Posted by CB on 10/4/2001, 10:48 am

Posted by Steve B. on 6/25/2001, 9:51 am , in reply to "Relationship" Gordy, You misunderstand the nature of my claim. I am not claiming that UROG theology (i.e., the Chapel's version of Oneness) was the only or even the main thing that led to connections, nor that the only thing that would enable a person to reject connection theology was an awareness that UROG theology was wrong. (I myself believed in UROG at the time but also believed connections were badly off track.) What I am claiming is that it was definitely one of the things in the mix that made us susceptible to connections. There is no doubt about this—both Don and Barbara's own words substantiate it—and as I have gone back and immersed myself in my notes from that era, trying to accurately recapture the teaching and atmosphere of those days during which the Chapel descended into the connection era, this has become more and more clear. For anyone to convince me otherwise, I would have to see that they are at least as familiar with the Chapel's teaching from that period as I am. Since you admit that you left early in that period, and offer only speculation about people's disobedience, I don't see anything in your posting that would make me want to modify my own conclusions. The fact is, people were obeying what they believed God was telling them, and that was what led them astray. But God wasn't really leading them to pursue fellowship with the "glorified Son of Man," UROG theology was. In short, we were taught to seek a way of relating to Jesus as the "glorified Son of Man" that we thought Trinitarian theology made impossible because it hid the true nature of Jesus from us. When connections came, they were explicitly linked to this "glorified Son of Man" theology. And Don and Barbara both explicitly appealed for support for connections from that theology. Trinitarian theology would say on the other hand you cannot distinguish a sense in which we can worship Jesus specifically “as man.” There is simply the singular worship of Jesus, one person who is both God and man. There aren't two kinds of worship of him—"as man" and "as God." In Trinitarian theology, Jesus is indeed now glorified, but he has not divested himself of his deity—he remains both man and God. We are simply to worship Jesus, not his humanity or his deity. But through "connections" we were led to worship a purely human Jesus (although now glorified), and this is where I maintain we were misled. Don was teaching about the need for fellowship with the "glorified Son of Man" at least as early as 1983. For example here are some excerpts from a 1983 Camp Meeting sermon he preached on the subject: Is Jesus worshipped as deity only, or also as the son of man? The word ‘Christ’ does not speak of deity; it speaks of humanity (‘Christ’ means anoninted—God is the anointer, not the anointed.) We are to worship the Son of Man—not the man of Nazareth, but the glorified Son of Man. Rev 5:7ff - the elders fell down before the Lamb—the lamb clearly speaks of the humanity of X—it speaks of the sacrifice. - “thou...hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.”—clearly shows humanity of X. - “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain...” Again, clearly speaks of the man Christ Jesus. X as the Son of Man is still functioning in heaven. Paul on the Damascus road—who spake to him? Jesus as deity or as glorified Son? 1 Cor 1:17 - “X sent me” the glorified Son of Man talked to Paul on the Damascus road. X as the Son of Man is the one who will return—“he will return in like manner” (Acts 1?) It is God's will that we have fellowship w/His Son: ? Col 1:9 - fellowship w/his Son. It is not enough to have fellowship legally. He wants us to have it exprerientially. It is not enough to legally put on X—God wants it experientially. We need a real spiritual union.—a flow both ways. God wants us to know Him. This union starts when we are born-again and increases through several steps. BHS, etc. The love of the Son of Man is not romantic—it shd not be difficult for men to experience—it is a spiritual thing—He died for us and is now glorified. Paul was in a strait betwixt staying or departing—he had been in heavenly realms—he knew it was far better to be in that realm. What about 2 Cor. 5:16—“we no longer know X after the flesh”? X is no longer in the flesh, but in a celestial body. But he is still the glorified Son. (Don Barnett, Having Fellowship with the Son of Man, Part I, Friday evening service 9/2/83) And Barbara had no doubt that her first connection experience was a direct fulfillment of this teaching: Without changing our gaze, we danced in worship. Every move made an incredible imprint on my spirit. I could hardly remain on my feet. I perceived that every step I took was received by him, and I repeated over and over, with abounding adoration, “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.” I was aware of no one or anything else—only Jesus. Jesus was there—with me—looking into my eyes and seeing everything I was. With all knowledge, He still gave me unconditional acceptance. I looked into his eyes and I saw Jesus my Friend, my Savior, my Lover and Bridegroom! I was experiencing Jesus with skin on! We never touched. Our spirits merged—we became one. The song ended. Overwhelmed, I staggered to the wall. Another song began; he came to me and we worshipped again. When that song ended, he said, “Thank you, Barbara,” and backed away to the door. I slumped to the floor in complete joy and ecstasy. ...It was 3:00 a.m. before I could walk down the stairs to my car. I knew that Jesus, the glorified Son of Man, had—in union with another human being's spirit—manifested Himself to me, and by doing so, our spirits melded into one. I was certain the Father had answered Jesus' prayer of John 17:21—‘That they may be one as we are.’ I thought, Surely this is the mystery the Apostle Paul refers to in Ephesians 5:31-32—“...the two shall be one flesh; this is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Barbara Barnett, The Truth Shall Set You Free, Winepress Publishing, Mukilteo, WA, 1996, pp. 319-320) So I continue to think that the case for a relationship between UROG theology and connections is very strong. Sincerely, Steve