Posted by Steve B., et al on 4/24/2001, 1:56 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 3/31/2001, 10:36 am [These are some reflections on Dave's posting titled “Not much to say except....” below. That thread was getting squeezed against the right margin, and also I thought it significant enough for a thread of its own.] Thanks for a good response, Dave. I regard it as a genuine blessing that the Web site for ex-Chapel members is moderated by somebody who is neither blindly defending the theology we learned there, nor simply trying to tear it down out of spite. But as regards the remarks in your posting below, I know that I have more of an appetite for theology than most people do. For some reason, studying systems of belief still holds a lot of interest for me, and I have reaped plenty of insights from it, even if nobody else among ex-Chapel members thinks so. I know that the very word “theology” holds a negative connotation for most ex-Chapel members, but I have observed that everyone holds a theology whether they call it that or not. It's best to get it out in the open and examine it, rather than assuming that what oneself believes is simply “what the Bible says,” while people who disagree with you are trapped in a “theology.” It is important to keep in mind that studying theology is not the same thing as living one's faith in the Lord Jesus, but with that caveat, I think it is a good thing to be aware of one's theology, and to make sure it does correspond as closely to the Word of God as humanly possible. And, as a corollary, it is also important to recognize theological pitfalls that exist, especially if one seems to have fallen into one—as would be indicated by a disaster of the magnitude we experienced at the Chapel. In other words, I continue to think that what people believe, especially when intensely held, has got to have an effect on their daily lives. And words about belief have got to mean something, even if people can't agree on the meaning in all cases. I have not yet tired of the search for that meaning as it relates to the our hope, the risen Lord Jesus Christ. Another thing I note is that at the Chapel, systematic study of the Trinity with the intent of exposing its falsehoods was encouraged, and people thrived on it. However, if one turns the tables, the enthusiasm for study and analysis vanishes. Hands are thrown up, and observations about hair-splitting are heard. I find that somewhat interesting in itself, because it points not to a genuine interest in the meaning of one's beliefs but to an unexmanied bias. And, again, if by “hair-splitting” you mean the careful definition of words, and paying close attention to the various senses in which they can be used, I would say that hair-splitting is important. If we had given more time to it at the Chapel in the last three years of its existence, I bet a lot fewer of us would have been deceived by Don's trippy definitions of agape. You also write I still see the foundational basics of the nature of God as defining who Jesus is and isn't. It is not so much that I don't see “the foundational basics of the nature of God as defining who Jesus is or isn't,” but that I now think that what UROG theology called the “foundational basics of the nature of God,” weren't. Some of them were simply misinterpreted and adopted to the Chapel's purpose of Trinity-bashing. For example, take “God's immutability” The Chapel teachers said that God was immutable, and by this they primarily meant to say that God could in no sense become man. In the scriptures, however, God's immutability refers to his will and purpose. They clearly mean to say simply that God's will cannot be thwarted, and that he will not change his intent. I do not see how the context of the passages that speak of God's “unchangeableness” and immutability can be broadened to such an extent that they could rule out his becoming man if that is part of what God intended to do. You also write But most of the discussion has convinced me of only one thing: this is not an expose of a horrible deception that we at the Chapel had fallen into. But see, there's the catch. You do agree that the Chapel fell into a horrible deception, right? It had to be due to something. So many people went into the Chapel thinking they were moving with God, and left so thoroughly devastated that now only a minority want to have anything to do with actively serving Him in a body of other believers. There have got to be some lessons of tremendous importance there someplace. Have you totally given up on the attempt to figure out what it was that led you into such a disaster, and to rectify it so that you can go on as a part of the Body of Christ? I haven't given up on that. And neither have I seen any other well-developed or convincing explanations here of the Chapel's very strange history. So until I do, I will stick with my own explanation, which so far seems to account for most of the various parts like no one else's. But I do remain open to talking about it. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- Posted by Lanny on 3/31/2001, 7:34 pm , in reply to "Reflections on having lots of things to say." The deception at the Chapel is like many other deceptions that have occurred in many seasons of church history. It need not have any theological origin. The Maxwells have apparantly concluded that it is because we are charismatics that we got off. Steve Shell from NW Foursquare said it was because of our oneness doctrine. I personally think that the answer is both complex and simple. It is complex in that there are many reasons for many different people. Having an inside view of specific people and what individually went wrong, I can say there are many things. Collectivly I think it is somewhat simple. We were mostly "come outers." We were people who were willing to go beyond the safety of our existing traditions. Tradition is both good and bad. Tradition protects the church from fads, cults and other errors that constantly appear. At the same time tradition makes it difficult for God to "do a new thing." As a church we were somewhat used to learning something new. Thus, when connections started happening they found a climate where that which God was doing was not immediately dismissed as "being of the devil" simply because it was new and different. Make no mistake, God was giving people many powerful experiences thoughout the whole mess. It was hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who want to follow God no matter where He takes them are in many ways more vulnerable to deception and mistakes. It is easy to stay within the safety of one's traditions. It is much riskier to leave that which is familiar and travel to where you haven't been before. People act as though it was the end of the world spiritually. Actually it is just another chapter in our journey to the promised land. The reward is for those who get there not for those who do everything perfectly. We have had 10 years of "Monday morning quarterbacking" what happened. It is still difficult to nail down an analysis that would get a consensis of those involved. Part of the problem is that people can only evaluate what they have known and experienced. That may only be 5% of what happened. There may be another 95% of experiences and other things that the person has no idea about. For example: Barbara's experiences with the son of man have been referred to as a significant turn that was taken. Actually from my perspective, that was only a tiny part of what was happening. In addition, those experiences must be interpreted symbolically anyway. In a nutshell: 1.) We were taught to open up to new things 2.) A new thing happened 3.) It was not "nipped in the bud" as Barney Fife would say. It took root and engulfed the majority of the congregation 4.) The vast array of different things happening made it difficult to correct and steer. Exceptions to the "rule" seemed to be the "rule." 5.) The "move" was allowed to go off campus. This opened up a pandora's box of temptations. The leadership led by example and many weaker saints fell into sin following them. 6.) The off campus freedom gave opportunity for relationships to take hold that were hard to break off later. Many were simply unwilling to do this when it became necessary. At this point an unwillingness to do what was obviously right led to an awkward hardness of heart to those who were so "sold out to God." This led to deep spiritual problems many of which remain today. It has been hard for many to find forgiveness and even harder to forgive themselves. 7.) The formal demise of the church was caused by the conflict between the elders and DB. The "move" played a part in that, but it may surprise some to learn that that could have happened anyway without the "move." It could have happened at an earlier date had the elders held DB accountable. The move became like a catalyst for it to happen. But, the move was not necessary. Conclusions: I can follow a progression of things that took us from where we were to where we are. It is hard to come up with a simple "why." Lanny