- Tell the Whole Story

Tom said on another thread:
Flora,

Thank you for your contribution to this thread. This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I started the "Good things you learned" thread.

I was, I must confess, shocked at the vehemence of the objections to the idea.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Warning: Please prepare for long-winded message. I wound up writing a novel again. ;D

I started a different thread to avoid going off topic once again on the other threads. Tom is responding to a post by Flora on the "good things you DID" thread. I have to state that the reason for the "vehemence" Tom speaks of , was a result of how his question was originally framed. If you read Flora's post you will notice that several of the "good things she learned" came as a result of reaction to the "oppression" she mentions in several of the points she makes. Tom's original post dealt with "ideas" or "tips" he felt he had learned that he would be sharing with a church. He states that what Flora posted is "the kind of thing he had in mind". I wish he had made that more clear in his post, because Flora's experiences did not appear to be the same type of "good things" he was referring to at all. I believe if he had clearly stated what he meant, all of the "vehement attitude" he speaks of towards the idea could have been avoided.

The "vehement objection" expressed was the result of others responding to Tom's question, and not towards Tom himself, but as they attempted to whitewash everything that led to the "learning experience" Flora is mentioning. This caused a vehement response, because it was an attempt to set the the type of "oppression" Flora so clearly speaks of aside, and speak only of the "good things" learned, without recalling the oppressive system under which these things were experienced. This is not really a balanced answer to the question and is deceptive. I must confess, I am surprised Tom does not see or acknowledge this.

An example of what I am saying is this (maybe this is a poor analogy, but it will suffice)---often you hear people give a "testimony" of their former lives. They will mention the former drug use, alcoholism, carousing, etc.----and sometimes they seem to be almost waxing "nostalgic" about it. They will speak in a humorous manner about some of the stuff they "used to do", like driving their car into the side of a building while "high", etc. (not funny at the time, but hilarious when told years later). BUT, what if they left the story there? What if that was all the information they gave you? What if they stopped short of reminding you just how damaging and terrible those drugs and alcohol were? You could walk away from the story not really seeing just how devastating those things were, since all you are hearing is a nostalgic type of humor about events that happened long ago before the person was "saved". They could tell you they "learned good things" from their experiences, but if they failed to mention how damaging the drugs and alcohol were to them, then the message would lose all of it's importance and meaning. This is the very reason a "testimony" is given--to contrast the bad things you did with what the Lord has done and is doing for you, and show others just how merciful the Lord is. What if someone said "Hey, we're sick of hearing about the bad stuff you went through before you came to the Lord. This time give your testimony, but only mention the good stuff you learned". Could we really tell our story, and tell of the "good things we learned" without also mentioning what we came out of before we received Christ? There is always the chance of waxing "nostalgic", even about experiences and events long gone, that were actually very bad for us. We can begin to speak of them in almost an affectionate manner, and unless we remind ourselves, we could come close to forgetting how very bad those things really were for us! Could a topic about the Assembly devolve into a "nostalgic" discussion also? I believe it could if we are not careful to tell the whole story.

If we mention "good things" learned in the Assembly and only say "amen" to them,without also mentioning the oppression and abuse that led to this learning process, we are not telling the whole story at all. Flora's post is excellent as she not only mentions the things she learned, but also does not fail to mention the "oppression" that she learned these things under also. She is not white-washing her experiences, and is being even-handed in her explanations, while also being very positive at the same time. What "vehement objection" can I have towards a post like that? Absolutely none. The only "vehement attitude" I might display would be towards anyone who tries to white-wash the oppression that Flora mentions in her post, or towards one who tries to lessen what she went through in gaining that knowledge. I have absolutely no argument with her post, or with the "good things she learned" at all. How could I? I wish there were more posts like hers. I just want to hear the whole story, not just part of it. Did I learn to witness in the Assembly? Yes--and that's a good thing. Did that same witnessing lead others to attend the meetings and join the Assembly as a result? Yes. Was that a good thing? Every coin has two sides.

The Israelites I'm sure learned some "good things" in the "Wilderness" too--but when speaking of the "good things they learned", can they leave the wilderness itself, and all they suffered (even if it was their own fault),
out of the story?

Great post Joe!

I hope Tom, and others, read your post carefully and try their best to understand "the vehemence" from some re. this question that "shocked" them so."

There is a element of forcing readers into a kind of mental corner by suggesting we must be able to extract good methods learned while in the group. Especially by telling us we can't "qualify" those experiences with the real context. I will not allow myself to be forced into this kind of limitation re. this issue.

Margaret's question is a much better one because it shows the need for a separation in our evaluation of those experiences between a dysfunctional group and ones ability to get free as Flora did. Margaret admits in her own question that she is struggling with how to make that separation and wanted us to address that issue. Without making "qualifying" comparisons all we will get is a Pollyanna whitewashed version of these past events.

It should be clear that "the vehemence" in the reaction was not against Tom personally, but was directed toward some of the responders to that question (Trac4., Marty, etc.) who launched into a justification of Assembly behavior. I was "surprised" at the lack of "vehemence" in response to some of the assertions of these Assembly abuse deniers and their logic.

Marcia believed that "Trac4. had a point." I'm not clear what that "point" was, that she was suggesting I needed to understand, but I do wonder what former members think about all the other points Trac. and Marty were making.

I with great "vehemence" reject the notion that:

1.) As long as "the Word is preached" (within 80%-100% essentially accurate levels) God considers this church to be a good healthy place.

2.) The quantity of bible verses, prayers, meetings etc. you can log in equals exactly what is the true "following of Christ." The quality of those disciplines are meaningless in calculating what is true service to God.

3.) The worst kind of bad behavior by leaders is excused if they don't actually teach these bad practices from the pulpit.

4.) The Assembly was no different from any other church, because any group is actually an inanimate object that can't be either good or evil (Marty's position).

5.) Trac. agreed with Betty that it was basically Judy's fault that Dave beat her, and the Assembly leadership should be exonerated of any culpability in this, as well as in the child abuse issue.

6.) The Assm. leaders were good mentors.

7.) I can have an authoritative opinion (in other words, suggesting God is actually endorsing my views) re. the Assembly even though I know very little about the group.

8.) God doesn't care about justice, the harm done to individuals in the Assm., because he just wants me to forget about it and go out and be a blessing.

9.) "Time is short", so my failure to accept all the above will put me out of the will of God and cause me to lose out! (maybe on the inheritance? ;)

These are the arguments that I was "vehemently" opposing. Somebody like to defend these and say that there is validity to them? I find them totally specious, and they clearly hide an agenda, which when I challenged them, were ignored by those making their defense of the Assembly.

God Bless, Mark C.

Thanks Mark. I think sometimes it is hard to see the "roundabout" way some use to actually
defend the Assembly system. If one doesn't recognize that, they will not have a strong reaction to it. Today, I visited a board I have only infrequently visited, and for very short jaunts. I took the time to read a couple of the posts today. One of them caught my eye as it "quoted" all of Flora's post from the "What good things you DID" thread. A few of the people who visit this BB use the same logic, though the person who posted this is not a regular visitor to the board any more.

From 10-18-07 post on SWTE board after quoting Flora's complete post:

Amen. How encouraging in the Lord. God is learned in wrong situations, among wrong brethren and wrong "systems" as they call it. The world IS a wrong system. Many churches are wrong at times. The Lord spoke of false shepherds as if to say they are not uncommon....so we can conclude - since He allows them to abide over the sheep - that the people are going to profit from the mistreatment. Although God does not call false shepherds, He allows hardship under them so that man can learn to be a leader first of his own life and then a leader among other mistreated folks.

