. You may wonder, without Don's systematic theology, wouldn't the Chapel have been vulnerable to destruction? Yes, but with Don it also ended up being destroyed, so what's the difference? It's God who decides when he's going to allow a movement of his to come to an end, not just circumstances in the natural. As I mentioned in a post on another thread (which I called "I would be more careful in choosing my words," on a post by Kenneth J. Solheim, I think it was, "I really need the Lord"), once Don saw that the thing was moving, he jumped up on top and grabbed the reigns, took it for his own, claimed credit for founding it, and in later years would say things like, for example in the case of deciding which music to veto, "I founded this church, therefore I feel it is my right to have the music I choose here," etc., saying the same thing about every situation, or at least believing it. So the point about "they were both founded by men with more than a slight streak of the maverick in their temperaments," I have to say doesn't hold. It wasn't founded by a man with a maverick temperament. It was only run---and later destroyed---by one. So, to sum this post up, I can't agree with your observations about similarities between Chapel and the Watchtower. Community Chapel was---and is---its own unique case. That's all. |
The
Vision and Purpose of Community Chapel
| (from my web page)
This is a page that I dedicate to my former church that was once one of the best. Community Chapel and Bible Training Center, located in south Seattle, was a non denominational, Spirit-filled church with a vision of becoming the bride of Christ and becoming teachers and pastors to the church at the end of the age. I would categorize the Chapel as having been a nondenominational, charismatic church with pentecostal roots that believed in being born-again, Spirit-filled (in the Pentecostal tradition) and moving into the deeper life of a Christian. We believed we were living in the last days and that one day in the near future, those found to be in the bride of Christ would be raptured from the earth. We believed in the unfolding and progressive revelation of God through time as God restored Bible truth to His church. We believed that the days ahead would find the church moving into the fulfillment of the last feast, the Feast of Tabernacles. The unity of the faith and the unity of the Spirit would be ushered in and the last-day ministry of the earth would be very dynamic before these faithful ones would be caught up unto God and to His throne. Having spent years spreading the message
of the born again experience and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, we felt
God moving us in new directions. In the early 80's, God began moving in
the body in deliverance from demonic oppression and control of areas of
our lives. We witnessed countless demonic manifestations as we fought against
these spirits.
Now during all this, our pastor was teaching as fast as he could. He felt that God was beginning to do a new thing in our body and possibly in the earth. And he wanted to teach and guide without quenching the Spirit. A lot of good things came out of this experience. People were set free from bondages. People were filled with hope that God was going to finally heal marriages and lives in a new and powerful way. We felt that what was happening was scriptural, though it was an experience that could easily be corrupted. Well now where God moves, the devil is not far behind. Temptations to fall into sin in various ways began to manifest. Some people began rebelling against guidelines handed to us by our pastor. Some people began to cling to certain individuals they had experienced this connecting with and began to act as if they were in love with them. Marriages began to feel the strain. Accusations against the leadership began to surface and finally there were lawsuits and accusations against the pastor himself. Our pastor, Don Barnett, had a track record with this congregation of teaching the truth regardless of consequence. I learned much of what I know of integrity from him. But in March 1988, the eldership of the church wrested the church from pastor Barnett during a Friday night service while he was in another state visiting a satellite church. They accused him of various sexual sins and of refusing to submit to their requests of repentance and submission to a special status they had voted to put him under until this problem could be corrected. Many in the congregation walked out when this occurred (included my wife) and many stayed. The church had split. The media and areas churches never liked our church and had a heyday during this whole thing. We were on TV, in the newspapers and in magazines. Area church pastors were seen on TV thanking God that these people had been driven out. As a result, I personally became very hurt and am still not attending any church. The church that was once over 3000 strong locally with over 20 churches worldwide, had dwindled to 2 churches, one meeting in a rented bingo hall led by pastor Barnett and the original Chapel with about 100 members. The 15 million dollar property was sold off to the state and is now a training facility for law enforcement officers. My sympathies always remained with Donald Barnett and his church, but I stopped attending in 1988. I have since decided that there was enough fault to be spread on BOTH sides. Though I have been unable to be a part of this assembly, I wish them well and miss the good old days of Community Chapel and Bible Training Center. |
| Was Community Chapel a cult?
Surely the answer to this question depends on how one defines "cult". Here are some possible responses to the question when considering 7 different definitions : AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS (incomplete list) 1. A religion or religious
sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers
often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian,
charismatic leader.
Well, we had the authoritarian leader and were "generally considered" a cult by most. So any group with pyramid government that does poorly in the polls, so to speak, is a cult. Thus, the Catholic church is OK - but be wary of the Fundamentalists.
Liturgical churches are cults.
3. A group claiming to be
Christian which denies the doctrine of the Trinity.
This is enough for the Bible Answer Man.
Even if they disallow revelations that contradict scripture?
Remember the cult leader who came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law? Excluding those who deserted spouses for connections, Chapelites were much more often ostracized by their families than the reverse. Some relatives not only regard former members as second class citizens, but feel complete liberty to interfere in their personal lives.
Did you hear about the church which acquired a bunch of gold and followed their leader into the wilderness? Then when the leader mysteriously disappeared, his brother made a golden calf and led the people into an orgy - a cult for sure. Eve was beguiled by the serpent. But if your brothers and sisters are beguiled, they're a cult!
7. "A cultist is one who
has a strong belief in the Bible and the second coming of Christ; who frequently
attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to Christian
causes; who home schools his children; who has accumulated survival foods
and has a strong belief in the 2nd Amendment; and who distrusts big government."
The term "Christian" was originally a pejorative term applied to followers of Christ. Could post-Christian America become a place where Christianity is considered a cult?
