AssemblyBoard

Several of you have posed the question:
Why the obsession with laying culpability for the events in the assemblies so firmly at the feet of the leadership?
I will tell you whence the conviction.
I lay the blame for what happened to that flock squarely on the shoulders of the leadership because that is exactly where Scripture places it.
It is the God-given responsibility of elders in the local church to protect the flock from wolves, and particulalry from wolves in sheep's clothing. If I am ravaged by a wolf in the local church, I have no argument with the wolf-that is his job-I have a huge argument with the elders. I would want to know from them:
"Why didn't you protect me?"
I know some will say that the sheep are responsible for their own decisions. The Bible disagrees with you when it comes to wolves. There is no more solemn warning to spiritual leaders than the charge given by the apostle Paul to the Ephesian elders at Miletus:

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Acts 20:29-30

The reaction of the leadership to the crisis that engulfed the assemblies is most instructive. At the height of the maelstrom, one such individual in St. Louis simply had a letter of resignation read in his absence and advised the flock that he did not wish to be contacted. In view of the frightful allegations made against the standard bearer of the ministry they were associated with, the vast majority of them slunk away in silence.
No expressions of regret.
No provision for future shepherding of the flock.
No acknowldgement and renouncing of the heinous sins that were brought to light.
There were some exceptions. I found myself in the difficult position of having to retract statments made about one such leader in the Midwest. I was challenged on the BB to call him up and get my own answers to the questions I was asking. I am rarely willing to walk away from a challenge as regards matters of integrity. I requested a phone number and got deluged with responses. I dutifully made that call and was truly taken aback. Not only was there no proferring of lame excuses and denials, this well-known and widely respected brother was willing to receive entreaty about a number of issues I insisted needed to be made right. The follow-up was immediate and whole-hearted. This individual, while we still disagree about much, has nothing but my utmost respect and admiration. There were others who acted with integrity, including some here in Champaign, and others like Kirk Cesaretti and Danny Edwards.
Sadly, this has been by far the exception. The conduct of a man like George Gefatkys demanded the loud and unequivocal rebuke of all those associated with him, particularly those in leadership. Fullerton's letter of excommunication was a feeble gesture at best. This wicked man used a stewardship meant to be a covering for God's people to thoroughly corrupt the heritage of God.
There is no human court that will dispense adequate sanction for misdeeds that can only properly be considered as spiritual high treason. His fate will rest with the Almighty Himself:

If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
1 Cor. 3:17

Those of you formerly in leadership who have not settled accounts...what are you waiting for?
If George Geftakys were to repent and make amends tomorrow I would have to retract some of what I have posted on this BB. You men however, will find no release from the burden of responsibility you bear for the sad events that ocurred on your watch. Make it right.
Verne

Verne,
How in the world is it the leading brothers faults though? You said that the rest of us weren't protected. How could the leading brothers protect us from anything - they're just men. How could they protect you from George Geftakys? Think about it - how many times a year did he come to your assembly? 2, 3 at the most - and you're out in the midwest too, so probably less often.

People are looking for somebody to blame, and apparently leading brothers are the easiest target. The leading brothers cared for you more than GG did. Why do we so quickly forget all that LB's did for us? How would you expect them to react after they selflessly serve the saints and then suddenly everyone points fingers at them and says how horribly they were treated by the LB's? Do you think they are going to jump up and say "here i am, and here's my wife, and here's my children, go ahead and throw rocks and mud at us!". They have a duty to their family and they have a duty to protect their children from unwarranted wrath at the hands of disgruntled ex-assemblyites. The blame goes on George G. - not on leading brothers, sir.
- Matt

Verne,
How did the leading brothers "destroy and scatter" the sheep though? Seriously, sir - how? This passage is very precise when it comes to GG (adulterers and all), but how can this passage be applied to leading brothers?
- matt

Matt,

Are the leading brothers paying you off with excess cash from the Geftakys slush fund???  You've became their main spokesperson.

Bottom line is this, any leading brothers who knew  or chose not to know of the terrible sins that plagued the Geftakys ministry are scum of the earth.  Not coming to the defense of women who were being beaten or abused for fear of the wrath of Brother George is so weak.

End of story.

I'm not saying that all leading brothers are good. No, sir - that's ridiculous. I'm saying that they are not all "scum of the Earth" to use your phrase. I'm also saying that I can understand very much why they want to separate themselves from the assembly. Regarding the St. Louis incident that Verne brought up, how in the world would they know about the Geftakys crimes? They're 1,000+ miles away! And again, many people have selfishly and irresponsibly pinned blame on the same leading brothers who loved them and served them for years - why would the LB's want to expose their families to undue wrath?
- Matt
P.S. Tim G, this post will cost you 15$, sir.

Matt...I think we have some serious communication issues.  "Scum of the earth" was made in reference to the leading brothers who knew of the heinous crimes taking place and did nothing to stop it.

Believe me...There were people in St. Louis knew what was going on....

$15...you are getting off way to cheap!!!

Verne and Bluejay,
How can you be so sure the leading brothers knew about everything? Do you think George G brought up his sin regularly at these meetings? *Maybe* the leading brothers in and around Fullerton knew the extent - but how could the midwest/east coast/canadian/international assemblies know? They were not here (in CA) to see anything and why would they believe anything at the time said against George G if they hadn't see it themselves? Why would they believe it was anything more than gossip, slander, or hearsay? Yes hindsight is a nice thing, but it comes too late.

1 Cor 3:10-15
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The Lord burns away all our iniquity and impurities. What is left - the good things, the Godly things, the Holy things, the things we did to further the Kingdom - those are what He remembers. So why are so many saints "burning away" from their minds all the acts of love of the leading brothers. They are doing the exact opposite of the Lord! They are only looking at the wrongdoings. Take for example that person who emailed us about the leading brothers in STL. These leading brothers did A LOT to serve this brother and he shamelessly sends out that email slapping them in the face. Is that Christ-like? We as saints also have a "God-given" responsibilty to be thankful to the leading brothers who served us for years. Lord bless.
- Matt

Eph 1:15-16
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,  

Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;  

The first paragraph is a personal attack at Matt, and is unnecessary.  It does not encourage open communication.

With regards to the second paragraph, I personally know of 2 LBs who 'stood up' to GG on various issues.  Those that didn't need to repent or else God will expose their sin eventually.  My husband (not a LB) also did not 'go with the flow' so...  Other LBs were just not part of it all and were genuine shepherds.


I agree with you that all the LBs did not know about everything.  Some knew about DGs issue and did not do anything about it.  But I doubt that any knew of GGs adultery (I could be wrong on this).   It was a total surprise to us.

M

The system could not have survived without their complicity? No, sir - true perhaps in theory, but not practice. In practice (aka reality), the system could not survive when GG's sin was made to known to everyone (including the leading brothers). That's why so many assemblies disbanded and so many saints left fellowship. Again, how could the saints in the midwest/east coast/canada/etc. know what was going in Cali? They weren't here to witness anything firsthand. A lot of the saints in San Diego had absolutely no idea what was going 2 hrs north of us, how could the saints even further away know? How, Verne? Again, GG and David G's sins were not the topic of leading brothers meetings or of seminars or of anything. What reasons did they have to believe that GG was sinning in those respects...if they were told anything, how could they believe it to be more than just a slanderous rumor? And MGov is right, leading brothers did stand up to GG, even the website will tell you that. So how are the leading brothers responsible for anything? They need our prayers and we need to be grateful for the many ways they loved and served us for so long.
- Matt

Matt,

Regarding your comments that "no one knew".  

"A lot of the saints in San Diego had absolutely no idea what was going 2 hrs north of us, how could the saints even further away know? How, Verne? Again, GG and David G's sins were not the topic of leading brothers meetings or of seminars or of anything".

I can testify that the leading brothers in Fullerton, (which of course were also the primary workers) knew quite a bit about David as far back as 18 years ago.

1. We knew that GG protected David and excused his conduct.  I remember the night that Mark M. told GG that he had seen David standing on a corner with his non-Christian friends smoking a cigarrette.  GG launched into a defense of David based on his childhood problems with diabetes.

2. "We" means Myself, Mark M., Dan Notti, Tim G., Dennis Patrick, Steve Irons, Albert Viramontes, Jim Hayman, MAYBE Keith Walker-I'm not sure when he joined the LB's.

3. We knew that David was a bum...he could buy a house, have a car hobby, support a family, travel, have expensive alterations done on his house, and so on.  We also knew he hadn't had a job in years.  We may have been suckers for GG's flim flam, but we weren't so stupid that we couldn't figure out what was going on, that David was being supported with ministry funds.  We knew this LONG before he was recongized as a full timer.  WE TALKED ABOUT IT WHEN GG WASN'T THERE!

4. We knew David was a jerk.  He boasted of his strict requirements for the brothers in his house on the rare occassions when he attended worker's meetings in Fullerton.  "It may be all right to call in sick to your employer, but I tell my brothers that this is GOD'S work and that they must deny themselves and lay down their lives for their brethren".  

5. We now know that SOME knew about the physical abuse.  Believe me, that was NEVER mentioned in a leading brother's meeting or worker's meeting.  All understood the PRIME DIRECTIVE: "Thou shalt not touch a member of the royal family".

I first heard of the abuse in 1992 from a house painter that knew Judy's family. He said that David, "slapped Judy around."  That was 6 years after I had left the LB meetings, and 5 years after I left the assembly.  But if you read Judy's story, you know that several leading brothers and workers knew about it years ago.

So Matt, I can understand that the average "saint" didn't know much about what was going on, but just about ALL the leaders in the places where David and Judy lived knew.

Thomas Maddux

Thank you O plethora of guests visiting the BB for my sky-rocketing negative points. ;D, This thread really hurts doesn't it? Oh well the truth often does...
Verne

Verne,
I don't know how the points thing works, in fact, I don't know if I have this quote thing right either,
BUT your message above reminded me of this quote from the"Direction for Workers" handbook, page 5, #19, of which we happen to have a copy.
"The worker's inheritance is dependent on a good attitude."
Perhaps they're just concerned for you??
 ;)

I never said "no one knew," Mr. Maddux.  No, sir - that's ridiculous.


Duh! I said that leading brothers in and around Fullerton surely knew about the sins of David and George Geftakys. Thanks for proving my point though. However, those leading brothers had firsthand, eye-witness knowledge of these sins. I'm speaking on behalf of the leading brothers who were not at Fullerton or San Luis Obispo. Again, these leading brothers would not have an opportunity to see these sins committed...so why are they responsible for them?


And, sir I never said anything to the contrary. We cannot pin the sins of a few leading brothers onto all of the leading brothers. The Leading bros in San Diego had no idea...that is the only assembly I can speak about with some authority. But I can use logic...and if the assembly 2 hrs south of Fullerton did not know, how would the assemblies outside of California know? This thread was started by Verne with St. Louis as an example. I want you think about this carefully. How would the leading brothers of other assemblies (outside of Fullerton and SLO..and maybe Placentia because it's only 5 mins from Fullerton and used to be part of Fullerton) know what was going on? Think about this. Would the sins of david G and George G be made topics of leading brothers' meetings? Would they be the topic of seminars? Of course not. So how would the leading brothers in St. Louis, Nebraska, Canada, Providence, northern cali,etc, have any more information than the other saints at these assemblies? If they heard rumors from California, what evidence would they have to believe them as anything more than slanderous rumors? No, sir, you cannot blame all the leaders for what happened. You can point your finger at the leading brothers of the Fullerton and SLO assemblies for not saying anything, but you CANNOT casually go around and say that all leading brothers are responsible.
- Matt

Dear Verne,

How can you expect leading brothers to "smell" something that was thousands of miles away from them? And how can imply that the leading brothers have NOT been Godly men of "stature and discernment?" You keep saying they need to repent for "destroying" the sheep....but how, sir, did they destroy the sheep? This is all so ridiculous - this readiness of the saints to victimize themselves.

Saints, now for my sad story:

Oh, dear, since everybody kneeled at prayer meetings, I felt peer-pressured to kneel too. Now I have a sore knee...darn that assembly, who can I blame for that? I know! The leading brothers.

Oh my, one time I was exhorted because I said a cuss word. That hurt my feelings and now I'm in therapy. Who can I sue to pay for my therapy? I know! The leading brothers.

oh woes me, I was forced at gunpoint to attend every meeting and outreach of the assembly for the past 25 years. Who can I possibly seek to punish for my 25 yrs of enslavement? I know! The leading brothers.

oh me oh my, I was rebuked for allowing my child to scream and wail all through the Bible study. Unbelievably, this heartless assembly valued the message of the leading brother's preaching more than my baby's screaming. How can I get compensation for this form of "child abuse?" I know! Get the leading brothers to pay!

The fact of the matter is that the leading brothers and their families served you many times over. All the dinners they cooked for you, all the phone conversations they had, all the planning, all the comforting, all the organizing, all the loving, all the time they gave - all while trying to raise families of their own and maintaining full time jobs. The leading brothers didn't ask more of you than what they did for you. Now, saints, you turn around and bitterly accuse them for things they had no control over? Do you think that's the Lord encouraging you to blast those who loved you so much? That's the devil working in you. Beware of that. The Lord wants you to be grateful for those that served you. I know that this is a controversial post - but I'm ready. Bring it on!
- Matt

Dear Matt,

Looks like you had an ENOP (extended night of posting) last night.  It's good that you ask the questions, and state your opinions, because I know that it helps me to think about why I believe what I believe.
If I am 'reading' your posts correctly, you are saying that not all LBs were 'like the Pharisees'; some had a true sheperd's heart like the Lord Jesus; and we should therefore not lump them all in the same category.
You are also saying that some of us non-LB's might have been offended by some LB's some of the time, but since they are sinners like us we need to forgive and forget and not be bitter towards them.
The other question being posed is 'What about those who knew better and did not do anything about what they knew, if they were supposed to shepherd the flock?(I don't think you asked that question, but it has been posted on this BB).

I have to go now. and will continue this later.

