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"?

Chapel of Awareness annual meeting and chairman's letter

As Chapel of Awareness enters its annual phase of electing members of the board, Chapel Guardian take note of some points made by Reverend Nell Rose Smith in her letter to the congregation in her capacity as board chair. [Mailed election materials are at the bottom of this post]

As with last year on the heels of the Friends of Chapel take-over of Chapel of Awareness, Reverend Nell states: “nothing is more precious than the generosity of those who make it work through their commitment, time and energy, their ideas and resources” … none of which Reverend Nell provided herself when she and the Friends of Chapel faction disappeared from Chapel of Awareness and then proceeded to sue the church as it struggled.

She thanks the following people whose behavior was questionable over the year: She thanks Reverend Sherry DeLoach as membership director [who has resigned her board position], who sent collection notice-style letters to corporate members warning them of their “termination” if they did not pay their corporate dues. A stick-rather-than-a-carrot approach with shades of the very behavior she and the Friends accused the former board of. Reverend Nell also thanks Terry Hall as the webmaster, who was cited by Yelp and Wikipedia for terms-of-service violations and who proliferated Chapel of Awareness “business” listings across Websites of questionable taste and information.

Finally, in the annual meeting materials provided to the membership this year, the sitting board opted not to provide pre-stamped proxy envelopes to mail back to chapel. The stamping of the return proxy envelopes, for years, was designed to encourage members to return their proxies in the event they could not attend the annual meeting – as a courtesy. The sitting board has apparently chosen to forgo courtesy, and perhaps discourage proxy voting by this quiet, albeit incidental, change of procedure.

Chapel of Awareness closed?

 Chapel Guardian were tipped off this week that Chapel of Awareness' Facebook page says that Chapel is "Closed Now".

The Friends of Chapel's public Chapel of Awareness Facebook Page, as of October 20th and 21st, does indeed clearly state that Chapel is "Closed now". (see attached page copy and this link)

For almost two years now, the Friends of Chapel (now in control of Chapel) have continually claimed that expelled Pastor Reverend Ann Lorenzini and the expelled board of directors closed chapel during the Friends lawsuit against the Chapel; a claim that was not true. Up until just a couple of months ago, Friends of Chapel member Reverend Eric Berg made the same claim on his own Chapel of Awareness page; a claim he removed after Chapel Guardian brought it to the congregation's attention.

Now, we see the very people perpetuating this misinformation stating on their own Chapel of Awareness Facebook Page that they have now closed Chapel of Awareness.

This is truly sad, and deserves public clarification. Please hold the Friends of Chapel on the current church board accountable for what this closure means, as the Annual Meeting approaches.

Chapel of Awareness was not closed

A Chapel Guardian follower sent in a tip about an interesting passage on Reverend Eric Berg's Website about the Chapel of Awareness' status from 2006 to 2010.

He states in part: "Although I was not a part of Chapel from June 2006 to 2010 while working in Washington State ..... After Chapel reopened in Spring/2010 and after Donald crossed over in September/2010, I contributed on the teaching staff and clergy ....."

Chapel was not closed at any time during this period; it's a leading statement that could be easily interpreted that Chapel of Awareness was closed from 2006 to 2010. The statement is inaccurate. As has already been covered on this blog, the chapel board of directors (during the Friends of Chapel lawsuit against the Chapel) held limited services downstairs and put other functions on hold in early 2010 until the resolution of the Friends lawsuit.

Any claim that this blog is wrong on this point can be countered by this: During the Chapel's time of limited services in early 2010, Friends of Chapel members were witnessed on several occasions staging drive-by checks and standing outside the building during the limited services, during the time Eric Berg claims that the Chapel was "closed". Why would the Friends of Chapel stage such drive-bys and stand-bys of services if no one was there and the church was closed?

Eric Berg, either innocently or on purpose, is inaccurate in his claim that the Chapel of Awareness was closed in the fashion that he states it.

Psychics that "astound"

The Friends of Chapel in control of Chapel of Awareness apparently continue to post to "business" websites like this one. Not only does this post on "Cylex" (www.cylex-usa.com/company/chapel-of-awareness-730358.html) contain web ads that throw Chapel in with online psychics that claim to "astound", it gives erroneous information about Chapel. The fax number listed is for a florist shop (a "Chapel Hill Florist"), not Chapel of Awareness. Yet the Chapel description on this page appears to be written by someone in the know.

Chapel of Awareness "missionaries" and "religion"

Chapel Guardian received an observation about something found on the Encinitas Patch web site (http://encinitas.patch.com/listings/chapel-of-awareness). The Chapel of Awareness has posted a double-talk description that seems to further show that the Friends of Chapel now running the church know little if anything about the real work of founder, Rev. Eugene C. Larr, and the philosophy of the Chapel.

Here is what they say:

"Chapel of Awareness follows a religion of the spirit known as Tau Sing. Rev. Eugene C. Larr held the first service of the Chapel of Awareness on December 24, 1972 in a building that was formerly used as a Methodist church. Visit the Chapel of Awareness website to read more about Tau Sing."

"Services: Missionary programs"

This is flat out wrong, in Chapel Guardians' view. Since when does Chapel send out "missionaries" as part of a program? What is a Chapel of Awareness missionary? The use of "religion" to describe Larr's and Chapel's contribution to spiritual development, is more alarming.

