Allegations 1 thru 10

Dear Members of Community Chapel,

This letter answers the letters recently sent to you by Don Barnett and his associates. We have no desire to fuel the fires of controversy or prolong the current debate. However, Don's recent letters have brought confusion and questions to many minds, and many are still undecided about the issues surrounding his disfellowship. We feel you need and deserve a response from the eldership. .

If you need further information on this issue, we invite you to check out the tape of the elders' Wednesday evening question and answer session of 4/13/88. There will be another session on 4/27.

This paper answers the eight letters listed below, along with verbal allegations Don has made.

Letter A - 3/9/88 - "Dear Sheepies of my flock," Don Barnett.
Letter B - 3/9/88 - "Dear flock of mine," Don Barnett.
Letter C - 3/9/88 - "Dear Elders," Don Barnett.
Letter D - 3/23/88 - "Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus," Dan O'Brien.
Letter E - 3/25/88 - "Dear precious ones," Don Barnett.
Letter F - 3/26/88 - "Beloved saints of C.C.B.T.C," Jim Blanchard.
Letter G - 3/29/88 - "Dear Saints of Community Chapel," Don Barnett.
Letter H - 3/30/88 - "Dear saints of Community Chapel," Don Barnett.

This letter has two Sections: I. Answers to Don's specific arguments, and, II. Answers to general problems in his letters.

ANSWERS TO DON BARNETT'S SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS

The allegations below are taken from letters A through H.

ALLEGATION 1: "I am amazed that you are so quickly turned aside from the care of the one God has called to lead you" (Letter A, p. 1).

ANSWER: Don's argument is that he is still pastor because God called him to pastor Community Chapel. We believe God did call Don to pastor this church. However, Don's present condition disqualifies him from holding the office of a pastor. Don has done far more to deserve disfellowship than many others whom we have disfellowshipped on proper grounds. Had we not put him out, we would have been guilty of gross partiality. Naturally, we cannot put Don put of the church and allow him to remain as pastor.

ALLEGATION 2: Paul's "circumstance was the same as mine - the devil through legalists was fighting his message of liberty in Christ" (Letter A, p. 1).

ANSWER: Faulty analogy. Paul's circumstances did not include a mass of adulteries, lying, cover-up, abuse of pastoral authority, teaching false doctrines, etc. Don was not put out of the church because of legalism in the elders or because he preached true liberty in Christ. He .was put out for the thirteen reasons stated in the 3/4/88 letter to him from the full eldership, which was sent to the congregation.

ALLEGATION 3: "No man will get to Tabernacles in the bondage of the law! Your elders can never lead you there - they can only lead you backwards. They need my new revelations" (Letter A, p. 1).

ANSWER: Essentially, this Is a fear tactic. No one can get to Tabernacles without Don's new revelations, he asserts. The truth is, many spiritual people in the church have been alarmed about the direction of Don's teaching both before and after his disfellowship.

For example, Don criticizes people's "legalistic" views about sex versus his new "enlightened" in such terms as these: "I mean He's got dogs running all over the place, you know, having sex with other dogs and God ordained it - they aren't even bad dogs. He made 'em that way. He could have made them one on one if He wanted to. He made coyotes that way and wolves. He didn't even worry about it" (Friday 4/1/88 sermon). The effect of this teaching is to minimize the seriousness of sexual sin, which God warns will be rampant in the last days and will be one of the prime characteristics of false teachers (see 2 Pe. 2 and the book of Jude).

Don argues that the elders are putting the church under the 'bondage of the law.' The opposite is true; in fact, many have felt a sense of release from spirits of legalism and control since Don was put out. Excommunicating a person on clear Biblical grounds is not legalism. The special status we imposed upon Don is a church rule which Don always agreed with, and himself enforced, until it was applied to him. It is not legalistic; it is a reasonable step considering Don's circumstances and track record.

