AssemblyBoard

I've already read the thread as to whether the Lord's Supper is part of worshipping.  I have another question about it.

The assemblies the remembrance is weekly, and in many evangelical churches (I grew up in a Baptist church) it is done once a month.  I personally would like to do this more than once a month.

I agree that there is no set pattern for this, but in your opinions, what is the principle that we follow?
Andrea

The Lord's Supper - Andrea, you and Joe should study it out...I think any SCHEDULE for "Breaking Bread" is off.  Acts 2:42 says you should do it continually...So, what does that mean?  Somethings weren't meant to be pinned down.  Look at the Lord; sometimes a non-answer is the answer.

"How" is a dangerous thing...it leads to idolatry

I wasn't asking for a "schedule".  I wanted to know the PRINCIPLE that you follow.  We are going to study it.  I just wanted to know what you all think.  Do you just do it on a whim, spirit speaks to you, what?

A

Andrea, God Bless You! ...You want principles, I'll give you three:

1.  Aggressive application - If the Lord says to do something "Do this in remembrance of Me." As the Nike commercial says - Just do it!

2. Principle two - Liberty!  

3. Principle three - Things aren't so tidy!

Verne,

I remember a time in Tuscola when you stood up to give a word in regards to the Lord's Supper. David G interrupted you and stood up and gave what he believed to a more accurate interpretation.

Do you remember that? Can you remember what the disagreement was? Do you believe he was right/wrong?

Just curious. I remember being mad at David for sitting you down. I thought it was rude. :D I was probably 12 - 14.

Scott

I do not believe that there is a biblical basis for this. David got away with a lot just because he is a Geftakys. Eloquence and ability to say it 'more accurately' is not grounds enough to be rude. The 'church of the living God' is supposed to have a higher standard than the world's. In the world the one who can say it better, or has a position, gets the audience. But in the end it is the one who is faithful to the Lord who really wins. I would conclude that David was not living up to his name to be a true shepherd here.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Marcia,

To quote William F. Buckley, (when he wished to be fair), "Let me speak a few words on behalf of the Devil".

David was acting in accord with what he had been taught.

Remember that the assembly system is a splinter off of Plymouth Brethrenism.  In the Brethren assemblies they practice and open "pulpit", as the GG groups did.

The problem with this is that sincere, well intended men who really don't know much get to get up and talk all sorts of nonsense to the assembly.  

The PB's worked out the idea that the elders are the local guardians of orthodoxy, (which is true), and therefore need to keep the teaching in the assembly on track.  Hence, the practice of correcting errors when they occur.  The main difference is that I don't think they would stop a brother in the middle of his "word" as was done in the assemblies.

In the NT, the apostle Paul told Timothy to "rebuke with all authority".  Since GG believed that he had apostolic authority, the workers were apostolic delegates like Timothy.

Also, that was the basis for GG's appointing the leadership in all assemblies.  Remember, he instructed Timothy to "ordain elders in every city".

Soooo  although I suspect that David G was full of beans about whatever he was saying, he was only operating in the set of ideas that he had recieved from his father.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Scott are you sure it was me? I honestly do not remember ever having that happen to me...
Verne
p.s  I do remember David had a weird inerpretation of the word "this" in the passgae in 1 Cor 11 and insisted that it did not refer to the bread but to the Lord's physical body. I thought it quite strange in veiw if the long-standing traditonal view of the bread and the cup being covenantal counterparts to the body and blood of Christ. Of course David was not the most erudite fellow who ever spoke on the subject  :)

Verne,

Pretty sure, but it has been a looooong time ago.

And I can remember a couple times in my life where I have been wrong. *gasp!*

What I do remember is David explaining that when Jesus spoke he said, "This is my body which is for you." *Jesus pointing at himself*

"Here, take eat."*Jesus gesturing toward a loaf of bread* "Do this in remembrance of me."