As the Chapel of Awareness leadership have worded it, their description of the Chapel of Awareness is vague and open to interpretations - a religion called Tau Sing, or a religion of the one spirit, Tau Sing. What does that mean? What is "Tau Singism"? Or "Tauism"? Or "Singism"? If Tau Sing is "the religion of the spirit", does that mean Tau Sing is God? Or is it a religion -of- spirit.

What exactly are the Friends of Chapel saying here? And where are the Friends sending their missionaries?

The Friends of Chapel, in Chapel Guardian opinion, seem to be trying to change Larr's vision of spiritualism -without- dogma and religion into a religion itself. This is the opposite of Chapel of Awareness's purpose.

Chapel of Awareness "spirits"

What business does Chapel of Awareness have advertising on a site for wine??

As the previous observation noted, this is yet again another example of what happens when an organization floods the internet with promotional listings that end up on questionable sites.

Do we really want people to search online and find this kind of thing? Sorry, Chapel, wrong kind of "spirits". Funny, but embarrassing.

Chapel of Awareness "spirits"

Chapel of Awareness now a spam vehicle?

A basic internet search today showed a top level result (showed up starting around 5a-m this morning apparently) that uses Chapel of Awareness as a spam vehicle for "replica adidas sunglasses wholesale - three years with Chapel of Awareness". This is embarrassing, and avoidable.

Why does this matter to our congregation? Well when you flood the internet with yourself across "business" web sites as the Chapel's current leadership have done, you open yourself up to this kind of abuse. Chapel's current Board of Directors had no business sending out Chapel of Awareness listings under "business" sites (questionable ones in some cases, web searches show) for what we thought was (used to be, at least) a church. Who wants to attend a church that's becoming an on-line spam vehicle?

Foul-mouthed Chapel of Awareness

Friends of Chapel members Terry Hall and others are now regular speakers on Sundays at the Chapel of Awareness (in place of apparently AWOL Friends of Chapel ministers). If the philosophy of "You are known by your works" is any indication, the Tweets below (from Friends of Chapel members Terry and Amy Hall) are a window into the kind of mindset of these Sunday speakers ...

Where are the Chapel of Awareness ministers?

A couple of tips came to Chapel Guardian recently after the Guardians' post about the Chapel of Awareness calendar.

Regarding one tip, Guardian appreciate that the Friends of Chapel leadership took note and chose to follow the spirit of church bylaws by adding monthly board meetings to the calendar. Until Guardian brought up the issue, board meetings had stopped being placed on the calendar. Keeping the meetings on the calendar keeps the Friends of Chapel leadership in line with the bylaws, which state that members of the congregation can attend the board at meetings. That is difficult to do when no one knows the meeting dates. So kudos for making that change.

But the calendar now seems to indicate that ministers are stepping away from their active participation in Sunday services (a familiar tone when these same ministers became inactive in Chapel starting in 2006 ... are we seeing a repeat of that?). The new calendar (as of April 26th) shows only four Chapel minister-led Sunday lectures for the entire spring and summer seasons. All the rest (between May 1st and September 11th) are listed with semi-anonymous first names like "Lecture by Bill", followed by "Lecture by To Be Announced" starting September 18th.

Why would someone curious about Chapel of Awareness be inclined to make the choice to attend a Sunday service for the first time with a "Lecture by Bill"? Or a "Lecture by Helene"? etc. What kind of message does that send? The Chapel of Awareness web site is a window into the church for those potentially interested in finding out more. A "Lecture by Bill" is not the way to do that, as far as Chapel Guardian are concerned.

So where are the ministers?? More importantly, where is the Pastor??

They and the Pastor are supposed to be leading Sunday services, and leading the lectures. Turning this responsibility over to no-name mysteries sends a murky message.

No Chapel of Awareness board meetings?

A Chapel Guardian observer sent in a note that Chapel's online Calendar shows only Services and Classes but no scheduled Board Meetings even though the calendar legend shows they should be on there. As of 4-14-11 the Calendar shows no Board Meetings listed for ANY month this year. Classes are there; Services are there; but there are no Meetings.

If the Meetings are actually happening, why aren't they in the Calendar? In the past Chapel Board Meetings were open to the Members to attend and even speak. The Friends of Chapel flooded some of them in 2009 and 2010 and in one they even brought a yelling, threatening lawyer demanding that they be heard. Now that they are in control, nothing.

January's Calendar highlights the Friends' Chili Cook-Off. So apparently Chili Cook-Offs are more important than following Chapel of Awareness Bylaws and running regular Meetings of church business?

Chapel of Awareness business?

Tourists traveling in the area made an unwitting observation about how the Friends of Chapel appear to be changing Chapel of Awareness's direction into business and not a nonprofit church.

The photo above has a note attached saying "They were having a cute gallery shop, so we popped in". (dated March 12th) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/orignauxmoose/5545080034/)

The church's new leadership has been sending out notices about rummage sales (including one that was planned for March 5th), but then some church members got a message promoting an art show for Donald Schwartz. The note posted by the tourists seems to indicate that what they saw was not an art show but a "gallery shop". That sounds like a storefront, not an event. (Note also that nowhere in the promotion for the art show, or even the rummage sales, is there an indication of any proceeds going to the church as a fund-raiser)

Before the Friends of Chapel took over, Chapel of Awareness had set up a store, but it was for parishioners with all proceeds going to the church as a fundraiser. It was not a storefront for the public.

