AssemblyBoard

OK dear well studied scholars,
Here's the deal.  Last Sunday my daughter went to church with her fiance and his family.  They attend a Plymouth Brethren church.  When they pulled into the parking lot and before anyone could get out of the van, my daughter's future mother-in-law handed her a headcovering.  The implication was very clear that this "gift" was not an option for this and all future Sundays.  Now that I have calmed down and no longer wish to "snatch this woman bald headed!" (but I still would like to see her in a crew cut  ;))  please give me your well learned opinions on this topic. 

Personally, I do not believe that sticking a doily on your head is what Paul was talking about.  Am I wrong?

Thanks in advance for your input,
Gay

There are probably good Scriptural reasons for wearing some kind of head gear while praying and worshipping.
At my mom's Pentecostal church the women all wore hats.
In this case, as in all others similar, I put grace before doctrine.
That lady could have at least asked...what was does IMHO was ungracious...a trait we were well-taught by the vulgar Geftakys...
Verne

Ironically, our pastor spoke on 1 Corintians 11 this last Sunday.  It was the best sermon I had heard on head coverings outside the Assembly (not that the ones in the Assembly were all that hot though I do remember a girl receiving Christ at a chapter summary at Cal State Long Beach when Tim preached on this chapter).

His take on it was that Paul was dealing not so much with head coverings, but a problem with the functional role of men and women in the church at Corinth (of which, in that culture head coverings would be a part).  His conclusion was that it is not wrong for a church to literally practice head coverings (many churches do even today in the middle east), but he isn't convinced that this was the primary issue that Paul was dealing with.

You can listen to the sermon (which I recommend and was thinking of posting anyway) at:

http://www.abfboone.org/Resources/messages.htm click on 9/18/05

If you do not have high speed internet, give me your address and I will make sure you get a tape or CD (your choice).

-Dave

Thanks Dave,

I'm trying to download the sermon now.  If I can, I'll try to burn it onto a cd.  If I can't, you can be sure you'll be hearing from me  ;D.  Your offer is greatly appreciated!  From your post, it sounds like your pastor and I probably agree on this topic
I suppose what drives me nuts over this situation isn't the headcovering itself, but that it smacks so heavily of the leagalism we have been delivered from. 

Verne,

Viva la grace!!!


Gay

Gay,

This issue is very much related to the question, "What is the New Testament?"

I Corinthians is a letter written by the apostle Paul to a specific church, at a specific time in history, in a specific culture, do address specific concerns that he knew about.

One of the problems we have in understanding the scriptures is that we frequently don't know what the details of the situation were.  But we do know many things. For example:

1. We know that in the pagan sacrifices the male priests covered their heads. 
2. We know that the temple prostitutes did not cover their heads.
3. We know that the male temple prostitutes frequently dressed as women and wore their hair long and used makeup.

To me, the verses that place this in proper context are verses 13-14.  Paul appeals to the current cultural standard of what is proper and acceptable.  We, in our "spiritual" manner of interpreting scripture in our assembly days, saw this as some kind of cosmic issue relating to the "testimony".

 The Plymouth Brethren are still into this idea, in fact, that is where GG learned it from.  Reading the passage without any cultural context yields just about what they teach.  Personally, I believe that they are wrong. If you ask most Christians today, "If a man wears his hair long, is it a disgrace?"  Most would say, "No big deal."  Plus there is the problem of "how long is too long?"

So, to me it is no longer an issue.  When we attended the one assembly meeting I have gone to since leaving, right after GG's fall, Caryl did not wear one, and I didn't ask her to.  But if we were visiting a PB assembly it would be, to my mind, the courteous thing to do.  We are not the only bears in the woods.  Other people have feelings, sometimes very strong feelings.  Submitting to legalism is something we shouldn't do.  But wearing defiance as a flag is only necessary in the presence of real evil, not just another interpretation.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom you raise some good points about contextual relevance.
I think one has to be extremely careful though in emphasising the culutural aspect when dealing with the application of Scripture. I have heard that line of reasoning used to condemn women who wear pants to a worship service; a viewpoint  I consider ludicrous...arguments for modesty yes, but skirts versus pants, petty hogwash...we certainly would not deny the Lord's supper to our kilt-clad brethren now would we?
Verne
p.s my lovely wife set me straight on that one...she wears a mean pantsuit... :)

Quote from Tom "[Submitting to legalism is something we shouldn't do.  But wearing defiance as a flag is only necessary in the presence of real evil, not just another interpretation."/color]

Point taken bro.  I guess I'm a bit sensitive on anything that looks assembly.  I think what you are saying here is to take a breath, step back and realize this isn't a heaven or hell issue.  I still can't say that I'm happy with it though, but it is something I am going to have to come to grips with.  My daughter will be moving to her fiance's hometown (the wedding is Nov 19, '05) and that is where they will be going to church.  I suppose there are worse things to do than to fellowship where the most comtempory music is by Fanny Crosby  ;D.

Blessings,
Gay

Hi Gay,

The topic of headcoverings, to wear or not to wear, is a discussion in itself.

However, I find this part interesting, "When they pulled into the parking lot and before anyone could get out of the van, my daughter's future mother-in-law handed her a headcovering."   Sounds scary to me.

Marcia

Verne,


Seems to me that the cultural context idea would favor relaxing the older standard.  Once upon a time a brother in the assembly announced to some of us that he had ordered his wife not to wear pants, and pointed to the OT verse that says any woman who dresses up in men's clothes should be put to death.

One of the guys he was talking to said..."there are pants designed for women."

I never heard him mention it again.

There must have been some reason that Moses addressed the issue so strongly.  Whatever it was, it doesn't seem to be around any more.

btw, Caryl wears slacks to church at times.  No biggie to me.

Thomas Maddux

Does your daughter want to do it, or is she going along with it to avoid problems?

Thomas Maddux

Absolutely! That is what is so ironic about that kind of argument.

Brilliant!
As any husband who mistakenly tried to slip into his wife's jeans discovered... ;D


Brothers in the assembly were taught to excercise tyrannical control over their wives to the point of being lieterally abusive. I remember being in California at the home of a couple, I think the names were Brad and Verlie and was flabbergasted at the way her ordered her to quit what she was doing and go get something that he needed.
It was unspeakably vulgar and disrespectful the way he said it and I could tell his poor wife (they had been recently married) was totally humiliated. She nevertheless obediently complied. It was evident that his sole pirpose was to demonstrate to all present that he was large and in charge.
Brad if you read the BB and you still treat you wife that way, I doubt she will stick around- she seemed like a brght person.
Verne
 p.s Which of your Fullerton mentors did you learn that kind of rudeness from?

Marcia,
Hope you are enjoying your b'day  :) and you are right, it is scary.  I don't think my daughter is getting any pressure from the felowship itself.  but rather from her future mother-in-law, which is a real kicker because the lady's church attendance over the years and even recently has been sporadic at best.  It's a control thing on her part and an attempt, I believe, at looking spiritual.  Her past has been less than Christ honoring and I think she's a bit intimidated by my daughter's pressence in her son's life.

Tom,
The use of headcoverings is a topic that we have discussed in my home and my daughter understands that we feel they are not necessary.  She feels this way too, however, she sees the need to try to keep the peace.   I have no doubt but that she and her finace will be having more discussions on this.  Frank and I have chosen to remain mute on the subject until we are approached by them.  No need for a family feud over this one.  After the first of the year, my daughter and her husband will probably move to another part of the state to get away from this woman  :'(.  As you can imagine, this is only the tip of the iceburg concerning issues with her.

Dave,
Frank and I listened to your pastor's sermon last night and we both agree that it was a very balanced way of looking at the text.  If our future son-in-law asks us for our input on the subject, a cd of the sermon will be one of the resources we will use.  Thanks  :)

Blessings,
Gay

I think Marcia nailed this one. The problem is not so much, what does the Bible mean about headcoverings, but what did the mother-in-law mean with the van incident. It is the control that is scary.

It was like that in the assembly, eh? The issue debated was never really the issue at all; it was what was behind it.

Isn't my use of the word "issue" annoying. I'll never forget Chuck Sullivan saying about coming into the assembly, "I thought I had problems until I found out I had issues." Funny line, but a lot to ponder in that.

Gay, you are wise to not interfere in your daughter's affairs unless they come to you. They will notice that and bless you for it. But when it comes time for them to move be way over the top in your supportiveness!

Regarding the practice of headcovering, I agree with the opinions that have been shared by those who posted before me. 

From Gay's description of the situation, my guess is that the woman in question is probably far more concerned that her future daughter-in-law's uncovered head may cast an unfavorable reflection upon her than she is with caring about the young lady's sensibilities.  She is more to be pitied than disliked (although that perspective is much easier from my position than from Gay's :-\)

---

Jem, your use of the word "issue" is perfectly normal.  It isn't annoying to me now, although it would probably have been at one time.  What annoys me these days is the propensity we all have for being intimidated by words & phrases from our past.  This is the result of the mind-control that was exercised upon us, and we all should fight against its symptoms to be free of it.  God has given us the Spirit of a sound mind, and we need to reclaim it.


al

Quote from Jem:
I think Marcia nailed this one. The problem is not so much, what does the Bible mean about headcoverings, but what did the mother-in-law mean with the van incident. It is the control that is scary.  Gay, you are wise to not interfere in your daughter's affairs unless they come to you. They will notice that and bless you for it. But when it comes time for them to move be way over the top in your supportiveness

Jem,
You are right.  The issue really isn't the issue at all.  It is the control and not the headcovering that's the root of the problem.  I suppose I am still touchy (even after 25 years) over assembly stuff or anything that looks assembly and I am still processing certain things.  I have spent hours and hours going over the old threads to continue to put things into perspective.  When we visited Bobby's (future son-in-law) church, my gut reaction to the headcoverings was....hmm...picture trying to stuff a cat in a toilet...I was inwardly defiant although outwardly, there was no evidence of this except I didn't participate in the practice.  Then when this woman, who has caused my baby girl no end of stress already, tries to throw her IMHO phony spirituality around...well, it caused a severe knee jerk reaction.

In a conversation with my daughter a few months ago, I mentioned that the best thing that her dad and I did after we were married was to move away from family for a couple of years.  I told her that it might be something for her and Bobby to think about.  Would you believe that very night Bobby brought up that very subject?  It is something that they are considering and you are right Jem, they are getting our support on it.  My daughter knows that I will miss her, but the marriage needs to come first and foremost.

Blessings,
Gay

I remember a couple's meeting based upon a talk by Danny and Kimber.  They were set up as a model of how to give consequence to your wife when she didn't perform what you wanted.

I remember driving on our second anniversary with my wife to go to breakfast.  I was trying to hedge her in to the standard (which was given to her by one of those helpful "training mothers") of telling our infant son to "come" ten times a day.  For me, this would be a simple matter because i am very much a linear/checklist thinker but I couldn't pin her down to doing this and the conversation got tense.  She felt I was bagering her and I felt she was being rebellious by "muddying the waters" of the conversation.  It accelerated to some sharp words until Loretta got out of the car in anger and I found myself driving around the Knotts Berry Farm parking lot with Nathan in his car seat thinking to myself, "this technique isn't working well."

I learned over the years that the issue was not her rebellion against the standard but her feeling of being threatened and overwhelmed with people coming into our home and imposing their methods of child-rearing.  Loretta (as well as myself) has her baggage and issues, but these things are better faced in an atmosphere of patience, example, forgiveness and encouragement.  Years later, we have become more of a team and we know how to discuss and implement strategies for our kids in a way where neither mom or dad feel threatened.  Both of us changed and grew in areas of weakness but the change never came about due to heavy-handed techniques.

This incident was one event that was the beginning of the end of our Assembly years.

One of my last memories of my maveric Uncle was when I went to a relatives Bar Mizvah.  He was arguing with the usher at the synogogue because he wanted to wear his cowboy hat instead of a yarmulke.   ;D

What boundless grace and mercy God bestowed on this poor and wretched sinner, that it was not my lot to either court or get married in the assemblies.
I really admdire the couples who have come out of that system and had the courage to re-evaluate all that they had been taught and reject the unScriptural.

GIVING YOUR WIFE CONSEQUENCES??!! DID GEORGE EVER GIVE BETTY A CONSEQUENCE??? Oh I forget, she was the "godly" Betty....
The only relationship in which the Bible sanctions "control" is that of a parent with a child...but then again, that is exactly what the problem was was it not?
Verne

Verne,

In what was probably my last telephone conversation with GG, I corrected him on the use of the word "consequences".  I told him that a the consequence of an action is something that flows out of the action taken.  If you get drunk you fall down.  If you don't go to work you get fired.

I told him that what the assembly was advocating was punishment of adults.  I asked him to show me a place in the Bible where the leaders of a church ever punished anyone. 

He replied that "the Bible is full of consequences."  I said, "Yes, but they are the judgements of God upon nations and rebellious individuals.  That is God's prerogative, not man's."   

El Supremo didn't like it much...but what could he say?  ::)

Thomas Maddux

Amen for God's mercy. Giving a consequence to an adult let alone my wife   ??? My wife is wonderful If I ever had thought about giving her a "consequence"  wow.

El Supremo was a master physchologist Tom. The man had perfected a system for destroying people's liberty in Christ.
Who in their right mind would want to be accused of being unentreatable or rebellious?
What poor schumucks we were, never having the wisdom to recognize and understand that this was all a relevant matter only in the case of constituted authority. Tom you are so right that none of us ever stopped to think and ask of these men:
Who gave you the authority to give me a consequence?

Of course the answer was....we did...!   :'(

The fact that George had the gumption to claim for himself apostolic authority, whatever that was, should have been enough to cause many more of us to stampede for the door.

I remember when Jim Tucker in Champaign became head steward and tried to give me consequences (with Kurt Green's blessing) we really got into it.
I think my reaction was that of any healthy, self-respecting adult and I don't understand why more folk did not tell head stewards to take their consequences and shove it.
The fact that spouses were encouraged to behave like this, and did, is nothing short of astonishing.
And these were people some of us admired....!
I guess it was the price one paid for preparing to be fleeced...er, that is for the "work"
Verne

Verne,


An important question is why we gave GG such authority in our lives.  Actually, GG just utilized ideas most of us already shared. 

Such as:

1. The modern church should operate just like the NT church.

2. The NT church did not hold elections.  Leaders were appointed by divinely appointed apostles.

3. Therefore we need to discover who God has given this authority to today.

Now, the question arises of who has that authority today.  Here is where the popular mysticism proved our undoing.  We ignored, at least until the pain level became high enough to get us thinking again, the Biblical information about apostolic qualifications.  Personally appointed by Jesus, miraculous power and so on.

Instead we paid attention to subjective standards such as "annointing" and "vision."  Annointing meant something like "This excites me and makes me feel energized, humble, hopeful or whatever.  It was primarily emotional/subjective.

GG, imagining himself to be a great mystic, visionary, annointed one, "special" servant of God, quickly began to claim "apostolic authority"

Why not?  Did the Lord not give him special promises?  Special insights into scripture that others could not see?  Was not his success in attracting young followers a divine confirmation of his annointing?

That is how he saw himself. Seems  to still do so.  It is also how many of us saw him as well.

When I began actually reading about the appointment of real apostles, real apostolic ministry, and the passages about false apostles, my view of GG changed.

When I went over to Steve Iron's house to tell him I had left the assembly, I knew I would not get a real hearing of any detailed reasons.  Nor would I be allowed to defend my decision in detail.

So I summed it up as follows: "This ministry is founded on a false mysticism." 

