ANSWER: We accept that. But Don also committed adultery numerous times with three different women afterward (based solely on Don's confession to the eldership committee.)
Later, after a retreat in Spokane, Don claimed that he was delivered of the problem. Subsequently, he committed adultery a number of times with two women. This shows that Don's repentance was shallow at best. The issue is not so much repentance and forgiveness as it is accountability.
ALLEGATION 36: "I have never 'made light of sin' " (Letter C, p. 3).
ANSWER: Don has made light of sin. He likened the sin of lying to the sin of murder and said that neither one is worse than the other. (7-12-87 Sunday morning sermon 'Severe Testing: For What Purpose,' by Don Barnett). This is making light of murder.
Don said, 'Sex 27 times with four women, it's no worse than twenty-seven times with one woman. I said, sin is sin and it doesn't make any difference if it's one person or four persons' (2/28/88 Sunday morning sermon). This is false. Potentially destroying four marriages is far worse than potentially destroying one. Any woman on earth would be far more devastated by learning that her husband had had sex with four women than with one. With one woman, the problem might be called a misguided love affair. With four women, the husband would be promiscuous if not pathological in his sexual habits.
Don's "27 acts with one woman vs. 27 acts with four women" argument is gross legalism, which he claims to preach against. In essence he is saying, "The difference in circumstances doesn't matter. The nature of the case doesn't matter. The injury inflicted on a greater number of people doesn't matter. 27 is 27, and that's that." Legalism pays slavish attention to details (e.g., the number 27) while overlooking the greater damage that may be done in people's lives.
In his sermons, Don has blatantly made light of sexual immorality, even to the point of mocking and demeaning listeners who are not hardened to his sexual references and vulgar preaching, and are offended by them.
ALLEGATION 37: Dan O'Brien: "Friday night the 4th of March I had questions that you needed the elders and the pastor to respond to. I sincerely meant every word that I said and only after it was clear to me that the elders weren't going to let me ask you these questions did I take the action that I did" (Letter D, p. 1).
ANSWER: Dan's thinking and/or his writing is confused. He had questions that the people needed to hear the elders answer, he says. But then he says that he was going to ask the congregation these questions. The truth is, Dan O'Brien had been on special status for over six months and had been told not to minister in this church. His Friday night, 3/4/88 speech and outburst in church was an intentional violation of this status.
Before the service began. Jack DuBois asked Dan not to speak in church that night. Dan told Jack that he had no intention of mounting the pulpit and that he had nothing to say. Yet he was at the pulpit before the lights
came on so that he would be the first to apeak that evening. Before the service, Dan told David Motherwell that he had not talked to Don Barnett that day. But in his speech, Dan referred to the fact that he had talked to Don that day. So, Dan O'Brien lied twice and broke his special status.
No elder stopped Dan O'Brien from talking or asking any questions, as he claims. Dan voluntarily ended his speech himself by inciting riotous behavior and marching down from the pulpit to lead people out of the building.
ALLEGATION 38: Dan O'Brien: "The elders have panicked and moved too quickly" (Letter D, p. 1). .
ANSWER: Various people confronted Don about his problems for a year and a half with no success. Numerous elders, counselors, and deliverance specialists worked hour after hour to help Don. Finally, the eldership held hearings for fifteen hours a week for six weeks. Including much prayer, searching the Word, and long hours of deliberation. As a result, the senior elders took the most minimal action that could hs..a been taken: they issued Don an order to go on special status. This is not panic behavior. If anything, the elders Should have put Don out of the church long before they did.
ALLEGATION 39: Dan O'Brien: The elders have used "mob fear-tactics" (Letter D, p. 2).
ANSWER: It was Dan O'Brien who caused a "mob" scene on 3/4/88, when he acted to divide the church in a riotous manner. This action, by the way, would disqualify Dan from being an overseer in the church ("not accused of riot or unruly," Tit. 1:6). The elders' letters and presentations have been sound-minded, careful, factual, calm, and reasonable. We suggest you re-listen to the last minute of Dan O'Brien's 3/4/88 speech to discern what manner of spirit is portrayed.
ALLEGATION 40: Dan O'Brien: "I predict...(the elders) will divide at least once more within the next year or two" (Letter D, p. 3).
