Posted by LP on 7/30/2001, 5:05 pm

Posted by Dave Kenady on 5/26/2001, 12:24 pm , in reply to ""We've wandered in the wilderness long enough"" When I left Sacramento in 1979 to come to the Chapel, it was because I got no satisfactory answers to my many questions about my faith and about the church I was a part of. If questions remained unsatisfactorily answered, don't be surprised if people are uninterested in joining up with the Church of Agape. The fiasco at Community Chapel left me wandering for YEARS with unanswered questions. I used to sit with my brother-in-law at a local restaurant and discuss these things with him. We were both still in the church at that time but could not tell who was giving us the truth. We sincerely wanted the truth in the most sincere Chapel tradition. But it was too late. What we were hearing from both sides was the result of spin doctors who used to be our leaders. If Don was talking, it was always the elders fault. If the elders were talking, it was always Don's fault. This was, to me, a good sign that God had left the building and that we were all simply mired in confusion and politics. The Chapel was over. I have been very friendly toward COA for a long time since. My kids, with their mother, still attend there. But I remember what it was like to operate in spiritual connections -- and that experience was within a body, a family and a marriage that BELIEVED in spiritual connections. I am now married to a wonderful lady who never attended the Chapel. I love her dearly and WOULD NEVER subject her to spiritual connections in a thousand years. And I have a right to do that because I need to be fully persuaded in my heart before I could move back into something like that. And I have responsibility to protect her heart. "I hope and pray that God will move in a time of repentance for the actions of individuals towards DB and CCBTC during the split that never should have happened in the first place. Maybe DB could get also make some moves toward reconciliation -- like maybe reaching out to the those that were hurt, or showing up at these opportunities like the New Heart convention -- being a part of the larger body of Christ. For all the years I have defended DB, I'll have to admit, he seems to remain quite untouchable. It's a two-way street. To his credit, he once sent me a personal tape in response to a request from my ex-wife. God is still moving mightly in the church with clear direction and purpose. I've heard opinions to the contrary. ---------- Posted by EricO on 5/26/2001, 2:56 pm , in reply to "The 3rd side" Unless they are personally invited how would they know about it? I only know about it because I view this board once in a while! And would we truly be welcomed? Frankly there is no more CCBTC just past memories, (but the hurts and anger in many stil linger) and weÂ’ve all gone on, some to follow DB and others to new churches, but you keep stirring and enflaming the pot like a talk show host with comments and postings such as the posting introduction from DB. If this is an open forum I chose to comment where I disagree. ---------- Posted by Dave Kenady on 5/26/2001, 3:41 pm , in reply to "Re: The 3rd side" "but you keep stirring and enflaming the pot like a talk show host with comments and postings such as the posting introduction from DB." With God as my witness, I worried about complaints if I posted the comment by Don. But I did not think it would come from someone at COA. I thought I would hear from people who just don't want to hear anything from Don ever again. But I posted it without comment because I was amazed at what he told us in 1983, considering what happened later on. But alas, I can't win. The view from COA apparently is that "you keep stirring and enflaming the pot like a talk showhost with comments and postings such as the posting introduction from DB." Okay, I admit it. I have a vested interest. I run the board. It;s been real quiet lately and I do try to encourage discussion. It may be that we are all talked out about the Chapel. If the traffic here drops to near zero, I'll get the message and probably eventually close the board down. But the comment WAS made by Don and it is not posted out of context and it was made without comment. So I figure it speaks for itself. I'll tell you something I've never shared on this board that relates to COA and their view of those outside their church. In the years following the split, I struggled with my faith. I had stop attended the Chapel in Dec 1987. It originally was motivated by the fact that my then wife (ex-wife now) was struggling with my connections. It was a simple decision made on a Friday night just before service. She was an emotional wreck, though she said she believed in connections wholeheartedly. I chose to prefer her and stay home with her that night. The ensuing fiasco of calls from the church from connections as I was trying to pay some attention to my wife led me to never go back. I was not critical. In fact, I suspected I was the one in the wrong because I had stopped attending the Chapel. When the split happened, I wasn't on either side, but my wife was on the pastors side. The years following were a struggle for me because her faith was the kind that could not tolerate someone who was not "on board" the ship. She tried, but the theology she was following said to follow the cloud and leave the stragglers in the dust. I got left in the dust by the people of agape love (with the exception of 2 souls who truly had the heart of God). I wrote a paper to all my friends in WA and CA in 1992 or so. I gave them all the unvarnished truth about what had happened at our church and in my life. Most of them didn't know. I was painstakingly careful not to be unduly critical of anyone -- just explaining what had happened. What I was doing was trying to be myself again. I needed to tell the world that I had an opinion and it was valid. I couldn't just give the party line anymore. I had suffered the loss of my church, my marriage, my job and my home by this time. My ex-wife's attitude was vehement anger because it pulled back the perfect image we had presented to so many people. But the anger toward me, when I was just trying to find myself again is partly why she is a single person now. On the day of our divorce, she called and left a message, tearfully apologizing for the hurts she caused me. I have forgiven her and wish her well. She is a good person. But you guys at COA need to get a clue. For years after, I still insisted on not being critical of COA, connections, etc. But in my hour of need, your ministry became a steamroller coming at me. I know you guys mean well, but there is something really wrong when you have to already be healthy and well and in need of nothing in order to benefit from a ministry. ---------- Posted by Author Unknown on 5/27/2001, 4:59 am , in reply to ".... but you keep stirring and enflaming the pot" I find it interesting that a prophecy from Don quoted verbatim without comment could inflame anyone. This reminds me of a chapter in the book I penned entitled The Great Disappointment. In this chapter I quote Charles Russell on several occasions, he is the founder of the JehovahÂ’s Witnesses. This chapter contains an honest history of the movement from the very beginning, nevertheless it would be considered off limits to any devout JehovahÂ’s Witness today. The JehovahÂ’s Witnesses are so afraid that someone might find out the truth about their early history which makes them look bad they go to great lengths to hide it. Should we start concealing DonÂ’s prophecies so the present Truths of the COA will not suffer? What comes next, the words of Christ? Should we let the Truth along with all true history never be repeated again so we can stay comforted in the blanket of false doctrine? ---------- Posted by Mark Dial on 5/27/2001, 6:41 am , in reply to "Re: .... but you keep stirring and enflaming the pot" My first vision at the chapel was that of a massive black hole. I could see some homes or business around it but not much. It was like a horror hole of debt. I wondered back in Sept.1971 What kind of future ministry is that? Latter more came to me as I knew that the story of the house on sand and the rock were a discussion of some future event. I later took the chapels Apoc. classes twice and became more confused then ever. The problem came down to a error of the 4 horsemen. The first horse is not the anti christ but a legal act as a symbolic christ as a thief. What it realy is about is a massive bank failure. Nice now to know that info because it makes the events in Rev.6-11 before the rapture listed in Rev.12. That pushes the rapture to a (seven year trib period) mid trib. As I shared on this board a vision I had when I was at the chapel of two women. That is one submisive to God the other in rebellion with ring of light the rolled like a ball. Two of strong contrast. It did at the time make me think of the future of the chapel *however* it was show what was coming in the big picture. The church of Phil.and Lao. When two people are given money or wealth the actions can be of real contrast. One can become more moral the other not. One will see and *act* knowing a horror of a future coming the other not.(1 Thess.5). Don may have been correct about a future need of temp. homes but I never seen a demon go RRRR.