The real source of discord

The Friends of Chapel Mission Statement, as posted on their blog, states that they are "a group of ministers, staff, and members who have joined together in an effort to restore order to the Chapel."

The greatest irony of all, in Chapel Guardian's view, comes from the writings of one of the Friends' ministers recently discovered on that minister's own website.

One of the Friends' central claims is that the post-Larr era at Chapel of Awareness has been rife with disorder and disharmony. That the Chapel is an unwelcome place, especially since the return of one of Founder Rev. Gene Larr's earlier ministers, Rev. Basia Koenig.

Chapel Guardian is aware, however, that disharmony and discord date before Rev. Koenig's return, or Pastor Rev. Ann Lorenzini's attempts to keep Chapel on track. This disharmony was directly caused by those who now seek to "restore order" to the Chapel. The proof is here:

One of the major names associated with Friends of Chapel is Rev. Eric Berg. Chapel Guardian does not exist to attack ministers personally, so this is not a commentary on him directly or his affiliation with Friends of Chapel. What he has to say about discord at Chapel is subtle but interesting, and it comes from the excerpts of his own minister's reports as posted on his website: eclarr.zinfinite.com/rev_eric.htm (emphasis in bold added by Chapel Guardian).

From his 2005 report: "Fear is the opposite of trust. Isn’t it individual fear that most effectively blocks our development as individuals? So here too, fear of what others may do (called mistrust) most effectively blocks development of Chapel as a whole."

From his 2004 report: "I'll work with the other ministers more this year, so that the harmony among us improves and we can go beyond just taking care of business here at Chapel and be examples of some of the miracles we’re training to do."

From his 2003 report: "Let's focus on harmony and our practice. Doing Board business is like housecleaning - it’s necessary but not the point. I’m practicing to refine it into being effortless and fun for everyone."

The group of people most involved during these years are the ones who left when Pastor Lorenzini needed their help the most after Rev. Larr passed away. They were the ministers and board members (and their associates) who Rev. Berg addressed in his minister's reports. He is part of this group himself. They are the Friends of Chapel, and it is the group that has caused the most discord of all since 2006, and certainly in 2009.

From Rev. Berg's own writings, it appears the rancor started long ago. It wouldn't have been addressed in minister's reports were it not a pressing issue.

Something to keep in mind as 2009 draws to a close.

Reflections for the Holiday

If there is one thing the last decade has taught us, it is that one cannot take what another says simply at face value, believe it, and act on it. We have seen this in acts of war, and acts of politics.

We have unfortunately seen this in certain circles associated with Chapel of Awareness. And before you nod to yourself thinking "yes, that's them," read completely ...

In 2009, Chapel of Awareness saw the cancellation of memberships based on non-participation, as interpreted through due process by the Board of Trustees.

Some current and former members seized on this action to build a movement based on their own self-interest. This group was formed by people who left Pastor Rev. Ann Lorenzini in the lurch after Founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr passed away. They were gone for three years and did nothing as Rev. Lorenzini struggled to keep the Chapel going.

What this splinter group cannot stand, however, is the fact that she succeeded where they expected her to fail. She brought in a minister -- the only one to Chapel Guardian's knowledge awarded mediumship papers by Rev. Larr -- to help rebuild the Chapel after the exodus of ministers and members after his death. With Rev. Basia Koenig's inspiration, they rallied the membership through fundraisers to replace the Chapel's aging roof. They brought back events first started by Rev. Larr, such as Reading in the Round, and original teachings into the classroom.

The Friends of Chapel will not tell you this. It is not in their self-interest to do so.

Chapel Guardian has already taken Friends of Chapel to task for their questionable tactics and mean-spirited actions, so there is no need to rehash them in this message.

What is tremendously sad is that people with legitimate questions have been brought into the so-called Friends' fold like a dark figure trying to build a following. Chapel Guardian is not saying that this is what they are, only that their behavior shows this.

Good decisions cannot be made when only one side of a story is given ... frankly, forced upon a captive audience (current and former members of Chapel being that audience).

Fundamentalist religions and political dictatorships show all too well what happens when a flock is encouraged -- required -- to listen only to its dogma. Judgment, hostility, and fear are the only glue that holds the bond together. Anything that could reveal cracks in that dogma is immediately attacked through words, actions, and thoughts.