After all, was He not this kind of example. He had big shoulders and laid down His life and by doing so went back to save others so to speak.

Getting bitter and blaming on breeds corruption and death in a soul. It's good to be a good judge of character, but to prejudge and condemn others is to forget one's own great debt and sinfulness.

I made one area of the post bold because it shows the "logic" these people use to basically say "the system may have been bad, but it was good for you, so therefore we all learned good things while we were there. So stop mentioning the "abuse" and see all that happened to you as a "good thing". This is a paraphrase, but basically that is the message. Notice what the above statement says once again: "The Lord spoke of false shepherds as if to say that they are not uncommon, so we can conclude--since he allows them to abide over the sheep--that the people are going to profit from the mistreatment".

I have to ask do we REALLY come to the conclusion this person has reached? Is this at all scriptural? Paul the Apostle wept when speaking of the False Teachers who would invade the flock--if "we can conclude that the people are going to profit from the mistreatment" wouldn't Paul have mentioned this? Wouldn't he speak of the day, due to this mistreatment, that they would themselves be leaders, and able to lead others? No--he does not say this! He calls the false shepherds "accursed", and weeps for those who will be deceived in the future. He sees the abuse, false teaching, unnecessary false guilt, etc. etc. and he weeps for them.

God did not "call" these false teachers, as the above post mentions--true---but God does not "allow" them to abide over his sheep so that those same sheep can learn "good things" through their mistreatment either! God "allows" these men to be there because they are willful, evil men, with a "free will"---and God warns us to beware of them, and flee!! They have "taken" a position that does not belong to them, and God will judge them for it.

He will judge them horribly one day, consigning them into Outer Darkness for what they have done to his people!! Both Jude and Peter speak of this very fact!!

It is not a "good thing" to be under these men and to "profit from mistreatment" under them. That is the type of logic that tries to defend the Assembly system as something God is using for good, despite all evidence to the contrary!! It is a type of logic that says "Stop whining about that system. God used it for good. Only speak of the good things you learned, and leave the rest behind". I have to ask once again, is that Scriptural? Did Paul say "endure the False teachers, for you will grow and learn under their mistreatment, so that you can learn to lead others"? Absolutely not. And any attempt to try to put forth that type of logic should be met with a vehement negative reaction.

PART 2

2) Some characteristics of the Geftakys organization are still alive and well on this Bulletin Board. In particular, I observed these traits:
a) not believing the best in the other person,

This is definitely a controlling characteristic of this organization. If you didn�t comply 100% with their every instruction and rule, you were being rebellious, unsubmissive, and you were accused of not wanting to follow the Lord. They did not believe the best about us � they didn�t believe that there might be another very valid reason for not following their instructions.

Here on the bulletin board, I am noticing the same attitude regarding anyone saying anything good about their experiences. They are accused of ignoring the evil, minimizing the effects of the evil, etc. if they don�t qualify their comments in some way. You both stated supportive comments regarding my posting on October 18th on the thread �The Assembly experience: Were there any good things you DID?� However, would you have been as supportive, if I had not already written my story on the Assembly Reflection�s web site? Without knowing my history, would you have believed the best about me? Also, would you have been as supportive, if I had only posted the �good things� that were not learned under oppression (# 5 & 6). In # 5, I remember the day that we learned how to do one-minute gospels as a day of a lot of fun. In # 6, I learned about the value of worship by listening to George preach on it. Since the qualifying phrase �under oppression� does not apply to my # 5&6, if I had only posted those two good things, would I have encountered your accusations, as others have encountered them?

b) publicly criticizing, judging, ridiculing others who think differently than we do,

Many of us experienced this treatment from George or others in positions of leadership if they disagreed with something we said or did. This is not Christ�s way. Is it not better to prayerfully challenge someone, or to appeal to them, or to ask them to explain their position so you can understand it, etc.? Is our desire not to win our brother or sister? Publicly criticizing, judging, ridiculing others who think differently than we do will never unite us in Christ and it will never accomplish God�s purpose. However, it will succeed in killing people�s desire to open up and post their thoughts on this bulletin board. No one likes to be on the receiving end of that kind of treatment.

c) not realizing that God�s working in a soul is different for different people � His timing and ways are not our timing and ways.

The Spirit of God is the only One that can affect a soul for eternity. We are only His instruments. We can�t discern all the inner thoughts and workings of a soul; but God can. God knows when it is the right time for different individuals to receive certain truths. We must wait for God�s timing, as His ways are not our ways. If we force them to see something before they are ready to accept it, it will often lead to them rejecting it. It is better to pray for someone that their eyes of understanding would be opened, and wait for God�s timing.

3) Although you are making some excellent points, your methods are causing you to loose credibility. Therefore your methods appear to be defeating your purpose.

The observations mentioned above are counter-productive to your purpose of helping people to heal and helping people to see the evil in the Geftakys organization. True healing can only happen when there is an acknowledgement of both the good and the evil, of both the wheat and the tares. Both sides need to be acknowledged, if you want those individuals, who see the good and not the evil, to take your comments seriously and take them to heart.

Also, when you endeavour to destroy someone�s respect in another individual by criticism, the only thing you succeed in doing is destroying your own credibility to the very person you are trying to reach. Only the respected person can destroy that respect by their own actions or words. One suggestion might be to provide a link to other information that might challenge their perspective, for example, Judy�s story, Joyce H.�s story, my story, etc. Then, you might want to challenge them to humbly and prayerfully ask God to show them whether or not this organization is oppressive, abusive and controlling.

My understanding is that most of the people still in this organization have already lost most of their respect for George, but they are remaining because they are taking their direction from other brothers that they still respect, such as, Mike Zach, Tim Geftakys, etc. That was the main motivating factor in my telling my story on the Assembly Reflections web site. My story reveals that the Ottawa Assembly took its direction from Mike Zach, and consequently, became very oppressive and controlling. I strongly felt that people needed to see and understand that this oppressive organization can continue in its oppressive ways, because George trained others to follow in his own footsteps.

Since, it is God who opens the eyes of understanding, and God who delivers from the oppressor, let�s be careful how we respond to others and let�s leave room for God to work. I�m praying for you both,

In Christ,
Flora

(Please forgive me for such a long posting.)

PART 1

Mark and Joe, after reading your comments (October 19 & 20), I felt compelled to respond to them. First, let�s look at the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt 13:24-30. We note that the field contains both wheat and tares. The wheat represents the good � the Spirit of God at work in a soul. The tares represent the evil � the work of the enemy (Satan). According to the NASB margin note, tares are a weed resembling wheat. Therefore, the tares could probably be called a counterfeit. In the Assembly, we had a mixture of both wheat and tares.

In the Assembly experience, the wheat could be identified as the good solid Bible teaching, identical to what you will find in many evangelical churches; and souls were affected for God�s honour and glory. The tares could be identified as the Bible verses that were being twisted and used to abuse, control and oppress God�s people, identical to the practice of many cults; and souls were devastated, crushed and had their faith destroyed. Those in authority that master-mined this system (George and his helpers) skillfully and masterfully interwove these two opposites together, so it has the appearance that God�s word is teaching their practices. The young in Christ and the undiscerning often cannot see the difference between the wheat and the tares.