What steps has the new Chapel leadership taken to make sure that they are operating a storefront properly under the auspices of a non-profit church? As usual, who knows?

Given the Friends' placement of Chapel of Awareness under a large number of online "business" listings (not religious), and now with the creation of this "store" and a book without showing how Rev. Gene Larr's church is benefiting, the appearance is that the new church leadership is moving Chapel of Awareness towards a for-profit business, in Chapel Guardian view.

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, as long as it is done legally and transparently to the congregation. No matter what, as of now the focus is becoming confusing.

You don’t have to go to Chapel of Awareness anymore …

… because all the basics to Chapel of Awareness philosophy are apparently now contained in a single book called “In the Beginning: A Spiritualist’s Bible”, a book claiming to be the ultimate compilation of work by the late Rev. Eugene C. Larr, the Chapel’s founder.

Did it not occur to author Donald Schwartz and those he thanked in the book’s acknowledgments that by publishing the entire lecture series, among other materials, they have effectively ended the purpose of Chapel itself?

Why attend live presentations of the Beginning Lecture Series or Sunday Services when you can buy the book and read at your leisure, anywhere, anytime?

In Chapel Guardian point of view, the publishing of this book puts Chapel’s purpose in jeopardy. There’s no point in “answering your spiritual knock” when you don’t even need to approach the door anymore.

The book outright acknowledges that “for more than 30 years, Rev. Larr refused to have his classes, lectures, and lessons published in print. He remained concerned that misinterpretation and misrepresentation would ensue” (page 11).

Rev. Larr is absolutely right.

All one need do is look at the “interpretations” and claims of channeling found in the “The Season”, an occasional publication of the “new” Chapel of Awareness. An example:

Rev. Nell Rose Smith is stated to have channeled the Chapel’s founder (as published in the Winter 2010/11 “Season”). The “channel” seems to reveal Rev. Larr to be morose on spirit-side: “When I focused only on money, then I saw only the poverty of my life” … “When I focused only on my goals and achievement, I saw only my failures,” the publication quotes “Rev. Larr” as saying. Who among Chapel members would honestly think that Rev. Larr only focused on money in life when church donations – on principle – were practically discouraged, and membership was free to 5 dollars for three decades? Who among Chapel members honestly believe that Rev. Larr only saw failures when he built an organization that only the rarest of individuals can? These words warrant critical analysis. As Rev. Larr himself insisted, as a scientist.

Instead of following Rev. Larr’s wisdom, the “Bible” authors (and we use plural because it is clear that this material was put together not by Donald Schwartz alone) claim that “Gene was finally convinced” to publish. That very well might be true, given the heavy handed tactics we have seen from the Friends of Chapel group which alienated many of the congregation.

In fact, the Friends of Chapel who paved the way for this book are mostly the ones who sued Rev. Larr’s own creation. By name in the book (page vii), they are acknowledged: Rev. Eric Berg, Rev. Sherry DeLoach, Rev. Don Miller, Rev. Bob Sisler, Rev. Nell Rose Smith, Debra Bernath, Marie Dardarian, Helene Dorian, Monica Hagen, Melissa Hall, Ernie Linkous, Wanda Olson, Dietmar Rothe, Suzanne Sisler, Drucilla (Kubicka) Thiercof, and Sheri Wachstetter.

Also distressing is that the copyright of the book (2011) is listed solely as that of the late Donald R. Schwartz. Chapel Guardian must assume that any royalties from the book are going to his estate and those who run it. The new Chapel of Awareness leadership (mostly those acknowledged in the book) have yet to provide any explanation as to how Chapel of Awareness benefits from the publication of this material. Donations? Royalties? How will Rev. Larr’s organization survive?

The Beginning Lecture Series and other materials were also part of Chapel’s legacy. Any claim by Rev. Larr’s organization appears to have been wiped out by the publication, based on Chapel Guardian reading of the book’s copyright notice. The book even goes so far as to publish the church’s precepts (page 1). Does that now make Chapel of Awareness itself beholden to Schwartz’s estate?

In the end, the struggle around the publishing of the “Bible” isn’t so much about Rev. Larr’s philosophy itself. It’s about how it’s being treated, and the very fear Rev. Larr had most – that people would misinterpret and misuse this information.

Perhaps the best example of this can be found in Rev. Bob Sisler’s forward (page 9), in which Sisler concludes: “One last thing to remember, the book isn’t about Rev. Larr, it’s about you! (sic)”

No. It’s not all about “you”. It’s about all of us. In this case, it’s also about Rev. Larr’s legacy.

Rev. Larr taught the virtues of looking inward and developing the self, and building awareness. Sisler’s own words, in Chapel Guardian opinion, are an example of the misinterpretation Rev. Larr most feared.

There is a difference between focusing on the self and being self-centered.

More new Chapel of Awareness irony

 A Chapel Guardian observer knowldgeable of local politics picked up on this one:

Terry Hall --- who is in charge of the Friends' Chapel of Awareness web site and distributed misinformation and mean-spirited Internet posts against Pastor Ann Lorenzini (as established by public documents easily found in online searches and on the friendsofchapel blog) --- comments on a Coast News story about the inappropriateness of "trying to coerce your compliance by threatened legal action".

