AssemblyBoard

Following is an e-mail I sent to Brent that he said should be posted here if I want group answers.  First, see my first e-mail with a scenario and questions to Brent about discipline of a church leader, then his reply and then my follow up question.  I welcome any insights and comments on how these matters should be handled.  This one has bothered me for years.

My first e-mail -

Gretchen   ----- Original Message -----
From: Honan, Gretchen/SCO
To: editor@geftakysassembly.com
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:08 PM
Subject: Question

Brent-

Can you and your viewers (is that what you call webites?) weigh in with advise on how ones should handle issues of sin and discipline among leaders as described below?

Here is the scenario:

1) a prominent, gifted, married teacher in a local gathering is found to have an improper relationship with a woman not his wife (unfortunatly this sounds too familiar).  This woman is distressed and compromised by the growth of intimacy and pursuit for intimacy by this man.  She ends the relationship and then, due to conscience, brings it to the elders and deacons.   She does this partly to seek help herself and partly to make them aware he needs help.

2) These leaders meet with the teacher and discuss the allegations to which he admits.  They decide 2 things a) he should step down from teaching for a time as part of the fruit of his repentance and b) he should seek marital counseling with his wife to get at the root cause of his emotional infidelity and find healing.  After "some time" under their watchful eye they expect that he will be restored to full teaching priviledge.  They are taking these steps to seek his restoration not his destruction, in full awareness that character counts for more than gift in Christ's service and wanting this teacher to have a "good report of those who are without."

Question 1 - Were they too harsh?  Was the discipline appropriate to the offense?  This discipline will make the sin public, is this the right thing to do?  Should it have been dealt with privately and he allowed to continue preaching while meeting with a counselor? Since there were no allegations of physical infidelity only emotional should they have done anythng at all?

I have a follow up question but would like to hear any thoughts on the above.  

Thanks.

Gretchen Honan

Brent's reply -

-----Original Message-----
From: Editor [mailto:editor@geftakysassembly.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:12 PM
To: Honan, Gretchen/SCO
Subject: Re: Question


Hi Gretchen!

Only I will see this, unless you post it on the bulletin board, which is not mine anymore.  I gave it up, but Brian Tucker is running it now.

www.briantucker.net/bb/index.php

1.) Here you define the problem. Mutual infidelity, worse on the part of the man.  While it is only emotional infidelity, it is infidelity nonetheless.

2.)A couple of major things here. Number one, the man ADMITS his sin.  This is key, absolutely critical.  He owned up to it at the first.

From the info you gave, I think that their discipline was totally appropriate.  Since the man was co-operative, and confessed his sin, he should be allowed to demonstrate his repentance, and following clearing of himself, he should be restored to whatever place his brethren feel is his due.

Answer to question 1: They were NOT too harsh, given what you said above.  The man admitted it, and apparently co=operated and was subject to the church.  by definition, the discipline was also appropriate to the offense.

As for it being public, we read in 1 Timothy 5:16-22 that elders should be rebuked in front of the whole church, so that others will have a proper fear of God.  (read it in the New Living Translation, or look up the words.)  If anything, I think a case could be made that the discipline was too soft, but if the offender's demeanor, and clarity was satisfactory, then it could be agreed that the whole church would not have to know.  That would be the exception, not the rule.  When prominent leaders fail, they damage people's faith, and they incur a stricter judgment.

Under no circumstances should this person be allowed to teach, until such a time as the congregation, or elders, etc. agree that he is clear.

This sounds a lot like David Hocking?

Brent

My latest e-mail and new questions - please weigh in.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Honan, Gretchen/SCO
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:11 PM
To: 'Editor'
Subject: RE: Question


Thanks Brent - I can send it there too.

It is David Hocking.  Which brings me to my second question in general and one for you as an investigator.  I worked about 6 years ago with a very dear and encouraging Christian man.  He and his wife went to Grace Community Church in Santa Ana where Hocking taught.  He was a deacon.  After all this transpired he was really troubled one day (I sat next to him).  I found out that that what was troubling him was the fact that Chuck Smith had decided on his own, without consulting these men, that Hocking 's gift of teaching should not be stifled.  He offered David Hocking escape from this discipline and a place to teach at Calvary Costa Mesa.  My friend and those at his church were deeply grieved by this behavior, which showed Chuck felt he was above their authority as church leaders, yet they were powerless against such a big name as Chuck Smith.  He said God honored their church with growth and they did not regret their stand, but were sore grieved at being bowled over in such a way.

