AssemblyBoard

Hello, this is Suzie Tr0ckman

I know why the Assembly never had a "name,"  but now I want to hear from some of you about how you look at this idea now.

Is it OK for a local gathering of the one body of Christ to take a name?  IE Mercy Church,  Grace Church,  Anytown Bible Church,  Grace Bible Chapel, etc.?

Suzie
(my husband is out draining the swamp so he can corral some more gators!)

Hi Suzie,

We all call ourselves Christians.  The different names that gatherings have are not separatist or exclusive as has always been preached in the Geftakys group.  While I don't see these names required in the Bible, neither are they forbidden.  They do, however,  provide a useful reference for those we hope to reach for our Lord.  Sometimes it indicates a location, other times, a particular burden stressed in the establishment of a church.

The Assemblies did sometimes have names.  Here in Springfield there has been a banner hanging over the front of the meeting place declaring, "A Gathering of Christians".  Of course I always had to explain to folks that this was not really the name of the church there.  ;) :P  ::)

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the clear answer.  I have always thought that not taking a name was exclusive and separated the Body.

Also, keep in mind, that in the culture of the time, not much of anything had a name.  Our culture today has to name everything, it is how businesses have to work.  People reacting badly to the assembly not having a name is more of a cultural offense, and probably not any deeper than that.  In this culture, we don't tend to think of something as an entity unless it has a name.

In the first century, you could open a shop and sell something, and just do it.  We don't see references to the name of Paul's tent making business.  It was just something he did.  The culture worked by personal connection, and interaction of individuals.  Anything that did have a name was more likely to just be descriptive (what and where it is).  Larger entities did have names (such as cities).

This is a very good example of GG (and others, this was not his idea) taking something that happened in the scriptural account, and copying it.  There's probably nothing explicitly wrong with that (there are no scriptures I know of that require a church to have a name), but it doesn't help anything to then become devisive against anyone else who does take a name.

Dave

The Geftakys assemblies considered themselves to be 'New Testament Simplicity' gatherings. I still hear this terminology being used.

What is a New Testament church look like according to the Bible?
What is significant about the 'simplicity' attachment?

Marcia

The thing that was always funny to me about the Assembly was the "no name" thing. it was like we were supposed to believe that a visitor would come in and say "Wow, this place has no name. There's no Pastor, or Assistant Pastor, no Bishops or deacons, no musical director or church council, what a blessed place!!" But anyone with half a brain after two visits knew the place had no name on purpose, that the Pastor was George, the Assistant Pastor was Steve Irons, The musical Director was guy who led the songs at worship, and the "church council" was the leading brothers.(of course when I mention Steve, etc. I'm recalling when I was there).

It was a purposeful disassociation with any "modern" church pattern. It was an elitist attitude cloaked in false humility. "Wow, we must be special people to God above other Christians because he's put US in this place, while other Christians are in worldly churches with little light." And what made US so special? OUR WORKS---our commitment of time and life to "God's Purpose" in the Assembly.  A verse was altered just for us: "God is no respecter of persons....except when it comes to choosing those who respond to the call and show they are worthy thereby". The word "Grace" was altered--from complete unmerited favor, to something given to you for obeying.

There's a word for this back where I come from:  Heresy.

Joe,

Years ago Dave Sable applied his wit to the "Horse With No Name" song.  It went:

"I've been through the desert with the church with no name, It's good to be out of the pain..."

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

As to the no name idea...

Years ago brother Bakht Singh pointed out to me that church at Rome had several different congregations.

V10, "those who are of Aristobulus"

V11 "Those of the xxx of Narcissus"

V14 "Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobus, Hermas and the brethren with them"

V15 Philologus and Julia...and all the saints who are with them"


First century Rome had a population of about a million people, and several suburbs.  It was only natural that different congregations would arise, if only for practicality.

There is an underlying assumption which leads to the "No Name Allowed" rule:  Anything not explicitly mandated or described as a practice in the NT, is prohibited.