Lord bless,
M

Dear Matt :)
  I also was a leading brother in an Assembly.  I would have had similar responses as the leading bros. in San Diego had toward you while a member.  I led a brothers house for most of my time in the Assembly (20 years) and couldn't bring myself around to direct the house in the authoritarian manner I was encouraged to.
  My heart's desire and goal in the Assembly was to serve Christ and to bless those in my care.  I also know there were others who had the same desire as mine.  
   When I challenge the Assembly as being an "evil system" or desire to hold leaders responsible it is not an attack on those leaders who were just as much victims as regular members were.
   There is a major distinction in the Assembly between "workers" who were leading bros. and just local leading bros.  I was asked to come into the workers mtg., but was reluctant to do so; I did not see a Biblical justification for such an oversight gathering.
  I still bear a responsibility for my passivity re. evil that was promoted by the GG system.  There were many silent protestors who closed their eyes to what was right before them, as they were decieved into thinking that raising objections was "divisive and satanic".  When I started to see and raise objections I was kicked out of my Assembly and cruelly treated.
  I don't think anyone here has suggested that we were victimized by those leaders who sincerely followed Christ and encouraged His people to follow the Lord.  It was the "organizational oriented" leaders who demanded loyalty to GG and his heavenly vision/holy calling ministry that did great harm to individuals.  
   Please read the testimony of Kevin Welsh and notice how the intense group centered focus and false merit theology led to a failed toxic faith in his life.  The correct and healthy emphasis leads us into an individual relationship with Christ and a grace based life that can survive without the group.
  Another good question that Verne brought up was what the leaders did at the disbanding of the Assembly.  If they were so concerned about their flock, what attempts did they make to follow-up with former members by inquiring of their needs?  In the Valley the main leader (Tim McCarthy) just walked out and refused to return phone calls from former members.  He and his wife have been blaming a brother for the collaspe of the Assembly there because they called for answers re. the position of the leading bros. re. GG.  These leaders refuse to even entertain the idea that God was judging the group methods of elitism and abuse.
   It would seem that these actions might describe those who were GG's men and had little real care for members and their lives with Christ.  Their main burden was to defend the system and their position in that system.  Now, these individuals are also victims as they believed that loyalty to GG was the same thing as loyalty to Christ.
   It is not unfair to ask these individuals how they view things now, as those who followed them deserve at least an explanation.  
                                   God Bless,  Mark
   

Ok,Tom Maddux and Mark C. You need to read the ENTIRE thread. This thread was started as a criticism of "local leading brothers" with St. Louis as an example. And MarkC, you're a different example than the current leading brothers. You were not a leading brother when the assembly system disintegrated, and so you're situation is not comparable.


Unfortunately, the "needs" of the former members involved a kind of healing process in which serious hateful accusations were flung at leading brothers. Leading brothers have an obligation to protect their children and wives from this kind of harrassment. George G. and David G are not within sight of most saints in the assembly, and the saints badly wanted someone tangible to blame. Who better than the leading brothers, right? If anything, the leading brothers are probably silent now out of shock. I imagine it was stunning to see the people to whom you've given yourself heart and soul serving turn around and slap you in the face. It's time for the saints to take on a little bit of responsibility - stop accusing the leading brothers and look to yourselves. You're all adults. What do you have to accuse the leading brothers of? Loving you too much? Serving you too much? Come on people...if you wanted the leading brothers to stick around, you sure didn't act like it...the Lb's don't want to cuddle lions.

Hi Matt! :)
  Even though I've been gone for 12 years from the Assembly it basically operated the same as when I was involved.  There would be "local leaders" who belonged to the "workers" mtg. in every locality.  This non-Biblical governmental body was abuse central and at the very least influenced the satellite groups.  To ask leaders their relationship with this group and whether they took a stand against it's teaching/practice is logical and could be helpful.
  If a given Assembly leader attended Workers meetings and chose to not follow the directions given by GG, that would be a good thing, and would benefit the members.  This should be reported so that the individual could be commended.
  I can not speak to the San Diego situation as I am unaware of the facts.   I gave the Valley as a recent example of those who sided with GG and the system and it was to these that I made comment.
  This idea of "protection from attack" of the former members sounds like an unusual set of circumstances from San Diego and probably not the norm.  In the Valley the "questioning" brethren were only trying to get straight answers and were being accused of outlandish things for just asking.  The inaccesibility of the former leaders in the Valley was only due to a lack of willingness to respond to the questions of those who were confused, not fear of attacks (violent or otherwise).
  Not knowing about the SD situation maybe you could share the details of these "attacks" against former leaders that would invoke such fearful reactions from them.
                                        God Bless,  Mark

Hello Everyone  :)

I am back from a luxurious 6 week vacation.  I did read the board, but not every day.  I only posted once, but that didn't count,  kind of.

All in all, I would recommend the 6 week vacation to everyone who is beginning to get anxious, preoccupied, or out of balance with regard to the BB.  Perhaps I'll start a 24 hour help line for BB addicts.  1-800-XPOSTER.   ;D

Anyway, I thought this was the most intriguing message to respond to:

The leaders are responsible because the Bible clearly says they are.  The passages are many.  I don't want to qoute them all, but if a person was to read the pastoral epistles of Paul, especially Timothy and Titus, they must conclude that elders and deacons are responsible as shepherds.

Good shepherd protect the flock.  Bad ones flee when the wolf comes.  I seem to remember Jesus saying something about this as well.

Also, most of the LB's, across the country, knew DG.  All of them knew him to be a Jerk, as Tom Maddux outlined below.  Certainly ALL of the LB's in CALI, Tuscola, Charleston, STL, Omaha, and Chicago knew him.  David lived and sponged in these locations for years.  Anyone and everyone who knew DG more than a little would at least see an apparent hypocrisy.  Most people recognized him as a brute.  (this is important, keep reading)

As for GG, I KNEW about his adultery in 1999!!  I wasn't a leading brother.  How did I find this out?  Simple, I did some research and spoke with those in his family who were never part of his ministry, and wanted nothing to do with George, which is all of them.  Furthermore, other churches knew of his sin, and had disciplined him for it in the past.  George was fired from his first pastoral position for......adultery with the church secretary.  Does this sound familiar?

So, the info was there for anyone who had a conscience.  Some heard the rumors and rejected them outright.  I understand why they did this, but as elders, they were biblically obligated to investigate accusations from 2 or 3 witnesses, which they did not!!

After the website started, and the "rumors and gossip" could not be deflected any longer, the leadership finally dealt with the situation in a rather dissappointing manner, on the whole.  There were a few bright spots, but not many.  There has been precious little zeal for repentance exhibited, but there has been some!

Now, as I mentioned above, all of us, who were around for a few years, KNEW that something was wrong, and we ignored our consciences and hid our heads in the sand.  The leaders are no more guilty than the rest of us, it is only a matter of scale.  However, all with knowledge are guilty, and that's the point.  

The leaders who know, and attempt to deceive, are frightening.  Other leaders, like Tom, Mark and Steve, left years ago, when it was not so easy to get the word out.  These guys tried hard, but had limited success. (so it seemed at the time.  Years later, the fruit of their labor is quite evident on this website and the fact that their material comprises most of the files that various cult awareness groups have on George.)  However, they did the best they could, and the seeds they sowed were a blessing to others, including me.  What is being said on this BB, will in turn, bless others in years to come, when they wake up and discover the truth about Tim, Testa and the others.

So, the Apostle Paul instructs us not to receive an accusation against an elder, except in the mouth of two or three witnesses.  He also says not to lay hand on (commend them to ministry) anyone hastily, lest WE become sharers in their sins!!

That's what the leaders who commeded George, David and others to ministry are.  They are sharers in their sins.  The question is, did they share one cracker out of the box, or did they eat half the sandwich and split the dessert.  Only God knows, but He does know and is not forgetfull.

Brent

Groans...yes we have been given the scripture about elders being responsible shepherds. Nobody is arguing against that point. However, think about this: many of the saints were angry because they felt that the LB's were following GG rather than the Lord - in which case the Lb's position as sheperd would be invalidated. Yet, these same saints are also holding the LB's accountable as if they were, indeed, appointed by God to sheperd them. You can't switch back and forth people: Either the Lb's were following GG and not God, in which case they never were true sheperds and therefore not accountable. Or they were following the Lord, not GG, in which case you can't accuse them of following GG and thereby deceiving you. I think it's strange, too, how we ignore the scripture about backbiting and wrath in favor of the scriptures about pastoral responsibility. We all have responsibilities too, saints. You cannot deny that you were never served and loved by the leading brothers - do you think the Lord wants you to chuck those memories in favor of the times you were wronged? We as saints have responsibilities too, believe it or not. We have a responsibility to love the leaders like ourselves, to be thankful for them, to pray for their protection and favor.

 I wrote to Brent personally back in February, and for about a week, I had a pity party with him, outlining everything negative that had ever happened to me in the ministry. The Lord opened my eyes to that though. However, as Brent will remember, I always said: "I realize it's my fault..."



So the leading brothers across the country knew that Dave G was a jerk? That's why they are responsible? They knew he was a jerk? Why would they know that and not all the other saints of the assemblies where he visited? Come on, sir - that's ridiculous. The fact that he was a jerk is hardly grounds to demand some kind of repentance from the leading brothers. As for GG, nobody is making an argument that he's innocent. We are all sinners.

The key word "some." Some of the elders heard the rumors. And 2 or 3 witnesses - did these 2 or 3 witnesses speak to every leading brother across the country? Now as for repentance, what do the majority of the leading brothers have to repent for? Opening their homes up to pray with the saints? Preparing Bible studies? Organizing outreaches?  Brent, you were wronged in the ministry and because you were wronged, you assume that everyone was. Think about it. Of the hundreds of people in the assemblies, maybe 30 post here regularly about how they've suffered. Even people who have left the assembly will tell you that the website does not provide a well-rounded view of the assembly. I know that when the saints in San Diego and I talk about the site, we laugh at it. It's one-sided purpose was to expose all wrongdoing. You can make a website from any church and only post their wrongdoings and make it look like the website for the first church of Satan. Think about the Rick Ross website. The assembly was racist because once Betty Geftakys said "black people are so lazy" in front of a black sister. Am i the only one who sees how silly that is?



Amen, brother to this: "the leaders are no more guilty than the rest of us." Again, I'm not sure why you think the LB's outside of the So Cal assemblies in question would be privy to information that the others saints of these assemblies weren't. AND..why would they be more guilty for David G's sins? It absolutely does not make sense? They didn't force David G to do anything. I'm sure a lot of leading brothers left the assembly for the same reasons as many of the saints - they were disillusioned and shocked.

Saints, we were NOT in a cult! These cult awareness groups are non-Christian organizations, beware of those. I'm glad you make a distinction here between the leaders who knew and tried to deceive and those leaders who did not know (the majority of leading brothers). Again, the willingness to blame the leading brothers is absolutely groundless.


Brent, are you saying that you believe that most leading brothers are commending the Geftakyses right now? No, sir - that's ridiculous. Brent, I must say that I allowed you to disillusion me more than any of the leading brothers during my entire time in the ministry. I admit that I shouldn't have been angry about the North Carolina trip or the campus conference incidents. But you didn't give mel verses or Biblical counsel to encourage me to let that all go. You tried to rile me up by saying things like "shame on so and so" and encouraging me in those emails to Dave Lee in which i expressed all the wrongs he's done to me. I've talked to Dave Lee about you - he knows what I told you and he knows what you said too. You think you are acting Godly in encouraging people to be angry at the leadership - and there is certainly an element of revenge here in light of your own personal story regarding your involvement in the assembly. You were wronged more than the average Joe Schmoe so you feel the need to get everyone else to fling rocks and mud at the leading brothers who had served them for years. I think you are in for a surprise when the Lord does not say "well done thou good and faithful servant" for making the website and promoting anger. You are right: the Lord knows the truth. Lord bless.
- Matt

Oh Lord, grant that I may never seek so much to be consoled as to console...to be understood as to understand...to be loved as to love with all my soul. Make me a channel of your peace...

- St. Francis

Dear brother Matt,

Looks like you qualify for the position of 'adamant poster'. :)
You know I'm joking, but I am posting this on public forum for you to consider:

Let me point you to KingDavid(KD) 'a man after God's own heart'.
When he was fleeing Absalom, Shimei came and started hurling  abuses at KD.  KD reponse to Abishai(who wanted to kill Shimei) was:
2SA 16:10 But the king said, "What have I to do with you, O sons of  Zeruiah? If he curses, and if the Lord has told him, 'Curse David,' then  who shall say, 'Why have you done so?'"

and later KD protected Shimei again:
2SA 19:23 And the king said to Shimei, "You shall not die." Thus the  king swore to him.

Personally, I think that most LBs would have the attitude that they deserved  what was being dished out to them because the Lord had allowed it and  He does not make any mistakes - a humble response rather that of  self-defense.

An example from KingSaul(KS):
1SA 15:30 Then he said, "I have sinned; but please honor me now  before the elders of my people and before Israel, and go back with  me, that I may worship the Lord your God."

KS cared about his image and about how things looked, the outward  appearance. No real humility and repentance here.

What do you think?
M

Hi Matt

In what way was I wronged more than others?  I am not aware of this.  In fact, I am under the impression that I did more wronging of others than the converse.  Since you and I have never met, you probably know more than me how I was wronged. ???

As for LB's and their service, no one is demanding they repent of bible study, or baking cookies, prayer or pulling weeds.  We don't repent of those things.  It's the stuff like telling lies, being willfully blind, and sincerely deceived that we are to repent of.

When  a person finds out they have been deceived, like with OUR (mine and your) following of GG, they are to stop it, and follow Jesus.  Many LB's did this, many did not.  Quite a few stuffed the knowledge, violated their consciences and kept serving GG.  

That's all I'm talking about.  In no way am I suggesting that we are not responsible.  We certainly are.

OK, I know I must have said some things that are totally off base just now, because I was typing....so, I'm listening.

Brent

Why, brent, everyone knows how YOU were wronged! You put your entire ex-communication story on your website for all to see. You included that part about being shunned and such. It's an experience that the vast majority of saints do not share. Now, sir, I'm not going to outline every way you were wronged. I'm sure you've already done that!


I'm afraid the leading brothers did rather more than "pull weeds" and "bake cookies." The fact that you are trivalizing the ways they've served us is a testimony to your disrespect and ingratitude. I'm aware that people are not asking the LB's to repent for those things anyway. I'm asking people to remember the Lb's for the ways the Lb's served them - as the LORD would do. I can't imagine that ALL the LB's were involved in some kind of massive cover-up in which they "told lies" and were "willfully blind". How did the LB's coordinate this massive cover-up? by phone? by a mass email forward? If you will read Eulaha Long's story on the website, she admits that she had no idea of David G's sins until after she left. If she didn't know and this occurred at her home assembly, how would a leading brother in Chicago know? or St. Louis? Or Providence? The Leading brothers in San Diego didn't even know. And Brent, just because you say they knew, doesn't mean they did! oh...you got TOLD!


Of all the leading brothers, how many are still serving GG? I can answer your Tim G. question posed on the website last Jan. He was down in San Diego on fri night and had dinner with an ex-assemblyite here. He's been estranged from his father for quite a long time. He's not even serving his father, how many LB's do you honestly believe are still serving GG? The people in San Francisco? Scott Testa? Because a few people are ignoring George's sin, we have to pin that on all the leading brothers by starting a thread against them?

I'm going to address a question that some on this thread had about leading brothers answering questions of saints. I can only imagine the venemous questions that some saints have for their leading brothers. It would be nice if leading brothers were omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent - you know supernatural beings who could answer any question and solve every problem, beings who had all the facts. But the LB's are just men, they're not God. Saints, you need to rely on the Lord - not the LB's. It's a wonder they could handle all the problems of the saints prior to the unfolding of recent events, let alone now. Let them tend to their families and get their own bearing's straight. You still have an obligation to be loving to them no matter what. By the way, if you need someone who is omniscient, talk to Brent. Evidently, he knows everything AND, get this, AND he knows how much everyone else knows too.   Lord bless.