My second set of questions are:  Is Chuck then a serpent and a viper for taking this man in and ignoring the discipline of the church?  Does he see himself as a law unto himself?  I do not know the man other than Calvary Costa Mesa is where my family goes (who were also grieved by these events, but did not know what to do.  They are sheep).  Should there be or has there been public correction of Chuck Smith for this behavior?  Is partiality being shown him because of his reputation and position?

The above question is also influenced by the following event I witnessed - I don't know what to think of Chuck Smith and his ministry and the partiality given he and his family.

A women I worked with before that also attended Calvary Costa Mesa.  She was really excited because Chuck Jr. was getting married.  I said I thought he already was married.  She said "oh yes,but his wife left him last year.  She still attends the Calvary where he is pastor but does not want to be married to him."  When I asked her if there was adultery or if the ex-wife had already re-married - struggling to find some way this could be legitimate - she said "No.  But, he needs a wife and a mother for his children."   When I asked if he was still the pastor or had ever stepped down through all this, she looked at me with amazement.  "No."  "Excuse me, I said but don't you think, as an example to the flock and the struggling marriages a pastor should at least exhaust all avenues for reconciliation, and like a Hosea remain loyal and true to his vow before God "'til death do us part?"  "Isn't he as a leader held to a higher standard, and shouldn't he consider over his own happiness what kind of example he is setting?"   She was very upset and hardly spoke to me after this.  I clearly stepped on toes here daring to question Chuck Smith Jr. and others in marrying him there and allowing him to continue to lead.   When I told this to my brother and his wife, again what grief.  They had been on the verge of divorce and it was only the Lord clearly speaking to my brother that He hated divorce that caused him to seek reconciliation and find God's healing.   So, it was a stumbling to them and, I must confess a temptation to my brother to find this same kind of "blessing" in a new marriage.  Thank God, they walked before Him and did not let this stumble them.   According to them, this has happened at another Calvary they attended so they left (the pastor divorcing his wife and remarrying another woman from the congregation while still leading).

Do you know if Chuck Smith Sr. blessed this action?   I know my co-worker, who attended heard it as great joyful news.  Do you know how many marriages were stumbled or emboldened to divorce and re-marry by this example of leadership?  I have always wondered about this.

Thanks for any information you can provide.

Hi Gretchen!!!! <Great Big Hugs>
It sounds like you already have an accurate impression of how the Smith's appear.

I just wanted to say hello, congrats on your house and I love you.

Stacy  ;D

Tanks Stace!

I love my new house!  Come visit I have extra rooms and a yard for the boys - ghonan@ch2m.com

Hi Gretchen, please feel free to post my email response to you on the board if you desire.  You will get all sorts of answers here!  ;)

On factor that you only briefly touched on, that makes all the difference in the case of Chuck Jr. is the view on divorce and re-marriage.  I have changed my view on this from the one I held in the Assembly.  Under the old view, I had huge problems with how that whole thing with Jr. could take place.  It gives me no trouble now, but as i mentioned, the Hocking thing does.

Brent

how would you define emotional infidelity?

Hi Gretchen,  I think what Chuck Smith did was wrong. But I don't think it is fair to compare Chuck with Tim.nor is it fair to compare George with David Hocking. Tim has for years exercised  an undo authority over many peoples lives.  He has controled and manipulated by intimidating them with his position and name. Because I now hear that Tim is repenting,  I am going to meet with him and confront him about these issues. Glad you are posting.  Lets talk more!

I'd also like to hear an answer to this question.

Arthur

Brent, are you saying what Chuck Jr. did was acceptable?

Arthur

Hi Gretchen!

It's good to see you on the bulletin board!  Are you still involved with the Assembly?