He should know of such tactics, given his involvement in and support of the vitriolic behavior, twisted facts, and legal action on the part of the Friends of Chapel in the last year.

The post can be found at:
http://thecoastnews.com/view/full_story/12281926/article-Op-Ed--Publisher-says-Review-seeks-to-control-ad-prices-in-Rancho-Santa-Fe?

Ironic, in Chapel Guardian opinion.

Chapel of Awareness "rummage sale"

Note to Guardian: Received a tip about a Craigslist post for Chapel's March 5 rummage sale. Interesting thing is the post which was dated February 28 was flagged for removal. Try the link on it and it goes to "This posting has been flagged for removal.". Usually these things are flagged for some kind of posting violation or questionable content. Seems to be a recurring issue with the new group's use of the web. Biggest unanswered question is where the money from these rummage sales is going? If its a Chapel event then it needs to state these are donations to Chapel. They never say that. If its not a Chapel event then they need to say that too. Imagine members trying to write off donations that actually aren't.

Chapel of Awareness letter about revoking memberships

Chapel Guardian received the above letter (name removed by request) from a Chapel of Awareness member. The letter from Sherry DeLoach uses (as the sender noted) the words "revoke" and "terminate", which by definition carry punitive connotations.

From Chapel Guardian's reading, the wording of Sherry DeLoach's letter falls within this definition, indicating without being explicit that punitive action is imminent. Just because someone chooses not to renew corporate membership, that doesn't mean they have engaged in misconduct. Plus, who would honestly contact their organization and ask "Please revoke my membership"? This is no way to encourage anyone in our congregation to keep a membership of any level.

A year ago, the Friends of Chapel sent out a letter in which they pledged to "restore balance, wisdom, and spiritual leadership" to Chapel of Awareness. Sherry DeLoach's letter is another in a list of examples now of how those words had no meaning, as far as Chapel Guardian are concerned.

Sherry DeLoach is among the leadership of the Friends of Chapel. They organized and sued the Chapel for the very issue raised in the letter she sent. Lack of participation and non-payment of corporate dues were among the reasons that Friends of Chapel memberships were canceled, leading to their lawsuit and resulting mediation. Now in control, Sherry DeLoach and the Friends of Chapel are citing the very same reasons for threatening to revoke memberships.

Response to Chapel of Awareness newsletter

The Friends of Chapel of Awareness recently released a newsletter (copy at the end of this entry), and there are several items that warrant scrutiny, in the opinion of Chapel Guardian.


DISCOUNTED ART
Chapel Guardian are disappointed to see that the Friends of Chapel leadership are cheapening Rev. Donald Schwartz's famous artistic legacy by marking down his fine art by 25% and raffling off his prints. Why the fire sale? Adding insult to injury is the fact that the Friends are "celebrating" his birthday by slashing the prices of his prized art ... owned and celebrated by celebrities like William Shatner, racing professionals, and horse owners. Remember that Donald was the one the Friends put on their pedestal in their lawsuit to overtake Chapel of Awareness. This fire sale is the result?

More questionable is ... again ... the noticeable absence of any explanation of where the proceeds from this event are going. Is this a Chapel of Awareness fund-raiser? If it is a private event being held at Chapel of Awareness, how is the church benefiting from the use of church facilities and people? Are the funds going directly to church leadership and not the church for the congregation’s benefit? There is no transparency.


HEALING CENTER
The Friends of Chapel appear now to be backtracking about the use of Sherry DeLoach's phone number for what is supposedly a Chapel of Awareness program. The newsletter says "Please call 760 672-2868 rather than the Chapel phone since the Chapel phone is not monitored daily". Fair enough, but this is a significant change in church policy since the Friends of Chapel won control.


Up until last spring, the church phone was checked frequently and often daily. So the Friends' explanation begs a question: Why isn't the Chapel phone checked regularly anymore? That is a basic function of church business. This issue is compounded by observations Chapel Guardian have received that the Chapel of Awareness phone, within the past year, has had a steady busy signal for a day or two at a time.


"A SPIRITUALIST'S BIBLE"
In the newsletter, the Friends of Chapel leadership are now touting their book as "Rev. Larr's book". This is a significant change in description. From the beginning, the Friends of Chapel described this book as a supposed compilation of his journals and writings, which means that this is not his book. Several people who were close to Rev. Eugene C. Larr have said it is doubtful that he would ever have called a book something like this in the first place. Given Chapel's former non-denominational, spiritual (not Spiritualist) approach, the use of the term "Spiritualist's Bible" is blatantly inconsistent with Rev. Larr's vision.

As with Donald's artwork and other Chapel functions, the Friends of Chapel do not make it clear exactly where the proceeds of this book are going. The newsletter states that the book costs 20 dollars (including tax) if purchased through Chapel of Awareness. However, it states that if you buy the book through Chapel, you have to pick it up at Chapel. If you want to buy it and are not within distance of Chapel, you have to buy it through Amazon, Borders, or Barnes and Noble.

Most importantly, members of the Chapel have a right to know where their money is going when they buy this publication. If it is a Chapel publication that you can buy through Chapel, then is it a tax-deductible donation to the Chapel, as it should be? If it is sold through book sellers, how is that donation handled? If it is not a Chapel donation, what individuals or groups are potentially profiting from Rev. Larr's work? These questions need to be answered.