Many of those who have seen through GG's claims still accept most of the mystical ideas he based his claims on.  For my part, I am very careful about buying into any ideas that cannot be clearly taught from scripture.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom you are making a powerful case with reagard to "false mysticism" and I must say that I am very much in agreement with 99.99999 percet of what you are saying here.
I would only make this minor distinction. George's mysticism was "false" in the sense that it was not necessarily powerless, as it was counterfeit.
I am not about to throw out words like "annointing", and "vision", and "miraculous", because of a man like George Geftakys.
These are real terms, and in fact can apply to the ministry of true servants of Jesus Christ.
You cannot sit under the ministry of men like Jim Cymbala and Ravi Zecharias and deny the presence of "annointing" "visison" and "power" in their lives, and countless others.
I would in fact argue that it is exactly because these things are real, that George was able to convince us that they applied to him personally.
This is the distinction that I think fuels much of the differences that you and I have had on spiritual matters.
There is no one who can convince me that George Geftakys did not have real power, and it was more than just a strong personality. That man was a false prophet/teacher in the truest sense of the word, and that meaniing that he had an illegitimate source for the spiritual power he displayed.
Pharoah's magicians did the same thing.
I believe all of those affected by this man need to clearly understand this point.  Not to do so is to I think miss the lager lesson of our past failure ih this reagard.  It is the reason I have made such a strong case for the culpability of spiritual leadership, in allowing a man like George Geftakys to rise unchallenged.
That post was awesome Tom.  ;)
Verne
 

Don't know what this is doing under headcoverings, but here goes.

Tom,

It looks like you (and Joe) are stuck because of your fear of the "mystical".

It looks like you believe that you have the final word on anything "mystical".

It looks like you believe that the reason for your departure applies across the board.

With all due respect, I would say that it was more of matter of an intellectual acknowledgement of the twisted Scriptures fed to us by GG and his servants, and because we were no longer sensitive to the Spirit's leading, that kept so many of us in bondage for all those years.

2r

The fact of the matter is, even with George's persuasive rhetoric, he stood exposed by the plain witness of the Scriptures as a false teacher.
The problem was that many people who got involved with this man only heard him speak, but did not see how he lived. Workers and leading brothers don't have that excuse. There is no way they could justify association with a man like this, and encouraging others to do so, when his conduct was compared with the Scriptural standard.
Verne
p.s. People who handle the Word of God deceitfully will always get exposed, whether you are a Jimmy Swaggart,  a Jim Bakker or a David Hocking. That is why it is a two-edged sword. God had exposed the corruption of George's family to those around him long ago. They simply tolerated and excused it.

2ram,

you said:

1. It really isn't a good idea to attempt to judge the character of another person based on bulletin board posts.  A hour's conversation over a cup of coffee contains far more information than dozens of postings.  I wouldn't say I fear mysticism. Rather, I am very skeptical about mystical claims.

Folks who advocate mysticism seem to feel that it is sufficient to make the claim, then demand that the other person disprove it if they can. 
That is not the case at all.  The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  That is why I have repeatedly asked people to actually give examples of the knowledge of the scriptures they claim they have received from God.  So far, the only replies I have received have to do with what a bad person I am for asking, but not a shred of actual information. 

2. Regarding GG's "twisting" of the scriptures.  The twisting was cause by GG's mystical approach to the Bible.  For example, Matthew 18:20-

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (KJV)

For GG, this was the scripture that validated his assemblies as the One True Church.  He focused on the phrase, "are gathered".  What he understood it to mean was that a true "expression" of the church could only be found where Christ himself had gathered the people together in his name through an annointed servant.  He would then honor that gathering with his presence in a way that other gatherings of Christians lacked.

There are several problems with this understanding of the passage.
a. The context concerns disciplinary action in an already existing church, not the founding of a local church.
b. The passage says that Christ will be present with those exercising the discipline, not with the whole church.
c. The phrase "are gathered" merely describes the state or condition of the persons gathered, not the means by which they were gathered.

In other words, the information GG took out of the passage has nothing to do with the actual context, words, or grammatical construction of the passage.  Instead, his claim was based on his greater" illumination of the scriptures by the Holy Spirit". 

In other words, his claim was based on mysticism!   You may have given intellectual assent to his teaching and so have been kept in bondage....but the foundation of his teaching was his mysticism.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Hi Tom,

Don't know what character judging I did by stating how it looks to me as a reader.

It kind of goes like this:
Harry tells of his experience of faith and Gods goodness.  Tom and Joe agree and then go, "yeah, but.... 'long cautionary dissertation of being careful of the mystical'".

The original post that I commented on, you make some very good points.  It was the concluding statement,

Maybe "overboard" might be a better word to use instead of "very careful".

Marcia aka 2ram

Tom your repeated use of the word "mysticism" to describe those who have a different view of matters than you do smacks of condesension. As Christians, our standard is not whether something is mystical or not, it is whether or not it is Scriptural.
I get the distinct impression by the way you employ the term that it is your intention to contemn the other view, not refute it.
I think it would be far more helpful to your reader to explain why you think a stated view is unBiblical rather than using the pejorative mantra of "mysticism."
I realise that you think recognizing the error of mysticism was the  key to your deliverance from George's errors and so you are probably motivated by a desire to aid others in that regard.
The simple truth is that the men around George were disobedient to the plain teaching of Scripture, not smitten by some supposed mystical notions, that enabled George to inflict the destruction that he did. Trying to blame what happened on mysticism just muddles the issue in my view..  :)
Verne

Marcia----

Concerning your post below---I would remind you that George often spoke of his
"experience of faith and God's goodness". He'd speak of God's great work during
his journeys abroad. He'd speak of experiences he had in his life. He spoke of a dream
he had where a book appeared called "The Acts of His Apostles"--he literally believed
he was an "apostle" in the sense of being sent by God to set up churches.

I think if there is anything we should all learn from having been in the Assembly IS to
be very careful concerning what people claim to have "experienced", or a "special
word" they have been given from the Lord. It was "not" being careful which led me into
the Assembly, and accepting someone else's "experiences" that kept me there in many
ways.

Many people are sucked into cults for the same reason. And much of the faith healing, charlatan
TV evangelists rely on "experiences", and "words from the Lord". They are fond of saying "and I
felt in my spirit", or "I saw in my spirit". I am not saying that God cannot heal, or cannot give
experiences, but I think being careful about what you believe or accept as being from the Lord
is very important. I understand what you mean about going "overbaord"(though I don't believe that
is happening)--we don't want to become so cynical or skeptical that we believe God does nothing
at all in the way of supernatural things. But we do need to be very careful.

Being careful to make sure things are in Biblical context is VERY important. For example, I could
quote "Be careful for nothing, but in all things let your requests be made known onto God..." and
say "See--the Lord says not to be careful about what we do, or what we accept, or what we hear".
But the true context is not to be "anxious about anything". On the contrary, the "Noble Bereans" studied to make sure "everything" they were hearing was coming from God and agreed with the
Scriptures. Were the Noble Bereans going "overboard" when they put even Paul to the test??  Paul
praised them for doing so.

--Joe

Verne,


Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says" mysticism 2: The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through direct experience, (as intuition or insight)."

That is the word for what I was talking about in my post to 2ram.  We were not discussing the men around George.  We were discussing how George Geftakys interpreted the scriptures. I pointed out to her that George claimed to have knowledge about the meaning of scripture that no one could obtain from the text.

I am not using the word as some kind of put-down.  It is the current name used in English for what I am trying to describe.  If you know some synonymous term that you would find less offensive, please inform me what it is.

I am not saying God cannot communicate directly to a human being.  I am saying that George used mysticism, (sorry), as an interpretive method, and that he based much of his teaching on this.  He also copied many things from other folk's mystical interpretations of the Bible as well.

2ram,

You say I am going "overboard", meaning, I believe, "too far" or "too extreme" in my attitude.  Fine, please state what the correct position is.  Make a positive argument for your own position.  If I have gone too far, just how far is far enough?

Thomas Maddux

Joe,

The book he claimed to have seen in his dream was called, "The Atlas of His Apostles."

When he first made the claim in a worker's meeting, I said, "An atlas is a book of maps."  He became angry....nothing new there.  ;)

Thomas Maddux

Tom---

Thanks for the correction. I knew the title had "Apostles" in it. :D

--Joe

So what?
That does not ever excuse anyone for allowing the man to postulate (no matter how he got it) what was clearly not there.
What kind of stupidity allows a man like this to stand up in front of a group of people and teach that man was created on the seventh day, I ask you?
Nothing mystical about the horrific malfeasance and derilection of duty on the part of those  charged with oversight. The mysticism is entirely tangential to what is of import, and that is truth!
You attribue the rise of the assembly teaching to George's mysticism.
You frequently suggest that others employ the same approach to Scripture.
I contend that such assertions are not really relevant.
Any claims that a person makes can be tested by what Scripture itself teaches.
This is the method I have used to try and resolve every disagreement we have had.
I know it makes you undomfortable to talk about the men around George.
My contention is that Geroge's mysticism was not the only or the main problem Tom.
A failure to follow Scripture was...
Verne

Some of us only heard this windbag on occasions he was granted the opportunity to toot his own spiritual horn.
We may be forgiven for not knowing the man was a liar.
The larger question though, is why would anyone accept all this hot air from someone who lived and behaved as Geftakys did?
As someone said, your actions are speaking so loudly that I cannot hear a word you're saying.
You don't have to minutely disect someone's doctrinal position to determine that something is wrong.
Try as we might to lay the blame on what George taught, the real problem was a  failure to Scripturally deal with what he did!
Verne

Joe, and Tom,

Please don't be offended, but I had to chuckle at your response to my comment.  All you did was prove my point.

I agree with your conclusions about George, and with Verne's as well.

I was talking of your "reaction" everytime we talk about something that reminds you of George and his ministry.

Let's use an extreme example, George said, "If the shoe fits, wear it".

Is it OK for me to use that quote, or not?

In your paranoia and to prevent us from following another cult, you have made a "fear of anything Georgian" cult of your own.  So everytime we discuss valid Biblical principles, you Georgianize it and even shoo people off the board because of your perspective.

It's OK to address me as Marcia even though I use my 2ram account.

Marcia

Marcia---

I wish I could understand where you were coming from better. All I am doing is stating
an opinion based on what I have learned from past experience. This is the "Assembly
Board" isn't it? I don't understand why you keep labeling people who disagree with you
as in a "cult". How is mentioning the "Nobel Bereans" "Georganizing"?

It is natural to remember the Assembly and what was taught there, and what we learned,
and why we exited. When someone begins to teach something that mirrors that, it is only
natural to remind what we used to hear all of the time that was way off base. You mention
discussing "valid Biblical Principles"--which one's are you referring to? If you want to talk about
salvation, justification, the Trinity, etc. etc., I'd be happy to talk about it. But when someone
implies that we don't need to be careful concerning what we hear or are taught, and should
just accept someone's "experiences" with the Lord based on what they say, I totally disagree.
That is not a valid Biblical principle. The Bible says to be very careful about what we hear, and to
be like those Nobel Bereans, and test what we hear to see if it matches with the Word of God.

I have no paranoia about your joining another cult---I think you have learned what many have
learned through their time in the Assembly. I just never forget what led me into,and kept me
entrapped in the Assembly--and I believe it affected others just the same. And it was a subjective
belief, based on one man's "experiences", and his "one on one" relationship with God. After exiting,
it took years to learn that this "subjectiveness" was not Scriptural at all. He had twisted Scriptures
to fit his own opinions, and I'm afraid to say, that there are a couple of people who enter the board
from time to time who do the same. And it is this attitude that I find myself objecting to, and standing firmly against.

You are entitled to your own opinion Marcia, and I won't label you as part of a "cult" for it. If you
want to hold to the views you hold that's fine with me. But when it comes to subjective belief,
"experiences" etc., I will say it is impossible for me not to mention the Assembly and what happened
in the past---because it is what the Lord taught me after exiting. As I said before, God can do anything he wants to do. He can give "experiences" and revelations if he wants to--he's God. But,
I'm not going to simply accept what someone says due to an "experience" or a "revelation" they claim to have without testing it first, and seeing if it is indeed Biblical. If this is a "cultish" attitude then
so be it.

And I have to say, I really don't want to "argue" with you Marcia. Your posts used to be very humorous and gracious(I'm not saying they have stopped being that way, it's just that you didn't
used to lump me into a group before, and would accept person's opinions as their own). All the best
to you and God bless.

--Joe

Hi Joe and Tom,

You are right.  This is AB.  I do not know what got into me.  I apologize for interfering with your discussion and sidetracking it.

2ram is a second account I started, I can't remember why.  But 2ram is not a composite, as frank was, and all posts are mine.

Marcia

Marcia----

I'm very curious---what do you mean by "But 2Ram is not a composite as frank was,
and all posts are mine". Why do you mention frank? Do you mean that both you and
someone else were posting as frank? Or were you not involved with frank at all? Sorry,
I'm just a bit confused.

--Joe

I have never posted on anyone else's account.  Admin can verify that with my IP address.

Marcia

Marcia----

I was just curious as to why you had brought up "frank" as being a
composite. I believe you have never posted on anyone else's account--
what I was concerned about is someone else posting as if they were
you. I was just curious is all---a lot of strange things have happened on
this board in the past. And recently with all of the anonymous posters
and new names, just about anything can happen. I know I would be
very aggravated if someone was using my name and posting things
contrary to what I really believe, and I think you would be too. Thanks
for clearing it up.

--Joe

Verne,


1. There is something that you are not taking into account.  GG imbibed a large amount of Plymouth Bretheren and Deeper Life mysticism for years before starting the assembly.  He also added some of his own ideas into the mix. 

When he started working towards the assembly he collected  a few people from backgrounds similar to his, ie, Steve Irons, me, Sister Harrison, Joan Hansen and a few others.  We all had drunk from the same well, and so were ill-equipped to discern his errors.  We already believed much of what he taught.  In my case, the partial rapturism was new to me.

He focused his recruiting efforts on young college students that knew nothing of the Bible.  So, from the very beginning he taught them to think as he did.  For years they never heard any other version of Bible teaching.  His teaching of absolute loyalty to the leadership, ("God's Government"),  was considered by them to be to be the practical expression of loyalty to God.

Not a good idea...but that is what they were taught and that is what they believed.

But remember, the order was: a. mystical interpretations of scripture. b. recruitment of young men to be trained as leaders. c. inculcation of the mystically derived teachings into their understanding of the Bible.    That is why I am saying that mysticism was at the very root of what happened to the people who became involved in the assembly.

2. Although GG's weaknesses and personality quirks became evident pretty quickly, knowledge of his immoral past and the abuse problem did not. I never heard of it during my own 18 year sojourn.  In my own case, I had already left the assembly the first time I heard of past adultry, and it was some years later that I heard a third hand mention that "David slaps Judy around."  Almost all of what I know about that sorry mess I learned on this bulletin board.

It is certain that some people, at differing times, knew parts of what had gone on, but I am not in a position to judge them as individuals.  GG was/is clever and unscrupulous.  He used lies and misinformation to cover for David, and I do not know exactly what these men, (and women), knew, believed, or thought about it.

I was/am just as outraged as you about what happened to Judy and her children, but I simply do not know the answer to the question, "What did you know and when did you know it?" concerning any individual.  I am not in any way excusing any evil conduct by any individual.  I am simply saying that I do not know what they knew or thought, and so am not in a position to judge them.
God will, I am sure, do an adequate job of that.

3. As to testing GG's teachings by "what the scripture teaches", you first have to actually know what the scripture teaches.  I don't think anyone, at least in the early years, had that advantage.  Most of GG's goofy ideas I already beleived before I ever met him. I was very deep into restorationist/"Church Truth"/Deeper Life teaching myself.  Others were filled with it as soon as he could teach them.