This explains many of the Plymouth Brethren practices used in the "Assembly", (its real name), and throughout the "Assemblies".  

It also explains the fact that although we had pretty much the same jobs for people as any other church, we didn't call them by the same names, thereby avoiding the need to justify ourselves if questioned.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Joe,

And of course by following that line of reasoning:

We have no name because we believe a name separates and divides the church.

The church is God's people.

Those who take a name separate and divide themselves.

Therefore as we do not take a name, WE are the undivided church. All others are (take your pick): false, backslidden, unenlightened, playing games, etc, etc.

That of course strengthens the isolation, the pride, George's status, and all the other things you know so well.

I never believed George was nearly as clever as he thought he was but he wasn't stupid. Just clumsy.

Scott McCumber

George used to mock other churches by saying, "We're not just playing church!"

he he.....yeah we were.

Of course, the joke was on us.  We were so serious about playing church.  We gave so much and put sooooo much effort into bringing just one visitor.

Jack

Jack,
We were the most serious "church players" around because George took advantage of pure motives.
 Big George's vision got us good.

Evidence we were indeed "playing church":

1. Meetings were conducted the exact same way, week after week
2. Even thopugh we sat in chairs and not pews, the chairs were arranged with precision each meeting (in Fullerton, the space between rows were even measured for accuracy)
3. The Assembly has pastors, deacon/deaconesses, elders, ushers (a.k.a. doorkeepers)

I understand the Assembly in Ottawa has taken a name.  If that is correct, what is their new name?  
BW

Becky---

"We Ottawa never followed George in the first place".


--Joe

Joe-
Isn't that a little long for the sign out front?

Becky

Becky,

When you find out, I'd like to know.

Marcia :)

Hmm, "When you find out, I'd like to know" certainly is a strange name for an assembly. ;D  Perhaps this name is indicative of their state of confusion. ;D

Actually, I do not think that they have chosen a name yet, but the funny thing is that when they do, Becky will probably find out about it before I do.

You could always submit your suggestions to their website www.SaltAndLight.ca.

Marcia

Actually, I still think that "When you find out, I'd like to know" would be a good name for them. :)  However, I think that I will pass on submitting it them.

Becky, Joe, Retread et al

The new name: the Church of the Bereans.

I received this news via VA.

Marcia

wow!  Things have really changed up there.  It used to be that the "saints" were "Christians, nothing more, nothing less."  Now, they're Bereans!

Seriously, the fact that they took a name does suggest that a change in thinking.  I mean that.

Brent

Anybody for "The International Headquarters of the Church with No Name, Incorporated"?

When Brent started this bullitin board, it was the more Scriptural www.THeBulletinBoardinSLO.com.  But, then he got worldly on us.

Dave,

Your suggestion violates the underlying assumption of Plymouth Brethren "church truth".

No practices not specifically taught or at least shown as examples in the NT are allowed.  

I think they should have called them selves the Church of the Ottowanians.  Then, if someone wrote them, they could call their letter the Epistle to the...         ;)

God bless all undercomers,

Thomas Maddux

"I've been through the desert with the church with no name, its good to be out of the pain".

Tom,

Did the Apostles ever brush their teeth?  I would hate to think that I have been doing something unbiblical all these years.

-Dave

I'm fairly certain that the apostles never used computers, web browsers, or the internet.  Here's our "true" motivation to shut down the BB, it is unbiblical.

Dave

It's true.  You never see a children's ministry in the book of Acts, which is why they never had one in the Assembly.

Same with computers.  Nowhere does the bible mention them, therefore they are not to be used in the work of the Lord.  Following this logic, websites, including and especially this one, cannot serve God.

Shut it down, ignore it, and get back into the House of God.

