AssemblyBoard

After speaking to one of the male members of this board, I was horrified to learn that he supported the submission of wives to their husbands as well as women not preaching. This didn't even come from Matt, but another male member. Where's the equality?
Love,
Laurie.

Laurie,

You must realize that the role of a woman in the Geftakys ministry was to give George and Tim back rubs (among other things) and to cook pastries for fellowships.  

It is important to clarify terminology here.  The way the word "preach" is being used here seems to be the way people nowadays tend to use the word, but the Bible uses the word differently.  When the Bible uses the word, it refers to proclaiming the good news, in other words evangelism.  There is no restriction in the Bible against women telling other people the good news.  The only restriction is that they should not lead the church nor teach doctrine.

My Grandmother was one of the greatest preachers
who ever lived. She really knew how to get a message
across. Of Course, she didn't preach from the Bible, her preaching was more like nagging, but she did it quite well.

Dear friends,

  I just scanned this topic real quick to see what was being said, and I was disappointed to see a lot of "assemblyese,"  :-\ though I'm sure it's unintentional. What am I refering to?

  "You don't disagree with me. You disagree with the God's Word."

and

"The Bible contains a lot of stuff that goes against our NATURAL GRAIN."

How many times were these lines used on us? Why do we keep using them on each other? Since when is it ok to question someone's salvation because s/he has a different opinion than we do? (on things other than salvation)

 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Heather

Laurie,
I'm beginning to think that you want me! You just can't leave me alone, can you?! I'm sorry you weren't born 10 yrs earlier, that you live in Colo. and I in Cali., that you have a problem with everything out of my mouth, and that you want me to slit my throat. Except for those "minor" issues, we really could be something awesome, couldn't we?

Everyone else:
Oh, I see that nobody will be coming to hear me preach on Sunday?      

Have fun at Laurie's! She's kinder than me you know! Laurie, I'm going to time adjust this for you. Ah, heck, I'll time adjust this for everyone:
It's
12:10am Fri. for Kimberly Tobin, me, and the Geftakys clan.

1:10am Fri. for you Laurie in colorado.

2:10am Fri. for Luke Robinson and Verne

3:10am Fri. for Eulaha in New York

Lord bless.

- Matt

Matt,

    Since only 3 people voted out of 292, that means that almost 99% of the people didn't choose to vote.

Dear Laurie :)
  An unfair poll as the questions are rigged.  I could not select any of the options.

Heather,
   I don't think MGov was suggesting that Laurie was not saved because of her position, but she was trying to discover if Laurie accepted the Bible as authoritative.  This would be important to the discussion for obvious reasons.

Re. the topic:
  I will probably surprise many by saying that I don't have a problem with women "preachers" and have heard a couple who were very gifted.  
  The topic is somewhat confusing as there are passages that support women excercisng the gift of prophecy (daughters of Phillip) in the church and women who were involved in church "business" (Phoebe).
  Of course the whole concept of "submission" was perverted by the Assembly; submission to leaders and wives to husbands.  There were those who ignored the teaching/practice of the Assembly and had wonderful marriages, but that was inspite of the instruction.
                                   God Bless,  Mark

I think women preachers are awesome.  I watch on the Christian channel all the time, and let me tell you-what they have to say is biblically sound and very challenging.  Because of dealing with George and the l.b.'s from SLO for almost nine years, I'm kinda turned off by men preachers.  Maybe because off all the control and submission required of the women, je ne sais pas... ???

Matt, yes, you have me figured out! I'm willing to pretend that I'm 10 years younger, I will move to California, I'll forgive everything out of your mouth, and I won't ask you to slit your throat.
Love,
Laurie.

It's too late to turn back now!

(sings): I believe, I believe, I believe I'm falling in love

Matt, you are too funny. I wasn't even thinking about that song. Do you like oldies? How did you know that song?

Hey Laurie,

You are preaching to the wrong choir. Most of these people have been taught that women don't matter. In their eyes we are second class citizens. If that wasn't true, so many people would not have turned their backs on the women that were being abused in this gathering. We have all witnessed preaching in the assembly that no one could make heads or tails on. Preaching mind you, done by men! While women were reduced to only teaching the children or possibly open air preaching. It's a good thing we don't look at the bible for our examples....

I mean, George is a man and look where it got us! So God forbid if the man is wrong and the woman is right, who ya going to listen to??

Heide C. Johnson

JUST SENDING YOU THIS TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THIS TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION.

I hate to say it, I learned more by Women's Bible Studies than Pastor's message, it not to say I havent Learned from the pulpit too.  Women teaching/preaching, there is more (maybe) true ........
Thank you:

 :)

Sorry,

I won't be able to vote, since I'll be going to the church down the street!

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog First Class

December 3 at 2:50 pm Arnprior

 :)I would vote but I am north of border.

Did anyone read in the Newspaper. For me it was today December 3rd Ottawa Citizen.
About the Methodist have a trial within their own ranks, and deflocking a woman minister for being a practicing homosexual.

The incident was location in on the states and an American Decision.

Any comments of what  you have read.

Actually. I don't at all mind women preachers...so long as, along with preaching men, they have lived a holy life. I would not for example, place too much stock in the ramblings of an adulteress...
Verne
p.s. this does not mean that I believe christian women should be leading their husbands around with a nose ring... :)

This whole issue is one that I wish I could talk to the apostle Paul to determine what he was thinking.  When he writes in a letter to one group that women are to be silent in church and then to another group that they may pray and prophecy as long as they cover their heads, was he dealing with a specific cultural situations in these churches or was he laying down a timeless principle for all churches that transcends time and culture?

For example, when it comes to women covering their heads, the vast majority of churches interpreted it as cultural that has little application outside the specific circumstances in Corinth (a women uncovered is not looked upon as a temple prostitute today).   While Jesus and Paul spoke of literal wine in the Lord's supper, most see it as a cultural drink and have no problem using grape juice today (which is more accepted in our American-churchy culture than actual wine).  Even when Paul told Timothy to use a little wine for his ailments, we don't interprete this as "God's blueprint for healing for all churches" but an off hand remark dealing with a specific situation.  In short, we tend to "pick and choose" what we feel is cultural and what is a universal mandate.