Eulaha :)

Forgot to post these....more expiainations on how to look at the Hocking/Chuck Jr. issues.
From Brent - --

Hi Gretchen!

First of all, I must say that dialoguing with you is quite intellectually stimulating.  I totally appreciate the way you think.  Suzie is my witness, when I said at the end of the last email, "is this David Hocking?" I knew it was, and I knew what your next line of reasoning would be.  I asked the exact same questions, before I became involved with Calvary SLO.

It just so happens that one of my receptionists was close friends with the Hocking's, and attended their church for years, including at the time this all went down.  I got another side of the story, albeit a pro Hocking version from her.  

Amazingly, a woman who is the mother of one of our dearest friends, attends Chuck Jr.'s church.  I was most concerned about Chuck Jr. and his treatment, before I "joined" Calvary.  (They don't have membership)  Here is the story with Chuck Jr.

His wife left him, and ran off with another man and committed adultery, etc.  She wanted no part in reconciliation and Chuck Jr. felt he was free in that situation to re-marry.  Regardless of whether we might agree with him, it is a majority evangelical doctrine that adultery is grounds for dissolution of the marriage bond.

Chuck Jr. remarried and is not affiliated with Calvary Chapel.  He does not attend pastor's conferences, and although he would be allowed to, he chooses not to.  He has no leadership position in Calvary Chapel, and I don't think his church is considered a Calvary, although I might be wrong on that.  It is quite easy to be a Calvary Chapel.

With regard to Hocking, there is another side to the story.  Quite frankly, I don't know which one to believe, but I think that David Hocking is no longer part of Calvary Chapel.  Chuck Smith got plenty of heat for doing what he did. So much so, that an entire chapter in the book, Calvary Chapel Distinctives, and also a chapter in, Why Grace Changes Everything, is taken up with this very issue.  My personal opinion is that I don't know all the facts, but it SEEMS like bringing him into Calvary was a mistake.  Of course, when you read the book, it sounds like it was the right thing to do, and when you speak to the men who disciplined him, it was really bad.  If I had to choose sides, I would go with the guys from Grace Community.

The way I dealt with this was as follows:

Calvary Chapel is a huge denomination, and virtually every problem you could imagine has taken place in one of their churches.  They sometimes do stupid stuff, but for the most part, the deal with things openly and properly.  Chuck Jr. fit this pattern.  His situation gave me no trouble at all, but at first it was my biggest concern due to the nepotism factor.  Chuck Sr. blessed the remarriage, and so would most evangelicals, including me.  However, Chuck Jr. was not showed any personal favoritism, and in fact lost the place of prominence he held before.

Hocking is another matter.  However, Calvary's are independent.  They don't send money to Chuck Smith, and aren't expected to go to "workers" meetings, etc.  They have pastor's conferences all the time, and many pastors attend these as they are able, but there is no centralized control.  As long as the groups adhere to a reasonable standard, mainly with regard to certain doctrinal stands and church government, etc.  they can be called a Calvary Chapel.  Almost any Baptist church could make the switch and most of the congregation wouldn't notice anything different except the Hawaiian shirts.

As to whether Chuck Sr. should have received rebuke for his action with Hocking, he received plenty.  I heard about it in the Orange County Register, I think.  I also heard about it from several other people.  Chuck Sr. definitely took some heat.  You can read his side of it in the books I mentioned above.  Also, my receptionist, who knew the inside scoop, was very clear in saying that the men who disciplined him were out of line, and changed the terms several times.  Typical politics, on both sides.  The way I heard it, Chuck did consult with the elders from Hocking's church, he just didn't agree with them.  Chuck Smith did not need David Hocking for any reason.  In fact, he was taking on a liability by giving him a ministry at Calvary.

Chuck Smith, due to his reputation and position, is DEFINITELY shown partiality, as was David Hocking.  That is one of the great perils when men grow great in the ministry.  I don't think there is any doubt that Chuck Smith carries alot of weight.  The question is, does he throw it around for his own personal gain?  Perhaps he did here, not so much for his own gain, but for his own principles.  However,it is not his habit at all.  Far from it, he involved less and less in the day to day operations of his own church.  His finances are a public record, and if he had any serious skeletons in his closet, they would have been exposed by now.  He has had more than his share of critics, but the Lord seems to have sustained his ministry in spite of this.