Or, you might read Dave Sable's piece on getting back to the book of Acts.
http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/GettingBackToTheBookOfActs.htm (http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/GettingBackToTheBookOfActs.htm)

Brent

Brent,

Must have been a SLO thing. We had a pretty comprehensive children's ministry in the Midwest. I should know I got kicked out often enough. ;D

Seriously, though, that ministry was one of the few positives of my Assembly experience. Until I got old enough for the teen ministry and then it turned into Assembly-Lite. Ugh.

Scott

I should have been more clear about what I meant.  By children's ministry, I was referring to the idea of Sunday school, nurseries, etc.

Brent

Gotcha. You mean programs where the kids are doing something else while the parents are in meetings?

My kids actually enjoy going Sunday mornings because they are in programs that teach at their level (plus they don't have to lay face down on a mat or at rigid attention on a steel chair!).

We almost created a website in San Diego.  I even purchased the domain http://www.sdbiblestudy.com/ (http://www.sdbiblestudy.com/) (very exciting, isn't it).  I was about to come up with some stuff to put on it, when the "brethren" discovered your (Brent's) website.  I was told to immediately take it down.  They were afraid that you would put a link to our website, and people would be able to associate us with what you (Brent) were talking about.

The reluctance to use websites was more an issue of hiding who the assemblies were, rather than about a fear that they weren't biblical.  Tim G was actually quite excited about a website for the campuses, at least until you started being devisive :)

I also used my computer to design a print the invites.  Many of you probably saw the "How to do a chapter summary" flyers, the one with the image of the torn notebook paper inside.  I made that, and I used a computer.  I saw them show up in quite a few assemblies.

We also taped the meetings, and they didn't have tape recorders in the Bible.  There was a lot of paranoia about people getting ahold of the tapes.  A few meetings, I was actually told to destroy the tapes.  It was usually when it was about child training.  I did erase the tape, but I still have an encrypted mp3 file sitting around.  I don't know if I remember the password, and I'm not sure I care.

Although the Brethren concept of not doing something if not in the Bible was given as an excuse, I think the real activites were just whatever was needed to perpetuate the assembly system.

Dave

Yes.  The Assembly did use technology when it was useful.  They used an electronic typesetter in printing before the computer revolution made the practice obsolete.

My exagerated comment below was in once sense a joke, but in another sense it pointed to a truth.  I have heard ministry many times that went like:  

"Where you do you read in the Bible that the church formed denominations?  Where do you read about paid clergy?  Where do you read about the World Councel of Churches?  Where do you read about parachurch or mission organizations? etc."

But, then we did things that appeared to have superficial Scriptural support - monthly workers meetings, park outreaches, box on the back table.  And others that clearly did not have any clear Scriptural mentions(other than, perhaps, spritualized "forced" ones) - children's ministry, youth ministry, Christian school, tent meetings, printing ministry, Juvenile ministry, Christmas projects, couples meetings, brother's houses, sister's houses, training apartments, All Saints fun day, coffee houses, campus ministry, campus conference, annual seminars, etc.

The simple point is that Biblical silence does not necessarily mean something is wrong to do.  The Bible is the revelation of God and where we find many of God's opinions and commands.  But, it is not the only source of good ideas.  Nor does it claim to be.

My husband and I had a man living in our home who had 25 years worth of tapes in our homes.  At various times during his living with us (close to 7 years) the leadership was very concerned about the amount of tapes this man had.  At one point early in our marriage (even before this man lived with us) the "head" leading brother asked my husband and I to take responsibility for "overseeing" this brothers' tape ministry (who were we to do this to this mans' ministry, btw :().  We were told to "destroy" the tapes after people had listened to them.  There was to be about a 1-2 week "recycling" of the tapes in order to assure that the ministry would not be kept on tape.  We didn't do it.

What is particularly interesting to my husband and I was that after we left (October 9, 2002), the leadership was CONSIDERABLY concerned about having these tapes in OUR garage.  After something appeared on this web-site that was clearly from taped ministry, three brothers appeared at our home and carted off every single tape that was in our garage.  (We DO have COPIES!!! ;))  They promptly moved this brother out of our home the following weekend.