What makes the issue even harder is what we call "church" is so different than what Paul called church.  While it is commonly accepted that women can teach in children's ministries, the elders at my church got into a discussion as to whether or not a woman can teach the college ministry (they concluded no because they are technically adults and the woman, a University professor, who wanted to teach left feeling she had nothing to offer).  The whole concept of "college ministry" Sunday school would never even have entered Paul's mind and he may not have had any problem with it.

I am not arguing one way or the other.  I just confess that I have always been rather confused on this issue.  On a personal level, I haven't heard too many women preachers and most I didn't care for (Kay Auther drives me nuts with her constantly calling me "beloved"), but then there are skilled women such as Elizabeth Elliot (who I do like) and Heneretta Meers who have done a fine job.

Ah, but brethren, consider the convenience of the universal mandate!  In the assembly, there was no gnarly dispute over these matters-- it was all spelled out:  the leaders led and the followers followed;  the assembly was right and everyone else on the face of the earth was wrong.  What could be more blissfully simple?

Or is it possible that some among us think that the Lord intends for us (yet today!) to search the scriptures to discern and know whether or not these things are so?  To determine through an active and immediate relational involvement with our Father in heaven, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, each and every question and crisis that arises?  Why, the very idea implies that God lives, that He hears, even listens to, and cares what happens with His people!  Praise and thanks be to God it is ever so!

al

Like most questions of spiritual stewardship, it is a question I believe of God's gift and calling.
 
When I see a anyone, with great presumption, intruding themselves into holy things which they ought not and,  with self-proclaimed righteousness, I go:

"Uh Oh!"

One such deluded individual who shall remain nameless, has duly informed us of her "prophetic" prowess.
I guess being large and in charge of her domestic dormicile was insufficient ( Oh I know she has assured us that he is in charge...mmmppfff!! ) so that she also had to erect one in cyberspace. Contemptible fraud!  :)
This sort of course cannot endure the society of real men and so have to find solace in the company of pimple-faced  and anti-social juveniles. What a riot!
BrassWall's assessment was right on the money (the jilted female syndorome).
Luckily for me I was able to snatch some most insightful comments before they were summarily deleted. Truth patrol huh?
Maybe I will repost a little bit of real truth   ;D
 
Isn't it amazing that some people who don't even have the maturity, spiritual or otherwise, to maintain a stable and godly marital realtionship can think that God has called them to be prophets and prophetesses?
Heaven help us!   :)
Verne
p.s.  There is something really forced- sounding about Kay Arthur's teaching, although I have never actually  heard her say anything that I disagreed with to my knowledge.

Folks,

There is a poll box at the top of this thread.  I just noticed it.

It asks us to vote about whether we would prefer to hear Matt or Laurie preach.

This reminds me of the logical fallacy of Complex Question.  This is a question like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

If you say "yes" or "no" you lose, because of the structure of the question.

Whoever put this poll question up needs to add an option....."Neither".

Thomas Maddux

Verne,

You said:

You seem to see people in good/bad terms.  When I read the above I thought, "What does he do with David?"

David was a prophet...Acts 2:30, a revelator of God's word...Heb 4:7, an example of faithfulness...Heb 11:32, a man after God's heart.

Yet David was a bloody man, an adulterer, and arranged the murder of Uriah the Hittite.  He also had multiple wives, and allowed idols in his house!  One of them was so big that he hid it in his bed to deceive the servants of Saul.  In addition, his kids were a mess and under his indulgent rule committed rape, murder and rebellion.

David, quite frankly, far exceeded the evils of George Geftakys!

How do you reconcile these two sides of David's life?  He displayed both a passion for God and passions that led him into heinous crimes against God an man.

Hmmmmmmm.   ::)

Thomas Maddux

All George needs now is for Nathan to visit him eh?? :-\

Marcia

Would I love to see that!

Thomas Maddux

Don't forget about Hosea and Gomer!  :)
Of course she never claimed to be a prophetess now did she?
You make an excellent point. So far as I know George Geftakys did not have anyone murdered.
You are also probably keenly aware that I speak of the standard of a new dispensation and that is the one in which we are presumably indwelt by the Spirit of God.
The fact of the matter is though, apart from God's grace we are all scounderels of the same ilk as the son of Jesse are we not?  :)
Verne
p.s. If someone came up to you and claimed to be prophet today, (forget about philandering and adultering for the moment), what proofs of such an exalted standing would one reasonably require?  :)
I trust  we would look askance at someone we knew to be a murderous, philandering, adulterous, bigamous liar would we not? Of course we don't have any record of David being a liar.
He quickly acknowledged his sin when confronted and did not spend decades pretending to be what he was not.
Maybe that is the difference?  ;D

But the thing that George had done displeased the Lord.

Nathan:  There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.
 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:
 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.  And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.


George:  As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.


Nathan:  Thou art the man.


George:  HOW DARE YOU SPEAK AGAINST THE LORD'S SERVANT???!!!!

...or something like that...
Verne

I believe you've nailed it Verne.

I know a sister, whom Tom knows, and a women preacher in keeping with this thread, who spoke to George about making things right with God's people.  She got a "don't preach at me!!!" response.

Marcia

There is no Biblical example of any true servant of God who failed, or even delayed to repent when confronted with their sin.
There are some who made a show of repentance but were rejected nontheless. It was too late. God has apparently hardened the heart of Geftakys.
The man is a type, intended for our warning.

The men who served with George Geftakys will bear witness that he received entreaty from nobobdy and certainly not from them. Samuel claims that he and Roger on many occasions pleaded with the man but is that all they are going to offer their Lord and Master?
That they pleaded?!
Paul says he withstood Peter to his very face!
What you had were boys pretending to be men.
By the way, I am a little sad to hear some of the things they are saying about Billy Graham's comments on the recently released tapes of Nixon conversations. Particularly his apparent denial of things now proven to be the case.
The man has served long and well so I certainly do not begrudge him his salary but I think his critics have been given an opening on the matter of the minstry's lavish support of his kids.
I still have the two checks a little CMA church wrote me from a number of years back when I visited them after the pastor left...just couldn't cash 'em....didn't seem right to get paid for opening the Scriptures...no criticism intended of others mind you...
 