I had many disagreements with GG during my stay.  But as I saw them at the time the issues did not rise to the level of breaking off fellowship.
What finally did it for me was the misappropration of funds.  When I saw that going on, I left the leading bro's meeting and objected openly.  Later I went to GG's house and confronted him about it.  Soon afterward, I left.

But it all flowed out of teachings based on false mysticism.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Joe,

Marcia identified herself as 2ram early on.  Sondra Jamison has been here, I believe, as Ruth, Sondra, Affirming, and Frank.  There is some possiblilty that more than one person was posting under the Frank account.  So, Frank might well have been a composite "person".

Thomas Maddux

Yes, sondra has admitted to her fellow barnacles that she, as well as others were posting as frank, (which is why it didn't always seem to be sondra's specials.)

She also admitted to posting as meeko, which seemed obvious to me, and has since deleted those posts, as well as the "ruth" posts, explaining that she was preventing the possibility of them being changed by someone else.

Moon,

Let's see....Affirming.....Ruth....Sondra....Frank....Meeko....

Could this be evidence for reincarnation??? 

 ::)

Thomas Maddux

Verne,


An interesting theory, and quite plausible.  However, there are some things I know about GG that do not fit into your scenario.  For example, once when I was about to take a weekend off in Santa Barbara, GG asked me to drive by a little Assemblies of God church.  He wanted me to see if it was still there, and to see if a certain brother was the pastor.

I asked him why, and he told me that that is where he fellowshipped at one time.  I think it was sometime between his discharge from the Marines and his entrance into Biola.  Places him in the college age group.  He referred to it as the "young people's" group.  He had previously told me some things about what went on there, and now I was finding out the who and the where. 

It was a typical Pentecostal church.  I cannot imagine a better place to become misinformed about mysticism than a Pentecostal church!  He spoke of participating in "victory marches".  A victory march, in those circles, means everyone gets up and marches around the building singing rousing hymns.  He had previously told me about participating in outreach activities to young people in those days.

He spoke well of the pastor and was wondering if the "dear man" was still there. He was, btw. 

I also know that during his brief stay in the military he attended Dawson Trotman's bible studies in Pasadena.  He was once involved in evangelism among LDS people in Utah, and was working with a foreign students ministry when I first saw him.

None of this seems consistent with the idea that he designed and worked a 40 year scam.

Another factor is that when GG first began the assemblies, he did so at considerable financial sacrifice.  He and Betty were doing quite well prior to this time through his job in insurance and hers in teaching.  It was several years before the assemblies began producing any real income.  Most of the early "saints" were college students or young families.  I remember one seminar where the collection, after expenses were deducted, amounted to about $40.00. This, to me, seemed at the time to be evidence of genuine dedication and commitment to what he believed God wanted him to do.  It was a factor in convincing me he was genuine. 

So, I think my view of a man with a narcissicistic/delusional personality that became involved in mysticism, and then went on deeper and deeper into self-deception, delusion, and evil fits the evidence better.  I could be wrong.  But since I am not a strict Calvinist I think this sort of thing can happen.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Verne,


When you say, "something else was very wrong with us" I think you hit upon a key issue.  It is quite true that many people took one look at GG and hit the road.  I have always maintained that our remaining in the assemblies had much to do with our own issues.  I think I can identify a few.

1. Once a sister who had left said to me, "Every man in the assembly is on a father search."  I think this is one key.  How many of the men around GG, especially, were close to their fathers?  Most were not.  Their fathers either were not around due to divorce, or had some issue that had alienated their sons.  I can think of several of the Fullerton brothers who fall into this category.

2. Fear of life and a desire to avoid adulthood.  Life can be scary.  We frequently have to make choices only partly knowing what will happen as a result.  Remember when you were about to get married?  "Am I sure about this"  "Am I doing the right thing?"  I think most people go through this.  Should I buy this car, seek this career, buy/sell a house, move or stay in this town?  On and on.  Healthy minded adults do this all the time.  But they know there are risks.

In the assembly you had the illusory "safety" of knowing exactly what God's will for you was.   :o  For me, taking up the reins of my own life was one of the more difficult tasks I had to face.  Every decision involves some form of risk, and I don't like to take risks.  In others the degree of this factor would be different...but most folks try to avoid risk if they can.

3. Young people want to serve a great cause.  That's one reason they enlist in all sorts of causes, political, environmental, social, and religious in such numbers.  What could be a greater cause than the restoration and advancing of the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ?  To me, it was thrilling to be involved in such a cause.  Of course, it turned out differently, but we didn't see that at the time.  Hindsight is far clearer than foresight.

4. The need to belong, to be a member of a group that validates and affirms you is a basic human need.  If you were "faithful" and "diligent" in the assembly, you got this.  If you wavered, you lost it...and wanted to get it back.

I am sure there were other reasons...but what I am saying here is that we did not want to see or believe that GG was whacko, and that his work was severly flawed.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

 


I imagine the points Tom has listed as his take on why people joined the Assembly could be used to describe why young people make any of the decisions they do when considering their future - at least from a psychological point of view.  So what? 
 
I believe that many of us were drawn into the Assembly who heard God call them through His Word.  The Word of God is powerful.  When I went to a Bible Study in a house in Oak Park, Illinois -  outside of conventional, traditional clergy/laity style setting - I took hope that I might truly find a Christian life that would sustain me.
 
I do not believe the Assembly was a cult, but I do believe there was an element of control that was unhealthy....as well as other error that I won't belabor to make my point on this subject.  The "cult" books teach that in cults approximately 80% of what is taught from the scriptures is true/accurate.  To a young believer, that would be enough truth to influence a decision.  Can God be divided into parts?  No.  So if God is seen through the written Word, God is seen and hearts are drawn.  I think it is wholly ineffective to make the Assembly to be ALL BAD as many tend to do on this board.  Those who walked with the Lord going into the Assembly, walked with the Lord IN the Assembly and walked OUT of the Assembly....with the Lord. 
 
I believe the Word of God drew the hearts of individuals and they saw people who took God's Word seriously and people who truly upheld godliness in their lives.  It was obvious to me that there was something that was working.  There was an authority, an accountability, a compassion.  People didn't just dangle and move in and out as they pleased. 
 
For me, I saw people who actually studied their Bibles and talked about the Lord in a real way.  They knew Him.  He was their best friend.  I heard people my age explain who the Lord was and what He wanted for our lives.  It was the revelation of God through the Word as I studied it with others in Chapter Summary that carried my heart away.
 
George and Betty were sort of awesome characters to me.  I couldn't relate to them and didn't care to know them really.  But I loved "the saints" in Oak Park and they showed their love for the Lord through their behavior and words and willingness to serve.

.................

Yes, people are injured from the lack of mature "fathers" of the faith to lead and counsel with, but I see it as a "Joseph in Egypt" experience that God can use well in our lives.  God did not apologize to Joseph for his brothers' betrayal that bought Joseph's path to the throne.  Things were very wrong in Joseph's life for a long period of time, but he walked with God THROUGH IT ALL.  The issue was Joseph's spiritual grooming for the throne the whole time. God was with him. Apparently Joseph needed the tough road.  Benjamin didn't.
 
It is clear that George was/is wrong and whether he plotted to take advantage or not - he was not walking in the Spirit of the Lord, our only safe place.  He either never had an anointing or had an anointing and lost it as Saul.  And whether men around him were negligent or not, what does that matter to the man (woman) who knows God brought him/her through? 

The Bible says that only those who are spiritual can help others who have been taken in a fault.  Without that type of help, all that is discussed is simply academics.  Spiritual discernment exposed George and spiritual discernment heals broken hearts.

........................ 

Sondra

Personal attacks removed by moderator...TM

 

I do have to say, though I was involved many years ago, that I have come to realize a few
of the reasons why I joined and stayed back then. I was about 19 years old and actually
very confused about life. I really believe that the opportunity to let others make my de-
cisions for me actually took a burden off of my shoulders(though it added other burdens
eventually). I didn't have to make decisions about where to live, etc.--I was in a "brother's
house" and much of my life's decisions were made for me.

I had been saved shortly before, but had never attended a church. I really didn't know very
much about "church" at all. I had read the Bible all the way through just once, and was not
"grounded" in the faith. Much of my walk was pure emotion(if I "felt" the presence of God
and his sweetness all was well, but if there was no "feeling" God was near I was immediately
depressed). When I attended the first Bible study, George was teaching. I was amazed at
the teaching at that time---such things as a part of the tabernacle representing Christ in some
way intrigued me tremendously. Unfortunately, I began to interpret the whole Bible(especially
the Old Testament of course) this way. Instead of reading the Bible for what it REALLY said, I
began to want to interpret every part of it in the same way George did. A "sword" couldn't be
just a sword, it had to stand for "The Word of God", because the word of God is "as a two-edged
sword." But what all of this did was to lead to a puffed up sense of knowledge, rather than really
being built up and grounded in the Word of God. I began to read each chapter looking for "what
stood for what" in the "spriritual sense"--the literal meaning wasn't important to me any more.

It was after beginning to read other books by people like C.H. Spurgeon and Johnathan Edwards(and many others) that I began to realize that George was truly way off base in his teaching. But his teaching had been one very strong reason for remaining--especially the fear it generated. The thought of "losing the Inheritance" was terrifying to me. So, on the one hand there was a sense
of comfort in the thought of not having to make many of my own decisions, but also a deep fear of
perhaps "losing out" holding me in also. I didn't want to grow up, and I also didn't want to lose out.

I believe this kind of fits a pattern in many cults and aberrant Christian groups. Something about the teaching intrigues and seems so "blessed" or on a "higher level" when you first hear it. Many people drawn to cults have low self-esteem and want a sense of direction, and want to be taken care of.
But there is always a fear which keeps them in also. There is always the "threat" of what lies in the outside world. As one would hear often "you are outside the covering when you are out in the world brother"(or something to that effect).

This is just my experience though of course, but I really feel that many fell into the same type of
influence in the past. I am so thankful for the book "How to read the Bible for all it's worth", and for the writings of many of the Puritan authors, and for the sermons of C.H. Spurgeon. These helped to truly free me from the "Assembly interpretation" of Scripture, which is very hard to "cast off" in many ways, because it was so deeply ingrained in so many of us. I thought I would just share since we were on this subject.

--Joe

Folks,

Here is a link to a good article on how to read and understand the Bible.  The author runs Rest Ministries and himself came out of a spiritually abusive "shepherding" group.

http://www.geocities.com/restministries/3questns.html

Thomas Maddux

A quote from the above website:

     But what about people who just want to know the basics of how to interpret the Bible for themselves?  Is Biblical interpretation really so difficult that we have to go out and buy a bunch of books on the subject? 

     Yes and no.  The Bible is a large collection of ancient literature which Christians hold to be inspired by God.  Nevertheless, because it was written in ancient times, some level of study and scholarship is required to understand it.  Fortunately for us, most of the really hard work has been done for us.  People who have taken the trouble to learn the original languages of the Bible have provided us with several reliable translations of it.  Others who have studied the history and culture of Bible times have also written books to shed light on the Bible. 

     But most people don't have the time, energy, or even the money to build a library of books about Biblical interpretation.  What are they to do if they want to understand the Bible?

I didn't have to read very far into the author's advice to know that he believe's as the Catholic's used to that the Bible is a book for the scholars and that common people cannot understand it.  I beg to differ.  I don't buy that one has to be led by scholars to find correct interpretation of the Bible.

How is a serious reader of the Word suppose to go any further with this Mr. Henzel's thesis on this subject?

Mark 12:38  And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,

John 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 

Heb 8:10-11  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:  11  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (KJV)


I Jn 2:27-29  But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.  28  And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.  29  If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.  (KJV)


John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Eph 4:14-15  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  15  But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:  (KJV)

These scriptures teach that we should fear the scribes...the self-appointed 'authorities' who have formal Bible education.  Bible authorities who do not teach that God can teach the individual through His Spirit...that the believer needs to have the Word regurgitated for him...beware!!!

It is clear that God is willing to teach His people without a methodology.  This was the problem people are having now.  They depended on 'educated' bible scholars to teach them.  I have found that God opened the scriptures to me if I was willing to leave the conventional ideas that the churches taught.  They base so much on getting people to come into their doors, become good paying members, etc.  Yes, young believers need to be "churched" so to speak, but God is able to teach anyone who is sincerely searching for His revelation....i.e. the revelation of Himself.

Sondra

Sondra----

The author in the link isn't saying as the Catholic's used to that one may not understand
the Bible. He states that scholars who know the original Greek have made it far easier for
us to understand the true context of the Scriptures. Apparently you didn't read to the
point where he asks the three fairly simple questions one should ask when reading a passage
of Scripture:

1)What was the original author actually saying to HIS audience? What is the "original" message?
What does it mean in context to the age he was living in when he wrote the message?
This is the "Grammatical Historical Interpretation".

2.What is the author saying to ALL Believers? One verse may be taken out of context so it is
important to "compare Scripture with scripture" to make sure we are receiving the correct in-
terpretation.
These are the "theological ramifications of the text".

3. What is the God saying to US through the text?  You must ask the first two questions first,
before asking the third. If we jump to the third before asking the first two we are prone to
interpret for ourselves what the scripture is actually saying.  This is the "personal application of the
text".

For all of you who do go to the hyperlink, please read the section "What often happens instead.."
It is amazing how the author defines a person who has jumped directly to application without asking
the first two questions, and their attititude to the person who is trying to be careful and follow the
right steps when interpreting Scripture. I won't go into details, but I think if you read the section you will see an amazing similarity to the very person who is "discarding" this article as worthless. Apparently they are far more spiritual than to need a methodical interpretation of a text of Scripture in order to truly and accurately understand it.

--Joe

Tom,
Thanks for the article. I truly enjoyed it. I found it helpful, reasonable and practical.
Gratefully,
E.

Folks,

Here is a link that gives shows the kind of teaching on authority that Keswick/Deeper Life/Higher Life thinking can lead you to.  It is a review of Watchman Nee's book "Spiritual Authority".  Nee's ideas are derived from the beliefs he held about man, revelation, and being taught of God.

His views on absolute obedience to authority were virtually identical to GG's.  GG spent years in contact with this movement's teachings, and I suspect that this is where his own teachings on  the subject came from.

It might be a little upsetting for some to read this.  So be warned. 

The author was involved in a cult that promoted these ideas.

http://www.dtl.org/cults/review/authority.htm

Thomas Maddux

There are a number of weaknesses in your argument if it is your intention to argue, which seems to be the case, that the only significance, or even the most important, is to be derived from Scripture contextually.
As I have argued in the past, this clearly cannot apply to Scripture that is prophetic.
When David wrote that they pierced his hands and feet in Psalm 22, not only was there contextual significance to what he wrote, there was also prophetic significance.
We cannot be certain how much of this is true of the NT.
I am not arguing that the person who used those verses in applicaton to her own circumstance is right.
What I am saying is that the argument you employ to establish that she is wrong is weak at best.

The fact of the matter is Tom, for you, me or anyone else to employ academic argeuemts to tell any Christian how God may or may not speak to them, from the Scripture or otherwise, is the height of presumption, and frankly flies in the face of countless examples given in the Scriptural record! Remember Balaam?

You do not know how God may choose to speak to someone! Please do not pretend that you do.

