ANSWER: We never used Titus 2:15 to justify disfellowshipping Don.
Don has never explained how we twisted the meaning of the verses we used to disfellowship him* He merely cites the references and makes comments that do not pertain at all to what we said. In no case did Don refute our arguments. .
ALLEGATION 55: The pastor "is said to be 'an ex-officio (automatic) member of the Board of Sr. Elders' (he is not a Sr. Elder)" (Letter G, p. 3).
ANSWER: False. Don is a senior elder and has always claimed to be a senior elder until he needed to say that he wasn't—then he searched for a loophole. Such tactics constitute legalism.
"Ex-officio" means that Don is automatically a member of a panel—and that panel consists of men who are all senior elders. Don cannot be a.member of the board of senior elders and not be a senior elder. A person cannot be a member of Congress and not be a congressman.
ALLEGATION 56: "The Bylaws state the pastor/president shall not be put out" (Letter G, p. 3).
ANSWER: Yes, and this unscriptural provision was one reason why the senior elders found it necessary to revise the Bylaws.
ALLEGATION 57: "Overthrow God's appointed and rule because of issues....issues, not God's appointed!" (Letter G, p. 3).
ANSWER: Don falsely makes this an either/or situation, as if God's people were forced to choose between weighing issues and following leaders. The Bible teaches that we should face issues and follow leaders. We wouldn't need the Bible if all we had to do was follow leaders! This argument means that we aren't supposed to think, just blindly follow those who claim to be "God's appointed," regardless of their manner of life.
ALLEGATION 58: "Yes, we disobey the civil government when it becomes necessary in order to follow Jesus. We don't however, have license for elders to disobey their own church Bylaws which they have signed and agreed to" (Letter G, p. 4).
ANSWER: False. We would disobey church bylaws on the same principle that would justify disobeying the civil government. Namely, we would follow the principle of obedience to a higher authority, the Word of God.
ALLEGATION 60: "Paul, himself, appealed to the Roman courts" (Letter G, p. 4).
ANSWER: Faulty analogy. Paul was not involved in a dispute with Christian brethren, but with Christ-hating Jews. Paul did not have the opportunity to bring the matter before Christian brethren for arbitration. Don did. We tried to persuade Don to submit the whole problem to a neutral Christian arbitration service, but Don refused and took us to civil court in defiance of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.
Paul was not worthy of disfellowship and was not going to court to stay in office in direct defiance to the Word of God.
ALLEGATION 61: "If the Sr. Elders really think it is wrong to go to court, why did they....Initiate a separate court action...to dissolve the corporation?" (Letter G, p. 5).
ANSWER: Don was the one who dragged church matters into court; all of the elders' actions have been a response to the impasse created hy Don. One of the positive effects of dissolution would be to get us out of court Instantly, ending a court battle initiated and prolonged by Don.
ALLEGATION 62; "I was promised that all accusations and confessions would be confidential and would never leave the room" (Letter G, p. 5),.
ANSWER: Don himself broke the confidentiality of the hearings in conversations with his intercessors, in sermons before and during Winter Camp Meeting, and in his 2/28/88 Sunday morning tirade against the elders. When the elders spoke specifically about Don's Sins on 3/4/88, the material was already public knowledge.
Any agreement of confidentiality is made with the implied condition that circumstances may arise to necessitate disclosure. By defying the special status, Don forced us to reveal a minimum amount of data to help the people understand why we disfellowshipped him. The majority of hearing material has remained confidential, including some of the most damaging information about Don's sins. .
ALLEGATION 63: "Some of the elders felt implicated by my sermons on legalism" (Letter G, p. 5).
ANSWER: We do not know how Don knows this. Our consensus of opinion is that it is not true. Actually, we were sickened by the vulgar sexual content and false doctrine in the sermons. For example:
They began to demand of her questions. And each one got his pad out and he's got his ballpoint quill in his hand. And now, uh, she was caught in the "very act," is that correct? Now describe what you mean by the "very act." See. Now are we talking intercourse? I mean give us, ex- plain what position. Now we want to know details. See. Now, when was this? " 'Bout four o'clock this morning." About five from somebody here, was it four or was it five? "Well I think it was about four." Well make up your mind, we have to know, this is important! Is it four or was it five? There's four, now, now, what time? Now, was that the beginning time or was that the end now? Uh, uh, exactly? Now did were both breasts uncovered or was it just one? Now how did you do that? Now, did you have anything underneath that garment? Now, what, how many times did this man visit? Now was it, well make up your mind was it twelve or thirteen?
