Showing posts with label Mediation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mediation. Show all posts

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Chapel of Awareness pastor's letter

"Your current Board members are all free thinkers and none were held hostage or coerced into making decisions they didn't agree with."
Reverend Don Miller, Chapel of Awareness pastor


In such a fractious time in the world, in an era where unity is needed most in the name of "loving kindness" (as the Friends of Chapel have put it) Chapel of Awareness Pastor Don Miller takes an uncalled-for slap to the faces of a good amount of the Chapel of Awareness membership who supported the previous Board prior to (and during) the Friends' lawsuit.

Reverend Miller has opted to turn what was once a positive, inspirational, and unifying annual letter to the congregation by previous pastors into a negative political play designed to ostracize those he and the Friends of Chapel do not agree with. Coercion and "hostage holding" are serious accusations. He has thrown them at current members without qualification or example. This is inappropriate and unbecoming of a pastor -- especially one who admits in his own letter that he has been gone from Chapel for about a third of a year.

Reverend Miller states in the letter that Reverend Nell Rose Smith took over as Pastor in his absence, yet the present church bylaws do not state a procedure for such a handover (the closest that can be found is the calling of a special meeting of the congregation); even if such a handover was done properly by board action, no notice was ever sent out to the congregation.

Before he takes this slap at members and the previous board (representative of the chapel membership as elected), Reverend Miller refers to church founder Reverend Eugene C. Larr's "mundane practices" of teaching. Does he really mean to call the founder's teachings "mundane"? As to say, by definition, "common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative"? From Chapel Guardians' observations, this approach falls in line with the very publishing of the book In the Beginning, material that (by the book's own admission) founder Larr did not want published (a position he was consistent on for years).


Reverend Miller's letter is ironic in that he literally sat on both sides of the fence during the church conflict, serving and voting with some of the very board members he accuses of "hostage holding" while supporting the Friends' lawsuit. This calls his loyalties into question when it comes to a whole congregation, which Chapel of Awareness members assumed would be made whole by the Friends' stated goals upon taking over the church. This letter does not make the congregation whole; it only keeps the wound open. Many argue that it is the Friends of Chapel who fractured the congregation to begin with, and based on the actions (recall: right thought, right action) of the sitting leadership, Chapel Guardian must now agree.


Reverend Miller says the current Friends leadership is working to make sure there are no hostile takeovers of Chapel of Awareness. But there has been one. Theirs ..... From the filing of a lawsuit to the banning of ministers, corporate members and leadership against mediation, to the publishing of a book the founder didn't want to a new leadership that has been consolidated into Friends of Chapel backers.


From the letter, Reverend Miller would have the membership believe that Chapel of Awareness was saved from some underground force bent on taking it over (odd, given that the alleged ringleader was pastor for about two decades). That was not the case, no matter what Friends of Chapel propaganda would have you believe.


Reverend Miller's tone -- his statements in this letter -- is a new unfortunate chapter in Chapel of Awareness history. Is this what Chapel of Awareness has come to? Is this what Reverends Eugene C. Larr and Donald Schwartz would advocate? Is this what you want out of what has often recently been termed "Your Chapel"?


Tuesday, November 23, 2010

re: Letter from the Chapel of Awareness pastor

(Reposted from comments since it poses a good question)

Anonymous said...
"As members of the board, they were the very targets of the lawsuit they later supported. Their contributions to the Chapel have been confusing at best, deceptive at worst, in Chapel Guardian opinion." Another interesting side note to this comment is that Amy Milford was NOT named on the law suit. Rev. Nell Rose Smith substituted Amy Burger's name for Amy Milford in the document. Amy Burger did not serve on the board until much later that year and was not involved in the decisions being disputed.

Friday, April 23, 2010

"please post this comment"

Fw: Re please post this comment
xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com


Dear Chapel Guardian (whoever you may be):

This is to thank you on behalf of the Chapel of Awareness for being the lone voice of sanity during all of our recent turmoil. It felt good to know that someone out there could see through the morass and know what the truth really was. Please know that we do appreciate your very fair comments.

I do want to clarify one thing however. The Chapel of Awareness group did not agree to taking down the Guardian blog. On the contrary, we told them that we did not know who the Guardian was and we had no authority to ask him/her to do this. Apparently they didn't believe us. You are right in saying that we cannot speak for you and truly, we did not. I trust you will believe us on this matter as we would very much like to meet you one day and shake your hand.

Sincerely,

Rev. Ann Marie Lorenzini,
Chairman of the Board
Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church

Friday, April 9, 2010

Mediation does not apply to this website

It has been brought to Chapel Guardian’s attention that, in mediation, Friends of Chapel demanded that the Chapel Guardian blog be taken down as part of its agreement with Chapel of Awareness. In turn, Chapel of Awareness agreed to this arrangement, provided that Friends of Chapel take its blog down in return.

The statement of intent on this blog is clear, and has been unchanged since the Friends’ blog and legal action began: “Chapel Guardian represents only the opinions of the administrator, and is not a sanctioned activity of the Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church Corporation or any other entity or person.”

Apparently, the Friends of Chapel mediation group neither read nor understood this statement.

The Friends of Chapel mediation group had no business demanding that a third-party blog be taken down as part of their own lawsuit. Chapel of Awareness had no business agreeing to it.

Such a demand is just as inappropriate as if Chapel were to demand that Rev. Eric Berg take down his blog site (revericsblog.blogspot.com) ... one that uses the words “senile dementia” in the same breath as board chair Rev. Ann Lorenzini ... when he is not a named party in the Friends’ litigation, either.

Therefore, Chapel Guardian does not recognize this demand and agreement on the part of Friends of Chapel and Chapel of Awareness. These parties have no right to demand the silencing of free speech, especially when the blog in question is not a litigant in this case. This demand is not binding on Chapel Guardian.

Chapel Guardian will consider legal avenues if there is a continued attempt to “mediate” away its right to free speech by anyone involved in this dispute, especially when Chapel Guardian is not a plaintiff or a defendant.

The Chapel Guardian was not the first to attack the characters of Chapel congregants, ministers, and board members. But it was the first to defend them, and it will continue doing so.