Since there were a number of different Assemblies, and since each Assembly consisted of people from various spiritual backgrounds, it is safe to assume that there would be a wide range of experiences among the members and former members. The portion of some might have been a lot of wheat and only a little bit of tares; and the portion of others might have been a lot of tares and only a little bit of wheat. Then, still others would have experienced other varying degrees of both wheat and tares. The perspectives of each person would be different depending on the degree of wheat or tares to which they were exposed.

After reading your comments, the first thing I did was go to the thread �The Assembly Experience: What were the GOOD things you learned?� Then, I re-read every posting on that thread. Next, I went to the thread �The Assembly experience: Were there any good things you DID?� Then, I re-read every posting on that thread. Finally, I browsed this bulletin board and re-read many other recent postings.

As I read these postings, here are some observations I made:
1) Your strong emotions appear to be blinding you to any other perspective but your own. This makes me wonder whether or not you have adequately healed from your own experiences.

Since both of you are having a hard time acknowledging the good in the Assembly, I am assuming that you experienced a lot of tares. When our wounds are raw, we will not tolerate anyone saying anything that re-opens that wound. Some of your postings appear to have this lack of tolerance; that is why I am wondering how far along in the healing process you have come. How long is it since you left the assembly? Wounds take time to heal; but eventually, under God�s nurturing care, our wounds heal and He restores our soul. After healing happens, there is usually a greater tolerance level of different perspectives.

CONTINUED ON PART 2

Flora----

Thank you for your post. I thank you for both your comments, criticism and understanding
in the matter. There is one paragraph though, that when I read it, I thought, "but this is exactly
what I have been trying to say in my argument all along. You cannot mention the "good things"
without also mentioning the "bad". Here is your quote:

The observations mentioned above are counter-productive to your purpose of helping people to heal and helping people to see the evil in the Geftakys organization. True healing can only happen when there is an acknowledgement of both the good and the evil, of both the wheat and the tares. Both sides need to be acknowledged, if you want those individuals, who see the good and not the evil, to take your comments seriously and take them to heart. Though I understand where you are coming from Flora, I do have to state that in the Assembly System the tares far outweighed the wheat, and eventually led to it's total downfall. If there were an "even mix" of wheat and tares, the Lord would most likely have let it continue, --but the tares in that system were numerous, and the Lord "cleaned house" due to the massive amount of abuse and legalism there. Sifting through all of the tares to try to find the wheat is a noble effort---But in my opinion, it's best to be glad we are no longer in the system, rather than trying to find good things we learned when under that system. Again, just my opinion--I'm entitled to it, and you are entitled to yours if you disagree.

Perhaps you have misunderstood what I am trying to convey. I have typed an allegory above, which is an attempt to show that Tom's original question, along with the response he received to it from those attempting to defend that system and "white-wash the abuse", could have a far different affect on some people than he anticipated. Though the question was innocent, it opened the door for those who always seem to appear, who want minimize the suffering of others, and through their twisted logic, defend the Assy system. In my opinion their should be a "vehement objection" raised to those types of posts. If you are of a different opinion, that's fine, and I respect that. God bless.

--Joe

An allegory:

Mary Partridge had a wonderful idea. At least to her it seemed like a wonderful idea. You see, she had once been in a very abusive relationship, and felt she had now overcome the pain associated with that relationship. She decided to be more "positive" about it, and share some of the things she had "learned" with others. What she failed to take into mind was that the "abuse" she may have suffered in the past might be totally different than the "abuse" others had endured. She was sure everyone would profit from her question.

Mary arrived at her destination and looked up. There was a sign which read "BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTER/RECOVERY COUNSELING CENTER". Mary walked in with a big smile on her face, walked up to a crowd of women and said: "I'm going to a class tonight, and I am the teacher. I'm going to share with them my cooking expertise. Yes, I learned to cook. And you know where I learned it? In my abusive relationship with my ex-husband. That's right! I learned to cook many different things. The relationship was terrible--I was often beaten if I didn't have the meal on the table at precisely six o'clock, but I did learn to cook a variety of wonderful meals. And now, years later, I'm going to share some of those wonderful recipes with others".

Mary then looked at the quiet crowd and said "I learned to cook in my abusive relationship. What good things did you learn"? There was quite a reaction to this question as you can imagine. Several women, recently abused, with blackened eyes, and bruises, stared at Mary vacantly. Another woman, years away from the abuse, but who worked at the center to help others recover, looked at the scars on her arm, and remembered broken bones from beatings. She answered "The only good thing I learned was to get away from the relationship for good." Of course, those most recently abused were more upset than those abused years before. But those seeking to help the recently abused felt almost as flabberghasted at the question as those abused just days before.

There were a couple of other women there. They were sisters of a former abuser of one of these women, and they immediately jumped to Mary's defense. "That was an excellent question Mary. It is good to remember the good things you learned in that relationship. It can't have been all bad, in fact, I suspect much of the abuse is exaggerated" said one of these women. This caused the battered women to be more angry with these enablers, than with Mary herself, because they were trying to white-wash all they had endured in their own relationships.

One of the formerly battered women asked Mary "What is your motivation for asking this question? Are you trying to go through a garbage heap to find a shiny can? Why would you even want to ask such a question of these people? Perhaps you have never let go of that abusive relationship, and are trying to find something of value from it to soothe your own conscience." Mary herself had abused others as a result of her own abuse, so this actually caused her to question her own motives a bit. One of the women asked increduously "What good things did we learn? What good things did we learn!!??" She walked towards Mary.

Mary found herself laying on the sidewalk in front of the center, having been forcefully thrown out of the building. The two sisters of the former abuser ran up, and helped Mary to her feet. "Ai Chihuahua!"
Mary cried, "It was only a simple question! Why do you people have such a vehement objection to a simple question like mine!!??" The battered women, gathered at the door, were a bit amazed that Mary would even have to ask such a question--after all who even wants to try to find "good things" in a relationship where one was battered and beaten by an abusive person, and an abusive marriage? One would rather consider where one was going after that relationship, and be thankful they escaped it, rather than searching for "good things" they learned during the experience. The two sisters comforted Mary, and agreed with her, saying "these people just can't leave the past behind".

Mary walked off in a huff, believing her question was valid, and should not have had any kind of negative effect on anyone. She walked away hurriedly, almost bumping into a woman with bruises on her arms heading into the center. The woman met a Counselor at the door and said "I was going to go to a cooking class tonight, taught by someone named Mary Partridge. But my husband was infuriated that I was going, and beat the hell out of me".

Is this allegory extreme? Perhaps. But it does get a valid point across.
This Bulletin Board in many ways is a "BATTERED SHEEP SHELTER/RECOVERY COUNSELING CENTER"- see also
www.batteredsheep.com Also, see the Wounded Pilgrims thread. Mark Campbell has some excellent posts dealing with the recovery process. An alcoholic is an alcoholic for life, even if he doesn't drink for years. In like manner, the recovery from the Assembly can take years for some, with wounds healing into scars.
Deep scars never go away. We may recover from the "wound" but the scar will always remain. We will always need to "remember" and deal with issues that deeply affected us from that time. We need to remember that there are some just entering the recovery process, and we need to keep our hearts open for them, and not ignore, or belittle the pain they are feeling. This allegory is just an opinion, but is a point I have been trying to make all along.

I ran out of room below and want to make sure the allegory is fully understood.

Tom's original post said(parapharase): "I am meeting with a church plant this evening, and I am going to share with them concerning Outreach. You know where I learned it? The Assembly. That's right!" Then he asked "What good things did YOU learn there?" This post began the thread that caused some
controversy. It appears to be a very simple question on the surface, and nothing to stir up any waters.
Perhaps when asked in the context of this allegory, the reaction to it can be better understood.