The same cannot be said about David Hocking, from what I know.  Does he have a church down there now?

So, I agree with the Chuck Jr. thing, but I really don't agree with the Hocking thing, although there are two sides to the story.

If this sort of thing went on while I was at Calvary, I might find that I had to switch churches.  If this sort of thing went on habitually, and was perpetrated by an authoritarian ruler, that dictated from headquarters, and was clearly top dog in the denomination,  I might have to start a website!  (God forbid that I ever do this again.)

Someone has to stand for the truth!

So, my final answer is:
Chuck Smith is not a viper.  Chuck Smith is far from perfect.  He has made plenty of mistakes.  However, overall, he is clearly a man of God, and his ministry has been blessed in a unique way.  He didn't deny his critics fellowship, and never publicly spoke out against them, nor did he publicly defend himself in the face of criticism, until after the event became moot.

I am not absolutely sure where you are going with this, but let me just say that Chuck and George are not in any way equivalent in a moral/spiritual sense.  There are some interesting contrasts that can be drawn, but George is a true scoundrel, whereas at worst, Chuck erred on the side of grace, even if he did show contempt for other Christian leaders.  

I look forward to more dialogue!

Brent

Wha...?!  David, wwwwhere do you read Gretchen or anyone else comparing TG w/Chuck S. or GG w/David H?   ??? :-\  Let's not be grasping at straws just to air our disdain for for men that we feel/know have wronged us.  Is Tim a "viper"? Good question but totally separate to the question directed at Chuck Smith!   Is George a viper?  That question was put to bed a long time ago!

Please, stick to the subject at hand, David M!  :)  ;)

Hi Gretchen! :)
   Do you remember me?  I trust you are doing well.  Are you still involved in the Assembly?  If so how are you doing with the recent events?
    In re. to your question re. D. Hocking:  The whole thing sounds very unclear to me.  I also have no idea what the term "emotional infidelity" means.
   One thing is sure: power corrupts and that leaders must be accountable.  I guess that you are raising these questions to clarify your understanding of how GG should have been handled; is that the case?
                           God Bless,  Mark Campbell

Mark -

Of course I remember you and Cindy.  How are you and how is she?  My questons had to do with this Hocking/smith situation that has bothered me for years - as I had two co-workers I fellowshipped with that were involved in the issues and family memebrs that attend Calvary CM.  Since men who have not honored the discipline/correction directed at George were called vipers, I wondered if others who also usurped the local gatherings authority were called such.  I was not suggesting any comparison of level of sin or gravity with GG.  I also just wanted to know what came down in this situation as I live by thses gatherings.  I  felt that if anyone had or could look into this it would be our own investigative reporter Brent Tr0ckman.  He has provided lots of info and the consensus appears to be Smith Sr. did wrong and got a lot of heat for it.  But it was openly discussed.

I guess I am getting heat for there being a guest by my name.  If any one will be kind enough to tell me how to change that i would appreciate that.  No instructions were given upon log on.  A tip to Rudy - try kindness and service first - go to the law and post inditements last, if at all.  There is way too much violence and strife in life as there is.  Let brotherly love continue.  "Behold, how they love one another...in this way all men will know you are my disciples."

In His lasting joy. :)

Gretchen

Mark -

Of course I remember you and Cindy.  How are you and how is she?  My questons had to do with this Hocking/smith situation that has bothered me for years - as I had two co-workers I fellowshipped with that were involved in the issues and family memebrs that attend Calvary CM.  Since men who have not honored the discipline/correction directed at George were called vipers, I wondered if others who also usurped the local gatherings authority were called such.  I was not suggesting any comparison of level of sin or gravity with GG.  I also just wanted to know what came down in this situation as I live by thses gatherings.  I  felt that if anyone had or could look into this it would be our own investigative reporter Brent Tr0ckman.  He has provided lots of info and the consensus appears to be Smith Sr. did wrong and got a lot of heat for it.  But it was openly discussed.

