Posted by TAY on 12/15/2001, 8:44 pm

A few more comments Posted by Steve B. on 10/19/2001, 9:56 am , in reply to "Re: Angels Can Fall" Tom, Thanks for the response. I appreciate these discussions also. You write When you say "we disagree," I'm not sure who else besides yourself you are referring to. I was referring only to you and I. You had earlier written, "...I disagree that it was connections that broke up our church..." I was replying that we (you and I) disagree with each other only if that statement means you think that connections had nothing whatsoever to do with the break-up. I think that I can agree with you that the real causes ran much deeper than the visible events occurring at the time of that break-up. And I agree with you that “hubris” would be a good description of that underlying cause. The dictionary meaning of “hubris” is “exaggerated pride or self-confidence.” In a spiritual context, it is often used to denote a pride that leads one to adopt a foolishly exalted view of oneself, as if one were on the same level as God and could do no wrong. I do indeed think we held a hubristic doctrine of what we were as a church, and of who we were in relation to God. Among other effects, this led us into a state in which we believed we could fellowship with Jesus in a way not understood elswhere and not available elsewhere. The only area in which I do sense some disagreement between us is in your hesitation to say that connections were a complete mistake. You ask Could it be that they were from the "good" side of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil To be honest, I don't know what that means. It seems a lot more straight-forward to simply say they were a misrepresentation of God's will, to which we were made susceptible by our earlier acceptance of Don and Barbara's peculiar teachings (one of which was this “tree of life”/“tree of the knowledge of good and evil” business). You also write I do not believe anyone but God Himself knows the "good" and the "bad" of spiritual connections as played out at CCBTC - there are tons of opinions out there... I have to say I'm aware of only three opinions: A very small group of people, confined mostly to those now attending COA, believes conections were definitely good, and of God. Another very small group of people, united only by the fact that they were at one time members of the Chapel, are unsure whether connections were good or not, but think that there was a core there somewhere that was of God while most other aspects were misused. Everybody else thinks connections were bad, and definitely not of God, and whatever good might have seemed to be there was merely seductive, like a heroin rush, or bait on a fish hook. I have been in the third group, almost since connections began appearing at the Chapel in the spring of 1985. You also write On the good side (this time the tree of life), Don Barnett opened me to see the nature of God in a new light, to hear books of the Bible as never before, to pursue Jesus as in a veritable chase, to go to Bible College on limited funds, etc. Regardless of the destruction that worked through Don Barnett, "the enemy meant it for evil, but God meant it for good (Gen.50:20)." Now with this I can wholeheartedly agree. Maybe I don't say often enough that my Chapel days (until the last three years, 1985-1988) were the happiest of my life. I very much enjoyed being a part of a church that was truly seeking to make Jesus Christ and the Word of God the center of daily life. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Re: What Are We Connected To ? Posted by Tom Ashley Young on 10/20/2001, 3:17 pm , in reply to "A few more comments" What were the seeds of "connections"? You may or may not recall that during the noon chapel hours, Keith Johnson came up with such songs as "I Am That I Am" and "Procession To The King," with Barbara indicating she found blood on the keys from the intense playing. I was there during those "breakouts". I also was there previously in AM Chapel (during Bible College) when people started dancing before the Lord solo. I am going to go on record to say that those times WERE of God - I was able to interceed at times, to pray for all types of things in a "Prayer Dance," kind of like when I would go to my "trysting place" (George Bowker's phrase) to be with the Lord, and walk with Him as I pray. Now then what happened after that was people started dancing in groups of MORE than 2. We were all dancing solo in the AM chapel and there were too many on the front floor and some people just started dancing around others. There was NO eye contact during some of those times. Was this wrong? That is the question. For out of those times came the big circle dance, where 10-20 people would be dancing around in a big circle, and one time Earl Faylor just jumped into the circle, kind of like you would when merging onto an expressway in your car. Then he mounted the pulpit in the Bible College chapel in his "earl way", and said we might need to start using turn signals (it was funny at the time). In parallel comparison, those songs birthed at the noon chapels were carried over into the Friday PM and the Sunday services, and you could note the same progression except, perhaps, without the big circle turn signal thing. It was not until AFTER those times (not too long after) that Don Barnett spoke of his heavenly vision to the assembly, and out of THAT came dancing in couples. I must say if Don had been discerning in this, we may have chosen the right fork in the road and gone the way of God's Connections. What do I define as God's connections? Certainly, even now in the church, we are a far cry from "knitted together in love," "fervently loving one another with outstretched arms," etc., all of which are scriptures. Somehow God has to fulfill that, and NOT with what goes on in just about every Protestant church service today. THAT was my confusion during the whole connection thing - I had looked into the scriptures independently of Don's vision, and had seen these deeper things: eg, Eph.4:16 "From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." The words "fitly joined together" and "compacted" can certainly be synonyms for "connections" without stretching the matter. So how DOES one define "connections" using one sentence? The answer to that question is essential before we can properly discuss this "doctrine." I think God is trying to unify us, but we cannot seem to find His heart and balance in the manchild formation. Does this make sense? ---------- and in speaking candidly with George Bowker when he had to remove all but Linda Hamill tapes Posted by Dave Kenady on 10/18/2001, 6:12 pm , in reply to "Re: Angels Can Fall" and in speaking candidly with George Bowker when he had to remove all but Linda Hamill tapes (about 60+%) from the listening arenas of the church Could you elaborate? I'm curious what this was all about.