Allegations 11 thru 34

ALLEGATION 11: "Don't regard the fact that all of the elders of Israel stood by Absalom against David, as a sign that the elders are right by sheer reason of their numbers" (Letter A, p. 1).

ANSWER: This is a straw man argument. We never argued that our numbers prove we are right. We argued that the facts prove we are right. Furthermore, Don has his Bible facts wrong. Not all of the elders of Israel sided with Absalom, as Don alleges. For example, Zadok the high priest and others remained faithful to David (2 Sam. 15:24-29).

Don's Absalom analogy is faulty in several ways. Absalom was not a fellow—elder with David; the elders are fellow-elders with Don. Absalom had no position of authority in Israel; the elders are in authority over the church (Heb. 13:17). Absalom overthrew David for self-serving reasons; the elders did not overthrow Don and did not act for self-serving reasons. They put him out of the church as the Bible commands. The elders' thirteen reasons are entirely different than Absalom's reasons for his actions.

We do believe that our unity in the disfellowship action should mean a lot to you and to Don. There were sixteen witnesses to Don's attitude and statements at the hearings, and all of them came to the same conclusion—including those who entered the hearings as Don's ardent supporters,

ALLEGATION 12: "God does not lead to do evil that good may come of it" (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: Don has misapplied Romans 3:8 to his personal advantage. Our actions were not evil. They were in obedience to the Word of God which condemned Don's behavior and required us to excommunicate him.

ALLEGATION 13: "Never leave a pastor by listening to accusations against him, without his chance to defend each charge" (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: Don has defended himself for a total of twenty hours at the eldership hearings, in six letters to you, and In many hours from the pulpit.

ALLEGATION 14: "Our Bylaws are to be followed unless the courts say they conflict with other laws" (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: Don's defense has relied So heavily on the Bylaws that one would think they were our final authority instead of the Bible. Don himself wrote that adding supplementary material to the Bible is the mark of a cult (Balance, No. 2, p. 23). He seems to believe that overriding the Bylaws by the Bible is wrong, but overriding the Bible by the Bylaws is acceptable. He says, "They even admitted they're overriding the Bylaws by the Bible....This church is under my jurisdiction according to our Bylaws, and if they don't agree with it, they don't have to but they have no right to try to use their Interpretation of the Bible over my interpretation of the Bible, go contrary to our Bylaws, try to establish something by force because we just got to go by the Bible. No you don't. You don't have to follow God, or your interpretation of that God, or the Bible if the pastor doesn't allow it" (Sunday morning sermon, 2/28/88). In that sermon, Don referred to the Bylaws 45 times and only uses one Scripture. No Christian is obligated to follow fallible church bylaws if they contradict the Bible or violate the person's conscience. The elders have the right to change their mind if they become convinced that portions of the Bylaws were unscriptural in their original form.

ALLEGATION 15; "God has forbidden accepting accusations unless one has at least two witnesses... you stand guilty before God for receiving accusations against your pastor without witnesses" (Letter A, p. 2; Letter C, p. 2).

ANSWER: We agree with this principle and have followed it, so what is Don's objection? Don accused the elders of accepting accusations without witnesses or his admission. This is not true. Regarding Don's disfellowship, for example, we have two or more witnesses for all thirteen reasons, and Don's own confessions about item 7 (adulteries and other sexual sins). We have sixteen eyewitnesses to Don's confessions, and you yourselves are witnesses to his public admissions of sexual misconduct and defiance of the special status.

ALLEGATION 16: "Overseers oversee those under them, not those over them. The Scripture to submit to one another is only an admonition to be open to hear" (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: This is untrue. Scriptural submission is a willingness to heed, not just hear. What this argument really means is that Don will not truly submit to anyone, contrary to Eph. 5:21 and 1 Pe. 5:5.

ALLEGATION 17: "The elders' theology does not take precedence over the Pastor" (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: If a doctrine is Biblical, then it takes precedence over everyone, including the pastor. Otherwise the pastor is the final authority instead of the Word of God. Don's position borders on a doctrine of Infallibility wherein he cannot err by virtue of his office as pastor. The Bible teaches against such Catholic ideas, and history proves that Don has erred, both doctrinally and personally

According to Don's argument, the eldership cannot correct Don theologically when he is wrong. Yet Don said in Balance No. 2 that "The senior elders watch for my ministry. They would never allow me to err substantially without requiring repentance and/or correction. I submit to them as they do to me." In practice, Don has refused any kind of brother-to-brother submission.

It is no exaggeration to say that Don places his interpretation of the Bible over everyone else's. He maintains this position even when the teaching eldership is unanimous in disagreeing with him. "They have no right to try to use their Interpretation of the Bible over my interpretation of the Bible," he says (2-28-88 Sunday morning sermon). Yet he wrote in Balance, No. 2 that this is the mark of a cult—"claiming to be the only one with the right to interpret the Bible" (p. 23).

