Talk:Community Chapel and Bible Training Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

The article regarding Community Chapel should not be deleted, because it pertains to signifcant events in the history of American Churches, and also the history of Religious cults and brainwashing in the United States. Community Chapel has been covered in the following published books, one of which was written by Professor Ronald M. Enroth, with a PhD in sociology.

Anderson, Sandra (1998) Angels can Fall. Mukilteo, WA: Winepress Publishing.

Barnett, B.J (1996). The Truth Shall Set You Free, Confessions of a Pastors Wife. Mukilteo, WA: Winepress Publishing.

Enroth, Ronald M. (1992) Churches that abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Summers, J. (2005) ocCULT, They didn't think it could happen in their church. Las Vegas, NV: Global Strategic Resources.


Additionally, Community Chapel was the subject of hundreds of newspaper articles. Citations to numerous articles have recenlty been added to the main page for "Community Chapel". Community Chapel

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion

This article was nominated for speedy deletion. However, the references have led to its retention. However, the article needs a large amount of work including:

  • renaming the article;
  • sourcing the claims in the article from the independent sources cited;
  • more clearly identifying why this church is notable in church history.

Capitalistroadster 03:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


This page was recently re-named as "Community Chapel and Bible Training Center"

[edit] Added a Lead Paragraph

I added a lead paragraph that I hope explains more clearly why this church is notable and worthy of interest. Also, I plan to add soon a section which discusses the doctrine of Community Chapel in the context of church history, particularly in that of American revivalism and Pentecostalism.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chapel and Pork

Alcohol was banned for the same reason other Pentecostal groups ban it, not due to Barnett's interpretation of Judaic laws. Pork and shellfish were not exactly banned - many members imbibed them, although members were specifically asked not to bring them to picnics or other potluck events. Also, they weren't allowed in the dormitories. The belief that these meats were "unclean" wasn't based on Judaic laws (note that Don was against circumcision), but on the belief that the New Testament showed them to be so.

Don made a distinction between "demon possession" and having a demon in one's life. He did not teach that Christians could be demon possessed. He did indeed attribute [what he regarded as] rebellious attitudes to demons. Moreover, he blamed most sin, including his own, on demons.

Onesimuss 02:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onesimuss (talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] An Odd Slant

Yes, Onesimuss, there is an odd slant to many of Xanthius' facts. They don't read as if they come from somebody who was a member, but rather from somebody who learned about the Chapel mainly from books and newspaper articles. However, he seems to feel rather proprietary about the Chapel topic. Xanthius, care to comment? Were you a member of the Chapel? Did you ever visit the Chapel?

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Chapel and Pork/Odd Slant

Hey guys (or girls.) To answer your question, I have never been a member of Community Chapel and don't know anyone who has. My information on the group comes from newspaper articles and books. On one hand that could be perceived as a negative by former members because I have no "first hand knowledge" of Community Chapel, however, it can also be a positive thing because my outlook comes as a third party observer and it is probably going to be much easier for me to work on the article with a neutral point of view than if I was a former member with an agenda of either defending or harming the group's reputation.

I want to say that I am very impressed with the amount of sources currently in the article, it is obviously the thing that kept it from being deleted even if the quality of the article was not quite up to wikipedia standards. What I am in the process of doing right now is trying to incorporate more information from those sources into the article, along with clear citations indicating where each piece of information is coming from.

If any of the information I have currently added is wrong, please know that it comes directly from news and book sources, and so the best way to correct me is to provide a source with a differing take on that piece of information. I want the article to be as clear and accurate as possible, but unfortunately we cannot rely on anecdotal evidence/personal stories, and instead need to work with Reliable sources. As far as the pork/alcohol stuff, I will recheck the source I pulled that from tomorrow. I may have misquoted and used the word "banned" when the word "discouraged" would have been more appropriate.

One thing the article could use is a picture of some sort. Does any one have a picture of either (a) the Community Chapel logo (if they had one), (b) a service or building that was a part of Community Chapel or (c) some sort of picture of pastor Barnett? In order for us to use it you would have to have taken the picture yourself or get permission from the person who did, but if anyone does have something like that it would be a great addition to this article. Let me know, thanks!

Xanthius 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community Chapel historiography

Xanthius,

The fact that you weren't a member is not a problem to me. Perhaps your claim of neutrality has merit.