I guess I am getting heat for there being a guest by my name.  If any one will be kind enough to tell me how to change that i would appreciate that.  No instructions were given upon log on.  A tip to Rudy - try kindness and service first - go to the law and post inditements last, if at all.  There is way too much violence and strife in life as there is.  Let brotherly love continue.  "Behold, how they love one another...in this way all men will know you are my disciples."

In His lasting joy. :)

Gretchen

THIS "GUEST" IS TOM MADDUX WHO THIS WEBSITE WON'T LET POST UNDER HIS OWN NAME!!!   :-[

Hi Gretchen,

Long time no see.....not since about 10 days ago anyway.

btw, that strange facial expression you saw was the result of a surge of emotion which I unexpectedly experienced every time an old friend appeared.  It was strange/wonderful to see all those people again.  It has been 13 years.

On the David Hocking thing...I remember reading about it in the paper at the time.  If I remember correctly the brothers at Calvary Church had cut off all of Hocking's income.  

According to the OC Register article Chuck Smith stepped in because he felt the discipline was too harsh and he knew that Hocking had no other way of supporting himself other than an entry level job.  The one phrase I remember clearly is that Smith asked, through the reporter, "Do you want to see this man selling shoes?"

At the time it seemed to me that Smith's motive was mercy.

I don't think that the Hocking/Smith situation is exactly the same thing as the current assembly experience.  No one is disciplining these brothers.  In a sense, they have placed themselves under "discipline" such as it is.  It is not clear, really, what it is.

It seems to me that Hockings blunder was to allow himself to fall into a common temptation that besets ministers.  It has happened again and again.  It was a foolish error, but it has its roots in fallen human nature.

The leaders in the assembly were trained to think the way they did and to supress any qualms of conscience for the sake of "unity" or "our common vision".  I suspect most of them were shocked when reality suddenly intruded and broke the assembly bubble.

Now they don't know what to do. For those who have truly repented, my own suggestion would be to stay away from leadership for a couple of years at least and to seek mentoring relationships with godly, experienced men outside the assembly structure.  This would be a mark of true humility and desire to put things right.

For those who think they can just take a few weeks or months off and then reestablish their position in a reconstituted assembly, (Geftakys Lite), I think this is evidence that they don't have a clue as to the seriousness of the problem or just how far off the track their version of Christianity has strayed.

God bless,
Tom Maddux

Hi Tom,
  I think I've figured out the "guest" thing.  You must log-in before each session using your username and password.  Don't re-register as you are already registered and it won't accept it.
   Under the old site you didn't have to log-in each time and it must be a new characteristic of the site that Brian built.
   I not only recovered my former status I was also reinstated as The fabulous, "Global Moderator"! ;)
                                       God bless,  Mark

THIS IS "GUEST" TOM MADDUX AGAIN.

Mark,

I have  been logging in every time, but this thing kicks me out after EVERY CLICK!

I think what happened is that I logged on from my work computer a few days ago.  Now I am greeted by name on that computer, but rejected on my home computer.

HELP!  HELP!   PUHLEEZZ WONT SOMEONE HELP!

I don't know enough about computers to know what to do.

God bless,

Tom Maddux

Hi Tom,
  Well, I think we will have to wait for Brian to explain this situation as you well know I am not Geeky as well.
  Just a suggestion:  Go ahead and try to register again, and maybe it will take? ???
  Not much of a Global Moderator am I? ;)
                                God Bless,  Mark

I would say that your work e-mail address is tied to your username.
You may only be able to access from work using that username.
Register using let's say "T Maddux 2" along with your home e-mail
address. You're accessing a website, but the board software could be
verifying the e-mail address as you are logging on.

Tom -

It was soooo good to see you those 10 days ago.  I appreciated your spirit and words and care.  I'd like to talk a bit more - online or with you and Carol - e-mail me.  ghonan@ch2m.com

thanks.

Gretchen :)

THIS IS "GUEST" TOM MADDUX AGAIN


I have figured out what is wrong with this board!

This board is possessed by a spirit of exclusivity....it exists just to kick people out!!!!!!