ALLEGATION 18: "Safety in a multitude of counselors does not mean safety in a multitude of conspirators" (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: The elders are not conspirators, for they have not acted as conspirators. Don himself signed a statement expressly allowing the elders' hearings to go on until they were satisfied, including their private meetings to consider the evidence outside of Don's presence.

ALLEGATION 19: "It was they who stumbled the church with the Pastor's sins" (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: No, Don himself stumbled the church with his sins. Many in the congregation were aware of Don's sexual misconduct to some degree before the elders said anything. The elders gave the church only enough Information to justify the special status on 2/26/88. We mentioned Don's sins only in a general way. It was Don himself who gave specific revelations of his sins in his 2/28 Sunday morning sermon. Once Don had revealed the specifics, the material was public knowledge. When the elders spoke specifically on Friday night, 3/4/88, when they put Don out, they did not stumble anyone more than Don already had.

The truth is that hundreds were Stumbled by Don's sexual sins and left the church over the past two years because the elders did not take this action earlier. In retrospect, we should have acted earlier, but we were not aware of the full extent of the problem.

ALLEGATION 20: "Do you wonder why they never enumerated their own sins?" (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: This is the logical fallacy called diversion, or "switching the issue." We refer to it as Don's "smoking gun" argument. The elders accuse Don of having a smoking gun (evidence of guilt). Don responds by accusing the elders of having a smoking gun. This is merely a tactic to take the heat off himself.

The subject of the eldership hearing was Don, not the entire eldership. This was not a matter of the elders holding Don accountable and then refusing to hold each other accountable as Don implies. If Don has a smoking gun, let's deal with it. If any of the elders have a smoking gun, we will deal with that also. One elder has already been placed on special status. "Why wasn't this announced publicly?" some might ask. Because he did not publicly defy the special status as Don did. It was our hope that Don would have submitted privately to the restriction, but because he did not, we were forced to make it public to protect the women in the congregation.

ALLEGATION 21: "The real issue is not my sins....The real issue is legalism vs. anti-legalism" (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: Another case of switching the issue. The real issue ^ Don's sins, because that is why we put him out. So obviously his sins are the main point of the entire problem.

ALLEGATION 22: "Alice's message stated *God has anointed me to be Pastor' " (Letter A, p. 2).

ANSWER: We believe God anointed Don to be pastor. However, all prophecies from God are conditional upon man's actions and decisions. Also, Scripture is our final authority for doctrine and practice. Even if Alice's message is from God, the Bible is our more sure word of prophecy (2 Pe. 1:19-21).

At present Don is not our pastor because the church government which was ordained of God has disfellowshipped him.

Bear in mind, also, that all prophecies are subject to interpretation. The prophecy in question was not as positive as Don Barnett and Dan O'Brien claim. For example, it contains no rebuke to the elders and no statements akin to Don's accusations that the elders' action was "illegal, communistic, malicious, outrageous, deceitful, discriminatory, wicked, rebellious, hypo-critical. Wild West betrayal, smokescreen, and a coup."

ALLEGATION 23; "I followed all counsel" (Letter B, p. 1).

ANSWER: False; we have signed statements from his counselors who deny this claim. You can judge from Don's own words whether he followed "all" of Scott Hartley's and Lanny Peterson's counsel. Quoting Don, " I said things I knew they would misunderstand just like Jesus said some things he knew they would misunderstand. I did not owe that to them, I felt. I was not going to bear my heart to them, and when they found out I didn't tell them everything, they decided cover-up, expose. I just decided not to tell them. I didn't owe that to them. But what I did is I fired them as my counselors was not going to buckle under" (2/28/88 Sunday morning sermon). Even the special status was the most minimal action that could have been taken. Don has been unwilling to follow counsel in this area and all other areas where the counsel conflicts with his will.

ALLEGATION 24: The special status "was against God's strong warning to the elders on this specific subject by Jo Fallen from Illinois (Don's wording) who knew nothing of the matter God ordered! Do not put your pastor in your mold of carefulness, or you will break him" (Letter B, p. 1).

ANSWER: Jo Folland, from Kansas, has written to Don, explaining why he is taking her prophecy and vision out of context. Quoting Jo Folland's letter, "Don, I have been deeply grieved hearing you use this prophecy against the elders in this situation. I feel the intent of it was very clearly for moving into connections and this move of God, and had nothing to do with chain of command and authority structure felt very strongly it applied to all of us that we would not be critical of those not entering in as we did because God had a mold for each one, and we had to allow each one to fit into this move where they could in God. I do not feel it has any application inthe way you are using it."

God never gives prophecies to justify His people continuing in sin. Don has apparently misapplied this prophecy for his own personal advantage.

