GENERAL PROBLEMS IN DON'S LETTERS

1. Failure to deal with the issues.

Don has ignored the great majority of our arguments and has not even addressed them. Since he ignores these arguments. The only assumption we can make is that he cannot answer them.

2. Use of emotional, accusatory, and slanderous terms.

Don's letters have been full of inflammatory language designed to impact people emotionally without really proving anything. Conclusions are proved by facts, not by piling up long lists of incriminating and patronizing words about your opponent. Don's basic approach has been to attack the elders instead of their arguments. His letters characterize the elders as:

—Legalists, usurpers, Korah, lawbreakers, rebel-elders, front men (Letter A)

—Rebel take-over leaders, their ears are dull (Letter B)

—Absalom, Pharisees, hypocrites (Letter C)

—Communist style takeover movement, illegal coup government (Letter E)

—Illegal church government, Laodiceanism, the wild west, Adonijah, self righteous, Judas, champs of carefulness, rebel camp (Letter G)

—Fifteen elders against Almighty God, usurpers of authority (Letter H)

In just three of his six letters, Don Uses over 150 derogatory adjectives and statements. He attacks not just the elders' actions, but their persons and motives. Such mud-slinging is a manifestation of the underlying problems that made the elders' actions necessary. Don describes the elders' actions as:

—Slandered me maliciously and inaccurately, an illegal coup (Letter A)

—Undermine, hypocrisy, the most guilty of all, make Don a sub-shepherd and puppet, force the church to camp and die, ears are dull (Letter B)

—Dishonest and unfair hearts, committing great wickedness, anarchy, deceitful work, terrible and misleading misquotations, hunting for any straw-argument to defame, harsh legalistic judgments, running fast and loose with the facts, defaming without carefulness, outrageous, wicked coup, shoddy handling of me, exceeds all bounds of propriety, pride, accusation, and lust for power (Letter C)

—Tear up the church, mutinied, deceit, usurped the president, override laws, doing evil, blaming the pastor, a Communist style illegal takeover movement, Laodicea, loud claims, deceiving spirits yelling at me, stubborn, blind and self-serving, self-righteous, an abomination to God, deception... (Letter E)

The list goes on and on.

3. Inaccurate quotations.

Don misquotes the elders' letters, using quotation marks to give the impression that he is quoting verbatim. When the quotations are checked against actual source material, it is found that Don has changed the wording.

For example, in Letter C, p. 3, Don writes, "Even your allegation of my 'drug abuse' was left ambiguous..." Don puts "drug abuse" in quotation marks, implying that he was quoting our letter word for word. The actual quotation reads, "Your dependency upon drugs may increase." Don even misquotes the Bible and puts his misquotation in quotation marks (Letter E, p. 4).

The letters from Don Barnett, Dan O'Brien, and Jim Blanchard also misquote the elders by giving false impressions of what they said.

For example, Dan says in Letter D, p. 1, that the elders "broke every promise they made to you about allowing Don to continue to pastor regardless of how he responded to their meeting with you." The elders never promised that Don would continue to pastor no matter how he responded. In fact. Jack DuBois said this in the elders' 2/26/88 presentation:

We implore you to sweetly accept this action and not make an issue of it in any way before the congregation. So many people are aware of the circumstances that to do so would likely result in dragging the entire issue in front of the congregation. We know you don't want that, nor do we. If that happened, we feel it could precipitate events which would have a high probability of bringing your ministry here to an end.

On the same tape, Scott Hartley said this:

We don't know what is going to happen over the next few days or weeks.

But I can guarantee you our Intent, our heart, our mind, is to not in any way cause our pastor to lose the ministry. If something like that would happen. It would strictly be at his own hands. No one, and I repeat no one Is trying to remove him from his position. There are no threats-being made to that end. If the problem, though, escalates further, until this may be our only option left, then we may consider that. But up to this point,, we are not.