In modern vernacular "cult" is a highly charged term with broad implications. I submit that casual use of the term can only hinder effective communication because of the wide variety of connotations. Motives of those eager to label others as a cult are suspect. Remember the infamous episode of "West 57th Street"? They showed Wayne Snoey, the family man, playing ball with his kids and then decrying the cult that he had left. No mention was made that those weren't his kids with whom he was tossing the ball - he had left his own wife and daughter to marry their mother. But who cares about the truth when there's a "cult" to expose. One simpleton, who never attended the Chapel, has the place all figured out - it was JUST wife swapping. Ask Constance Cumby about the Chapel, and I bet you'll learn it was JUST "new age". Can't other Christians be regarded as "deceived" or "prideful" or just "wrong". Must they be pigeonholed - JUST wife swappers, JUST new age, etc. God called people there at the same time He led others away..even after connections started. And the level of involvement of individuals ran the gamut - from those who consciously practiced witchcraft, to those involved in "mega connections", to lessor "connections", to those who didn't "connect" at all. For what its worth, my own definition (subject to change) of "cult" would include some elements of most of the above (not #7), with the qualification that for a group to be considered a "cult", there must be a prolonged and determined refusal to receive clear corrections, warnings, and/or instructions, and an explicitly stated belief that the group alone is chosen by God above all others. JW's, Mormons, etc. would thus qualify. "Mega" connections were called 2-person cults by one CC leader, and I would concur. My testimony I loved Jesus Christ before, during, and after my involvement with CC. My heart was right before God before, during, and after my involvement with CC - even when I was in deception. Spiritual growth continued in my life before, during, and after my involvement with CC. The gifts God gave me were in operation before, during, and after my involvement with CC. Some people thought that Gods call on my life was revoked or delayed because of CC; but God didn't repent of His call on my life. |
| It seems to me that DB as
an individual, and we as a group, never found the balance between legalism
and lawlessness. DB went from his upbringing in the rigid UPC to
a place where all restraint was cast away. He reasoned that "no law will
stop me" (from sinning) - so we'll have no law. We took truths like "if
you walk in the spirit you're not under the law" as our own without ascertaining
whether in fact we were walking in the (Holy) Spirit.
You asked, "can you explain the Chapel's policy in these matters?" In the early days the Chapel had detailed policies about nearly everything. These were called "principles". We constantly exhorted each other to "follow the principles". These "principles" sounded good then (they still do), but were in fact our attempts to perfect by the flesh that which was begun by the Spirit. I don't buy the idea that CC was a great church that the mean old devil somehow got his slimy hands on and ruined. The Chapel was a place were God brought people to be nurtured by the Holy Spirit and receive foundational teaching in the Word of God. It wasn't as wonderful as those who idolize it believe it was, nor as depraved as those who disdain it. The time came for us to be tested. God's spirit visited us and opened us up, revealing what was really in our hearts. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. We are, and were, exhorted not to use liberty as an occasion for the flesh. Satan had something to work with, and work he did. After wearing us out through trying to keep all the rules we hoped would make us delightful to God, old sloughfoot used witchcraft to beguile God's people. We DID (not everyone, all the time) use liberty to indulge the flesh. The spiritual liberty caused people to realize that many of the rules ("principles") were wrong. The test was this: If people were following the rules by the flesh - as opposed to having God's law written on their heart - then their response to the visitation was to cast off all restraint (since it was all of the flesh) and indulge the flesh in the spirit, so to speak. To the extent that God's law was in people's hearts, their spiritual liberty did not include, for example, french kissing someone else's spouse. There was such an emphasis on "entering in to the move of the Spirit", that that became the rule that superseded all other rules. Thus the Pastor, while allowing that adultery was wrong, said that God wasn't really worried about it because it was just "skin against skin" (he really said that!) - it was spiritual love that mattered. His wife, for her part, exhorted spiritual connections who fell into adultery to get the adultery out and keep the spiritual connection - the illicit sex hindered the powerful spiritual thing that was happening. It really depended on the individual as to what the policy was - not all "mega" connections committed adultery; and even some who stayed well past the split did not ever accept things like french kissing, though we all were deceived to some degree. |
| Probably like others on this board, I've
recently been enjoying listening to Carol's new CD of the songs she wrote
while at the Chapel. I was surprised at how much of the good that was at
the Chapel that it brought back. It brought home to me like never before
that, for me at least, there were really two Chapels. One of them I couldn't
get away from fast enough. The other is one that I regret losing and am
still trying in various ways to find again. These two Chapels don't simply
correspond to the pre- and post-1985 Chapels. I think the two Chapels existed
side-by-side until shortly before the end.
One Chapel had all kinds of esoteric, even slightly bizarre doctrines with which I was always a little uncomfortable. I met this Chapel sometimes at evening fellowships when an earnest, sweating man would buttonhole me and relate to me every name and title of the numerous demons he had cast out at a six-hour prayer meeting he had been to that day. I would nod, grin, periodically say "Amen, brother," and wonder to myself if I really belonged at the Chapel at all. I also encountered this Chapel sometimes in the irruption of a topic like "Why Jesus Didn't Have a Conscience" into the adult Sunday morning lessons. I was continually bumping into things that troubled me because they seemed to justify the charges of cultishness that we frequently heard from outside the Chapel. I met the other Chapel sometimes at Friday night services worshipping God to songs like Carol's "The Lord Will Raise Us Up." I stood beside many of you at this other Chapel, and visited with you afterwards in the spacious red-carpeted foyer. I also met this other Chapel in Bible college classes, sitting in classrooms with you under the teaching of men like Mark Yokers or Russ Mackenzie with dozens of other students who were motivated to be there simply by a love of Jesus Christ and His Word. At times like those I knew beyond any doubt that Jesus was my Lord and my God, that He had led me to the Chapel, and there wasn't anything I wouldn't do for Him. No place seemed to teach and obey the Word as purely, as simply, and as clearly as this other Chapel. How the first Chapel silenced and eventually drove out the second is a puzzle with which I am still preoccupied. In fact, I often wonder how the two Chapels ever came to co-exist in the first place. But I know that I took several lessons away from the Chapel experience. On the one hand, I have an invaluable example of the ways a false understanding of the Word can corrupt and overcome a merely emotional commitment. Also, I believe I have seen why certain doctrines are definitely false. I now know some signs to look for and avoid when choosing a church to which I want to belong. On the other hand, I have a positive picture in my mind of what a church can and should be, and what I want to help any church of which I am now a member become. Not by insisting that they accept every point of doctrine that I myself believe, but by praying, working, studying, and worshipping with them in a single-hearted devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ alone. So perhaps God knew what He was doing after all when He led me to Community Chapel. |
| Connections
originated as a practice, not as the discovery of a doctrine contained
in the revelation given to us in the Scriptures (which is the only true
kind of revelation). Others with more knowledge about the following events
may correct me, and I would invite that, but my understanding is that connections
first were practiced in the Kansas satellite church of the Chapel
in early 1985 during the move of God we (at first) called "dancing
in the spirit". That move had started in the fall of 1983 at a retreat
for the teachers of the Community Chapel Christian school (at which I happened
to be present, by the way, because my wife was a teacher there). At first
the "move" of dancing was limited to solo dancing, except
perhaps for occasional times of dancing in a circle around someone who
was being "ministered to." The aisles and front areas of the Chapel
sanctuary filled with people during and after every service
with many people dancing individually. Soon couples found themselves dancing
together, "worshipping God."