And what have the so-called Friends of Chapel done?

1) Engage in fear: Using a questionably obtained mailing list to stir fear and rancor among the flock to bring people to their side. The Friends' Mission Statement says that they seek "to restore order to the Chapel," yet there never has been a lack of order ... only the rancor caused directly by the Friends' actions, even before the changes in membership, and the perpetuation of rumors.

2) Engage in judgment: Anyone who does not see the Friends' way has been demonized ... people with the kindest hearts who honestly have the Chapel's best interests at heart. Even the founder himself, Rev. Eugene C. Larr, as been demonized by the Friends' blog.

3) Engage in hostility: Friends of Chapel have recruited members and non-members to harangue Chapel parishioners before and after services, handing them leaflets of material and legal actions that should be left to a court to decide. Friends of Chapel disrupted a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees, engaging in a shouting match that forced regular business to be delayed. These are only two among several incidents and tactics concretely reported to Chapel Guardian, or witnessed by the Guardian itself.

Chapel Founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr began his institution in-part with the idea that enlightenment is discovered through good thought, good science, and exploration of the greatest philosophers and teachers of humankind.

In other words: An open mind and an open heart.

The actions of the Friends of Chapel run completely counter to these ideas. Chapel of Awareness does not need a cliche "Mission Statement" to live by Rev. Larr's principles, and it doesn't throw around "loving kindness," "thoughts are things" and "moderation" like an advertising campaign.

So as you grapple with the schism at the Chapel of Awareness, follow what the principles of the Chapel ask ... look at all sides and decide for yourself. Don't believe one side without looking at the other. And certainly don't decide based on how an interest group tells you to.

-- Chapel Guardian

Beware rumors

On Dec. 16, 2009, Rev. Sherry DeLoach wrote on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:

"During the Chapel board meeting Sunday, Barbara Koenig announced that "Chapel owns the rights to Dr. Larr's lectures, classes, etc?" At the FOC service we held on Sunday November 29th, we made the following announcement and are happy to repeat it for those of you who may have been confused by Barbara’s claim."

Rev. DeLoach was not at the meeting. What Rev. Koenig said was that Chapel has Dr. Larr's lectures, class materials, videos of his presentations, etc.

The Chapel, which Dr. Larr founded, has his material associated with the church, which therefore has the rights to that material.

Rev. DeLoach also said that Rev. Donald Schwartz has announced plans to publish material he has in his own possession, supposedly left to him by Dr. Larr. If he has the rights to that material, then of course he can publish it.

But beware of rumors about the Dec. 13 Annual Meeting stated by people who weren't present to witness it.

Where's the letter?

In a Dec. 16 posting on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com, Wanda Olson writes:

"Well folks it has happened again...on December 16th, just 3 days after the remaining Chapel members voted Reverend Ken Schmidt in as Pastor of the church, Rev Ann Lorenzini drafted yet another demembering letter. Rev Ken... received it Saturday....he had hoped to help heal what is going on at Chapel and to bring back some peace and harmony, but Rev Ann thinks differently.."

It's interesting to note that the "friends" blog does not publish the contents of the Schmidt letter, while so many other "demembering" letters (including that of Don Schwartz) have been published.

Why is the "friends" blog hiding this letter from its constituents? Did Rev. Ann Lorenzini cite specific reasons that the "friends" don't want revealed?

One thing Chapel Guardian does know is that Schmidt was part of a slate of "friends" candidates, a list of whom was handed out, along with numerous talking points, to voting members of the Chapel of Awareness. This slate, and their affiliated members, came into the meeting with their own agenda, which was to force their way into positions of authority through intimidation and innuendo, from what Chapel Guardian observed.

Where's the money going?

In a Dec. 18, 2009, posting on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com, Wanda Olson writes:

"We still need to keep up our efforts as we have a January 8th court date....if you are inclined to make a contribution (payable to Wanda Olson) please mail it to.. FRIENDS OF CHAPEL, PO BOX 502, CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007.....thanks for your support...Wanda Olson"

This is the second time Chapel Guardian has observed Olson personally asking for money for the so-called "friends" cause. Anyone who has a fair sense of propriety would question why money for a collective cause would be funneled to one person, solely in their name.