However, it seems that if you are interested enough to write about our former church, you ought to avail yourself of the opportunity to learn about it from those of us who were there - this could be done through the internet forums. Surely, at least some information could be gleaned.

Of particular concern to me are the parameters you seem to have set in determining facts. I can appreciate that a personal anecdote from someone such as myself wouldn't weigh as much as comments by Ron Enroth in his book. But surely a reliable consensus can be discerned on some points of fact through actual interaction with former members.

Whoever wrote that "oreo cookies were forbidden" didn't research their facts. The fact that this anecdote was published somewhere shouldn't allow it to trump personal testimony of those who were actually there. I had a child in the private school operated by Community Chapel. Children brought snacks to school to share with others. Parents were asked not to bring snacks containing lard. Oreos contained lard. These facts were embellished to create the legend that oreos were banned in the congregation.

In summary, I think the dismissal of personal testimonies as "anecdotal," while giving credence to those ancedotes that were published in a newspaper, is a bad model for the historiography of Community Chapel.


Onesimuss 12:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Oreo/alcohol sentences, as they seem like minor points. In response to the comments about my "parameters in determining facts," they aren't really my parameters, they are wikipedia's. Have a look at WP:NOTTRUTH. It is standard Wikipedia policy that the information in Wikipedia needs to be attributable to a reliable source, and though it might seem odd, information being attributable to a reliable source is more important than the perceived "truth" of the statement. While I do want a truthful, fact based article: even if I did choose to spend time on the ex-CC forums, it would be of little use to this article because none of the information gathered could be used. It thus would be a much better use of time (for me and other wikipedia editors) to delve through attributable sources rather than ex-member forums. I do think, however, that it is important that the forums be linked to from the External Links section, for readers of the article wishing to find out more about The Chapel from ex-members themselves.
Xanthius 17:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Nature and Scope of "Spiritual Connections"

Xanthius,

You are selectively reading the published material on the Chapel to give a misleading, unecessarily narrow characterization of "spiritual connections" at Community Chapel. Your lack of personal knowledge about the subject is showing. Yes, of course, dancing was prominently involved and it was usually with somebody else's spouse, but their essence was much broader than that - the lead of the article should indicate this, since the body goes into the details that dancing and others' spouses were usually involved.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Nature and Scope of "Spiritual Connections"

I meant to say my above message is to accompany the change I made restoring the last sentence in the lead paragraph after Xanthius had changed it before me. The change in the history list is marked only with my IP address since I forgot I wasn't logged in when I made it. (Steve Born, Seattle, WA 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Re:

The physical aspect of dancing needs to be mentioned if it is going to accurately reflect what the church is famous for. If you'll look at almost every source listed, in Churches That Abuse as well as in the newspaper articles, the dancing with members other than one's spouse is what made Community Chapel so controversial. The way it has been re-written now is very vague and does not reflect this:
The group became famous for a practice its leaders advocated known as "spiritual connections," in which, they taught, members of the church could experience fellowship with the "glorified Son of Man" (Jesus Christ) through spiritual union with other members of his body, the church.
"Spiritual union" could mean anything, but the psychical act of dancing (and other things) with someone other than your spouse is what was the main controversy. It is why this church is still talked about decades later. Perhaps somebody can suggest a compromise between the two extremes. Here was my last attempt:
The group became famous for a practice its leaders advocated known as "spiritual connections," in which married members of the church danced with someone other than their spouse in an attempt to experience fellowship with Jesus Christ.
Xanthius 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Compromise

OK - I am content to wait to see versions suggested by others.
By the way, I do want to thank you for all the work you've done on the site. In general, the changes have been a big improvement.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Re: Compromise

I like the new version. Good job. Xanthius 16:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC

[edit] "Reliable"

Yes, it does seem odd that a source could be deemed "reliable" irrespective of whether it provides accurate information.

Surely lawyers are behind such a phenomenon.

But thanks for indulging me, and explaining the workings of Wikipedia. One could perhaps appreciate the discipline involved in compiling the information, while at the same time lamenting the inflexibility that doesn't consider those with intimate knowledge of the subject as reliable sources, if they haven't found a publisher interested in their story.