Then,
ironically, in a little outreach church out on the dusty plains of Kansas
the exotic hothouse shoot of connections poked through the soil: the eyes
of a man and a woman who were "worshipping" (i.e., dancing) together met,
and they each felt that a powerful spiritual bond had formed between
them and that previously unmet needs were being met in a deep way, maybe
even that they were each seeing Jesus in the eyes of the other. Soon this
shoot was transplanted to the moister soil of the Seattle church
and it began to be formally taught that this was a new way in which Jesus
was visiting his church and And all along this was supported much more by prophecies, and by tongues and interpretations much more than it was by the teaching of the Scriptures. Defenders of Don often point out that he at first tried to put the lid on this "move," and it was instead the "intercessors" around Barbara (his wife), eager young elders, and Bible college teachers that were pushing it. As I remember events, this view is accurate. Don was deeply ambivalent about connections in the first months. But soon he yielded, pushed by inner forces that were then unknown and unseen by the rest of us, and we were off to the races. The rest is history. It is a personal fantasy project of mine that I would one day write a book about Community Chapel that would answer questions such as yours, Tee. It would be called something like Community Chapel -- The Saga of an American Religion and would be a comprehensive study of the founding, rise, and fall of the Chapel, with a look at the histories and personalities of all the key players. But it would also include a look at the theology involved, and an explanation of the context of Chapel theology in relation to the Latter Rain movement of the 40's and 50's. (Don received his Bible college training during this time at a school that was founded by teachers influenced by the Latter Rain doctrine and revivals.) It would be based on long interviews with as many of the leaders who would let me talk to them, as well as on my own experiences there, which includes attending and graduating from the Bible college, over the last ten years of its existence. But, alas, I don't have the time, ability, or energy to really do this, and probably not many of the people who I would really need to talk to would consent to being interviewed, anyway. And some of them are gone. I would have loved to have talked to Jack DuBois, for example, about his final assessment of the Chapel. As Dean of the Bible college, I'm sure he had lots of stories to tell about the inner workings of the Chapel, but mainly this dignified former Marine colonel would have had valuable insights into the personality of the man whom he followed so loyally for so many years, but whom he finally voted to disfellowship. |
| When I first began to realize
serious problems were coming was when Don taught a fairly long series on
the Pastor being the spiritual head of everyone in the church
with the emphasis on the women. The husbands were relegated some minor
position but only if they were fully submitted to and in agreement with
the Pastor. This teaching series was done in late 83. Now I realize
that Don always had this view but at this time he was really driving it
home in great detail and force. I knew there was a purpose for this though
not manifested at the moment.
I didn't realize at that time exactly what trouble this teaching and practice would bring about but I did know trouble was coming. It didn't take long for the trouble to be manifested. As I was never at the Chapel without reservation about certain things, including Don, maybe I was more open to the possibility that trouble, serious trouble, was coming. I was never hostile towards Don in thought or actions. [Looking back I realize that what I interpreted as being reserved (with seemingly negative connotations) about Don is really only the correct or healthy attitude we should have for men in authority] I was so disturbed by this teaching (I was never an over lording husband and those who knew me would fully agree) that it caused me to leave the Chapel. My wife stayed behind for awhile and then left also. To make a long story short we were seduced into returning in the middle of 1985. After a short time I left again but my wife stayed. End of story, family etc., and the beginning of a journey of sorrow. (It ended well though!) Although I wasn't privy to the specifics of what was going on behind the scenes when I left I did plead with others still there to come out before God's judgment fell. As you can imagine this only caused charges of being deceived by the devil along with numerous "revelations" of the many demons I had, detailed in number and type! Yes, it was frustrating to see the doom descend upon the Chapel and the inability of others to see or even consider it. It really hurt too, very close to home. I predicted the adultery, homes breaking up, suicide and the devastation to the children that would come as a result of the connection doctrine in the early days of it. There were a few who would let me talk without hanging up but in the end I became a "demonized outcast" in their minds. It wasn't until a senior elder and his wife, who eventually were cast out also, that anyone would talk to me. They were quite candid in their discussions we had. I was astounded at the depth of depravity they recounted to me. I was also very cognizant of the grace of God extended to me during this time, as painful as it was. |
| [Editor's
Note: At the time spiritual connections began at Community Chapel, the
Counseling Center was organized to handle the greatly increased demand
for family and marriage counseling with "spiritual connection" related
issues.]
"...thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication..." (Rev. 2:20) Boys and Girls, The following accounts are true. Names have been changed to protect those who may not have known what spirit they were of, and to point the finger at that spirit, not at mere humans. The Counseling Center was a very, very spiritual place. Liberty in the Spirit was the theme. I went there for counsel a few times. My counselor was Mickey Mantle. Mickey listened as I shared things that were happening in one of my connections. This connection was with a woman who had lots of problems from being abused. Mickey encouraged me to keep up the good work I was doing in my connection's heart. This dear woman was so confused that she (and her husband) later went with Don when the church split, which eventually severed our bond. Once when I came to the Counseling Center I could see a connection of Stan Musial's sitting on Stan's lap. Like I said, there was lots of liberty. As time went on, my heart and mind became more and more troubled. Though my confused mind didn't think there was anything wrong with my connections (because we didn't sleep with each other), I was very troubled that so many were committing adultery (I didn't know the half of it). Annoying scriptures about not using liberty as an occasion for the flesh kept coming to my mind. I remember once when Babe Ruth, the most prophetic of all the counselors, had exhorted the whole church, "don't give up your connection because you fall into adultery - get the adultery out of the connection, and keep what God is doing." I felt weird when Babe said this, but like young Samuel in Eli's house, didn't think that I really heard God all that clearly. So I put Babe's strange words on the shelf, as we were taught by the man I thought was my shepherd (I had somehow missed Psalm 23:1). Then came more discomfort. My friend, Sammy Sosa, called - crying. Sammy's wife had left and moved in with her connection, Ty Cobb. I gave what pitiful comfort I could to Sammy, then started praying harder (I was already praying a lot). Next thing I know Sammy is counseling with Sandy Koufax. Sandy coaxes in Sammy's wife, plus Ty and his wife for some peacemaking. Ty apologizes to Sammy. Sammy's wife apologizes to Ty's wife. But Sandy didn't think it necessary to completely severe the bond. Ty and Sammy's wife were allowed to be together on church property. I remembered what Babe Ruth had said. I was appalled. I started thinking maybe God was really talking to ME (I'm slow). I called the Counseling Center. Said I needed to talk to a counselor now. The only one available was Nolan Ryan. I asked Nolan about this business of keeping connections going even after they've fallen into sin. Nolan said it was very important to keep the connections. I didn't ask Nolan to elaborate, having decided that Nolan was not to be trusted. Found out later that Nolan was already preparing to marry someone else's spouse. My ears began to really make up for lost time. Even my brain got involved. Everything started irritating me. I remember Mickey Mantle giving a testimony. Mickey said, "My spouse is so wonderful - my spouse says if I ever fall into adultery, make sure I don't break the connection." I started feeling like the Omega Man. Once someone asked Eddie Collins about the propriety of french kissing. I was dismayed when Eddie dodged the question. At some point I started talking to Ted Williams. Ted was a relatively straight hitter, though he too was under the spell of the ballpark. I liked it that Ted was willing to talk about things. Ted even shared with me how uncomfortable it was when Pee Wee Reese (small in stature but very high in spiritual pecking order) jumped on Ted's lap and inserted tongue in Ted's mouth. The time finally came to leave the ballpark. Pete Rose had established the record for most hits, and was subsequently banned from the place. Others had dispersed too, some with their own spouses. Shame on you Chapelites. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come (1Co 10:11). I found my way to another city. I went to see a minister. One of the first things he said to me was that I didn't need to carry the shame (there's a lot more to it, but that's the upshot). Repentance was the key for me. Are we too deep for this simple truth?: If we confess (agree with God) our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1John 1:9) Shame off you Chapelites. Joshua and Caleb are not remembered for having been in a church that worshipped a golden calf and had a wild orgy in the wilderness. |
| 1. The entire ELDERSHIP
of 13 men, plus 3 other men recognized as ministers (one of whom was DB's
personally chosen counselor), met together for several weeks to hear allegations
against DB. Don had agreed in writing to allow these meetings to take place.
