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.

[Thad]

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Stonewall

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.

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

Originally Posted by Thad

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.

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."

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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.

[Thad]

Originally Posted by Stonewall

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."

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Stonewall

In case the accusations are true, for one thing.

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

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

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.

In this case, the alleged victim was also quite insistent on protecting the alleged perptrator's identity secret.

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.

As an outsider, I have no idea who this man is - he could be pastoring in my community for all I know.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

[Scott Hutchinson]

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.

[Walk and Talk]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

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.

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

[Scott Hutchinson]

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.