AssemblyBoard

 I am really upset about how the "saints" handled the Rape that is posted on the website. I shudder to think that I supported this group. I suspect it had everything to do with George and does not reflect on the groups that are still meeting. Yet I can't say for sure. I wish people would visit and try to determine what is going on with these groups. when I visited in December it seemed to me that there was genuine change. There was recognition of other ministries. I was treated well. Can anyone comment?

I would feel a little better if there was at least one other person identified by name who was in that meeting who would come forth and confirm this is exactly what happened.  This person states she was raped went to the leading brothers who decided that this person brought it on herself and is in a state of sin and should therefore be pubicly disciplined.  A transition is missing somewhere here. 

For many leading brothers, their character flaw was conformity, not heartlessness.  If the story went, "George announced that this person brought it on themselves and all the leading brothers remained silent" I would be more prone to believe it because this sort of thing happened repeatedly.  But there are several former leading brothers I can think of (and I don't know if I am even thinking of the right ones since none are named) who I just don't see arbitrarily saying to a rape victem, "what happened tonight is all your fault - go sit in the back until you repent" unless there is more to the story than is being told or they were acting on the specific direction of George and Betty.

I'm not saying it is impossible that this story is completely accurate.  Nevertheless, we have the problem of having a story with one accusor with no possible way of coorborating the story because no person, place, or time was mentioned.    I'm really not trying to put this person down, but no one can make a judgment on an accusation with no specific details.

You're kidding right??

"Conformity not heartlessness"  ???

If you read my story on Assembly reflections, you will find that the leadership was quite heartless. As a sister, who was not a worker, I had no idea what was transpiring between the local leadership and those in higher positions of authority - George, Betty, Mike Zach, and the other itinerant brothers. I only know what I experienced.

This brave woman came forward to tell a horrific story, in order to enlighten others regarding the true nature of this organization. That took an incredible amount of guts and courage!! As a student, she probably had no idea what was transpiring between the local leadership and those in higher positions of authority. She probably only knew what she had experienced. We can be very grateful that she had the courage to relate her experience to us.

Concern was expressed that since no names are mentioned, it is hard to corroborate her story. I agree and initially this also caused me concern. However, since it was posted on the Assembly Reflections web site, I came to the conclusion that Margaret Irons knows the identity of the woman, and the Assembly in which it took place.

Also, no rape victim wants to revisit those memories. Since she courageously came forward to tell her story, I want to go on the record as saying: "I believe her entire story." I am ashamed and embarrassed to admit I once respected these people.

There is another reason why I believe her story. A similar experience happened to a sister in one of the Assemblies in Canada. The leadership refused to believe that she had been raped and insisted that she sit at the back of the meeting and not partake of the breaking of bread. She left fellowship within a month of the incident. A number of months later, she phoned me and told me her story. For me, this was the straw that broke the camels back. I left fellowship shortly after I learned her story.

To the woman who has just courageously come forward with her story, I want to say: "Thank you for the insight to the collective heartlessness that you experienced. Their attitudes and behaviour reveal that they are false ambassadors of our Saviour's love and grace. May the Lord's everlasting arms continue to support, strengthen and comfort you. May the Lord richly bless you for being willing to tell your story."

Flora

  Dave when I first met the saints at Fullerton college I was 19 years old, attending Calvery Chapel with my fiance'. After we were married we started attending the Assembly. By the next summer I was desperately aware that my marriage had problems. I dealt with it by becoming a more and more committed Christian in the Assembly. This only made things worse for my marriage. I came home from work one night to find that she had committed adultery and left me. I was devastated. I needed help, support, understanding. Of course I went to the saints. They said, "You need to talk to leadership!"  Not long after this Steve Irons said he would like to have breakfast with me. I thought, "He is going to be consoling to me, he is going to give me the words I need to get through this situation."  After we sat down he started asking questions, "How long were you together,...." Then he started in on me, "Are you cheating on your wife?"  "Who is this girl you are cheating on your wife with?"  Dude it was exactly like the Rape story!  I left our meeting devastated. "This guy thinks its all my fault!"  And this is how I lived with my divorce from then on. "Its my fault!" So when I read the story on the Rape, I could see it happening just as it was written.



 Today I hold no grudge against Steve. Why?  I saw what he went through after leaving the Assembly. (He definitely regrets some of the things he did.) Today he is a humble man.

  I would also like to think that this is all George's doing. I can't believe that the people in the existing Assembles would continue on with this sort of thing, "Blame the victim" but I could be wrong. This summer I plan on visiting the WSLA and Fullerton assemblies. I know I will get some resistance but I believe when they see my heart they will be open with me. I wish others would do the same.

Dave,

I would like to think that the anonymous nature of the rape story was to protect the victim and perhaps even leaders who have since repented. Things got much weirder after you left fellowhip. In the assembly I was in I could see one leading brother doing this kind of thing, but not the others. And I could see this kind of thing happening in some assemblies more than others. But it got so bizarre I have no problem with the veractiy of this claim.

  I understand Dave's reluctance to believe that former leaders could be so heartless as the "rape story" seems to indicate.  I think this desire to "believe the best" comes from the view that derives from those outside the inner circle where GG had his most devastating effect of formation.

  To say it is "more conformity and not heartlessness" is a phrase that needs to be reflected upon a bit more.  Is not conformity to callous disregard for a person's well being a form of heartlessness? If conformity to Assembly norms means a leader must close off their consideration to care for the needs of those seeking their help it means that they have to shut off their feelings of compassion in order to obey GG.

  I can believe this rape story as I, as a leader in a local Assm., was involved in a situation where we had to make a choice between doing not only the compassionate thing, but what was just.  A former member of our group contacted me with the report that one of our current members had molested his daughter when they were still members in the group.

  This current member (to his credit) admitted it (and has since made things right with those he wronged) and we "leaders" were left with the decision of what to do.  The compassionate and just thing to do was to hold the bro. responsible and require him to take ownership for his actions (and all that this required).
  However, this bro. was of value to "the work" and the damaged family was now out of the Assm.  The message from Full. was that we were to accept his private reconciliation with God and that there were to be no other responsibilities or consequences connected with this bro.'s failure.