WHAT WERE THEY SO CONCERNED ABOUT????????????  Doesn't it make anybody who continues to associate with them (whether they are "meeting" or not) a little bit curious as to why they don't want these tapes public?  If this is "heavenly vision" don't you want to SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS?  I remember when I first got saved, I thought, "Why doesn't anybody report this on the 6:00 pm news?  Come on, if this is salvation for the world, why didn't anybody tell me?" ;D

We all know the answer! ;)

Official reason:  We don't want the tapes getting into the wrong hands and George's words twisted.

Imagine my surprise when I visited Calvary Church of Santa Ana and realized for the first time that I could purchase any one of the pastor's sermons for a nominal cost.

The contrast of these two different perspectives was not lost on me.

Dave,

I emailed this link to a number of individuals. My husband read the article and enjoyed it so much that he sent it to a number of other individuals. My husband has also read the book that you recommend and says that it has helped him tremendously.

PROOF that the website is helpful to ex-Geftakysites.

Lord bless,
Marcia

That's what I'm talking about!  

Fact: San Diego WAS associated with Geftakys
Fact: The Leaders knew that the truth wasn't pretty
Fact: They chose to deal with the truth by making it hard for people to link them with Geftakys, when in fact they were totally linked.

Poor people!  I am so glad that they're free now.

Brent

I'm fairly sure, at the time, that the leaders weren't much aware of the truth of the website.  There was a lot of spin control passing the website off as divisive lies.  It really wasn't until a worker from Fullerton called another worker down here and said to "Read the website, it is all true" that the leaders really even looked at the website.

So it was more of, they knew the website was bad (they didn't know what it said).  They were afraid to even find out what it said, so they never looked into it.

I thought it was weird about not wanting to be linked to.  I kind of passed it off, at the time, as people not understanding how the web worked.

What's said is that I went along with all of this, even about thinking that "the website" was just a bunch of lies.  I remember reading about the speculation of where the money went, and seeing a suggestion of a basement, and therefore I knew it couldn't be true.  I looked for whatever possible detail I could find wrong and used that as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing.  I did this for several years.

Dave

What's said is that I went along with all of this, even about thinking that "the website" was just a bunch of lies.  I remember reading about the speculation of where the money went, and seeing a suggestion of a basement, and therefore I knew it couldn't be true.  I looked for whatever possible detail I could find wrong and used that as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing.  I did this for several years.
 (http://What's said is that I went along with all of this, even about thinking that "the website" was just a bunch of lies.  I remember reading about the speculation of where the money went, and seeing a suggestion of a basement, and therefore I knew it couldn't be true.  I looked for whatever possible detail I could find wrong and used that as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing.  I did this for several years.)

I read that first RickRoss article, about the bars of gold kept somewhere in the house and just laughed!  How ridiculous.

However, in January 2003, someone went to George's house to retrieve a piece of furniture that was in his house.  When they were removing it, they found 10,000.00 in cash secreted away inside the furniture.  (not in a drawer, but sort of hidden in some way.)

Perhaps the gold bars aren't that far off?  I know several people who own gold, and keep it in a safe inside their houses.  It's no crime.  However, I don't know too many people who keep 10,000.00 cash hidden inside furniture.

Brent

This kind of "assembly logic" brings back a ton of memories.  Please note that I recognize the sarcasm - and find it funny.

I remember when I was about 6 or 7, and some of the "brothers" took a few of us to a Harlem Globetrotters Basketball Game.  At the end of the game, we wanted to go down and get autographs.  The "brothers" logic for not letting us do this was that you never read about the apostles or the disciples getting Jesus Autograph, so he didn't think it would be right for us to get the Globetrotters autographs.  

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't emotionally harmed or whatever from this incident, its just kind of funny how assembly life affected seemingly normal adults!!!