Verne

I would suggest that you should not be so hasty to judge.  Politicians at that level are master manipulators.  Conversing with them is a lot like speaking with the devil himself.

It's possibile that moments after he had spoken, he had corrected his wording, thus accounting for his lapse of memory of the first form of his words.

Another possibility is that he was somehow tricked into using the wrong word in such a way that he himself thought that he was using one word, and a different word came out without his realizing it.  People who are masters of psychological manipulation know how to do such tricks.

I don't think I am. I would not have said a word had I not actually read the transcript. It is hard to explain away what was said. I don't know how many people were aware that they were being recorded.
When the books are finally opened, sex and money will undoubtedly be found to have been the achilles heel of many a man of God. Many mighty have been slain...
Verne

p.s it is a painful lesson for many of us to learn that just because a man loves Christ and serves Him does not mean He is without imperfection. I think there is a great difference between studied and unrepentant wickedness, and easily besetting sin, to which all of us are subject. I noticed that Graham has already apologised for the remarks he made.

I know this is off the topic, but just my two cents since I work for Graham's organization and their kids went to the same high school as my son:
I would say that the Grahams live very well off, comperable to any CEO of a large organization, but I'm not sure I would use the word lavish.   Good colleges are not a problem for his kids, one is at West Point, one has a decent job at BGEA, another went to seminary and is preaching at youth rallies (saw his picture in Decision magazine so I assume he is being groomed a bit for the spotlight) - so they will all get a nice step up, if you will.

Last October another programmer and I drove down to Charlotte in the SP company car - one that used to belong to Franklin.  It was very, very nice, well equipped, and probably burned more gas than if we drove our private cars.  In short, a very nice SUV.  On the other hand, it wasn't lavish - we are not talking limos or air-conditioned doghouses, or crystal churches, or huge gala parties that I am aware of.

On the other hand, the kids have to work.  Though they have special access to the President's office (read "Daddy") and tend to rise through the ranks quicker, they still pretty much have to do a job starting in the maintenance (read "mow the lawn" and "assemble office furnature") department.   While some of the Graham kids are very nice and likable and others are snobby, they are all well trained to be respectful and polite.  Wish I could say that about my kids.

Thanks for the insight Dave. I do not think that what the Grahams do is in any way dishonorable. I was simply making the point that for those involved in any kind of ministerial work, whether we like it or not, the scrutiny is harsher, the expected standards are higher. I think James Dobson has been a stellar example of a man who understands the potential problem.  He does not take a penny from the FOTF organization. I know not everyone can do this, but I personally would not go into full time ministry unless I had the means to fully support myself without use of ministry funds. Just a personal opinion.
Having served as one-time treasurer of my church, I can tell you the pitfalls are many and subtle...
Verne
p.s Franklin receives around 600,000.00 from the organization yearly, an amount substantially greater than his father...

This, too, is a bit off the topic of the thread, but may fit in with the general trend of the conversation:

Do you think that a part of identifying the servants of Christ by their fruits is possible and/or advisable by our evaluating their verbal conversation?  For example, by how much of what they say is punctuated or emphasized by their use of the personal pronouns I, me, my?  

In light of such passages as ...out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks Mt.12:34; see also Lk.6:45, and ...where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Mt.6:21; Lk.12:34, does the focus upon the self-view (one's emphasizedly personal perspectives, attitudes, history and actions) indicate an egocentricity, rather than Christ-centeredness?

The question is sincere, and not intended to compare Christian commentators (on or off this board) among one another.  Is our Lord pleased with our recitations to others about what "I" think and do; do these proclamations honor and exalt Him alone, and are such expressions among the fruits by which we may recognize his true disciples?

al

Different ministries certainly have different philosophies.  We are not a "starve for Jesus" organization (Ariel comes to mind).  Though this wasn't true when I arrived, I make pretty comperable to what a computer programmer would make in the area in the secular world with vacation, 401K, medical, etc.  Other ministries such as Campus Crusade pay bare survival levels and then require each person to raise their own salary.  Again, my personal experience here is that they take care of their employees well, but not lavishly.

Since the information is propriatary (I don't even have full access to it and if I did I really would have to keep it to myself), I can't conform or deny the $600,000 claim.  What I have heard from a source (Carolina business review) is that his salary is much lower (more $100,000 range) so the amount could include business expense reimbursements, gifts, etc.  But, then its not like Franklin and I hang out together or even chat.

Again, from personal observation (which is very limited) of seeing them around the community and at work, I have seen a ministry that doesn't skimp and does things well but isn't necessarily overdone or lavish.

I'll tell you one thing I have learned from all this, Verne.  I certainly don't want to be in the "high profile Christian celebrity club"!

I hear ya man.
The thing I really like about CMA is the way they fully support their missionaries in the field.
These folk can devote their time fully to reaching the unsaved with the gospel message.
If there is a bit of bias in my viewpoint it may be because in this country we have been blessed with such abundance.
I think the rank and file of the church itself could do a better job of spreading the gospel message and I am especially conflicted about young people in the U.S. who use the better part of the funds they raise to pay living expenses while in full time ministry. I guess each situation is different.
Verne
I am a bit surprised that the salaries of officers of an organization that accepts contributions from the general public would be considered "prvileged" information. Transparency is important.
If they are members of ECFA (evangelical council for fiscal accountability), that info would be in the public domain.

One of the things that went on in the assemblies was the systematic undermining of authority of men to lead their families, despite the chauvinistic facade. This apparently was Betty's specialty.
You had one incredible situation of a brother having his  own wife as chief steward over the entire household.
You can take people out of the assemblies but it is not always possible to take the assembly out of people.
Two erstwhile sisters on this very BB a few months back grabbed me by by the throat and practically ordered me not discuss a matter at the church where I was an elder and chairman of the governing board. One sternly informed me that she had indeed talked to everyone involved!
Talk about cojoneros!
As Malcolm X says, if somebody grabs you by the throat, you should do your best to make sure they grab no one else... ;D
Verne

Actually, you may be probably right on that as we are a ECFA member (Dr. Graham was a part of starting this).