- Matt

Hi Matt

Thanks for your response.  I am OK with you having a different opinion from mine, in fact I haven't attacked you, but rather just clarified my position.  However, I am wondering what I did to deserve the statement you listed above?

Please let me know so I can publicly correct it.  That's the thing to do on a forum like this.  If a person puts their foot in their mouth, they should publicly pull it out.  I want to be that kind of person, so please let me know what I said that was deserving of that.

Your other comments are quite helpful with regard to this topic.

Question:

I had a friend when I was in highschool, whose father would buy his wife flowers all the time.  He provided well for his family, saved money for college, bought the kids cars, attended little league games, donated to the school, and everything else a model father and husband should do.  He did lots of really good, loving things.

However, he also was carrying on an affair for 8 years, even though he was doing these good, fatherly things for his wife and kids.  The kids didn't find out about it until the youngest was 18, then the beans were spilled.  They were devastated.

Question:  Was this man a good husband?  He did far more good than bad.  The only bad thing he did was adultery.

I don't buy my wife flowers that often, sometimes I yell at her, and the kids.  I don't miss many of my kids games, but I am not nearly as "devoted" as the guy above.  However, I have NEVER cheated on my wife, not even a little.  I have been totally faithfull.  He has done more good things than me, and was "nicer" and "more loving" than I am, so is he a better husband and father than I?

What should I tell my friend, who is still suffering as a result of his father's unfaithfulness.  Should I upbraid him for only concentrating on the one bad thing his father did?  Should I tell him to forget about it and move on?  Also, is this "father and husband" responsible in any way for what he did, or is it his kids fault?

Brent

"Now, as I mentioned above, all of us, who were around for a few years, KNEW that something was wrong, and we ignored our consciences and hid our heads in the sand."

Evidence of your all-knowing powers, Brent, as requested. Also refer to the thread in which you "know" that Tim G. is trying to rebuild the assemblies.

Brent, sir,
I'm afraid I do not see the purpose of your analogy. It almost looks like you want me to tell you that, yes, you are a better father and husband than your friend. I cannot for the life of me see how it applies to the leading brothers though. I don't think very many LB's cheated on their wives - ? I'm afraid you are in the class that expected perfection from the leading brothers, and, sadly sir, you'll always be disappointed. They are men, just like you're a man. You're a sinner, they're sinners. Everyone needs to repent...leading brothers, pastors of the baptist church, pastors of the lutheran church, etc (and get this, their congregations too!). But you worry about your own repentance. I'd like to see you repent for wrongly implicating leading brothers whom you could not possibly know for sure how much or how little they knew. I'm mostly concerned for how you view the San Diego leading brothers as you made specific mention of our assembly in the thread about us being "tight" with Tim G.

I want you to type this out, not quote it:
I, Brent Tr0ckman, know for a fact that Bob Starr, Eric Ferrien, and Brian Dom knew everything about David Geftakys' abuse and GG's squandering of money. I know for a fact that they abused the saints of their assembly and deceived them.
Now, to qualify this statement, type this, not quote it:
I, Brent Tr0ckman, also certify that I have supernatural powers that allow me to know what's in a person's mind. I know just how much every individual leading brother knows and what he feels about it. With these powers, I can adequately say without a doubt that Bob Starr, Eric Ferrien, and Brian Dom were involved in a massive cover-up and deception.

- Matt

Dear Matt

You got me.  I can't reason with you.  I concede to you the victory.  You win.  Your logic and command of the facts is simply beyond my ability.  I don't know what else I can say.

People, I am not all knowing, and my dialogue with Matt proves it.

Matt, I am actually trying to help you, but I will cease from doing so from now on.

Brent

Sir,
Your idea of trying to help me (judging by your posts), is to get me to see things the way you do. You need to know that I'm not using this thread to defend every leading brother out there, certainly not any of the Geftakys. I have yet to see anyone on here make a post thanking their leading brothers for serving them for so many years. I'm also making an argument that all the leading brothers cannot be responsible because they did not ALL know about what was going on in Fullerton, SLO, etc. Are you able to make any positive statements about leading brothers in general without qualifying it with a "but..." statement? I know you can make a negative statement without qualifying it. But can you make a positive one without sarcasm?
- Matt

Matt,

I'd be interested in seeing the brothers you are defending post their thoughts so that you do not have to do it for them.

M

[quote author=Matt                                                                ( I know that when the saints in San Diego and I talk about the site, we laugh at it. It's one-sided purpose was to expose all wrongdoing. You can make a website from any church and only post their wrongdoings and make it look like the website for the first church of Satan. Think about the Rick Ross website. The assembly was racist because once Betty Geftakys said "black people are so lazy" in front of a black sister. Am i the only one who sees how silly that is?)


 Matt,
  Back in the early to mid 80s leadership in Saint Louis began driving home the concept of total commitment to "this ministry" What qualified you to "this ministry" was either being saved or brought to fellowship through its outreach.
  Another Brother and I went witnessing in a low income black neighborhood where 4 kids (10-14) on the same street received Christ. Two of the childrens mother was so happy and told us she was praying for this and offered her home to use to reach other kids in the neighborhood. We began an outreach in that home and more kids received Christ, once 5 in one night.  One youngster asked me if he could go to church with me on a sunday.Dave Geftakys met with me one day and told me to " shut it down ". I asked him why ? He told me "those people need to go to there own church"
 Why did'nt "those people" qualify for "this Ministry" ?
 STL leadership said and did nothing.

Verne,

I find this statement of yours quite amazing.  Matt seemingly draws a conclusion based on one bit of information he had; and then you draw a conclusion about Matt, based on the one bit of information you have.  Now this is diabolical ... just joking here :)

Maybe Matt has changed his mind based on Mark Kisla's post?? Who knows? Maybe Matt does.

God bless,
M

Concerning the racism issue Mark Kisla and Verne,
Racism is a subjective issue, quite personal in nature. Because the Geftkayses were racist at individual times, how can we say that the entire assembly was racist? You will find racist people wherever you go - does that mean every church is racist? Verne, I understand from various people that you are black and that you are bitter at Betty G. I cannot speak for the assemblies outside of CA, but I can tell you that assemblies in so cal were quite culturally diverse. These people aren't told to go "find their own church." Because David G, whose mental abilities are in question, did that once in STL way back in the mid 80's, we cannot say the assembly was a racist system. Just like we can't say the assembly was racist because Betty G. once said "black people are so lazy." I'm sure you have personal stories too, Verne, but you can't strut around crying foul because you were mistreated - racism is by the person, not a teaching in the ministry.

How does it go? ....... and butter for fat.
I suggest that you read my subsequent post(s) on that thread (I can't remember which one it was), before trying to 'nail' me on this one. :)

M

oh my GOODNESS! Apparently, MGov, you're not allowed to talk about cultural differences without being labelled a "bigot." Verne, it's a matter of cultural difference. In India, social rules are more relaxed about being at a designated place at a designated time. Quite the opposite in Germany where people tend to arrive beforehand to avoid being late. It's all a matter of the culture in which you live. Don't worry, MGov, I know, you know, and the Lord knows that you are not defending racism in anyway.

I'm having too much fun with this one; I just couldn't let it go...

Since you don't know me from Eve, if I was of Indian origin myself, would that still make my statement 'racist' in nature??

M

For people who believe that "Time" is just a concept, ie everything is eternal, Life has no begining or end, it is not hard to understand why they would be "tardy" to an apointmment.  :) :) :) :) :) :)

 Matt,
  I think  racism and mistreatment of individuals in the Assembly is a byproduct of a much larger sin issue;  those in authority interfering with the leading of the Holy Spirit in the personal lives of Saints.
 "In the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom" This is true if those who counsel are using the resources of their personel relationship with God not the dictates of one who awarded himself the name " the Lords servant" or those appointed by George Geftakys

Gracious Heavenly Father, thank you for the opportunity to express my point of view and for the opportunity to post as I feel led. Give me discernment, Lord, and a gentle heart. Thank you for telling me that a gentle answer dispels much wrath. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.

Brent,
The Lord is still working on me in teaching me not to be foolish by saying a lot of harsh, mean-spirited things. I know I say things to antagonize you like "OH...you got TOLD" and "diabolical" and "you are lying." among many others, I'm sure. That is not why I've come to this board. I want to refute a lot of what you say, but in a calm manner.

"He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." Prov 18:17

The website was yours first and you were the main force behind it (and apparently much behind the Rick Ross site). As this verse shows, you were bound to seem just to yourself and too many others right away. Even I was ready to victimize myself after reading some of the articles. However, the second part of that verse shows that what seems just at first, later doesn't always end up being so after cross-examination. May I provide an analogy? much like the one you provided?

I am reading a book about the Holocaust called "Maus" and I read something that reminded me a little bit of what is happening on this board. There is a scene in the book in which Jewish prisoners in Auschwitz are marching to work, and a Nazi guard grabs the cap off of one of the prisoners  and throws it. He tells the prisoner to go and get it. What could the prisoner do? Of course he ran to go pick it up. The Nazi guard then proceeds to shoot him for trying to escape.  The Nazi guard is then praised and rewarded for stoping an "attempted escape."

Now, I'm by no means saying that you are a Nazi AT ALL. I'm not saying that this is on the same scale as the Holocaust, I'm not saying that the leading brothers are persecuted Jews. But this is what it appears like: You come out of Left field by posting all the wrongdoings and implicating leading brothers, (ie. throw their caps out into the open) and then people use the bulletin board to attack the leading brothers (shoot them). And then you are praised and rewarded, Brent, like the guard with the "if it wasn't for Brent's website" and "where would I be without Brent" comments.

There is another thing that has startled me and that is your assumptions. I could not believe how far you took the Tim G. coming down for dinner on Friday night thing. It almost appeared that you believed he was down here to build up the assembly with Dave Lee (who has no interest in ever going back to a Geftakys assembly). You must be extremely careful, Brent, with those kind of assumptions. Dave Lee is not here to defend himself. As for Tim G, you do know him better than me. If you want me to believe he way lying about not wanting to start up the meetings anymore, however, I can't do that. You may know him better than I do, but I know him better than I know you.

Another problem I have with your website is that I cannot see how it promotes healing when all it has are articles to make people angry. There are no verses about forgivenesss or letting bitterness go:


"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, vengeance is mind, I will repay, saith the Lord."  Romans 12:19

"And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." Acts 7:60

(And if Stephen can forgive those stoning him to death, trust me saints, you can forgive ANYTHING that happened to you in the assembly.)

"And David was greatly distressed; for the people spake of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons and for his daughters: but David encouraged himself in the Lord his God." 1 Samuel 30:6

In this case, grieved=bitter in today's English. Even in your own writing on the site, Brent, I sensed bitterness. For example, that article in which you angrily demand that Tim G come forward because "you have questions about how he spent your money." Do you think they earmarked your money (wrote BT on it) and only spent it on themselves? Do you think none of your money went to outreach or foreign aid? I understand that you regret giving them money, Brent. But you gave it freely. Did you frequently inquire how they spent it from the beginning until the end of your involvement with the assembly? If they didn't give you an account of how the money was spent, and you continued to give, then it's your fault. I know that is pointed and hard, forgive me. I use that as an example to show that the website was borne out of anger rather than a promotion of healing.

I do feel that in the assembly, we had access to excellent top-notch ministry. Every brother had an opportunity and was encouraged to preach. Everyone had an opportunity to be prayed for and to pray for other saints. Everyone had a chance to develop boldness in witnessing. Everyone was encouraged to get into the Word daily (ie. morning times) and see what it had to say for himself. I'm sorry you disagree, brent, with everything. I'm not saying that I think the assembly was perfect - no church is. I'm only saying that there was a lot more positive than negative aspects about it.

I'm worried that I'm causing leading brothers and their families distress by trying to defend them on this board. I'm afraid that all I'm doing is provoking condemning posts from you and Verne. Seriously, you need to know, Brent, that I'm not defending every leading brother out there. I'm defending the vast majority of leading brothers - all of whom loved the saints and helped them far more than they are given credit for. I don't want to cause them distress though in case any LB's are reading this. If things keep going in circles, I'm going to erase my username to save them from the distress of reading pointed responses from other people.

Brent, Lord bless you. Please do not think this is a personal attack on you, but I want you to see where I'm coming from.

- Matt

Dear Matt

Your last post is Great


This is a valid criticism, and is the main reason why it is no longer my website.  I'm sure you know this, but I have no more priviledges on this site than you do.  I am not a moderator, admin, or anything.  The same goes for GA.com.  It is NOT my website, and if you read the purpose for the new site, you will find that it lines up very clearly with what I quote you as saying above.

One of the problems we have on this new topic is that before there can be fogiveness and healing from bitterness, there needs to be sin and bitterness.  People are working through things, thinking for themselves, learning, and are in various stages of healing and deliverance.  I have hundreds of emails that are very supportive of the website, and actually very few that are critical.  The ratio is about 80-1 in favor of "thank you."

When we get going on a thread that could really go somewhere, and we can really get going on serious, edifying discussion, someone always seems to get personal, and attack, and the whole thing starts over again.  I am patient with this, because I know that it is part of the process.  Not only that, I love hearing ex-assembly people get mad and state what they really think, in no uncertain terms.  That is music to my ears, because it is a sign of freedom.

After freedom, comes growth and then...maturity.  

Now, your Nazi analogy is a valid one.  I undertand your disclaimer, and am following your thoughts.  I know you don't think I am a Nazi.

What we are talking about here is a church/ministry.  If we grant that God raised it up, and that the ministry was top-notch, how is it that one bitter person (me) brought it down?

I think it was because I spoke for hundreds of people who had the same story to tell.  When it got told, the truth of it registered with people.  They knew it was true.  All I did was say, "The emporer has no clothes."  Once it was said out loud, people could no longer play along.

I am NOT attacking leading brothers, with the exception of the ones I name by their names.  Saying that someone is responsible is hardly an attack, at least in my estimation.

I am, and have been, brutally attacking the false doctrine and false ungodly personality that the Assembly was built on.  I will continue to do so until God gets it into my thick head that I should stop.  Along the way, I will do what I can to promote healing, but you can't heal from something if you don't know you're sick.

keep this dialogue going please.  I think we are all going to learn something from you.

Brent

Actually most Indians would probably understand.
However you possibly know that I did not intend it as a racist remark.  I was heading somewhere with that as my launching pad but decided it was not worth it.  So what do you suggest I do about it now?

M

Righto brent,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, as predicted, I do not agree with some of the things you've posted here.



Well, I do agree with this. Thank you for the compliment.


hmmm....the website still lists individual, personal accounts by people victimizing themselves. Look at one of the goals of the site: "restoration" for those "affected by GG and BG's teachings." Clearly, the site is not that different from your site. You'll still find the letter you wrote in which you angrily demand that Tim G. come forward to account for the money you FREELY gave.


So what? George Geftakys had hundreds of admirers too! I'm not saying that you are on level with GG (disclaimer). I'm saying that if GG deceived people, it is very possible that you have deceived people - it's easy to do when you only present one side of a story. You know the old saying...there are 3 sides to every story: Your side, my side, and the truth. There are no articles about how the leading brothers served other saints. There are no articles about the spiritual growth that many saints had while in the assembly. A whole other side of the story needs to be presented before we can say that the website allows people to "think for themselves" as you say.