Ok..regaring the church not taking a name ..I dont want to beat a dead horse...but I thought it was the stupidest thing about the place  or was it??? YOU'd invite someone out to your church and they'd say oh, whats  the name of it and you'd say well, we really dont have a name we call it the Assembly ..were just Christians...I remember hearing this and thought this is hard to get my mind around....could it have been GG's way of not taking responsibility for the place afterall he'd have to have filed the name to keep it in effect therefore it would be registered or anyone could use the name and then he could in effect be held responsible meaning he could be Sued for whatever.. and Why have it in his sons or another brothers name they could be excommunicated on a whim...whoevers name would be on the NAME would have the Box and the Responsibility ...GG probibly thought if they buy this theory of No Name they'll in effect Buy anything ....This is what I believe it was all about the Money and not being Sued....That's why he rented  or the bros rented  buildings instead of buying  so his name was'nt on anything...so if they're ever was a blow-up he could say he does'nt know anything were all just brothers...hum....it goes right along with Christmas gifts and college funds....more $$$for him....

Brother George?  Only about money?  What about sex and power? ;)

Yeah ,sex and power too...At one point in time...my chair was right across from him on sunday mornings and I thought he looked at me funny a few times ..but I shook it off...thinking I was having impure thoughts ..an attack from the Enemy...you know...

I usually found myself explaining the non-name through acknowledgment of the existence of a simplicity where believers "met in a home to worship God and study the bible together" - ie, the perfected definition of a non-denominational house church.

[rant]
IMO, the Assembly was a universe built on both ideals and preconceptions; although totally infatuated with the imagination of a single Man.  It is this inherent flaw that remain prevalent, however subtly, within current groups.  While I recognize my notable lack in terms of not having experienced *every* gathering in order to make blanket statements, leading for the previous statement to only be accepted as my personal opinion - the simple fact that we *were* rolling in mud is sufficiently conducive to lead even the most anal retentive of thinkers to realize that comparing ourselves to each other for "cleanliness" a rather intellectly bankrupt practice.  In this case, moving on to proven, healthy churches can be the only perfected solution.[/rant]

hehe, perhaps I went a bit outside the scope of this thread with that sentiment *shrug*
--
lucas

Lucas,

Interesting thought about not being able to compare an experience when you have nothing to compare it to. Wish I had said something like that before. ;)

You've come a long way in a year, bro! Glad you're back.

In Canada No-Name is registered by Sunfresh Foods, so we couldn't say we were a no-name church because that would actually be a 'name' :). Now that I look back, it is kind of silly the things we 'stood for'. So many picky details to worry about and all it accomplished was that we isolated ourselves from the greater Christian community. Mingling was akin to ecuminism. And ecuminism was...

However though some of the existing assemblies now choose to take a name, it is not necessarily because they have re-evaluated the teaching on why we didn't in the first place. The outward appearance may be somewhat difference from before, but I agree that what will truly bring about real change for those who are "in" is for them to move on to proven healthy churches.

Lord bless,
Marcia

It took me just a few weeks to figure out that the name of the church with no name was, "The Assembly".  

That is what everyone involved constantly called it.  They criticized people for leaving "The Assembly".  They rejoiced when someone committed themselves to fellowship in, "The Assembly" and so on.

I always thought it was a little nutty.


Tom

Then there were the mini-workshops on what to say on outreach when people asked the name of your church.  Such long, complicated conversations.  "Just Christians." (Right...)
Or the problem of what to call your parade float/entry.  Annandale was called " Christians in Annandale", or C.I.A.,  :), when in the fall Harvest (not Halloween) Parade.  That banner always drew grins from the crowd.  
One of the liveliest Test. to Jesus workshops I remember centered on the churches taking a name debate.  A brother who left not too long after that was defending a nearby (large and growing) church saying it did all the same things we did- worship, prayer, outreach, etc., but they had a name.  
The consensus from leadership was "that's a shame" as if it were a compromise.  Hardly.
Yes, a little nutty sounds about right.
Becky