We just got a new payroll system and I wrote some programs to help with electronic transfer, retirement, etc.  Only a couple of people are allowed access to use the system and I wasn't one of them.  It made for interesting times to try and develop and debug a program on a system that you can't use. :o

(OK, in fairness we have a test environment with bogus data, but there were times it would have been useful to use the real thing).

Al,

I think it would behoove you to ask another question:  "Does the above post reveal an unhealthy tendency to subjectivism and/or legalistic thinking?"

Our own inner thought life is the only one we have direct access to.  If we don't state our own perspectives, we can't really say anything at all.  This is true for everyone.

Even when we speak of the Bible or someone else's writings, it still must pass through our own mental process, and so becomes, "what I think".

So it seems to me that it is the intent of the individual's heart that matters, not the frequency of personal pronouns.  God is the judge of our hearts.  

Tom

You cannot err with transparency; in this case even at the expense of confidentiality. At our church everything is put on paper for all eyes to see.
I am surprised that you as a programmer don't get to work with the real bananas...that is ususally a given  :)
Verne
p.s don't tell me that they don't trust you for that is unthinkable... :)



Whew!! Mr Moderator I am sure glad you fielded that one.
I would have been likely to spout a Yogi Berra-ism like:

"Al if you don't feel comfortable expressing an opinion nobody is stopping you."

Your response was much more moderator-like...thanks!  :)
Verne

The issue with the payroll system is that I would see EVERYBODY's information including salary, medical information, who pays child support, etc.  so due to legal privacy laws, these are kept to the few individuals who need to have the information.  I am pretty confident that we (Samaritan's Purse) play by the rules as we have double accountability for all our day's entry (bank deposit and data entry must match and are done by two different groups), closed incoming mail room with security cameras, and we are audited by both internal and external auditors at least annually.  

I didn't want to imply that information was kept secret.  Its just with payroll, there are folk's privacy issues mandated by law that we must honor as well.   Yes, it would have been easier if I had the real stuff and I've been in my share of "if you want us to work on your database, you are going to have to trust us" discussions, but I was able to get things done.   There was one person in our department who was designated as being able to log into the system so she did my testing for me.

Accountability and security is not necessarily "everyone sees everything", but making sure the right people see it and enough people see it so that you have an honorable process.  And making sure that the wrong people don't see it.  The guy who cuts the grass doesn't need to know how much I make.  Though, your point is well taken that the ministry officer's salary is probably public and may even be in our year-end statement.

Twenty years ago, I told Tom Maddux what I made and I don't think he ever forgave me. ;)

I agree. I should have qualified my comment to restrict it to the matter of how the Church itself spends the treasury, and not how its employees spend their wages. Obviously that is no one else's business.






'Dem are fighting words buddy!  ;D
Verne

You've got me to gnawing at this question and I am still not completely satisfied with the answers I have considered. I wondered what you thought the answer was?
Obviously those of us who are saved know that we too love the Lord Jesus Christ and want to serve Him faithfully, but that does not always prevent us from committing serious transgressions.
Romans 7 partly explains it, but not fully.
Like Brent, I am fairly confident that I would never be unfaithful to my wife...I am not so sure about ghosting somebody though....

JUST KIDDING FOLKS... JUST KIDDING!   :)

(as some of you no doubt are aware, I have been referred to as the "murdering Calvinist"...  ;D)

But seriously, I think people despise George Geftakys not so much for his many weaknesses as for his stunning hypocrisy. David’s reaction to the story Nathan told is quite revealing. He was immediately righteously indignant and no doubt was quite sincere:
Some poor schmuck was going to die for doing what Nathan described and David was going to see to it.
(was David a "murdering Calvinist?  ;D)
Sin blinds us to our own condition, even when it is presented to our very faces.
Remember the malevolence with which George greeted the news that his grand-daughter was with child out of wed-lock?. You would think from his reaction that the man had been personally sodomized by  prison thugs. He trumpeted near and far that this child would never be his grandchild. This from a man who had apparently had multiple affairs, and had polluted the innocence of young women who trusted him as their spiritual leader, to say nothing of  loving to have the wives of leading brothers rub his stinky feet.

Why were they touching this cretin??!!
That alone should have been a red flag to any dumbkopf
The man is an unholy monstrosity.
This kind of vicious, prideful and vindictive wickedness was apparently shared by his darling wife, who took it upon herself to try and drive a wedge between a couple, who are friends of mine, who decided to provide shelter for their daughter who had made some bad decisions. In the exact moment when this child was most desperately in need of the display of the divine love instilled in parents for children, even way-ward ones, her royal highness Betty Geftakys would have had these parents throw this young girl out on the streets, and in so doing countermanding the wishes of her husband. These were your mentors folk. Anybody still pining for days gone by?!
Verne

p.s. my sneaking suspicion is that the life of David is intended to teach us that, passion for God notwithstanding, look what a man after God's own heart is capable of...should be a warning to us to be careful yes?
Was Solomon any worse? His legacy of course is that he was half-hearted...

Lesson? : Just because you have a heart for God does not mean that you will never screw-up and do so royally!

Application?: Repent!....and do so quickly!!  :)

Result? All will be recovered...  :)  :)  :)

Tom, Verne, and All,

As usual, I have failed to express my question in a manner that could not be misinterpreted and misunderstood...  It's almost enough to make me question my own infallibility! :o ::) ;D

To clear the air, let me confess that I have always had an unhealthy leaning toward subjectivity and legalism (such as are common to man), and I try to stay aware of those tendencies in all I do and say.  For that reason I am grateful for such responses as Tom's and Yogi's, er, Verne's ;)-- Part of the workings of the body of Christ is that we help one another to be honest and humble.

Nevertheless, my question stands unaddressed.  

This BB has often hosted the statement "by their fruits you shall know them," with accompanying expansions of opinion.  Most of us probably recognize by now that adultery, fornication, thievery, deceitfulness, murder, blasphemy, etc. are recognizable fruits on the negative side of the scale.  On the other hand, Paul tells us in 1Cor.13:1-3 that a brother or sister may manifest every sort of good quality in action and yet be without love...