NEWSLETTER AVAILABILITY
Under Friends leadership, Chapel of Awareness has apparently abandoned mailing church newsletters, under the apparent assumption that everyone has email and good web access. This is an exclusionary action, requiring all members to have only a specific way to get information about the church they value. Some church members may not have access to the Internet, the knowledge to use it to significant value, or the money to afford high-speed access that can handle the huge file sizes that the new leadership uses for some reason. Others value their online privacy and might not want to give their email address to this Chapel leadership.

Reverend Eric Berg retiring?

An update on Reverend Eric Berg's web site shows that he is apparently pulling away from the "new" Chapel of Awareness. Much of his activities on his page are crossed out and he states that he plans to retire three months.

This is what he says there: "At present I support the Chapel school and church, as well as the community of ministers and non-ministers, but am considering retirement when I return to Washington 4/1/2011." -- http://psiontist.com/eclarr/rev_eric.htm

It now looks as if the Friends of Chapel of Awareness group publicly went after the characters of members and ministers, in Reverend Eric's and Donald's names, only for them now to be gone.

Thank you all for keeping my post unnamed.

Rev. Ann Lorenzini's expulsion letter from Chapel of Awareness

Chapel Guardian has received a communication (read it at the end of this post) from Rev. Ann Lorenzini. To Guardians' knowledge this is the first time she has openly addressed the circumstance of her expulsion from Chapel by the church Board of Directors. Her information is helpful because it confirms what Guardian has been receiving --- that students, service attendees and members are being misinformed about what happened to Rev. Ann. She addresses this issue directly in her statement below.

Chapel Guardian knows of other expulsions, including at least one other minister. This has been covered in past observations here. Rev. Ann's is significant because of her long association with the Chapel and close ties with Founder Rev. Gene Larr until his passing in 2006.

Rev. Ann has provided Guardian a copy of her letter of expulsion, provided here for you to read. Consider the misinformation Nell Rose Smith uses in her rationale for Rev. Ann's expulsion:

EXPULSION VS. CANCELLATION

Nell Rose Smith claims Rev. Ann (whose name she misspells in the letter) was responsible for "the expulsion of the entire membership". This is false. Not even the friendsofchapel.blogspot.com site referred to this particular action as expulsion. Friends of Chapel stated that the church "cancelled the memberships of everyone". The term expulsion by definition is related to punitive action. Even the Friends of Chapel acknowledged the action as cancellations, not punitive action (punishment). 

The Chapel Board of Directors at the time (December 2009) made it clear in a letter from Rev. Ann to the congregation that the cancellation of all memberships was necessary for reorganization after the schism occurred. That was not punitive intent (expulsions). That letter was followed up by a new membership form for all to fill out, which Friends of Chapel ordered their faction not to acknowledge. Those new forms were being mailed back and accepted to the Chapel at the time mediation began, however. The action that the Board took was not punitive, it was procedural based on circumstances. Nell Rose Smith also seems to ascribe these actions as solely those of Rev. Ann, when they were Board decisions.

ECONOMIC AND GENERAL WELFARE?

Chapel Guardian find this issue cited by Nell Rose Smith as bizarre. She refers to Rev. Ann's "failure to meet the fiduciary responsibility for maintaining the economic and general welfare of the Congregation." This is also false.

Under Rev. Ann's leadership and contributions, the Chapel of Awareness received new energy-efficient windows. Rev. Ann also saw to the continual maintenance of the Chapel. Under her watch, while the Landmark/Friends of Chapel were inactive, Rev. Ann installed new fans in the Sanctuary for better energy efficiency.

Finally and most disturbing, while Nell Rose Smith and the Landmark/Friends of Chapel were inactive in the church and suing it, Chapel of Awareness successfully rallied the membership to donate for a new roof. Nell Rose Smith and her group are now the sole beneficiaries of what Rev. Ann and the membership did.

QUOTING BY-LAWS

Nell Rose Smith quotes the By-Laws to Rev. Ann in saying that the Chapel "shall be open to those persons who are keenly interested in actively bringing into action the concepts and directives as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation". But this is exactly why Nell Rose Smith and the Landmark/Friends of Chapel were removed from the membership rolls in the first place. They were not active, and expressed no interest whatsoever. How can Nell Rose Smith accuse Rev. Ann of the same thing?

CONCLUSION

In calling the Friends of Chapel out on their lack of activity or contact with Chapel for several years as of 2009,  what Rev. Ann and the Board of Trustees ended up doing at the time was really expose a faction of the membership --- lead by people following Landmark philosophy, not Chapel or Gene Larr --- standing at the sidelines to take over assuming Rev. Ann would fail upon the founder's passing in 2006.

That failure did not happen, and they were asked to justify their absence. That led to the lawsuit and their ultimate takeover of Chapel. In that takeover, the new Board under Nell Rose Smith's leadership did not honor the spirit of the mediation agreement, expelling Rev. Ann even though her position on the Board was recognized.

Given the subject matter of the letter, Nell Rose Smith oddly signs it "Sincerely yours".

BELOW: REV. ANN'S NOTE TO CHAPEL GUARDIAN

from xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
to Chapel Guardian
date Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM
subject Re Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church

Dear Guardian,

Thank you for your vigilance this past year in posting the activities at the Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church in an objective manner.