  I was told by the "Worker" leading bro. that, "after all, anyone of us could have done the same thing", thus indicating that it was no big deal to molest children! :'( >:D   Talk about a lack of compassion!  So, what did I do?  I tried to argue against this course of action, but ultimately I did "conform", though in my heart I knew this was very wrong.  I was aware that this decision not only would not help the one molested it would also be bad for the bro. who needed serious help in being recovered!

  Was I a better person because I only "conformed" vs. advocating the direct unjust and hard hearted Full. line of reasoning?  In the end, passivity in the face of evil is just as unloving as those actively promoting the evil and both attitudes need to be admitted to and repented of.  I fear many former members excuse their own culpability as former members based on their belief that their roles were more conformity vs. active evil.

  I'm not saying that each attitude is equal as to the degree of wrong it involves, but the two parts (active and passive) had to be in place for the Assm. to function as an abusive organization.  Both parts worked toward the end of wounding precious souls for whom Christ died and this needs to be recognized and repented of.

                                                                                  God Bless,  Mark C. 

Dear Vandyke:
I recently spoke to a brother still in fellowship in the Pasadena assembly.  He told me that the brethren still consider the testimony of the women that were abused by George as lies.  That it is his word against theirs.  That there was no proof.  That these women were as guilty as he was before the Lord.  That things were not handled spiritually.  That there needs to be 2 or 3 witnesses to the actual act in order for there to be an accusation.  They likened it to the false accusations brought agains priests in the Catholic church!

These, Vandyke, are direct quotes.  The men in the assemblies are spiritual and faultless.  When they confront sin and failure they have to spiritualize and condemn it, or they are condemned.  They are true pharisees who have no fault. 

I am not surprised by the rape story, although horrified and shocked.  After all, none supported my story of abuse by George.  And they still call me a liar.  They claim it was my fault because I could have walked before the Lord and remained pure!  They claim that I had no proof.  It is all a story of perfection and spirituality that does not consider humaness, feeling, emotion and sinfulness.  I was told by a sister in fellowship "but we all are accountable before the Lord." as if we could control all of our outward circumstances and remain pure.  There are no victims in the assembly.  Everyone who fails is an outcast and the rest puff themselves saying, "thankfully that is not me.".  Shocking but true.  And the continuing assemblies still will not consider my story of victimization and study their own personal responses to my telling the story.  They all rallied to George and "the brethren" rather than rally to me and other women.

Just me

I can vouch for a reported rape of a sister who had been attending the Chicago assembly in the early years. I had been told that the victim had been on a date with the rapist.

Two sisters had told me about it. The response that the rape victim had received from the Chicago sister was, "What were you doing there?" I was shocked.

Later, during a time when I regularly talked to Betty, I mentioned what the rape victim had been told. Betty agreed with what the victim had been told: "what were you doing there." I told Betty that I disagreed with that response; that there is never an excuse for someone being raped, and you are placing the guilt on the victim who is already going to have problems dealing with guilt.

I then brought up an example of when my mother, working as a nurse, had avoided being raped by a patient by making as much noise as she could, by knocking wastebaskets around, etc., in the patient's hospital room.

Betty's response: "What was she wearing? Was she wearing a short skirt?" My reply was that she was wearing her nursing dress, and, pressed for more details by Betty, I mentioned that it was just above her knees, to which Betty replied, "Uh huh!" I was really shocked at Betty's attitude.

Who knows how this assembly rape victim had been treated by the brothers............but, as far as I know, she had left before I started attending assembly meetings. Smart woman.......

I felt I had to add this information because there are still disbelievers in what victims of this abberent assembly behavior have experienced.

    Forgive me if I assumed too much. When I attended the Placentia assembly I witnessed the acceptence of other ministries, announcments about saints who on their own decided to travel to Hungary and work with another ministry.(These deciscions were made on their own, Randy Sutton, Nancy Hocking) I was vaugly aware that there is not an agreement with the G.G. situation between the Assemblies.  Funny when I ran into the WLA saints at the music center I just assumed they would embrace me. Yet it seems as if they are in a time warp. So there may be change in some places and not others? Are things in WLA and Pasadena still functioning as a cult? I just can't see any cult functioning without its megalomaniac leader. Isn't that a fundamental ingredient? someone has to rise to the occasion. So I will have to see for myself.

I think my ill-worded phrase "For many leading brothers, their character flaw was conformity, not heartlessness" I was not trying to think the best of the leading brothers.  My point was that I can think of many examples of leading brothers who would not do this on their own unless they got specific direction from George and Betty to do this.  This is why I was looking for the "who" in the story because I was looking for this connection.

I can see how this scenerio could have taken place with certain folks in the Assembly.  Nevertheless, I still think it is good practice with an accusation of this magnitude to have some measure of coorboration.  I don't think it is too much to ask, "is there any one else willing to admit that this is exactly how it happened?"

I understand the person may not want to be identified but if the leading brothers were so cruel in this matter as folks on this thread believe why not name them?  Or if, as Jem suggested, they repented and all is settled, why even bring up this matter or at least mention the repentance as a postscript to the story?

I am not trying to be antoginistic or "blame the victem".  I'm just saying that the more specifics that are offered in a story, the more coorboration can be made by others, and the more weight a story can have.  The more vague and non-specific a story, the less effective and the more one is left to wonder if there is more to the story that another perspective could offer. 

Fair enough, Dave.  This person has disclosed the whole story - names, location, etc. - and is eager to go public with this information, but there are compelling reasons not to do so at this time. I would say, though, that in general, it is better to err on the side of believing and supporting the victim, rather than believing the best about Assembly leadership, even when this casts a shadow over leaders who still retained some humanity.  George and Betty's pernicious influence ran very deep. The purpose of posting this account at this stage, before all the details can be made known, is not to call out the leaders in a particular Assembly, as was the case when Brent led the charge against the system, but to give the victim a public voice when they are ready to tell their story and hope it will make a difference. This woman wrote in response to the news that George and Betty are beginning all over again. She hopes that someone who might get ensnared today will recognize the danger because of what she went through.

But yes, there is more to the story, and when the details can be posted, it will be for a different reason.

  I think Margaret's quote above displays the best course to take when evaluating claims of abuse by former members---- "it is better to err on the side of believing and supporting the victim."  Enroth was attacked by the groups he wrote about in his books because it was claimed he allowed victims to "tell their stories" vs writing a book based only on objective forensic styled observations.  When I talked to him about this he told me that (and also wrote this somewhere) "after hearing hundreds of stories--- all very similar--- I already knew where the one sharing their story was going and could finish it for them."  A very clear objective picture emerged from many stories all pointing to a group that used religion to abuse it's members. 