2. These allegations were corroborated by several women through oral testimony and written affidavits. Although some point out that many people at CC were involved in illicit relationships at this time, the fact is that DB was the undisputed league leader, so to speak. 3. The church, and some of the elders personally, were in legal jeopardy over DB's behavior - because of the corporate status of the church. 4. Don had publicly stated (in Balance magazine), that he was accountable to the elders, particularly the 3 senior elders. 5. All 16 men UNANIMOUSLY agreed to ask DB to accept these two modest restrictions on his life: First, he was not to be alone with a woman other than his wife (background: DB's wife had often come home to find him in their bedroom with another woman). Secondly, he was not to go on vacation with a woman other than his wife. (DB and others used to take their "connections" to places like Hawaii.) 6. Most would express incredulity that such restrictions would even need to be voiced. But DB would not submit to even these basic restrictions. He blasted the elders, saying the Lord had warned him not to let anyone "control" him. He rebelled against their authority (he had appointed them!), demonstrating that prior allegations that he was not accountable to anybody were true. 7. The elders then agreed unanimously that DB had to be disfellowshipped. This was shared with the congregation at a Friday night service. His personal counselor, David Motherwell, wept bitterly as he publicly called this action necessary for the sake of Don's soul. 8. Prior to the above mentioned service, some of Don's supporters tried to encourage CC members to walk out and refuse to listen to what the elders had to say. When it was time for the service to start, Dan O'Brien commandeered the microphone and challenged those who had "any backbone" to leave. Many foolishly did ("He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" - Proverbs 18:13). Thus it was Don's followers who sowed strife and discord. Reasonable people sat and listened to what the elders had to say. |
| You asked what the elder's
did wrong and a second questions concerning what I would have done.
The second question first. I would have done what George A. did, just leave. I personally would not have violated the trust placed in me by the pastor and the people of the church. What George did I felt at the time and still do was the best action he could have taken. What did the Elders do wrong? I am afraid I do not have my notes with me and I have already posted several messages detailing what I believe they did wrong. But for your benefit I will do my best to give a concise list. I will be listing the points with alphabet characters referring to facts I discovered later, these facts reinforced my decision, and numbers which represents events I witnessed at the time. A. Before the Friday meeting where the elders exposed the pastor to the people they conducted secret meetings in the Sound Booth for some six weeks before that fateful night. This was in opposition to a contract they had all signed and agreed to, with the understanding why it was necessary. This had to do with corporate bylaws which was explained a couple of times down through the years. 1. At the time of the expose I believed that what they were doing, the very act, was unscriptural. I am not ready to debate this but your question was concerning what I thought at the time which lead me to the decision I made. 2. The very fact that they waited until the Pastor was out of the state to do this did not sit well with me. I saw it as cowardice and a violation of trust. This was not a spur of the moment action, for some weeks they had been meeting in secret in the sound booth (some sixteen people in all) discussing how they were going to handle the problem that they took to themselves to handle. B. The Elders announced that they were doing all this "in house". They said that the information they brought wasn't going to leave the walls of the sanctuary. This was a lie. Within 24 hours they had prepared packages containing service tapes to send to all the satellite churches and to others. 3. The Elders took legal action to restrain the Pastor from entering the property. This according to the scriptures was a shame and brought shame to our church. Now I know that people will take offense to this and go off on a tangent saying something like "what about the pastors sins didn't that bring shame upon the church..?" Yes indeed, but the questions was concerning the actions of the Elders in respect to the pastors sins which I have stated was wrong. Everyone agrees that the pastor sinned and that his sins were grievous. But as Jeff McG. said to me, "it's not the case of lilly white elders attacking a black pastor". So much anger and hate is thrown upon the name of one man when it was never just the actions or the teaching or the counseling of just this one man that had injured so many. C.During the short time that the Elders bared the pastor from the church he started they appear to have been altering the books concerning the corporation. This can not be proved and I have asked people who were on the elders slide at this time but I can not get a firm answer one way or the other. What we know is that there was flurry of activity at that time and a lot of documents were shredded, some of these were inventory sheets. 4. When the Pastor regained control of the church and corporation I was asked to join the transition team and be a department head. the first thing we did was to do a complete inventory. What I personally saw at that time reinforced my decision to not follow the Elders. 4a. I personally witnessed the vandalism that was done to the sound booth. 4b. I am a witness to the fact that tens of thousands of dollars of electrical testing Equipment disappeared from the corporation. This equipment was owned by the corporation, was recently on the property but at the time of our inventory they could not be found and that the inventory sheets did not give any clue as to what happened to the property. We had suspicions concerning where they went but we never tried to investigate the matter. We thought that to do more would not do good and therefore we let it drop. 4c. The pastor did not kick out those who followed the elders but instead allowed them to have services in the "Chapel" while we met in the "Sanctuary". We brought in a "feed" from their microphone into security and we monitored the services. During one of the services one of the leaders, I don't remember who, got up and announced that records had been destroyed to keep them away from the pastor. This was in violation of court orders, court orders that really didn't seem to restrain the Elders from doing what they wanted to do. The pastor during all this time did not violate court orders but the Elders didn't seem to feel that they restrained them. During this time I witnessed vandalism, theft, and the destruction of corporate property. 5. At some point during this time one of the elders discovered that the pastors team put up surveillance cameras trained on the doors to their offices. There was a HEATED confrontation when the remaining elders came into security to demand that they be removed. (By this time Mark Y. I believe had already left and we had heard on our feed that George B. had resigned. He said that he could not continue to minister without the anointing because that the Spirit of the Lord had left.) I was there when this angry group of men came into security to make their demands. I was witness to the fact that one of the elders had to be restrained by the rest of the group and dragged out before violence followed. I was shocked at what I witnessed. At the time I was not attending church anywhere because I had disagreed with something that the pastor has done. But I never saw the pastor turn violent. 6. At some time during this period one of the elders disappeared when attorneys for the pastor sought to depose him. This elders was later discovered living in sin with his connection after abandoning his family. This of course was one of the "unanimous" elders that signed the letter exposing the pastors sins, and one of the group who claimed that the pastor was unfit morally to serve as pastor and corporate leader. This to me was very serious to add his name to such charges when he was no better. I am happy to announce that this man is now ministering again and because of the good work he is doing for the church he now attends I feel this represents a repentance. 