Let me give you anther example.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Your line of reasoning would have us beileve that no non-Jewish believer has a right to adduce John 8:32 to contend that God's truth has set him free.
After all, that verse clearly says that Jesus made this remark to Jews who believed on him.
One would immediately reply that that is a ridiculous argument. Of course the truth sets everyone (who receives it!) free.
The point of course is one has to compare Scripture with Scripture and that this principle is clealry taught in other places.
To argue that the Spirit of God does not bring to mind that which has been spoken to believers and to use that verse in the way that you did to make the point, is to ignore a fundamental principle of God's way of dealing with his children, in order to try an make a case to support what I think is an incomplete at best, and very flawed at worst, view of the nature of the Holy Scripture Tom.
What is truly surprising about your point of view is that I dare say most believers  would not think twice about a personal application of that verse you so confidently dismiss; not because fo some erudite lexical analysis, but because this is a routine occurence of a walk of faith!
Verne

You make a very good point here:

I am reminded that we are all priests, according to the New Testament.  What this means is that each of us has access into God's presence, and we need no intermediary.  God would not grant us this amazing state if we must all be scholars and possess commentaries and lexicons.  Many people function well as priests who are illiterate.

While Deeper Life theology is problematic if taken to it's logical end, what Tom seems to be espousing also is not without risk.  While Sondra may be somewhat presumptuous at times with regard to hearing God speak, Tom's ideas if misapplied, would lead people to believe that they are dependent upon a learned man to interpret the scriptures for them.  After all, how many poor babes in Christ have read the Bible and gotten excited over a verse that is assigned several different meanings by several different scholars?   What we are seeing here, if I am not mistaken, is a reaction to extreme ideas on both sides, rather than a clear exposition of the scripture.

....must not strive, able to teach, that's what is so important.

Verne,


Scripture informs us that the writers of prophecy frequently did not know the full significance of what they were writing.  (I Peter I:10-12)

So the question is, "How do we know what it meant?"  The answer is that further revelation was given at a later time through further inspired scripture.  In other words, we read the meaning in a part of the Bible that was writtin, under the inspiration of the HS, at a later time. 

This is a far cry from reading a text and receiving a mystical communication directly from God as to what it means!

Yes, that is the point.  The principle is clearly taught in other places in the Bible. We read the Bible after the gospel was sent to the Gentiles, and understand this from other texts, such as Romans 6:22.  But, once again, one does not need a mystical communication from God to understand this.  You just have to read the Bible.  :o

Can you demonstrate that the Jews who heard him understood this to mean the Gentiles as well?  In light of Acts 10:27-28 Peter did not seem to understand the Lord's words to mean that.  What you are doing here is to import understandings from other passages to see the broader application of the passage.  Comparing scripture with scripture.  Nothing wrong with that.

But the question that arises from the Deeper Life teaching that we receive a running commentary on the Bible as we read it, if only we are spiritual enough to "hear" it is contrary to this.  Why would anyone actually need to compare scriptures if God himself is explaining the meaning of every verse to the reader?


Actually Verne, what I am doing is respecting the text!  I am treating the text as inspired of God, and therefore the words,grammar, and context are important, since they are the vehicles of meaning. 

Notice what you said, .

The text says, John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.    "You" here, is the apostles.  The church has understood this verse to be a guarantee that the apostles would be specially empowered of God to transmit what Jesus said in their presence to the disciples. 

What did you, or anyone else born after his last appearance on earth, ever hear Jesus actually say in their presence?  Nothing I know of.  To take this verse and make it some general principle applicable to all Christians is to read your own meaning into a text that cannot contain it. The practice is known as eisogesis, as you know.

You are correct about people not thinking twice.  It was our failure to "not think twice" that allowed these errors into our minds to start with.  All it took to get us, and many others as well, into the GG assembly was to have someone who was good at pushing Deeper Life mysticicm to explain the Bible.  Make no mistake about it, Verne, GG almost nothing GG taught was in any way different from the most radical of the Deeper Life teachers.  Anyone who cares to can read it in Watchman Nee's books.

Do not confuse popular with true.  Deeper Life teaching arose as the evangelical church responded to the development of psychology by Freud, Jung, Adler and others.  It is NOT what Christains have believed and taught for 2000 years.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
 

Standerby,


1. You are correct that a person does not need to be literate to walk with God.  Access into God's presence is secured by the person and work of Christ.  I am sure there are many things of practical value that could be shared by a godly, but illiterate, saint.  But would you want to appoint such a person to be a teacher in the Church?  I think not.

2. "Getting excited" over a verse and understanding the verse are not the same thing.  Joe got pretty excited over the verse that he thought was telling him not to get married.  But was that a good understanding of the verse?  I think not.

Thomas Maddux

Verne,


The verse you cite is Isaiah 30:21.  The context is a series of "Woes" that God has pronounced upon the faithless, idolatrous, immoral people of Judah.  After telling them all the terrible jugements that are about to come upon them, he assures them that He has not completely rejected them and will one day, "bind up the bruises of his people and heal the wounds He inflicted, (V26). 

He addresses his message to the "people of Zion who live in Jerusalem", (V19) and tells them that when they finally quit resorting to idol worship and call on Jehovah, he will hear their cries.  He goes on to tell them that although he will not lift his judgement upon their sins, he will make it clear who His true servants are, (instead of the false prophets of the idol cults).  The true teachers of His ways will be hidden no more, (V20).  It will be clear to them who they should listen to.

And they will receive instruction from these teachers! (probably prophets) Whever they turn right or left, the teachers will say, "This is the way to go, go this way."  Turning to the right or left is a freqeuntly used OT metaphor for straying from  God's covenant, btw.

They will hear a voice with their ears.  That is, they will hear and understand words in grammatically correct sentences.

Then they will get rid of their idols, (V22), and God will send the natural and agricultural blessings promised in the Deuteronomic Covenant, (V23-24).

True, the verse is prophetic.  The fulfillment was yet in the future at the time of writing.  But the prophecy is about "Zion and those who live in Jerusalem".  Not about Tom and Verne.

In sum, the verse has nothing to do with what we are discussing.  You have taken a text completly out of context Verne.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

"And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left."

This could be a prophetic reference to the speaker coming from a police car when one
makes an illegal turn.(whoop!! whoop!! "Pull over!!") Although it does not mention anything about flashing lights though.

Sorry--couldn't resist. :D

Seriously though, I think it could refer to the Holy Spirit using our memories to recall
scripture when we turn aside. We are tempted to be angry at someone, and the verse
"turn the other cheek" might come to mind, and causes us to think twice about what
we are about to do.

--Joe

Thomas,

I'm glad we agree that things of practical spiritual value can be communicated by a godly, illiterate saint.  And, no, I would not appoint such a person as teacher in the Church!

I didn't think we were talking about teachers, but normal everyday christians.  At any rate, how is a person to know, upon getting excited about a passage, if they are taking it out of context?  Should they consult a learned man?

Let me tell you, if that is your answer, I would be quite busy.  Far too busy to do anything but talk.  I gather that you are hoping to enter the ministry in some capacity.  If I am making a correct assumption, do you intend to instruct those under your guidance to not take encouragement or guidance from the Word without getting instruction from a person with credentials, who knows the correct context, etc.?

While I don't think you would do such a thing, perhaps one of the reasons several people are having difficulty with your line of thinking is because you aren't making it clear.  How about clearing it up?

Standerby,


The basic point of this discussion is the way in which God communicates his truth to his people.  My position is that God has spoken into the time/space unvierse we live in through inspired men, some of whom were inspired to write their message down.  They wrote in the languages and literary forms of their societies.

The message of God, I believe, is conveyed through the inspired writings.  The original documents were inspired, but the Christian reader must use the context, words, and grammar to ascertain the meaning.  Some things are plain and simple.  Others are not, (2 Peter 3:16).

The other folks advocate what seems to me a theory of "double inspiration."  In other words, the text is inspired, but to properly understand it the reader must also be under some type of illumination or inspiration as well.  None of these folks have denied that the Bible means what it says, but they seem to be saying that there is another "higher" meaning that one gets directly from God through the HS.

(If I am misrepresenting anyone here, tell us what you believe.)

Many leaders of abusive and cultic churches have used this popular belief to dominate and decieve thier followers.  This happened to most of us.  The teaching opens the door to domination by men who get people to believe that they are so close to God that only they know the "true" teaching of the Bible.  Men like Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and George Geftakys all believed, taught, and practiced this.

The results are disastrous.

If Joe Christian has a Bible and can read it, he will profit greatly. Much of the Bible's teaching is conveyed through historical narrative and stories, an ancient and effective teaching method.  But simply reading the scriptures devotionally does not provide the depth of understanding that can be gained by people who devote themselves to the scriptural studies.  That is why we have pastor/teachers in the Church.  BTW, people bring questions to their pastors all the time.  In our modern times, there exists a hugh amount of helpful literature and media resources that can help people to better understand their Bibles.

But to my mind, just reading and then believing whatever you think about the passage is a message from God is dangerous.

If you mean by "entering the ministry in some capacity" becoming a staff member of a church, that is not my goal.  I currently teach an on-line course in World Religions and Science through the Reasons To Believe Institute.  I hope to do more work in the science/religion/philosophy field with two goals in mind: a. To encourage and strengthen Chrisitans. b. To remove obstacles to belief from the path of interested non-Christians.  As to the career thing, been there, done that.

Thomas Maddux

Verne,

One should never appeal to an ad hominem ( my "fear" of men like George) unless one is in possession of facts to support such an accusation.

What I actually fear is trying to live out my Christian life on the basis of erroneous beliefs.  What I fear even more is the danger of infecting others with such beliefs.  Therefore I do much thinking and research before I adopt a controversial doctrinal position.  I do not claim infallibility for my views, but I do argue forcefully for them.  If I am wrong, I want to be convinced of it.

But I want to be convinced, not merely "pooh poohed" or ridiculed.  What I see in such tactics is the inability to argue for a contrary position.  I am not, btw, saying this is what you have done.

What you have done is to avoid clearly stating what you are arguing for.  It is one thing to make a vague reference to "spiritual realities".  We both already believe in such things.  It is quite another, however, to take a passage of scripture and do the following:

1. Explain what can be understood from the passage by the normal means of genre, context, vocabulary, grammar and comparing other passages of scripture. (public information)

2. Explain what additional understanding you have of the passage that cannot be ascertained by these means.  Information that is "taught", "brought to mind", "remembered" or any other method of mystical communication from God. (private information)

3. Explain how one knows that this information is factual and reliable.


Since I am not claiming that I have "type 2" information, I don't need to support its reality.  Since you DO claim to have such information, you do.

Another poster who makes strong claims to such knowledge supports the claims by references to Deeper Life terms such as "touching life/death", "spiritual discernment" and so on.  But to bring such claims out of the realm of merely private information, one needs to state how one knows this sort of thing is true.

We all make this sort of distinction in our thinking.  If someone tells us they are Jesus or Napoleon, we figure them for delusional.  If someone tells us that they have seen a flying saucer, we evaluate it differently.  If they are generally credible people, we figure that they have had some sort of experience.  They have seen something.  At that point, we can quite legitimately ask, "how do you know it was a flying saucer and not merely a UFO that can be explained in several different ways?"

If they tell you they rode in it, they are most likely delusional.
Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

i would be interested in hearing if deeper life proponents would be horrified or encouraged to hear that bush agreed with them:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1256504.cms

it does seem to me that in this particular discussion, the dividing point is more along the lines of personality than belief system. some people tend to trust what their reason is telling them over their emotions - call them thinkers. other tend to act on their emotions more readily than their logical analysis - call them feelers. this tendancy is not related to intelligence or depth of faith, it is completely on a personality level. and those who seem to be most clearly in the 'feelers' category defend the validaty of their spiritual experiences fiercely, while those who are very much 'thinkers' just as fiercely guard against a dangerous level of subjectivity. the different approaches have different strengths and weaknesses that they both warn the other about, and yet your actual beliefs are so similar as to be identical. for instance, tom has repeatedly agreed that god can speak to a person directly and even separately from the bible, with the qualification that this is not god's usual form of communication and we would do well to be highly suspect of any such claims. from what i have read, verne agrees that this is not god's usual form of communication. and you both have repeatedly stated that you have to compare scripture with scripture to get a proper understanding, and as a check against emotionally satisfying but erroneous conclusions.

but i think the reason this discussion keeps going around and around is because you just have different personalities and thus different approaches to the christian life. and you are never going to change someone else's personality without destructively coersive methods. both types of personality are needed to provide balanced perspective.

i just had to interject something for whatever its worth, because its just too painful to watch you guys keep almost agreeing but not quite and consequently rehashing the same arguments over and over.  :P

"Mozart's music is terrible".

"Actually, I think his music is quite good".

"No it isn't, it's terrible. In fact, let me give you the facts. Mozart was a composer,
and that's a fact. But I've listened to his symphonies and they're terrible, that's
also a fact."

"I beg to differ. Actually, I graduated from USC with a degree in music, and I learned
that Mozart was a musical genius, having an ability to compose symphonies at the age
of 4."

"I could care less whether you have a degree in music--that doesn't make you any more
intelligent than I am when it comes to music. I've "listened" to the "music", I don't have to
read the actual symphony or know how to read music to determine who is a bad composer.
Mozart sucks and that's a fact".

"No--Mozart was a composer--that IS a fact. But whether Mozart's music is good or not is a
matter of opinion. But whether you like his music or not, the fact is, he was an excellent
composer, and those knowledgeable in music generally agree with that. Knowing how to
read music, and being knowledgeable in that area will generally support the fact that he was
a great composer."

"You just don't get it do you? I've "listened" to his music, and I can state without a doubt that
he is one horrible composer. Why can't you just accept the facts? Some people just don't want
to accept the truth."

Brian,

1. The White house has repeatedly denied that this is true.  It is, quite literally, heresay. 

However, this is the exact sort of thing one hears among evangelical Christians.  It scares the daylights out of secular people that someone who controls hydrogen bombs might get the idea that God had told him to nuke someone.   :o

What they don't understand is that the vast majority of people who say this sort of thing don't actually live their daily lives on this basis.  They do look within for "peace" or whatever before they make decisions, but they also go through the same decision making process that everyone else does.  Information, counsel, evaluation of possible consequences etc.   They use the "peace" idea to quiet their fears and self doubts as they make up their minds.

There are, however, some funny or sad stories about folks who just "hear it" and then do it.

2. You are quite correct in your ideas about thinkers and feelers.  I think of it as a continuum between total feeler and total thinker.  Most people are somewhere between these two extremes.  I know a dear brother who becomes passionate to the point of tears during every conversation, about whatever is being discussed!  I have long been of the opinion that people tend to "feel led" to do what they either like or believe, deep down, that they should do.  They usually don't feel led the other way unless it involves addictions or fleshly desires.

However, when people make the type of assertions to mystical knowledge that are being discussed here, there are underlying assumptions about reality that are being brought into play, frequently without the person realizing it.

The type of mysticism advocated by Nee, Lee, and GG is based on a very flawed model of Biblical psychology.  It is at that level that I oppose it.  The tyrannical system of church government we experienced in the assemblies flows directly out of this model.  Watchman Nee even taught against these practices in his earlier years.  But in the 1940's ended up following his own logic and becoming what he had taught against earlier in his life.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Yes, I believe that most people are feeling this way about this discussion.


Tom,

To some of us readers, it does look like the way that Verne said it, "your fear of men like George has caused you to reject.." so it is up to you to clarify.

However, since we are not cookie cutter BB posters here, in that we may not follow your guidelines to the tee, it is also up to you to "listen" before you respond.

Of course you could just dismiss my comments as pooh poohing, and then you don't really have to listen to anything I say.

The only person who has taken a simple discussion to deeper meanings is you Tom.  I do believe that the discussion started on the topic of Christians being led by the Holy Spirit.

Marcia

If I am not mistaken, Verne has done exactly what you ask above, several times.

Let's look at this from another angle.  We are admonished to walk by faith, and not by sight.  We are told that Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence for things not seen. 

Keeping this in mind, Historical Jesus is a fact.  There really was a Roman emipire, Pontius Pilate really did exist, Jerusalem was there, Galilee, all of it is factual. 