   Telling ones "story" is not necessarily perfectly cut and dried, as we as individuals do try to shade a story to make our side sound better and to put the abuser in the worse possible light.  In a court of law a prosecutor knows how to put the victim on trial and get them to admit some culpability for their "getting into the situation in the first place."  Moonflower's recollection of her conversation with Betty demonstrates this perfectly when Betty tried to blame her nurse Mom for "wearing a skirt above her knees," and thus alledgely inviting a rape attempt.

   We are all very human, and have struggles with a desire for things we know are sinful.  It would be normal for a member to exclude anything that might admit this, as they would be very aware that "the leaders" would latch onto that as the sum total of who was responsible for any situation like this.  This, as in much modern litigation, leads to the terrible injustice of minimizing the culpability of the victimizer and casting doubt on the victim.

  The need for "more specific details" is the claim, apparently, that those still defending GG against his excommunication are asking for.  They also cast doubt on the women GG preyed upon, as these women "seduced" GG. "Where", they ask, "are the two to three witnesses of GG's inappropriate behavior?"

  As Enroth discovered, we too must get to the truth, not by cross examination of the victims, but by forcing out into the light the practices of those who use the name of God to abuse his children.  The focus is not for more compelling and complete evidence, but for those accused of abuse to come forward and confess and repent of their horrendous behavior!  If any of the multitude of charges of abuse levied against the Assm. system are true they are responsible to answer for them.  The NT clearly tells these Assm. defenders that the ball is in their court and that they must answer the charges levied against them.  This venue is the perfect place to do so and I call on them to humbly step forward.  Better to do it now then on the day when they will have to give account to God for their behavior.

                                                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

                                                                                     

   

   The two to three witnesses argument works great for anyone who abuses others in private. How can people use that as a criteria? I think this is one of those verses used to protect the guilty.

Moonflower,

You said:

I suspect that Betty needed and wanted to believe that George was the victim of being allured by other women's advances.  That way, she could blame others and not have to cause problems in her own marriage.  George, in effect, was the victim.   :o

However,  this is what I suspect, not what I know.

Tom Maddux

Folks, pardon me, but I am baffled and very confused about some points made on this thread. 

Just me, you stated in your posting that you were told:

"That there needs to be 2 or 3 witnesses to the actual act in order for there to be an accusation."

So, they are saying that they will not believe a victim unless two or three other people witnessed the sinful act.  How utterly bizarre!  If one interpreted scripture this way then an elder could do almost anything as long as there was no more than one witness.   He could shoplift, commit murder, commit adultery, commit physical and/or sexual assault or any other crime and get away scott free.  This is completely ludicrous!

This is obviously another example of George and his supporters twisting scripture to cover up sin.

Flora

this is powerful. i admire your courage in putting this out there. i can't imagine what you've been through. you have more authority on this topic than any of us, because you've been through it. we're on the outside, blundering towards understanding.

i've heard other rape and abuse stories from the assembly that will never be told. the rape story on the geftakysassembly website  is entirely plausible. i believe her. (http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/PersonalAccounts/StrangerRape.htm)

i agree with what jem said about situations varying from leader to leader and assembly to assembly. the problem is in the system itself - a system that allows leaders, however well intentioned, to hold such absolute power over people's lives. in that situation, they will eventually make the wrong decision on a horrific situation such as this with devastating results.

not all leaders were ignorant, heartless or oblivious. some of them were, and the assembly system still allowed them this unbridled power over individual's lives. that will always result in abuse, eventually. the general conformism that permeated the leadership ensured that the most ambitious got their way, and ambition is strongly correlated with corruption.

and at the top we have george, a man with a proven history of surrounding himself with the most ambitious yes-men he can. he is a textbook narcissist whose top priority in life will always be to fill his life with people who build up his ego, buying into his grandiose self-delusion. that is more important to him than anyone's feelings, or justice, or truth - as he has repeatedly demonstrated. to think of him as a righteous man is laughable.

its heartbreaking to read how this woman was so excited to meet with the leadership, sure that they were about to step up and protect her, only to have them crush her with the worst sort of condemnation.

rape and sexual abuse are some of the most under-reported and unprosecuted crimes in the country for exactly these reasons. when the unfortunate soul that has been deeply traumatized finally gets up the courage to open up to someone about it, they all too often get an ignorant response. they are doubted, or even condemned. this drives the trauma much deeper, and the psychological fallout can last for years, or even a lifetime. the victim may never have the courage to talk to another person about it. this is why its so important to get professional help. a professional may not be perfect, but they won't make these kinds of glaringly ignorant mistakes.

for reference: http://crime.about.com/od/sex/a/rape_myths.htm

brian

i agree to an extent. i'm sure it wasn't arbitrary. in this case, the woman was talking to a leader's wife about it regularly.


my guess would be that it all started with that wife she was talking to. it sounds like the wife drew her own conclusions about the situation and went to her husband with them. then the assembly system took over and really flaunted its weaknesses.

brian

Very interesting, Tom.......

At the time of the conversation with Betty, I had the feeling that her response had something to do with GG, himself, but I had no idea of his escapades until the fall.

Moonflower

You are exactly right, Flora.  I was recently told by a brother in fellowship that this is how the assembly handles things correctly, unlike the Catholic church.  In other words, the Catholic priests had all of these false accusations about abuse, but that won't happen in the assembly because we use the scripture (2 or 3 witnesses) so that leaders can't be falsely accused.  That is why they say that the brethren in Fullerton did not handle things correctly.  They excommunicated George before the 2 or 3 witnesses could face George (and he could have denied it).  It doesn't matter that the 2 or 3 witnesses came forward and called every assembly to tell their stories.  They still claim there was no proof.  Because those who chose to remain loyal to George chose to believe his word over theirs and wanted documentation, evidence etc.  To my knowledge all the women did not keep his love letters, emails etc.  Even though they had gifts from him and could give details that was not evidence enough.

Also, the women tried to facilitate a meeting with George.  Mike Almanzor was going to arrange it.  When he contacted George about it, suddenly it wasn't going to happen anymore.  No explanation why.  The spinmeister had swayed Mike into believing something else would be more spiritual and Mike A stopped receiving phone calls from the victims and began claiming that the brethren in Fullerton hadn't handled things correctly so they should be shunned and not George.