ANSWER: This is possible, and Dan has no special insight here beyond anyone else. No elder has said that our group will never suffer a split. We have admitted that there are different opinions among us. Concerning the issue of connections, we can presently discern three segments in the church (mega, middle-of-the-road, and back-to-the-marriage). A division in the elders' group would not prove elders were wrong to put Don out.
It is likely that Don Barnett will continue to blame the elders for anything that goes wrong in the church from now on. Transferring blame to others has been a consistent pattern of behavior on his part.
ALLEGATION 41: Dan O'Brien: "David Motherwell as Don's personal and official counselor made his sins public" (Letter D, p. 3).
ANSWER: No, Don Barnett first made his own sins public on 2/28/88, before David Motherwell spoke on 3/4/88, the night we put Don out. David merely corrected errors about Don's sins that Don told as facts in his 2/28/88 sermon. David used Don's confession given during the eldership hearings, exposing only enough of Don's sins to justify the disfellowship action. To this day, David has withheld the majority of the data he has about Don's sins.
ALLEGATION 42: "The Sr. Elders have illegally used church funds" (Letter E, p. 1). .
ANSWER: Once again, this is only Don's opinion. No court has ruled that the elders have done anything illegal. The elders have consulted the church's attorney In areas where there was any question of legality.
On the same page cited above, Don makes an issue of the church not paying his personal attorney. However, our stewardship does not permit us to spend church funds to oppose the work of God. We have never hired attorneys to help ex-members fight the Chapel.
The senior elders did not use Don's wife to block Don's use of personal funds for his defense, as he alleges. On her own accord, Barbara Barnett filed a restraining order and a legal separation when she learned that Don was going to spend their life savings on lawyer fees to defend himself from lawsuits and to fight her church. She found it necessary to take this action to protect herself; she was not acting at the elders' request. It was improper for Don to attempt to use all their money without consulting Barbara.
In the same paragraph, Don complains about the low offerings at the elders' church. But the low offerings merely show that the people are unwilling to give money to a corporation headed by a disfellowshipped, court-appointed president. They are also not giving because Don's actions have placed the whole future of the church in jeopardy.
ALLEGATION 43: "The elders...now claim they can override church government laws (Bylaws they have signed)" (Letter E, p. 1).
ANSWER: None of our elders signed the original Bylaws except Jack Hicks. The three senior elders did sign the latest version. None of the other elders signed them, nor were they consulted when they were written. The Bylaws were written by Don Barnett and not the elders. In retrospect, they were unfairly biased in Don's personal favor, conferring on him lifetime tenure and autocratic control with virtual unaccountability to anyone.
The senior elders signed the Bylaws because they agreed with them at the time, and did not realize that they contradicted Scripture or conflicted with Washington state law. Signing Bylaws never meant those Bylaws could not be changed later. The Bylaws did not drop down from heaven. Don himself agreed to change them several times, and even after his disfeilowship.
It is legalism to hold people by a signature to a document that is later found to contradict Scripture. The ylaws themselves state that the Bible is our final authority.
ALLEGATION 44: "I'm not as any other layman—I stand accountable to God, others to me. There is a difference" (Letter E, p.2).
ANSWER: Our2/24/88 eldership letter to Don listed six Scriptural arguments why Don is accountable to the other elders. In brief, these were:
1. All the elders are given oversight of the church. Including the spiritual state of the pastor.
2. All the elders are to subject to- one another and are to submit to one another in humility.
3. All the elders have a responsibility to pay attention to the life of ' the chief elder (as well as to each other).
4. The Scriptures command the elders to judge cases of sexual immorality.
5. The elders are responsible to search out a matter and hear accusations in certain circumstances.
6. All Christians have a responsibility to reprove one another in love.
Don stated in Balance, No. 2, that he was accountable to the senior elders, his fellow elders, and even the congregation.
ALLEGATION 45; "They never waited on God and got His will!" (Letter E, p. 2).
ANSWER: During the five weeks of hearings and afterward, the elders prayed a great deal as a group, sometimes as long as two hours straight or more. We asked God to show us His will. We also sovght God's will through hours of intense Bible study individually and together. We became convinced God's will was to put Don out.