So, once again:  In seeking to know one by one's fruits, how are we to account for those forms of verbal conversation that appear to "talk down" toward us, that seem to emphasize the vastness of the speaker's knowledge while implying the listener's ignorance, that give the impression of exalting the speaker's holiness/righteousness by recitations that suggest they exceed those of the listener?

Of course we can always choose the low road, chastening ourselves for our "unkind" attitude toward the speaker, and assuring ourselves that the problem must lie within me.  That was how George taught us to deal with any doubts we might have about what he or his henchmen said.  They were, after all, the Lord's chosen servants and any conflict we might have with them or their manners indicated that it was our hearts (never theirs!) that were wrong.

So, assuming for the moment that my heart is not right, and that I am steeped in subjectivity and legalism, someone please tell how the rest of you consider a person's speaking manner in determining the nature of their fruits.  (After which, I will appreciate your prayer and counsel in getting my own heart right... :-\)

Thanks & God bless,
al


P.S.-- In case anyone is wondering whether I am personally applying this question to posters on this board:  There is no situation anywhere that I can think of in which the question does not apply...

Are you saying that you don't like tone of some posters on this BB?

IMHO:

1.  Inquire and address the poster directly in response to the offensive post.
2.  It is difficult to really pinpoint the tone on a BB.
3.  Sift through the tone and discover what the person is saying and respond to what the person is saying.
4.  Even if someone has an offensive tone, this BB may be the opportunity for that person's growth in knowledge and attitude.
5.  Even if someone has an offensive tone, it may be just what I need to jog me out of my fog of deception.
5.  Even if someone has an offensive tone, I put up with a lot worse under the "guidance" and "testing" of the Geftakys-system, so...
6.  Read Matt 23.  If I had met the Lord Jesus only on that particular day, I probably would have said that He was not very Christ-like ;) eh??  Here He was gossipping about the leaders, and calling them names like white-washed tombs and vipers and...  And then another day He takes out a rope and turns over the merchants' table.  2000 years later however, I see instead the fruit of His ministry.

God bless,
Marcia

This will be my last attempt at asking this particular question...

If I were complaining about some poster or posters on this board, I would either [1.] address them personally or [2.] name them publicly, depending on the circumstances.

But I am asking what I consider to be a relatively simple question:  Is a saint's comportment important?  Would you choose a deacon or a Sunday school teacher who has a solid marriage and no police record even if he or she is consistently rude and inconsiderate?  We're not talking table manners here, but everyday common speech...

Sure, there are people whose posts irk me sometimes, and I have no doubt that my manner (perfect as it is ::) ;D) rubs others the wrong way.  But that's life, and has nothing to do with the question which, once again, is not about acceptance of another based upon their confession of Christ, but about trusting in the leadership of someone arrogant.  Please read it once again:  

     Is a saint's comportment important?  Would you choose a deacon or a Sunday school teacher who has a solid marriage and no police record even if he or she is consistently rude and inconsiderate?

Please don't think me ungrateful for all the free psychoanalyses, but would someone just answer, or at least discuss, the question?  Or are you saying, Marcia, that I have to wait 2000 years for an answer ??? ;D

God bless,
al

Dave wrote,

What Dave is talking about is a conversation we had when he lived next door to me.  He was considering getting married, and was telling me why he thought it was a wise idea.

One of the things he told me was how much he was making.  As you all know, we tend to keep that particular piece of information pretty private.  

So when he told me, a mid-career public school teacher, what he made I was taken aback a little.  He was just out of college and was already making more than I did.

He is correct, though, in his "belief" that I have not forgiven him.   ;)

There was never anything to forgive.

Thomas Maddux

Well....er...
Verne




Umm....Well....
Verne



A saint's comportment is important. (so is his deportment  :))

Do  you mean "consistenly rude and inconsiderate"  according to your previous  above quoted definitions...?
Verne


YIKES!!! I AM ALMOST AT A THOUSAND POSTS! I GOTTA STOP!!  ;D

Tom may owe me a cup of coffee for that conversation.

I have a feeling that in the back of his mind during this conversation was something like "nuts on all this 'faithfull to all the meetings' junk.  I'm going to take some of those teacher continuing education classes and jump up a couple of pay notches."   Of what I understand, by his retirement, he made up for some lost time and income.

For what it's worth, he probably paid a lot more in taxes than you did. Moving from five to six figures is dicey business... ;D




This is very serious business Dave. My stint in the assemblies conservatively cost me a couple hundred kilo-bucks.

Paul Hohulin, God bless him, jolted me our of my stupor by asking:


"What are you doing washing dishes with a graduate degree in Chemistry??!!"

My idea of living a life of humility.

It shows how confused and misguided some of us became doesn't it?
Verne

How can anyone of spiritual discernment and moral uprightness argue that Christian people should extend to George Geftakys the acknowledgement accorded a brother in Christ?
This is spiritual perversion of such frightful enormity as to be alltogether incomprehensible.
Was it not the decades long error of presentation of this man as “The Lord’s Servant”  
that legitimized his authority over so many, and facilitated the havoc wreaked in so many precious lives? It is the same deception of some who now feign Christian piety and employ it as a cloak of maliciousness to ply their evil wares.
May the Almighty requite it!
In view of the evidence before us, a defence of George Geftakys, and maligning of those who condemn him is high irony.
This is the same spirit which will in the end insist that Christians give their allegiance to the Anti-Christ.
It is an unholy spirit -you would be doubly foolish to heed its siren call.
While this man remains in his unrepentant and defiant state, there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for receiving him in the fellowship of believers.
To suggest otherwise is perverted, unholy, and blasphemous.
Ye know not what spirit ye are of...
Verne

p.s people who have compromised their faith, and apostasized invariably will diminish and dismiss the holiness of God. Out of a fond hope of the mitigation of their own sin, they will wax eloquent about God's love and tolerance to the exclusion of His terrible and awesome majesty. These will excuse wickedness, denigrate those who stand for righteousness, and with brazen face clothe themselves in a supposed mantle of godliness, not at all seeing their nakedness, and their poverty, and their shame...!

p.p.s What a pathetic and patent liar she is: she doesn't dspise Verne!
Since her BB was launched, how many of her posts werre dedicated to hurling invective, slander and bile in my direction?
I at least have the courage of my convictions and I do despise her.
Why?
Because she is a false teacher and utterly currupt that is why.
Just like her mentors George and Betty Geftakys!

