Talk:Community Chapel and Bible Training Center

message: This article was nominated for speedy deletion. However, the references have led to its retention. Nonetheless, the article needs a large amount of work including:
* renaming the article;
* sourcing the claims in the article from the independent sources cited;
* more clearly identifying why this church is notable in church history.
Capitalistroadster 03:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deletion

message: I added a lead paragraph that I hope explains more clearly why this church is notable and worthy of interest.  Also, I plan to add soon a section which discusses the doctrine of Community Chapel in the context of church history, particularly in that of American revivalism and Pentecostalism.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a Lead Paragraph 

message: Alcohol was banned for the same reason other Pentecostal groups ban it, not due to Barnett's interpretation of Judaic laws. Pork and shellfish were not exactly banned - many members consumed them, although members were specifically asked not to bring them to picnics or other potluck events. Also, they weren't allowed in the dormitories. The belief that these meats were "unclean" wasn't based on Judaic laws (note that Don was against circumcision), but on the belief that the New Testament showed them to be so. 
Don made a distinction between "demon possession" and having a demon in one's life. He did not teach that Christians could be demon possessed. He did indeed attribute [what he regarded as] rebellious attitudes to demons. Moreover, he blamed most sin, including his own, on demons.
Onesimuss 02:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chapel and Pork 

message: Yes, Onesimuss, there is an odd slant to many of Xanthius' facts.  They don't read as if they come from somebody who was a member, but rather from somebody who learned about the Chapel mainly from books and newspaper articles.   However, he seems to feel rather proprietary about the Chapel topic.  Xanthius, care to comment?  Were you a member of the Chapel?  Did you ever visit the Chapel?
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Odd Slant 

message: Hey guys (or girls.) To answer your question, I have never been a member of Community Chapel and don't know anyone who has. My information on the group comes from newspaper articles and books. On one hand that could be perceived as a negative by former members because I have no "first hand knowledge" of Community Chapel, however, it can also be a positive thing because my outlook comes as a third party observer and it is probably going to be much easier for me to work on the article with a neutral point of view than if I was a former member with an agenda of either defending or harming the group's reputation.
I want to say that I am very impressed with the amount of sources currently in the article, it is obviously the thing that kept it from being deleted even if the quality of the article was not quite up to wikipedia standards. What I am in the process of doing right now is trying to incorporate more information from those sources into the article, along with clear citations indicating where each piece of information is coming from.
If any of the information I have currently added is wrong, please know that it comes directly from news and book sources, and so the best way to correct me is to provide a source with a differing take on that piece of information. I want the article to be as clear and accurate as possible, but unfortunately we cannot rely on anecdotal evidence/personal stories, and instead need to work with Reliable sources. As far as the pork/alcohol stuff, I will recheck the source I pulled that from tomorrow. I may have misquoted and used the word "banned" when the word "discouraged" would have been more appropriate.
One thing the article could use is a picture of some sort. Does any one have a picture of either (a) the Community Chapel logo (if they had one), (b) a service or building that was a part of Community Chapel or (c) some sort of picture of pastor Barnett? In order for us to use it you would have to have taken the picture yourself or get permission from the person who did, but if anyone does have something like that it would be a great addition to this article. Let me know, thanks!
Xanthius 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Chapel and Pork/Odd Slant 

message: I meant to say my above message is to accompany the change I made restoring the last sentence in the lead paragraph after Xanthius had changed it before me.  The change in the history list is marked only with my IP address since I forgot I wasn't logged in when I made it. (Steve Born, Seattle, WA 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: The Nature and Scope of "Spiritual Connections" 