Onesimuss 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Untitled

The idea that correct information about CCBTC can be achieved by "reliable sources" is in my view impossible. All sources are quoting people who may or may not be accurate in their statements. Furthermore I have never read even one media story that did not have many factual errors. Finally I met in person Ronald Enroth when he visited CCBTC. I commend him for actually coming in person. I don't commend him for not being willing to actually see what he was going to write about. I asked him if he wanted to see first hand in person things that he later blatantly misrepresented. He declined my invitation and then later wrote his own ideas. From that I did not form a very high opinion of him.

[edit] Re: Untitled

Speaking for myself, having spent nearly ten years as a Chapel member, I want to say that both Ronald Enroth's work and this Wikipedia article give a fairly accurate idea of what CCBTC was all about. The Wikipedia approach does have its limitations, but, as Xanthius pointed out, it does at least also give a list of external links to sites that include both Chapel apologists and Chapel critics. There, interested readers can pursue the subject further and decide for themselves. If the Chapel has such a compelling case to be made for it that needs to be brought to light, certainly a site that does that can be found somewhere on the Internet. If you know of one that is not in the list, please feel free to add it.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thinking More About This

On the other hand, I do have to say I agree neither "neutrality" nor citation from "reliable sources" are guarantees of truth or accuracy. In fact, they can obstruct one from getting at the truth of the matter.

Here's an example of what I mean...

The article, quoting from newspapers, says that Don Barnett "instituted" dancing, and that later the leaders of the Chapel "instructed" members to find partners to "connect" to, giving readers the impression that both dancing and connections were implemented from the top down. However, anybody who was there knows that both were definitely more of a "bottom up" occurrence. The members discovered by themselves they 'wanted' dancing and connections. They broke out spontaneously, not in the eldership but more at the level of the common membership - dancing at the Christian School retreat in the fall of 1983 and connections at the Ulysses, Kansas, church in the early spring of 1985. Don was at first leery of both phenomena and made attempts to put the lid on both before becoming convinced that they were "of God" after all.

However, because these facts, common knowledge to members of the Chapel, aren't documented anyplace in a published source, they can't be mentioned in the article but are rather relegated to the category of "anecdotal evidence," losing their eligibility for inclusion.

That's too bad in my opinion; it's what I mean when I myself say the Wikipedia approach has limitations and weaknesses. It does protect the article from apologists for the Chapel and its doctrine, but it can lead to distortions in the other direction also, beccause information that is necessary to understanding the nature of the Chapel fully does end up getting excluded. In this case, one misses keys to how spiritual deception operates. It's not always simply a case of a leader directing people into something they wouldn't otherwise find for themselves when they are outside of traditional boundaries for whatever reason. The fact is, without the guidance of truly sound doctrine, human thought and behavior inclines in certain characteristic directions that can easily result in disasters like the Chapel. Pentecostalism, in rejecting traditional Christian doctrine, makes itself prey to various kinds of trouble by nature. The particular kind and degree of trouble is different according to the personality and teaching of the leader of any given Pentecostal movement, but the underlying instability is always there. Don Barnett himself is as much a victim of Oneness Pentecostalism as any of the rest of us.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 16:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thinking More About This

Steve,
I do seem to recall that the trial transcripts from the Barnett v. Hicks case contain testimony (possibly by Barnett) about the "origins" of the spiritual connections phenonemna, including the role other satellite churches played, and other information regarding "spiritual connections". These transcripts are all posted in section 1.6 of the wikipedia article. If someone so desired, it would be possible to read through these transcripts, find the various references to spiritual connections and cite them into the article. The only downside is the transcripts are 2,293 pages, and they are not text-searchable.
--Natedawg1604 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thinking More About This
Thanks, Nate - that's a good idea. However, I just tried several of them and something seems to be wrong either with the .pdf files or with the Wikipedia mechanism for downloading and viewing them. Only the first page downloads and then my browser (IE 7.0) freezes. I have to kill it with Task Manager. Is anybody else seeing the same thing?
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PDF Files

Steve,

this is probably happening because your browser's PDF viewing utility does not like large PDF image files such as these transcripts. These PDF files are scanned images, which are much larger than files converted from another electronic format. You should be able to view the transcripts by downloading the files to your hard drive, and then opening them with adobe acrobat reader.