Thanks, Verne, for taking me seriously, and please  include "deportment" within the scope of the question.

As to your question:  No.  I mean would you, according to your definitions...  and should I, according to mine...

I am not seeking an ironclad rule by which to dictate, but opinions.  The original question had not to do with the validity of opinion-stating, but with attitudes: self-exaltation, demeaning of others (comportment & deportment).

---

---

How right Paul was!  You would have got them much cleaner by using a soapy dishcloth.  Besides, didn't the degree tend to get soggy?! ;D ;D ;D

Blessings,
al

Well, since I did not pose the question I will pass on giving you any definition of what I consider rude and inconsiderate. The terms are far too vague and do not appear in the list of qualifcations for spiriutal leadership.
As to your own choice, since when does any one person's assessment of any individual determine whether or not they are fit for spiritual service?
There are some men in authority to whom I would not subject myself and my family. That does not mean that they are not called to service. That decision is entirely a function of the community in which they  serve and certainly not any one individual's call.
Bottom line?
You do what you think the Lord wants you to Al.
It really is always that simple my friend.
Verne

Hi Al, :)

All churches have problems and all people have problems, so there are no rules.  We do know that the fruit of Geftakys ministry has shown it to be a spiritually abusive system set up to elevate the egos of the superior race of Geftakys servants.  That kind of system the Lord rebuked.

Any minister that cannot tolerate questioning re. his ministry would be suspect in my books.  You now have the freedom to inquire of those in your church.  I often do at my church and the leaders are ready and willing to respond.

God bless,
Marcia

Genuine lambskin my man!  (but you knew that!)  :)
Verne

Several days ago Tom Maddux raised the example of  David and postulated that the evils he perpetrated far exceeded anything George Geftakys had done.
The implication was of course that since the Scriptural record confirms that David was a man after God’s own heart yet committed such wicked deeds, could not the same case be made regarding George Geftakys, whose deeds were arguably less wicked?
Is it not possible that George Geftakys was indeed a man who had a true passion for God, yet like king David, in periods of great weakness, permitted darker passions to over-rule?
Tom raised a legitimate point and prompted considerable reflection on my part.

Could indeed the case be made that the sin of George Geftakys is akin to the sin of king David?

Most people who have considered this issue have of course immediately responded that any such comparison is entirely illegitimate because  the manner in which both of these men responded when confronted with their sin was so remarkably different.
David repented immediately and accepted God’s judgement for his sin.
George Geftakys refused to acknowledge his transgression and contemned the spiritual leadership he himself had appointed.
This argument I agree is unassailable and quite conclusive.
No true servant of God would do what George Geftakys has done.

I challenge anyone to provide a single Biblical or historical example!

Having said that the larger question remains – is it possible that despite the wicked things he has done, that George Geftakys, like king David, is a man who truly had a passion for God? In other words, could the case be made that since the deeds committed by George Geftakys at least on the surface, appear less wicked that those of David, is he therefore less culpable?
I will readily confess that when Tom first raised that possibility, I spent many hours wondering whether perhaps I had been altogether too harsh on George Geftakys.
After all, so far as we know the man is not guilty of murder as David was.
I believe as I have prayerfully searched my own heart and looked again in the Word of God for answers to these perplexing questions, I have once again arrived at a settled disposition on this question.
Forget for a moment that the evidence suggests that George Geftakys was always an apostate, even prior to the assemblies. Forget for the moment the evidence that suggests that he had remained defiant, even after being disciplined by other gatherings of God’s people for serious sin in his life, and that he refused to confess it.
Forget for a moment his subsequent behaviour clearly shows that not only did he refuse to confess his sin, he also refused to repent of it. Can the case still be made that we ought to consider him, like David, a man with a passion for God who merely has temporarily fallen in a state of sin?
As I lay in bed thinking about this matter, a verse of Scripture came to mind with such power and authority as to forever settle this issue in my own mind.


Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
  And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Those of you making the case that George Geftaksy should be considered to be a brother in Christ, are damning him to far greater condemnation than if he were a pagan!


It suddenly dawned on me what the frightful error of Tom Maddux’s analogy was.

There is not a single character in the Old Testament record, who could possibly bear the same degree of culpability as we do, to obey the truth of the gospel!!!!

These men and women looked forward to the fulfillment of the promises.
We look back.
With specific regard to the coming of the Messiah to bear the sins of the world, they walked by faith.
With regard to this we walk by sight. We live in the aftermath of the death and post-resurrection glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
With regard to enabling to do God’s will, in time past , men and women depended on the visitation of the Spirit of God..
We now have the Spirit dwelling within.

I could go on interminably.

It is not possible, in view of what the Scripture teaches us, for any present-day believer to be remotely on par with saints of the Old Covenant period insofar as culpability for sin and disobedience is concerned.


It would be a frightful indictment of George Geftakys to deem him a saved man.

My reflections of this has really sobered me my friends.

I am taking some time to reflect.

I need the grace and mercy of God in my own life far more that I realized.
Pray for me.


And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

In His love,
Verne

Nebuchadnezzar, but even he REPENTED.


I have a question about this one. In David's prayer, after his realization of his sins, he prayed: ...and take not thy Holy Spirit from me...

What you are saying, Verne, is that since we have the indwelling of the spirit, that we were given more than the OT saints, and that we are more responsible for sin than they were?

Verne,

My suggestion would be that you spend some time reflecting on the question: "Why do I invest so much of myself in this issue"?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Al,

You said,


We are to account for them by recognizing: 1. No one is without sin, including ourselves. 2. It is very difficult to discern someone's motives by evaluating the "tone" of printed statements on a BB. 3. Our own degree of sensitivity determines what we find offensive. 4. That we need to extend the same degree of grace to others that we wish to have extended to ourselves.  5. Being overly concerned about this is neither useful nor profitable.  If someone offends you, tell him/her that in private.

Thomas Maddux

Hi folks!

