Posted by SB on 4/24/2001, 2:06 pm

Comments on "theological origins" of the deception. Posted by Steve B. on 4/1/2001, 12:08 pm , in reply to "Re: Reflections on having lots of things to say." Lanny, I agree with most of your posting. The causes were many, and I have emphasized before that UROG theology is not the only cause, nor even the main cause. It's just one of the things that contributed to the mix that put us way out there on the edge until at at last we stumbled over it into the depths. Also, one thing you don't mention that I think needs a prominent place in any analysis of what went wrong with the Chapel was the rather peculiar personality and behavior of the man who was driving the whole thing. But when you write of the deception at the Chapel, “It need not have any theological origin,” I have to emphatically disagree, and note that your own analysis supplies plenty of proof. This is because you write— We were mostly "come outers." We were people who were willing to go beyond the safety of our existing traditions. The reason we believed that is because we were taught that. That is a view of how God works, and it is therefore a theological view—one that was very deeply ingrained in us at the Chapel. As you know, Roman Catholicism takes the very opposite theological view, saying that God works only through the traditions handed down. In my own opinion, a correct balance needs to be struck between the two views, and the Chapel was way out of balance in this area toward the “new thing” approach. We were constantly expecting God to be doing some new thing, or we really didn't think God was working at all, as far as our corporate life in Christ. We were taught that successive "moves of God" should always be visiting the church. Because it was important always to be "in the move of God," and we depended mainly on Don and Barbara's word for what was or was not a move of God and none of us wanted to left behind, we found ourselves swept up in some pretty questionable beliefs and activities from a scriptural point of view (and thus from the real view of how God “moves”). A related theological point in your own analysis is the very first step in the process you present: "We were taught to open up to new things." That again is a theological teaching. One could just as easily teach that “new things” are much more likely to be deceptions than not. The Chapel chose instead to teach that we should be open to new things, and I agree with you that this could well be viewed as the first step on our journey to disaster. But again, I emphasize that any one teaching of the Chapel's can be viewed as the whole story. It was a mix of elements that should have been recognized as suspect from the beginning, were we better theologically trained before encountering the Chapel and its teachings. It is also hard to resist comment on these words— 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. This callous comment earns a repost of "micheal's" description of the events surrounding the suicide of Kelly Scott. For her, it was the end of the world spiritually. The repost is below, titled, “A New Thing in the Church.” I don't think this posting can be re-read too often. It reminds us of what we're really talking about when we talk about how the Chapel ended. Notice especially the sentence, “The church was pressuring her hard to submit to these practical aspects of the doctrine.” This is what comes, in the actual daily life of an actual but imperfect saint, of a theology that teaches it is only by participating in “new moves of God” that we can “get there.” Sincerely, Steve ---------- A New Thing in the Church Posted by Steve B. on 4/1/2001, 12:09 pm , in reply to "Comments on "theological origins" of the deception." The following posting is practically the first one I ever read on this board [actually, on the "old" board]. When I was at the Chapel, I had never heard of the situation it relates. It motivated me to begin again, ten years later, to re-evaluate the Chapel's doctrines and practices. I believe it also serves well to remind us of the atmosphere of the Chapel in its later years – that is, of where the Chapel's doctrines and practices had led us. Since this has been posted publicly before, I trust I violate nobody's privacy by taking the liberty to repost it. Re: Re: Re: Re: My favorite line from CCBTC Sunday, 06-Sep-98 22:25:17 208.254.14.60 writes: No, Dave, I stayed through 1985, although through most of that year I attended only enough to observe the progression of the "connection doctrine" as it rapidly ate away at the fibers of the church. My observations, coupled with many conversations with others in the church and govt, served as sufficient confirmation to me to begin to, once again, assert the rule of logic over revelation, and paved my way out of cc, a rather painful decision (for many of us). My epiphany occurred the December Sunday which followed the suicide of Kelly Scott. Kelly and Brian had been friends for years, and although, by the end, I had lost touch with them, I remained friends with some of their closest friends who kept me informed of events in their household. Kelly was exactly the sort of weak, hurting sheep any Christian church must serve first, first, first!: emotionally vulnerable, a simple saint, no money in the family, no scholar, a young housewife and mother trying to do the right thing and failing. Everybody I knew who was close to the situation near the end (actually, all through that summer and fall) was saying both before and after her death that Kelly couldn't take the pressure of being supplanted by Brian's connection, (including the connection), at the time. The church was pressuring her hard to submit to these practical aspects of the doctrine. That stress was amplified by the fact that, in all important details, her husband's connection had replaced her in her own household, even caring for her children as she worsened (by the end, of course, they openly preferred the connection to their listless, depressed mom). Finally, she arrived at that place of despair where no honorable saint would dare to go to judge her action. She put a bullet in her brain. During the weekend services following that, to protect the "move of love," announcements from the pulpit both lied about her motives, utterly denying the significance of the shattering of her marriage by the connection, telling the church "[it] had nothing to do with it," and gave some bogus reason for her death--I forget what, now, and it wasn't even important, then. Everybody who knew what was going on their tiny North Hill house knew otherwise, of course, but nobody spoke publicly about it. People had gotten so good by then at denying what they knew to be true, if told to do so from the pulpit. Personally, I will always wonder had I approached her, could I have helped, as someone once a friend, with what would be to her a unique perspective on the events of that year. I doubted it then and now, but that I didn't even try is my sin, one that I don't believe I will enter eternity without facing. I have many sins from that period, by the way. (One thing I learned that year and since is the incredible value God places on the suffering of the weak, the innocent, the broken, and on their relief--I am still shamed by my lack of care compared to His.) That Sunday service swept her and her pain, and the pain of her children, under the carpet as the dancing, laughing, and hand-holding continued and intensified. Really, it an analog of the contemporary North American Pentecostal churches comfortably pushing their pernicious prosperity crap while Christians worldwide suffer poverty, oppression, persecutions, imprisonment, starvation, disease, and horrible deaths. That day, I finally saw clearly why cc must fall, and it was exactly because there were so many sincere, Christ-loving people becoming hard-hearted and addled, and being abused there. That Sunday was the first day I prayed that God bring His judgement against my own church, something I had absolutely refrained from doing until then, and I begged Him to do it quickly. I never attended again, of course, and was disfellowshipped soon afterward. To this day, I am amazed at db's willingness back then to countenance and promote lies in the service of "truth," and to openly speak of it. What a self-contradictory ethic, especially for a Christian leader! This alone is enough to make me doubt the accuracy of the reports of his legendary intelligence. I wonder if he still permits himself such intellectual shell-games. Of course, this ethic plays a large role in many corporatist church structures, and is an antithesis to Christ's coming to save souls, one at a time. (This is the central struggle being waged at Overlake Christian Church right now, should lies, especially lies which revictimize the abused, be advanced to save a "ministry." If so, what then is the value and purpose of that "ministry," anyway.) I cannot imagine a God who will sacrifice one innocent lamb to save His church, much less db's. Can you? I mean, wasn't His only begotten Son sufficient for all time? Anyway, this is only one reason I despise the chapel's manchild teaching. Later, dude. I have enjoyed your openmindedness and goodheartedness. I'll visit again. michael I could spell out the various reasons this posting was significant to me, but I think it speaks sufficiently well on its own. Sincerely, Steve