7. The last blow came when the pastor again and finally lost control of the property. The Elders forced "us" out and didn't even offer us the use of the "Chapel" not even for rent. We were forced to find a new home. They forced "us" out not just did something spiteful to their pastor. They hurt us. (I say "us" because I was on the transitional team but not attending the pastors church but later I returned.) I never did anything to harm the elders, I loved them although I felt that they were wrong in their actions. I didn't suddenly take on horns and carry a pitched fork. I was the same person who loved god and was trying to make sense as to what had happened. 8. There is also the money. They took control of all the property and money and never attempted to divide it up in some way so that we could have some benefits from the sales. Now I know that the idea was that the pastor was not to benefit. But this action also affected Christians who just loved the Lord and were exercising their right to worship Him in the way they believed was right. Now I agree that when I gave an offering, and I was a member since 1975, it was unto the Lord and I never felt that we had any real claim to the $12.5 million dollars (and more?) But it would have been a gesture that would have done some good instead their actions was a gesture that said something else. (However, it seems that even keeping all the funds did no do them much good. They never grew as a church, they could never have lasted without that money. They ended up renting out the church to another group to meet when they were not using it and after 10-11 years they have used up $11 of the $12.5 million dollars. The pastors group has always supported themselves and continues to grow.) 9. I said to Jeff McG., "An outsiders view is that after the elders had removed their pastor they turned on themselves and within a year they were gone." He answered and said, "yeah, that's pretty much what happened." One of the leaders at the time, I don't remember who now, stood up and announced that God had anointed him to expose the sins of the body. The Pastor instead has worked to heal the body not tear it up more. 10. Finally, an action that really surprised me, they censured Barbara B. There is some information that seems to suggest that Barbara was involved in a conspiracy against her pastor/husband concerning a rift in doctrine about connections even before the camp meeting before the split. I guess this didn't save her from the tearing at each other of the members of that "unanimous" group that followed the pastors leaving. Now this may come as a surprise but I loved the Elders and still do. I just believe that how they handled everything was wrong. I believe that they were and may still be men who loved God and did what they did for the good of the people. I never thought them as being evil just mistaken in their actions. I am thrilled to learn that the majority are again serving God. Just last night I caught up with Mark Y. and we had a nice talk and I found that the information I received concerning where he now attends was accurate. He rejoiced with me when I shared some of the healings I received and the revival I am now enjoying. The important thing is that we who were there to the most part erred. We can repent and enjoy a position in the Body again. "Even though our sins are double dipped in crimson they will be made as white as snow." This applies to me to the Elders who repent and to the pastor when he repented. As far as God is concerned our sins are removed and never to be reminded against us, ever. |
| Valley Daily News / Monday,
May 9, 1988
By Nathalie Overland (VDN Editor's note: Today's second part of a three-part series on Burien's Community Chapel explores how former members cope with the fallout of leaving the church) Seventeen-year-old Cami King, who left Community Chapel two years ago, still has difficulty trusting people and hates organized religion. Kim, 25, joined Community Chapel five years ago as her first venture in Christianity. Since she left the church five months ago, she hasn't been able to figure out what Christianity is really supposed to be. Richard, a former church leader for 10 years who was reluctant to discuss his association with Community Chapel, now considers his once full-time commitment to the Burien church a "mistake." Those are common reactions among individuals who have attended and then left Community Chapel, run by Donald Barnett. Like hundreds of others, Cami King, Kim and Richard have fled the church that former members say once exacted all their loyalty and commanded much of their time and money as well. In addition to spending most of their free time in church activities, the members bankrolled much of Community Chapel's 44-acre-estate, worth $10 million. Today most of Community Chapel's congregation has scattered, some seeking refuge in their homes, in new churches, or in their resolve not to be duped again. They are battered emotionally and spiritually. They find it difficult to trust others, to submit to leaders, to expose themselves to the world as people who once supported Community Chapel. Many not only blame the church for their damaged lives, but point to themselves as well. "I feel like I've been spiritually raped," one woman said. "And I know I'm responsible for allowing it to happen." Those who leave resolving to find a new church often are disappointed, unable to settle in after years of believing that other churches are "dead" compared to the emotionally charged atmosphere at Community Chapel. Some vow never again to step foot inside a sanctuary. A few are looking for revenge. Among the wreckage are the children, most who attended Community Chapel's K-12 school because enrolling them elsewhere was frowned upon by church leadership. A former chapel elementary school teacher who left the church in early 1986 said she witnessed the stress in the children's lives when the church began spiritual connections. "There was a lot of stress, a lot of vandalism at the school that you never saw before," she said. "I think the kids saw the hypocrisies and they certainly were affected by the divorces. It was implied that if children were in the way, they'd have to be casualties. The 'move of God' was more important." One woman, who always considered her best friends a model mother, said she was dismayed to see her friend change. "I slowly watched her lose interest in her family. She didn't have time for her children any longer because she was spending her time with her connection. When I said something, she said she wasn't concerned because God knows her heart." The rule that "God knows the heart" has securely tethered many of the remaining members to the chapel, former members said. Despite the evidence of destroyed marriages, shipwrecked families, and even suicide, those who remain at Community Chapel apparently hold fast to the concept that the move of God is real - it's just that people aren't handling it correctly. "Some people realize that things are wrong," said one former member, "but they feel that people haven't handled it right. Now, they say the elders are cleaning it up (by attempting to expel Barnett) and the church will become what it was intended to be." Other former members, most of whom asked not to be named, attribute lingering Community Chapel membership to several factors. Some said those who stay are hooked on having their lives controlled. Others said the remaining members are satisfied with the doctrine of spiritual connections. A few maintain that personal pride won't allow some to face the possibility that they have been deceived. Members are taught that it is better to "go with the spirit" rather than to use their "natural minds." That teaching, former members say now, was a form of mind control because the congregation was discouraged from applying logic or reasoning to what was happening in the church. Former chapel members say that once they began thinking for themselves they soon realized the church is fueled by mind control. Yet those who leave say they are wracked with both guilt and apprehension over what has happened. Some accuse themselves of being too vulnerable. Some are angry that they followed a man, not God. Some are afraid it will happen