I'm sure he asked this question cheerfully, with the best of intentions--but some posters leapt upon it, using it as a springboard to go into defensive mode of the "system". This caused a "vehement objection" from myself and Mark, which has since been greatly called into question as being to "severe" and "negative", and "overreactive". It has been extremely difficult, for some reason, to convey the simple message I have
been trying to communicate. Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine. I thought maybe an allegory might better explain the logic, concern, and emotions that have been brought into play because of one simple question.

Mary in this allegory represents Tom and his question, approaching the BB with his question(which is a type of "shelter" in a way for the formerly abused, and those recovering). The sisters of an abuser, that come to Mary's defense, represent those posters that seem to appear during "arguments" and white-wash the abuse, and defend the ASSY system in their twisted logic.

The abused "wives" represent those on this BB, and those who have escaped the ASSY system--some recently, and some years ago. And some represent those who are trying to help those who are attempting a recovery. Both the abuse and the recovery are very serious to them, and the Assembly system at this point,
is not a place where they would be trying to find "good things they learned" at all, but a system whose grip and teachings they are trying to escape forever.

I apologize for being so longwinded concerning this issue. But being accused of being "too severe" and "negative", or "overreactive", or causing posters to leave the board due to this position, is a bit frustrating
when I believe Mark and I are making a very valid point. Perhaps it all seems to be a matter of semantics, and why should we even bother to argue a point that seems so harmless? I can't really apologize for holding this view--though I do apologize that I have had to be so longwinded to try to get it across. And after all of this, it could be I have still failed to make the point truly clear.

Sometimes I miss Brent Tr0ckman's posts. Perhaps he would "set me straight" here and tell me I am completely off base. But I always liked the fact that he would hold his ground on a subject, with almost the whole board against him, and literally tell all of them to go take a long walk off of a short pier if they didn't like it. ;D He was far less apologetic than I. :) I kind of miss posters like that. ;D If you take the time to read all of this though, thanks. I know it's a lot of keystrokes to read!

Joe,

I understand your analogy. Anologies can be effective in arguing for a position, and you have done a good job in making your point. I do, however, see a serious problem in your analogy.

In order to be effective, there must be a strong paralell between the reality and the analogy. You have likened the assembly experience to that of an abusive marriage. The husband beats up his wife, and years later she speaks of the good things she learned. The problem with your analogy is that the parallel is not close at all.

A marriage is between two people. The assembly, if you counted up all the folks that were in it over its 30 or so years of existence, involved over a thousand, maybe two thousand. Most of us had relationships of various kinds with hundreds of people over the years.

Do you not remember sitting around the dinner table in a brother's house laughing uproariously at some story or joke? How is that like a wife beating? Do you not remember playing practical jokes on one another? Once at my house a couple of brothers carried Chris Small's bed out into the back yard while he was sleeping in it. He woke up at about 4:00 AM, and was quite surprised, to say the least. He returned the favor by going inside, waking them up, and asking them to carry it back inside. We all thought it was hilarious. It still makes me smile to think of those things.

I know there were also many negative experiences. There were many abuses. But I spent many, many hours involved with people and projects that I am glad I did to this day. That was just as real a part of the assembly experience as the suffering part. That is undeniable.

I recently met the grandchild of a man I led to Christ 30 years ago in an assembly sponsored outreach. Should I be sorry? I had good fellowship on the phone a couple of months ago with a brother that I both respected, and still respect, even though fellowship was cut off by the assembly system from 1989 until after 2003. I cannot think of one negative thing he ever did or said to me. Yet my entire relationship with him was within the assembly system, usually at Worker's Seminars.

The assembly was made up of hundreds of people just like you and I, Joe. Good desires and intentions mixed with terrible weaknesses and moral failures. It was the lack of legitimate limits on authority that led to such ugly outcomes in so many cases. The denominations that we felt so superior to understood much more than we gave them credit for. They have structures in place that avoid such outrages, at least most of the time.

My point, Joe, is that the assembly system was vastly more complex than a marriage. Any good analogy must take that into account. Yours does not.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Hi Everyone! :)

I have been absent from the BB due to being evacuated from my house here in the San Diego area since Monday. All is well, though the fire came very close. Please pray that this situation will cause many here to think of their need for the eternal security that is found in Christ. The circumstances due to the fires in San Diego County were truly devastating.

I read through the latest posts on this thread, but to respond thoroughly to all of them will be impossible. I would have to rehash a bunch of previous explanations that I have made on this topic, and Joe has answered many of them anyway.

I feel like I should try to answer some of Flora's comments though, as she is new to the BB, and has not seen our previous discussions on this topic.

First, Flora, I am glad that you are here and that you are willing to share your opinions. If my views differ from yours please do not see it as an "Assembly like mentality" that seeks to dominate, shame, ridicule, or otherwise attack you personally. I respect your right to see things the way you do, but you also must respect my right to have my own strongly held opinions that differ with yours.

Respect, however, does not mean I must sit silently by when I read things that I believe are not factual, or contain harmful ideas (I do not believe that you are guilty of any of these BTW). Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, etc. used very strong language against some religious folks that I'm sure the recipients thought was very rude. Were those using this language being judgmental? There is a difference between the need to have discernment between good and evil and being "judgmental." Clearly, your post was making judgments about my opinions, and re. what you felt was wrong with my views and how I expressed them. I would not call you "judgmental", or "Assembly like", for doing so.

Consider this quote: "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." ( MT. 18:5-6)

The reason I used such "vehemence" in response to Trac4., and Marty was that I believed their views were not factual, moral, and had the potential to harm God's people. Some people believe that the Assembly was not abusive to the degree that I assign it by quoting the above verse about the millstone. I do, and hence my passionate opposition to those that in anyway wish to excuse or minimize the abuse of God's people in that group.

Tom sees the Assembly as a bunch of different individuals, so Joe's analogy of a marriage relationship (in his view) is flawed. Possibly, a better general analogy might be of a dysfunctional family. In this family we have an abusive father, a passive codependent mom, a compliant child, and a "rebellious" one. Each has a role to play and none of them see a way out of the situation they find themselves in. However, the police arrest the dad and the whole dysfunctional family is torn apart and now must face the aftermath. This would be analogous to GG's demise and the falling apart of the group.

In order to recover this "family" and repair all the damage that each "individual" member received there must be an honest review of what part each member played and a resolve to face those facts. Denial of the facts will keep them from finding healing in the grace of God. There are different ways to deny these facts:
1.) Outright refusal to admit my role in this family.
2.) Attempts to excuse the dysfunction.
3.) Trying to minimize my participation.

Suggesting to this family that they, "just forget those things that are past," and try to remember all the good times they had together, or even when apart from the family as individuals, does not resolve the deeper issues that must be faced. Some members of this family escaped the worst of the dad's abuse, yet their passive role of silently watching others "get theirs" is not a moral position that should escape acknowledgement and repentance.

The "Workers Meeting" was the core Dysfunctional group in this greater Assembly family. Those in it had to harden their consciences often while they watched folks "get theirs". It is understandable that these, in order to be able to look in the mirror, will want to escape the difficult task of admitting their terrible failure by avoiding honest consideration. Some will try to resolve their feelings of guilt by making the situation "better" in their minds than it was, while other less privileged members, victims of the "work" of that inner circle, might make it "worse" than it actually was, but they remain emotionally devastated. All these issues need to be resolved.

It may seem "harsh and judgmental" to press the facts re. "the evil" in this "family", but for the many still in denial it is very important for them, as well as those they watched silently being abused, to "leave their gift at the altar" and get things right.