The closest thing to Jim's statement that anyone made, was this one by Lanny Peterson on 2/26/88, but even this statement says the opposite of what Jim claims the elders said:

And we will continue as allowed to preach God's Word to you to feed you, hopefully not taking sides on anything or even bringing these matters up again. There is a possibility in the future that we will again feel compelled to speak on this issue. We hope we never have to talk again about it. We hope the matter is over with and that he will break good we. will all go on with God.

On page 4 of Letter D, Dan recalls "Jack DuBois' promise to you that the senior elders would all go on restriction with Don." First, Jack never made such a promise. Second, Don never went on restriction, so of course the senior elders never went on it with him.

Letter F by Jim Blanchard says on page I that "on the first Friday Russ MacKenzie said they were through speaking on the matter of Don's sins." This is false, and Jim would be unable to produce such a quotation.

4. Carelessness with facts.

Don makes false statements as though they are facts, thereby misleading his readers. His entire presentation is riddled with errors, yet he writes with such breathtaking dogmatism that some think, "How could he be telling falsehoods?" Frankly, one reason Don writes with such conviction is that he believes many of the false statements he makes, which is part of his problem. Here are a few of the factual errors in his letters.

—"I followed all counsel as to specific activities" (Letter B, p.l).

Comment; Sadly, this is far from the truth. Don has admitted that he was committing adultery while under counsel by Lanny Peterson and Scott Hartley. Even during the last six months while under David Motherwell's counsel, Don acknowledges that he was still guilty of sexual misconduct (Letter A, p. 1).

—"I am a soft, broken, humble servant of God, loving..." (Letter A, p.2).

Comment: We would like to believe this, but Don's words and actions show otherwise. The Bible tells us, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

—"ALLEGATION: The pastor won't follow his own statements in Balance II. TRUTH: False" (Letter B, p. 2).

Comment: The facts show otherwise. Don has steadfastly refused to follow his own statements in Balance, No. 2. Here is what he wrote:

RUMOR 20: The pastor at Community Chapel is accountable to no one.

REPLY: Untrue. I am accountable to the bylaws, the senior elders, fellow elders, even to the congregation, and, most of all, to God. 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.

It is not true that Don "submits to them as they do to me." Don refuses to submit or be accountable to anyone in any substantial way. Don has made statements such as, "I don't have to follow those under me. I'm not as any other layman - I stand accountable to God, others to me" (Letter E, p. 2). Such statements are arrogant and unscriptural.

—The elders are "those that God has not ordained" (Letter B, p. 2; see also Letter G, p. 3, "the board whom God did not call").

Comment: If God did not ordain the elders, why did Don sign their ordination papers? Don did not ordain the elders - God did. The Bible teaches that God ordains the elders whom the church ordains (Acts 20:28).

—"Several times I quizzed you about a certain senior elder who had committed adultery many times.... No one has put a counselor on him, put him under restrictions" (Letter C, p. 3).

Comment: None of this is true. Don did not quiz the elders about a certain senior elder even one time, much less several times. That senior elder was under a counselor on 3/9/88 when Don wrote the statement, and had been for a long time. That senior elder had since been put on special status.

—"The eldership has never contested me on my theology" (Letter C, 3).

Comment: Don wrote this on 3/9/88. Prior to 3/9/88, several elders had confronted Don directly about false doctrines he was teaching. For example, Russell MacKenzie wrote Don a four-page letter on 8/18/87, taking issue with Don's theology that all sins have the same relative guilt or consequence before God and no sins are worse than other sins. Don told his congregation at SportsWorld on 3/6/88 that he wrote Russ a letter answering Russ's arguments, but this is not true either.

—"I was never given any specifics as to this [i.e., his misconduct as pastor] and given a chance to defend myself" (Letter C, p. 4).

Comment: The elders gave Don a letter on 2/24/88 which lists the twelve specifics that he claims he was never given. We know he received the letter, because he attempted to answer it in a meeting with the elders the next day. Don cannot truthfully say he was never given a chance to defend himself when the eldership committee listened to him defend himself for a cumulative twenty hours during the hearings, and when everyone knows he has spent dozens of hours defending himself in sermons.

—"I absolutely hate to defend myself" (Letter E, p 1).