to them again. The needs- and the hurts - of those who emerge from Community Chapel are as varied as the patchwork of personalities that comprise the congregation. In response to those needs, some local churches have flung their doors open to welcome those religious refuges. A few of those churches and other Christian organizations have established programs to address the specific needs of former members. Several who have left also wait patiently to console those who continue to exit the church. Still many needs are not met, a fact that frustrates both the former members and those attempting to help. "I think people on the outside need to understand that even if a person leaves the chapel, the chapel takes a long time to leave them," said Tim brown, former director of Colossian Fellowship, a local group that monitored Community Chapel for several years. "Both sides need to work together to find out what works." Some former members said more counseling is needed for those exiting the church. "People who leave don't know what's normal or good," said one former member who supports more counseling. "We weren't allowed to hurt or have anger because those were demons or pride. So we didn't know how to think or be normal." Other former chapel members doubt whether anyone understands Community Chapel well enough to offer adequate relief to those who leave. "I don't know if people are equipped because they haven't dealt with this type of thing before," one former member said. "And people in the chapel won't listen to them. They feel outsiders just don't understand." Those who are particularly equipped are former members. A few of them are working diligently to convince remaining members to leave the church and support them when they do. One woman compiled a packet that uses scripture to refute many of Barnett's teachings. She sent copies of it to her friends who still attend Community Chapel and one returned the packet refuting the scriptures with chapel thinking. She said the incident hasn't discouraged her. "I was never totally spaced or walking around with glazed eyes," she said. "But I was definitely controlled by the church. And those who stay still are too." For Cami King, who was instrumental in urging her parents to abandon Community Chapel in 1986, life - particularly her Christian faith - is now confusing. "I talk to God sometimes, but I guess I just don't know anymore," King said. Her faith, she said, has been lanced by a church that condones adultery and splinters families. In the nine years that King, her parents and four younger siblings attended Community Chapel, the teenager had plenty of time to observe the church. When she wasn't in Community Chapel's school, she was involved in church activities. She didn't do much else. "I'd go to school and worship services, that was about it," King said. King, then 15, was in ninth-grade at Community Chapel's school in 1985, when students were first encouraged to dance with each other and with their teachers during school worship time. "You didn't have to dance, but were told that we would be on the outside looking in on the move of God if we didn't," King said. "Some kids ended up with strong connections with their teachers." King danced, first by herself, then with girlfriends. When a male asked her to dance, however, she refused. Like her mother, Melinda, the younger King didn't want strange men touching her. "At home I'd hear from my mom that it wasn't right and at school they said it was right," King said. "I was confused." She watched as her father became moderately involved with his connections. She witnessed a friend's mother bring her connection home to be "lovey-dovey" on the couch. She was dismayed as her peers became involved with their own connections, some of them teachers, some of them married. "I saw a lot of hypocrisy and cheating. I saw them going the wrong way. I knew it wasn't right." King took her complaints to her parents. Doug and Melinda, and her concerns helped prod the family to leave Community Chapel in early 1986. Two years later, however, this articulate 17-year-old is still grappling with the fallout of Community Chapel. "I don't want to go back to church. I don't want to get involved again, trying to figure out what's right and who's God." The Kings visited other churches after they left Community Chapel, but were frustrated in their efforts. King's parents said they weren't sure what they were looking for, but they knew it had to be a church where they didn't know anyone. "We just wanted to work into a new church on our own," Melinda King said. "We started floating around, but we still haven't found one. For now, our family is our church. We still have some work to do here." Today Cami King embraces activities that were discouraged during her tenure at the chapel. She works at a day care, attends sports events, volunteers on a phone line for latchkey kids, and goes out with her new friends. Her old friends, the one she knew for years at Community Chapel, won't talk to her anymore. "It was really hard for me to leave those friends," King said. "It was like taking all your friends and all you've learned and throwing it out the door." Kim, who asked that her real name not be used, had never been involved with a church before she stepped into Community Chapel's sanctuary. She was looking for a new dimension to her life in the early 1980s, visited Community Chapel, and decided to stay. There, in 1984 she met a young man, made plans to get married, and learned that she was pregnant. Chapel counselors told the couple to break up because they were incompatible. It they didn't follow that advice, the counselors threatened to expel them from the church for "spirits of rebellion." Kim miscarried. Her fiancé left her and the church in 1986. Kim stayed, leaving four months ago after deciding that she didn't want to spend time, "connecting" with married men. Today, she, too, is confused about religion. "Being a new Christian, I didn't understand that they were wrong," said the dark-haired soft-spoken woman. "Now I know that you should never get involved in a place that tries to fit you into their mold. They wanted me to be things I am not." Now she occasionally attends a church that meets in a home, but she isn't really satisfied because the music - which initially attracted Kim to Community Chapel - isn't the same. She chose a church that meets in a home, she said, because it seemed safe and removed from the sprawling Community Chapel sanctuary. "I'm actually taking a break now," she said. "I have a real big fear of putting myself under a pastor. It's like who can you trust and who can't you trust?" Richard, who also requested anonymity, joined Community Chapel in the late 1960s to attend the church's Bible College that taught Barnett's brand of Christianity. Following graduation, Richard assumed a leadership post in the chapel, a position he held for more than a decade. Richard went along with Barnett when dancing was introduced to the congregation in the early 1980s, but left the church when spiritual connections were encouraged. As a church leader, Richard's responsibilities included some marriage counseling. "I was helping to save and mend marriages," he said. "It wasn't the dancing, but the (spiritual connections) dating that led to break up marriages because adultery was practiced but never condoned. I couldn't support that." Richard no longer attends church, and he feels betrayed. "My sojourn at Community Chapel is something I now view as a mistake," he said. "I no longer want to be identified with that place in any way." |
| As I have spent the past several weeks
researching this web site & pondering all the different posts on this
board it has become quite obvious to me that most folks here, like myself
have really struggled fitting back into a church (some of you haven't even
had any success). It seems like all of us have had to go through a "reconciliation
process" to the Lord (at least in my case I didn't get automatically "zapped"
by the Lord & every thing was all right again). I know in my case I
have had to work through (& still am) anger, bitterness, hurt, spiritual
pride, disillusionment etc., concerning the Chapels' demise. My question
is this...If we are fully reconciled to the Lord does that mean we will
now be also be reconciled to His People & if that is the case should
we not be able to fit back into a church?