How do we get the spiritual meaning from all of this?  How do we know that Jesus really did die and rise again?  Furthermore, if He did, how do we know that he wasn't merely, nearly dead, and was revived?  As if that wasn't enough, how do we know that all of this occured as a sacrifice for sin, and a way to justify and sanctify people? 

Yes, there are many proofs we could look at, the plethora of Old Testament prophecies fulfilled is certainly a good place to start.  However, in the final analysis, don't we need to believe?  Doesn't it require faith?  I think for many Christains, when they get inspired o prompted by the Holy Spirit, while reading the Bible, they can't prove to anyone why God spoke to them from a passage, but by faith, they know it to be the case and act accordingly. 

Tom has done a good job pointing out how this can go horribly wrong, but I believe there are many, many more instances of it going right.  A righteous man falls seven times, but always gets up, brushes himself off, and keeps moving.  That is how I understand the proverb, and how I apply it to my life.  I'm going to take bold action, by faith.  I don't know if I'm right, but I'm going to take the risk, and if I fall, I'm going to get up, figure out what went wrong, and continue running the race.

Verne,


1. Since when is honest disagreement ridicule?  Do you ridicule all people who read the NASV and NIV?  Do you ridicule the majority of evangelical christians who do not accept the limited atonement teaching?  Or do you just disagree with us?


2. For me, at least, the important question here is not "what countless saints experience in their daily walk with Him."  It is "does this teaching accord with the faith once delivered to the saints?"  There is no doubt that mystical interpretation of the Bible is popular and widespread.  But the list of all things that are popular and the list of all things that are true are not identical.  Many things have had a period of popularity that were eventually seen as untrue or wrong.

3. It seems to me that those who claim to be constantly led of God through subjective experiences should be giving glowing testimonies about how God "led" them out of the assembly long before they experienced abuse or heard of the scandals. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Bystander,


1. You are mistaken.  Verne has shared several verses which allude to God's work in the believer in various ways, but none which show that their is a running commentary on the Bible by the HS as we read.

Look at his last example.  He alluded to the conviction of sin by the HS.  However, the verses where this is taught (Jn. 16: 5-11) show that while it is a ministry of the HS, it is a minstry to the entire world, not just believers.  In the believer the conviction takes place through the instructed conscience, in unbelievers through their natural sense of right and wrong (Rom 2:15).  But in both cases it is the activation into consciousness of the information that is already there.

2. I am going on a short trip to the Grand Canyon with my wife, but I would like very much to discuss the nature of faith.  When I return I will try to post something worth reading on the subject.  In the meantime let me say one thing.

It is true that through faith we give substance to spiritual truth by expressing it in our lives.  However, things are not true because we believe them.  We are to believe them because they are true.  Faith is the minds response to being convinced on the bases of evidence. (John 20:30-31)

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Folks,

Margaret Irons has posted a good article on the difference between deeper life teaching and real life practice in the life of one if this form of mysticism's major proponents; Watchman Nee.

The article is by a university professor who has written three books about Nee.  In his first one, "Understanding Watchman Nee" he points out that Nee eventually became the same kind of tyrant that GG was.  The teaching he held seems to lead to that.  In this article he points out that Nee also ended up getting involved with sisters.

Here is the link: (Oops, I just realized they don't wish to be linked to over there, so I deleted the link.)  You can find it on the front page of Assembly Reflections.
Thomas Maddux

We're fine with links from here!  The link to this article is http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/Perspectives/WatchmanNee.htm (http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/Perspectives/WatchmanNee.htm).

In the early 1980’s while living in a brother’s house, I took a week vacation to go to Arizona. My purpose was to find a quiet room and study The Normal Christian Life which is exactly what I did.

Much of it did make sense (his popular books such as The Normal Christian Life, Sit Walk Stand and Love Not the World have a bit less of the mystical overtone than those printed with really bad covers from Living Streams or attic presses such as The Balanced Christian Life or The Spiritual Man).

I wanted to get my arms around Romans 6.  I wanted to figure out why I just wasn’t grasping it.  Why it kept slipping away.  In studying The Normal Christian Life, I had the same experiences as other books about Romans 6.  There were things that were explained very clearly.  I would think that I had begun to grasp the truths and were able to apply them in my life.  I would believe I finally had it.  Then…they would seem to slip away and I would fall back into old patterns.

There were times in my life subsequent to the Assembly that I honestly had to ask the question, “Why doesn’t the gospel work?”  I never stopped believing in God.  I never stopped believing I am a sinner.  I never stopped believing that Jesus died to save me from the penalty of sin.  It was the part about Jesus delivering from the power of sin that I just wasn’t seeing. 

I know me.  I know the things I have done AFTER I had become a Christian and committed my life to the lordship of Jesus Christ.  I’ve seen the nasty divorces in churches of folks who led worship or led Sunday school.  I know from experience that Christians struggle with really bad stuff.  Doesn’t the gospel work?

Here are some conclusions I came to since that time:

1.   We are not perfected until we get to heaven and receive our new bodies.
2.   Romans 6 is true.  Our position in Christ is that we are indeed dead to sin and alive onto God.  Our salvation made us something we weren’t before – new creations in Christ.  Paul’s exhortation us to live as if this is true.
3.   We have three enemies.  The world (the deceptive thinking of our culture), the flesh (the programmed habits and thought patterns in our being) and the devil (external spiritual influences that work against Christ).  These things distort our vision and thinking making us have difficulty in seeing and feeling the truths of #2.
4.   #3 is why we need a genuinely caring Christian community so we can strengthen one another.

I admit a small amount of relief that Watchman Nee apparently had the same struggles with his own teaching as I did.

Probably every Christian reading your comment will nod his head in ageement with your observation Dave for it is a universal experience.
Paul relates the exact same experience in Romans seven as you will recall.
The question of how God empowers the will in the redeemed is one of the most profound of the Christian experience in my opinion for this is the key.
Before regeneration we were a slave to our passions.
After generation we find that we are enabled to choose for God.
Where we go wrong is in thinking that simply willing to choose for God is sufficient to accomplish that end and so even for the believer, God has to teach us our utter inability, even as believers, to please Him just because we will it.
In my humble opinion this is the key to holiness, namely, a recognition that apart from the ongoing gracious work of God in our lives, even as Christians, we do not mature as Christians.

The heir as long as he is a child, differs not from a servant...

Identifying the devil, the world, and the flesh as the arena in which the power of gospel plays out is right on the money.
The prescription for victory in each of these arenas is specific... uniquely suited to its accomplishment...
Verne

Hi Dave and Verne!

  Thanks for your honesty, Dave, in bringing up your struggle re. Rom. 6.  Good to hear from you again Verne, and yes, I was nodding my head in agreement with Dave's experience.

  Verne:  I think your explanation was very insightful; especially re. how though our wills are free they still can't produce sanctification in our lives apart from dependence on God's active participation in our lives.  Rom. 7 and 8 seem to be trying to tell us this and go a long way toward opening up the meaning of Rom. 6 for me.

   Another part of this whole mess that GG's "higher life" message produced in my life was confusion as to exactly what God had "rendered inoperative" in our present day Christian life (as regards sin).  GG (and all the other holier than thou teachers) believed that the bible taught death to the very root of sin in ones life--- victory being described in pure thoughts and motives, as well as behavior.

  Rom. 6 deals with our behavior, not the lure of temptations we might feel in our body to yield to that sin.  The same ol' human malfunctions exist in us as before our salvation (whatever those weaknesses and tendencies might be) as after new birth.

  To attempt to purge our hearts clean via spiritual disciplines of all vestiges of our fallen humanity is not only futile it is counterproductive.  The bible says, "For he purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9) and Peter relates this to the reception of the Gospel of the grace of God, not the GG method of "reckoning" faith.

  It is the dishonesty of men like GG, who claim they've attained to some great holiness, that keeps them from noticing the elephant in their own room!  If we were to give truth serum to all these "Overcomer" teachers we might be able to rid the world of a great deception! ;)

                                                            God Bless,  Mark C.

I have learned that victory over personal sin has to have a meaningful context. If we are so occupied with our sin to the point of exclusion of a proper understanding of why God calls us to holiness I think we are missing something.
The quckest way to really grasp the enormity of the problem is for the child of God to resolve to put his hand to the plough.
He swiftly recognizes that not only is personal sin destructive of his own life and that of others, it ultimately robs one of spiritual power and renders the Christian alltogether incapable of accomplishing the work God has assigned him.
When viewed from this perspective, it becomes a matter not so much about feeling  badly about our particular failings, but rather how willing am I to allow God's purpose in my life to be extinguished by my choices? The stakes are very high indeed...



I think it is possible that men like Geftakys in their final state may be totally unaware of their condition. Scripture says Samson shook himself as before but did not know that thte Spirit of God had departed.
There must have been many an occasion when he stood in the pulpit to preach and been convicted of his transgression - every servant of Jesus
Christ knows this- but ignored the caution of the Holy Spirit and the plain teaching of God's Word regarding the standard for teachers.
His conduct at the end was terrible testiomony to God's judgment as it betrayed a kind of spiritual insanity.
This is why fellowship with other believers is so critical for what we may fail to see in our own lives, faithful brethren well might...

Verne

Dave---

I had a similar experience when reading the "Normal Christian Life" and really felt for a time I had "nailed it" and finally "learned" Romans 6. I went around really excited and told everyone the book was wonderful and that Watchman Nee was a great teacher. Unfortunately (as can be expected with any "quick fix" scheme) I eventually realized I was still the same person with all of the same faults and failures, and this "mystical" book had really done nothing for me. When I say "quick fix" I mean anything that seems "too good to be true"--because invariably, they  always ARE  "too good to be true".

Over the years I've seen there are a couple of ways to look at Romans 6.  And they both involve a different perception of God.  There is one way where we realize that Romans 6 is a "fact", but we see it as some "mystical formula" for greater spirituality. We concerntrate on the formula, on our sin, and on an impatient God who keeps asking why we "don't get it and put it into action!!??" This leads to more and more failure and frustration, as we look heavenward to a foot-tapping, irritated God who is getting awfully close to shutting the door on us for failing in the same manner over and over again. We fall onto our knees in despairing tears at our inability to appease this God through our efforts to put Romans 6 into "action". We look for "quick fixes" (like "The Normal Christian Life") because our time may be short, and God is getting awfully upset at our ineptness, and may not have much more patience with us.   We walk along like those monks in Monty Python's "Holy Grail", who sing somberly in Latin, and every few steps hit themselves over the head with a board they are carrying, only to continue the song and the same head smacking process.

Then there is the other view. When we realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus Christ could have risen from the dead had not ALL OF OUR SINS, PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE been forgiven for eternity, we look at God differently. When Jesus said "IT IS FINISHED" he really meant it. If there were ANY sin that I could not be forgiven for, Jesus could not have risen from the dead ( if any sin was left unconquered and unpaid for he could not have risen triumphantly). This is a FACT. When I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior he forgave ALL MY SINS forever. Romans 6 is a FACT, but it isn't some "formula" ---it is a REALITY. The more that I see that God loves me and has forgiven me and accepts me JUST AS I AM WITH ALL OF MY SINFUL FAILINGS, the less sin seems to have power, because I am looking at a God who loves me dearly. And I am so grateful for this, that the desire to love God and thank him for what has been done ALREADY replaces a desire to try to please him with "my performance".  Of course, I WILL and DO sin---I would be a liar if I said differently. But the realization that Jesus died for me even when I was still a sinner, and still loves me exactly the same way, and for all eternity, fills me with joy and thankfulness. The desire to please him begins to severely outweigh the desire to sin, when I realize he is not standing there looking upon me impatiently, but is rejoicing that he paid the price for me, and has his arms open to receive me to himself for all of eternity. Some would say "believing all sins are forgiven past, present and future would only cause one to sin more, because you believe no matter what you do you are forgiven".  But this is not the case if one has been touched by the Grace of God and see how much he truly loves you!! It actually has an opposite effect!! The attraction of love for God begins to outweigh any attraction to sin!

I remember many, many times collapsing on my knees in tears and asking "God--why don't you give me the power to overcome like you give to others? Why did you create me if I can't overcome?" etc. etc. --- I was literally blaming God for not giving me the ability to do what he "required". I saw God as standing there, tapping his foot with impatience, shaking his head, because I was so far from being an "overcomer". I would literally dissolve into tears of hopelessness. But always, a still small voice would put this same verse into my head over and over again: "There is none righteous, no not one". I didn't understand at first, but then began to realize that none can "please" God through any type of performance, or by putting some "formula" into action. The Holy Spirit was telling me that Jesus paid it ALL--and to see the greatness of Romans 6 you need to read Romans 8, and see how there is NOTHING THAT CAN SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS THE LORD.

The result of trying to put Romans 6 into action through some "formula" based on our own "performance" is Romans 7. The result of seeing that there is nothing we can possibly do to please God, and seeing that he loves us no matter what,  is Romans 8. One perception leads to grief and despair, the other perception to unspeakable joy and gratefulness to God for what he has done for us.  "There is none righteous, no not one" ---but Praise God "IT IS FINISHED".

I remember in the Assembly an oft said statment was "I haven't arrived yet" when speaking of Spiritual growth and maturity, as though it was something WE could accomplish. Thank God we don't need to "try" to "arrive"----Jesus sees us as "seated with him in the Heavenlies" ALREADY. In HIS EYES we are already there---becasue HE already arrived, We have already(in his eyes) arrived also. "When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in Glory"(Col 3).

Re. deeper life, etc.

 Verne and Joe,

   Both your posts' seem to come to the same conclusion re. the consequences of "deeper life" teaching: trying to become more spiritual through ones own force of will (even when changing the word "will" to "faith", and thus transforming God's true meaning of trust in Him).

   "Deeper Life" teaching attempts to bring glory to those who by virtue of their knowledge and strength of will are better at being a Christian; grace becomes a secret resource that is only released in those that have the ability to push the right buttons.

   The teachers of this notion are like those who run get-rich-scheme seminars that promise millions to those that come and learn their "secrets."  The only one getting rich are those who run the scam!

  As with the above scam, GG tried to proffer spiritual riches for the price of our dedicated loyalty to his ministry.  We had our hands on a plough allright, but it was labor involved in building GG's empire for his ego! 

   While it is important in our character development to be involved in good purpose that advances God's will (the plough), I think some former members may be fearful that their good intentions could be misused again, as in past involvement with GG.  I know that I am very careful now in what and who's field I'm plowing in.  I also think it's important for former members to know that they don't have to "get busy" in service or else they will fall victim to their own selfish sinful tendencies (I know you are not saying this Verne).

   "We are saved by hope," and I take that to mean our daily living is more successful when we see God the way Joe describes in his post, vs. the self measurement methods that focuses on methods to "achieve higher life."

  I am content now to admit that I owe everything to what God has given me and am happy to let Him have every single bit of glory for any good that I might do in his service.  Not because I am especially free of my ego due to "entering into" my redemption, but just because it is an inescapable fact!

  As to "being accountable":  I suspect some former members might have some difficulty with this phrase as well.  It will take a considerable amount of trust building for many to be able to just open up about struggles they might be having.  They might also be a bit doubtful of those offering "expert" advice on how to deal with these difficulties.

   I think God recognizes where we are at and is not anxious for us to replace our Assembly "service" with a new form of "sanctified labor."  A hopeful and happy attitude that springs from trust in a loving God can do a whole lot more to advance God's will in this world than AM times, involvement in church, or any other Christian work done under a sense of guilt.

                                                      God bless,  Mark C. 