Olson's request is particularly interesting given that the so-called "friends" lawsuit (according to copies handed outside the chapel at the Dec. 13 annual meeting) was filed by Rev. Nell Rose Smith, whose signature is on the documents.

Chapel: Hell on Earth ruled by a bully?

The so-called “Friends of Chapel” have printed a stunning attack on the founder of the spiritual organization they claim to represent … a direct attack on Rev. Eugene C. Larr.

The publication of this attack reveals something many at Chapel have long understood: The issues that the “Friends of Chapel” have are indeed based on their disdain for the teachings of the founder, and that this is indeed a schism disguised as a “membership” conflict.

Chapel described as “hell on earth”

In a lengthy message published on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com, a man by the name of Theo Tanalski calls the Chapel of Awareness “hell on earth” because Rev. Larr never adopted the precepts he believed in.

Tanalski states:

“Tau Sing’s four principles of non-interference, no distractions, moderation, and self-responsibility (ts4p), adequate for Green Jade Priests (contentious diverse group of individuals able to work together for thousands of years--so the story goes), would have worked to make Chapel the heaven on earth for those who conduct themselves and their organizations according to universal laws.

Ts4p was never adopted at Chapel. This has driven its path from a promising organization to hell on earth ...

... From the beginning (36 years ago) Rev. Gene Larr did not conduct Chapel according to Bylaws and ts4p. These sins (failings short of the marks) encouraged many of Board, Pastor, Staff, student, member, visitor to adopt delusions (believing what you know to be false) to rationalize this discrepancy.”

In this portion of the letter, Tanalski, now speaking for the so-called “Friends of Chapel” through his approved contributions to their blog site, outright accuses Rev. Eugene C. Larr of having the sin of delusion, having paved the way for further delusion by those around him.

If the “Friends of Chapel” believe the founder they hold in such high regard to be delusional, there can now only be one conclusion: These “Friends” are planning to take over Chapel of Awareness for themselves and to change the tenets of the organization for their own spiritual vision.

Indeed, the “Friends of Chapel” have already started holding their own services and have already published one Order of Service on their blog. At that service, it was reported that at least one minister ordained by Rev. Larr himself discussed the philosophy of an organization called Landmark, which while valid in its own right does not fall in line with Rev. Larr’s teachings.

Rev. Larr was a “bully”

In Tanalski’s ongoing assault, he accuses the Chapel of Awareness founder of being a bully.

Tanalski states:

“Rev. Larr dominated all channels of written communication to Chapel members, so members heard nothing from Board or other members, and only what Rev. Larr wanted said. In order to make sense out of this, Board members developed delusions to rationalize this situation, and did not communicate. Many members came to be deluded that what communications they got from Chapel was all they needed, and that Chapel practices what they preach, even though they didn't investigate to see what was going on at Chapel.

Rev. Larr did not institutionalize ts4p in Staff, Board, and members, so many (not all) Staff developed and used--what some 70% of people growing up in USA learn--bullying and factionalism to attempt to resolve problems, assert control, gain the Founder's attention. This too was rationalized by delusion and by making the acknowledgement of this bullying taboo in the culture.”

What is misleading, however, is exactly who has been doing the bullying. It is “Friends of Chapel” members who have been in the faces of parishioners at the front of Chapel on Sundays shoving literature in their faces. It is members of these “Friends” who have slandered pastor Rev. Ann Marie Lorenzini by claiming she has committed physical assault, as published on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com.

Now, the “Friends” attempt to claim Chapel of Awareness has come full circle by calling the founder himself, who is deceased, a delusional bully.

Membership conflict aside, it is clear in the opinion of Chapel Guardian that the so-called “Friends of Chapel” have taken advantage of this conflict to bring these people under their wing (their “vibration,” as they call it on the blog), and in turn twist the conflict to their own agenda through creating a schism.

The words and actions of the “Friends” group itself are the only evidence needed.

Unfair practices

Chapel Guardian recently received an unexpected mailing from the so-called “Friends of Chapel” group. This entry will take to task actions and assertions made in this mailing, including the blatant usurping of the “Chapel of Awareness” name through the use of a post office box not affiliated with the church.