As I've pondered this I feel for myself this reconciliation to God's people must take place in order to be fully healed. I have therefore come up w/some guidelines for helping me to fit back in... Besides addressing my question above could you please tell me what you think of these guidelines? (am I on track or way off?) 1.)Leaders are not more favored by God over others in the church. 2.)All folks struggle spiritually, even leaders. 3.)All folks in the church are at various stages of spiritual growth (no instant spirituality). 4.)All folks (even leaders) make mistakes, none are infallible. 5.)All of us (not just leaders) can learn to hear God's voice for themselves-no need to remain spiritual children who must submit to parental leaders. 6.)We all need each other-none are needless. 7.)All folks in a church have something to give & are valuable to God. 8.)All folks in the church-leaders, lay persons, and Saints are called to live by the same Biblical standards. 9.)All Saints are responsible for their own relationship before God, apart from their involvement w/other believers-including spouses. 10.)The church is not just one building or one gathering but believers everywhere. So what do you all think? |
| I was saying if the yoke
fits, wear it. Or another way to say it, if it's good for the goose then
it's good for the gander.
The yoke you placed on the Chapel to evaluate it's failure, (including a comparison of it's Godhead doctrine to that of traditional Christianity) in like manner should be placed on traditional Christianity, even more so, due to it's own widespread failure that has affected many more lives than the Chapel ever did. The inference you made is that if the Chapel would have held to traditional Christianity it would not have erred. I was pointing out that traditional Christianity certainly was/is not something to cleave to as it too has miserably failed, even worse than the Chapel, at least in sheer numbers. I don't believe the Chapel's
fall had anything to do with rejecting traditional Christianity.
Rejecting traditional Christianity only avoided the mediocrity of it. Disobedience
is the major reason churches or individuals fall from what I know. The
reason traditional Christianity is so mediocre and dead, in my opinion,
is not so much due to their doctrine as it is not living up to the light
they have though much of their doctrine doesn't have a very active God
in this day and age. This also applies (living up to the light they have)
to those with more light. In fact, since to whom much is given, much is
required, those with more light are judged by a higher standard, even while
on earth, than those with less. I don't think the Chapel was a good steward
of the light it was given, living up to and in it, and it paid the price.
In other words, WE knew what was right but chose to ignore it = disobedience.
The Son of Man doctrine, as far as being accountable for the demise of the Chapel, will rise or fall in people's minds depending on their theology of the Godhead. If one believes it is unscriptural and/or impossible, they would probably agree it was one of the principal causes of the fall. Those who believe it is scriptural, therefore possible, would disagree. So in essence, in the course of answering your question, it would require an in depth discussion on the Godhead of which I am not inclined to get involved in here. |
| I agree that we were all
wanting God and well-intentioned. I also agree that Don was just
human, not evil. We are all mere humans trying to serve God and do the
best we can. I have come to a place where I can look back and see Don's
virtues as well as his weaknesses. He is a brother after all that we will
see in heaven.
That said, the problem as I see it at the Chapel with regard to control was that counseling, teaching etc. was all aimed at trying to keep everybody at the Chapel. I remember wanting to go home for a couple of months after my first year in Bible College and an elder (not Lanny) counseled me that the Devil would use my months at home to try and keep me from |
coming back. In other words, I was pretty
much choosing between the Devil and God about a relatively minor decision
to spend some time in my hometown. Why not just let me go and trust that
God is capable to get me where He wants me to go??
I think the above situation is somewhat typical of the manipulation, fear and over control that was common at the Chapel. I do believe that this elder was well-intentioned and I hold no resentment. I have just found that most churches freely let you make choices and hope the best for you in God which is a lot healthier. At the Chapel, it was pretty much always a choice between being at the Chapel or being deceived by the Devil. |
| I
appreciate your frank honesty, as usual.
I want to linger on one phrase in your next to the last sentence, "...steeped in error." I'm confident that your depiction is exactly right. To offer an analogy, once a tea bag is "steeped" in hot water, there is no way to isolate the original elements of water, paper, tea leaves, from the final effusion. You simply have tea. One of the first books I was fortunate to read right after leaving cc was "The Beautiful Side of Evil." I forget the author's name, but she had gotten involved in, of all things, central American spiritism and "spiritual surgery." Then she met Christ; her book is a recounting of her efforts to understand the steamy porridge of truth and error that had been inculcated in her previous experiences. I found her tale very useful for beginning to extract myself from the condition cc had left me in. CC was not unique in any regard. One of the circumstances it shares with many groups is that a healthy dose of truth does not "salt the soup" enough to make it health-giving, any more than wonderful experiences, excellent testimonies, a tradition of family values, etc., offer any weight to the claims of its supporters. In the final analysis, what is the test of truth? "If a man (or a church) have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of His," I think Paul said. Is the spirit of Christ definable? Not to a lawyer, it ain't. Probably not to any decent rhetorician or even honest saint. But, to paraphrase the Supreme Court Chief Justice who said of pornography, "It maybe that I cannot define the term, but I certainly know what it is when I see it." Once one dismisses the pretty facilities and prettier (and mostly shallow, puerile, and adolescent) music, and disposes of the arrogant claims of cc, its headier, self-serving doctrines, fabricated "gifts," false "prophecies," and cut-rate "miracles," there was nothing much left of merit in the entire institution. Nothing left that was useful was unique to cc, certainly, not the ok Bible teaching and not the habits of prayer or study. Except for some of the people, of course. While not unique to the greater church, they were unique souls in Christ. These people were the primary reason Yahweh was faithful to beset the place with a delusion especially fitting for DB (ergo, finding the love of Christ in the arms of the chesty "girl next door," or chesty boy, if you were female or male but swung through that door). Because DB would not receive a love of the truth, God sent a strong delusion that he should believe a lie. By doing so, God set some captives free, although he had to essentially demolish the structure and its leadership to do it. Good enough. Fair trade, I think, don't you? But finally, one has to judge the tree (which only refers to the ministry) by the rotten fruit it produced. How, pray tell, and without resorting to the mind-numbing regurgitations of silly children like Sam and Josef or the happy nostalgia of those who refuse to think critically, can one justify a ministry which took SO MANY GOOD AND WILLING SAINTS and made such trash of their lives, their souls, their walks with God? Even you, as honest a soul as I've conversed with about this stuff, finds yourself troubled and embarrassed in recountings with your bride. The most canine of Barnett's supporters still blame everyone but the chief Poobah. His wife caused it (what a lie: like our president, when did DB ever not sleep around)? The people were unwilling (you and I know better). The wily 'ole Debbil did it (just another way of saying the saints were unwilling, but worse for the claimants, as it ignores the implication of the teacher of so many badly trained people that could be deceived and taken). Well, we were like the people of ancient Israel. "Give us a king!" Our fault. But we mustn't forget that DB, like Saul, wanted badly to be priest-king (and be very honest, that is exactly what role he played at cc, and apparently still plays at the bowling alley church, that of absolute spiritual and mundane ruler). That was Don's first carnal arrogation and it led to all the others which we all partook of. Anyway, king and subjects got together, and Don became the legal representative of us poor souls--l'etat, c'est moi--and God kicked his ass but good. Maybe that was God's way of being faithful to DB, too. I've no problem conceding the possibility. But God's possible faithfulness also does not justify DB's rotten ministry. It sucked, always. And I am by no means certain that the guy isn't still receiving the sexual favors of girls at the bowling alley. Are you? So, where does that leave us? I don't know, honestly, I'm broken clean through. No victorious life at my house, no song, no joy, no dance. I sit in the mud with Jeremiah, and note that God has torn me like a lion, and I lament. Perhaps God will save me. Perhaps not. But I am done trying to save myself. I live decently and love my wife and children and return love for hate, as best I can, but never perfectly. So... Let God be true, and every man a liar. It was never His fault. Later. |
| We
at the Chapel desired to do what was right in the sight of God and
wanted to follow His Spirit wherever it led us. We loved the Lord with
all of our hearts and many would spend hours in prayer before and after
services, which usually lasted three hours.
