Community Chapel, Seattle Wa
 

There was misinformation about this church on the thread about the abuse suffered by Sister Beezer.

It was stated that CC was not oneness and was orignally an AoG church.

Both of these assertions are false. CC was from the beginning an independent Oneness Pentecostal church.

I didn't want to divert the other thread with this relatively trivial information, but thought someone might be interested.

I was a member, attended the bible college, and saw much of the deception and devastation. Therefore, Sister Beezer's story was credible to me, and even if it weren't, I'd have been incredulous that so many were openly skeptical of what she shared. Skepticism could have been expressed privately, and more tactfully, through PM.

Stonewall, I too thought she was treated rather crassely. however, many did show her much love and compassion which really did help her. towards the end of the thread, her spirits were up.

another thing, thru the years of forum life, many here have been severaly taken advantage of by people pretending to be abused or sick for the sake of trying to milk them for money, etc. thus the immediate intitial reaction.

I wonder where she has been anyways- she's been missing in action here on the forum for a while - maybe 2 weeks or so

Why? Why should such severe accusations be public but skepticism of such be private?

perilous time in the church
 

Yes, I understand. I have no problem with skepticism - too many innocent men are in jail for rapes they didn't commit. I just think the skepticism can be channeled into verification - in a discreet way. It appeared to me that you knew all the parties involved - so that those who didn't think the story quite passed the smell test could have contacted you privately before needlessly wounding an already damaged sheep.

Thankfully many showed compassion, as you said. They overall response was much better than that received by abuse victims who deign to post on Community Chapel's forum, where they are basically told to "take a hike."

receiving accusations against an elder
 

In case the accusations are true, for one thing. If they are true, open skepticism amounts to disregard for a wounded sheep - quite contrary to the heart of a shepherd.

In this case, the alleged victim was also quite insistent on protecting the alleged perpetrator's. As an outsider, I have no idea who this man is - he could be pastoring in my community for all I know.

Surely a discreet investigation of the accuser's claims could have been conducted before openly challenging her - what harm would come from that?

I despise false accusations of abuse, but I also despise the blame the victim mentality that is rampant throughout Christendom. Way too many shepherds feasting on leg of lamb.

many want to help they just have to be sure it's 100% accurate- as you stated, no one can fault them for that. some of them could have used a little more tact in their wording though. also,many on the forum have also faced abuse so compassion in this area comes natural.

I didn't start the thread until Sis beezer gave me her blessings to do so

In case they are false then what? They are already public. And how are we to know they are false if nobody is allowed to be skeptical? IF the accusations are public then it stands to reason skepticism should be public. Thats how we get to the truth, not by burying questions. skepticism is a good thing. False accusations are not. Being skeptical does not mean being harsh or insulting either. Paul welcomed open skepticism by the Bereans when they checked everything he said against the word

No they don't. Prove open skepticms amounts to disregard for anything. That would ONLY be true IF and only IF we all knew they were true. Then in that case, that is not skepticism. There are skeptics ONLY because they DON'T know what is posted is true.

That's nice but that does not tell me why skepticism should be private and not open. This is not Nazi Germany. BTW the alleged perpetrators identity was discovered.
I still don't see how this requires skepticism to be hidden..hush hush...let's not see if a public accusation is true or not.

Why? Tell me why? You keep making assertions and then when I asked for why you just make another assertion in it's place. BTW skepticism forms the basis of discreet investigation. Investigations often start by asking questions. It was a public discussion. If one did not want public scrutiny then they should never have made it public to begin with. Apparently this was not the first time it was made public. How can someone do an investigation without asking public questions?

Skepticism is not "blame the victim"...sorry you confused the two. Skepticism is asking questions. Skepticism is not taking what someone says as the absolute truth at face value. Skepticism asks questions. Skepticisms is merely being skeptical of someone's claims. It has absolutely NOTHING with blaming the victim AND blaming the victim actually assumes something DID happen...if there is a victim to blame.

Open skepticism is fine.

I have a book called occult,and I understand it was based on what happened at that church in WA.
I did know the church was oneness,but I had heard it was more of the PCI view,than the PAJC view.

Who do you listen to?
 

Loud emotional voices, or those with an agenda, often are the ones writing books and articles, or creating a website telling of their views.

Along comes those researching a church and they find/view these loud voices believing they have the final authoritative word on the subject.

As an example, you might want to read this thread regarding some of the loud voices out there talking about Community Chapel in WA. Some of those replying to what is asked are impressive in their authority: http://www.ccgathering.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2838&highlight==
This thread involves two different books written by former Community Chapel members.

As an example, just look at the many loud voices against Apostolic doctrine and practices. Those researching the doctrines and practices will find many saying the doctrines are cultic, and Pastoral Authority, as found in most Oneness churches, are no different than what happened with Jim Jones. Then they will tell everyone they have researched the UPC/Apostolic churches and have found them to be cults and abusers of women.