  I don't know if I'm following the conversation here correctly, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with "Women preachers?"

  It seems to now involve speculation as to the eternal state of GG and comparisons have been made to "David's sin" as evidence that GG may just be a Christian who fell into a moment of weakness.

  David's sin does not provide a good comparison with the evil of G.G. because with George his sins were not just a momentary laspe, unless you consider a moment to span 30 years (or more?).

  Also, David repented, something GG has never come close to.    As I read the Bible we see all kinds of sins being committed  by individuals who were called by God (Adam, Noah, Abe., Jacob, Judah, Rahab, Peter, etc.) but at some point in their lives they owned up to their errors and turned away from them.

   Only God knows if GG may someday decide to come clean with his wicked past, but the fact that he still refuses seems to put him in the category of someone more like Judas than Peter.

  It would be great if he did repent, and there is still a chance for him to help those he spent years destroying.  However, until then, I consider him to be an opponent of Jesus Christ and capable of doing continued harm.

                                             God Bless,  Mark C.  

I said no true servant of Jesus Christ. Although it is true that God used this man for his own purposes (as He does with very life), by my definition he would not really qualify.





Good observation. Here is an interesting comment by Charles C Ryrie:

" The Holy Spirit did have a minsitry in Old Testament times...it was limited to certain  Israelites (except for the general ministry of restraining evil, which affected all men): and although He did dwell in, come upon, and sometimes fill men, He did not do these things universally or permanently, even in Israel. Too, He did not perform certain other ministries until the day of Pentecost"




This seems to me the principle that the Lord Himself invoked, yes.






You know the answer to that as well as I do.
Every man that was involved with George Geftakys, myself included, must have asked himself the question:

Could this happen to me?!

Your point is well taken though my friend.
It is indeed time to move on. Pray for me will ya?
Verne

I know what you were asking, but I couldn't resist making the comparison, especially since, I think, GG's behaviour more closely resembles this OT king who didn't even know the God of heaven.

King George, oops I mean, King Nebuchadnezzar was very proud and served himself.

King George, I mean, King Neb was filled with rage against Daniel & friends who dared to stand against him, and threw them into the firey furnace.

King Neb, I mean, King George excommunicated anyone who dared to stand against him.

King GG's wife told victims of his tyranny that they would BRING DOWN a world-wide ministry if they came out with the truth.

God brought down Nebuchadnezzar.

I find these passages to be particularly encouraging in the way that God kept the kingdom for Nebuchadnezzar and gave it back to him when Neb regained his sanity. God left the "stump of the tree" in the ground. He didn't forsake Neb or cut him down permanently, but gave him a chance for repentance. In the end, Neb regained all that he had before plus the added excellence of knowing God.

Thanks for answering my other questions.

Tom, Verne, Marcia, and all readers of this thread,

My sincere thanks for investing the time and prayer to help me out with my question.  In retrospect, my idea was ill-conceived, and may have seemed to some to be a time-waster.  My apology to all who feel their time was wasted while reading my posts and the replies they brought.  My own time, however, was well spent...

Mine was the attitude of someone who had sat on a splinter and was now seeking support from others in a class action suit against the chair maker.  In a word, my attitude was wrong.  Those who responded to my posts have helped me to realize that.  I do take to heart the counsel I am given and ask the Lord's help to receive His teaching from it (whether I like it or not).  Sometimes I'm a little slower than others in coming around...  Your patience is truly appreciated.

Gratefully in Christ,
al

I hold no position on the state of George's soul at any given point in time, except that, regardless of whether or not he has ever truly received Christ, he is presently in terrible danger of the Lord's judgment.

Whether his peril would be greater one way or the other, I do not know.  But I would not like to face his fate at this moment in either case.

As to these words of Verne's:

...consider Jonah.  This man was used of God in a mighty way, and even served as an illustrative type of the Redeemer that was to come.  To be sure, he prayed strongly from the depths of Sheol (by reason of his affliction).  Yet after his deliverance, he was as sour and pitiless as before, without compassion, refusing to agree with God and wishing to die rather than acknowledge his sin.

One must wonder why the Word of God cuts short the accounting of Jonah's life as it does.  He did not make the roster of Hebrews 11, unless he is namelessly included among "the prophets" (v.32h).

Jonah was not George, but Jonah was willing to allow over 120,000 souls die, and was not in the least pleased that God spared them...

Just something to chew on...

God bless,
al

His grace is sufficient...for you and for me...



Thanks for the alert Marcia. That article is quite encouraging and I wish I could talk to the author. I would argue that his experience is what should have been normative for every single assembly attendant who truly loved Jesus Christ, and who was led by the Spirit of the living God...how instructive!

"I shall never again willingly go into a situation, such as this training home, that limits my freedom. Freedom is too valuable a possession to be given in exchange for even the prospect of learning something. It would be better learned as a free man. But the Lord knows this, and veiled this fact from me before he brought me here to teach me valuable lessons. I'm still not sure yet what they are."

This brother really understands the gospel. I predict that he will be greatly used of God. As to other lessons? none needed!  :)


Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.



Anytime.
There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar knew the path of righteousness and then turned from it. While he witnessed the remarkable deliverance of Shadrach and company, his response to that experience was apparently only lip service.
George preached from the Bible for decades.
Do you think God intends to recover him as he did king Neb?
Verne

Verne

I realize that comparing King Neb to King GG is an imperfect match. Neb was not a believer and was not converted after Daniel's furnace survival.

I don't have a clue as to whether God intends to recover George and wondered if someone would conclude that that is what I was suggesting because of the comparison that I made. It is not.

The only similarities I see between King G and King Neb are the problems they have/had with pride, and that they both served themselves, and raged against anyone who dared to stand against them. It makes me realize again how serious is the state of King GG at this time, when one can compare him and his behavior to an unbeliever's.

Is he truly a believer if he can cause devastation in the lives of so many and yet remain aloof to the situation, especially to the situation caused in the lives of younger ones who were looking to him to be an example of what God's servant should be like.

The longer his refusal to make it right with those he offended, his refusal to answer to anyone for his behavior, and in essence, his refusal to repent, go on, the less likely it seems to me, that he will turn and repent.