Tom

Hello Gretchen and Tom, Mark, etc.

gretchen, I plan on responding to your latest email, in a day or two, when I have time to write intelligently.

As for Chuck Smith's motive for bringing Hocking on, it was definitely mercy and grace.  In fact, there is a chapter about it in either Calvary chapel distinctives, or Why Grace Changes Everything, both by Smith.

Pastor Chuck took a lot of criticism for showing "mercy" to Hocking.  He wasn't against curch discipline, but was against the type of discipline and the fact that they were changing it over and over, etc.  

Anyway, my information is somewhat biased, it's from Chuck Smith's book, and a long time close friend of the Hockings.

BTW, the Hockings are still together, no divorce, etc.  Inspite of the man's sin, it is pretty neat that the marriage is still intact.

Brent

 :-[ sorry about this problem - it is not anything you are doing wrong. some computers are having this problem, while most of them are not (apparently). since i am not having this problem, it is hard for me to tell if i have fixed it. but i'll tear into it tommorrow and see what i can do. keep me updated about it.


this wouldn't affect your login from home at all. even so, i would advise you to click 'logout' when you are done using the board at work, instead of just closing the browser. closing the browser does not log you out, and if someone else opened the browser and came to this website they could easily post under your name, delete your posts, etc. just be careful doing that.

Hi Gretchen, it is I George Allen, glad to see that you are doing well.

The question you pose is a good one, and I being involved in a Calvary (Ft. Worth, TX), get to see/hear Mr. Hocking every year, our Pastor loves him.

He still teaches classes at Calvary's Bible school, and does regular trips to Israel.

I would not say that Chuck is a viper, but I would say he needs to explain himself to the Grace leadership.  

David's teachings if you still follow them have changed, I remember being blessed by them, but neither I or my wife will go the meetings when he comes to town.  As my wife puts it, that man sure knows how to put himself and his doings first, listen to tapes before the fall and after the fall and you would hear the same thing.  

I believe since the man was so quickly taken in and given a high position by one so respected and regarded as Chuck he never was given a chance to learn humility and show forth fruits worth of repentance (I can see where this might have even puffed him up).  Chuck could have easily said for so much time (years in my opinion) you can sit, listen, and learn, and then we will revisit where you should be.

Lord Bless,
G

George -

Thanks for your information.  I also detect a change pre- and post- discipline issue with Hocking and have not once since then listened to an entire message.  I can say from personal experience that a full and complete surrender and acceptance, even eagerness to let God's discipline work, bears fruit truly "not to be repented of."   How is life in Texas?  Glad to hear you have found a wife George - I hope you are peaceful and happy.

A great book on this whole subject is "The Minister's Restoration" by George MacDonald.  At the end the fallen minister whose sin comes out some time later says, " It is not until I have made what restoration lies within my grasp to account for my sins that I can in any sense be publically restored.  Know that I am willing, not only to be restored, but also to make restoration to any others I may have hurt. " Later the one he is talking to says, "we have no right to choose, appoint or apportion our own penalties."  When he tells his wife that it may go public her response is " Thank God, my husband it has come to this."  His response is "The evil in me has to come out and show its self before it could be cleared away! Some people nothing but an earthquake can rouse from their dead sleep.  I was one of such! God in His mercy brough on the earthquake to wake me and save me from death.  Just think where we each might be if he had not shown us ourselves, even in our sin.  We might never have known His goodness if not for the evil in us."

Now, that's a right response to discipline.

Dear Grethchen

You qoute one of my favorite authors, and one of my favorite books by that author.

I agree with you regarding the proper repsonse to discipline.  Hopefully, there can be more people who do this in real life.

For the Chuck Smilth sid of the story, the chapter is in Calvary Chapel Distinctives,  title, "Grace upon Grace."   Cleary, it is about David Hocking.  In this chapter, Chuck admits that he made mistakes about "forgiving" some people and that they later hurt him because of it.  He also mentions that many of the Calvary Chapel pastors had pasts that included all sorts of criminal activity, but THAT THEY REPENTED!

I guess that's what it's all about eh? Repentance.