Be careful of your sources, no matter how authoritative they seem to be.

Walk

From what I understand these folks were sincere at one point and following The Lord, but got off into some things involving sensual dancing which later led into wife swaping and adultery.

needless defense of skepticism
 

Bad application of a good Scripture.


You asked one (1) question. You disagree with my answer. So be it.

I didn't denounce skepticism, or suggest it should never be exercised publicly. My salient point was that NO HARM would come from first seeking private corroboration.

If the accusations are false, the accuser should (ideally) be subjected to the same consequences as the accused would be if they were true.

If the accusations have merit, the victim may have been needlessly traumatized just because someone insists on shooting first and asking questions later.

No Scripture proscribes the kind of caution I have advocated.

oneness variety
 

The book to which you refer is a novel written by a former Chapel member.

I don't know the difference between PCI vis-a-vis PAJC. The bookstore sold David Bernard's Oneness of God.

My dearest Bro.Or Sister in Christ the PCI view is a view that one gets saved then gets the Baptism of The Holy Ghost and baptism in Jesus name as post salvational experiences.
The PAJC view is that one must repent,receive The Holy Ghost and be baptized in Jesus Name in order to be borned again.
The Pentecostal church international hence PCI and The PAJC Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ were the two orgs that merged to form the UPCI.

The process of falling involved many things. The scope of all that happened good and bad would take an analytical book to explore. Too much for my comments here to adequately lay out.

Yes, originally it was a wonderful work of the Lord. The church and Bible College began in the 60s. Most of the congregation was very young in the Lord - some right out of the hippie movement.

Since the church had a Bible College, the pastor set guidelines that seemed necessary for helping the young ex-hippie kids learn about being Godly in actions and attire; especially since many felt called to the Bible College with a desire to eventually be used by the Lord in the ministry. Men were to be men, and the women were to be women. Suits and dresses were the expected attire. For the most part, the men did not have facial hair, nor long hair. Women wore dresses and were encouraged to have longer hair. There were guidelines about dating and avoiding the trappings they had engaged in in the world.

The pastor had a lot on his plate as he needed to teach many balances and perspectives. He let everyone know they needed to trust him as he guided the ship. I personally feel he did right by these guidelines.

However, as the congregation grew in maturity, and as some doctrines came forth, he still kept a ruling hand on the thinking and actions of the members. Thus, in my opinion, it grew from being a good work of the Lord into an imbalanced group (cult - if you please). I don't feel the cult like activities happened until the last 4-5 years. Starting about 1982/83.

There were some pre-dancing doctrines that come forth that I feel helped lead into the fall. However, the dancing and the "connections" doctrines/practices were the major imbalances that brought the house down - big time. The connections doctrine/practice was what led into adulteries, divorces, etc. It was not a practice of wife swapping, rather of people being allowed to fall in love with others, courtesy the "connections" teaching.

Since the fall was major and involved several thousand people, it was very public. Some of the public actions were not all the fault of the leadership. The actions of some reflected on the entire church and the church got the blame. However, the pastor and some of the leadership were responsible for much of the disgrace.

The mystery seems to be how many people, very well trained in the Word, could be so led down an ungodly path. As things came from the pulpit and through those women "used" in "prophesying" that seemed slightly off, there would be frequent altar calls to submit to the pastor and trust him as Jesus' under-shepherd. These commitments to trust and obey took many, by little baby steps, down the road into doing things that 10 years previous everyone would have fled from.

As the church began down the wrong path, many elders and members began to express concern. These people, knowing things were going terribly wrong, and that they had no chance to awaken the people from within the church, left. Many of those that left tried to rescue as many as they could. Many helped set up support networks for those that eventually came out - hurt. The congregation was told not to listen to these people (the dissenters) as they were being used of the devil to fight the work of God. Thus started the obvious cultic blocking of the members from having outside voices speaking about what was going on.

It was once a very good church that fell in its later years. Yes, some that have left say it was rotten from the beginning. However, you will find most of those voices coming from people with deep hurts, or those that have reverted to their prior trinitarian ritualistic churches.

Know that many left as things were going down. Many received the tremendous good that represented the church and Bible College in the first maybe 15 years. Many that have been hurt have had twenty years for receiving a healing and finding good churches to be members of. Some backslid. Some are still floundering - thought when you consider how big the church was (along with its many offshoots (satellite churches)), the percentage of the membership that are out there still floundering is small.

Well, that is just my input.
Walk and Talk

Thanks, Scott. Yes, it was definitely PCI then. The pastor's father and brother were also pastors. His brother pastored a church in Boise, ID for many years. He passed away a few years ago.