ALLEGATION 64: "The claim of the elders that they will teach you right and get everyone in shape, is a false claim!" (Letter G, p. 6).
ANSWER: Don's assertion is false. We never made this claim. We challenge
him to produce the quotation and document it. He cannot and he will not.
ALLEGATION 65: Regarding the special status: "I had no idea that they would take such illegal and severe action if I didn't obey them!" (Letter G, p. 6).
ANSWER: Does this imply that he would have obeyed the special status if he had known ahead of time that we would disfellowship him if he defied it? If so, how can he claim that compliance with the special status would have been contrary to God and to his conscience?
ALLEGATION 66: The special status "is contrary to what God showed me" (Letter G, p. 6).
ANSWER: What if everyone on special status made such a claim? Should we just let them defy it? Don't most people think that restrictions placed upon them are unfair?
ALLEGATION 67: The special status is "harmful" (Letter G, p. 6).
ANSWER: No, it was specifically designed to protect people from harm, including Don and the women he would potentially exploit sexually. It was also to protect the senior elders and church who could be in legal jeopardy if Don continued his sexual misconduct.
ALLEGATION 68: The special status "is opposite of what God is revealing to me" (Letter G, p. 6). "'
ANSWER: We deny that God is revealing these false doctrines to Don. They are contrary to the Bible and their affect is to minimize sin and accountability, the law of sowing and reaping, and the damaging effects of sexual sin upon those involved and their families.
ALLEGATION 69: The special status is "only the tip of a larger power play to totally control me" (Letter G, p. 6).
ANSWER: This is nothing more than a smokescreen to justify Don's rebellion at any attempt to curb his self-will.
The special status was a straightforward and minimal response to Don's sins. There was no power play behind it. It was done to help prevent Don from further hurting himself and others.
ALLEGATION 70: The special status is "discriminatory" (Letter G, p. 6).
ANSWER: No, other people with far;less severe problems than Don have been put on special status, too. The fact that Don can point to someone else who has a problem does not prove it was discriminatory to put him on special status. The person Don alludes to was not under investigation at the time, but he promised later to go on special status—-and he did.
ALLEGATION 71: "This is civil disobedience and all who follow them are in the illegal rebel camp. Careful, dear ones!" (Letter G, p. 7).
ANSWER: This is a fear tactic designed to cause people to leave the elders' group and return to Don out of fear.
ALLEGATION 72: "A Friday takeover of the church services (Feb. 26)" (Letter H, p. 1).
ANSWER: Don insisted on going to Montana on February 26, even though the eldership sent two elders to plead with him not to go but to stay in Seattle. Therefore, Don left voluntarily. The normal procedures were followed for the Friday night service, and Lanny Peterson was in charge. No one "took over" the service.
ALLEGATION 73: "Calling for police to block the pastor from his pulpit if required" (Letter H, p. 1).
ANSWER: The elders disfellowshipped Don on Friday, March 4, 1988. When Don went to court to block the disfellowship, the judge did not grant the restraining order Don had filed. Instead, the judge restrained Don from church property. .
ALLEGATION 74: "They went outside the church to the state to change the church and settle a dispute between the elders and the pastor" (Letter H, p. 1).
ANSWER; It is true that the elders filed amendea Bylaws with the state, but we did not take Don to court. Don was the person who originally went outside the church to the state when he filed the original Bylaws when the church was founded. So, of course, anyone who amends the Bylaws must do so with the state. That is the only way to change the Bylaws. Don has done it himself.
It has nothing to do with taking someone to court.
Don went to court to get a restraining order to stop this action. Therefore, Don took the elders to court—the elders did not take Don to court.