I hope this helps a little in answering your objections on this (please be assured I do not like to stir the pot-- I was the compliant child ;)), but, what I say here comes from a sincere desire to stand up for what is right.

God Bless, Mark C.

Mark,

You said:

"Tom sees the Assembly as a bunch of different individuals, so Joe's analogy of a marriage relationship (in his view) is flawed. Possibly, a better general analogy might be of a dysfunctional family. In this family we have an abusive father, a passive codependent mom, a compliant child, and a "rebellious" one. Each has a role to play and none of them see a way out of the situation they find themselves in. However, the police arrest the dad and the whole dysfunctional family is torn apart and now must face the aftermath. This would be analogous to GG's demise and the falling apart of the group."

I think that the assembly was much more complex than a dysfunctional family. Perhaps one could construct an analogy of a small town with a corrupt city government. It seems to me that that would work better. One has to remember, Mark, that there were many people in the assembly system that never attended a worker's meeting or a leading brother's meeting. This is just like a small town where many never meet the mayor or the sheriff, but are affected by their actions.

Some of us were directly involved with GG and his closest lieutenants. Others were much less involved. As a result the degree of damage or deception differs from person to person. Some were able to shake the assembly off and get on with their lives. Others still have not recovered from their experiences there.

Over the past few years many have posted about having the experience of going to Sunday church meetings or some other church function, and then experiencing strong negative emotions as a result. Many have avoided Christian fellowship as a result of this.

This experience can vary in its intensity. What it is is a form of PTSD, (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)! When external events or situations cause one to have a recurrence of strong negative emotions such as fear, anger, depression, desire to get away and such, that is usually a form of PTSD. I am not talking about merely liking or disliking something. I am talking about having the feeling of being back in the situation that hurt you even though you know your in a different situation altogether.

There are many things one can do to relieve this sort of thing. One of the most readily accessable solutions is simply to forgive. :o Bitterness and anger at past wrongs and those who perpetrated them acts as a poison in our souls. By forgiving we free ourselves from bondage to the past.

If the perpetrators refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing or to repent, that is sad. But to continue to harbor bitterness only hurts us. The folks who treated us badly didn't care then, and they don't care now. Letting that get to us only effects us. The effect is emotional bondage to the past.

Forgiveness is a process, not an event. At first the memory of the hurt or injustice brings up strong feelings and we can only resolve to forgive by an act of will, a determination to obey Christ. After that one has to return to that act of forgiveness many times, usually every time something brings up those old memories. This is not much fun. Something in us cries out for justification and vindication. But we must remember that having been hurt in the past did not cancel Christ's call in our lives today. Our focus should be on walking with God and serving him now, not mulling over what happened years ago. As we forgive others and serve Christ, the past loses its power to bind us to it.

Sometimes we need the help of another person, a brother or sister who will listen to us and pray with/for us. Sometimes this can be a pastor, especially one who has some training in counselling. There are some victims of past abuses that will need the help of a Christian counsellor. There are techniques that they know that can help to turn our horror stories into history stories.

I do not believe in minimizing the negative experiences of the past. I also do not believe in "maximizing" them, allowing them to dominate our lives and thinking today. The assembly culture had a lot of problems, as you well know. You also know well how I was emotionally brutalized by the Top Dog, GG himself, aided by his faithful pack of "Killer Yes Men". You also know what a physical and emotional wreck I became, hardly able to function well in any area of my life. Yet for all that, I still recognize that there were many enjoyable times of service and of play. I believe that we should remember both sides of our assembly years, and draw all the profit we can from them.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Tom---

I appreciate your analogy of the "small town"---that's a good way of putting it. The reason I used a "battered woman's center" instead of "one" relationship was basically to put forth the same point. In a "center" everyone's experience is going to be different.

Do you not remember sitting around the dinner table in a brother's house laughing uproariously at some story or joke? How is that like a wife beating?

I do remember times like this for sure Tom. But must point out that in many abusive relationships, the wife isn't beaten "all of the time", and may have times of laughter with the same husband who may beat her just a few hours later. We all had "good times" that we can remember in the brother's houses--I have several memories that make me smile and laugh. In my case though, even though I have these "funny memories", the "whole picture" is one of legalism, false teaching, and needless abuse, coupled with false guilt, that took years to overcome. I do not choose to try to find good things that came from my experience there.

Like an abusive relationship, I'm sure I can find things that made me laugh during the time inbetween the mistreatment. But I prefer to be grateful I "escaped" the situation, and the system,
rather than trying to find the good within the system while I "endured" it. But that's just me. I understand your point of view on this subject, and I truly respect it.

I appreciate the humor in the post below(Trac4yt) regarding this, but it was not meant in any way as a "bounty hunt" for guilty parties who did the abusing. The whole analogy was to point out that we need to remember that there are still many in recovery, who are very confused, hurt, and really don't know where to turn. Calling them "whiners" for mentioning the abuse they have endured will not help them. My whole point actually revolved around that---trying to find the "good things we learned" will not help those who are suffering and hurting and confused. They don't even know what that question means. They have just started the process, and need to work through the steps of recovery.

Tom---I do appreciate your thoughts though, and do thank you for taking the time to read my analogy(perhaps my use of "allegory" is an incorrect term for the story). Even though you feel it is an incorrect analogy, that's OK. Perhaps I am way off base. I appreciate the discussion though---I truly do. And I still appreciate the fact that we can have discussions here on the BB---sometimes even very heated ones :) ---and still remain brothers in Christ, respecting each others opinions.

God bless, Joe

Dave---

Again, I could be off-base here. But this is how I thought of it: A bit like the verses where Paul says that if you have the "liberty" to drink wine, drink wine. But if it might stumble your brother, it's best not to do it in front of them. You or I may have totally overcome past abuse, and be able to talk freely concerning such things. But the person who is not free can become extremely confused by someone who accuses them of "whining" about their past abuse, or on the other hand, speaking of the "good things" that came out of it. I could be totally wrong, and admit that---but that is how I have seen this from the beginning. Here is a reference:

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. (Rom. 14:19-21)

I know that Romans 14 is mainly dealing with food. But it is also discussing anything that can cause our brother to stumble. Perhaps I was being far too protective (knowing my own past history of abuse and recovery and how easily I could be "bummed out", or give up hope for many years, had a strong influence in this way of thinking for sure), but truly felt it was better not to even try to find "good things" in a system that could cause such harm and suffering to Christ's sheep. I felt all it could lead to was to cause confusion, and hurt those attempting to recover. If my thinking was, and is, too extreme, please forgive me. I acknowledge the fact that my thinking may be blurred by my own experience, and the desire to protect others from the same things. I just remember the process of recovery all too well---and confusion and uncertainty played large rolls in that process for some time *** (see below).

Just admitting I had been abused was a huge step actually--I was literally afraid for several years to even admit that the system was wrong, and that I had been hurt by it. If I were to have had someone come up to me and ask "What good things did you learn there?" and then upbraid me for not separating the abuse from what I felt I had learned, I would have been totally confused. I know that there are some who never post--who come to the board for help--who are hurt and confused, and just don't know what to do. If I have had an "over protective" mindset for those ones, again, my apologies. My journey has just been a very long one---and I feel for those just coming around the first turn. It sounded like we might be putting extra hurdles in front of them---and the recovery path is hard enough as it is.