The thing that touched me about Neb's conversion was that God took the time to work with a man as proud as Neb. Like Paul, King Neb had been severely persecuting the Lord's people without even knowing what he was really doing. (Interesting that Neb's son was done away with in one night, it seems because he had seen how God had worked in Neb's life, and still refused to humble himself before God.)

When I read the passages about King Neb, it gives me encouragement to know that if God spent all that time with Neb, to bring him around, that He is willing also to spend that kind of time to bring us back to him, also, when we take a wrong path.

 

It is an incredible fact that there was no man who ever lived, or who will live, that can ever wield more raw, undiluted power than King Neb. He was the incomparable, inimitable head of gold!
That is pretty amazing when you consider the awesome authority the Anti-Christ will have.
It makes one wonder why God chose to have mercy on King Neb but hardened the heart of Pharoah.
You are right about Belteshazzar in that he should have known better. Pharoah also saw repeated demonstrations of God's power but refused to relent.
I wonder if George really believed all that fiery rhetoric he would engage in about what was at stake? The possibility of "loosing out"?
"Missing God's best"?
How many people lay awake at night fretting about whether or not they would indeed be "overcomers"?
He was either a man of remarkable cynicism (suggesting that he never believed one word of it was the case), or if he does indeed believe it and did what he did,  he is someone God has cursed with insanity.
Whenever I think of George Geftakys, I think abour the verse that says:

 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Ssomebody asked why I "invested"  so much in this issue of Georgie boy.
I intend to hold him front and center in my own consciousness until the day I die- even if I stop talking about him.
There is a stupefying ruthlessness with which God will take a life that contemns, dishonors and mocks Him, and literally turn it into a by-word or a proverb. No doubt after all those years, Geftakys had convinced himself, as he had others, that he could get away with it.  Who is sufficient for these things?!

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

This verse unabashedly teaches that the lives some people live, God intends to be an object lesson to his children. We shoud thank Him for the likes of George Geftakys, and I am not joking.

God could not have given me a more terrifying incentive to truly pursue holiness. This is not a game, by any means. It is possible to make ship-wreck one's "faith".
The books of Hebrews and  2 Peter now literally blaze with new light for me personally in view of the life lived by the apostate Geftakys. I consider myself duly warned...
Verne

I agree with you. As you said in another post, people are thinking: Could the same thing happen to me?

How can we prevent the same thing from happening in our lives, or for that matter, in anyone else's? What events led to this happening in the first place? Will we be deceived again by someone else and how can we prevent it?

After all the "other preachers" bashing done by Porgie, I am still baffled that he can justify his own behavior to the point that he answers to no one. How could he have swindled so much money for such a long time? "Kristen"s story is not the first time that I heard that someone "reminded him of Betty when she was young".

Only a seared conscience could continue that kind of lifestyle for as long as Porge did, or, like you said, a case of genuine insanity.

And you're right. He's now an example to learn from.

If I am sometimes given to excess in my portrayal of Geftakys and his era, I can plainly and honestly state before God and men that the above considerations are my sole motivation


Some have inquired about the reasons I go on about this. It is clear that I consider what George did to be far more heinous than do some of my brethren. I am particularly harsh with people who defend and make excuses for George and the assembly system because the same kind of perverse reasoning that was used to legitimize this man, and dissuade people of conscience from taking a stand against him, is now being used in the aftermath to mitigate the seriousness of what happened, and to equate moral outrage at this with a lack of Christian charity. Talk about seared consciences!
Moral turpetude of this sort in people claiming religion is particularly damaging.
The greatest trouble of soul I have ever known personally, has been to look into the eyes of someone who feels that they have been betrayed by someone they trusted in spiritual leadership. It is an unspeakable agony that I would wish on no one.
I agree that there were many signs of George's moral corruption that should have been recognized by his peers, but then of course being an apostle he did not have any now did he?
I shall never again serve in any position of spiritual responsibility with men I do not admire in Christ. Never again!
We sometimes labor under the mistaken notion that God somehow needs our contribution.
He does not.
Verne

We have learned a few things from our involvement.
-  God did not fail to warn and get us out of state of deception.
-  Some of us aided and furthered the system by our own natural inclinations, and possibly needed to experience it, if only to discover that we want nothing of it.
-  It gives me a greater empathy for the wounded pilgrim, be is ex-Geftakysite or other.
-  I have a greater appreciation for the church I now attend.  Whereas I might have taken it for granted if I had simply attended it soon after getting saved.
-  This is a tragedy that should never have happened, especially for those whose faith has been so wounded by their experience.  We now have the ability to recognize the signs, and may it not happen again in any church that we attend.
-  Yes we could all be deceived again, but God is faithful.

How can we prevent it?
One safegaurd is to accept criticism prayerfully and with an open mind.  People tend to react to criticism and resort to self preservation and self justification and thus remain in the foggy state of deception.  On the other hand there are some critics who make statements like, "The sky is green", or "Geoge is the Lord's servant", or outrageous comments like that, to whom I do not give the time of day to.
Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?

Some people depend on their heritage to justify their stance, but that is not the true fruit of change and repentance.
Matt 3:7-10 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?  Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves,' We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.  And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire..."



Some of us admired and aspired to be like some of these Geftakys-servants :P :-[ :'( ???, if only for a season.

Marcia

Great post!



My point exactly Marcia. There was no crime in getting involved with the assemblies. The crime was in tolerating what went on there. I made the mistake of staying in a situation that clearly failed to meet the Biblical standard. I had all kinds of justification.
The Lord, just like with the assemblies, had to use stern measures to stir me to faithfulness. I am grateful for His correction.
Every man of God will ultimately face the fateful question:

"Am I serving God, or man?"

This is what ultimately separates the men from the boys when it comes to spiritual things in my opinion. When you have clear basis to question the integrity of men and women in spiritual authority and remain in that situation, you aid and abet their transgression, pure and simple.


Whether it has to do with our own example, or that of others, when we no longer qualify, we should have the grace to step aside. I will admit there was a brief period when I also admired Geftakys. I really did not know him, and I clearly lacked discernment.
Some people who knew him very well, continued to enable him.
That was the problem.
Verne