We did not want to miss out on anything that God had for us so we rarely missed one of the three services a week. If we did, we would check out tapes of either just the sermon or the full service. Most of us went to Bible College, adjacent to the church, because we wanted to be prepared to be sent out for the end-time harvest. We always brought our Bibles to church and many of us took notes - some even took notes on the prophecies that would come forth. When different "moves of the spirit" came to our church, many of us were anxious to get to church because we wanted as much of God that we could get. One of the last moves, before God blew the place up, was "the move of love" a.k.a. connections. Connections was a term coined when one member of the body joined with another in the Spirit and there was communion between the two. Actually there is nothing wrong with this and it has been experienced by many Christians throughout the ages and continues to this day. Perhaps it is something that you have experienced - being drawn to someone and feeling the love of Jesus come through. What was wrong with "Chapel connections" is how it was distorted, exalted, and made a "god". This was shown by example from the leadership, taught publicly from the pulpit, and encouraged at all times. In essence, our church became no different than a bar scene where members of the opposite sex search out one another to feel good, flirt, and later fornicate - the only difference was that we, in the name of the Lord at the chapel did it with lights fully illuminated and kept our clothes on (in public), all in the name of the Lord. Spouses were taught to "release" their mates and let "God" have his way in the connection. Needless too say, this was a very insecure time for most of us but we went forward as good soldiers for the Lord and many of us got slain by seducing spirits - demons of lust, abandonment of good judgment, lack of regard for preferring one another, full of the gimmies and stuffed with SELF. Some say they kept themselves "pure" from those bad spirits but it still was males and females pairing up, taking one another out on dates, giving one another presents, etc., while spouses, children, homes, and jobs were neglected all in the name of the Lord. We all sinned before the Lord by allowing such grievous things to happen in our church. We were following one another like the blind leading the blind over a cliff. Some tried to warn us but the deception was so thick and our sword had become dull. It was only by God's grace that Babylon fell and since then some of the scales have fallen off of our eyes. Our desire today is that all our Chapel brothers and sisters be healed and are able to once again stand as healthy soldiers of the cross. |
| Thanks for the kind words.
We have all been through quite a bit. Not to condemn anyone, but some of our suffering is because of our own stupidity. The beauty of this is that Biblically we are in good company. Sin did not keep Israel out of the promise. Nor did the golden calf debacle, complaining, rebelling against Moses, etc. It was in fact, unbelief, and in fact, the Bible calls it "obstinancy(Rhm). "apitheia" or unpersuadableness. It was not weak faith but a refusal to believe. They simply wouldn't give God anything to work with. They deprived God of the opportunity to be God. God loves to be God. He loves it when we get the revelation that He is God also. That is, allowing Him to give the miracle. He loves to find people that will let Him give the promise (every generation has a promise) and then after we have made a typical pigs breakfast of the whole thing He loves to fulfill it. This reversal is one way He delights in defeating the devil. Haman (Satan) provides the very gallows that destoy him. All of our failings do not in the slightest mean that the promise will not come to pass nor that it is not on time. It is my opinion that everything is on schedule. Consider the plight of the Jews. Consider the promises of future glory and restoration. Yup, it will all come to pass. Why not get in on the promise since all we have to do is LET GOD DO IT? Yes, I know we need to cooperate along the way. My point is that there is nothing we can do to produce an Isaac except walk with God and like Abraham, say yes, Lord, I believe. Moses got in the flesh and tried to help Israel. 40 years later God showed up and Moses was the meekest man on earth. He wasn't that meek as a prince in Egypt. Ah, the mystery of God and time. I honestly have more faith today and can see clearer than when I was back in good 'ol Chapel days. God's call and promise to all of us CC'ers is Yea and Amen. Yes, we might have to modify the promise to exclude some vain glory and self exaltation, but what God intended to be brought forth by our lives and by the truths given unto us is right on track. I am kind of excited about it. Consider David. One day tending sheep and the next day Samuel pours a horn of oil on his head and, "the Spirit of God came upon David from that day and forward." I can feel the goosebumps. In a moment of time, everything changed. A few verses later Goliath is dead. Saul knew David did not have a chance. Does it look that way? I know what it looks like to see what Saul sees. But I feel the power of a tidal wave 100 feet tall, a wave of revival that cannot be stopped. God is going to have a church that fulfills His promises because He is YHWH if for no other reason. It is not about us, our good points or bad. It is about HIM. In that day we will say, "It is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes." It is so obvious that the ones who post on this board still CARE about the things of God. God's call still exists in their hearts and minds. His plan is still being fulfilled. "Though the vision tarry, wait for it..." Much love, Lanny
|
perfecting
love in it. It also began to be taught that we needed to get rid of "legalistic"
ideas about marriage so that our spouses would be free to take part
in this "move," because of course, connections were seldom
between husband and wife. It was taught that too many hurts had been built
up over the years of a marriage for this to be possible. Instead, we must
have these hurts healed in a connection, and then return to the marriage
to make it even stronger with the love we had received in the connection.