I have to say a very hearty "amen" to this.
I have not been disappointed only by my assembly experience, but as some of you know we left the CMA organization a few years ago because of blatant corruption and compromise in the Midwest Distirct.
At that time I said to myself  - "I have had enough of trying to serve... it is nothing but a heartache."
I suspect the Lord knew we needed respite and so arranged our departure and the time of rest and reflection has been so valuable.

Having said all this, I am now more convinced than ever that we as Christians will never come to spiritual maturity unless we allow God to use us in the service of His kingdom.
I would even go further and say that our maturity depends upon it.
While we do have to be careful about how, where, and to what we commit ourselves, true joy, real contentment and entrance into true sonship and spiritual authority lies in a relentless pursuit of such good works as God has ordained for each of us.
I was recently asked to teach the book of Nehemiah for adult Sunday school and a loud "no way" was already forming on my lips when the Lord so clearly said to me;
Break's over... Get busy...!
My point in all this?
You will find the temptations of carnal vices to be nothing but child's play when compared to the kind of struggle that will be engaged when you purpose to serve the Almighty...think about it....
Verne





   

I don't think I have ever heard an explanation of "deeper life" quite so succinctly.  This quoted statement really nails it!

-Dave

Folks,

Here is a quote taken from Watchman Nee's "Two Principles of Conduct".


Notice that Nee taught that "...If the life within you rises to do a thing, then it is right for you to do it."

Need we inquire further for GG's justification for his adulteries? 

Am I exaggerating?  Nee also says...




Notice especially that Nee said:

In other words if you feel like doing it, do it.  Nee's principle of "life" overrules good and evil, according to Nee.

I once asked GG about this booklet by Nee.  I asked him "is this true?"  His reply was equivocal..."Let's not make a man an offender for a word."  He didn't say yes...and he didn't say no. 

Now I think I know why.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I must say I am a bit perplexed. It appears that there is a move on the BB to disparage the blessed teachings from "Two Principles of Conduct" by Watchman Nee.

"If the life within you rises to do a thing, then it is right for you to do it".

"If, when you contemplate any move, there is a rise of life within you to make that move, if there is a positive response from the inner life; if there is "the annointing" within (see 1 John 2:20-22), then you can confidently pursue the proposed course. The inner life has indicated that".

These quotes are blessed my friends, and if they weren't true, would there be quotes, such as the following from Bessie Wilkinson of Bensonville, Arkansas? :

"Dear Reverend Burt,

The minute I heard about the Miraculous Holy Toothpicks, I felt a movement, a movement in my spirit, like the very voice of the Lord, telling me I needed to send a donation today, not just for the toothpicks, but for the amazing  Miracle Dental Floss also. I felt the very annointing you were talking about Dear Reverend, and knew in my spirit, God was telling me to give a love offering to his blessed servant. The call was so strong, and so effectual, I had to put my donation in an envelope and mail it right away!!  Please receive my love offering Reverend, and may God richly bless you and your ministry."

Dear friends, do you feel this same annointing? Do you sense the same movement in your spirit? Don't let the naysayers turn you back my friends, "if the life within you rises to do a thing, then it is right for you to do it". Just ask Bessie--she rose to the occasion, and she was richly blessed!! You can be too. Friends, the Holy Toothpicks are going fast, but you can still take advantage of this gift from Heaven. Send your love gift, for $50.00 ($100.00 if you would like the miraculous dental floss) or more, today. I'm sure you can feel the voice of the Lord moving your spirit to give today. Thank you friends for being obedient to the annointing, and to the direction and purpose of God you know is coming from within.

Reverend Burt O 'Leary
2222 Kingsbury Lane
Barstow, Ca., 92233

(no personal checks please)

When a person becomes so spiritually self-assured that they no longer consider their viewpoint to be subject to the teaching of God's Word,(and I have heard some take that position of disparaging the place of Scripture in constraining our view on doctrine), they really are indeed left with nothing but "feelings".
I do understand that some folk are convinced that they somehow have the faculty of direct communication with God( inner life) but that view is fraught with danger when not examined in the clear light of Scripture. One can easily see how this kind of thinking can lead to justification of the worst kind of sinful conduct...
Verne

p.s. Nee's statement about "if the life within you rises to do a thing..." seems very much akin to the "burning in the bosom" taught my Mormons...quite interesting...

And thus we have the axiom of the local assembly put into words.......

Thanks Mark,

Moonflower

Wow, Tom, these are amazing quotes. Would you mind if I add your post to the ga.com piece on Nee? George's answer was diabolically clever. Without explicitly passing judgment, he disqualified the booklet so no-one else would get any ideas and ruin the image of his perfect ministry, but left the door open for himself. So far as I know, he had Nee's stuff removed from the book table. Does anyone know anything about that?

Margaret,

Regarding this: "Would you mind if I add your post to the ga.com piece on Nee?"

Not at all. 

Tom M.

This discussion reminds me how prone I was to believe things when presented with authority by a respected teacher.  The statements by Nee remind me of a Chinese sister who came to the Assembly for a time.  She once was involved in a Little Flock in Taiwan.  One day she asked an older sister her name and the sister replied, “My name is not important.  The only thing important is Christ.”

It is akin to Baigt Sing’s (sp?)infamous reply when asked if he wanted seconds, “my god is not my stomach!”

When coming from authority figures who seem to us to know that they are taking about, it is easy to believe that these statements are highly spiritual and insightful.  Even though, as a spiritual simpleton, I don’t quite get it.  Few people who have already decided to respect these teachers will step back and say, “You know what?  What he just said is a bunch of nonsense!”

To the young, aspiring believer (or one who has already committed to reverence Nee), Nee’s statement seems like there is really something really there.  1)  As Christians, we have the Holy Spirit in us.  2)  This Spirit is living.  3)  If this Spirit is living, it would direct us.  4)  If the Spirit is directing us, we don’t have to worry about making moral decisions because that will be taken care of by the living Spirit’s leading 5) Therefore, I don’t have to worry about right or wrong, just “life”.

When I was a young believer who really wanted anything the Lord has to offer, I would lap this stuff up.  It is only now as a middle-aged man who has been around the block a few times that I can say, “you know what?  You just don’t see folks in the New Testament living that way!”

I don’t think Nee and Geftakys believed these things in order to justify their sins.  I think they honestly believed their own baloney.  Nevertheless, it was their baloney that made it difficult for them to see their sin.

I'm not sure they "honestly" believed their own baloney. It seems more likely, at least in George's case, that his narcissism inclined him to believe this stuff. But narcissism is built on lies to oneself about oneself. So it wouldn't be a case of examining the scriptures and studying the doctrine to objectively and honestly come to the conclusion of believing it. It would be more a case of being delighted at the discovery of this teaching, because it was exactly what he wanted to believe.

I wonder what you all think about George's situation now. Is it because he still believes these things that he doesn't repent (i.e. it wasn't sin because the holy spirit was leading him)?

Hey, don't make me an offender for a word  :D


Seriously, your point is well taken.  "Honestly" is not the best choice of words.  What I meant to express is that I don't think George was thinking "I know this stuff is patently false but I am going to act like I believe it to justify my affair."

I think in his pathology, he really believed that what he was teaching was truth just like Hitler believed that Germans were a superior race.

As for now, I would guess that George believes that he was persecuted for the truth.

Obviously, I don't know but that is my guess.

People like Gefakys and Nee are enigmatic.
Based on their bahaviour, one has to conclude that they fit the Sciriptural category of the false teacher.
I don't know whether Nee repented or not but if he was indeed a false teacher he probably did not.
If George is, he won't. He cannot.
It is not clear to me whether or not these kinds of men are indeed saved. I know folk are quick to raise all kinds of protest about how George preached the Word and started assemblies et al but any reasoning that adduces such matters as evidence of his salvation is fallacious, as Matthew 7:22,23 make abundantly clear.
It is interesting to me that Peter compares the conduct of the false teacher to that of Balaam, who apparently was indeed a real prophet.
The destiny outlined for a false teacher however does not seem consistent with that of a redeemed individual...it is possible that Geftakys is not saved, in which case a failure to repent is no surprise.
Verne

p.s has anyone over the long years of George's acquaintance ever seen him repent of anything?!

Margaret's question re. GG:

 "I wonder what you all think about George's situation now.  Is it because he still believes these things that he doesn't repent(i.e. it wasn't sin because the Holy Spirit was leading him)?

  I have often thought it would be interesting to have a conversation with GG regarding what he actually thinks about re. where he is at with God.  I rather expect it would be similar in trying to converse with someone like Mike Almanzor who still sees GG as "God's servant."

  When Mike A. was questioned by a former Valley Assembly member re. why he still stood by GG his answers were incredible!  The Valley questioner asked Mike re. GG's refusal to repent and admit his dalliances with 2 sisters.  Mike's responses:  "No", he corrected, "it was actually 5 sisters."  "But", he said, "George was not given a fair trial, and under the circumstances it was not Biblical because GG could not face his accusers."

  In other words, Mike knew full well that GG had done these things, but because of some kind of a legal technicality Mike had devised he felt GG needed to be left off the hook?!  How does a mind develop such a rationalization?

  The human psyche has an incredible ability to escape what it doesn't want to see or hear.  We can harden our hearts against painful admissions re. ourselves, and the more we continue to do so make our conscience immune to the obvious facts of our sin.  It is my belief that GG has traveled long down that road of hardness of heart and I don't think it is humanly possible to recover him now. 

  As to whether "overcomer" teaching made him this way, or that he was simply attracted to it because it fit his already proud and dishonest heart?  I have a feeling it was little bit of each.

  I know of a pastor from a church in Temecula who taught a good clear Gospel and probably didn't even know what "higher life" teaching was.  He did not lord it over the flock, and seemed to be a sincere and honest man.  However, he had a secret life:  He was married, but had a hankering for teen girls and was discovered to have molested several young girls at the church. 

  He's in prison now, and I wonder what he might think (GG, I believe, is destined for a worse result). But, in this pastor's case, he allowed his strong sinful desires to overpower what he clearly knew was wrong.  As long as he was able to get away with it without getting caught his compulsions overcame (a different version of overcomer teaching ;)) his moral sensitivity.

  GG, throughout his life, has always managed to escape facing the devastating penalties that others, like the pastor above, had to face.  Betty protects him in his sin, fools like Mike Almanzor with his OJ defense, WLA "saints' who invite him to their worship and weddings, and ridiculous enablers like those Assemblies still "accepting GG as the Lord's Servant"!!

   Myself, for my part, I also enabled GG at one time.  By simply being a member of the Assembly and cowering in fear at the thought of expressing my doubts re. how GG treated others.   Yes, Assembly evil did eventually lead to me taking off, but when I first left I felt the need to cover-up much of what I knew to be true.  Why?  I doubted my own judgment (was I really deceived and of the Devil, etc?).  >:D

  It may have been possible, but we will never know, that if GG had not had those defenders (Betty, Mike Almanzor, WLA, etc.) that the discipline he received at the hands of those Fullerton leaders might have been effective in working repentance in his life?  Is that not the intended purpose of discipline in the church--to work just such a redemptive goal?

  So, we, as former members, have some responsibility in having made GG strong in his sinful delusions, and our loyal devotion to his teaching and practices enabled him in his hardened state! :'(  Without our support he may have finally been forced to consider that he had some serious problems and honestly sought help.

  It seems that sin must be dealt with directly, without beating about the bush, or it can get such a foot hold in a life that it can overpower our better moral sense (while we still have it) and lead to deep denial of it in our lives.  Having a good theology by itself won't help a whole lot.  Having a practical understanding of how grace works in the human heart in real life might serve us better.

  1.) We, though saved, are still sinners and are just as human as the next guy.

   2.) It's okay to be honest about who we really are and our failures (those former members who still defend the practices in the group and deny their participation in it's evil are not honest).

     3) We need a Christian friend whom we can openly talk to ("confession is good for the soul") about all these sinful tendencies we still have.         

     4) Jesus is our very best and truest friend who loves us dearly--- we can come to Him.

                                                             God Bless,  Mark C.

I remember the "booktable" had a set of Nee's books.  I bought the set of 3 books. I remember one of the sisters wanting to talk to me about the books. I dont remember the exact conversation but I had to get rid of 2 of the 3 books. I would love to hear the explanation why again but now I see why. For whatever reason I didnt question.  maybe it was one of those button I was trying and trying to push as I was trying to be a perfect saint all the while the hand chosen ones had the buttons pushed for them  ???

The frequency with which people involved in public ministry fall prey to sexual sin is nothing short of astonishing. When one considers that the statistics are based on actually documented cases, we may safely assume the problem is far worse than we know. This is the kind of problem that one can easily hide from others but which will sooner or later find you out unless it is dealt with. In my humble opinon when something like this becomes public, it has been a problem left unckecked and un-acknowledged for some time.
Godly standards in this arena apparently no longer hold sway.
I was surpised to hear a concert by Sandi Patti being announced on our local Christian radio station recently.
I do not think failure in this area in and of itself qualifies one as a false teacher though. Even a man like David had this problem.
It has sadly destroyed many a Christian witness.
For us men, the discipline of the eyes and thoughts are the very rudiments of learning holiness...how strange that supposedly seasoned ministers of the gospel allow themselves to be entrapped by this oldest of the adversary's schemes...!
Verne

Dear Verne, (Part 1 of 2)

I know I am asking for trouble with this question, so I apologize ahead of time for being argumentative. Also, on the outset, I want to acknowledge my ignorance of many, many spiritual things/Christian history/etc that you are intimately familiar with. So, if you choose to respond pretend I'm an ignoramus who needs to be led by the hand - and you'll be pretty close.

Ok, for my comment and question. I use to have the same opinion as you about Sandi Patti and other, similar people. But when I read your comment I felt sick to my stomach and had to review why. One reason is obvious (I'll get to that in a minute), but it wasn't the only reason I had that reaction.

Which failure excludes us from speaking out? I know nothing of where Sandi Patti is now. I'd like to know, frankly. But that aside, which failure excludes us??? Is it denying Christ? Well, Peter might not think so. Is it sexual sin? David might not think so. Is it losing hope? Elijah might not think so. Is it doing all three? I, myself, can attest to that one not being true.

You see, I had an affair. There, I've said it ON THE WEB. I was the good girl, the one that held my little family together (so I thought, so everyone thought). The absolute SHOCK people had when they found out cannot be described. My husband was the bad boy, the one who "was going to wreck our home", the rebel without a cause. Fourteen years of birthing his babies, trying to be a good wife to "win him back", to "be a good testimony", of living with his sins and shortcomings, besides my own (I'd love to gossip about him but this is my story, not his), of feeling like less than a non-person, of letting the lies of the enemy seep in and take root - well, I was ripe for the picking. My faith kept me back, but I longed to be loved. I let that longing and wishing take root, wrap itself around my heart. I'd longed for love since as early as I can remember. When my oldest son turned 13 I bawled my eyes out. I thought he'd grow up, see me as I really am, and hate me as every other significant man in my life had. (He's 17 and that still hasn't happened, BTW.) So - my faith was the glue that kept me on the straight and narrow, so to speak, but there were lots of holes - holes created by my own humanity, by lies of the enemy, by ignorance.

When I heard about the demise of the assembly I lost even my faltering faith. It was replaced by an anger I've never experienced before or since. One year later I was propositioned by a man who didn't seem to see all the reasons to hate me as my husband did. In a moment of clarity (so I thought) I said to myself, "I've done what's right all my life and got nothing but hurt from it, I'm going to do what's wrong and be happy for once in my life."  So I did. And I was for the briefest moment. But that kind of happiness comes at a cost almost too much to bear. I'd never partied, tried not to gossip, tried to be and do everything I should, never doubted God (except once before that when my sister's son put her in the hospital after beating her nearly to death), never wanted to do ANYTHING more than serve God. And yet for the next two years I became someone you only hear about in testimonies. I'd never thought I had much of a testimony before - be careful what you wish for! The affair lasted 6 months, but I didn't care. I was still mad and I trusted no one at all, especially God. So, I put feet to my rebellion.

Dear Verne, (Part 2 of 2)

Ironically, it was my walking out the door that ultimately turned my husband around. Ok, it was God, but that act played a huge role. I’ll never know how it would’ve happened if I hadn’t lost hope, but this it how it happened when I did. He became responsible, vulnerable, crying out to God over the wreck of his life. His wife left him, one daughter hated him, the other daughter was afraid of him, his sons knew how to read the weather report and act accordingly. My husband became my friend for the first time in well over a decade. He bought me kitchen stuff for my apartment!!! He became kind. I still had NO plans to go back to him. Even my daughter urged me not to, until she came back from church camp where she said she learned that God is her daddy and maybe it wouldn't be so bad if we got back together. Then one day I was journaling about my dad; I grieved over that relationship and made peace with it. Then...a voice in my head said, "it's time to go home." I came over to the house the next day (my kids were relieved to not have to switch houses every week!). That was Sept. 12, 2005. My husband graciously took me back. There were challenges. Sometimes we didn't think we'd make it. We still have a lot of collateral damage to clear up. The first time my husband really got mad at me I locked myself in the bathroom and cut my arms. Then I showed my husband. That was an improvement - while in the assembly I did that and told no one for 5 years. But now that isn't an issue in the least for me at all (I had to promise not to do it again and was determined to keep the promise). In Feb. '06 we found out we were pregnant, now we have a precious new boy, 5 amazing children, 22 years of a marriage that went to hell and back, and every day carry a grateful humility that we are alive and loved by a God who never left us.

I use to sing the 99 and 9 song - an old hymn - when going to sleep. I'd pray, "God, if you're real, you have to fix this. I can't. I won't. I challenged God to prove Himself, to prove His character. And He did. And He seemed to say, "Gee, give me something hard next time, will ya? This is easy."

I will spend every day of however many days I have left telling people that the Grace of God is why we breathe, why I'm alive, why this family exists. I am not excluded.

It would be simpler if I'd had a rough upbringing. Dysfunctional, yes, extremely so. But on the outside? I was a goody-goody Southern Baptist preachers kid. I sang, played the piano, taught VBS. I prayed, humbled myself over and over, was kind to animals and old people.

So, I'd LOVE to be like you, Verne. I sigh over the thought of the strength of will some people have. Mine sucks. I get by on grace alone. HOWEVER, I'm learning! Yeah!! God is teaching me a discipline steeped in grace and kindness. It's COOL to be middle-aged and finally learning some of these basic things, to know it isn't too late.

Thanks for listening. Even though I promised never to post again, I did, and I'm glad.

Karey

Thank you, Karey for your courageous post on ga.com.  The truth is, many of us had a secret life kept hidden due to the fear of being a sinner amoung the pious.  My wife and I are currently going to Celebrate Recovery where we are able to speak openly about our issues and find healing in a true application of the gospel.

God will use your brokenness to help others.

Lord bless,

-Dave Sable

www.CelebrateRecoveryBoone.org (http://www.CelebrateRecoveryBoone.org) in Boone, NC
www.CelebrateRecoveryBlog.org (http://www.CelebrateRecoveryBlog.org) for conversation
www.CelebrateRecovery.com (http://www.CelebrateRecovery.com) Main one in Lake Forest, CA

I have met a few ignoramuses in my life Karey.
In my  humble opinion you don't qualify.


Absolutely none.
As a matter of fact. what you have posted on the BB is powerful witness to the remarkable grace of God to recover us from our innate tendency to destroy our own lives.
Make no mistake about it Karey, the only difference between you and the rest of us is our we have not been as forthright about our own spectacular failures.
There is also an eternity of difference between how I view your story, and the point I was trying to make about Geftakys and the reference to Sandi Patti.

That eternity of difference is acknowledgement of and repentance from known sin.

Had you not made it right, you would not be in the position you are now to minister the message grace to the rest of us.

That is what separates you from the likes of Geftakys.

To the best of my knowledge Sandi Patti has continued to record gospel albums and perform at concert tours while being given a pass on her own personal failure in this regard.
I in no way meant to imply that God cannot recover us from great sin, or that previous failure necessarily disqualifies us from ministry.
My own life provides stark testimony to the contrary.
Please accept my sincere apology if I gave that impression.
Verne

p.s. I still think Patti's recording of "Via Dolorosa" is one of the most moving I have ever heard...

TKarey----

Thanks for your post. It's our very failings that humble us enough to see that without the Grace of God we are truly nothing.(or I should say, we are truly nothing, and God's grace gives us our value). I was reading some posts before yours and thought of George and his likeness to Peter BEFORE Peter's denial. Peter told Jesus "Though all others forsake you, I will never forsake you". As we all know Peter failed miserably when actually put to the test, and denied Christ just as he said Peter would. We also know how much this must have humbled Peter---no more could he think himself "above others" spiritually. He knew what he had done--and also that he was always capable of doing it again. "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" (paraphrase).

In many ways George was(and most likely still is) like Peter BEFORE his fall.  I have mentioned before, but it has always stayed with me, how George said, when singing "Come Thou Fount Of Every Blessing", that he refused to sing the phrase "Prone to wander Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love", because, as he said, "HE would NEVER stray from the Lord, and NEVER felt prone to wander".  I remember at the time having mixed feelings---I thought "REALLY? he NEVER feels prone to wander?? WOW, what a highly spiritual person!!" But I also felt a sense of extreme pride and egotism coming from him when he said that---like he was above the hymn writer and all others who might be "prone to wander". Something sounded wrong about making a statement like that.  He added after making the statement about never being prone to wander "The Lord always has his faithful ones" and he winked towards a leading brother.(Inferring he and the leading brother were true faithful servants of the Lord unlike others).

Though George talked often of "brokeness" and going "the way of the cross", he himself did not appear to be humbled or broken at all. He saw himself in an elite status--an especially blessed servant ABOVE the common failings of others (including the writer of "Fount of every Blessing" who had this spiritual weakness to wander, and unfortunately also had a weakness in writing about it, forcing George to have to ignore this distasteful verse).

The difference between Peter and George though is striking.  Peter wept and humbled himself. He was able to be restored by the Lord because he saw what a failure he was without Jesus. He would forever remember his own denial, and it would serve to remind him that he was never above another, and that he was capable of the worst of failings. He didn't put the blame of his fall on others, but saw his complete ineptness and inability to do anything apart from God's Grace. But it would also remind him how much Jesus loved him, and had restored him and used him despite these failings. Jesus saw his heart, and his true repentance, and said "feed my sheep", because he saw Peter was a true shepherd, and would keep the concerns of his little sheep before his own.

George, on the other hand, when confronted, and excommunicated, did not humble himself and repent. He saw himself as the elite Lord's servant who was under "attack" and was only concerned about  "bringing down this ministry and a man of God", rather than all of the people he had hurt. He was concerned about himself, and had no concern for the women who had come forward, or for what had been done to them and their lives. He had no concerns for all of the testimonies of people who had obviously been hurt by his teachings and ministry. Jesus saw his heart, and his lack of repentance, and witheld him from further feeding of his sheep, because he saw George was not a true shepherd, and would not keep the concerns of his little sheep before his own.

The attitude George had mirrored the statement regarding the law we have heard "If one keeps all of the law, yet offends in one point, he has broken all of the law". Though supposedly under Grace, the perception was that if one admitted weakness, or showed failure, that "victorious walk" had been compromised and the person had fallen, revealing that they were unspiritual, and  not as close to God as those who never failed or "wandered". This sent many spiraling into depression, as this "higher walk" they sought to attain was constantly interrupted by failure (though they couldn't admit that or they would  be perceived as a "weak brother or sister"--and no one wanted their cover blown, as being perceived as "spiritual" was very important to self-esteem).

How far from what the Bible teaches!! God remembers that we "are but dust"(Ps. 103) and does not reward us according to iniquities and failures. He is amazingly aware how prone we are to stray off the good path and fall for "the sin that so easily besets us". My failures should teach me that I am nothing, and that God's grace is everything. The minute I begin to think I am more "spiritual" than the next person, I need to remember my failings, and how I have fallen in the past. And it's good to have this "thorn in the flesh" that reminds us not to think of ourselves more highly than we should.  "ALL we LIKE SHEEP have gone astray" "There is NONE RIGHTEOUS, no NOT ONE".

"Prone to wander, Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love"?   Yes--for sure at times. "Here's my heart Lord, O take and seal it, seal it for thy courts above".  Amen.

Thank you everyone for your kind responses. Verne, when I wrote about Sandi Patti I just assumed she'd had a time of repentance. I remember reading that she was under correction from her local church. I wondered at the time if it included sitting in the back and not partaking of the Lord's Supper. :)

It didn't cross my mind that this may not have happened (the repentance, not the sitting in the back). That would certainly be odd and, well, wrong. I hope it isn't really that way.  And I LOVE Via Dolorosa!! 

Maybe one of these days all of us could get together.

My little baby is cooing at my 10 and 12 year old. Life hardly gets better than that.

Patti's situation is a mess and I don't pretend to know what
God's will is for her at this point.
As you know both she and her present husband divorced their spouses to marry each other, and that after an on-going relationship while they were both still married to other people.
Should folk be accepted and forgiven who have made mistakes as believers?
Absolutely.
Nonetheless, I do believe there are certain times when the choices we have made so ruin our testimony that it becomes virtually impossible to be an effective witness for Christ.
In my humble opinion and based upon what I know about her situation, (she wrote a book attempting to justify her sin) Sandi Patti has made such choices and I personally would not attend any of her concerts, nor would I encourage any one else to do so.
Verne 

p.s please note my intention is not to single out Sandi Patti for criticism, rather it is to highlight the deplorable state of compromise that  exists among professing believers today. If you have the stomach for it check out this link about that industry:

 http://www.av1611.org/crock/crockex3.html

Dear Verne,

Oh my - I did not know these things. I just read the link you suggested. I do remember back in the late 70's, maybe '80 or '81,  I went to a local mega church where there was condemnation of all things contemporary. People came forward to throw away cigarettes, break their albums, and throw themselves down on the floor (literally and loudly) in repentance. It was a circus and I had very little respect for the man in charge. He went all over the country and seemed to like all the attention he drew. There was a great stir at the time to listen to albums backwards to hear the satanic messages. I remember being very confused. It seemed these people had a good point and I certainly stopped listening to some songs for awhile, but the people peddling this were, for the most part, very greasy. There appeared to be very little space between them and someone a century before selling hair tonic from town to town. I was extremely influenced by Keith Green during high school, but got guilty pleasure from listening to Van Halen. I thought it sad that such 'great' music should be paired with evil words (such as "Running With the Devil").

I suppose if this conversation continues it should be moved to a music thread.

Like most of my other squeaky-clean Christian contemporaries, I adored Amy Grant and Sandi Patti. I was uncomfortable with the adulation of people, but figured music was like church - there's the bad and the good and you have to put up with one to get the other. So when I encountered the assembly I thought I'd struck gold. Here were people who were able and dedicated to keeping the good while eliminating the bad. They were thoughtful, educated people, which drew me like slop to a pig. I wanted that deeper life! Ug.

I am sad over the OBVIOUS sin and delusion of the people in this article, and others like them. It encourages me to keep my knees bent. There IS no utopia, no place where evil cannot enter, except heaven.  Slapping the name "Christian" on it doesn't make it so (...as Picard would say). Still, this is very liberating. I don't have to wait until I can homeschool 6 dozen adopted children in the wilds of Montana before I am successful at being Christian. (I am drawn to that picture of 'perfect Christian domesticity.') I don't have to be the latest Christian singer (aka American Idol for the conservative set). I don't have to wait until I enter the perfect church (as I hoped the assembly would be). God wants me, all of me, wherever I am. This is a wonderful reminder.

Thanks for the food for thought. I was especially encouraged by the Fanny Crosby bits. I use to have a biography of her, years ago. I think it is time to invest in another one, plus old favorites like "Stepping Heavenward". All of these I threw out - didn't even send them to Goodwill - in a moment of cynicism. I've been burdened with the shortness of time I have left to influence my kids and be who I was meant to be. Maybe that's old age creeping up, I don't know.

The musician in me looovves Eddie Van Halen. From the point of view of an all out rocking album there are few that are as energetic as Van Halen II with Sammy Hagar sceaming out those saucy lyrics.
There has been no greater spiritual challenge for me than in the area of music.
Has anyone ever heard a more hauntingly beautiful melody than Led Zeppelin's Stairway to heaven?
Do a bit of research on what the author says about how he came to write that song and it gives you pause...
This topic is of critical importance because it raises questions concerning the sometimes elusive difference between true holiness and mere legalism, between godliness and wild-eyed fanaticism, between speaking the truth in love and self-righteous posturing.
What I find that both I and other Christians are guilty of in this area is not using the brains God gave us.
For example, when you do even a little bit of research concerning the lifestyle and conduct some of the folk cited in that piece you wonder

How on earth did this ever come to be considered as Christian?

How often have I myself not made that excuse that although the lyrics are blasphemous and ungodly, the tune is sure catchy.

And so the adversary traps us with a web of allurement.

This is a very personal journey for each of us and I would never condemn a person for their own choice of music.
I have found in my own life however, a pursuit of the King has caused me to examine much that in the past I would thoughtlessly allow.
I am finding that true holiness in nothing more than an abiding sense of God's watchful eye on our every thought, word, action.
What a joy to work in the liberty of His presence, whatever I am doing!
I know He loves Coltrane!   :)



Verne

 Hi TKarey!

   It would seem that many of our past "Christian" experiences are so opposite to growth in true faith that it would be better if most of us just avoided any kind of church/ministry situations and stay at home and read our bibles.  But, I'm not really suggesting this, it just seems that the disciples are always standing in the way telling us what God is thinking while Jesus is saying something else altogether (i.e.--- "suffer the children to come unto me, etc.).

  You share a great deal of wisdom above in your conclusions re. expectations of perfection from churches, etc.:"I don't have to wait until I enter the perfect church---."  After all, as you say, our lives are suppose to be all about God and his care for me and the world, not the construction of edifices to "Christian testimony" ( in other words, how great we disciples are vs. how great God is).

  What I learn from what you said is that we shouldn't necessarily avoid going to church, listening to Christian music, etc. but that we should do so with the knowledge that these things are not God and are very poor substitues for Him.  Better that I attend church with that understanding--that realization tempered with a good deal of loving tolerance of my fellow believers-- that we are all in the same humble boat and floating in the same river of grace.

  I'm not suggesting that we silently support "hair tonic salesman" in the church (or other variations on this theme) in a quest to be more tolerant.  I guess what I'm saying (and what I'm learning from your post) is that as former Assembly members, now liberated, we have a lot to offer our fellow believers who are still caught up in all the dead end's (such as the one perfect church, Christian celebrity, higher life, ad nauseum). 

  The simple Gospel's most ardent antagonist is not from human failure, rather it comes from the religious mind that perverts that simple message.   A light reading of the Gospels shows that Jesus had to operate outside of the religious establishment of his time and found the greatest resistance to his message from these!

                                     Thank you and God bless,  Mark C. 

I have read your post and Verne's too. I loved them. I want the assembly experience to count for SOMETHING! I can't respond at the moment as our internet is down at home - I only have a brief moment now. Don't know when we'll be back online, so I hope you all are quite well.

 :)Karey

"Excuse me!!  Excuse me!!!  I'm so very sorry to interrupt the bulletin board conversation, but I'm getting ready to make some baked potatoes and wanted to do it in the microwave. But I'm not really sure how to do it, or how long to leave them in. Can you help?


"Oh, no problem.  It's very important that you wrap them in aluminum foil first, very tightly. Then set the timer for 10 minutes and you should be fine".


"Oh, thank you so much!  You Christians are such wonderful people, and so helpful too".


"No problem, any time. Have a wonderful meal".

"I followed the instructions you gave below. The fire department just left, and luckily they haven't declared the house a total loss. But the kitchen is definitely a goner, and several of the rooms were burned very badly. Somehow I feel that perhaps the instructions you gave me were defective in some manner. The house has such an overwhelming smell of smoke that it is hard to continue to live in the one room that was not touched by the fire.
Do you have any suggestions as to how to get rid of the strong smoke smell?"

"Why yes, I do. Begin in the room that was not effected by the fire. Take a can of hair spray, then flick a cigarette lighter so that the flame appears. Aim the hairspray nozzle towards the burning flame and spray, preferrably towards a sofa or chair. Hair spray has a content in it that is released into the air when burnt, and will diffuse the smoke smell immediately."

"Why thank you. I'm sure the fire was just a fluke. Once again, I have to say you Christians are such helpful and wonderful people, who lovingly consider others before themselves".

"No problem. I hope that smoke smell goes away quickly, and have a great day".

Hey Joe!

   You're not supposed to put the aluminum foil on your potatoes but on your head.  Don't you remember Brent warning us in past posts re. the dangers of mind control rays that can reach our mind and unduly influence us?

    I'll bet one of the Rev's from Barstow that use your computer to post might be able to provide a holy version of the above (for a nominal fee). 

                                        To be forwarned is to be forarmed!   Mark C.

Hello Friends----

My good friend Mark Campbell, unknowingly reminded me that we have a new offer,  the "HOLY ALUMINUM FOIL HEAD COVERING". We just began offering these recently, in fact, very recently, but already the cards and letters are rolling in regarding the blessed benefits of the protection these head coverings provide. Are you afraid of mind control my dear friends? Well, you need no longer fear that dreaded device of the enemy. These HOLY HEAD COVERINGS are for both men and women and they really work!!! Listen to Wanda Jamison, from Waukegee,  Illinois and her recent testimonial:

Thank you Reverend O'Leary for your wonderful head covering. I am truly glad and very happy that I obtained one from you after I heard your recent advertisement. I used to be very discontent and lonely but now I am continually jovial and upbeat, and I am wearing a smile all of the time. Some have said that it even appears to be pasted onto my face, which I find to be very humorous, because you have told me it is humorous Reverend Burt. I find everything you say to be very humorous Reverend O 'Leary. In fact, since I put on the HOLY HEAD COVERING, everything you say seems to make more sense than anything anyone else has to say. You are truly the most intelligent person on the face of the planet, and I am so very glad that I ordered one of the HOLY HEAD COVERINGS so that I could comprehend that. I would recommend that everyone order a HOLY HEAD COVERING, and not delay, so that you too can know just how spiritual the Reverend O'Leary truly is, and also keep out the mind controlling influences of the world. I often ask myself "What would the Reverend O'Leary want me to do next?" And within seconds I know what he would want me to do. Without the HOLY HEAD COVERING my world would be empty and meaningless. I am so very grateful I have obtained one. Order a head covering now and you will be fulfilled, and your life will become an oasis of friendliness and prosperity. I know this because the Reverend told me so. Thank you Reverend O'Leary."

Yes friends, you too can be just as blessed and filled with decisiveness as Wanda is. Simply send a donation of $75.00 or more to cover shipping expenses and it's yours for free. Don't delay friends. When you receive the head covering, simply follow the instructions that will turn on the electronic device at the center of it, and you will be on your way to years of fulfillment. You will want to keep the head covering on at all times, even when showering (it is waterproof), and especially you will want to wear it when entering a bank, or going near an ATM. Once you put on the HOLY ALUMINUM FOIL HEAD COVERING I know you will want to make a generous donation to this ministry. God bless you my dear friends!

Reverend Burt O'Leary
2223 W. Kingsford Drive
Barstow, Ca., 92233
(no personal checks please)

Very Reverend O'Leary,

I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for my most holy aluminum foil hat. It has made me most holy, indeed!

Folks stand a a distance and look at me with holy awe! They watch me as I approach and gaze as I walk past!

Young ones have enough discernment to know I have a most holy fragrance and mention it to their folks. "Is that hat cooking something, Mom?"

"She must be homeless, my child."

Wow! Even just regular people know that there is something different about me!  My home is not of this earth!

Rev. O'leary, I want to order one for my friend who likes to streak her hair. Do you have a model with holes in it? She needs to pull her hair through the holes to color it. She won't leave her hair out for a very long time because she doesn't want it to get defiled. She can fill the holes with a glue gun when she is finished.

Is my friend taking a chance, or will she be okay?

I await your advice in fragrant notes of glory.

Hello,

My name is Bertram J. Billett, and I am Mr. Sperling's next door neighbor. He said it would be alright to use his computer today. He often mentions things he is posting on this bulletin board, and allows me to read some of the posts from time to time. I have never posted here, mainly because I do not have my own computer, and Mr. Sperling is a very selfish man. Don't tell him I said that, but he really is. He is also a real slob--you should see the room in which I am now sitting. There is a half-eaten yogurt cup with an expiration date of 2-2-86 on it for Pete's sake.

But anyway, today Mr. Sperling showed me a thread he was posting on, and it dealt with keeping the commandments of God. I saw this thread "Deeper life and Scriptural Interpretation" and figured I'd post here rather than interrupt the other thread. Mr. Sperling and I often get into debates, seeing I am in a church called "The Straight Gate Seventh Day Adventist Church". We follow the basic tenets of the Seventh Day Adventists, but in a far stricter manner, and believe that the Old Testament is just as valid as the New, and should be adhered to just as stongly. Many of the beliefs have been lost in these last days, and we need to return to what the early church taught in it's entirety.

Mr. Sperling and I have argued about which day we should worship on, as the Bible clearly teaches that we should worship on Saturday, the Sabbath day. He is clearly wrong about Sunday Worship, but despite being the slob he is, he is a fun person to have as a partner in a discussion. But when I read the other thread I saw a statement made: "If I am going to set aside God's command, I'd better be able to establish some sort of criteria for doing so". I could not agree more with this statement. We in the Straight Gate Seventh Day Adventist Church believe in keeping all of God's commands. We do not believe that the New Testament has done away with anything God said in the Old, neither should you interpret anything differently either.

Last night I began a thorough search once again to make sure that I am keeping the commands, and not setting aside anything God has said, as I want to make sure I am doing what he asks. I must ask you, if you are going to claim ownership of one verse as a command you follow from the Old Testament, should you not lay claim to all other commands as one's you would follow also?? The answer is yes, of course!! Why wouldn't you?

So, last night, I was diligently searching the scriptures in Leviticus and it mentioned something about  not having tattoos. I was so happy that I didn't have any, that I began to dance for joy!! I was so happy to know that I was following God's commands! After the dancing though I was famished!!

So I fixed myself a wonderful barbecued pork sandwich, sat back, and looked out the window. There sat a beautiful new Lexus. I thought "Man, I want that car. I hate that neighbor of mine for being so lucky to have a car like that. One day, if I follow all of God's commands maybe he'll give me a car like that. And maybe I'll get lucky enough to have a wife like he has also". And you know what? I really believe that if we keep God's commands he will reward us with things like this. If I keep going to church on Saturdays like you're supposed to, and diligently seek to follow his commands, I will definitely be rewarded.

Unlike Mr. Sperling and others of his ilk. Let me tell you a story and afterwards see if you are not moved to deep horror as I was when I experienced it. Mr. Sperling and I went to "Sizzler" for a meal the other night. He ordered Steak and Lobster. As I looked at Mr. Sperling munching on this most unclean of creatures, and thought of how much money he had spent on it, I thought "could not the money used to buy this lobster have been given to the poor?" I had simply ordered a salad as I know how much God hates gluttony. Then the waitress walked up, and overhearing our biblical discussion said that she did not believe in God and was a Wiccan Priestess. I ceased eating my food, as I knew that a person of despicable character had brought it to me, and I felt the most horrible feeling of evil.

 I remembered the Old Testament command "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and it was all I could do to return my steak knife to it's place on the table, as I had lifted it in vise like grip, as her eyes opened a bit wider as she watched me. I thought of that verse "vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay" and thought of the day that this terrible Wiccan priestess would suffer in the Lake of Fire. I thought "Even though the Lord has commanded us to kill her by saying we should "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", he has also said "vengeance is mine" and "Thou shalt not kill".  I was so confused--"thou shalt not suffer a witch ot live", "thou shalt not kill", "vengeance is mine, I will repay", "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", "thou shalt not kill", "vengeance is mine, I will repay",  I was so confused! I wasn't sure which command I should follow? If I truly followed the first command about what to do with witches, "Sizzler" patrons were going to have a most unusual night---but then my thoughts were interrupted.

Mr. Sperling was talking to her like she was some normal person, and not the filthy witch she was. He was preaching the Gospel to her and said that all she needed to do was accept Christ as her Lord and Savior and she would be saved.  How horrendous!!! How can one be saved if they do not follow the commands of God? How dare he preach such a message!! I thought of the unclean lobster, and of this witch, and felt horrified! I wanted to flee home to my prayer sanctuary and rid myself of so much uncleaness!!

continued from below....

Then, of all things, when we left, he left her a large tip. I must say, despite being a witch, she was a decent waitress, but to leave her more than the acceptable 15% was stupefying! He was using the Lord's money to give to a witch! Did he not remember the story of the faithful steward--had he no regard for the things that belong to the Lord??? Had he no respect for the commands of God Almighty!!?? As we left the table, she saw the tip and smiled broadly. No doubt her evil mind was mulling over how she had pulled the wool over our eyes and escaped with monetary gain. "Thanks" she said, "I'll think about what you said, I hadn't heard that before". What a lying hussy she was! She was just another immoral American who refuses to follow the clear commands of God. I thought of the great judgment that would befall her and so many others in such a short amount of time. How happy I was that I was a faithful follower of God's commands, and not like those who would shortly face God's fury!


Oh sorry--you didn't realize it, but I had to leave for a moment to take a phone call. It was a telemarketer--I wanted to finish this thought so I said "I'm just stepping out the door" so I could return to the computer quickly. The person said "Oh, Ok, I'll call later then". It works every time. OK, where was I? Oh yeah, we were talking about how we should follow God's commands in every situation.


Well, looks like we'll have to get back to that later. Mr. Sperling is pulling up in his car once again. The Lord does command us to be grateful for all things, so I'll have to thank him for letting me use his computer. Even if he is a lobster eating slob who gives money to witches.

Hi Bertram!

  I read with great interest your insights into deeper life that reveal an intense desire to please God via keeping all of his commands.  Indeed, we are told that we are "to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect."  This verse comes from the Sermon on the Mount that we've been talking about recently on another thread.

  My question to you is:  Have you attained to this command of perfection, or if not, maybe you know someone who has (other than Jesus himself)?

  I have been trying real hard to make myself as perfect as God is through a strict discipline of devotion, and active life of reckoning faith where I'm trying to crucify my self life.

  It has been especially hard for me to fulfill the part of the life of perfection where I do not allow myself any pleasures (you know the verse "he that liveth in pleasure is dead while they live") and have tried to eat only bland foods (absolutely no desserts), never listen to pleasant music, reject any kind of entertainment, etc.

  I read about Father Serra's desire to kill his sensual desires where he actually rolled naked in cactus in an effort to erradicate the flesh--- Do you think this might work for me? 

This has been very difficult for me, but I just know that a serious true bible believer like yourself would have the answers.  I know that God has given me his commands to obey and that my failure must mean there is something defective in me!

                                       Thanks so much dear brother Bertram,        Mark C.

Mark---

I admire you for your dedication. Taking on the flesh can be very difficult indeed. Father Serra is to be greatly admired for his attempts to eradicate sinful desires. I had never heard of rolling in cactus before, and will have to try this, as it was done by one of the masters as a great example of denying the flesh to acheive spiritual gain.

Recently, after a fast of 3 straight days I was terribly hungry. Several people at work had patted me on the back after I told them of my endeavor to please the Lord through fleshly denial, as I sat and watched them eating their lunches. I was offered several sandwiches but declined, and many of them said "I could never fast like that, look at how sad he looks". They could see how much suffering I was enduring and they walked away talking to themselves and shaking their heads-- no doubt, asking how one could suffer so much in his pursuit of the Kingdom of God. This inspired me to keep going, and I truly did go 3 days with only water as my sustenance. Perhaps my co-workers will be inspired by this to pursue a path of self-denial themselves.

That evening, I was so hungry I was driven to the point of distraction. But somehow I managed to prepare a meal of Prime Rib, with the most amazing smelling horseradish sauce, a huge mouth watering salad, a baked potato with sour cream and chives, and a huge chocolate shake. I sat it all on the table, but in one of the most difficult acts of self-denial I have ever attempted, I slowly ate a bowl of luke warm Quaker Oatmeal instead, with no sugar or sweetener at all. I ate this right in front of the huge spread of culinary delight I had prepared minutes before. I began to weep as I slowly chewed the non-sweetened oatmeal, but I knew that the result would be great reward, as my flesh was brought into obedience to the Spirit.

As I continued to eat the Oatmeal, I remembered that one of my favorite shows, "The Simpsons" was on. But I forced myself to turn to the QVC shopping Network instead, and I watched two women selling a needlepoint kit for over a half an hour! The tempatation was so great to turn to the Simpsons, but I made it, and knew I truly must be growing spiritually, and was "fleeing the youthful lusts" that have such a hold upon me.  I made it for almost 29 minutes, but in a moment of temptation I changed the channel just in time to hear Homer say "Doh!!" and quickly changed back. I had failed!!! I had put "The Simpsons" before my pursuit of God, I had given in to the flesh once again!

I ran over to the counter, and grabbing a habanero pepper, I rubbed it into the very eyes that had watched what I had tried so desperately to avoid, and the enormous pain began to set in. The burning sensation began to grow, but I knew it was for the glory of God, and soon it became so unbearable I could not take it any more. I screamed at the top of my lungs "In the name of all that's sacred you will not dominate me Satan!! You will not dominate me Flesh!!! You will not dominate me World!! May God send the Simpsons to Hell, and forever consign Prime Rib to the vast Lake of Fire for all of eternity!!! May God be glorified forever and ever!!!"  Then I let out one of the most terrible screams I have ever released from my lungs in my entire life.  But I felt liberated beyond belief. I had punished the flesh, and I was winning, and I knew some day by following God's commands, and denying the flesh I would win Heaven too. I was overjoyed!

Despite my neighbor's echoing voice in the distance, shouting from his open window: "Holy $#$@#$@!!! , Pipe down you twisted, whacked out, religious fruitcake!!"  all I really heard were harps from heaven, as I knew that by denying the flesh and keeping the commands I was truly becoming holier day by day.

Mark, I hope your journey is the same as the one I am experiencing. I admire your dedication. Yes--your failure to obey is because of some defect in you. But keep trying Mark. Get up a little earlier for your morning time, and deny yourself coffee to stay awake. Spend much longer times in prayer and make sure you check off every request--the longer the list the better. Go to more meetings--many more meetings. Make sure your dwelling place does not have one speck of dust in it--remember Mark, you are not cleaning the house for you, you are cleaning it for the Lord--and he's watching what kind of job you do during that cleaning process. And read many of the warning verses often. The more you think of not making it to heaven the more motivated you will be to deny the flesh.  God bless you in your endeavor brother! (Rev. 20:15)

Bertram J. Billett