It is a sick system that protects the spiritual hierarchy of the men at the expense of all others.  They really do look at themselves as sinless in all of their choices and actions.  Everything they do is spiritual.  Therefore anyone who sins must be blamed.  That is why I got the comment from a woman, "don't we all walk before the Lord?"  In otherwards, there are no victims.  Just people who willingly sin and therefore should be shunned.  I told her "yes" we all walk before the Lord and fail.  We confess our sins when we do.  But we are all subject to the influences of others as well -- husbands, children, employers etc.  She did not respond.

They are beyond feeling.

Brian thank you for your understanding.  The leadership in the assemblies definitely could be divided into two camps.  Those that were immediately horrified by the stories of George's abuses and those who waited to be told how to think and feel.  Those that were horrified acted immediately, spiritually and compassionately.  They immediately separated themselves from George.  Those that waited could not feel or think appropriately so they spun complex biblical, theological webs to sort out the truth.  These are the ones who now are more corrupt than they were and cannot think or feel at all.  These are the ones who recently came to my house and sat in my living room and told me it is my word against George's.  That "aren't the women to blame also?"  That "things were handled incorrectly", blah, blah, blah.  In my own home!

Even though George is no longer meeting with these groups, they claim to have a more spiritual outlook on all that happened.  They repeat the same comments that they have been for the last  5+ years.  They are locked in the past as if it happened yesterday.  And they still blame me/us for making false accusations toward different brethren that supported George.  That is why we will not be allowed to attend an assembly wedding this summer.  Because we need to make things right with the people we offended.  People that we warned should not take George and Betty in because of G & B's abusive nature.  People who cut off communication with us after calling us satanic, children of the devil etc.  Isn't it true that someone is offended they are supposed to come to us?  Pathetic

more another time
just me

   Just Me- I guess I met with the former camp. Funny while I was at the Sunday meeting they announced a Downtown L.A. Bible Study. This means they still support the latter camp? Just what is the association between the existing assemblies?

  P.S. I can't believe they did this to you in your own home.


   As an outsider/historian I am removed from the condescending relationships I had with these people. If I wasn't, if I was still trying to be justified in their minds, I think I would go ballistic to have someone come into my house and tell me "You are the problem..."


  What kept you from pushing a frying pan through his nasal cavity?

Just me, I definitely believe you; I just can’t figure out where the others are coming from. The elders in Fullerton treated George more than fairly.

My understanding of this controversy revolves around the perception of the question: “Was George’s excommunication fair and scriptural?” I wonder if it would help them to compare George’s own excommunication to another similar situation, except this time George himself is the one counseling and guiding the disciplinary action.

In 1979, when the Ottawa assembly was only a few months old, we were listening to tape ministry. I don’t remember what the series was called. However, I clearly remember George saying that if you are aware of sin in the life of an elder or someone in a position of leadership, you have a responsibility before God to make it known. He explained that for the sake of the Lord’s people, to keep them from being stumbled, sin must be dealt with and removed from the leadership.

This really convicted my heart as I had been sexually molested by an elder in the Brethren church that I had previously attended. This elder was also a very close family friend, who I had loved, trusted and respected since I was an infant. The first person I told was Armand, who then talked to George. George advised and guided us each step of the way in bringing this sin to the attention of the other elders in that church.

George and Armand both knew that the sexual molesting had been committed privately, with no other witnesses to the sinful act. It was definitely a case of my word against his. Yet through out the whole ordeal, George and Armand believed me and supported me. George counseled Armand to support me in whatever way I needed, which he did. As the time drew near to talk to the elders, I was scared stiff. Armand met with me once a week to discuss the situation and to pray with me.

Since my Dad was an elder in another Brethren church, George counseled me to talk to my parents and let my Dad be the one to interface with the other elders. I did this, and both my Dad and my Mom were wholly and completely supportive of me over the next difficult months. Dad was willing to interface with the other elders on my behalf. The argument that came back from the other elders was that I needed to follow the instructions in Matt.18, and talk privately with this abusive elder first.

George strongly advised against this step. He was adamant that we needed to follow the instructions of I Tim 5:19&20, which state:
“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest may be fearful of sinning.”

George explained that the “two or three witnesses” was not referring to ones that had witnessed the sinful act, but that “two or three witnesses” were required to be present if an accusation is to be made against an elder. George strongly believed that this needed to be the starting point for two reasons:
1) This man is an elder; therefore, any meeting must have others present.
2) The sin that was committed was sexual molesting. Since meeting privately would further traumatize the offended one (the victim), this step needs to be avoided. Therefore, any meeting must have others present.

It took approximately four months to bring about the actual meeting with witnesses present. The abusive elder kept insisting he would only agree to a meeting with me in private. With George and Armand’s strong support, and with the Lord’s enabling strength, I stood my ground and refused to meet privately, insisting on a meeting with witnesses present. George counseled that if the abusive elder continued to refuse to meet, then the sin needs to be told to the church; and if he still refuses to repent, he needs to be excommunicated. Refusing to meet in order for the sin to be addressed does not prevent the elders from disciplining him.

After I presented this direction to the elders, I got a lot of pressure from my parents and from the other elders to just drop the issue. There argument was that since I had already left this church, it didn’t really matter. They did not like the box in which they found themselves. I argued in response that this man was in the position of an elder, and that the Lord’s people could be stumbled if his sin is not addressed. Also, I had a responsibility before God to make the sin known and to work together with others for the purposes of repentance and reconciliation.

Finally, after about four months, the meeting was finally arranged. We met in my living room and sat in a circle. My Dad and my Mom sat on either side of me giving me emotional support. Then there was the abusive elder and his wife. My Dad had insisted that the man’s wife be present, because he had violated his marriage vows. Then there were two of the other elders present.

The abusive elder contradicted himself constantly, with even his wife catching him in the middle of a contradiction. He refused to acknowledge his sin and he definitely did not repent. The two elders present went back and reported to the elders that had not been there. Then, the discipline action they decided on was to remove this man from being an elder. However, they still allowed him to preach and to break bread.

When George learned of this disciplinary decision, he stated that the discipline should have progressed to the sin being told to the church; and if the man still didn’t repent, he should have been excommunicated. George mocked and ridiculed their weakness to deal with the sin, and their lack of back bone to excommunicate him.