The fact that you say that it is music to your ears when people are angry is a sign that you are not ready to help people promote healing. I've listed tons of scripture in various posts about letting bitterness, wrath, anger, etc. go. I can keep listing them, but I'm afraid it would continue to roll off your back and others like you. As for the freedom issue, people were free to come and go from the assembly as they pleased. If someone didn't like it, they could get up and walk out. Do you think the doorkeepers stood at the door with a gun in hand to shoot anyone trying to escape the Bible study?


Thanks for the compliment on the Nazi analogy. It seems harsh to call it that though? Who knows why the ministry was brought down? Maybe it was the work of the enemy, in which case you facilitated the enemy's attempt? Perhaps because God was ready to send the saints out to help other gatherings? Perhaps to get us out of our "comfort zone?" Life's all about changing, nothing ever stays the same. Look in your life, the Lord changes conditions around you all the time. Your friends move away (friends from the assembly all go to different churches now...slowly you grow more distant from them), and the Lord brings new people into your life, new friends. So I don't think that because the ministry collapsed that it wasn't top-notch. It's time to spread the wealth of Biblical knowledge that many of the saints (not me) have to other gatherings and churches.


Amen brother, but how are the leading brothers responsible for the downfall of the ministry? It's been established many times over that the majority of leading brothers outside of the SLO, Fullerton, and Placentia assemblies could not possibly have known what was going on with David G. or his wife. Furthermore, I do NOT think the vast majority of leading brothers had access to these 2-3 witnesses that you keep mentioning. The Leading brothers didn't force anyone to give money, they didn't commit adultery like GG, they didn't beat their wives...so they shouldn't have to repent for the sins of GG and DG. The leading brothers served the saints, brent. You know their stories..they worked full time, raised families of their own AND served the saints 7 days a week. It hardly sounds like they "destroyed" and "scattered" the sheep as Verne implied. Come to think of it...maybe you scattered and destroyed more sheep with your website? As you say yourself, you brought the ministry down, you scattered the sheep...but since you were not an elder, you don't have to repent =)  Something to think about , that's all...

I do enjoy talking with you Brent, you are definitely more than worthy of my time. Lord bless.
- Matt

Why is the listing of personal, true accounts at odds with restoration?  The idea of restoration implies something needs to be restored.  If a person has been discouraged and abused by the Assembly, as hundreds have, and they go to the website they will:

1.) find out they are not alone, and that it wasn't just their problem.  God is not disgusted with them.  

2.)They can read articles like "False Holiness," or the new article on justification,(to name just two) and their relationship with the Lord can be restored, on the sound footing of grace.  


Matt, there were 35 years of "the other side of the story."  George started a pulishing company to print his books, which he didn't write.  They sent out newsletters, had seminars, tapes, preaching, workers' meetings.  The other side has been told so much more and for so much longer that is doesn't even compare to the material on the website.  George's books are many times larger in volume than the website.  I have 150 of his tapes in my possession, and there are thousands more out there.  If the website grew 10 times larger, it still wouldn't be balanced when compared to 35 years of indoctrination.


You know, you're right about this.  I'm going to have to give this some thought.  In the mean time, let me clarify a little bit.  I am not happy when people are angry, but I am happy when they feel free to have a strong opinion and to share it.  However, you bring up a good point.  I should not get any pleasure out of the fact that an ex-assembly person is angry.  I should take pleasure in the fact that they are free from bondage and are basking in the grace of God.  Good point Matt.  You get a perfect 10 on this one.

However, your point about the doorkeepers is not quite right.  Go back and read a few things from our personal correspondence.


I totally disagree with this one.  I would like to hear some others weigh in on this.  The idea that God destroyed the ministry so that the saints could go out and share the wealth of biblical knowledge with others really tweaks me, for many reasons.  Also, the enemy didn't bring down a church.  He can't.  Jesus promised this, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  It is almost unanimous that God judged the house of Geftakys, only you and one other person have suggested the contrary, so we don't see eye to eye on this one.

19  Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.  20  Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.  21  I charge [you] before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.  22  Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure.


I qoute the above verse in order to address this point:


First off, It isn't 2 or 3 people that I have talked to.  It's more like 2 or 3 hundred.  The biblical standard for witnesses is 2 or 3, as mentioned in the verse above, and many others.  The leading brother in every Assembly had more than 2 or 3 people come to them and express problems, which were squelched.  I guarantee it.  In most cases, but perhaps not all, the leading brothers were "sharers in their sins,"  (GG, DG, etc.) because they supported and promoted them, when anyone could see that there were huge white elephants in the room!  Again, read some of the stuff on the website.  There you will hear from dozens of people, not just 2 or 3.  I'm sorry Matt,  this last point is just not going to wash.

Now, am I saying that one of the LB's that you really like in San Diego is as bad as GG?  In no way!  However, that man promoted GG, supported him financially, encouraged people to hear him teach etc.  He was a sharer in George's sin, because he lacked the discernment, courage, or character to stand against George.  Perahps this theoretical brother knew nothing at all.  In this case, he was purely deceived, because the facts were out there plain as day for anyone who had eyes to see.

I was blind for many years, and so were many others, but as soon as someone turned on the lights, the conclusion people came to was quick and decisive.   Matt, don't re-write history.

In spite of the fact that some of these guys are really, really nice and kind, they are disqualified as leaders.

I am good friends with many of them, including former Fullerton leaders, and all the SLO leaders.  Our relationship has been restored, so I am not picking on them.  I am stating the facts.   They failed in protecting God's people.  They suffered from various degrees of a mixture of blindness, corruption and cowardice.  These qualities disqualify them for leadership.  

BTW, I am NOT QUALIFIED for leadership.  I put myself in the same category.  

Have you read the website?  Did you read Kirk Cesaretti's account?  How about the Mathew's?  Please do so if you haven't.

Matt, I really enjoy this dialogue, and really appreciate having mutual respect for one another.  Disagreement is fine.  Let's try to learn something.

Thanks for setting me straight on that point above.

Brent

Brent, I have to post this as two posts because it was too long the first time.


No, no, no, no. I was not saying that restoration was wrong. You agreed that your website was promoting bitterness and wrath. I was mentioning that transferring the website to someone else has not changed the fact that it is meant to get people worked up because you will still find the same personal stories of people who feel they've been victimized. I'm also pointing out the website has a negative slant about the assembly which is evident in the wording "restoration for those affected by..." It is the website's right to have a slant, free speech and all. But remember, we are not free from the consequences of free speech and the consequence often manifests itself as criticism.



I'm not talking about GG's preaching! I'm not talking about the effectiveness of his ministry! I'm talking about the direct contrast to the negative, personal stories we've seen on the site. To provide a balanced view, we need to see saints recount the ways they've been served (by LB's, by the families of LB's, by other saints, etc.) We need to talk about messages that perhaps changed our lives, or spoke to us in an incredible way. Just because the ministry was imperfect (as all ministries are), doesn't mean that we had no positive impacts on us from the ministry. When those are represented on the site, then it will be balanced and provide saints with a better footing for judging the assembly by other peoples' experiences.

Brent, that was entirely inappropriate that you publically tried to refute something I said on the public forum by reminding me of a private email. I am now put in the uncomfortable position of dredging that memory up to try to justify my point. Here is what Brent was talking about. Once a few brothers were exerting a lot of pressure on me to move into the brothers' house in SD. I didn't want to. Was I therefore not free? Was I slave? Nope. I left the assembly on my own two feet and did NOT move in with the brothers. Looking back, I regret that decision though - the accountability and christian support would have helped me out during that time. Also, I would have saved money, but that's another issue. So I suppose it is true about the doorkeepers not wielding guns to keep people at a Bible Study - just like I wasn't forced to stay in the assembly or move into the brother's house by gunpoint. I was free to leave, just like everyone else was.

Ok, well this is post 1 of 2.

]This part 2 of 2. Scroll down and read the other post first.


Well, Brent, because something "tweaks" you is not reason enough for it to be false. Remember, you can't believe something to be false, just because you want it to be. I'm not saying that the Lord broke up the ministry to send saints out to spread the knowledge they've gained in our ministry. I'm saying it's a possibility. Now, there's something wrong here in the way you quote Jesus. Jesus did not say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against "a" church. He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. His church=the body of Christ=all believers who are living and have ever lived. I'm not saying that the enemy has prevailed against the body of Christ (all believers everywhere from all time). No, sir - that's ridiculous. But the Lord does not say that the devil will not try. Therefore, it would be hard to rule out that this hasn't been an attack from the enemy. Where else is all this bitterness, this accusation, this hatred coming from in the assembly? From the Lord? I'm not saying that it was an attack from the enemy, I'm saying it's a possibility. I know that you would be against that for personal reasons, seeing that you credit yourself with the fall of the ministry and could therefore be implicated as being deceived by the enemy into helping him. Do not worry though, we are all deceived by the enemy from time to time. I'm not asserting that you were though - just a possibility.


Now, I am confused. I was not aware that 200-300 saints had witnessed David G beating his wife up. I was not aware that 200-300 saints had witnessed George G commiting adultery or opening up a "slush fund." I think it's quite safe to say that the vast majority of leading brothers, therefore, could NOT know what was going on. Remember Eulaha Long's article - she went to the same assembly as David G and she didn't even know! How's an LB in Canada or the East Coast going to know?! Consequently, the vast majority of LB's could not be "sharers of DG and GG's sin" because they were not promoting and encouraging David G's beating of his wife and likewise not promoting GG's adultery.


The Lb did not promote GG's sin. He promoted some very powerful messages that GG gave. Also, supporting GG financially is no sin. If this alleged slush-fund of GG's existed, I'm sure he didn't make it public knowledge. I don't think he dangled the slush fund in people's faces as you seem to think. Remember, you freely gave too? Also, you ignore the fact that many leading brothers stood up to GG. Once, one of our leading brothers gave a message about how we were too dependent on GG and not enough on the Lord. Guess who were the most antagonized - the SAINTS! So to say the leading brothers are responsible for this is ridiculous.


Providing another perspective is hardly rewriting history, Brent.


Well that is a matter of opinion (about being disqualified), but amen to that brother. Most of the LB's are "really, really nice and kind."


Yes, I've read some of the website. Yes, I read the Mathew's puzzle-piece article. No, I have not read Kirk Cesaretti's account. I am weary of the website because of it's end results: production of wrath, bitterness, hatred, all expressed. I know the Lord doesn't like those thing, so I stay clear from the site lately. Stop picking the scabs, and healing will ensue! Focus on the positives people - you won't find it on the site. You'll find it in the recesses of your memories.


Thanks, Brent. I enjoy the conversation too. I have to admit that you make me think very hard. Lord bless.
- Matt

Matt, and those who are following along.


The issues are far more than just DG's wife beating, or George's adultery.  We are talking about a legacy of spiritual abuse here.  Perhaps 2 dozen people knew about David, and may 3 dozen about George.  However, hundreds of people had stories to tell about abuse, coercion, elitism, exclusivity, etc.

The idea of being a sharer is someone's sin, according to the bible:

1 Tim 5:19  Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.  20  Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.  21  I charge [you] before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.  22  Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure.

What this is saying is that elders (leading bro's) should be publicly rebuked, in front of all.  Why?  Because their sin affects everyone.  There is to be no double standard, no partiality.  If you read what is on the website, you will that this was hardly the case in the Assembly.  The stories of double standards, partiality, ignoring multiple witnesses, etc. are absolutley rampant!

In verse 22 above, it says "do not lay hands on anyone hastily."  This means, check out who they are, and their character and fitness for leadership before you promote or acknowledge them as elders or deacons.  George was promoted like a Swami, while at the same time no one was willing to entertain why there was such a double standard and hypocrisy.

Again, in the second part of verse 22, if people fail to rebuke/examine an elder, or if they promote one that is a scoundrel, they become a sharer in his sins.  That means complicity and responsiblilty, hence the thread title,  "Why leaders are responsible."

It's all there in black and white.


Matt, this is the problem.  You haven't read it, and you don't have the facts.  In fact, if you are like me, you don't want the facts, and are afraid of the facts, because of the turmoil they may create for you.  Believe me, I am going thru exactly the same thing right now, except in another area.

As for the idea that God "doesn't like those things, read this:

http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/CodeOfSilence.htm (http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/CodeOfSilence.htm)

I submit that you learned what you are saying on this thread somewhere, and I believe this article will tell you who your teacher was, and where you went to school!

I am re-examining the reformed teaching on free will.  This is something I rejected long ago, (under GG and TG's teaching).   I find that I am totally slothful about picking up books, turning to verses, and using my God-given intellect to examine this doctrine, because I am afraid of what it might mean.

I know my fear is irrational, on many levels, yet it is real.  So, your reluctance to read the website, and get the facts is quite normal, and common.  However, your discussions here will always seem irrational, because you don't have the knowledge that the rest of us have, who have read (and lived  :-[ ) the material on the website.

I challenge you to read it!  In fact, until you do, I won't let you say anything about witnesses, balance, assumptions, lies, or anything else.  You have no basis for that if you haven't listened to what I have to say!

Oh, also you can't accuse me of libel anymore, if you haven't read the material!  Imagine a lawyer going to court, who hasn't examined all the evidence.  Imagine the embarrassemt when there is video tape of his client doing exactly what he is accused of doing.  Everyone watches the tape, except the defense attorney.  Then, when the closing arguments start, the defense's case consists of,  "You have libeled my client!"  What do you think will win out, the emotional, non-factual defense attorney, or the video?

However, there is plenty more to comment on besides that.

Brent

Dear Brent,
On one thread you said that you didn't say Matt was irrational. It looks like you are implying he is on this thread. Matt, you weren't alone if you thought he was calling you irrational. I don't think you are by the way. I appreciate the clarity of your posts and they have opened up my eyes to new avenues of thinking.

Leading brothers who have not repented:
I would like to see you post on here instead of letting Matt defend you. It appears that Matt is doing a lot of your dirty work for you. Aren't you ashamed? He's young enough to be your son and you happily allow him to go to the front lines for you. This means that he has to take the backlash that you should be facing. Don't send such a young one to be damaged on this board. Be men and face up to it yourselves.

Matt:
You are still young and impressionable. I know most people your age think they are done growing up, but you are still very young. You don't realize how much influence other people still have on you. I've been your age, so I know. You don't see the bondage you're in. You said in one of your posts that you realize it was your fault if you ever felt guilty, but it's not. I don't want to see you get hurt or discouraged on this board by doing the dirty work for other people.  Matt, if the leading brothers reading this cared for you, they would have you stop defending them and come here and defend themselves. They don't care about you, Matt, and they don't love you. Don't let them hurt you.

Leading brothers who have not repented:
Shame on you! Don't let someone so young one-handedly defend you all. Come here and post! Don't hurt him (matt) by having him carry all your defense on his shoulders.

Love, Laurie.

Laurie and Matt

Laurie, I see your point, RE irrational.