ALLEGATION 46: "We need your offerings and we need you" (Letter E, p. 3.).
ANSWER: Notice the priorities: first, we need your offerings; second, we need you.
ALLEGATION 47: Jim Blanchard: "What is unfolding before us is a contest of authority between the Pastor and the elders" (Letter F, p. 1).
ANSWER; Jim is using the logical fallacy of diversion to switch the issue. The issue is whether Don should have been put out of office and out of the church for the thirteen areas of sin stated in the elders' letter to him. The Bible says to show Don no partiality and no preference, so that is what the elders did, fully realizing that Don would fight the action and that the elders themselves might end up losing their jobs. Had self-interest been their motive, they could have preserved the status quo.
ALLEGATION 48: Jim Blanchard: "The elders of the church have planted fear In the congregation that those who listen to the Pastor...will become deceived" (Letter F, p. 2).
ANSWER: Warning the congregation that Don is disfellowshipped, and that he is teaching false doctrines, is our responsibility. People should fear being deceived by error (Rom. 16:17-18). The action of rebuking Don before all should also cause others to fear falling into sin (1 Tim. 5:19-20).
ALLEGATION 49: "I am preaching with His anointing" (Letter G, p. 1).
ANSWER: Don's argument is that he is still pastor because God is still anointing him (see also Letter A, p. 1). But there has been a growing conviction among many spiritually-minded people over the past two years, and particularly the last year, that the anointing on Don's ministry has drastically declined. Of course, discerning the anointing is a subjective matter, and it is to Don's advantage to claim that he is still anointed.
ALLEGATION 50: "Heb. 13:17 The true idea is to obey them (the overseers) who
have the rule over you. It is not to obey them that you have the rule over"iLetter G, p. 3).
ANSWER: We did not argue from this Scripture, but we could have because it supports the elders' case, not Don's. It shows that the elders, plural, are given oversight of the church, not just the chief elder. Therefore, the elders are responsible to watch over the spiritual state of the church (which necessarily includes the spiritual state of the pastor).
ALLEGATION 51: "II Th. 3:14 [if any man obey not our word...] speaks of the Common doctrine of the pastor and the elders...It does not say that Paul has to obey the elders" (Letter G, p. 3).
ANSWER: Don hag not obeyed his own statement. A common doctrine he had with the elders, for example, was the guidelines for connections. Those were "our word" and Don violated them. Another common doctrine would be church disfellowship procedures. We disfellowshipped Don using mutually accepted procedures—ones that Don had used to put others out.
The passage cannot mean that Paul (or anyone) is above the Word of God. Paul is subject to Paul's Gospel (Gal. 1:8). It is a papal mentality that places those who make the law above the law. Congressmen who write laws are not exempt from those laws by right of authorship. A judge who violates the speed limit gets a ticket just like anyone else.
The point we made from this verse is that Don should be put out for refusal to follow church standards. Don never mentioned this argument, much less refuted it.
ALLEGATION 52; "Acts 20:28 This is Paul's parting words for the overseers to continue his teachings-not an ordaining of them over him" (Letter G, p« 3).
ANSWER: Don has avoided our argument once again. The point we made from the passage is that all the elders are responsible before God to watch over the spiritual welfare of the church, not just the chief elder.
Don draws a false analogy between himself and Paul, because Paul was not guilty of the thirteen things Don was put out for. How could Paul potentially and hypothetically be counted "accursed" unless the church put him out as the elders did with Don? (Gal. 1:8-9). Suppose Paul was guilty of Don's thirteen sins and the church elders put Paul out. Then suppose Paul went to a Roman magistrate to get reinstated as the state-church pastor on the basis of church bylaws he had previously written which said no one could .put him out of the church. Can you see how far removed this is from the spirit and practice of the New Testament?
ALLEGATION 53: "I Pe. 5:1,2,5 Take oversight of the flock, not oversight of their pastor!"
ANSWER: The points we made from 1 Peter 5:1-5 were that all the elders were given oversight over the church, and that all the elders including the chief elder are to be subject to one another. Don never referred to our argument or showed where we are wrong. Therefore, our argument stands unrefuted.