So, I have to conclude that George’s own excommunication was done scripturally and fairly. Any other conclusion would mean there are one set of standards for George and another set of standards for everyone else.

Lord bless,
Flora

Even though GG's own excommunication was done scripturally and fairly, there was still, in his own mind, a different set of standards for himself.
I can't believe how so many of us were blind as to what his real character was. He was/is a complete a$$#@!&. (admin, if you feel you need to delete that last word, feel free to do so. I just feel better seeing it in print, even if just for a fleeting moment.  ;D )

Moonflower

        George's attitude about rape reflects what was considered once as normative in western society. (It is still considered normal amongst the good ol boys) last semester I was assigned a book on "Rape in colonial America" I can't remember the exact title but I will find it if anyone is interested. Rape in the colonial period was very hard to prove. Society had a tolerance of what we would identify as extreme sexual abuse. Men were allowed-even expected to, advance themselves on women! This was only natural! The responsibility for purity was her duty! It was her job to "guard the citadel"! But the man had every right to at least make an attempt to overtake it! It was even common for a women who had been beaten to still be found guilty of "consensual sex." In other words she should have fought him off harder! Now my whole point in bringing this up is the fact that a lot of these same attitudes are still around today!  I can remember being told by a friend in Jr. high school, "When a girl says, No! She really means YES!" George's attitude reflects this thinking but it is in no way exclusive to just him! Many people in our society still, although not openly, hold these attitudes about rape. The truth is we really haven't come that far in our thinking. A professor shared a stat, "33% of college students (men) said yes to the question, "Would you rape a girl if you knew you could get away with it?" George and the brothers are just a small fraction of our society.

Just Me - What you have just gone through is horrible!! The heartlessness and arrogance of these guys is chilling. And yet they are blind to it, and they probably appear to be harmless in most circumstances. If someone who was not a threat visits their Assemblies they would be so friendly, so innocuous, and would consider themselves very gracious and loving. The outside of the cup is clean, but inside there is poison. Thank you for this evidence of the evil that still lurks in the Assemblies.

Flora - Thank you for this very instructive account. It is just as you said, "...there are one set of standards for George and another set of standards for everyone else." The double standards show that George Geftakys did not have integrity about what he taught. Teaching could be changed to fit the moment, i.e. scripture was twisted. Contrary to what many still think, we were not "well taught". Thank you for permission to post this account on ga.com, where it sheds light on the Final Weeks, as well as the rape article.

   About eight years ago another Christian teacher and I decided to ride our mountain bikes through Yosemite. His dad used to pastor a church in Merced so he had a lot of contacts we could visit on the way. We end up staying the night on a dairy farm. Its an elder from the church CMA? who is a big Swede and has about five kids. This family turns out to be the coolest family I have ever met. They just make us feel so welcome! He takes us around the farm and explains the operation. I learn all about how to run a dairy farm. What impressed me most was the father's relationship with his family. He is totally involved in their lives. They are "The praise band" at their church! Dad and teenage son can really jam together on the guitars! That evening he took us out to a nice restaurant where he discussed all the blessings of the Lord in his life. (The farm was doing really well!) As I still had the memory of The Assembly fresh in my mind I kept comparing all of this with it. I kept telling myself how awesome these people were and how lousy the saints were. The next day I got up and wandered into the kitchen. The wife was cooking breakfast, my friend was outside doing something so I thought I would make my way back to my room and get a book to read. As I turned the corner of the hallway I suddenly stopped, quickly turned around and headed back to the living room. A voice was yelling at me inside my head, "DAVE! THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!"  I was staring out the window when I realized the dad was standing right behind me. I turned around and could see him looking into my eyes. "What are you doing?" he said. "oh nothing, (I stumble for something to say) I'm just looking at all of the open space." "You guys have it so good here, where I live its all cement." He turned off and said, "Well, breakfast will be ready soon." and walked away. What I saw was this hulk of a man laying prone over his 12 year old daughter. She was in a nightgown. He was on top of her like Romeo. She was just laying there, flaccid, resigned. He didn't see me but she did.



  So much for my comparison with the Assembly! The fact is sexual sin is everywhere! E.V. Free Fullerton has a big history! When you go to church tomorrow chances are you will be shaking hands with someone guilty of it! EEEEEEuuu! Yuck!  This doesn't diminish George's crap and I am not excusing it, but the fact is churches are filled with these kinds of people. They walk around  sophisticated, moral, aloof from the low life morality of the poor but its all a sham!

 Dear Vandyke,

   This story helps me to understand your strong rejection of "orthodox" bible based Christian belief.  Think of how the daughter of this father will grow up to probably have a visceral hatred for anything that sounds like Christianity! :'(   You just having left the Assm. and looking for a healthy place free of the hypocrisy you had just been living with--- and then this!

  How can we explain the tremendous gap between the profession of those claiming that they are "in Christ", possessors of the Holy Spirit, and walking with God yet these can still commit such evil?  Furthermore, how can we explain those that reject the bible and seem to be very good people indeed?

  No one can be blamed, who has experienced what you have, if they become very cynical re. having social interactions with those who make strong claims re. their "life with God" and claim a very devout following of God.  No doubt, this is why you have chosen to associate with religious groups that are opposite in their views from evangelical belief.

  Though cynicism is understandable in many of us wounded by bad religion it can badly cloud our thinking and cause us to be reactionary vs. on a true path to healing and wisdom.

  I must admit I struggle with my own natural cynicism re. those making strong claims of superior belief systems and their own claims to spirituality. 

Christians are just as human as any other person.   We expect more of ourselves and other believers, and thus when we fail to live up to these expectations there is a tendency to question our faith in God's redemptive work in our lives.  "Maybe", we might think, "the whole thing is a fraud and should be scrapped?"

     When I realized that the truth of the Gospel is not about the superiority of my character as a believer, but is essentially about the fact of my own need as a sinful soul and God's recovery of that soul, it changes the whole way I look at people gathered at a church.  If a church is loaded with people with struggles with evil in their lives, that in itself should not be an indication that the group is far from God.  If they try to cover it up behind a hypocritical profession then it would be a huge problem (as in the Assm.).  The "sinners" in Jesus' time hungered for his message and the "religious" mostly rejected him.

     Thanks for sharing the story (though it broke my heart), because it might help some others in understanding why certain former members have taken the path they have since leaving and also help them to find healing from their own painful experiences.