I hate to hear about sincere folks falling away and I agree the pastor proably was correct in the beginning.
There are lessons we can learn from these sort of situations.
I trust that there are those who survived this situation with their faith in Christ intact.

Thanks for sharing, I don't know if you were the one I was corresponding with on FCF when I shared some of the details about this church's downfall.

My knowledge of this church came about through a instructor in Bible College sharing about it, but I didn't hear the detalis until late last year, shocking, I agree with your earlier post, everything I read even the notes downloaded from the Pastor revealed it to be a orthodox oneness church. Sad that so many were broken over it, makes me fear as a leader in how I lead.

Loren Yadon said,
Attorney's Mistakes Go to Jail
Doctor's Mistakes Die
Preachers Mistakes go to Hell

Golden calf
 

Thanks for your grace, Scott.

Exodus 32, re the golden calf, is the story of Community Chapel, in a nutshell. I read that chapter and feel like I was there.

Stonewall since you were a former member ,it doesn't seem to have affected your Christianity,you seem like you have a strong faith in Christ.

People can and often fail us but Jesus Christ never will.

I understand we can all fall if we turn our eyes off of Christ.
Really rather than condemn folks,I pray the fallen are restored and find mercy.

I don't pastor currently but cases like this have a special interest to me,because if a door opens up I don't want to be a Spiritually abusive leader.

faith
 

Thanks for the affirmation, brother. My wife and a I are very grateful to have survived by God's grace, and to still have our marriage.

Still looking for the balance between gullibility and trust. Well, the balance is knowing His voice, and not following any other - that is the goal for us.

I'm sure God will honor your desire to be a faithful minister. If more shepherds would realize that it is God's flock, not theirs, much sin could be avoided.

Hi Keith,
I did have some email correspondence with someone while participating on FCF/NFCF. I'm not sure if it was you or someone else. I think the person I was corresponding with pastored a church in California.
Walk

Well Dearest Bro.In Christ I'm glad your marriage has survived,and I pray that God crowns your life with goodness,and grace.
If I ever do pastor I have no desire to control people,my desire is to see people submit to The Holy Spirit and develope a personal walk with The Lord for themselves.
Pastors have a important role but they do not replace Jesus Christ,The Great Sheperd.

I think you meant to respond to Keith4him, he does Pastor in CA.
But Walk and Talk how are you and your wife doing these days ?

That would be me, I am glad to see you around.

Community Chapel, Seattle Wa
 

Bro, Stonewall,

The bolded is a profound statement! The LORD is my Shepherd

I shall not want. He leads me. He makes me. He restores my soul.

He comforts me. He provides for me.

Blessings,

Falla39

Thanks Scott,
I went back and edited the name.

My wife and I are doing GREAT. (My wife was never part of CC.) We've been married for 10 years now, and we grow closer every day. Thanks for asking.

My physical self is doing very poorly. I was in the hospital last week, and have three more hospital appointments (tests) over the next 3 weeks. However, my wife is strong and walking 2-4 miles daily no matter the weather. She keeps me going.

One of the things we've learned through these last four years is that our possessions and our bodies are not who we are. They won't go to heaven with us. As hard as our (anyone's) trials seem to be, we can still have a vibrant relationship with the Lord. Possessions (or lack thereof) and our bodies (good or bad health) should not rob us of the joy and peace found in the Lord.

Before the accident (Oct 03) we dedicated ourselves to His service and to be people of the Word. (I.e. If the Word said to take no thought for tomorrow, then we were not going to worry tomorrow. etc.) As a couple we feel our relationship with each other and with the Lord has been GREATLY enhanced by our dedication to have daily time together in prayer and Bible study. We miss it terribly when distractions come our way.

I have not been in the ordained ministry for several years now. Both of us long to be back in the harvest fields. Our vision is strong. With age and physical problems snowballing, it would be easy to say it was all over for having any type of vision for being fruitful as the Lord's vessels. However, we keep a vision by faith and are not looking with natural eyes for things to build our faith.

Thanks again for asking.
Walk

If someone openly brings accusations about abuse whether true or false, then some will be skeptical and openly challenge their accusations. There needs to be more than one witness to this abuse. The attitude of those examining this person can be called into question but I don't see what is wrong with being skeptical. Questioning someones veracity doesn't have to mean you are saying they are lying but is more a demand of proof.

Pr 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

18:17 The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.