***from above: I should have gauged my own experience a little differently here, as I left several years before the Assembly came to an end. I really had no way of knowing that anyone thought anything amiss. The only negative info I had was that a cult awareness group(Christian Research Institute) in San Clemente had a "file" on George at the time and told me they considered the group "aberrant". Of course though, when I presented this "evidence" to continuing members in the Assembly, the easily shot down this "proof" and said it was Satan at work. So it took years to finally get the "proof" I needed (2002 when the Assembly fell apart), and realize (and finally accept) that I had been deceived and abused by that system.

Thanks Tom,

I'm thanking you for the clear and thoughtful post in response to mine. I know that in making the comments that you did that you are not endorsing those that wish to minimize, excuse, or downright try to misrepresent the bad that went on (as some posters have done).

You are quite right in your analysis of what goes on in some former members due to the trauma that they have received in the group. You are also right that a bitter spirit of revenge is a very destructive force in ones life. How to overcome the trauma you speak of is easier for some than it is for others, and in order for us to really help we can't just resort to cliche answers---- even typical Christian cliche answers.

"Learn to forgive", "forgetting those things that are past", or "just obey Christ", while having blessed meaning in the proper context can end up being about as helpful as telling someone to "not to take any wooden nickels." Why is that? It is because those phrases were all used on us by those who turned them into weapons of abuse. "But", some will protest. "this is the word of God"! Clearly, the bible can be misused, and we of all people should be able to understand that(and I know you do).

As Joe stated below, it took him many years to try to learn the real meaning of Christ's forgiveness, and learning to live free of the trauma that gripped his soul. Some are still struggling many years afterwards, and it is for these that we must try to help. We need to offer patient understanding, not "get over it" exhortations (again, I know you understand this, but I write it for others).

Helping begins by being willing to listen and then learning to sympathize with those in pain ("Weep with those weep"). This was a very painful experience for many and when there are those that took your question and used it to suggest the Assembly was a place for "good mentoring", and attempted to suggest the leaders were "following Christ"! (Tom, are you endorsing Trac4. and Marty's comments? I know you don't, but it would be good to hear you clearly say so.)

It is to this that I became "vehement" against, and this is not a reflection of my holding on to any grudges, unforgiveness, bitterness, etc. Nor, does Christ command us to take leave of our moral senses by changing forgiveness into a passive response to abusive behavior in his church.

I do not wish to "bounty hunt" the former leaders, for that is God's job. However, I do want to resist (at least where I can) the concept that the Assembly represented correctly who God is, what it means to be a Christian, and what a church should be. Why should I resist? because it is so obvious that there are still so many who think the place was just swell. ::)

We can forgive and love our persecutors (a blessed freedom in Christ) but, we should never confuse that with passivity in the face of those that promote abuse when we have the power to resist it. This resistance sometimes can only be in word (spoken/printed), but we must have the courage to do so. This is especially true because we are talking about abuse within a "Christian" context.

For those that think the Assm. was just a great church with a bad leader who fell, then you will think I'm way too "vehement," and my opinions of the group are in error. I have no problem in politely discussing this with any who wish to do so. However, when any advocate of the Assm. defense position is not going to have an honest discussion I will definitely call them on it.

God bless, Mark C.

Joe,

You said:

So it took years to finally get the "proof" I needed (2002 when the Assembly fell apart), and realize (and finally accept) that I had been deceived and abused by that system.

Wow! I had no idea that you had such a difficult time getting your mind around the idea that the assembly was seriously wrong about some of their teachings and practices. It was the teachings that first got me to wondering about the validity of some of GG's ideas.

As I am sure you remember, I was very much in awe of GG in the early days of the assembly. His claims of having great spiritual insight into the true meaning of the scriptures seemed reasonable to me at the time. However, after listening to several different explanations of the partial rapture teaching, and then asking him questions, it did not seem to be based on any clear teaching of the scriptures. So, I began to read books about the rapture.

First I discovered that other men had clearer explainations of many of GG's key scriptures. He frequently used the story of the wise and foolish virgins as a major support for his idea. One day I notice that there was absolutely no difference between the behavior of the different groups of virgins. They were all fast asleep! The difference was in what they possessed, not in what they did!

The next thing I saw was that what GG claimed was "greater light" shown to him by the Holy Spirit had been around for over a century. The partial rapture theory had been advocated in the early 1800's by A.N. Groves, (a PB), and some others among the Brethren, such as George Pember. But when I read "Rethinking the Rapture" by E. Schuyler English he offered an analysis and refutation of the teaching that made a lot of sense to me.

Finally, shortly after I had moved to Fullerton in 1984, (the year Jesus was supposed to return according to our enlightened leader), I finally sat down one sunday morning and looked up every scripture I could think of that dealt with that subject of Jesus' coming again. It was John 14:2-3 that finished the partial rapture idea for me. Jesus said, "If I go and prepare a place for you I will come again and recieve you to myself, that where I am you may be also." I saw that my future state was dependent upon the faithfulness of Jesus, not on mine. His promise is true, so GG had to be wrong.

That finished it for me. Then I began to see just how GG tried to use this teaching to control people, especially those he suspected of considering leaving. After that I began to see the cracks in some of his other ideas.

You also said:

I do remember times like this for sure Tom. But must point out that in many abusive relationships, the wife isn't beaten "all of the time", and may have times of laughter with the same husband who may beat her just a few hours later.

That is where the problem with your analogy appears, Joe. Yes, GG was abusive at times. So were many of his faithful lieutenants. But everybody didn't beat up on everybody. There were many, many other relationships and experiences in the assembly. I agree that the negative garbage ruined it and made it a place that we are all better off without. But that still doesn't mean that everything that went on was evil and wrong.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Tom---

You said:
Wow! I had no idea that you had such a difficult time getting your mind around the idea that the assembly was seriously wrong about some of their teachings and practices.

Perhaps that is part of the problem Tom. You are looking at things based on your own experience of recovery, how you came to your own conclusions, and what "you learned" as a result. Perhaps you are forgetting the difficulty others have had coming to terms with the past. Because you saw things "logically" through reading books comparing them to George's teachings doesn't mean others saw or experienced things the same way.

Many were able to look at things "logically" as you did--others were traumatized beyond belief with fear, doubt and worry. I understand that I am looking at things from "my own experience" also, but also accepting the fact that for some it has been easy, but for others it has been extremely difficut. For some recovery was quick, for others it took years. Your expression of surprise at the difficult time I had accepting this surprises me though, as I'm sure you know of some people that have taken many years to recover.

I recently went to lunch with a brother I had not seen for nearly 28 years. He was one of the leaders in the Valley way back, and used to post on this board quite frequently a year or so back. He left the Assembly just about the same time I did, and with many of the same "fears" I had. He had been leader of one of the brothers houses I lived in, where I experienced abuse that literally took years from which to recover. He has apologized for all of his involvement with that abuse, and I have apologized to him also, and I love the brother dearly now, and understand his own pain much more clearly now.

He "sensed" something was wrong there, but when he left, due to the indoctrination and teaching, felt he had failed the Lord miserably. He literally felt he was destined for the Lake of Fire. So much fear ruled him that he was "blinded" to the very logical conclusion that there was something amiss in the Assembly. He literally went twenty years in this same mindset, until this board came about in 2002 and a couple of brothers contacted him and told him he should visit this site. As with my own experience, it had taken the Assembly's demise to awaken him to the fact that he actually wasn't "cast off from the Lord". The very fact that the Assembly had fallen apart was an awakening factor in his coming out of the deep deception he was under. It was this BB that greatly helped in his return to the Lord, and his shaking off the false guilt that had bound him for several years!