                                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

   

Hey Marc, I originaly posted this back in 05

On the Topic of Evil in Leadership!!!!
« on: March 13, 2005, 10:39:31 pm »
Quote
   I just finished reading the History of the Assembly thread. Yes I agree, I believe that G.G. is a very wicked and evil man. After reading "Krystan's Story" I recant my comments about regreting to "clean his clock" after running into him at Starbucks. I think he is a psychotic control freek bordering on pedofilia?  (Krystan seemed to have a 14 year old mentallity/psychology) George thrived on making us all into children and then indulging his desires on us.  Think about it, there are brothels all over the Los Angeles area and all over the countries he visited 9 months of the year. If it was just sex he was after he could have/probably did/ drive to Santa Monica and been home before the afternoon. "Hi Betty!" Instead he had to play sick games with the sisters. A few years ago I was working in a hospital in Tustin. I had a patient who had some very curious wounds to his stomach.  Later I discovered that this man molested children and was the victim of small town justice. I had the impression that the police were not trying too hard to find the attacker. But anyway what I wanted to adress in this thread is the fact that "evil" seems to be in every leader I have come across. Recently I had breakfast with an old high school friend. We went to the First Baptist Church of Lakewood  together. He brought me up to date on the leaders there. Pastor Bore (No pun intended) was given papers for adultery in 1986. Randy Sikes (The high school leader) was kicked out in 82 for having sex with the high school girls (Randy was in his 30's at the time) You may remember Randy was later arrested in La Habra for kidnapping and rape in 1985. He was later cleared of charges but the circumstances ruined him for good.) Bill McKee a youth  pastor at Hume lake, was found to be having sex with women at E.V. Free Church. While I was attending grace Bible Chapel in Fullerton the Elder, Bob Seeker, who was married with 4 children was sleeping with a girl in the college  group. Next we all know about David Hocking, Mike Crocorous? spelling?(Church of the Open door) and most recently the most aggresively anti-homosexual pastor in O.C., Paul Crouch was exposed for paying hush money to a former partner. Ironic that all these men made it their buisness to make sure I was not having sex!!!  Funny I never did!!!  But sure felt guilty for wanting to!!! I ask you is anyone really qualified for leadership?


  Marc, you are correct, "Christians are just as human..."  Coming to terms with this reality was very difficult for me. I remember preaching once on the subject of sanctification, "If I can't be delivered from myself then there is no hope!" (Having been in the Assembly you know what I meant! ("No hope of Rapture, Resurrection, Rewards etc...) I wanted to believe that people were good! Good enough to be trusted! Good enough to find true love and happiness. Yet, the reality is just what you said! We are just as human...  The myth of sinless perfection is the cause of tremendous dissilusionment and psychotic neurosis. Accepting the fact that no one deserves the assumptions of "holy servant of God" and that we ourselves will live with/in darkness for the rest of our lives is just a reality we must accept. In short we have to grow up! we have to accept the fact that this is the reality we were born into. Yet it isn't some hopeless reality, it can be just as much if not more of an adventure in itself!


   There is no meaning to life! This is the meaning of life!

  Since you wrote that post there have been some other prominent evangelical leaders who have been unmasked as well.  There was that pastor in Colorado (I forget his name) who was caught with a male prostitute and doing meth.  We could explain away all this stark hypocrisy from those professing so much, while they are losing the battle with sin in their own lives, but I think it best to ask the question why does this happen?

   I think that one of the main causes of this problem comes when we believe as Christians that God will remove perverted sexual desire from our lives.  I believe many of those who fall just deny that they have these kinds of desires.  When they fall they become deeply ashamed of their failure, but as leaders where do they go for help?  They feel the only thing they can do is hide the problem and hope that it will go away.    They have their AM times, they study their bibles, they pray, they go to church---- they are involved in all of the formulas that are supposed to control their sinful tendencies.  Formulas don't take away the human desires God has placed in us by creation.  They also don't take away the perversions of those desires that are a result of our sinful natures.

  The only way to deal with sin is to admit it, realize God accepts you the way you are, and struggle against giving in to the behavior.  Trying to "reckon dead" the sinful desire will have all the effectiveness of chanting or making the sign of the cross.  Also, it is important to have someone to talk to about your struggles and to pray with.  I'm not trying to create another simplistic formula here, as sin is a complex problem, and one that involves our psychological makeup as well as our spiritual attitudes.

   People who won't face up to the truth in their own lives are heading for a train wreck.  Leaders in this position are headed for an even bigger explosion.  I think God can use these situations to finally get our attention and help us to understand how to deal with our sin.

  Sexual sin is not just a problem with evangelical Christians, but since these are so vocal in their denunciation of this behavior when they are found to be involved it makes it appear more ugly (and more newsworthy).  If a leader from the "Flower Power Church Of Free Love" were to be found indulging himself with his female congregants it is not something that would make the news, or cause us to gasp at his terrible hypocrisy.

  The next thought I have about this topic is one that I don't know if I can clearly express.  I speak as a bible believing Christian when I say that part of the problem with our position is when we separate ourselves as somehow being essentially different from the "unsaved."  I think that we might have a tendency to think that based on our assumed theological superiority it somehow makes us morally superior (automatically better people).  Your comments, Vandyke, re. Anne Frank also come to mind on this.

  Jesus' teaching on the Good Samaritan should lay that to rest as a heretical Samaritan becomes the example of obeying God's directive to love.  If I have a great orthodox theology, but am morally reprehensible to God in my life what does that make me?  Will GG enter heaven (even barely saved ;))? I don't have all these answers, but I'm hoping for a lively discussion on this.

                                                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

 

O.K. Marc,

   But the direction I was going had more to do with the fact that George Geftakys and The Assembly are not as unique as some people would like to believe!


   Now think about it. How many times in our (American Culture) history has "The Fallen Minister" appeared? It happens all the time!  It is just a given! Minister has a great testimony, is well respected in society, etc.. then it happens. "Oh Mabel, Did you hear about....."  "No!" "I can't believe it!"   


    Its like we continually set ourselves up for disappointment. We should know by now that no one is infallible! Yet we want our graven image, we want our hero, someone we can look to for guidance and inspiration. But it always comes back to reality. And we do it all over again. Why can't we just grow up and live independently from "Spirtual Leaders!"?