Much thanks to you & Walk & Talk for coming on and showing that my statement about CC being Oneness Pentecostal was indeed true. Hopefully you will not be assigned some wrongful ulterior motive for stating they were as happened to me by one here. :)

To Prax, I believe some of the skeptical comments concerning Beezer's story were not questions trying to look into the veracity or lack thereof, but instead just shared they weren't believing the story. I *think* that may be what Stonewall was trying to point out. Instead of first trying to see if there was truth to it, it was pretty much dismissed in a post or two, though if I correctly recall, some views changed. For instance one posted: "In the words of the late and esteemed J Yohe, I remain doubtful Thomas, I have real skepticism if this story is true, sorry don't mean to ruin the pity party. I either think someone is twisting a leg, or spinning a tall tale." That was the entire post. No inquiries, just a dismissal of the story. (Sorry, keith, but yours was the first example I found.)

You didn't give a reason why, you just gave more assertions.

No harm would come from seeking public corroboration either. Skepticism is not the same thing as blaming the victim or attacking the person. You seem to have suggested they are. The scripture I gave indeed backs up my point. Paul was not offended that they sought to prove his words. Skepticism is not personal attacks and if someone takes honest inquirer as an insult then they will still take it as an insult in PM too.

Well hate to burst your bubble but I am not yet convinced. I remember we had this discussion and someone placed their beliefs on the whatever forum we was discussing this on and it wasn't Oneness and we had both so-called members claiming both it was and it was not. Someone can come on a forum and claim anything. I would like to see some documentation then I will say uncle NOT until.:hanky

I still don't see a problem with someone giving their public opinion to a public topic on a public thread. People should know better that if they did not want public scrutiny they should NOT go public at all. Anyone can say their opinion that they don't believe all the stated facts. If the person knows what they say is true then what difference does it make if someone does not believe them? My goodness...I wish I could make everyone believe every word I say. It's just not going to happen.

But personal insults are another issue. At what point do we stop saying things public and go PM anymore for fear of offending someone? You know there are some here that are offended at spiritualabuse site? My opinion? Too bad for them. Just ignore it if then don't like it, but do we hide that site because of someone elses sensibilities?

Any one comment here might offend someone and if just one person, do we now hide those comments in private? I think that's unreasonable.

The person posting their report knew this was public...they apparently have posted on other forums and so should know what to expect.

BTW true skepticism is open minded...they doubt but are open to proof.

maybe how some folks put it was tacky, but I do not agree a persons opinion because it is skeptical or doubtful of someone elses claim should be private. Remember that when people here post they are not just posting to one person but for everyone to read. If the issue is hurt feelings, as the author here suggested it seemed...then why suggest they tell that person in private too? It might still hurt their feelings

Tiny Bubbles
 

I rather doubt anyone will suffer loss if you don't believe that our former church was Oneness. I do think that going there for 10+ years, and accumulating over two years of study at their bible college...it might be possible I would know about our Christology.

You won't find a former member claiming CC wasn't Oneness. Perhaps you are thinking of a certain former member who is no longer Oneness himself. He and I participated in the discussion to which I think you refer.

ccgathering.net The forum is closing soon, but you can listen to audio of what was taught at the church.

Since the church collapsed 20 years ago, I don't know how to obtain documentation for you. You might try: http://keithswebpages.com/unfoldingdocs.htm

HOWEVER, there is an effort to place all the Bible College classes online. Obviously, these classes tell all because you would hear for yourself what we were all taught. Many of the classes, but not yet all, are available at http://biblecollege.ccgathering.net/ . If you look under "Doctrinal Theology" and then click on the listings for "Unfolding Revelation of God."
That is the class that taught the Oneness of God. The class was in several parts: Introduction, UROG 2, and UROG 3 (UROG = Unfolding Revelation of God), and others. You will see from the list on the left that a couple of the UROG courses have yet to be made available.

You can also find classes at: http://keithswebpages.com/unfolding/index.htm

These classes are presented by two different Bible College teachers at differing times. SO, if you don't like listening to one of the teachers, you can go and listen to the other teacher.

BTW - all the posted classes are available for anyone wanting to learn the various subjects.

I hope this helps.

Dear Uncle Epley
 

I'm not closely familiar with the church but their Bible "inserts" and other lit read just like OP literature.

http://www.ccgathering.net/publicati...ibleInsert.PDF

Absolutely. I fully agree with you. I wouldn't recommend anyone yet hurting to share something like that on an open board where anyone can post. It's not a real safe place to do so.

None, really. The point of the initial post I believe was to not unnecessarily hurt someone yet hurting. However, as you stated, when something like this is posted in a public forum, one has to realize they probably will receive posts such as this. If a person isn't yet ready for it, it's best to not share in this manner.

:) You make a good point. There is a difference between offending someone without intending to do so and deliberately doing such.

I agree. I agree with you more than you seem to realize. Hopefully that does not offend you. ;) (couldn't resist)

Hi sarge
remember me?? :)
good to have you back on the forum.

have you kept in touch w/sis Beezer?? we haven't seen her around in nearly 3 weeks