The so-called “Friends” have every right to meet in fellowship on their own, as they appear to be doing. It even seems that this group could be considered the foundation of a new organization. This entry does not have an issue with their right to do that.

Where the organizers have crossed the line (again), in Chapel Guardian’s view, is in having the arrogance and audacity to claim the name of the church now for themselves. As quoted from the mailing (material bolded by Chapel Guardian for emphasis): “Please do not return your proxies to the present Pastor or Chairperson of the Board. Assign them to Rev. Donald Schwartz and mail to: Chapel of Awareness, PO Box 502, Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007.”

1) As already covered by Chapel Guardian, proxies are the purview of the Pastor and Board, not an individual member. Anyone with common sense would know that a member (of any such organization, of any self-claimed “title”) cannot simply ask for everyone’s proxies, bring them to a general annual meeting, and claim rights to vote for all those members they claim to represent. The process does not work that way. It is dishonest and deceptive to claim otherwise, in Chapel Guardian’s opinion.

If the so-called “Friends of Chapel” truly wanted to engage in protest, all they had to do was state their case and ask members simply to not vote at all, not divert proxies using a questionably obtained mailing list. Deception is unnecessary.

2) Even more deceptive and dishonest (and potentially illegal under postal code, although Chapel Guardian will not comment on such an assumption), is sending out a mailing to the church membership claiming their own address as that of Chapel of Awareness.

This action is ironic given that the mailing states that the group’s “... steering committee has chosen an experienced lawyer ...”

Chapel Guardian asks: What experienced lawyer would support the lifting of an organization’s name, using Postal Service mechanisms to do so, to achieve his or her client’s goals?

Also ironic is the group’s statement that it is “... striving for a fair election at the December Annual Board Meeting ...”

Chapel Guardian asks: How can the so-called “Friends” claim to seek a fair election when they have interrupted due process of the church corporation?

Finally, the so-called “Friends” group consistently claims the mantle of Rev. Eugene C. Larr’s legacy. To Chapel Guardian’s knowledge, Rev. Larr’s teachings and legacy were not built on mean-spirited, deceptive and dishonest practices, and personal attacks.

Chapel mail diversion?

(**This is a reader submission and does not necessarily represent the view of the blog administrator.)

A post office box #502 was rented by Friends of Chapel in Cardiff by the Sea, CA, to misdirect mail intended for Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church, 560 Third Street, Encinitas, CA 92024, to the Friends of Chapel post office box in Cardiff.

A flyer was sent out by the FOC requesting that California 501-C-3 Non-Profit Corporation proxies addressed to Chapel of Awareness in Encinitas -- intended for use by the Board of Trustees at the Annual Meeting of the Corporation -- be addressed and sent instead to "Chapel of Awareness" at the post office box in Cardiff rented by Friends of Chapel.

According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, this qualifies as a Mail Service Issue.

Sleuth

Look to yourself before throwing stones

For the past couple of weeks, Chapel Guardian has stayed largely silent given the lack of activity on the so-called “friendsofchapel” rant (as now admitted by one of the “friends” writers themselves).

In recent days, however, the so-called “friendsofchapel” have ratcheted up their vitriol. Chapel Guardian assumes this must be a buildup to the Chapel of Awareness annual meeting in December, at which time they may attempt a hostile takeover of the organization. Chapel Guardian sees this possible goal based on the so-called "friends" own actions.

So in this posting, Chapel Guardian will look at the so-called recent “friends” posts to analyze their apparent level of seething anger. The so-called “friends” claim they are the ones of peace? That they are the ones who are the truly spiritual? They accuse the current pastor and others of the church of being nonspiritual and political?

Chapel Guardian suggests they look to themselves first before they throw their stones.

Please note that these “rants” as posted by the so-called “friends” are on a public blog, and are therefore subject to criticism and opinion in general (just as Chapel Guardian is). It is Chapel Guardian’s hope that those with interest in this situation at Chapel of Awareness will read both blogs and make truly informed decisions for themselves separately from the rancor.

The "Rant"

On Nov. 15, 2009, a man by the name of Peter Libby posted what he admitted was a “rant” (Chapel Guardian understands he was ordained at Chapel, so keep that in mind).