Vandyyke,
I'm reacting to what you said here and would like to interject my two cents, although you have directed this to Mark.

There was more going on in GG's groups than just the "fallen minister" syndrome who fell prey to sexual sin. I believe he was on the borderline of sanity/insanity (and I'm not giving him excuse for anything he has done) because of how he justified his escapades to himself, his victims, and his ministry. (see how GG related his illicit relationship, to his ministry of the "significant other" on GA.com)

The evil he perpetuated went beyond sexual escapades as you can see from the stories related on this bulletin board and GA.com.

His sexual fantasies and escapades were only the icing on his cake of insanity and evil.

There are/were other abberant religious groups, and other "fallen ministers", but to limit GG's affect to only a "fallen minister" is to give him credit for even being a true minister, which he was/is not.

Do we need to place our allegience in God and not man? Definitely! But we can also expect that a leader is an example and will repent when confronted with sin. There is such a thing and there are such churches that still excommunicate according to scriptures.
 
Moonflower

  The uniqueness of GG and the Assm. is not found in the fact that it's leader failed due to sexual sin, but in the cultic type organization that denied the facts and tried to turn the tables on those pointing it out.  Yes, many church organizations (like any organization) tend to be defensive and take a circle-the-wagons approach when challenged.  One of the advantages former members of a group like ours have is having the ability to see the evil in cover-up and the need to hold our church leaders accountable.  The difference is not that there is moral failure, but are these failures being owned and repented of.

  "Why do we need leaders"?  I think many of us struggle with the idea of following some individual/s because we have become jaded in our views re. "authority" figures.  As I have learned what the NT talks about in re. to "spiritual authority" I have become less cynical.  The whole concept of "submission," as taught by groups like the Assm. are exactly opposite to what the bible says.  We are to follow "examples" of good teaching and living vs. submitting to someone who claims some kind of spiritual ranking higher than us.

  BTW, your dark and disturbing story re. the incestuous father whose house you visited:  Did you ever try to report this man?  I don't know how long ago this happened, but the damage that has been done to this poor child needs to be addressed and this man at the very least needs to be stopped!  I can't think of a worse evil than incest and when coming from a man claiming to be a Christian?!! :'( :'(

                                                                                            God Bless,  Mark C.      

   
     

No, I didn't even remember it until last year.(I blanked it out! Yes, even with all my experience I still blanked it out! It was something I just couldn't, didn't want to deal with.) The daughter must be 20 now! I haven't talked to my friend in 3 years time but I will try to get a hold of him.

VanDave,

Several days ago you said this:

When most folks talk about "good ol boys" they are speaking of rural folks who like to drink beer, drive pickup trucks and such.


How did you ever get the idea that raping women is ok in these circles?  In my growing up years I had many relatives who would fall  into this general group.  I still do have some cousins one could call "good ol boys" down in West Texas.

I think one could make a better argument that raping a woman in these circles could get a man killed!

Tom Maddux

Yeah, the "good ol boys" live(d) in the Chicago suburbs, too.

In high school, I had been asked to get my own ride home from where I had been waitressing. The only ride I could get was from 2 cooks, who drove me to an open field where they discussed, over my head - because I had no clue what was going on - where I lived, how much money my dad made, if I had been with a man, or had a boyfriend, neither of which were true in my case.

The "smart" one decided against it, even tho the impatient one said they could take me to such and such a place where no one would find me.

The next time I saw them at work, the "smart" one told me that I had been lucky to have gotten home, that they hadn't planned on bringing me home and that I never would have gotton home, ever.

Another waitress had come up missing who had last been seen by these 2, who had admitted to giving her a ride home. She eventually did show up, but I don't know anything more than that. I was quite naive at the time and still did not connect this with the 2 cooks.

It wasn't until the Natalie Holloway case came out that I remembered what had happened to me and realized how protected I had been at the time. (I also later found out that the 2 cooks had "done things" to other women and were not "nice guys".)
Needless to say, I have very little respect for Joran Van Der Shit, I mean, Sloot. (And my mother would not have gone cross-country/continent to declare to the world my innocence. Nuf said. (even after her own attempted rape episode)

Moon,

I'm sorry that you had such an experience.  Evil is present everywhere, no doubt about that. This sort of thing has reached out and touched my own family.

Seems to me that you and VanDave are using the term "good ol boy" in different sense from me.  The scum that you had fallen in with at work were hardly "good" ol boys.  That such people exist is undeniable.

However, the general culture of rural America can hardly be said to tolerate the rape and abuse of women.

Tom Maddux

From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_ol'_boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_ol'_boy)

"Good ol' boy is a slang term used, either to self-identify as or to refer to a male, usually white and of Northern/Western-European descent, who lives in a rural area and/or subscribes to a traditionally "rural" lifestyle. The term is generally thought to originate in the rural areas of the southern and southwestern U.S. While other terms such as redneck, hick, yokel, "Bubba", and "white trash" are also applied, though usually pejoratively and are often interchanged with "good ol' boy," the "good ol' boy" is more of an idealized image of rural Americans, Canadians and Australians."

It has later been picked up some in urban/gang settings but generally refers to rual Southern culture - the type that was outraged when Obama made his infamous "their frustrations leads them to turn to God and guns" comment to an educated, elitist crowd.

It was referenced in the movie Blues Brother (name of country band name the Blues Brothers met in a bar) and the song "Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie".

  I took it from Margaret, no I didn't mean the "good" kind of "good ol boys" I meant the "bad" kind of "good ol boys". Good enough?

  Moon, I am glad you didn't get raped! The same thing happened to my mother, when she told them she was going to "fight" they backed off. They figured that if she didn't fight then it wasn't rape! However I am glad you supported my point. This kind of thing is a lot more prevalent then people want to admit.

There is no way I'd have gotten out of that situation with my life, no matter what I had said or done. It was the uncharacteristic decision of the driver to drive me home. When he asked me if I wanted to go home, I of course said yes, and that was it.

I know you didn't mean "good" in your phrase "good ol boys", but that you meant rural boys (with a pick-up truck, flicking cigarettes out of the window and wearing white t-shirts with the sleeves rolled up.  ;)

These two were suburban city boys.

   I guess what I meant was all inclusive trash. The "good" thing about some trash is you can look at it and see that it is trash. Yet the "nice" man at church in a three piece suit is the worst kind of trash. He's the guy who gives everyone the impression of decency, integrity, all around good guy. Yet, when the George Vanershet has some poor victim cornered then the real trash comes out. 