The claim that only Don can lead the church on to Tabernacles is a biased judgment on his part. It smacks of unbelief in God's power. It limits God and His promises. It makes God's end-time plan dependent on one man. It tends to result in a religious group founded on Don Barnett and not on Christ. Is Don saying his 22-year ministry has been so ineffective that it has produced no reliable leaders? Don's charge, if true, would be an admission of failure on his part. Our average elder is older and more experienced in church leadership than Don was when he began his pastorate. .

ALLEGATION 4: God "has promised to come with vengeance (He did not say upon who, but I feel I know who)" (Letter A, p. 1).

ANSWER: This is a fear tactic. It is based on Don's interpretation of a questionable prophecy. All prophecies, visions, dreams, and revelation are subject to interpretation, so even if this message were from God, it may not mean what Don thinks it means. Furthermore, all prophecies are conditional.

Don is trying to use a prophecy to contradict his disfellowship which was based upon Scripture. But Scripture is the final authority for doctrine and practice. The Bible is our more sure word of prophecy (2 Pe. 1:19-21).

ALLEGATION 5: "The takeover was entirely illegal" (Letter A, p. 1).

ANSWER; "Takeover" and "illegal" are both misnomers. This was not a takeover; it was the disfellowship of an erring brother because of serious uncorrected problems in his life that were hurting him and the church. Nothing done by the elders can be called "Illegal" until a court rules that it was illegal. In our legal system, a person is presumed Innocent until proved guilty. Don does not seem to understand this. Our attorney's opinion is that everything we did was legal, including the amendment of the Bylaws. In fact, his opinion is that the Bylaws as written by Don were illegal and needed to be changed to conform to Washington state law.

ALLEGATION 6: "I am still legally your Pastor" (Letter A, p. 1).

ANSWER: The error here is Don's idea that a secular court has the power to reinstate him when the church government, acting under God, has put him out. We don't deny that the court has temporarily reinstated Don to his former offices of corporate president and senior pastor pending a court hearing. But we deny that the court has the religious right to truly reinstate a pastor over a church when the Bible commands us to put that man out for his sinful conduct. Don himself said on the same page of his letter, "It is God, not man, who sets up pastors" (Letter A., p. 1). We agree. And since it is God who sets up (and removes) pastors through Scriptural means, a secular court's decree on the subject is beside the point. We must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

ALLEGATION 7: "Even the dissidents have not slandered more maliciously and Inaccurately than my own elders" (Letter A, p. 1).

ANSWER: This is an accusation of motives, for which Don has no proof. The proof that we have not acted maliciously is that we have still kept most of what we know about Don's sins confidential. If we wanted to make Don look as bad as possible, we could disclose much more information, some of which even Don thinks is worse than what has already been revealed. Nor have our statements been inaccurate as charged. Unlike Don, we have been very careful to be factual. We admit that the facts of Don's case make him look bad. This is his responsibility, not ours. The facts which we did reveal were revealed not to the press or the public, but to the church, in obedience to Matthew 18:15-17. What the press does with facts that we told to the church is not our concern. We cannot disobey Scripture to avoid the world's misjudgment. Don's sins would never have become public knowledge had he submitted privately to the special status imposed by the elders.

ALLEGATION 8: "I have fully repented for all my sins" (Letter A, p. 1).

ANSWER: We acknowledge that Don believes he has repented for all his sins. We believe that Don is sorry he got caught and sorry he had to admit to the sins he knew we could prove. We also believe that Don probably has repented of some of his sins, and we have stated so. On 2/26/88, Jack DuBois read from a senior elder letter to Don, "We accept your statement of repentance before God for the aforementioned acts." However, Don is unwilling to even admit most of his sinful attitudes and actions, and therefore he has not repented of them. Don was put out of the church for thirteen reasons, not just one.

ALLEGATION 9: "God does not lead for a big expose of what was solved 6 months ago and fully repented of... 6 months without any sexual activity, so why the crisis?... I've been walking straight for 6 months" (statements from Don's Sunday morning sermon, 2/28/88).