For the past many months, I have received phone calls and cards wanting to know where I’ve been, and saying: “…Many of us pray that you will one day have a change of heart.”  I have explained the reason to them, but there are some who still don’t know the details of, and for, my absence.

Therefore, I am attaching a letter I received in June, 2010, from Rev. Nell Rose Smith, as Chairman of the Board, which will fully explain why I am no longer there.  You have my permission to print it in its entirety, or in part, as you see fit.

Again, thank you for your continued interest in the Chapel.

Sincerely,

Rev. Ann Marie Lorenzini

In Touch out of touch?

As has been common practice with the Landmark/Friends of Chapel leadership since they took over Chapel of Awareness, only certain members are receiving the church newsletters. There has yet to be any explanation of their rationale for this.

Chapel Guardians' opinion that they are excluding members of the chapel (which goes against the spirit of their own lawsuit) have gone unchallenged for months now.

The latest, dated "Winter 2010", has more interesting items to consider.

ANNUAL MEETING:

Of most interesting note is the lack of transparency when it comes to the Annual Meeting election results. When the Landmark/Friends were suing Chapel of Awareness, they demanded transparency to the point that they were publishing election results on their blog. Now, as leadership of the chapel, there is no announcement on the Chapel website, no mention in the newsletter, no email announcement.

The only reference to the election results is a cryptic announcement in the "In Touch" leaflet: "A list of the names of the full board of directors for 2011will be posted inside the Chapel Sanctuary."

This notice is exclusionary. It essentially tells chapel members who are not able to attend services (some of the very people they claimed to speak for in their lawsuit) that they are not privy to the workings of the church. This attitude runs counter to their goals as claimed in 2009-10.

CHURCH NAME:

As already noted by some Guardian contributors, the Landmark/Friends group continue to misuse "Spiritualist" in the name of the organization, not in keeping with founder Rev. Gene Larr or the bylaws (which they sued over, as well).

The use of "Spiritualist" in the name of the church now has also gone unchallenged by the Landmark/Friends group. Chapel Guardian can only draw from this that such a name and philosophy is intentional, unless they clarify this to the membership. If anyone truly understands Chapel of Awareness philosophy, they know that there is a difference.

HEALING "CENTER":

Sherry DeLoach's "Healing Center" (formerly referred to as Healing Clinics, a name which connotes medical knowledge) is reportedly closed for part of the Winter, yet her imanifestwellness.com website does not state this. She also continues to promote her own phone number and contact information for what is being touted as a chapel function. Another cryptic statement in the "In Touch" leaflet: "Please use the kitchen entrance".

"SPIRITUALISTS BIBLE":

The leaflet also continues to promote a publication that the Landmark/Friends claim is the work of founder Rev. Gene Larr. Guardian have not dealt with this issue directly yet, but will say now that the validity of the publication deserves to be confirmed for all who care about Chapel. Most notable, the name of the book ("A Spiritualist's Bible") itself, which runs counter to Tau Sing, Rev. Larr's own words, and the bylaws of the church. Chapel Guardian believe it is highly unlikely that Rev. Larr would ever title a book in this way, as evidenced by his philosophy and every Chapel and personal published work before this.

More confusion on Chapel of Awareness' name

from xxxx
to Chapel Guardian
date Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM
subject Re Chapel of Awareness name

Dear Guardian, the Chapel of Awareness is being referred to as a "spiritualist" church.  Rev. Eugene C. Larr, specifically named the church the Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church.  He said that he wanted to distinguish it from other Spiritualist organizations.  The new Friends of Chapel should at least use its correct name.

 

This name is prominent on their letterhead they are using to send out their newsletter, InTouch.  According to the Chapel's by-laws that the Friends of Chapel published on line several months ago, Article 1 Section 1 states: "The name of this Corporation is 'Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church Corporation,'..."

 

In addition, the "Preamble" states: "We have formed this organization for the purpose of bringing forth the truth and universal knowledge that resides in all mankind..."  "All mankind" refers to all religions - spiritualist and otherwise, and is unique among churches. 

 

It appears that the new Friends of Chapel group have taken upon themselves to rename the Chapel among their other questionable activities.  To rename the Chapel would require a change in the by-laws. membership.  They should go out and look at the sign in front of the building to know what the name is.

 

Anonymous

Attempt to hack Chapel Guardian

FYI Chapel Guardian readers:

There was an attempt to hack this blog on December 13th at 9:22 A.M.

Chapel of Awareness and Landmark Education Forum

Introduction

It has been known for some time that some of the most vocal and virulent of the Friends of Chapel group are practicing disciples of Landmark Education Forum, formerly known as Est.

An article at The Huffington Post (Inside the Landmark Forum) provides an accounting of the Landmark experience, and it offers insight into the behavior of the Friends of Chapel.

While links to the Chapel takeover after Reverend Dr. Gene Larr's death to Chapel's Landmark practitioners were often hard to pin down, the new Chapel of Awareness web site and publicly available online information show a concrete indication of these links.