I'm not sure what the previous brother was saying that caused DG to jump up. Maybe explaining some type of transubstantiation. Can't remember.

I certainly do remember that every time David spoke on the subject he would confidently assert that the Lord was not referring to the the loaf but rather to his own body which he would indicate with the pronoun "this". I in fact always wondered why none of the elders or leading brothers would correct that point of view. Could this be something so embarassing to me that I chose not to remember it? The occasions on which a brother was actually interrupted in mid speak were indeed few and far between in my own experience. I guess it could have happened but I sure don't recall it.
We ought not to be surprised at David's perversion of this or any other passage of scripture. The kind of life he was living rendered him an unclean vessel and entirely unfit for the ministry of God's Word.
Verne
p.s The one occasion that I recall of a brother being acutally told to sit down was when Mike Houk was interrupted by Cecil Smith toward the very end. I was not present at that meeting and cannot imagine what I would have thought seeing this happen to a leading brother.  These kinds of things almost always happened as some sort of power play for the most part. Usually in the case of some doctrinal error the next brother who spoke would simply make any perceived needed correction. I don't think I ever saw anyone actually interrupted while speaking. Of course the assembly in Tuscola disbanded shortly after this. I have always thought that Cecil's standing with George in that situation was a monumental mistake. He should have stood with the local leadership. I believe that was the beginning of God's judgment of that minsitry and the action of Cecil in standing against those men delayed the inevitable. The abdication of their resposibility by some very good men who should have known better is the biggest heartache for me in all this assembly business. Men who serve Jesus Christ are to be men of unquestionable dignity, nobility, and above all integrity. I still get all broken up thinking about that scattered flock...

I've thought about this a bit and here is what I believe what would have happened:

The majority of the families that left (Mathias, McCumber, Fredericks, Middleton) would have stayed. Tuscola would have been another semi-autonomous assembly like Chicago or St. Louis - currently struggling with the idea that George = bad, Assembly = good.

Ironically, Cecil and Mike's reluctance to stand up to George and David probably freed 3/4 of the local assembly.

The later split you speak of between Cecil and Mike was the final straw. Funny, Cecil's devotion to the Assembly system destroyed the local Assembly.

Follow that line of thought down the many divergent paths. Interesting, huh?

Scott your analysis is a great example of how a pedantic mind-set like mine can learn a thing or two from some of you young guns. I have to say that your conclusion is both scintillating and stunning in its simplicity. It reminds me of the great promise of Romans Eight that all things work together for good. I know  beyond the shadow of an earthly doubt that I am infinitely better off spiritually and in every other conceiveable way for having left when I did (due in part to what happened in Tuscola). I know those Tuscola families are also. Your point is extremely well-taken my friend and I stand corrected. Should we thank Cecil?  ;D
Verne
p.s. I am not one much given to panegyrics but when I think of the word "elder", the person that comes to mind is Jim
McCumber. I suspect that he will wear the coveted crown of glory. He influenced me far more than he ever knew. I owe the man a great debt of love Scott. Tell him the next time you talk.

Hi, Marcia,

I don't think there is a biblical basis for interrupting or not interrupting. I'm sure there is a time when interrupting is appropriate and a time when it is not.

The reason that particular Sunday sticks out in my mind was the WAY David interrupted. He was very condescending. He was very much using the opportunity to tear someone down while asserting his own authority.

I don't know that I could have verbalized his motives that way when I was 12 but I knew it was not right.

More importantly, it was the assembly system that was in place that allowed him to do this. I can't even imagine someone acting that way in a group of believers today. Ridiculous.