message: :The physical aspect of dancing needs to be mentioned if it is going to accurately reflect what the church is famous for. If you'll look at almost every source listed, in Churches That Abuse as well as in the newspaper articles, the dancing with members other than one's spouse is what made Community Chapel so controversial. The way it has been re-written now is very vague and does not reflect this:
:The group became famous for a practice its leaders advocated known as "spiritual connections," in which, they taught, members of the church could experience fellowship with the "glorified Son of Man" (Jesus Christ) through spiritual union with other members of his body, the church.
:"Spiritual union" could mean anything, but the psychical act of dancing (and other things) with someone other than your spouse is what was the main controversy. It is why this church is still talked about decades later. Perhaps somebody can suggest a compromise between the two extremes. Here was my last attempt:
:The group became famous for a practice its leaders advocated known as "spiritual connections," in which married members of the church danced with someone other than their spouse in an attempt to experience fellowship with Jesus Christ.
:Xanthius 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: 

message: Yes, it does seem odd that a source could be deemed "reliable" irrespective of whether it provides accurate information.
Surely lawyers are behind such a phenomenon.
But thanks for indulging me, and explaining the workings of Wikipedia. One could perhaps appreciate the discipline involved in compiling the information, while at the same time lamenting the inflexibility that doesn't consider those with intimate knowledge of the subject as reliable sources, if they haven't found a publisher interested in their story. 
Onesimuss 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reliable"  

message: :Speaking for myself, having spent nearly ten years as a Chapel member, I want to say that both Ronald Enroth's work and this Wikipedia article give a fairly accurate idea of what CCBTC was all about.  The Wikipedia approach does have its limitations, but, as Xanthius pointed out, it does at least also give a list of external links to sites that include both Chapel apologists and Chapel critics.  There, interested readers can pursue the subject further and decide for themselves.  If the Chapel has such a compelling case to be made for it that needs to be brought to light, certainly a site that does that can be found somewhere on the Internet.  If you know of one that is not in the list, please feel free to add it.
:Steve Born, Seattle, WA 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Untitled 

message: ::::Thanks, Nate - that's a good idea.  However, I just tried several of them and something seems to be wrong either with the .pdf files or with the Wikipedia mechanism for downloading and viewing them.  Only the first page downloads and then my browser (IE 7.0) freezes.  I have to kill it with Task Manager.  Is anybody else seeing the same thing?
::::Steve Born, Seattle, WA 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Thinking More About This 

message: Steve, 
this is probably happening because your browser's PDF viewing utility does not like large PDF image files such as these transcripts. These PDF files are scanned images, which are much larger than files  converted from another electronic format. You should be able to view the transcripts by downloading the files to your hard drive, and then opening them with adobe acrobat reader.
=== Re: PDF Files ===
:That worked.  Thanks, Nate!
:Steve Born, Seattle, WA 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDF Files 

message: :That worked.  Thanks, Nate!
:Steve Born, Seattle, WA 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: PDF Files 

message: With the wealth of audio information related to the subject would not this information (actual recorded statements) from various participants be available as reference material to clear up the picture?  As an example Steve commented on the clean versus unclean foods issue.  No doubt there are sermon tapes extant that deal specifically with this issue and would bring additional clarity.   Any thoughts?
Wonderboy777 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio 

message: :Can you give us any examples of exaggeration or distortion in the article?  As a Chapel member myself, I'm not aware of any;  I'm trying to make the article as accurate a representation as I can of what I now know the Chapel was because I think its rise and fall teaches some important lessons about the pitfalls of some common trends in modern American faith.
:Steve Born, Seattle, WA 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: It's not what you think 

message: :That's a good point, Nate.  Since I've been re-reading all these legal materials I've realized the same thing.  Although Community Chapel had physically split into "the elder's side" and "Don's side" by the summer of 1988, effectively ending its existence as most of us had known it up until that time, it still existed on paper and in its meetings at the east campus under some of the elders for some time after that.  Also, I've said in the article about Don that he founded the Church of Agape in 1988, but that's probably not correct.  Certainly he formed the group that later became the Church of Agape in 1988, but I'm wondering when he legally established the church known by that name.  Do you know?
:I will think about how we might re-word the opening paragraph - or feel free to take a shot at it yourself if you like.  The research into the legal aspects of all this that you've done, and now made available on the Web, is impressive.
:Steve Born, Seattle, WA 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I've revised it a little bit.  See what you think - but still feel free to revise it yourself if you'd like. (Steve Born, Seattle, WA 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: church dissolution and church-entity status post-1988 