My experience was similar. I "knew" inside something was wrong, but when I left, the system was fully intact, and those still involved acted as though I had left "God's best". So, even though I knew something was wrong, I still held onto the belief that it was possible I was wrong. What if the Assembly really was of the Lord? What if I really was just a "disgruntled ex-member"
as the continuing members there were telling me? I really had no "proof" except my own doubts about the place. Even after a couple of Pastor's explained to me fully that the Assembly system was wrong, I still couldn't shake the doubts. In my case it did take until 2002 to "awaken" from a belief that I was "unusable" and a "failure" before the Lord. If you say "Wow!" Tom that's understandable---but perhaps you really haven't considered the testimonies of others who have much the same story. Not everyone comes to the "logical" conclusions you did--some were so psychologically devastated that it took a different type of healing to bring them out of the fear and doubt.

Fear can be a great crippler, as can false guilt. Getting past those fears can be very difficult. I really wish I had been able to "logically" think things out back then----but I couldn't. I'd read books, "feel" free, and descend into condemnation once again. Fear controlled me at the time, and for several years afterwards. The "nagging doubts" just would not go away that "maybe it was all true". When the Assembly came crashing down in 2002 I was amazed!! It really had been a false system all along!! Finally my conscience was free. I have spoken with others who shared almost the same experience.

As I mentioned in another post, If somone is terrified of spiders, reading books about how harmless they are, or trying to "logically" reason through the fear is not going to help. One has to have "proof" themselves that they are not as horrible as one fears. Some people go years and years afraid of something that is based on a "false fear". It takes a "deprogramming" in a sense, with some--a moment of realization that the fears they have are baseless. This was my experience and could be based largely on "when" I left the Assembly--the other brother I spoke of had a similar experience and left at about the same time. I don't know all of the factors, but I do remember the process.

So "Wow!" is right. A deceived mind can believe things that seem ridiculous to another person. Only that deceived person can know the path it took to get to a place of awakening. Praise God He is the "Good Shepherd" and He finally led me out of that "valley of shadows" into green pastures, and beside still waters.

P.S. I never said "everything" was evil there. I'm not sure why you still have the idea I have been saying that. All I said is that when mentioning "good things" we need to put it into the context of the bad environment in which it was learned. If you disagree that's fine--perhaps you don't see the need to mention that. I obviously do.

I came to a realization last night, and also again this morning, and wanted to share it. A "confession" so to speak.

For some time now, when I am sitting alone, deep in thought, or falling asleep, my mind is flooded with images of the past. "Pictures" if you will, of where I used to live when I was younger. The "pictures" are of my street and neighborhood, of my best friend's house, etc. They are snapshots of a period in time. They are from when I was about 17 years old, up to my early twenties. I lived at home during those years, and also in the Assembly. I left the Assembly twice during the time I was there, returning home for short periods, before moving back into the brother's houses. I finally made the "break" on my third attempt---the "great escape" if you will. :)

But I have wondered why my mind fills with these images--they seem to be "tied" somehow to what I am thinking about at the time. Often it is when I am thinking about my walk with the Lord. I can be thinking on a scripture verse, and a "picture" of the cul-de-sac where I used to live will fill my mind. I have wondered what the "link" is that causes these memories to fill my mind. I mean this very seriously--it has troubled me quite a bit. The pictures are crystal clear--like photos that fill my thoughts.

Last night I was thinking about the discussion on this board. I thought about my discussion with Tom Maddux, and a recent e-mail I sent him about our discussions here. I began to wonder why all of this matters so much to me. Why do I continue to come to this board and post so frequently? I say it's because of my concern for others coming through the healing process, but is that really the complete truth? Or is there something "eating at me" that I can't seem to understand or grasp? I have to admit--there were a couple of "traumatic events" that happened to me in the Assembly--one in particular, that caused me to feel the Lord had shut the door on me for good. It seems like nothing when I relate that story, but when it happened to me it felt like the end of the world . I resigned to defeat so to speak, and "accepted" a teaching that has haunted me ever since. It's amazing how one life event can warp a person's psyche' so strongly!! At least in my case that is true. One day, one brother's house, one event, and years of torment as a result.

Even though I remained in the brother's house, I thought it was "impossible" that I would ever enter the Inheritance--I came to a place of truly believing this. Inwardly, I felt "useless" to God, but I decided I'd stay anyway---weird decision huh? If I couldn't make it into the Inheritance, at least I could help others get there. After I left the Assembly I named my first son Joshua with the same thought in mind--Joshua made it in the Old Testament, so if I couldn't make it into the Inheritance, at least he had a better chance! :)

Despite my faith, expressions of confidence in the Lord, and attempts to "move on", I have dealt with this "problem" ever since. I seem to regress back to a belief in this fearful idea that the Lord has forsaken me, or has "shut the door on me" in cycles. I will attempt to "encourage myself in the Lord", but this belief still comes back at times. There is a deadness associated with this that is hard to describe. In 2002, with the demise of the Assembly, I was filled with joy, because I knew for sure that the system must be false. But despite this "awakening", I have still had to deal with this fear I cannot seem to shake. It is so deeply engrained in me that it is very difficult to bypass. It is an irrational fear I know, but it is there. I want to be completely honest about this--because it is an issue that has been at the forefront of my life ever since the disciplining I received in the Assembly many years ago. I do not "blame" individuals for this--people make mistakes, and all is forgiven. But I have to admit, something hurt me psychologically, that triggers deep fears in me, especially when speaking of entrance into Heaven, rewards, or eternal judgment. This comes in "cycles", though the majority of the time I know it is irrational and untrue.

What I realized last night is that I speak often of not trying to find any good in the Assembly. I say that we should be glad we escaped, and concentrate on what is "beyond" that past, sad experience. The "pictures" that flood my mind come from that time period. I may have moved "physically" beyond it, and grown far older in years, but internally I am still "living" back then---trying to deal with a fear that started at the same time. When I think of heaven, pictures of those streets at home flood my mind, because I would often walk them, crying out to God to please forgive me, and not "shut me out of His kingdom". It was torment and fear, and sadness, and hopelessness. In my mind I am still walking those streets I believe, because I have never fully dealt with that fear. This must be true. I cannot deny it.

I want to confess this, and apologize to Tom and everyone else. Tom's simple question brought out an outpouring from me against the thought that anything good could come out of such a horrible place. But it is all based on MY experience, and what I suffered there so many years ago. I have come to a very serious but real conclusion: I need to truly escape forever from that place, and truly move on for good. The only way to do that is to not post here any more , or visit this place, until I know I am truly beyond it all. I need to live in the here and now, until all of the memories make clear sense. I have to truly admit that I have been holding on to a period of time in my life--and an irrational fear that is associated with it.

**continued in post above.

***continued from below***

For me, letting go of this BB is like a baby letting go of a pacifier. :) (you know--you take the pacifier, you get a startled look from the baby first, then a red face filling with a frown, and then a piercing scream, coupled with two little shaking baby fists ;D). But I believe the Lord is telling me to do so. It's time to move on. I need to leave the past behind, and look to the future. The Lord has great plans for me! He has great plans for my life and ultimately for his glory!! I don't mean to be melodramatic here--just wanted to explain why I am leaving the board. In my case, I think to move ahead I need to leave a few things behind. I've needed to do this for some time now.