[edit] Re: PDF Files

That worked. Thanks, Nate!
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audio

With the wealth of audio information related to the subject would not this information (actual recorded statements) from various participants be available as reference material to clear up the picture? As an example Steve commented on the clean versus unclean foods issue. No doubt there are sermon tapes extant that deal specifically with this issue and would bring additional clarity. Any thoughts?

Wonderboy777 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)wonderboy


Wonderboy, there is a web site that has acquired thousands of tapes from Community Chapel services, meetings & Bible college classes, and is in the process of posting them all online. The sermon tapes can be indexed by subject, date, or speaker. I do hope you realize what you are getting into...

Sermons tapes [1]

Bible college tapes [2]

--Natedawg1604 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's not what you think

There is an element of truth to much of the "information", but there is also great exaggeration and much distortion of many of the events. Keep that in mind when you read this. 63.226.210.83 10:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: It's not what you think

Can you give us any examples of exaggeration or distortion in the article? As a Chapel member myself, I'm not aware of any; I'm trying to make the article as accurate a representation as I can of what I now know the Chapel was because I think its rise and fall teaches some important lessons about the pitfalls of some common trends in modern American faith.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] church dissolution and church-entity status post-1988

I noticed that introductory paragraph to the article states "before shutting down in 1988 amidst numerous lawsuits brought against Barnett and others in the church leadership for sexual improprieties". I wonder if this could be slightly re-worded to indicate that the church did not completely "shut down", but rather it saw greatly reduced attendance at a fraction of its former self after 1988. Also, section 1.7 of the article is titled "church dissolved", apparently based upon the newspaper articles stating that church elders filed a petition to dissolve the church. However, it is clear that the elders petition for legal dissolution was denied by the court in late 1988. The church did not "disolve" per se after 1988, although it did have to sell the East Campus building (I don't know the exact date, although I'm sure it can be found). The "elders group" of community chapel continued to operate under Jeff McCregor with relatively substantial facilities compared to churches of a similar size (several hundred people). The elders group kept the name "Community Chapel and Bible Training Center" until approximately 1996, when they adopted a D/B/A of "ressurection life assembly". Also, Barnett's group formed their own church, which continues to operate to this day. --Natedawg1604 15:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: church dissolution and church-entity status post-1988

That's a good point, Nate. Since I've been re-reading all these legal materials I've realized the same thing. Although Community Chapel had physically split into "the elder's side" and "Don's side" by the summer of 1988, effectively ending its existence as most of us had known it up until that time, it still existed on paper and in its meetings at the east campus under some of the elders for some time after that. Also, I've said in the article about Don that he founded the Church of Agape in 1988, but that's probably not correct. Certainly he formed the group that later became the Church of Agape in 1988, but I'm wondering when he legally established the church known by that name. Do you know?
I will think about how we might re-word the opening paragraph - or feel free to take a shot at it yourself if you like. The research into the legal aspects of all this that you've done, and now made available on the Web, is impressive.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
OK - I've revised it a little bit. See what you think - but still feel free to revise it yourself if you'd like. (Steve Born, Seattle, WA 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Too much information?

I am wondering if the end sections of this article aren't getting a bit long. One of the tenants of Wikipedia is that it is not an "indiscriminate collection of information." I am not sure but it seems like every minute detail of the various trials and court proceedings doesn't need to be explained in the article. Maybe some of this very detailed information would belong more appropriately on a website somewhere, with a link provided to it from the External Links section, while the major events of Barnett's ousting could still be described in a more overview fashion. Thoughts? Xanthius 05:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Xanthius,

you could be right about the length of the article. However, I can assure you that the events that ocurred at Community Chapel surrounding Barnett's ouster were highly disputed by those involved, including each of the details I included in the article. Each of these details were highly disputed by various factions within the church, and even to this day other web sites contain articles and discussion posts about why Community Chapel split, and whether it could have been prevented or handled differently. For anyone who attended Community Chapel or was close to the situation at the time, most of the newspaper articles do not provide anywhere near enough details to add any meaningful information. The amount of information is article contains may exceed the scope of information desired by the average reader. It is still the case that for those who attended community chapel or study its history, nothing about the church was simple. It is also very easy to take information from newspaper articles or books and make broad, general statements that may or may not be accurate.--Natedawg1604 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Xanthius,

I reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines RE: indiscriminate collection of information. These Guidelines list the following categories of information that are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. They are as follows: (1) lists of frequently asked questions, (2) travel guides, (3) memorials, (4) instruction manuals, (5) internet guides, (6) textbooks and annotated texts, (7) plot Summaries, (8) lyrics databases and (9) statistics.
The only category that could even possibly apply might be "textbooks". Wikipedia's entry defining "textbooks and annotated texts" states as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource"
It appears the article about Community Chapel does not fall under any of these 9 categories as an "indiscriminate collection of information". What do others think?