message: :I think both of you have a point.  The amount of detail in the article about the court trials and other legal maneuvers during the Chapel's last few years is becoming a little overwhelming.   On the other hand, this information has not been readily available before and many people who are interested in the Chapel will find it relevant to their experience there; it helps them to understand a confusing period in which almost all of this was hidden to them at the time.
:The solution may be in organizing the article into sections in a better way.  Have a main body with its own subsections which summarize each period and aspect of the Chapel; then have another section with subsections that give the details about the various court cases and their part in the Chapel's end.
:I know that it will be difficult to keep the two separate, especially when it comes to the eldership hearings that resulted in Don's being disfellowshipped, but I think it is worth the effort.
:Steve Born, Seattle, WA 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Too much information? 

message: Steve, I fully agree with you about having the article broken up into sections and time periods. I also  agree we should have a totally separate section devoted to the various legal proceedings, and a separate section on the chapel's theology and beliefs organized by time periods. I will try and start working on this.
--Natedawg1604 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply RE: Too much information? 

message: Chapelhistorian, I've noticed you've been making changes to the Community Chapel article, many of which are unsupported by the cited material and which seem to represent a biased point of view. What is your interest in making such changes? If you disagree with the existing content, and have a good reason for changing it, please explain your reasons here. Thank you.
--Steve Born, Seattle, WA 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Unexplained Changes 

message: "Talk", you recently made an addition to the section of the article entitled "Elders put Barnett on Special Status", section 2.2. You added a comment to the effect that "Don Barnett himself" gave testimony before the eldership hearings. Please note I have deleted this sentence, because this paragraph, as clearly stated, is a direct quote from the minutes of the senior elder meeting dated February 10th, 1988. 
A copy can be found here: 
The phrase "by Don Barnett himself" was not found in the elder minutes dated February 10th, 1988. If you want to add a statement somewhere else in the article indicating that Don Barnett gave testimony before the eldership hearings, this would certainly be fine. However, it is not appropriate to add statements to quotations taken from documents, when those additional statements are not found in the documents themselves. I'm sure this was unintentional. Regardless, there are certainly other sections of the article where this issue could be discussed.--Natedawg1604 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Unexplained Changes 

message: I added links to the audio files of the elders meeting with the congregation on Feb 26, 1988 and Don Barnett's rebuttal on Feb 28, 1988. These files are are on my own website.
Dave Kenady 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added links to audio files 

message: We do not base encyclopedia articles directly on primary court documents. The article should be completely rewritten to rely primarily on secondary sources (books, articles, newspapers, etc.). We should not have any links to court documents in the body of the article. If that means excessive detail must be removed, that's what needs to happen. An encyclopedia does not do original research based on court documents. This article appears to be primarily such original research. Yworo (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs complete rewrite 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Community Chapel and Bible Training Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929221433/http://www.ccbtc.info/Chapel/CRI_ChapelStatement.htm to http://www.ccbtc.info/Chapel/CRI_ChapelStatement.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/Barnett_v_Hicks_Lawsuit/Trial_Exhibits/Exhibit%202.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/Gabrielson_v._Community_Chapel/Gabrielson_Record_excerpts/Pleadings/JudgmentOnJuryVerdict_11-23-88.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Pleadings/PetitionForDissolution_03_21_1988.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Mark%20Yokers%20Deposition_4-19-88.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Drake%20Pesce%20Deposition%204-13-88.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Dubois%20Deposition%204-6-88.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Hartley%20deposition%204-12-88.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Krenelka%20depo%204-6-88.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/David%20Motherwell%20Depo_4-20-88.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Wyman%20Smalley%20deposition_4-13-88.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/Barnett_v_Hicks_Lawsuit/Pleadings_and_Orders/Sub.47.5_OrderReContemptMotions_06_06_1988.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Pleadings/Order_DenyingTRO_08_17_1988.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106122002/http://www.ccbtc.info/Chapel/Default.aspx to http://www.ccbtc.info/Chapel/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified