AssemblyBoard

Folks,

I want to post something that will add to the discussion on divorce and remarriage.

However, I cannot find the discussion. 

Which thread was it in?

Thanks,

Thomas Maddux

Tom, scroll through these recent posts & see if you find what you want: http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?action=search2

otherwise, try using the "Search" feature at the top of this page.

al

Hi Tom,

'hopon' raised the discussion on Dec. 4th in the 'While it is yet called today ' thread ( sorry I can't provide a link for you to click on)
Chuck Miller brought up good points on the same thread Dec 5th.
I would appreciate your perspective because I know many sincere people who are divorced and remarried.

Buck

Buck,

Before I say what I think I want to point something out that is pertinant to the discussion:

Matthew 18:18 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (NASV)

This verse is in the context of the process an brother who has been sinned against by another brother should follow in seeking reconciliation.  The penalty the church is to inflict is to treat the unrepentant offender as "a Gentile and a tax collector." 

In the culture Jesus lived in this penalty meant complete rejection from the synagogue and from the society of godly people.  However, in our culture, it means nothing!  Almost all of us are Gentiles, and we have no compunction at all about associating and fellowshipping with people who work for the IRS or state and county tax collection services. 

If you view Jesus' statement as a statute, is ceases to be a penalty at all.  If, however, you view it as a principle that can be applied in different cultures, it is the ultimate penalty that the church can inflict on a believer.  That is how modern evangelicals view the passage.  Many other passages must also be understood in this way. 

For example, the "sermon on the mount." It speaks of such things as presenting offerings on the altar of the temple, and refers to a Roman law that a man must carry a soldier's pack for a specified distance.  Veiwed as statutes, these things lose any meaning for us.  Viewed as principles by which to live, they have very practical meanings.

Now the "sermon on the mount" also speaks of divorce.  In Matthew 5:32, it says, "...everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery..."  What does, "makes her commit adultry" mean?  If viewed as a statute, it would mean that she would permanently be in some sort of "state of adultry."  But then, if she actually commits adultery with another man and then her husband divorces her, she is not in such a state. Huh?    So I think we can be safe to assume that we are dealing with principles here and not statutes. Most commentators point out that "makes her commit adultery" means that since the only career paths for most women in Jesus' society were wife, harlot, or beggar, it means that she would most likely have to marry another man in order to avoid the other two alternatives.

If these instructions do fall under the category of "principles to live by", then other principles must be kept in mind when applying them.  Jesus chastised the Scribes with the words of Matthew 23:23:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you tithe mint and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law; justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the other.'

Now, as to my opinion on this matter, and it is my humble opinion since I am not infallible at all, I would say the following;

1. God hates divorce. It is never what God wants us to do.
2. People sin, including Christians.  They make foolish choices and poor decisions.
3. All divorces are not equal.  They are never God's purpose for our lives, but sometimes one of the parties is truly a victim. 
4. It is not in accord with God's justice that the victim of an injustice should bear the consequences for the rest of his/her life.
5. The sin of illegitimate divorce is like any other sin in that it can be forgiven upon true repentance and confession.
6. In a church, issues of divorce and remarriage should be dealt with on a case by case basis after the parties discuss it with the elders. The elders must then apply the Biblical principles to the individual case. This, I believe, is what is done in most Evangelical churches today. 

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to write this...very helpful.
Dr. Magee and 'through the bible' discussed divorce this morning and he'll continue tomarrow.

Buck

(Thomasson, I added [ / quote  ] after the actual quote in order to separate your post from his. When you do this, don't put spaces inside the brackets.  Tom Maddux, moderator )

Okay I am probably doing this wrong so you can help me.  First I don't know how to respond to a quote without my response being in the same box as the quote.  Second,  I am going to listen to that program thank you for posting it.  Divorce and remarriage is something that I did a study on because it is the reason I was ask not to partake of the Lord's Supper.  I met my husband in 2000 and we started dating.  When I went to the leadership they told me if I continued to see him I could not partake of the Lord's Supper because he was divorced.  We remained friends and I prayed for God's direction and researched divorce and remarriage.  I saw most of what Tom posted.   In January of 2003 as I continued to pray for direction.  The assembly went through their thing.  And that was the answer for men.  That the direction I had received was wrong, the brothers were fallible, and they had called it wrong on this and a number of other issues.   Not going into to much detail about my husband's divorce, suffice it to say he was not saved when he got divorced and there was infidelity on the part of his wife.  So I agree that the main issue is these things should be looked at on a case by case basis.  And I don't say that about most things because I don't believe in relativism.

Dr J. Vernon McGee of Through the Bible is one of my favorite Bible teachers.
It is truly remarkable how God continues to use his ministry so many years after his going to be with the Lord. I have the entire five years of his teaching through the Bible which I taped from Moody Radio while at work during the eighties. I would use a simple timer to turn the radio and tape recorder on at the time the program aired and would really look forward to listening to the broadcast after I got home. He has been a tremendous influence and it was  his minsitry that sustained me during my lean years in the assembly.
Verne

Used to wake up every work day to Moody bible radio at 4:30 am, they had some great sermons broadcast at that time. I had many a joyful morning before my feet even touched the ground.
 How I had my head so far up my butt thinking the assembly was something special is a total mystery to me today.
Been nice in those days if there was a bunch of old timers like Dr. McGee in our mist who would have seen and called things what they really were.

The truth of the matter is that if there were (and in some instances there were), George would have found a way to discredit the voices and we would have believed him.

George had this uncanny ability to drop names of great Christian believers of his generation to give us a sense that he was a peer with the the top names in Christian circles.  Then, at the same time, he would drop information about these leaders to give us the idea that they didn't quite measured up.

Now we are so far from divorce and remarriage I think I have probably lost my way to the digression thread . ;)

A great lesson from the assemblies!
If you go into a gatheing of believers and don't see a few grey heads I would want to know why.
Looking back, that particular absence was such an obvious red flag to the observant.
It is no accident that Tuscola was the first gathering to tell George to take a long walk on a short pier...one lone exception among the leaders there...
Verne

Hi Dave

You are right Dave and it really does no good thinking...coulda, woulda . shoulda this or that.
 It is what it is, but life is sure better now and probably like many others here, I thank God for it.
Hey by the  way, I have started to go through old threads and I really enjoyed 'Waffle House' So true and so well written.

I hope Tom Maddox shares his thoughts on Hebrews,   hope you do too.

Buck

  Verne
We got a Bingo!
The elderly...what a treasure, what a blessing.
I got a WWII generation friend, a decorated hero, who ran up Omaha Beach, he's an humble old school bad ass who loves Jesus. Now he's in his mid 80s, can barely walk but still checks on his elderly friends in the neighborhood. His mind is sharp and I enjoy his friendship. He's made me a better person.

Buck

Verne, I want to echo Buck's "Bingo"!!!  The strength that comes with full maturity was certainly missing in almost everyone who ended up going along with GG.  Fred Boyer, the one who stood up to him in Tuscola, was about ten years older than I. But we had attended the same Christian high school, were mentored by the same wonderful teacher there, and were at Westmoreland Chapel for several years--i.e. very similar background. But I think the ten years age difference was key. During those ten years, Fred owned and managed a big grain operation in Tuscola, hiring and firing people, and discerning people. Standing up to a guy like GG was nothing new for him. But interestingly, and tragically, even though Fred was a very close friend of Marguerite Harrison, he could not persuade her to see the problems with GG, I think because of two reasons. One, she so badly wanted her deceased husband's ministry to be carried on by GG. And two, GG used some terrible, terrible psychological manipulation on her. So age wasn't everything.

The situation with Mrs. Harrison is indeed a tragedy - nothing less than the tarnishing of her husgand's legacy in my humble opinion.
No question that initially George was able to establish legitimacy through her.
I am afraid that George's manipulation extended far beyond her - long before I ever met George I had heard from countless others about what a great man of God he was...sounds familiar? The man obviously had real power and we ought not to forget that.
You are so right that age and maturity ought to make a difference, and generally does, in things both physical and spiritual.
I frequently restrain myself from some infantile indulgence by reminding myself how old I am... :)
Verne

Verne and others,

What happened to Mrs. Harrison and others like her is the reason that I have strongly opposed the teachings that led her to allow this to happen to her.

Mrs. Harrison spent many years under the teaching of T. Austin Spark's ministry at a place known as Honor Oak in England.  Through this ministry she was taught the Deeper Life teachings that are so popular in the "New Testament Church Recovery" movement.  She imbibed Keswick Convention teachings, Watchman Nee's ideas, Jesse Penn Lewis, Andrew Murray, Madam Guyon, the "Overcomer" teachings, and and practiced the type of subjective mysticism taught by these people and groups. 

As far as I have ever heard, her husband was a godly man.  I think he is the man that led Steve Irons to Christ.  He came to the USA to "help" at Westmoreland Chapel on LA, and soon became the dominant brother in that group.  He seems to have served as their "pastor" in most ways.  When he died in the late 60's, Mrs. Harrison had a difficult time.  There were problems with the brothers who took over leadership at Westmoreland Chapel.

Then GG appeared on the scene.  He believed and taught the same things she had been hearing for many years.  He was well versed in Brethren church ideas, Deeper Life mysticism, Overcomerism and Watchman Nee's views on spirituality.  In addition, he had a dynamic and charismatic personality as well as a plan.  He knew what he wanted to do.  He wanted to build "Overcomer" assemblies and restore the "testimony to Jesus". (At least that is what he said.)   >:(

I do not pretend to know all of her motives for linking up with George Geftakys.  But on one occassion I stood with them both and heard her tell George that the Lord himself had told her to join herself to his ministry.  We were standing in the doorway to the meeting room of the Hillcrest Park building.  She told George that the Lord had "given" her a verse. 

The verse was Psalm 31:8. "And hast not shut me up into the hand of the enemy; thou hast set my feet in a large room."  (we all used the KJV)

What more could anyone need?  Here was a way to continue her husband's ministry along the same lines as he had worked, to be involved in something forward looking, dynamic, and growing, and now God Himself had sent her a personal message confirming it!  :o She was hooked. 

What it cost her was several years of mental turmoil and depression, and finally a nervous breakdown.   She was used as long as her husband's reputation and contacts were useful to George Geftakys, and then tossed aside like a broken pot.   :'(

But it did not start with GG.  She had been drinking at the polluted fountain of subjectivism and mysticism for many, many years.  Personally, I don't care for that brew.  I have tasted it myself.  Can't say I was impressed with the results.  :P

Many on this BB have responded to my rejection of these teachings angrily.  It as if I were taking  something valuable from them.  I am well aware that I am denying a fundamental tenet of many folk's beliefs and practices.  Nevertheless I believe that these are false and harmful teachings, so I will continue to oppose them.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Hi Tom,

I, for one, have been positively impacted when you refute the Deeper Life teachings. My husband grew up in the Local Church (Witness Lee) and so both of us have personally seen the devastating effects of home-grown mysticism. From everything we've both witnessed in our childhoods and early adulthood we no longer want to have anything to do with what we call "weird Christianity."

But I would also hasten to add that I believe God was still able to speak to us and love us while we were in it. We both came to know the Lord and to love His Word. As we have come out of the haze of mysticism, listened to new ministry (I have downloaded lots of MP3's from Dr. Magee's Thru The Bible website!), and just simply lived life, the Lord has opened our eyes and helped us away from that kind of bondage.

I am not angry when you refute Deeper Life teachings. But I would urge you to be respectful of an individual before God, in that God may choose to speak to that individual any way He chooses. I know without a doubt that during dark times during my life in the Assembly, God was there for me. Yes, sometimes it was through "a verse." Sometimes it was through a hymn. Sometimes it was in prayer that I experienced a truth of His Word being made clear to me. The point is, God loves me and even when I was confused and entrapped in the Assembly, He found a way to speak to me through the mess of it all. This is why I think some people respond angrily to you, because they feel like you might be tearing away from them their only shred of true experience with God. And I would also add that sometimes your tone is very know-it-all and this turns people off as well.

Tom, I appreciate the work you have done in refuting the theological twistings of Assembly-ism. I believe you have written and said some very important and illuminating things. But what I think is sad is that when someone like Jem shares what was for her an amazing act of God's grace in her life, you feel compelled to rationalize it away. I simply don't see how this is helpful. She herself was stunned and likened your reasoning to that of her atheistic father!  :'(

The truth is important, but it must be spoken in love. Otherwise it falls on deaf ears.

E.

I think Al's comments on this are worth reading:
http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=1097.msg28298#msg28298

I don't hear a "know-it-all tone" from Tom and am not turned off by it.  The reason is is that I know him personally so I can imagine the gestures, facial expressions, and caring heart that corresponds to the words. 

Just because Tom reminded Jem of her athiestic father doesn't mean that Tom is that projection.

Overall, I agree with your comments and I certainly wouldn't mind hearing the story of how two people from the two "true" churches in Orange County got together.

And history repeats itself  :P

Marcia

What is it about Al's comments you disagree with, Marcia?  Or is "history repeating itself" referring to the fact that you will never see Tom as doing anything right no matter what?  If you resent Tom, just ignore him or try and work it out via PM.  If you despise him, just leave him alone and make your contribution with folks you are more atuned with. 

There are folks who post on this board who I don't like where they are coming from so I don't respond to them.  I don't use the BB as a public forum to correct what I don't happen to like about these people.

But your little pot shots have little benefit in the discussion.  Namely, is God's word "living" in the sence that God may use His Word out of context to speak, direct, and confirm?  Or is the only way to appoach the Bible via the historical-contextual method? 

Tom did nothing more than offer an opinion that was different than everybody else's.  You don't have to agree with Tom's opinion.  But, in offering his opinion, he did nothing wrong.

Folks,

For those willing to pause in the never-ending sport of discerning, listing, enumerating, expounding upon and condemning the views, character and conduct of the notorious "sabelotodo" Thomas Maddux in order to do some actual thinking, here is a link.

  The article was written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel in Springfield, Illinois.  He has many interesting and profitible articles on his website.  This, IMHO, is one of them.

http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=116

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I fully understand your position and think your motive is laudable.
Where I think we differ is on the question of the causal relationship between what you see as wrong doctrine, and what happened in the assemblies. The thing that is problematic about the way you present your arguments about "deeper life" or whatever other ideas about Scripture that you disagree with, is the implication that right doctrine necessarily  provides any immunity whatsoever from that kind of thing that took place in the assemblies happening.
You run the risk of impugning the integrity of countless saints who may subcribe to "deeper life" theology  and have lived very godly lives and done nothing remotely resembling the transgression of George Geftakys.
I am certain that Andrew Jukes is wrong in his belief about universal redemption.
He is also a far more able Bible scholar than I can ever hope to be, and was a Godly man.
Andrew Murray has a shameful legacy, from a doctrinal point of view, when it comes to race and salvation in South African churches.
I nonetheless believe that he was a godly man.
I do not agree with every thing deeper life folk assert.
I cannot agree that those beliefs in and of themselves, explain George's reign of terror, not do I believe that just because someone holds these beliefs, they will behave the way George Geftakys did.
It is entirely possible in my view, to believe that God has "given you" a verse, and to live in a Godly, exemplary, and Christ honoring way.
To ascribe the legacy of Geftakys and the assemblies, or any other apostate who leads the people of God astray by their ungdoly and unholy conduct, only to wrong doctrine, is to miss a very critical spiritual principle Tom.
I cannot take the time to develop this but I would encourage folk to consider it:

Wrong doctrine does not necessarily produce unholy conduct, so much as unholy conduct produces wrong doctrine!

In other words, frequently wrong doctrine is not so much a matter of the head, as it is a matter of the heart...

If you understand this point, then you understand the difference in our thinking about this.
Verne

No it was not a pot shot, it was my opinion.

Consider this:  From what has been posted on this BB, I gather that Brian(maybe), Margaret(I think), Brent, Verne, frank, Sondra, David M, Chuck Miller, Jem, E. and myself and countless others hold to the same opinion i.e. that Tom has a professor/know it all attitude.  Tom's opinion is one matter, but how he throws it around shooting everyone else, except for those that agree with him, down is a problem.

Consider this also:  Most posters and readers of this BB are former/present assembly folk.  Do you really think we have not learned our lesson from our assembly experience, that Tom needs to repeatedly and ad nauseum caution us about becoming victims again??

And Consider this: the reason I said that "history repeats itself":  Who were George's staunch supporters when he began "his ministry"?  The same people who cannot see Tom's arrogance now and have not learned, after all these years, to consider the criticism of others because there might be something to it after all.

Maybe some of you are proud that you left the assembly scene before its collapse, and others are proud that you saw through George, but without real repentance and humility, there is not going to be true recovery.

Marcia

P.S.  You exagerate Dave, when you say I "will never see Tom as doing anything right no matter what".

M

You see Tom as an arrogant know-it-all who dominates the board and is not entreated to any other views.

On the other hand, based some of your posts I read, you see Brent (who attacked people, mocked people, broke into people's personal profiles and changed it to embarrase people and would not let people off the hook even when they were trying to make peace) as one who "sees clearly" and whose "unique perspective" is missed.

I will leave it at this:  I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Now that we had our say, let's drop the personality attacks and discuss the issues.  I won't bring it up again if you don't.

I will not be online most of the day so I will make this comment now.

If we were to stay focussed, my opinion about Brent has nothing to do with mine and many many others' opinion re. Tom's arrogance.

Marcia

Thanks, Tom.  Loretta and I are involved in a prayer time during one of the services.  This type of meeting is a magnet for those who lean in the direction this article addresses.  Often the prayers of one are such that God wants to break forth in our church but is somewhat hindered by the elders who don't see the things she is seeing.  She cited last Sunday about eight instances where she claimed a verse and they later corresponded to circumstances.  The pastor sees them as coincidences.

For example: 
After she stood up in church and gave a "word" (the elders graciously dealt with folks getting up in the service without checking with them first) she got the verse "I will go before you and fight for you"  (i.e., God will tear down the strongholds of predjudice and pride that is keeping the spirit from leading).

When she was praying about whether or not she should give the pastor a commentary, she claimed a verse (I forgot which).  As she left, she saw the pastor in his car the same intersection as she.  This has never happened before even though they live in the same neighborhood.

When she was frustrated that the elders were not believing the preponderance of evidence (the fact that she had eight or nine verses that she felt specifically came to pass) she was thinking "they should look at all what was said by the Lord and believe it."  Just after that, she opened her Bible and came across a verse in the prophets that had almost the exact wording.

Anyway, I'm not trying to portray this woman as a nut.  She is a genuine woman who is trying to follow the Lord the best way she knows how.  She really believes in her spiritual experience and it is a burden upon her heart that some on the elder board do not share her view.  She prays very earnestly.

All that to say, it was good for me the very next day to come across this article you posted.  Maybe it was the leading of God.  Who knows? ???

Yep Dave, the woman you are talking about comes off as a nut case. And what is forever frustrating is in arguing against direct guidance, those on the opposite side take extreme cases to make there point. Hence, the original plea not to bring this discussion down to the what-kind-of-tooth-paste-should-I-buy level.

The Gary Gilley article is a good one, but not necessarily persuasive. He goes extreme. It belittles as simple minded those who believe this way. Much of what he says of scripture is speculative and inferred. If I was to make the same kind of argument Tom would hang me out to dry. Gilley says direct guidance in scripture is not normative though we see examples of it. Then it can be presumed that God Almighty will excuse those who did not get His point. Gilley said that only the major players recieved this kind of direction. Anna and Simeon are major players? Almost makes one want to venerate saints then doesn't it. The major players are not "men of like passions," then, but patriarchs with a capital P. I'm being extreme like Gilley was.

To me the most problematic thing Gilley says is that most Christians believe in direct guidance. Pardon me, but I have become rather suspect of those who have a higher knowledge of the way God wants it than the majority. Especially since there are no phrophets today. Maybe the scripture is insufficient since so few get it. Like my atheistic father used to say, "He'd better be a merciful God because he is rather stingy with his truth."

Look at the topic we rabbit-trailed here. What is the revealed will of God regarding divorce and remarriage? How can we take it on a case by case basis if the Holy spirit doesn't speak? I'm not trying to be snarky here, just interested in the conversation.

I don't think this woman is a nut case and I don't think I am bringing it down to the what-kind-of-tooth-paste-should-I-buy level.   The injustice I am doing to this woman's testimony is that I am not able to communicate it as clearly and persuasively as she did.  When we were in the prayer meeting and the woman lined up the promises she claimed  (albiet completely out of context and doing violence to the intended meaning) with the circumstances, it sounded persuasive and no one could find it within them to say otherwise.  It is only after we leave and try to explain it to someone else that it begins to sound lame.  Is it because in the meeting we were not discerning or is it because out of the meeting we fell to the evil of rationalism?

At another prayer meeting someone shared how he was watching a golf game with his dad and was bored. During the match, the spirit of the Lord said to him, "It's a sin to be bored because you have Me."  At the time, no one withstood him because it seemed like something God would say (plus, we tend not to be confrontive when sharing prayer requests).  After all, God is sufficient so it makes sense that it might be a sin to be bored.  But, is this really a Biblical truth or was just a spiritual-sounding thought from this brother's head?  Personally, I can think of lots of reasons why watching golf would be boring.

I share this because it isn't the isolated case that can be brushed aside as "some nut" or just a "what-kind-of-toothpaste example, but I want to talk about the real thing".  It is the very paradegm on how many Christians live their daily lives.  It is the way they approach their quiet time.  It is the way they drive in the car.  It is the way they analize the effectiveness of their church.  It is the way they lead their small groups.  It is why they read their Bible, not for a doctrine, but for a promise.  They seek for an emotional nudging to resolve their particular problems, not a propositional truth upon which to base their lives.

In short, I think the article speaks to a major movement (and I would add unacknowledged division) within churches today. 

I personally found that it is a very rare occurance that I go into a day and God says to me, "go to such and such a place and do this" or "quit your job and move here" or "approach your wife and conceive another child in her menopausal years."  Rather, I find, as David Jeremiah says, the will of God is like the Hebrew Bible - it is best understood reading it backwards. In other words, I look over my day or my life and I realize, "you know what?  It was God leading me in this or that circumstance." or "Because I did this, God put this need on someone's heart and I ended up working here."  Very rarely did I hear the voice of God ahead of time.  But I am often able to look back and acknowledge what is likely His handiwork in how I was unwittingly led in the past.  This, I believe, is how God "speaks" in the majority of cases - by working behind the scenes but not necessarily stopping to fill us in on the details or telling us in advance what He is doing.

I agree with you that it is the rare moment when God gives direct guidance. But I'm one of those small minds that believes He does, obviously, yet I certainly don't drive my car that way :) Most of the time it is as you have said.

As for this woman, I think you ought to say something Dave; you are a reasonable man. It depends on the prayer meeting or small group, I suppose, but if that lady had said those things in ours--because we all know each other well--someone would have challenged the veracity of what she was saying, cautioned her.

Thanks, Jem.  I think you are right. 

I quote the above because it bears repeating.  As Christian maturity increases, we will more and more realize that these principles (trust in Him, and He will direct your paths, etc.) are true and, knowing this, we will more frequently and more fervently pray the Lord's guidance, knowing that He will grant it, guiding us faithfully on the pathway of His choosing, although we recognize it not until in retrospect.

al

The wonderful thing about small minds is that they don't require big heads...  :)

al ;)

This entire debate I find so amusing.
I like Dave's observation as it displays some humility.
He states that he personally has found it rare.
Frankly, so have I.
However, just because that has been our experience, gives no warrant whatsoever for pontification regarding the experience of others.
There is nothing wrong with being skecptical; in fact it is downright healthy for us former assemblyites.
Trying to promulgate some inflexible doctrine about how God may or may not speak to someone flies in the face of both the Biblical record, the experience of untold numbers of saints, and thousands of muslim people who come to Christ every year.
How many of you have read the life of George Mueller?
The position some folk take on this would make that man a patent liar... :)
Oh but you will say - He is the exception!

i would then retort- Does that not prove the rule?!
Verne
p.s. Our perspective on the ways in which God typically works is also very much a matter of  a Western (particularly American) mindset. Most folk who seem to think that God's working in a miraculous way frequently is somehow uncommon or unScriptural have simply not spent much time in the company of missionaries.
Many of these missionaries are astonished at our spiritual dulness, complacency and mechanistic approach to life in the prosperous West. These folk seem to expect miracles from God. For them it is often a matter of life and death.
I guess we don't since we are rich...and have need of nothing...
Verne

Verne, it's not going to be good here when you are gone.

While I have not been following the discussion much, at risk of tangentializing the thread I would like to make a point regarding the above quote.

Reasonable people don't usually speak up in situations like this.  Reasonable people usually listen quietly and then talk about how "off," the person was later, when the poor person isn't present.  This allows a person such as this to habitually act this way in  prayer meetings, making everyone uncomfortable, and possibly impressing a few weaker and untaught people who may be present to imitate their "faith."

This same person, at a women's conference, can really break loose and often creates a genuine scene.

Again, a reasonable person doesn't get involved, and lets this sort of thing go on, to the detriment of the poor unguided soul who really believes they are hearing from God, and have been placed as a prophetess in the church.  Almost every church, while nearly filled with reasonable people,  has a few of these prophets, but it is rare for a church to have any unreasonable people, who would actually speak up and say something.

Usually, the Pastor is the only person with the gumption to publicly challenge a person like this.  If you have a pastor like that, you should thank God, because it's a rare thing to have an great pastor.  Too many of them are reasonable today....

From what I have been able to gather, George Geftakys surrounded himself with reasonable men, who knew something was wrong, but didn't follow up on that knowledge with a public rebuke until things got genuinely out of hand.  Even then, they needed a few unreasonable people to prod them into action, as the years of reasonableness left them somewhat incapable of a proper response to the false teaching of the immoral man in their midst.

It's uncomfortble telling a person like Dave's prayer group friend that they are in error...reasonable people don't do it.

I mean no disrespect to Jem for suggesting it, on the contrary, I agree with her.  It sounds like her group has a few unreasonable people in it, who would be willing to bear some pain and discomfort for the sake of their sister in Christ.  I think I would like her prayer group quite a bit.

bystander

I can speak only for myself: In my case it was the years of protecting my own hindquarters that had left me incapable of a proper recognition of the false teaching and of the immorality of the man...  It was the grace of God that I was "let go" from the assy, else I might still be there.  After all these years, I still frequently realize for the first time some incident wherein gg's actions or words flew in the face God's grace or even of human decency, and I marvel that I was so willingly blind to it at the time.

al

P.S.-- my isolating bystander's quote & responding to only that part of his post-- now that is tangentializing! ;)

Self-preservation is quite natural to the human condition Al, and entirely understandable.
Your experience and that of the other men charged with leadership illustrates what is one of the important lessons from the assembly, and that is that true spiritual leadership is ultimately God's purview, not man's.
Every tree that God has not planted will surely be uprooted.
Ephesians tells us that God gives to the church, literally, gifted men.
One of the things that mark a true shepherd is that God has supernaturally enabled him to overcome the natural tendency toward self-preservation; he is made willling to lay down his life for the sheep...
It is entirely possible that your assembly experience was all part of God's preparation for effective service...and all in His time my friend... :)



To me this is indeed the critical issue. When we spend so much time and energy trying to make the case that the problem with George and the assemblies was somehow one of of mere theology (and it is good to understand the wrong things taught), and overlook the fact the man routinely behaved like a beast toward others, we fall prey to the gnat and camel syndrome.
It matters little, in hindsight, whether George's doctrine was as straight as an arrow.
His conduct is what should have long ago  propelled others around him to action.

Ironically, I dare say that even if his thinking and teaching were more patently perverse, the assemblies would still be alive and well today had the man been more decent.
After all, they meekly accepted his seventh day creation contention did they not? :)
Verne

Straightforward yet diplomatic and insightful.


Verne, I'm interested.  Which Scriptures state that a true shepherd is supernaturally enabled?

Marcia

P.S. Looks like we've divorced ourselves from the divorce discussion on this thread eh?? :)
MM

Bystander, you would enjoy our small group. They know what true accountability is. They do not talk of minute rules while there is an elephant standing in the room. We have made ourselves accoutable to this group and I think you would also enjoy the looks on their faces when we describe some things that went on in the assembly. The look is a combination of shock that it happened and surprise that we apparently "reasonable" people let it happen. One gentleman is a former director of World Vision; he has seen it all in 110 countries. He is a very gracious man, but he does not dither in speaking truth.

It would take quite a bit of time to list them all Marcia.
All of what the Christian does according to the will fo God must be done via the enabling of the Holy Spirit.
The disicples behaved quite differently before and after pentecost.
In that sense, godly, effective and sacrificial leadership is certainly supernatural. I know that you know your Bible well enough to locate for yourself the many places that this is taught.  :)
Verne

I do agree with you and Marcia.  Folks who go too far in this kind of teaching (whether we label it Higher Life teaching or not) should be challenged for their own sake.  In other words, we should applaud folks like Tom who has the courage to correct even if it goes against the popular concensus.

I am thinking through what this should look like in my particular situation.

Lord bless,

-Dave

Which one is it?  Do you absolutely disagree with me, or do you agree with me re. Tom?

For the record, I do not agree with you that this applies to what Tom is doing on this BB.

Marcia

Marcia,

Yeah.  I couldn't resist.  We'll just leave it rest at that:  You and I disagree as to how to look at Tom's posts.  I'm sure there are many things we do agree on and we can build on that in the future.

Lord bless,

-Dave

I confess to being one of the people who sits with a blank stare, mouth agape, while listening to people tell their stories.  For quite a while, I couldn't understand how an educated, intelligent person failed to grasp the spiritual and moral incongruence of life in the Assembly.  When I first learned about the idea of "outreaches," which for many years was the only thing I knew about the group,  I remember scratching my head trying to understand how these people thought that confronting someone reading a book, alone, on their lunch hour was a good way to evangelize!

I was such a person, and after shaking off the rude interuption, became quite intrigued by the group.  (I was never tempted to join them!)  It wan't until years later that I became personally  involved with ex-members, after the local group dissolved.

Prior to some of the hitherto quiet, reasonable members spoke up, the group seemed to be going on as usual.  A few hard questions and one or two principled moral stands sent the whole edifice tumbling like a house of cards.

Confrontation and rebuke is a small facet of Christian fellowship, and when needed, it is best done in love.  However, I would rather have needed rebuke done in a clumsy insensitive manner, than to not have it at all.

Dave, you should pray about helping your "church lady," and how you should go about doing it.  More often than not, people such as this eat nice, loving correction for lunch, followed by a dessert consisting of the sharing of a half-dozen Old Testament passages.  If people like this have too much presence in a small group, it serves to keep the reasonable people out.  Then, the person must go to another group and share their insight, and the cycle repeats itself.

Lord bless