ALLEGATION 25: "I cannot exist without vacations" (Letter B, p. 1).

ANSWER; Don really has no room to complain about vacations. According to his counselor, Don took at least three months of paid vacation during 1987, plus many days and afternoons off while he was in Seattle. The vacations he took were riddled with adulteries. Don has not really worked at pastoring the church for a long time. Even now, he still spends much time defending his cause instead of pastoring.

The special status did not forbid Don from going on vacations. It would allow as many as he needed, but not with women other than his wife.

ALLEGATION 26: "Even ones that had done more than I, sexually the main one orchestrating this restriction and my removal, was the most guilty of all" (Letter B, p. 1).

ANSWER: The idea here is that there are elders who have sinned more than Don. To the best of our knowledge, this is false. But even if it were true, it Is once again a diversion tactic. Sins in other people's lives would not prove that the actions taken regarding Don were unjustified.

ALLEGATION 27: A certain elder "is intending to divorce his wife and marry another woman. And yet the eldership won't touch him" (Letter B, p. 1).

ANSWER: Be careful! Don't accept accusation without two or three witnesses! Therefore, don't accept Don's accusation against this elder. Also, don't leave this elder without a chance to defend himself as Don has had.

Can you see how Don's arguments work? He himself doesn't follow them. The truth is that the elders did not leave this elder alone. They put him on special status.

ALLEGATION 28: "Requiring me to repent and correct. I've done both" (Letter B, p. 2).

ANSWER; Don has done neither. For one thing, he refused to follow the special status. For another, he continued to have sexual 'slips' after the time he allegedly corrected.

ALLEGATION 29: "They have amended the Bylaws to control me in any way they choose" (Letter B, p. 2).

ANSWER: No, we amended the Bylaws after our attorney advised us of his opinion that they were in violation of the Washington Non-Profit Corporations Act. We also revised them because they were contrary to Scripture, inasmuch as the doctrine of excommunication applied to every individual on earth except Don Barnett. Once we knew Don had to be put out of the church, we had to amend portions of the Bylaws so this Scriptural action could be done legally according to the laws of man. We had no intention of using the amended Bylaws to control Don Barnett any way we chose. Our intentions were to follow Scripture and state law.

ALLEGATION 30: "It is rather, Laodocia (sic) for each member to try to out think their pastor and use their own evaluation of the issues" (Letter B, p.2).

ANSWER: We believe that Don's "don't think, follow" doctrine is unscriptural and dangerous. It contradicts Don's past statements that you should not believe something just because he says it, but should search the Word to see if it be so. It is not wrong for a person to use his own mind to evaluate things. That's why God gave us a mind. The Bible tells us to "prove all things," which .includes Don's present teaching (1 Th. 5:21).

Don himself has written that one characteristic of a cult is "Requiring .members to abandon their right to think and to accept everything told them by the leaders without question" (Balance, No. 2, p. 23). whether Don will admit it or not, this is an apt description of his present philosophy. It is cultish, and we reject it outright.

ALLEGATION 31: "13 stated false charges" (Letter C, p. 1).

ANSWER: The charges are all supported by the testimony of witnesses and/or Don Barnett's confession to the eldership committee. Don cannot be the one to decide that the charges are false - he was the one under investigation. If you care to review the charges, they are in the 3/4/88 letter to Don from the full eldership, which was mailed to the congregation.

ALLEGATION 32: "The Sr. Elders'meetings held without me were illegal because our Bylaws state that the Sr. Elders shall not meet without the chairman" (Letter C, p. 1).

ANSWER: For Don to ignore his mass of adulteries, lies, etc., and pick on the senior elders over a bylaw technicality smacks of the legalism Don so vehemently condemns. The elders were forced to amend the bylaws to conform to Scripture and state law. They knew Don would never agree to change bylaws that were biased in his favor, when he was fighting to save his own life contrary to Scripture. Our church attorney advised the elders that if Don would not agree to the changes, they would have to make the changes without him. It is extreme legalism to say it was wrong to amend church bylaws that were unscriptural. Don's judgment on this matter is biased because the bylaw revision threatens his livelihood, his pride, and his respect in people's eyes.

No Scripture forbids what the senior elders did. They had to do it to obey Scripture and put Don out of the church.

ALLEGATION 33: "The amendments were illegal" (Letter C. p. 1).

ANSWER; This is false. In Don's opinion they were illegal, Don constantly declares his legal opinions as though the court had already ruled, but it has not. No one can say the elders did anything illegal until the court decides they did. Even then, the principle of obedience to a higher law would remain.

Our attorney believes that everything we did was legal. If he had advised us that an action was illegal, we would not have done it.

ALLEGATION 34: "Now you are accusing me to the church and the nation, without any witnesses and without my admission" (Letter C, p. 2).