I'd like to interject my two cents.

The definition of a "sinner" is someone who sins. Welcome to the human race! We never stop being sinners. We are only sinners saved by grace, which demonstrates God's infinite mercy.

Vandyyke, I know exactly where you are coming from. I've been there. Prior to my getting involved in the Geftakys organization, I was at a major crossroads in my Christian life. Since my Dad was an elder, and highly respected in the local community and local Christian community, and since my parents were well known for their hospitality, we often had local Christians of various denominations in our home. I overheard many discussions of problems in all the local churches. Everthing from your typical adultery story and other sexual sins, to a preacher's son high on street dope teaching Sunday School, to the treasurer embezzling funds, to senior pastors abusing junior pastors, to the youth leader repeatedly physically and violently abusing his son, etc. The list seems endless.

This is why I was attracted to George's teaching of holiness in the leadership. When I started experiencing the abusive nature of this organization, I came to another crossroads. I almost left the Lord for good. I threw my Bible to the other side of the bed and said: "If this is Christianity, shove it! I want nothing to do with it." I went three weeks when I could not read my Bible and I could not pray.

Then, God in His great love and great mercy reached out to me. The hymn 'O Love, that wilt not let me go,...' kept going through my head, especially the verse: “O Joy that seekest me through pain, I cannot close my heart to Thee; I trace the rainbow through the rain, and feel the promise is not vain, that morn shall tearless be.”

The Lord used that hymn to turn my heart back to Him. He showed me that what I was experiencing was not true Christianity. It was a distortion. I have now come to classify a lot of "Christianity" as "Churchianity".

We cannot ever accuse God of rape, adultery, incest, embezzling funds, physical or sexual assault, greed, power hungry, abuse of power, or any other sinful act. God was not behind any of those sinful acts.

God began to teach me to have a real relationship with Him. I'm a sinner; I'll always be a sinner. However, I've learned to just be honest with God. "Lord, I just did it again. Your Word tells me it is sin, and I agree with You it is sin. I want to grow in inner strength so I have the ability to say 'No' to the temptation. Help me. Without You I can do nothing, but I can do all things through Christ who stregtheneth me."

We need to rise to the challenge to not let the sin of others divert us from our own relationship with Him. They must give an account to God for their actions. We must give an account to God for our actions.

Sin is all around us, because all humans are sinners - including Christians. Sometimes some of the greatest sins are committed by Christians, who are not maintaining their daily relationship with their Saviour. The elder that molested me, stated during the meeting with witnesses present: "Maybe my conscience is seared."

We must rise to the challenge to grow in our relationship with our Saviour, being honest with Him about all our doubts, fears, temptations, etc. He is able to help us.

Lord bless,

Flora

If I interject another two cents, does that make it four cents worth?

The thought I want to post here didn't really fit with the train of thought in the last posting. So I am making a separate posting.

About 15 years ago, my pastor brother and his wife, who live in Alberta, were traveling to Ontario for a family reunion. On the way they stopped at a restaurent. A goup at a nearby table joined hands and prayed before their meal. When my brother and his wife were leaving, they went over to the table to ask if they were fellow Christians. The answer they received shocked them and left them a bit shaken.

This was their answer:

"No we are not Christians. We are wicans, and we are praying to our gods that the church leadership in all the local churches will fall into sin, in particular, into sexual sin."

Let's not forget that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers in heavenly places. We are engaged in a spiritual battle. However, we serve a risen Saviour, who is a mighty Victor!

Lord bless,

Flora

Flora,

      I heard a story just like that but the setting was a little different. I'm a little skeptical. I have talked to a few wiccans. One in a new age bookstore in Whittier and another in a regular bookstore in La Habra. I asked them both lots of questions, "Do you try to cast spells on people?" Both times they just laughed, "No" "That would be stupid!"

   The story I heard before went  like this, "I was on a plane and I noticed the person sitting next to me was not eating lunch." "Politely I asked them if they would like some food?" and they replied, "No thank-you I am fasting!" "Oh, are you a Christian?" "No I am a Satanist." "I am fasting in order to ruin the Assemblies of God Churches."


  O.K. Flora I am not saying your story and the other one isn't true but can you or anyone else say the you personally have heard these things directly from a Wiccan? Satanist?  A few years ago I read, "The Satan Seller" by Mike Warnke. I was really freeked out by it!  Only to learn it was all fabricated!  I'm not saying these things don't happen but maybe we should give them a little more investigation.

  The best people I know are Christians but the worst people I know are Christians! Just because some people give Christ a bad name doesn't make me look at all Christians as bad. My hero is Jimmy Carter. To me he is a real Christian. He lives his life in step with scriptures. I appreciate your sincere concern for me.

  I hope this thread will help us identify these issues as something a lot bigger than the Assembly!  It really is everywhere!  I tell my students, "Don't ever go to the park alone!" "Don't ever go somewhere without an adult!" "Don't ever allow someone to make you feel uncomfortable!"

       Its just the world we live in!
       

I would have to agree.  The Wiccans folks I have encountered (or read about in books such as Wicca's Charm) tend to be folks who are into reviving neo-pagan ancient earth spirituality.  They are attracted to this because they seek a spirituality void of structure and dogmas they had often found in churches.  They feel that neo-pagan religions offer more opportunity for women (being gods or god-like as opposed to not allowed to be pastors). 

Rather than wanting to cast spells upon Christians (which is more of a sterotype than reality), they would more likely accept Christians (at least the non-dogmatic kind) to join them as their lack of doctrine/structure tends towards pluralism and acceptance of any kind of spirituality one wants to bring to the table.  It is more of a no rules, explore the ancient practices that suit you approach to spirituality.  While Christianity's exclusive claims are a turn off to them and often a reason why some in their midst left the church for neo-paganism (though all religions including theirs have exclusive claims) I don't see folks of this world view actively uniting to bring down a specific religion unless they felt somehow needlessly threatened or provoked.

Vandyyke, Dave,

Fine. This thread is not about debating whether or not we can take statements made by wiccans as valid. This thread is about sin in church leadership and how that sin is dealt with or not dealt with.

Forgive me if I caused a diversion.

Flora

The author has a comment on ga.com about posting her story of stranger rape.