I am not saying that Matt is irrational.  I am saying that as long as he doesn't have the "facts," his discussions will seem irrational, due to a knowledge difference.  He could be stone cold rational in everything, but if he didn't know WW2 ended, he might still be looking to shoot Germans!

However, your point is well taken, and I can see that I was unclear in my post.  

Matt, you are not irrational at all.  You do a great job communicating your ideas.  I just wish you would expand your knowledge base some more.  Also, as I said before, just because you disagree with me, means nothing as far as your rationality.  I may be the one who is irrational!  

I'm sure someone will tell me if that is the case....

Brent

Laurie, vbeers,

I have been following the BB for quite a while now.  I do not think that Matt is disagreeing with the fact that there were problems in the assembly, but that there is an unbalanced picture being presented on the website and the BB.  The positive elements of the assembly are not being presented, hence Matt is presenting some of them.

Matt, am I on the right track??

M

Matt and MGov--
I appreciate your point that the website could be more encouraging.  I think you are right that there needs to be a recounting of the benefits and the blessings that came in the assembly.  We will work on that.  I have had that in mind as Part II of the Green Bay Tree.

We created separate sections for the Final Weeks and Personal Accounts with the express purpose of segregating them, or quarantining them, so that people who are not helped by those perspectives don't have to go there.  We have seriously considered deleting the Final Weeks from the website and making those articles and letters available by request only.  Do you think that would help?

Margaret

We purposely chose the wording on the Home Page--"for those who have been affected"--so that it could include those who might have had a positive assembly experience, and yet are in distress because of the dissolution.  We did not intend to imply by those words that everything about the assembly was negative.  If you can offer a concise way to express that we would gladly consider changing the wording.

Margaret,

I'm not sure that deleting stuff is necessary; but if you feel that that's what the Lord wants you to do, then my opinion does not count.

Because of 'external controls' being applied in the assemblies, there was a lack of sensitivity to the leading of the Lord.  The Lord approached/was approached by a variety of individuals (Rich young ruler, blind Bart, Samaritan woman at the well, woman caught in adultery, etc. etc.). he did not 'deal' with each situation in the same manner. In some cases He was quite 'radical' like touching the leper, letting the woman caught in adultery go free though the OT required her to be stoned, stopping to notice blind Bart. etc.  No rules.

How does this apply to your query:
As we learn of Him and see Him then we can be re-tuned to follow His leading, rather than a bunch of rules.

Anyway Lord bless and lead you in this endeavor.
M

Brent, Laurie, MGov, and Margaret,
So many people vying for my attention! I'm honored.

Laurie: Thanks for your concern, but no leading brothers have comissioned me to speak on their behalf. My whole argument is that the vast majority of LB's owe nothing to the saints on this board and therefore their presence here is unnecessary.

MGov: Yes, I think the website could use a major overhaul, but that's just part of the reason I'm on this thread, but it gets too much emphasis. It is not infallible like the Bible, and so it's not as "necessary" to read as Brent pushes it to be. There are demonic elements involved for now as there are a lot of accusations, bitterness, and anger on that site.

Margaret: Which brings me to you, Margaret. Thank you for your post. I'm pleased that you are going to include a section on the blessings and encouragements that we received while we were in the assembly. I think that will serve a more Godly purpose.

Brent: Before I address the following quote, I would like to point out an inconsistency I see with you. I mentioned before that the Saints are holding leading brothers to double standards. Either the LB's were following GG and not the Lord, and were therefore not true elders and are therefore not accountable to the saints.
OR
The LB's were following God, not GG, and are therefore not responsible for deceiving anyone.
You are one of these saints, Brent. Sometimes you indicate that the assembly was not a Christian church as in that post in which you told Vbeers: "Matt has made it clear that he actually attends a Christian church, not the assembly." Now, if you try to weasel your way out of that one by saying that "I didn't say the assembly wasn't a Christian church," I'm not going to buy it. It's pretty clear what you meant by that wording. So, Brent, if you don't believe it was a Christian church, then the LB's aren't really elders and the verses that you mention below don't really apply to them.


Now, if this was a Christian church, as I maintain it is, I can allow that some LB's abused the saints and should be rebuked (especially the Gs). However, we cannot say that every LB abused the saints. It's too much of a blanket statement to implicate every LB for the sins of few. I don't agree with the way you tacked on your own meaning to the end of verse 22. It does NOT say in the Bible:
"if people fail to rebuke an elder or promote a scoundrel, then they become a sharer in his sins."
It says
"do not become a sharer in other people's sins; keep yourself pure."

You will note that all the saints are being addressed, not just the elders in that passage. It's more of a call to purity. Everyone is charged not to become a sharer in other people's sins (the Bible does not say other people= exclusively elders). When someone is causing you to stumble, don't partake in the same sin they are, but rather keep yourself pure. So, I can't imagine most leading brothers committed adultery or beat their wives. They didn't follow GG's example and therefore kept themselves pure in that regard. So, I don't see how these verses can be applied to every leading brother right now.

I'm going to cut and paste a point I had a while back that you never addressed, but that I feel is very valid.

Quote from: B. Tr0ckman on May 15, 2003, 01:08:22 am    
I totally disagree with this one.  I would like to hear some others weigh in on this.  The idea that God destroyed the ministry so that the saints could go out and share the wealth of biblical knowledge with others really tweaks me, for many reasons.  Also, the enemy didn't bring down a church.  He can't.  Jesus promised this, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  It is almost unanimous that God judged the house of Geftakys, only you and one other person have suggested the contrary, so we don't see eye to eye on this one.
 


Well, Brent, because something "tweaks" you is not reason enough for it to be false. Remember, you can't believe something to be false, just because you want it to be. I'm not saying that the Lord broke up the ministry to send saints out to spread the knowledge they've gained in our ministry. I'm saying it's a possibility. Now, there's something wrong here in the way you quote Jesus. Jesus did not say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against "a" church. He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. His church=the body of Christ=all believers who are living and have ever lived. I'm not saying that the enemy has prevailed against the body of Christ (all believers everywhere from all time). No, sir - that's ridiculous. But the Lord does not say that the devil will not try. Therefore, it would be hard to rule out that this hasn't been an attack from the enemy. Where else is all this bitterness, this accusation, this hatred coming from in the assembly? From the Lord? I'm not saying that it was an attack from the enemy, I'm saying it's a possibility. I know that you would be against that for personal reasons, seeing that you credit yourself with the fall of the ministry and could therefore be implicated as being deceived by the enemy into helping him. Do not worry though, we are all deceived by the enemy from time to time. I'm not asserting that you were though - just a possibility.

Lord bless.
- Matt

Hi Matt

The reason I didn't answer this in the past, is because I didn't think it was as important as some of the other questions in your posts.  I shall answer it now.

You give 2 possibilities here.  What parameters do you base these on?

I would like to suggest a few more:

1.)The LB's were NOT following God, and were following George, and are resposible before God for what they did, and did not do. Rom 1:18  Rom 2:1  Nowhere does it say that we are not accountable because we don't follow God.  We are all accountable and without excuse.

2.)The LB's were following God, and ARE responsible for deceiing people.  James 3:1  Nowhere can you see that if someone is "following" God, they must be non-deceivers

3.)The LB's were sincere, and did the best they could, but were deceived by George.  They were NOT biblical leaders, no matter what anyone might say, and are therefore responsible for what they did and didn't do.  

4.) Some of the LB's were just plain corrupt.  Read about the "super apostles," in the NT.
5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

Ad nauseum.

The passage in Timothy, is addressing Timothy.  Either way, the point is moot.  Don't be a sharer in other's sins, due to passivity about the character of those we allow to lead over us.  That's what the passage is saying.  Get a few commentaries and check it out for yourself.

Also, I don't take credit for the downfall of the ministry.  How could I do it?  It was God, working through flawed servants, myself being one of them.

As to the idea that if the leaders are partaking in some sin, you should just not do it, and keep yourself pure....

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Your idea flies in the face of the concept of accountability by leadership.  They are held to a stricter judgement, precisely because their sin DOES affect the little  lambs under them.

The problem we had, was that we had our focus on the ASsembly, and its various people, and our view of Christ, and His grace was obscured.

Brent

Brent,
I did read some commentaries and will post one that I found that most accurate:

@Verses 17-25 Care must be taken that ministers are maintained. And those who are laborious in this work are worthy of double honour and esteem. It is their just due, as much as the reward of the labourer. The apostle charges Timothy solemnly to guard against partiality. We have great need to watch at all times, that we do not partake of other men's sins. Keep thyself pure, not only from doing the like thyself, but from countenancing it, or any way helping to it in others. The apostle also charges Timothy to take care of his health . As we are not to make our bodies masters, so neither slaves; but to use them so that they may be most helpful to us in the service of God. There are secret, and there are open sins: some men's sins are open before-hand, and going before unto judgment; some they follow after. God will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make known the counsels of all hearts. Looking forward to the judgment-day, let us all attend to our proper offices, whether in higher or lower stations, studying that the name and doctrine of God may never be blasphemed on our account.

Based on this commentary, I cannot see how all of the LB's were sharers in the sins of the Geftakys. They did not "partake" in adultery/wife-beating/plagarizing/money squandering, etc. themselves. They did not "countenance" or condone it because they weren't aware of it. They didn't facilitate the sins of the Geftakys unless they helped to cover it up (again, this does not apply to the vast majority of leading brothers).  Therefore, I see these verses as applicable only to those select brothers in SLO and Fullerton that have been mentioned ad naseum (to borrow one of your favorite terms). The verses previous to the ones you mentioned (convieniently left out by you) also mention that the leading brothers who are laborious in their work are worthy of double honor and esteem. I haven't seen that represented on the site at all, not in the attitudes of the saints on this board. But, again, the vast majority of LB's tirelessly served the saints and are therefore worthy of this esteem.


Common sense.

Oh, everyone is accountable..we will all face judgement, unbelievers and believers alike. But, if the LB's weren't following God and if the assembly wasn't a Christian church (as you've implied), then the LB's weren't truly elders of a Christian church. If that's the case, then 1 Tim 5 isn't referring to the leading brothers because they weren't elders of the church. You can't have it both ways, Brent. If the assembly was a Christian church, then the LB's were elders. Now, are you going to make an argument that God is referring to elders of any kind of religion? I would have a hard time believing that.


Ok, I did, and it fortified my opinion. And, the Bible is meant for all people for all times. So what is being said to Timothy applies to all Saints in this case. If we say it is only for Timothy, then only Timothy is allowed to rebuke elders. Only Timothy is a sharer of sin if he condones/facilitates/partakes in the sins of another. So, it's for everyone.



hmmm...guess I misunderstood you?

Quote from: B. Tr0ckman on May 13, 2003, 09:53:07 pm    



Again, I noted you said that it was God who chose you to bring down the ministry: "working through flawed servants like me." Well, you may comfort yourself with that, and it may true. But the enemy have used you too. This is the 3rd time I posted it, but I think it's valid:

Quote from: B. Tr0ckman on May 15, 2003, 01:08:22 am    
I totally disagree with this one.  I would like to hear some others weigh in on this.  The idea that God destroyed the ministry so that the saints could go out and share the wealth of biblical knowledge with others really tweaks me, for many reasons.  Also, the enemy didn't bring down a church.  He can't.  Jesus promised this, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  It is almost unanimous that God judged the house of Geftakys, only you and one other person have suggested the contrary, so we don't see eye to eye on this one.



Well, Brent, because something "tweaks" you is not reason enough for it to be false. Remember, you can't believe something to be false, just because you want it to be. I'm not saying that the Lord broke up the ministry to send saints out to spread the knowledge they've gained in our ministry. I'm saying it's a possibility. Now, there's something wrong here in the way you quote Jesus. Jesus did not say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against "a" church. He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. His church=the body of Christ=all believers who are living and have ever lived. I'm not saying that the enemy has prevailed against the body of Christ (all believers everywhere from all time). No, sir - that's ridiculous. But the Lord does not say that the devil will not try. Therefore, it would be hard to rule out that this hasn't been an attack from the enemy. Where else is all this bitterness, this accusation, this hatred coming from in the assembly? From the Lord? I'm not saying that it was an attack from the enemy, I'm saying it's a possibility. I know that you would be against that for personal reasons, seeing that you credit yourself with the fall of the ministry and could therefore be implicated as being deceived by the enemy into helping him. Do not worry though, we are all deceived by the enemy from time to time. I'm not asserting that you were though - just a possibility.

Lord bless.
- Matt

Hi Matt


Matt, this is hyperbole.  This is not in any way saying, "I brought down the ministry."  In fact, quite the opposite.  It is saying how improbable it is that one person brought down the ministry.  God did it, not me.

Paul uses language like this in 1 Corinthians 13:1, where he says, "though I were to speak with the tongues of men and of angels..."  He is not saying here that he speaks the Angel's language, what he is doing is using hyperbole, in order to make a point.  His point is that giftedness, minus love, is worthless.  While that is NOT the point I am trying to make in this thread, it is worth remembering!



OK, Matt.  If you insist that I answer this question, then we set a precedent.  If I answer all the questions that you demand of me, than you must answer questions that I ask you.  OK?  It seems fair, yes?

Believe me, I'll answer it, but in the answering you may find yourself, and your coach pressed to answer some questions I pose to you.  Let me know if you want to play fair, and I promise I'll answer you.

Now, as to the passage in 1 Tim 5, and your commentary's rendering of it....I agree.

The problem is that you insist that the only sin was that of wife beating and adultery.  The people who knew nothing of this are indeed without guilt.  However, there was far more going on than just these two things, and people knew about it.

By promoting and supporting a man that was clearly disqualified, they became sharer's in his sins, because they "countenanced," them, as the passage reads.  Again, we are talking degrees of guilt here, and in my last post I definitely said that there were leaders, who due to their godliness, left or were forced out.



Really?  Do you really insist that the only two possible ways to look at things are what you said,

Godly--not deceptive
ungodly--not real elders--not accountable?
 ???

If you really believe that these are the only possibilities, then we have reached a point where we have no basis for discussion, and this is nothing more than a strife generating argument, in which case I will concentrate on something else, namely the free-will/grace thread.

So, I'll answer the question, in detail, if you agree to play fair.  You must answer all the questions I pose to you, and you give me to permission to pester you until you satisfy me.  Furthermore, if you don't answer me, or seem to ignore me, I will post the question over and over, and pretend that I have scored a point.  Fair enough?

Brent

So, the question originally posed by you was:  if God had raised up the ministry, how could one man bring it down? Now you are saying you were exaggerating - that you in fact did not mean it that way. Ok, I see. So I suppose we will need more evidence then to justify with complete certainty that it was God who wreaked havoc on the ministry and not the enemy.


You need to keep calm here. I didn't ask you to answer every question. I asked you to address that one. I am well aware that you already do not respond to a lot of my points and questions. As for the coach business, that was a sly trick, Brent. haha. But nobody has ever told me what to post on here. No leading brother, no other saint, it has all been my own writing. You said once that you won't let me talk about assumptions if I don't read all your website including your book. I'll tell you what, I don't need to read that website to see that assumption or others. If you don't want me to talk about assumptions, here's all you have to do: don't make any assumptions.

eeeeeek! another assumption. If knowledge of the sins of the Geftakys was so widespread (not just talking about adultery and wife beating here), then the ministry would have dissolved a lot sooner. Again, we need more than hunch that EVERY leading brother knew EVERYthing going. To really claim that, we need to go back to the omniscience issue...and you've already admitted that you aren't omniscient.