Scott McCumber

There was a culture of distrust among the assembly sycophants of anyone who was deemed "intellectual". A Lot of these fellows seemed to go out of their way to denigrate saints who were pursuing advanced degrees or were in reputation as being thoughtful questioning individuals. I wonder if part of David's general disposition was not fueled by a deep-seated inferiority complex. He did seem to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about himself...
Verne


We know of course that David was capable of even more objectonable conduct as was indicated by the time he physically struck you Scott.  I have to say that all my vaunted self-restraint would have gone right out the window if any assembly thug had made the mistake of laying a hand on me or mine. Dan Notti made a mistake of grabbing me once and I was surprised at the instinctive mental reaction to the way he did it - it was an act of aggression and I almost responded in kind....

David was a pathetic little man who beat his wife and daughter. I would expect nothing less out of him.

The bigger issue is the system that was in place that cowed the other men that were present (yes, including my father, who has expressed his regrets). I fully expected someone to snap him like a twig at that moment and there were several men there who were certainly capable of it. After a moment of stunned silence, they turned their backs and continued their conversations.

This was not a local phenomenon. Everywhere Judy and David lived there is evidence that people knew he was beating her. No one stood up. It was the ASSEMBLY SYSTEM.

At this stage there are people who are struggling with George=bad, Assembly=good. It's easy to bash David. He's an oaf. Nearly a pitiable caricature of a man.

No one should lose sight of how and why David ran unchecked for 30 years. Not just because his papa was at the top. But because of the legalistic, isolated, false doctrine of the assembly.

I don't continue to post here because I'm bitter or bored. I post because the assembly, with or without George, is dangerous and false.

Scott McCumber

PS - I don't think there are too many Geftakysites, including David, who would presume to lay a hand on me or mine these days. Sprouting to 6' 1", 185 and surviving a dozen barroom brawls (back in the day) would probably be plenty to cause those cowards to give me a wide berth! ;D ;D ;D

Just think about it, there are still some individuals so devoid of shame or conscience that even after all we know, they continue to defend and excuse what was a system of frightful spiritual darkness and depravity.The fact is, I have not been harsh enough in my condemnation of it.
Scott I sometimes hate to admit it but I am a fighter at heart. For what it is worth, if I were present, that outcome would have been different....believe it...
Verne

The more you sweat in practice
The less you bleed in battle...

I don't bleed much...!

Amen! This is my motivation as well.
I've enjoyed the discussion on this thread.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Several months ago I predicted that there would be those who would openly start to defend and justify that system. It really is astonishing to see the apologists at work. This is evil at its ugliest- when it attempts to present itself as good...they should be given no quarter...
Verne

so george was a paul and a timothy (and david moses abraham jacob and all the other 'good' guys) all wrapped into one. obviously.  ::)


i was at that meeting. for the sake of historical accuracy: it must have taken place in 1991 or 1992. the tuscola assembly officially disbanded and started meeting in charleston just a couple years ago. from the somewhat limited perspective of a teenager, it appeared as a kind of struggle for power. since that was the sunday it was to be announced that he was no longer a leading brother (over some doctrinal issues), he wasn't 'supposed' to be preaching. mike stood up, and before he could say a word, cecil told him firmly to sit down. so in this case, it wasn't what he was saying directly that was being corrected. another fellow from oakland had gotten up before mike to preach against what was happening to mike, although he didn't mention names. nobody interrupted him. after the announcement that mike was being stepped down as leading brother, everyone from oakland sided with mike and started meeting on their own.

brian

Thanks for the correction Brian. I was under the impression that most of the regular leadership left after the incident with Mike Houk. I know they continued to meet for some time but what was left was nothing but an empty shell. Do you know for certain if the McCumbers , Fredricks and Matthiases left at the time the Oaklnand saints departed?
Verne

Verne,

I know for certain the first group left several years before the Oakland saints ca. 1988. The split between Mike and Cecil came several years later. There really wasn't much a Tuscola assembly after that - not that there was much left after the first exodus in 88.

Hope that helps.

Scott

Of course I now remember. I guess I did not realise that Mike had remained after the first group left. It seems that I left at about the same time that the first group departed (around 89)which was indeed the way I recalled. Thanks!
Verne