Comment: Twenty pages of letters to the elders and congregation, twenty hours of testimony during the hearing, and dozens of hours of sermons show that Don is driven to defend himself. His counselor believes this obsession with saving his own life is at the root of his problems, including the sexual ones.

—-"The elders are in contempt of court" (Letter E, p. 1; see also Letter G, pp. 4,7).

Comment; False. No one is in contempt of court until the court declares that they are in contempt of court. A party in a dispute has no authority to determine that the other party is in contempt of court.

—"David Motherwell was constantly commending me for my good record" (Letter G, p. 2). .

Comment: David did not do this. Don did not have a good record.

—"I am now acting General Manager and Vice President" (Letter G, p. 7).

Comment: Absolutely false. Community Chapel has no General Manager and Vice President now, because there is deadlock in the board of directors. Because Don Barnett, Scott Hartley, and Jack DuBois cannot agree on a replacement for Jack Hicks who resigned, the position is vacant.

5. Faulty analogies.

Don employs faulty analogies to prove that it was wrong to put him out of the church (Letter A, p. 1; Letter G, pp. 2-4). For example, he compares himself to Paul, Moses, and David to show that he is in authority over the elders as these leaders were in authority over those under them. Then Don misuses the analogies to say that the elders putting him out is just as wrong as those under Paul, Moses, and David putting them out.

The similarity between Don, Moses, David, and Paul is that all were in positions of leadership. The dissimilarity is that none of these Bible characters were guilty in the thirteen areas of sins and problems for which Don was disfellowshipped. These include:

1. Refusal to hear repeated reproofs.

2. Misuse of pastoral authority.

3. Rebellion.

4. Lying and dishonesty.

5. Continual defiant, uncooperative attitude.

6. Breaking a minimal, reasonable special status.

7. Numerous adulteries with several women, and other sexual misconduct.

8. Minimizing his sins and their bad affect on. others.

9. Mental abuse of his wife.

10. Causing division in the church.

11. Teaching false doctrine.

12. Offending and stumbling others by sinful behavior.

13. Refusal to follow church standards.

Don likes to point out that David committed adultery but did not lose his position. But Don's case is different from David's for the following reasons:

—-When David sinned. God sent a man to expose the sin and David repented. When the Lord sent Russell MacKenzie to warn Don in June of 1987, Don did not repent but blamed the women and justified his sin. Don persisted in adultery afterward. Don also refused to hear reproof from Jerry Zwack, Lanny Peterson, Scott Hartley, David Motherwell, the senior elders, and finally all sixteen men on the eldership hearing committee. Don has not demonstrated the heart of David in accepting reproof.

—King David fell into adultery with one woman, was humble when confronted, repented completely, and never did it again. By his own testimony, Don committed adultery twenty - seven times with four women, and there have been complaints from many other women about his sexual advances. This displays a pervasive pattern of problem behavior that David did not display. Don was not humble when confronted, but displayed an unrepentant, defiant, uncooperative attitude. After repeated confrontations, Don continued in adultery, unlike David.

—King David did not lie about his adultery with one woman, but Don lied about his adulteries with several women. For example, on July 13, 1987, Don told his counselors that he had not done anything sexual in a long time, when in reality he had committed adultery earlier that very day.

—Another reason that David and Don are not parallel is that Don was not a king. Don was a New Testament church elder, not a monarch. The New Testament provides a mechanism for dealing with elders who sin (1 Tim. 5:17-21, etc.). The procedure specified is different from the one Nathan followed with David.

Don is not parallel to Moses because Christ is the New Testament antitype of Moses, not Don Barnett or any other local church pastor. Israel was baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea, but we are not baptized into Don Barnett. Moses was called "king in Jeshurun," but Christ is our king, not Don Barnett. Christ was the prophet like Moses whom God raised up, not Don Barnett. Christ is the shepherd and lawgiver of Spiritual Israel, not Don Barnett.