Again, in order to condone someone's sin, you need to know about their sin. There were...what...40 assemblies in the US? 50? How many leading brothers at these assemblies had direct accesss to GG? The vast majority didn't even live in the same state as he. I guess the main problem with your post is that you said GG was "clearly disqualified" when clearly most LB's did not know.

Brent, I'm afraid you haven't agreed to play fair at all. There are many inconsistencies with you. First you say one thing, then another. Oh no, I didn't mean you were irrational. You're only irrational if you don't read my website. Oh no, I didn't *really* mean I brought the assembly down, I only was exaggerating. Oh no, the assembly wasn't a Christian church raised by God, but the elders are responsible because in a Christian church they are sharers of sin. Matt, I can remind you of stuff publically in your emails. Matt, don't talk about assumptions, but I can make assumptions such as someone is coaching you. Come on, Brent. You're not one to talk about being fair, ok?

If you really don't want to keep this discussion going, that is up to you. I will delete my user account because my only purpose on this board is to defend saints that I feel are being wrongly held accountable. If you do want to keep this discussion up, you, sir, have to play fair too. Thanks and Lord bless.
- Matt

I can't believe that someone would bring into question
whether it was the Lord who exposed the Assembly or whether the enemy brought it down. George Geftakys was EXCOMMUNICATED by the church for unseemly conduct and behavior. This is a cleansing act, an exposing act brought about by the Lord to make things right. The Assembly was not brought down by rumor, but by fact---facts so strong that the leaders excommunicated him and then stepped down themselves.

It was a "cleansing of the Temple". To try to say the enemy has done this is to take the things of God and apply them to the enemy. What took place was taking things hidden in darkness and exposing them to the light. It's amazing that as that light was shed fully upon this leader, he did not face it and kneel down and repent, admitting that what had happened was the Lord's chastening hand, but he actually turned and fled in a sense. He showed he really didn't care for the sheep, just his own "purpose and calling" and has not admitted one bit of wrong.

What the Lord has shown us is who this leader really is,
and to flee from him and his teachings. As for the Leading Brothers all I can say is "the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree", and they are guilty of protecting George up to the last minute until they were forced to do the right thing and excommunicate him and step down themselves.


--Joe

Hi Joe

I think most people see it exactly the way you described it below.  However, the darkness is thick, and there are those who want it to grow again.  (I'm NOT referring to you, Matt.)

Remember, there are people who deny the holocaust ever took place.  There are people who think that AID's was invented by the CIA in order to kill black people, and there are those who credit, "The Enemy," for the exposure of Geftakys.

I wrote a piece last September, before GA.com was ever thought of called,  "How I brought Ruin to The Assembly."

I am loath to post it, because I use hyperbole, sarcasm and acerbic rhetoric.  I wrote it before the Assembly had been ruined, but it is interesting nontheless.

When I look back on the whole thing, I conclude the following:

George was/is a charlatan.  The leaders were appointed by him, and were totally under his control.  They spoke with him, or one of his chief servants, on the phone weekly.  They sat under his teaching at worker's seminars yearly, and had special meetings with him whenever he visited, which was at least once per year, often more.  His servants visited more frequently, so that any given Assembly has contact with headquarters at least weekly, in one form or another.

The Lord judged that it wasn't worth continuing, and shut it down.  Plenty of people have wanted to snuff out churches before, but were unable.  The blindfaith required to believe that it was "The Enemy," who ruined Christ's special Assembly, is on par with a belief in evolution.  It is faith way beyond me.

Brent

No, Matt.  Hyperbole is not exaggeration.  It's hyperbole.  Exaggeration is like saying, "The waves were double-overhead!"  when in fact they were shoulder high.

Hyperbole is like,  "The waves were so big I had to take off my hat."  In other words,  the waves were small, and I could surf on my longboard, with my hat on.  There's a difference, and my post was clearly hyperbole, and as such, made my point perfectly.

The argument you are engaging in is the intellectual equivalent of tic-tac-toe.  The only way to win, is if one side gets distracted with the television, and even if someone does win, it means nothing.  I won't have any more of it.

Saying that I was exaggerating is the intellectual equivalent of telling Steve Fortescue, while he is holding forth with quantum mechanics,  "Yeah, well, your feet smell, so you don't know what you're talking about."  It ain't worth it.

Now, this debate is over.  I won't do it anymore.  I think the outcome is clear for all to see.

I'm going over to the free will/grace thread.

Brent.

hmm...hyperbole is not an exaggeration? I guess the dictionary disagrees with you...

hy·per·bo·le    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (h-pűrb-l)
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.


Sorry, Brent, but you didn't know what a hyperbole was. So how could it make your point perfectly? It actually made my point perfectly...you said one thing, and then pulled out and said you were doing a hyperbole, aka exaggeration for effect...like I said in the first place =)

I didn't realize we were in it to win? I was trying to get everyone else to see a different perspective. Anyway, there is a lot of speculation going on here. Let me speculate a bit...I think you got upset when you realized I had a lot of points that you couldn't refute and that didn't line up with your agenda. You don't want to handle any more of these points (you said yourself that you are afraid of facts) and so the best thing would be just to say that this dialogue has been useless and move on.

Saying you were exaggerating was the same as quoting the dictionary - it was a fact based on what you told me - that you were using a hyperbole! It was a nice try, Brent. I'm going to say that you did force me to think a lot, and I'm probably smarter for it. I read somewhere once that the best way to improve your IQ and critical thinking skills was to study reasoning and logic, and analyzing your arguments gave me practice in that. I agree with you that it's not worth it though. For a different reason, though. You have a one-sided stance against the leading brothers as you lump them all together as one big group - all of whom are guilty in your eyes. I have tried to take a moderate stance: I do not defend all the leading brothers as innocent, nor do I defend them all as guilty. I do not say that it was necessarily the Lord who decided to wreak havoc in the ministry not do I say it was necessarily the enemy. I guess you're an extremist in this sense and that's what's so scary.

Contrary to popular belief, I have not been in contact with any leading brothers - not a single one. Nobody has told me what to post here. I have posted as I have felt led. The Lord spoke to me a lot on this thread. Strangely, Brent, He spoke to me in that passage in 1 Tim 5 that you posted about elders needing to be rebuked if they are a "sharer in sin." Whereas you chopped off verses 17-18 in that passage, I did look it up. I see that we have a duty to doubly esteem and honor those who were laborious and served us. I realized then that the Lord was confirming that I was doing the right thing in defending those leading brothers who worked so tirelessly for so many years. As stated before, in order to condone (countenance), partake in, or facilitate sin (i.e. share in it), the elders would have to know about the sin. You claim they did here:


"George was/is a charlatan.  The leaders were appointed by him, and were totally under his control.  They spoke with him, or one of his chief servants, on the phone weekly.  They sat under his teaching at worker's seminars yearly, and had special meetings with him whenever he visited, which was at least once per year, often more.  His servants visited more frequently, so that any given Assembly has contact with headquarters at least weekly, in one form or another." - Brent Tr0ckman

So, evidently on the phone, his workers or even GG himself said: " I want you to know that my son is beating his wife and that I commit adultery. I also plagarize my seminars and I squander money into a special slush fund. Is that ok? Any problems with that?"

Just ridiculous, brent. You are in sin, Brent, by implicating innocent brothers when you have a duty to esteem and honor them. If there are individual cases of leading brothers harming the saints, then those are just that - individual cases. Individual cases do not add up to every leading brother. Otherwise, you do have that responsibility to honor them. You can't ignore parts of scripture because it doesn't fit your cause. I know you are my elder and therefore I'm not sure how appropriate it is for me to rebuke you like this. But I do hope that I have forced you to think a little bit.

- Matt

Matt, I will pray for you.

Thank you.

Brent I disagree that the leaders were 'totally' under GGs control.  Some actually brought him to task on different issues.
Matt, I suspect that because GG was a charlatan(to quote Brent) then the counsel and advice he would have given to the LBs would have been 'tainted'.  That's where the 'assembly system' aka 'Geftakysism' comes in to play.

In His love,
M

A few weeks after GG's downfall, I attended the Fullerton prayer meeting.  It was not a regular meeting as they were explaining to the folks why they had excommunicated GG.  

I got up an said a few words.  After I talked about some corruption issues with GG, I said that "this is the fountain you've been drinking from for 30 years.  I can hear George talking through you. You need to get help from Christians outside the assembly."

What I meant was that GG had so inculcated his ideas, vocabulary, and practices that they were still thinking from WITHIN  the categories of those ideas.  Although the Assembly system was in meltdown, MENTALLY they were still in it!  

They needed, and still do need, to get a broader, Biblically sound perspective from which to evaluate what has happened to them.
Contact with godly, wise Christians from healthy churches can do this.

Thomas Maddux

I don't see how anyone can insist that I have lumped all LB's together and assigned all of them equal guilt, corruption, ignorance, deception, and complicity.

They ALL, every single one of them, were picked and OK's by brother George.  And any single one of them could have been removed in 30 seconds, with one phone call from brother George.  They were his leading brothers, and his workers.  If they did someting George didn't like, he could fire them on the spot, and no one would have questioned his judgement.  One day they would have been clothed in authority, the next they would have been shunned and ignored.  This, in black and white, demonstrates that George had total control over the leading brothers, because he could fire them if they gave him too much difficulty.  There are people on this forum who had exactly that experience.  Others stepped down, because of conscience sake.  There can be no argument about this, but they were not all guilty to the same degree.

We are talking varying degrees of guilty, here, as I posted in many previous threads.
5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

Can you guys see this OK?  Can you read the yellow parts, from one of my past posts?

This really is the last post I will make on this topic.  Please don't misrepresent what I have said.  (oops, second to last, sorry. :-X :-X :-\  )

I controll the people who work in my office.  I hired them, and gave them certain job descriptions.  If they fail to do what they are supposed to do, or do things they are NOT supposed to do, I fire them.  I am in control.

Read Kirk Cesaretti's account.  He was a LB, who learned that he was under George's control.  He quit.


Brent

Brent,

The impression I get from those huge big letters on your second last post is that I am a 'dumb sheep'.  This is the atmosphere you create when you get adamant, and it does NOT promote open communication.
It appears that you are focussed on 'your cause' and will take down any one who stands in the way of furthering that cause.
I would have sent this to you in a PM, but you do not like PMs either so...

M

Hi Mgov

I don't mind you saying it here.  I didn't post that in order to make anyone feel dumb.  I am just trying to figure out why when I say things, like what was in yellow, people repeatedly post as if I never said it.

It makes me wonder if I should make my posts shorter, so folks don't get tired reading them, or something like that.  

When you, gently, kindly, patiently told me that you didn't agree that all the leaders were "totally" under George's control, I answered with a "normal," post, in order to explain my position.

When others attacked me, and misrepresented what I said, I felt that I should make it clear that I was being misrepresented.  I had said it in normal sized, non-highlighted letters several times, but no one seemed to notice.  2 people are demading that I apologize to "all those LB's that I libeled," by claiming that they are accountable in some way.  Many times I have said that there were varying degrees of guilt, and it seemed that some people were perfectly OK with ignoring that and then supporting another person who was misrepresenting me.

It's rather tedious to do that, and only insures that any discussion we attempt degenerates into name calling.  

It is much better to read, and comprehend what a person is saying, and then launch the discussion from there.  If something is unclear, then we can ask them to clarify it.  If we disagree, let's disagree over what we are actually saying, not over what we insist the other person is saying, when in fact they are not.

For example: (of how NOT to do it)

I want to take you to task for your rascism and prejudice.  You act all holy here, and quote scriptures, but you are a rascist!  What a hypocrit!

What I have just done is to totally misrepresent what you said in a post about the cultural aspects of tardiness in India.  Since I have travelled extensively, I knew that what you were saying was not in any way racist, but a statement of fact.  In some cultures, tardiness is expected.  When this is the case, it is no longer tardiness, but "on time."

However, to wrench your thought out of context, either out of sheer ignorance, or malice, is not acceptable.  Should I do that, we have no basis for any meaningful discussion, because you are talking about Indian culture, and I am acting like a moron, while under the mistaken impression that I am exposing your racism.

Now, as to my cause....the post with the big letters was not in any way designed to rally people to a cause.  Its intended purpose was to make it somewhat more difficult for people to misrepresent what I am saying.  If someone wants to say, for instance, that I have lumped all the LB's together, and claimed they all knew about DG's abuse, and GG's adultery, they will have to do so under a billboard that clearly contradicts what they are saying.  The person who wishes to misrepresent me in this manner will clearly portray themselves as a liar, which is an accurate statement.

So, the post was not intended for you Mgov, but for people who had a habit of misrepresenting me.

Brent

Brent,

I still disagree with the use of huge big bold lettering. In 'netiquette' caps and bold lettering often indicate that you are shouting.

Also, I do not think that a work situation analogy fits with an assembly situation 100%.  The saints are just not your co-workers $/or emplyees.  There is a difference.  And I know for a fact that what you said about GG control is mostly true, but not 100% true.

God bless,
M

Hi Mgov

I was shouting.  Almost as loud as I could. ;)

I agree with you, that work and Assembly are not the same.  However, control is control.  He held the livelyhood of some of the LB's in his control, and he held the esteem of the others.  It's worse, the fact that it was in a church setting.

Also, you are correct, it is probably mostly true.  I have yet to talk to someone who thinks that there wasn't enough control exercised over people under GG.  Most people are quite agreed on the fact that too much control was one of the main problems.

Brent

Brent,

If you do not want to be misrepresented, then I suggest that you be an example by your posts.
I see a few 'assumptions' made by you in what I have quoted above:
ignorance and malice - only 2 possiblities??
acting like a moron -  not necessarily
habit of misrepresenting you - could it be not fully agreeing with you??

I also noticed in an earlier post that you assumed that Matt was being coached as to what he should write.

This kind of terminology lead to the omniwhatever conclusions about you, which I do NOT want to make.

'A sister is born for adversity'   :)

M

You are absolutely correct.  I want to repent of these words, and correct them, so that I can be a good example in my posts, in order to not be misrepresented.  (this is a joke.  ;D )

It should have read:



Keeping the above in mind, it could, or could not be possible to determine if I assumed that Matt was being coached, or merely suggested it as one of many equally plausible explanations for the change of his writing, based on other knowledge, which I may or may not have had in my possession at the time.  Then again, an indeterminate number of other explanations exits, one of which is the statistically likely possibility that it was a sarcastic "dig."

I hope this helps!

OK Brent - you win; but I think Stephen is trying to tell you something by his latest 'quote to ponder'!  :)

M

Brent,
Uh oh! It seems that you are sad  :'( because you have been "misrepresented" on this thread:

"The person who wishes to misrepresent me in this manner will clearly portray themselves as a liar, which is an accurate statement.