ANSWER: These statements give the impression that Don took the initiative of deciding to break off his adulteries 6 months ago. This is not true. Rather, a woman with whom Don was committing adultery came to David Motherwell and divulged the problem to him. Don had just admitted to this woman that he felt doubtful that they would be together without more "slips," which in his terminology means adultery. Nevertheless, Don took no action to end the relationship, and tried to pressure the woman sexually again on 8/8/87. At this time, he also had a vacation planned for her for the last week in August. Don made no attempt to cancel this arrangement, but David Motherwell and Scott Hartley forbade it.

The "6 months" allegation has been Don's main argument against the elders' actions concerning his life, so the argument warrants close examination. In his 2/28/88 presentation, Don made some 32 claims of no sexual activity for six months. Following are some direct quotations:

I've proven myself for half a year 6 months good record

Not one of them has brought up one fact of anything I've done in the last 6 months

6 months without any sexual activity, so why the crisis?

I've been walking straight for 6 months

I've stopped for half a year

No report for 6 months

I've been free for 6 months

I've repented and corrected

I've been delivered

Clearly, Don Intended to give the impression that he had not done anything sexual for 6 months.

Yet later, after David Motherwell publicly presented evidence that Don did engage in sexual misconduct in the past 6 months, Don changed his defense to "6 1/2 months with only a couple of slips" (Letter A, p. 1).

To understand Don's admission of "slips" within the past 6 months, it is Important to understand his past use of terminology in discussing his sexual sins with his counselors. In the past, what Don called "slips" were later verified to be adulteries. Anything short of adultery was called "minor." If Don was with a woman and made repeated and overt attempts to initiate sexual activity, but she resisted him, he would state that "nothing happened." Numerous testimonies of women, matched with Don's explanations of the Incidents, inescapably support this conclusion.

The fact is, we have never received such a large number of complaints from such a large number of women regarding the activities of one man. These complaints cover many years, but are much worse for the past two years.

If Don's admission of "slips" within the past 6 months means something different from his past usage of the word, he is free to say so. However, even if he does say so, that claim would need to be taken with caution since

Don has already stated to the elders and his counselors that to withhold or lie about information in these areas is justified because he doesn't owe anyone this information. Don evidently has lied even in making his "6 months" claim, for first he says "6 months without any sexual activity," but later he is forced to admit, "6 1/2 months with only a couple of slips." As further evidence of ongoing problems in the past 6 months, we cite Pastor Mark Kaufmann's testimony that on February 20, 1988, Don admitted to him: "They (the elders) don't know this, but in the last 6 months I have failed." In addition, on 3/4/88 before the entire assembly David Motherwell cited four Specific allegations from four different women of Don's sexual misconduct during the past 6 months.

The fact is, Don has never admitted to a sexual sin unless at least two other people testified of it. Never once has he confessed to one single problem that no one else has testified of. Don even stated that Jimmy Swaggart should have lied about his sexual misconduct. '

ALLEGATION 10: "Follow the one at the top until God removes him as at Mt. Nebo" (Letter A, p. 1). .

ANSWER: This is a very dangerous statement. Don is referring to Deuteronomy 32:49-51, where the Lord told Moses to go to Mt. Nebo and die because he had sinned against God. Don is arguing that no man can remove him as pastor; God has to do it directly by killing him! Don tempts the Lord by defying Biblical grounds for disfellowship (which he exceeded) and then challenging God to kill him if God wants him removed.

Don says, 'God has to put me out — and He is not doing that' (Letter E, p.2). We maintain that God already has done it, because God uses the church government to put people out of the church.

Don writes, 'No one but God can remove a pastor, Biblically' (Letter H, p. 2). If Don really believes this, then why did he write Bylaws that contradict it? The Bylaws state that the senior elders can remove a satellite church pastor, as well as any subsequent Seattle pastors after the original one, Don Barnett. (Division 2, section I, article 1, and Division 1, section II, article 6). This means that every single pastor can be removed by men except one, Don Barnett! Why should Don hold a special position above Bible laws and our own church rules which Don himself wrote and applies to everybody but himself? What Don really believes is that only God can remove him, but every other pastor can be removed by a vote of the senior elders. This is blatantly unscriptural.