Don's case is not parallel to Paul's because Paul followed the New Testament principle of mutual brotherly submission that is required even of church leaders (Eph. 5:21; 1 Pe. 5:5). Paul submitted his doctrine to his brethren for examination (Gal. 2:2); Don submits his doctrine to no one. Paul withstood his fellow-apostle Peter to the face, which implies that Paul would have been willing to submit to such reproof himself if needed (Gal. 2:11). None of this is parallel to Don's method of operation.

6. Exaggerations.

Don constantly stretches the truth to the point that it is no longer true. For example:

—The elders "could find no fault with the last half year of my life" (Letter B, p. 1).

—"Your actions smack of Communistic tactics" (Letter C, p. 2).

—"You are defaming your pastor without any regard for carefulness" (Letter C, p. 3).

—"I was allegedly put out at the time I was the humblest, most loving, trusting, and overcoming Christian - when I was the most holy, most pliable and most dedicated. And when I had the most truth" (Letter E, p. 2)

—"The elders have shown no understanding or care for the extreme demonic attack I was under" (Letter G, p. 1).

—The elders "gnashed on me like the Jews did Stephen" (Letter G, p. 2).

—"The elders have twisted the meaning of every scripture used to justify their illegal takeover" (Letter G, p. 3).

—"The elders 'brainwashed' his flock against him" (Letter G, p. 4).

—"Many have been persuaded without one stitch of evidence" (Letter H, p.2).

7. Contradictions and confusion.

Don contradicts himself and his associates in his letters. For example:

—"God's chosen undershepherd. Not that I'm special" (Letter A, p. 1), versus, "I am not as any other layman I stand accountable to God, others to me." (Letter E, p. 2).

—"Don't out think your pastor, follow" (Letter E, p. 3), versus, "Think, saints, think" (Letter H, p. 1).

—"It is rather, Laodicea for each member to try to out think their pastor and use their own evaluation of the issues" (Letter B, p. 2), versus, "Come on, dear saints, think!" (Letter H, p. 2).

—"Six months without any sexual activity" (2/28/88 Sunday morning sermon), versus, "I have lived for 6 1/2 months with only a couple of slips (I said to the church 'almost perfectly"), this is true" (Letter A, p. 1).

—"I followed all counsel" (Letter B, p. 1), versus, "I fired them as my counselors" (2/28/88 Sunday morning sermon).

—Don Barnett: The elders are "those that God has not ordained" (Letter B, p. 2), versus Dan O'Brien: The elders will not spare "the flock of God that God made them overseers of" (Letter D, p. 3).

—Dan O'Brien: "Don has practiced not exposing their names and abuses" (Letter D, p. 4), versus Don Barnett: "...a certain Sr. Elder who had committed adultery many times with more than one connection (according to the girl's admissions)" (Letter C, p. 3).

8. Circular reasoning.

Don uses the fallacy of circular reasoning many places in his letters to prove his assertions. This fallacy occurs when a person assumes the very point he is trying to prove.

a For example, "ALLEGATION ff2: ,Bon did not follow counsel.... TRUTH:

False. 1 followed all counsel" (Letter B, p.l). Don says he followed all counsel, and the proof he cites is his own statement that he followed all counsel. Valid evidence that he followed all counsel would be a statement from his counselors, perhaps - but not his own claim. We have a signed statement from Scott Hartley and Lanny Peterson, and another one from David Motherwell, confirming that' Don did not follow their counsel.

Another example: "Believe me, the claim of the elders is a false claim!" (Letter G, p.6). What evidence does Don produce? His evidence is simply an appeal to believe him without any evidence.

9. Other errors.

Don's letters are replete with other errors such as:

—False versions of events.

—Misinterpretation of Scripture.

—Elevating the authority of prophecies above the Word of God.

—Assigning motives to the elders.

—Minimizing and excusing his sins.

—False accusations against the elders.

—Diversion (switching the issue).

—Appeals to fear.

—Arrogant statements.

—Complaining.

—Misrepresenting the elders' position

Examples of these errors are too numerous to cite.

We have now answered the eight letters by Don and his associates. We trust that this will put the matter to rest in the minds of many who have had questions about these issues.