Brent

The leadership of "the assembly", are they under discipline?
Who's discipline are they under?  Who are they answering to?
We have heard some leading brothers, elders and workers have stepped down.  Is stepping down enough?

To step down or remove oneself from a position, when done in repentence and humility, is encouraging; but to step down for only "a time" is not.

When someone breaks a law, e.g., runs a red light and is pulled over, that person doesn't have the option of deciding their own discipline.  The officer gives the person a ticket with a court date to apear before a judge where they have a choice to plead guilty or not guilty.  Pleading guilty, you pay a fine and, sometimes, are required to do community service.  (I myself have not had to go before a judge) :)

What does the Word of God say about Dicsipline of church leaders?   Are there any books that address is issue clearly with scriptural backing? ???

We addressed this question of consequences or "discipline" at the second "open" meeting in Fullerton. The answer given by Keith was vague. He was pressed for an answer and could not respond. I called him later and told him he was vague and he said he knew that because he didn't know how to respond.

I was told the issue was being pursued by those who were remaining in fellowship. The people I'm speaking of have now departed and what discipline or consequence remains is now utterly and completely vague!

If the assembly ceases to exist which if they want to believe it or act like it or not, it has, then the question is moot. The issue is complicated if one or more of the "former" leaders who stepped down or "aside" as they euphemistically put it, decides to step back to the other or former side i.e., Timothy. What consequence can you conjure for him?

My suggestion would be if they insist on meeting and adhering to assembly type format/ritual, then Tim should be disqualified for a reasonable period from teaching, preaching and leading.

What is reasonable? My perspective doesn't matter since I will never be in a forum again where Tim is present unless it's an Angel baseball game!

Now how in the world would Tim with all his duties ever have time to go to an Angels baseball game??? Oh, and even if he did have time, how could he ever afford it...a trip to a pro ball park can be rather expensive??? j/k

My guess is that somewhere along the lines, he probably has taken credit for the Angels world series championship last fall.

Maybe if he can't find a real job, he should apply for the head basketball coaching position at UCLA following Lavin's dismassal as head coach.  He always viewed himself as the "Wizard of Westwood" anyway - I think it would be a perfect fit!!!

To bluejay:
haven't you ever needed a break? maybe just maybe he was tired and wore out from everything. He goes to a BASEBALL GAME and you get angry?

hey lookingaway...i think that bluejay was kidding...just a hunch...

and let's just say for moment that he wasn't kidding(which he most certainly was as indicated by the "j/k")...would it upset you that he was angry about that?  maybe bluejay doesn't feel that tim g. should be anywhere other than behind bars, much less at an angels game.

Ok guys, I just said Angel's game because it would be most unlikely that I would see him even if he was present. In other words, I've met with him, talked with him, seen him in the "open" meetings and that is about as much as I am willing to tolerate until he humbles himself utterly and completely!

To lookingaway:

Please don't mistake my sarcasm for anger...I to am trying to make sense of all of these events since the assembly played a pivotal role in my life.  I'm really not angry.

And by the way, yes - there have been many times where I have needed a break and used an event such as a baseball game to "get away" and relax.  The difference is that I hold a full time job...What could Tim G. possibly need a break from???  He's been on scholarship his whole life!!!  

Well, I imagine it's hard work ripping off God's people.  There's all that time that he has to study the word to find ways to justify his family's racket and to beat down the sheep until they understand it's the G-way or the highway.  Hey, I can totally see that it takes time to think of ways to malign the character of those who do not agree with you and who might stand in your way.  And no doubt writing those excommunication letters isn't easy either.  Why do you think George has a secretary...oh, well, uh... :-[

Good point Arthur.  Also don't forget that part of the criteria of being a Geftakys  would entail the grueling task of covering up for one another...I am sure  that between all the paper shreading and  "off the record phone calls and meetings" that there was hardly a lot of time for anything else....It apparently didn't leave time for working out and keeping in shape...just look at Tim's pot belly!

It also apparently didn't leave any time for any public speaking courses or motivation courses, as nothing Tim, David or George said truly ever made any sense.  They tried to appear to be speaking over everyone's head, but it was always just a bunch of senselss babble!