Consider:
___________________________________

Board member Francisco Fan lists that he is a graduate of Landmark Education and served as an Introduction Leader (LinkedIn screen capture above)
 ___________________________________

Web committee leader Terry Hall is also a graduate of Landmark Forum; screen capture above from one of Terry Hall's blogs indicates his expertise
 ___________________________________

Friends of Chapel member (as named on the friendsofchapel blog site) Brigette Callahan is also a graduate of Landmark Education Forum and was in its Leadership Program from 2002-08; she is also listed on Terry Hall's new Chapel of Awareness web site as a developer alongside Suzy Sisler
___________________________________

Reverend Nell Rose Smith is also a Landmark graduate according to Chapel members, although  online confirmation can't be located as of now
___________________________________

It has been known for some time that members of the new Chapel leadership are also active in an organization called BNI (Business Network International), which Internet searches show has an international following among Landmark followers.

Some examples of the Landmark-BNI connection:
___________________________________

Happiness After Midlife
Dr. Fred Horowitz writes that he went through Landmark. Among what he notes:

"I had the opportunity of working for 3 years for Werner Erhard and Associates, the predecessor of Landmark Education. It was a terrific experience. Much of my approach to life and midlife coaching comes from the model that Landmark Education uses."

"One of my coaches who I was working with at the start of my coaching career challenged me to start a BNI (Business Network International) chapter in Montreal. There were none. This seemed like a good way to develop business, so I took on the challenge and started one." 
___________________________________

BNI and Landmark Education
Dr. Fauziah Mohamed Yunus also writes about how he went through Landmark and became a part of BNI. Among what he writes:

"I started my journey in Landmark Education in 2003. Doing the Landmark Forum was yet another turning point for me."

"The two largest influences of how I lead my Life has been Landmark Education and Business Network International."
___________________________________

 
Shortly after Terry Hall launched the new Chapel of Awareness web site with Brigette Callahan and Suzy Sisler, Francisco Fan (a Chapel Board member under Friends of Chapel leadership) further indicated his and Terry Hall's links to BNI in the post above, captured from the Chapel web site
___________________________________

Terry and Amy Hall are listed as active in the BNI Carlsbad membership circle
___________________________________

 
Friends of Chapel member Ernie Linkous, now on the Chapel of Awareness Board of Directors under board Chairman Nell Rose Smith, lists BNI in his activities on his LinkdIn page; screen capture above

___________________________________

Why this information matters for Chapel of Awareness

One of the concerns expressed among Chapel membership in 2009 and early 2010 was a takeover mounted by a business-oriented "personal coaching" (a.k.a. "life coaching") faction of the church that holds views not in line with Chapel of Awareness founder Reverend Dr. Eugene C. Larr, but more in line with philosophies of Landmark and self-styled lifestyle gurus such as James Arthur Ray (Internet searches reveal that Amy Hall, Terry Hall's wife and Friends of Chapel member, was employed by the Ray organization).

Several of those leading or involved with the Friends of Chapel interest group -- which sued the Chapel of Awareness to regain membership reinstatement after being removed off the member rolls because of years of non-participation -- are followers of Landmark Education Forum or related or similar organizations. Nell Rose Smith, Terry Hall, Brigette Callahan, Francisco Fan, and Ernie Linkous are part of that group. Four of them (Smith, Hall, Fam, and Linkous) now make up half of the Chapel of Awareness board of directors.

The behavior of Nell Rose Smith, Terry Hall and Francisco Fan, and the group Friends of Chapel as a whole, is representative of Landmark philosophy by the following:

1) During the process of the Friends' legal action, in Winter 2009/Spring 2010, spearheaded by Nell Rose Smith (as named in the lawsuit), Friends of Chapel members engaged in intimidation tactics including drive-bys of the building during Chapel functions (as witnessed by several people on-site). Intimidation tactics through December 2009, leading up to and during the Annual Meeting that year, required the Board of Directors to call in armed private security to keep the peace.

2) In late 2009, the Friends of Chapel interest group used their blog (friendsofchapel.blogspot.com) to engage in a smear campaign against the sitting board and ministers. The tactics on the blog included unsubstantiated allegations of physical assault and financial trickery, none of which was ever supported by evidence. The intimidation tactics also included the planting of unsupported rumors among the congregation.

3) Nell Rose Smith lead the effort to sue the Chapel nonprofit corporation to gain control, which was successful only through settlement in mediation. Upon following the mediation settlement, Smith and the new board majority forced their remaining -- duly elected -- opposition off the board, against the spirit of the mediation settlement. They then expelled opposition corporate members and ministers, one of whom was among founder Gene Larr's first ministers, the other who served as pastor for two decades.

This behavior mirrors tactics taught and practiced in Landmark Education Forum. As current board member Terry Hall writes on his blog:

"I know that Landmark Education is committed to transforming the planet at any cost. And it shows."

"At any cost" ... That is exactly the attitude witnessed from the Landmark-trained leadership of the Friends of Chapel, exhibited in its behavior, lawsuit, blog, and subsequent takeover of the church. Note what's lacking in Terry Hall's "transforming the planet" statement: The words of founder Reverend Gene Larr, who always taught to behave for what's "highest and best" for humanity. (Landmark is known for pushing change for personal self-interest.)

A further look at Hall's blog lays out the philosophy of the new Chapel leadership ... to run it as a business and not a spiritual organization or house of worship. Hall's blog describes the usefulness of a "referral culture" in an organization, as exemplified in the philosophy of Landmark and BNI.

Since the Friends of Chapel takeover this year, the following has happened:

1) "Referral culture" in action: As the Friends leadership emerged on the Chapel board of directors, Francisco Fan reportedly began recruiting Chapel congregation members for BNI. This information was given to this blog by Chapel members who wish to remain anonymous out of concern over retaliation.