So, the post was not intended for you Mgov, but for people who had a habit of misrepresenting me."

Do you call yourself a liar for misrepresenting me numerous times on this thread? Or does that statement from you apply to everyone else but you? Let me ask my imaginary coach for advice on that one...but I guess for now we are "sharers" in each other's sin. Let's you and me meet for a repentence meeting soon!

Anyway...so you feel I misrepresented you because you said this:

"I don't see how anyone can insist that I have lumped all LB's together and assigned all of them equal guilt, corruption, ignorance, deception, and complicity." - Brent

in response to this:

"You have a one-sided stance against the leading brothers as you lump them all together as one big group - all of whom are guilty in your eyes." - Matt

hmmm...my my my Brent, I have to watch you like a hawk! Somehow, you added "assigned all of them equal guilt, corruption, ignorance, deception, and complicity" to my statement. No, sir - that's ridiculous. You like to stretch the truth , Brent!  Or is this one of your "hyperboles?" I don't believe in hyperboles. It's better just to say it clearly. So, let me say, clearly, that I have never said that you said the LB's were all EQUALLY guilty. I said that you think the LB's are all guilty. Why else would you say that this:


(Either Brent is omniscient or he phoned every single leading brother over the past 30 yrs from every assembly and asked them if they had 2 or 3 people come to them and express problems - and not just problems, but problems that were squelched.. I wonder which one it is...)

Now to address another one of your inconsistencies:

This is your point that you reminded us of so loudly in order to show us that, no, you never said that LB's were all guilty:

" Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category." - Brent

Oh, but yet they accepted appointment to an elder position from a corrupt man and spoke to him on the phone every week until they left (because you said that every LB spoke to GG or his workers every week on the phone).  In order to be appointed by GG, they would have had to promote him at some time, just like all the other LB's.

"By promoting and supporting a man that was clearly disqualified, they became sharer's in his sins, because they "countenanced," them, as the passage reads."  - Brent

Now, clearly by your standards, the LB's who left before GG's ex-comm are still guilty. You don't go by your standards though for some reason in this case. However, the funny thing is that I agree with you! I don't think they are all guilty either. They didn't know about GG's corruption or any other Geftaky sin and therefore are indeed not guilty (just like LB's who didn't learn about the corruption/adultery/plagarizing/wife-beating until shorty before the ex-comm). You said yourself that if people did not know, and they are indeed not guilty:


Now, Brent, as you have stated, in order to be a sharer of someone's sin, you need to condone, facilitate or partake in sin with someone. In order to do these things, you need to know the sin is occuring. The vast majority of leading brothers did not know and therefore cannot be accused of sharing in the Geftakys sins.

As for individual abuses by leading brothers, we need to have 2 or 3 witnesses come forward for every leading brother out there before we can say they are all guilty. That has not happened yet. Therefore, you are in sin because you are implicating innocent leading brothers. Brent, you're going to have to repent sooner or later. Get it over with now. As you noted on your former website by someone who repented - the Angels will rejoice!

- Matt
P.s. Now, Brent. Remember the verses directly before the passage (1 Tim 5) that you quoted. The ones before the public rebuking of elders who deserve it. Remember? You must honor and doubly esteem the leading brothers who labored in good cause. You've done the opposite, Brent. You're in sin....


17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

phew, I am SO glad I checked this before I went to bed. I saw Matrix Reloaded last night. It was good. you NEED to see it.

Brent,
you added this part after I had posted 'you win'; you are diabolical.  This is only to illustrate a point of the need for carefulness and clarity in communication.
M

Quote from Mgov
Yep, the time signatures make that pretty clear.  My last post was a joke, and was meant to be humorous, including the last part, quoted above.  Maybe I wasn't clear, but in the last sentence, I humorously confess to the possibility that saying Matt had a coach was a "dig."  He and I had already talked about that in email.

I assumed (I know bad idea) that your post, quoted above, was also meant to be humorous.

Brent

Brent,
The 'diabolical' part was meant to be humorous, as well as illustrate a point.


Stephen,
I apologize for misrepresenting you with the post I have quoted above.
Brent,
I was joking and did not mean it as a dig/jab.


M

Brent,

With a statement like this:
The person who wishes to misrepresent me in this manner will clearly portray themselves as a liar, which is an accurate statement.
I get the impression that you are implying an 'intent' to misrepresent and therefore 'lie'.  Please clarify for my benefit.
Also, I understood that Matt's postings were on the lines of 'honest' inquiry in order to explain and to gain understanding.

With regards to LBs:
All LBs and non-LBs are responsible to repent for the part they/we played in 'co-operating' with GG to keep the ministry going.  At this point in time, however, most, if not all, LBs have repented and are very humbled for their involvement.  They are willing to step aside and let others take the responsibility and to not interfere in any way.

M

Thank you. It's encouraging to hear someone else finally say this on the board!


ALL of the leading brothers allowed this? No, ma'am - that's ridiculous. Remember that "all" is a tricky word. If just ONE leading brother in the assembly stood up to or questioned GG, then we can no longer say that ALL of the leaders "idolized" or "allowed" his arrogance. In reality, we know that it was far more than just one leading brother out there who stood up/questioned GG. So, I beg you to reconsider your comment.

Here is why I feel that the arrogance issue is minor:
It is well known to all on this board, I'm sure, that everyone is a sinner whether he is saved or not. Therefore, nobody can hold somebody else to a standard of perfection - even leaders. GG is just a man and is thus incapable of not being a sinner. So to say that the leading brothers "allowed" him to sin with his "arrogance" is kind of silly. If it isn't his arrogance, then somebody else will say his pride, somebody else will say his vanity, somebody else will say his lack of charity, etc. We are all guilty of these sins, it's the nature of man to sin, isn't it? The leader of every church out there is a man, and therefore will be a sinner. Are the elders of every church then inevitably responsible because the leader of their church is inevitably a sinner?


Oh my GOODNESS! Don't tell me they were praying for the teen team and the teen conference. What is wrong with praying for the teens, ma'am? Do you imagine that any other church is going to pray for our teens? Of course not! So should our teens go without prayer? And how can you criticize this when the saints praying may have felt led to pray for the teens - you wouldn't know because only the Lord knows if they were praying as they were led. Thanks, though, Ms. Denner for being more of a moderate than an extremist. It's a relief. Lord bless.

MGov:
This message is completely unrelated to anything on this thread or on the board. I noticed you know a lot about older songs. I've been trying to track down a song my dad used to sing to me on his guitar when I was growing up. I don't remember the name or who sings it or anything like that. I could hum the tune a bit, but that's not going to help here! I just remember a bit of the lyrics:

Follow me where I go, what I do, and who I know
make it part of you to be a part of me
Follow me up and down all the way and all around
take my hand, and I will follow too.

Does this look familiar to you (or anyone else reading this) at all? Do you know who sings it and what the name of the song is? Thanks!
Matt.

John Denver

How dare you even suggest this. ;D

Brent

Andrea, if your husband felt that he allowed GG to be arrogant, then perhaps he did. Perhaps he felt led to repent for that. However, you have to remember that we cannot hold our own personal experience in the assembly as the gold standard by which to judge the entire assembly system. Because your husband felt he let GG be arrogant, that doesn't mean every leading brother let him be such. As I stated before, it's kind of silly to say that the leading brothers "allowed" GG to be a sinner (in this case via arrogance). That's like saying they "allowed" the sky to be blue or that they "allowed" the sun to rise. In other words they "allowed" the only thing that could happen to happen. Again, GG is a man and is therefore incapable of being anything but a sinner. So elders don't really have any choice but to allow a sinner as their leader. If the standard for being a leader in the church is to be sinless, then we would never have any kind of church leadership or any kind of elders, etc. So, I don't believe the arrogance issue is a major one at all - we're all arrogant from time to time. The issues like wife-beating, adultery, squandering, etc, are not the same. I'm sure the vast majority of the saints don't partake in those kinds of sins, so for GG to do it definitely requires him to be rebuked. But, as we said before and as you also said, the vast majority of leading brothers didn't know about the adultery, wife-beating, squandering, etc, and therefore cannot be responsible for it.


Amen, sister! I cannot thank you enough for these 2 paragraphs in which you give Godly elders the esteem and honor that we are called on to give them. The Lord bless them.


Oh, Andrea, but he who jumps out of his skin lives beside himself!

So you are saying that because you and Joe were not members of the assembly, you didn't want the assembly to pray for assembly outreaches in your presence? You will find that any church will continue to pray for its ministries whether or not there are visitors or non-members present. It doesn't make sense for a church to cut out all prayer for its ministries because visitors/non-members are present. I understand though that you may have been uncomfortable praying with them, but it's something that you should have expected.


Yes, ma'am, I did. I'll give you a positive point though because I really appreciate your tone - you're not an attacker and I appreciate that. You're also not as one-sided. Lord bless you, ma'am.

http://www.leaderu.com/common/green.html

Quote from the above, which was addressed to leaders:

---

What do you think future generations will say of us--is there some outrage or bloodshed going on every day that we placidly ignore, and our grandchildren will say, "How could they have been such monsters? How could they have been so evil?" We think of ourselves as pretty-good people, but a future generation may think we were hideously cruel, for ignoring some great injustice that to them will seem horrifying, and to us seems business-as-usual. For this reason we have to always be questioning the authority of our age, and questioning ourselves, wondering where we fall short and where we need to change.

---

Matt,

Did you give me those negative points? I'm up to -8 now.   :)

BTW I found the lyrics for the John Denver song at
http://www.absolutelyric.com/a/view/John%20Denver/Follow%20Me/

I just checked Andrea's age, and now understand why you call her ma'am.

I was reminded of the Narnia Chronicles by C.S.Lewis today; have you read them Matt?

M

Rev 2:18  And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, ` These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass:  19  "I know your works, love, service, faith, and your patience; and [as] for your works, the last [are] more than the first.  20  "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.  21  "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.  22  "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.  23  "I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.  24  "Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden.  25  "But hold fast what you have till I come.

---

It would seem that the Risen Christ has some concern regarding what we allow to take place in a church, especially in the realm of teachers.

Please take note that the passage does not say that each of the people in the church were guilty of the practices of Jezebel, although without a doubt, some were.  Jesus only mentions that they ALLOWED her to teach.  It doesn't even say that they themselves taught, or even held her doctrine (as with those who hold the Nicolaitan doctrine, which is practiced in all authoritarian leadership groups).  It merely says that they allowed her to teach, and therefore fell under the judgement of God.

I believe Andrea has a good grasp on what went on, and her witness as a former leader certainly carries weight.

Lurker

Interesting translation.
Rev 2:22  "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. ...
25  "But hold fast what you have till I come.

This does not speak of disbanding the church gathering if there is repentance.

M

Why, Verne, sir, do you know what? This reminds me of something that Matt Peeling would say. Doesn't it?

I'm sure nobody has an argument with that point, sir. However, there are stark differences here. As you will see below:


Jezebel taught sexual immorality and the eating of sacrificial idols. In addition, Jezebel made no secret of her adultery, especially if she was teaching it. Therefore everyone must have known and still allowed her to teach. GG, on the other hand, did not teach or preach sexual immorality. Also in contrast to Jezebel's case, very few leading brothers knew about GG's adultery. Those few brothers that did know and didn't say anything are indeed with guilt. However, the vast majority of leading brothers didn't know he was an adulterer (in contrast to the church in Thyratira) and GG didn't preach sexual immorality or eating idols (in contrast to GG's preaching). When GG's adultery was made known, then he was no longer allowed to be a teacher - he was ex-communicated. Therefore, the vast majority of leading brothers did not allow GG to teach after they found out about his adultery.



Actually, she wasn't a leader. Her husband was a leading brother. And you are right, her witness is important.  That's why I was pleased when she mentioned that she and her husband had had no idea about George's adultery or had even heard rumors. (most leading brothers hadn't)  That's why the passage you quoted is for a different situation than the leading brother's in the assembly.
Lord bless.
- Matt

Matt,

The point I was trying to make, as well as the point in the passage, especially if taken in context,  is that God is concerned with what is taught in churches.  

I would like to pin you down, by asking you to answer something:

If a church holds to, and vigorously teaches false doctrine, does God hold the teachers accountable?  Or is it only moral sins, like adultery that matter?

A corrolary to the question posed to you above, which must be considered and dealt with if one were to attempt to arrive at a position on the former question, is:  Were the leaders in the Geftakys group aware of what George taught publicly, both in speech and in print?

I think what some people are trying to say is along these lines:

Comparatively few leaders knew about the adultery, quite a few knew about the wife abuse, and virtually everyone should have known about the false doctrine, while it seems unanimous that George and David's character was not becoming a minister of Christ.

James 3:1  Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. ........

11  Can both fresh water and salt {[11] Greek bitter (see also verse 14)}water flow from the same spring?  12  My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.  13  Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.

This passage, again taken in context, clearly teaches that there is a link (at least in God's estimation, men may hold other opinions) between teaching and character.  If a leader claims wisdom, their life should adorn this claim, not contradict it.

If a leader's fellow leaders (in a system that is presbyterian in nature) observe an inconsistency in a teacher's life and words, they are obligated to examine the doctrine, knowing that teachers incur stricter judgement.  Teachers are held to a higher standard than others.  

(another very interesting fact is that exposure of George's sin did not come from his close associates in the ministry, but by lay people who had either left, or been kicked out.  A biblical leadership structure would have held this man in check decades ago.)

There is simply no rational argument to the contrary,  although leaders caught with their proverbial pants down, often try to claim a seperation between their private life, and their teaching.  Our ex-president Clinton has been known to promulgate this theory, which is rejected by God.  Again, if a man has been authoritatively teaching doctrine, as George Geftakys did, and his life is a contradiction to his words, the Bible calls this type of widom, demonic.

Again, the context of the passage is not that of a man of God who stumbles and repents.  The context is that of a man who for some time has been spewing bitter water, or bearing improper fruit.  

If we conclude that George Geftakys is this type of man, then we must also conclude that the leaders who served under him lapsed in  their biblical responsibility to examine his doctrine, or as it is put in another passage, to test the spirits.

It all boils down to this:

What false doctrine was foisted by George, and who allowed him to foist it?  There is where people can determine their degree of culpability.  It is not up to us to try these people in court for doctrinal errors (criminal acts is another matter altogether).  The Holy Spirit will teach the former leaders what they need to repent of.  I see this forum as a tremendous inroad for God's Spirit to bring much needed light to a very dark place.

Lurker

..."If a leader's fellow leaders...observe an inconsistency in a teacher's life and words, they are obligated to examine the doctrine, knowing that teachers incur stricter judgement..."


I agree with this but would add that we ALL--not just the LB's--should have been doing the examining.   Most of us saw or heard things that were "off" but few of us followed up on our suspicions.  A few brave men & women kept pursuing the truth until the darkness was exposed. But most of us (including myself) plugged cowardly along, not willing to rock the boat. Thank God many of us were pulled off the Titanic before she sank!