I do have to add one last thing. It is more than coincidence, and really, a miracle of the Lord, that this board came about, and Tom Maddux, Al Hartman, and Mark Campbell all started posting here. I lived with all three of them in different "brother's houses" during my Assembly years. The odds of having bumped into them in life were near to impossible, as Al lives in Ohio, and Tom and Mark live in other areas of California. I thought I would never have the opportunity to speak with them again. The advent of this BB allowed all of us to get in contact once again, and I am extremely grateful to the Lord for this. Many of the Valley saints have never even come to the board to post, so having these three all here at one time was an amazing event! Despite the conflicts at times, though most of the time we have been pretty much in harmony, I love all three of them very much in the Lord, and only wish them the very best! Knowing myself as I do, I'm sure I'll check in to read a little, but I will no longer be posting or spending much time here.

If anyone wants to contact me in the future, I will be checking into the Psych ward at Bellvue Hospital, in Arcadia, California. I am due for shock therapy later this afternoon. Or, you can e-mail me at jsperling@fralock.com God bless everyone.

Hello Tom,

I think that Joe's comments probably say best what I've been trying to say here, and if they are not persuasive in convincing you re. the problems with your original question then we will just have to agree to disagree. I find myself repeating the same arguments and possibly I am not making my position clear enough. To me, this discussion is not an attempt to win a debate, but the need to provide vindication for people like Joe (there are many former members like him). For those that can't understand what Joe and I are trying to say I would only ask that you pray about it and be willing to consider what we've said.

Tom, you said: "These people (Assembly leaders) didn't care about you then and they don't care about you now." A very poignant and astute statement that I thought in one short sentence could be written on the tombstone of the Assembly as the best way to remember the heart and soul of a group that called itself "God's best."

A group that had "80-100%" (this is just one of Trac4. comments that I was asking for your thoughts on) worth of correct teaching that didn't care one whit about it's members! :'( When former members think that this group was really involved in much good that needs to be remembered they will carry that same unloving heartlessness out to the next church they get involved with. Somewhat orthodox teaching, good outreach methods, and the like are absolutely nothing without the expression of God's love (1:Cor 13).

For those open to considering the dynamics of how abusive religious organizations function and the spiritual and psychological damage they inflict there are those that can explain it much better than I can. Please read, "Toxic Faith", "Churches That Abuse" and "Recovering From Churches That Abuse", and "The Subtle Power Of Spiritual Abuse." In all of these works, though, it could just be said that these groups, "didn't care about their members then and they don't care now'! :'( >:D

God Bless, Mark C.

Mark,

When I made the comment about not caring, I was thinking of former leaders who were hard hearted and stiff necked in the past, and still are. The former Great Potato from the SFV is an example. That, however, does not describe everyone who was there,or in any of the local groups.

Over the years, Mark, you taught or preached on many occassions. Are you willing to say that you never did it with the major motive of encouraging and enabling God's people? I know that you had a sincere desire to help and encourage. Sure, you had other motives too...that is our human condition. Our inner lives are a mixture of good and evil.

I can honestly say, Mark, that I never preached with a desire to wound or destroy anyone. I used to pray fervently that the saints would be helped by what I said. Did it always happen? I don't know. But many, many times folks told me that they were encouraged after I spoke. Was what I taught or said always 100% spot-on perfect? Nope, some of it was just plain silly.

Once I talked to a brother who had been excommunicated. We were discussing our sense of having wasted many years of our lives. He said, "What I did, I did as unto the Lord". I know that he also did some unwise and sinful things in his assembly years. But he wanted to serve God during most of his time there. There were many, many men and women there with that desire. I believe you and I were among them.

That, Mark, is why I do not agree with likening the assembly to an abusive marriage, but instead liken it to a small town with a corrupted leadership. There were many heart desires and acts of service by sincere and well intentioned people that, I believe, God received as offered up to him.

Yes, all the negative garbage is true as well. But it exists alongside the other things. It doesn't cancel them out or make them as if they never happened. Remember, the Bible describes Lot's heart as he lived in the midst of what was probably the most corrupt society in history. God's description of Lot was that he had "rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men", (2 Peter 2:7). Evil and good can exist together, and usually do.

Glad you came through the fires ok, Mark. BTW, I was looking at an old photo that had your mom in it the other day. How is she?

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Hi Tom!

It is a good thing to discuss this and attempt to gain some clarity, but such a discussion becomes combative because of the strong individual prejudices involved (I will admit I have a strong emotional bias). Trying to evaluate what made the Assembly tick by ones individual experiences alone, and without the benefit of making certain generalizations, have made this topic somewhat difficult. To some "the abusive marriage" analogy will be perfect (Judy, etc.), to yourself the "small town" concept is a better one and to me "the dysfunctional family" analogy fits best.

The Assembly was more than the sum of many different individual experiences; it had a way of operating that established certain social dynamics that trumped any of the individual good will of a particular member---- good people were trapped in the same system with those who were not so good. The Assembly rewarded those loyal to it and punished those who challenged it.

Of course, there were many who were truly saved and who "did what they did as unto the Lord", but when it came to successfully challenging the system none of these sincere motives were effective in changing anything. Those (like the Big Potato ;)) who were firmly in charge made sure that the members were effectively cowed into submission.

It is that single fact, that bad people controlled the group, and this shows that the true operative nature of the Assembly was a cultic one. The most important goal of the group was the preservation of GG's power and the maintenance of the support system that served that selfish goal. So, though many individual members may have been serving "as unto the Lord", they did so in a group that was controlled by those who not only could care less about the members, but really could care less about the Lord.

Here's an illustration from my own experiences: Shortly after being forced out of the group in the Valley for attempting to question the system I received a phone message from a certain "Sister" who wanted to talk to me. When I called another "Sister" (she lived in a house with other "Saints") answered the phone and told me that I could not talk with the person who left me the message. I asked, "why?" She proceeded to tell me that I "was of the Devil, a liar, deceiver, etc." Now, I had formerely known this girl as a sweet and devoted follower of Jesus Christ. She had come forward after ministry and told me often how my ministry had blessed her, and my wife had spent much time with her on an individual basis as well.

I can relate many more such stories as the one above where loyalty to the group was the primary controlling operating force. This turned a sweet and sincere sister of Christ into a fierce hate filled attack dog that actually caused her attitudes and behavior to operate in opposition to God's intention.

I understand that she was acting out of her state of deception, and therefore I feel only pity for her (and those like her), but the fact still remains that her sincere desire to serve Christ had become so manipulated by GG and company she thought that in doing what she did she was "doing service to God."

So, though "everyone" did not as individuals reflect the hard hearted and stiff necked attitudes, if you wished to remain there, you had to submit to the absolute domination of GG's claim as being God's rep. and that what he dictated was the law of God!

There were only three choices:

1.) Support the system above all else by demonstrating your absolute devotion and loyalty to those in power.

2.) Keep any objections to yourself by passively accepting whatever happens without comment. However, you will never gain the loving support of those in power.

3.) Leave. And when you leave, face the fact that all the "beloved saints" will have nothing to do with you and consider you as "being of the devil."

Yes, God knew many of us were well intentioned while in the group, but good intentions by themselves don't always translate into just and loving behavior. These are the most important lessons to learn from our past in the group, and our recollections must be accompanied with the honest fact that we supported this cult---- either actively, or by our silent submission to it.

Yes, (and thanks) we made it through the fire okay. My Mom lives with us now, and she stayed with us and the dogs crowded in a motel room for the week. She just turned 85 and is as spry as ever!

God Bless, Mark C.

AssemblyBoard

General Discussion => Any and All Topics => : Joe Sperling October 19, 2007, 09:56:24 PM