--Natedawg1604 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Too much information?

I think both of you have a point. The amount of detail in the article about the court trials and other legal maneuvers during the Chapel's last few years is becoming a little overwhelming. On the other hand, this information has not been readily available before and many people who are interested in the Chapel will find it relevant to their experience there; it helps them to understand a confusing period in which almost all of this was hidden to them at the time.
The solution may be in organizing the article into sections in a better way. Have a main body with its own subsections which summarize each period and aspect of the Chapel; then have another section with subsections that give the details about the various court cases and their part in the Chapel's end.
I know that it will be difficult to keep the two separate, especially when it comes to the eldership hearings that resulted in Don's being disfellowshipped, but I think it is worth the effort.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply RE: Too much information?

Steve, I fully agree with you about having the article broken up into sections and time periods. I also agree we should have a totally separate section devoted to the various legal proceedings, and a separate section on the chapel's theology and beliefs organized by time periods. I will try and start working on this. --Natedawg1604 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Unexplained Changes

Chapelhistorian, I've noticed you've been making changes to the Community Chapel article, many of which are unsupported by the cited material and which seem to represent a biased point of view. What is your interest in making such changes? If you disagree with the existing content, and have a good reason for changing it, please explain your reasons here. Thank you.

--Steve Born, Seattle, WA 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Unexplained Changes

"Talk", you recently made an addition to the section of the article entitled "Elders put Barnett on Special Status", section 2.2. You added a comment to the effect that "Don Barnett himself" gave testimony before the eldership hearings. Please note I have deleted this sentence, because this paragraph, as clearly stated, is a direct quote from the minutes of the senior elder meeting dated February 10th, 1988. A copy can be found here: [3] The phrase "by Don Barnett himself" was not found in the elder minutes dated February 10th, 1988. If you want to add a statement somewhere else in the article indicating that Don Barnett gave testimony before the eldership hearings, this would certainly be fine. However, it is not appropriate to add statements to quotations taken from documents, when those additional statements are not found in the documents themselves. I'm sure this was unintentional. Regardless, there are certainly other sections of the article where this issue could be discussed.--Natedawg1604 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added links to audio files

I added links to the audio files of the elders meeting with the congregation on Feb 26, 1988 and Don Barnett's rebuttal on Feb 28, 1988. These files are are on my own website.

Dave Kenady 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I made a couple of minor changes in The Dancing Revelation section

I changed the first sentence in the 3rd paragraph of this section. It originally said

The practice often led to marital friction, however, the members were told that intimate spiritual experiences with members of the opposite sex, other than one's spouse, could help defeat the "demons of jealousy" and open up the person to a deepened experience of the love of Christ.

I changed it to:

The practice often led to marital friction. The members were told that intimate spiritual experiences with their spiritual connection could help defeat the "demons of jealousy" and open up the person to a deepened experience of the love of Christ.

Though the practice among the congregation generally always involved "members of the opposite sex, other than one's spouse," this was not what was taught from the pulpit. The pulpit directed us toward whomever our spiritual connection(s) was. Though I attended the Chapel for almost ten years, I never heard the phrase "members of the opposite sex, other than one's spouse," until I read it in the newspaper. The phrase is more of an interpretation of the pulpit's message rather than an accurate representation of what was said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverbee (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: I made a couple of minor changes in The Dancing Revelation section
Dave,
Notice that the sentence you changed was a reference to information cited from Enroth. It did not purport to be words spoken from the pulpit of the Chapel. It was worded that way (not by me, by the way) to highlight the inherent contradiction and dangers involved in directing one to a "spiritual connection" as a method of healing one's marriage. However, the sentence you corrected did originally contain some awkward grammar, so I brushed it up a little more in order to keep the grammatical improvement while clarifying the intent of the original sentence.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)