The letter’s second paragraph reads:

“I was one of the first few people who came under fire from Ann Barnicoat’s (Lorenzini, or whatever) early attempts to rid the Chapel of any and all who opposed her or posed any kind of threat to her desired position of absolute control. From the very first moment she accepted the role as Pastor, it was abundantly clear to me that she knew nothing about what this role entailed. First and foremost, a pastor is the spiritual leader of a church. Ann has never understood this and has, in fact, seemingly gone out of her way to operate in a manner that is polar opposite to spiritual.”

First of all, note Libby’s personal attack of the pastor by belittling her name as “whatever,” immediately designed to demean her. You don’t have to throw civility out the window just because you’re fighting for something. Libby does not understand this spiritual principle, judging from the first line.

Below is the third paragraph of the letter, which contains misinformation that Chapel Guardian can only assume is designed to misguide anyone who reads the “rant,” as he calls it.

“It may seem harsh but it remains, nonetheless, a fact that Ann's rise to such negative power, as well as the return and contributing negativity of Barbara Koenig, all stem from a lack of opposition. Every time Ann was re-elected as Pastor, every time she (with the help of Barbara and the Board she put together) were allowed to perpetrate such acts that have been so negative, so outrageous, so illegal and unethical,......we must recognize that it is we, ourselves, who are to blame. Whether you mechanically cast your vote, or sit back and do nothing, the result is the same.”

Libby’s statement gives the impression that the “negative” Rev. Barbara Koenig has been a source of the perceived problems at Chapel for a good length of time. It is important to note that Rev. Koenig’s new participation in Chapel did not begin until 2006. Even by the so-called “friends’” own admission, the conflicts at Chapel go far beyond 2006.

Rev. Koenig’s involvement is a random element that the so-called “friends” did not anticipate in their behind-the-scenes plan to mount a hostile takeover dating back to the time of Rev. Gene Larr’s passing. The so-called “friends” have used the Chapel leadership’s right to purge membership roles for whatever reason it saw fit to mount their final attempt to take over Chapel of Awareness for their own agenda. That does indeed date back to 2006.

The only thing Chapel Guardian can surmise from bringing Rev. Koenig’s name into the mix is to kill the messenger. Rev. Koenig, as membership chair, signed the original membership cancellation letter. But that doesn’t mean the decision was ultimately hers to make. Killing the messenger is not compassionate, and therefore not spiritual.

In summary, he states:

“Well, thank you for reading my rantings.”

In the copy of his letter to the pastor, posted on “friendsofchapel,” he signs off stating: “Disgustingly yours.” Are those the words of someone supposedly ordained at Chapel of Awareness?

Chapel Guardian thanks Libby for providing his rants, as they provide interesting insight into just how questionable the so-called “friends” movement is. The vast majority of the posts on “friendsofchapel” have used innuendo, anger and questionable tactics to promote an agenda. Read Chapel Guardian’s earlier posts to understand more.

The so-called “friends” have indeed been posting rants designed to harm personally people they don’t agree with. It is interesting that the so-called “friends” are willing to put forth such negative energy toward a hostile takeover of the Chapel of Awareness, when – if Rev. Larr’s teachings really meant anything to them – they could take what they have learned to create their own spiritual organization. Ministers and members of the Chapel have gone on to do this for decades.

That is one true measure of a spiritual path. When in disagreement, part ways and build your own path.

The only civilized voice of the "friends"

In reference to an Oct. 20, 2009, post on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:

In reading the generally mean-spirited and factually questionable material on the "friendsofchapel" blog, it was heartening to see one civilized ray of light in the form of the posting placed on Oct. 20 on the "friends" blog.

Had the discussion about Chapel's future taken this route -- rather than the apparent "let it die and then take over" mentality of this group dating back to Rev. Larr's passing around 2006 -- the current situation would likely have played out in a much better, more constructive way.

Why so angry?

(**This is a reader submission and does not necessarily represent the view of the blog administrator.)

Hello Guardian:

What is that FOC group so angry about? They lay claim to the original teachings of the church, lay claim to scores of "friends" and several ministers, so why don't they start their own church? As I hear it, they didn't support, contribute to, or participate in the original church after the founder died, so it seems to me they would want to have their own organization.