2) Using the Chapel as private business: After the Friends takeover was complete, Sherry DeLoach began offering what is in effect private-practice ministerial healing "clinics" (as advertised) using Chapel of Awareness resources.

3) Promoting the Chapel as a business, not a religious organization: Since the Friends of Chapel-controlled board created its Web Committee, Internet searches of Chapel of Awareness show a proliferation of listings of Chapel under business-promotional web sites, including merchantcircle.com and ebusiness.com. Oddly, the Web Committee listed Chapel of Awareness as a "pastoral counseling" program based in Aliso Viejo, not just Encinitas, on majoreducation.com.

4) Message control: The Friends of Chapel leadership was openly developing and circulating Chapel of Awareness publications when they were not seated on the church board. These include 2009's "The Season" and proofs of something called "The Spiritualist's Bible". A proof of the "Bible" was witnessed being quietly shown during the 2010 special election, before the election took place. Prior to and during their litigation, Friends of Chapel leadership emphasized gaining the copyright to Reverend Larr's work, inside and outside of Chapel. This reflects a Landmark tactic -- copyright control of some kind -- as detailed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in an accounting of Landmark's emphasis on copyright litigation for message control.

In Chapel Guardian opinion, these correlations show that the Friends of Chapel sought control of Chapel of Awareness out of the desire to build a hub for their own business, networking, and guru-style "life coaching" ventures, not the spiritual development of the people who hunger for it and walk through Chapel's doors seeking it.

Chapel Guardian is not interested in debating the substance of Landmark teachings. That is not the point.

The potential dangers for Chapel of Awareness, in Chapel Guardian opinion, lie not in Landmark Education Forum itself or its teachings, but in the actions of the new Chapel leadership in forcing "the program" over Chapel founding philosophy, especially through groupthink. This is an attitude counter to Chapel founder Reverend Dr. Eugene C. Larr's philosophy.

Action doesn't fit philosophy

"Right thought. Right action." This has been a saying used by the Friends of Chapel, attributed to Chapel of Awareness philosophy.

In remarks on his web site, Reverend Eric Berg pays homage to Chapel of Awareness founder Dr. Reverend Eugene C. Larr. Chapel Guardian will not question the inspiration and devotion, but the philosophy stated on the page conflicts with actions of the Friends of Chapel leadership.

Chapel Guardian ask Reverend Berg, and all of you who read this, to weigh the philosophy and the actions of the church leadership under the Friends of Chapel group (bold type added for emphasis):

a) Reverend Berg states: "Being a minister at Chapel is not about respect and admiration. True monastics know that these things are distractions from the path."

This conflicts with the actions of the Friends of Chapel leadership, as seen in the promotion of Reverend Sherry DeLoach's personal ministry practices and the inherent demand for, and perhaps expectation of, respect in the filing of a lawsuit against the church.

b) Reverend Berg states: "One of the requirements Gene imposed on candidates during or prior to their oral examination, was that a minister should be able to demonstrate their skills on command and not have to wait for the right conditions."

But the Friends of Chapel behaved exactly opposite to Gene's teaching as expressed here by Berg. Upon Gene's death, Reverends Nell Rose Smith, Sherry DeLoach, even the late Reverend Donald Schwartz, and numerous members allied with them, left Chapel of Awareness to wither as its weight was placed on one minister, Reverend Ann Lorenzini. Berg says that Chapel ministers should "not have to wait for the right conditions," yet that is exactly what Smith, DeLoach, Schwartz, and others, did as they waited to act ... eventually in the form of a lawsuit and smear campaign when their lying-in-wait backfired in their Board-approved dismissal for non-participation and lack of contribution in the organization.

c) Reverend Berg writes: "What good is a minister who can only help a desperate person 10% of the time because the other 90% of the time they are feeling grumpy?"

This is a valid question, as the attitudes of the Friends of Chapel group over the past few years speak for themselves.

d) Reverend Berg writes: "'All within my power' does not mean bullets, dollars and lightningbolts [sic]. It means a true minister is willing to sacrifice his or her own agenda, attachments, and personal luxury."

Again, the Friends of Chapel leadership and members behaved exactly opposite of this. Reverend Berg should  know, quite frankly, that bullets do not always take the form of that which comes from a gun. The Friends of Chapel made their agenda clear last year, setting up a shadow organization with a Cardiff post office box and holding shadow services, publishing non-sanctioned Chapel material and soliciting donations. They made their attachments clear, particularly in the form of their blog and subsequent lawsuit.

e) Reverend Berg writes: "'I pledge myself to the help and guidance of all mankind...' This is really profound. Gene noted that it goes far beyond the Chapel congregation and community. It goes beyond responsible service and conduct, too."

True. But it starts with the Chapel congregation and community, and starts with responsible service and conduct. The behavior of the Friends of Chapel leadership, in Chapel Guardian opinion, must call this stated intent into question. 

re: Letter from the Chapel of Awareness chairman

(Reposted from comments)

Anonymous said...

I was a member when Gene was around and it was clear then a lot of the staff and member were all about power!!!! Nothing more nothing less. It was clear to me 10 years ago this place would have a falling out after Gene and guess what it has. You don't have to be psychic to predict this one. All the best,

December 6, 2010 3:32 PM