The church building sits on a prime piece of real estate located at the corner of 3rd and E in upscale Encinitas, worth from 5 million to 8 million dollars. It sits across the street from the empty old Pacific View School site which is prime for development in the downtown historic district. When the founder died, I understand the first thing out of the collective mouth of that FOC group was, "Who holds title to the deed?"

So it's all about the money, and all that stuff about spirituality is smoke and mirrors. It's pretty clear to me that group wants the building, and they thought if they all walked away, the hand full left to run the church couldn't do it. I guess they figured that it would be just a matter of time before they could come back in force and simply take it over. I think they deserve what they got by losing their membership, and don't deserve what they're after.

Sleuth

Threats of humiliation

Regarding an Oct. 14, 2009, post on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:

A letter dated Oct. 9, 2009, by an attorney representing "friendsofchapel" was sent to the Chapel of Awareness Board of Trustees (which was subsequently mailed out to Chapel members using a questionably obtained Chapel mailing list).

The letter "orders" the Board of Trustees to step down (why they would do so based solely on one lawyer's demand is odd). What stands out in this letter is the following, if the board did NOT meet this lawyer's demand. In the letter, the lawyer states that trustees' failure to resign would "result in severe financial consequences to each of you personally if a lawsuit is filed, as well as public humiliation if this situation is allowed to escalate."

A lawyer threatening public humiliation if a church's board doesn't bend to their request? That seems pretty outrageous. Since when is "public humiliation" a legal course of action? It's not. What it can be, however, is libelous.

It's ironic, in this blogger's opinion, that the lawyer would also demand that the Chapel end its so-called "escalation" of the current conflict. The only escalation to be found, however, is in the behavior observed on the "friendsofchapel" blog site.

Based on this lawyer's statement, in this poster's opinion, it seems as if the "friendsofchapel" are willing to engage in public humiliation to achieve whatever goal they seek. Is that what founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr would want?

"Without full approval of the board"

In an Oct. 15, 2009, post on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:
"I recall when I was membership chair; I was expressly prohibited of sending any correspondence of ANY sort without full approval of the board."

This statement was included in an angry red-inked letter in which the author takes the Chapel's Board of Trustees to task for recent decisions. There is an incredible irony with this statement.

The letter writer is part of the "friendsofchapel" group, yet they specifically, strongly make the statement above that they were "expressly prohibited of sending any correspondence of ANY sort without full approval of the board" while serving as membership chair.

But isn't that exactly what this group has done in the act of using a questionably obtained Chapel mailing list, then sending out "PROXIES" to confuse the membership? Proxies are the purview of the Board of Trustees, not a splinter group.

"Appropriate proxies"

On Oct. 20, 2009, it was posted on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:
"Please fill out the form, sign the appropriate proxy(ies), fold it and drop it in the mail at your earliest convenience. Thank You."

These so-called "proxies" were sent out in a mailing to Chapel members from a questionably obtained mailing list. A link for the "proxy" form is on the "friendsofchapel" site.

These "proxies" were NOT sent out by Chapel leadership as a duty of the church corporation, and would be invalid come the church's annual meeting for that reason alone.

The mailing of these "proxies" can only be interpreted in one of two ways based on the method and reasoning behind their mailing:

1) They are designed to usurp the authority of the Board of Trustees and membership of the Chapel.

2) They are designed to confuse Chapel members -- including those who are exercising their right to express any frustration toward the church -- by creating an atmosphere in which the leadership of the Chapel is unclear, possibly harming the legal process of the annual meeting.

"Background checks" is misleading

Oct. 15, 2009, it was stated on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:
“I have heard that to become a member of Chapel now you need to fill out a back ground check paper.”

Note the use of "I have heard" ... in other words, based on rumor as opposed to fact. More importantly, however ...

The phrase “background check” is misleading and, by definition, would indicate that Chapel of Awareness is now doing legal background checks of those interested in memberships. This is not the case.

What Chapel is asking for is a statement of interest as to why one would wish to be a member, including information about their interests in study and exploration of their spiritual pathway. This is hardly a background check. What they ask is important, however, especially for those who wish to study in Chapel’s classes.

Further clarification on this is welcome. Please send any information to this blog.