I agree with you, Tanya.  Around 1999 is when I started hearing things in the ministry that just did sound right-like at that couple's meeting where David said women should remain with their husbands, even if the woman is being beaten.  How Lisa was in sin cause she left her husband.  How we are to obey the leaders even if they are wrong, etc.  It was at the end of 2000/beginning of 2001 that I refused to believe the hype any longer!  I got out.  It takes a lot of courage to stand up to darkness, and I thank God for the forerunners who said "enough!".  They truly inspired me to make the right choice, even though it was scary to think about life outside of the Assembly...

Tanya,

You are quite right.  Everyone must give account before God.  Teachers, however, incur a stricter judgement, which implies that non-teachers also incur a judgement, but it is less strict, for obvious reasons.

In light of the confusion expressed by many of the former members of the group regarding Justification/Sanctification, please understand that when I say "judgement," I am in no way speaking with regard to justification and atonement.  Conversely, teachers who promote healthy doctrine do not get "extra" grace.

Each of you, who experienced an active conscience in the presence of Geftakys, or his teachings, and did nothing, is guilty.  I think Tanya expressed this very clearly.

The wonderful thing is that God's grace abounds, and there is cleansing and forgiveness for this.  He desires to turn it into something good, and for us to grow as a result.  What the Enemy means for evil, God means for good.

---

Now, there is another aspect to accountability that should be mentioned at this point:

Mat 18:6  But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.  7  "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

and

42  "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

The context here is regarding the Pharisee's, who were regarded as the religious authority of the day.  They saw themselves as defenders of the faith, and they sat in Moses' seat.  Furthermore, the people viewed them as such.

However, their teaching did not bring people closer to God, but the opposite.  Jesus said that they made it impossible for people to enter the kingdom.  The judgment they incurred for stumbling the little ones is far greater than the judgment the little one's incur for listening to a "blind guide," or a "son of the devil," as the Pharisee's are called by Jesus.

On another note,  Andrea, is it true that your husband was considered a leader but you were not?  Is this teaching characteristic of your former group?  Were the leader's wive's viewed as any other woman in the group, or were they seen as one flesh with their husband, and therefore a leader also?

Lurker

Matt,
Please listen to me. You are being used by the leading brothers simply because they are too cowardly to step up and repent or step up and justify their actions. It is really hard to watch a young one, like yourself, take the flak on this board in the service of all the leading brothers who harmed the people in the assemblies. You know that many guilty leading brothers must be reading this board and instead of coming on here themselves, they let you do their dirty work. They don't love you Matt, they want you to get hurt so they won't. You are sort of like the Don Quixote of the this board. You are on a quest to defend all the leading brothers: the impossible dream. You keep coming back and coming back, but you don't see it. You're 1 against hundreds. They're going to overpower you in the end. Do you see? When you're done with one, the next one in line steps in. First Verne, then Brent, then Andrea Denner, now Lurker than who? You'll never be done with it. I have to say that you have some incredible posts, but you don't have to keep putting yourself out there to be shot down. You're not nearly as guilty as the leading brothers and you don't have to take the flak for them. You are lot braver than a lot of the leading brothers. They don't love you, Matt, or they wouldn't let you do this. Remember that, sweetie.

Leading brothers:
I know I've already said all this. But don't let someone who is a kid compared to you do all your dirty work for you. Be ashamed. Very ashamed. You're going to hurt him. He obviously thinks you care for him or he wouldn't try to defend you all the time. And he's going to be crushed when he realizes the truth about you. QUIT BEING COWARDS AND COME HERE AND DO THIS YOURSELF!

Matt again:
Do you think there is a chance that all the leading brothers are wrong? We all do stupid things before? Do you think you've never done something stupid? Try to see it from everyone else's perspective.
Love,
Laurie.

Hi Ho everyone, Matt here. Well, I was out earlier walking on the beach and talking to my imaginary coach about what to say tonight. We prayed together on the beach, which was embarassing because nobody but me and Brent can see my imaginary coach, so it looked like I was talking to myself the entire time. Then I went to Mc Donalds and Starbucks. What can I say? I am an American! Hear me ROAR!

Sorry, trying my hand at creative writing. Ok now where to start today? This post will take some time.


Well, Laurie, this stumped me the most. I had to rack my brain for a good hour trying to remember if I've ever done something stupid in the past 21 years of my life. Finally, yes, I did remember something. A few years ago when I was 17 and my sister was 14, we had flown into Chicago in order to drive to Iowa City to visit an uncle and aunt and cousins who lives there. My great uncle in Chicago let us borrow his pick-up truck for the drive. Well, soon we came up to this creepy apparatus on the highway - the toll plaza. Being from California and Minnesota, my sister and I have never seen anything but FREEways. We were soon confronted with a decision "Manual" or "Automatic." Not realizing it had to do with payment, we were perplexed at first. We decided that we would go to the automatic line since the truck was not a stick-shift (manual), but an automatic. Then we see that automatic means correct change only and all we have is a 20 and an atm card. Looking desperately in the crack in the seats on the floor, we found no coins. A semi behind us blared its horn and a worker came over with the name of Greta. I believe she said something similar to our sweet Eulaha: Can't you read? So we proceed and then we are confronted with another decision. Cars and Trucks. Well, since we are in a pick up truck, we naturally pull into the truck lane. Soon we find ourselves surrounded in sea of semis. Guess who comes back? Greta with a handful of paper work that we had to fill out for using the wrong lane. Only at the next "toll plaza" do I see that it says "Pick ups use car lane" on a huge sign. So yes, Laurie, I did do something stupid once.

As for seeing other people's perspectives, my GOODNESS, how could I not? The website and bulletin board was made from people with views that are hostile to leading brothers and to the assembly. That being said, who do you think are the ones most attracted to the site? People with hostile views to the assembly and to leading brothers. I realize that since the website is really a kind of private property, they can do whatever they want on it. But as long as they let me post my perspective here, I will do it. I thank Mr. Tucker and Mr. Tr0ckman for letting me do that.


And what, pray tell, is the false doctrine that you are referring to? As you note later on, you imply that you have no idea what the false doctrine is in the Geftakys ministry as you have to ask us what it is. Don't take things at face value - just because Brent Tr0ckman says false doctrine was the standard in the assembly, that doesn't mean it was. You also need to keep in mind that every church has some false doctrine - no church has perfect doctrine. Only Jesus Christ had perfect doctrine. I'm not sure where the adultery comes in? GG never preached that adultery was acceptable - so it is not applicable to any false doctrine of the assembly. And, as stated many many many many many times before, his adultery was hardly known by anyone - including the vast majority of leading brothers.

What more can I say then repeat again what has been said even by Andrea Denner, whose witness you found particularly important. Most leading brothers did not observe an inconsistency in the life of GG and his words. He didn't make his adultery public knowledge, and DG's wife beating was definitely kept among an extremely extremely miniscule percentage of LBs. Therefore, they did not observe an inconsistency in the life of GG and his teaching. Also, "GG's doctrine" didn't include the sins that he committed. Again, adultery and money squandering, plagarizing, etc, were not beliefs that were held acceptable in the assemblies.


Nobody here is saying that GG didn't claim a separation between his priate life and his teaching. Indeed, he did. Do you think he walked around at seminars and boasted about his adultery and the fact that he let his son beat his wife? No, sir - that's ridiculous. Nobody is saying that he is innocent. But the vast majority of LB's didn't commit adultery or beat their wives and therefore not "demonic" as you imply.


Oh his doctrine was examined, and he was stood up to many times by LB's. But we are still waiting, Lurker, as to what the false doctrine is that you are talking about.

Yes, Lurker, what is the false doctrine? You don't know? You're just assuming that the assembly had false doctrine? I'll admit that it does - every church does. Every church leader is a sinner - it's inevitable. But don't jump on the bandwagon, Lurker.


I guess, Lurker, here is where it becomes subjective and you can only come at this second-hand. As someone who was actually in an assembly, I can attest that I grew much closer to God in the assembly. The teaching in the assembly faciliated that - getting into the Word everyday, being encouraged to share the Word with unbelievers, pray for and with others, fellowshipping with believers, etc. A personal relationship with Jesus, a walk with Him, was the basis of the assembly. The saints and their leaders didn't ask the other saints: how's your walk with GG? No, sir - how's your walk with the Lord?

As for the issue of stumbling, I believe the assembly did a lot to help people from stumbling. Accountability was a key part of the assembly experience. I'll agree that some people abused that. But the assemblyites lived a very sheltered life - as much separation from worldliness as possible was taught and encouraged vigourously. If you were struggling with something, those close to you in the assembly could help you through it (of course the Lord is what ultimately gets out of our sinful desires and back onto the path of Godliness.). I guess that is one thing I miss about the assembly- the accountability.
Lord bless.
- Matt

Laurie,
Regarding my experience in Chicago, I've decided that maybe I wasn't the stupid one, maybe they were stupid. They word things so stupidly east of the Mississippi, and since I'm from the part of Minnesota that is west of that river, I am safe. If these "toll plazas" had been in California, they would have been labeled "Exact Change only Lane" or "Not Exact Change Lane" - none of this "automatic" and "manual" business. I'm sure I'm not the only victim of that confusing sytem. Yes, I'm not stupid after all. Maybe I'm overanalyzing the situation? I'll have to get back to you on your question later.
Lord bless.
- Matt "humble" Peeling

The Bible says that the two shall be one flesh.  That they are not one spirit is clear from Jesus' answer to the Sadducees in Mark 12:25.  "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."  So spiritually we are considered to be individuals.
Since we are to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh, the spiritual plane is what counts in spiritual leadership.  The net result is two individual spirits inhabiting a single two-part body.  The one spirit is leader, and the other is not.

Oh, you mean like a leading sister?  :)

M

Matt

You are correct, I haven't set foot in an Assembly meeting for years.  I did read this, which was circulated nationally among at least one large campus organization:

http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Brochure.htm (http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Brochure.htm)

Exclusivity and Elitism. It is a known fact that The Assembly and its campus subgroups are not at all involved in the evangelical community’s many activities and inter-church events. They prefer to stick to themselves and promote their own events.  The reason for this is because they teach that God is extremely concerned that everything be done a certain way in the church. They claim that if things are not patterned after Assembly ideals, being influenced by modern culture, God is displeased, and will withdraw His support.

• They also assert that The Assembly is one of the few churches that is doing things God’s way. For example, George Geftakys teaches, “I am convinced that most professing Christians today do not know how to worship.”[xi] He goes on to say that he, unlike most Christians, does know the correct way to worship. “He revealed to me what it meant to worship in spirit and in truth.”[xii]  The Assembly also believes that, “All ecclesiastical organizations, missionary societies, public lists of membership and funds, etc. are a denial and departure from a walk of faith and dependence on the Lord for all things.”[xiii] Along with this, The Assembly holds to the idea that any church or missionary organization that applies for tax-exempt status with the government is, “the essence of sectarianism.”[xiv] This view is in clear contradiction to what Jesus taught in Luke 20:21-25, where He clearly taught His disciples to pay their taxes.  Romans 13:1-7 also plainly states that Christians should obey the laws of the land, especially with regard to paying taxes.  There is no Biblical justification for condemning churches that obey the laws of the land in order to enjoy tax-exempt status.  Many ex-members testify that while in The Assembly, they heard teaching on a regular basis that demeaned and mocked local Christian churches and the evangelical community at large. It is our opinion that these stances taken by The Assembly create and un-biblical division in Christ’s Body.  Furthermore, when these ideas are inculcated in member’s minds, they result in isolation from other Christians. Thus The Assembly loses a large measure of accountability that could be had if they enjoyed fellowship with other gatherings.  This lack of accountability leaves the door open to extreme practices, spiritual and even physical abuses, which have been widely reported as having occurred in The Assembly.[xv]
[/color]

Please understand that all the claims are derived from footnoted literature that was purported to have been displayed on every Assembly's literature display.  I myself have viewed the pamphlets, and the quotes are verbatim, and in context.  So, this is one form of false doctrine that can be verified.  

And then there is this:

http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/GGPublishedWritings.htm (http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/GGPublishedWritings.htm)

Again, a quote: "It is important to emphasize that although the church is engaged to Christ, it does not necessarily follow that all the church will be the bride! Only those who are faithful to their betrothal will be fit for the Bridegroom. 'Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish' (Eph. 5:25-27). By keeping ourselves clean by the washing of the prophetic word, we can be a fitting companion to the King" (p. 61).
A distinction is made between the church and the bride. Not all who are part of the church are part of the bride. The bride is composed only of overcomers who have kept themselves clean to be a fitting companion to the King. Again, we see that Christians are divided into two groups, making the vast majority of simple believers in Christ second-class citizens.

"We begin this consideration by saying what perhaps many would rather not hear – that entrance into the kingdom of God is based upon a condition. Salvation from the consequences of sin is unconditional; but to know all the privileges and the inheritance associated with the kingdom is conditional according to our response after we have been saved. According to the Word of God, love for Christ is the determining factor of our entrance into the kingdom of God. 'If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha [literally, let him be accursed, the Lord cometh]' (1 Cor. 16:22)" (p. 63).
Commenting on 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Eph. 5:5. "Even a Christian, if he is living an unrighteous life, will not inherit the kingdom of God" (p. 67).

---

with regard to my querie to Matt, have you ever read what George actually believed and taught?  Elsewhere on this BB, it has been proven that Geftakys taught that man was created on the seventh day, in clear contradiction to the biblical account.  While it is commendable that Andrea's husband questioned him, the facts remain as thus:  (again, this is based on what has been said by several people on this forum, I never heard George say this)

Keeping the above in mind, George taught seventh day creation several times, in public, at seminars.  While it is probable that leaders questioned him on this, the fact that he never corrected or retracted his error, and continued to teach it, over a period greater than one year means that he was allowed to do so.  Furthermore, in spite of his arrogant demeanor, and public false teaching in the form of published works and public teaching, he was the main "evangelical," functionary of the group, travelling worldwide 2 to 3 times per year.

Who allowed him to do this?  

My presence on this BB would be even stronger, if adultery was not an issue.  I see the adultery as a terrible distraction from the greater sin of false teaching.  Again, this is not to say that adultery is not bad, it is.  However, false teaching or this nature is far more damaging in the long run. The false teaching that I am aware of, which must be just a small slice, is enough cause for alarm, especially considering the ambitions that this group displayed on campuses accross the country.  I have a vested interest to see that this group never again recruits victims from campuses.

Please, the statements I have made above are based on what I have read, with my own eyes, that was published with George's name on it, and his picture on the back.  The publishing company was Torch and Testimony Publications.  I assume that this was authentic literature.  If this is not the case, than I owe Matt, and many others an apology.  

Lurker

Normal churches are usuallya network of a network of other churches, where there is accountability for what is taught.  If there is any "false doctrine" taught in those gatherings, then it would be caught, and publically corrected.  That was not the case with GG's Assemblies.  Saints may hear something off, and may bring it up to the leading brothers, but usually it was explained away and the "false doctrine" continued to be taught.

I doubt that any healthy church is willingly teaching false doctrine.  Note I said a "healthy" church.  GG is an adulterer, full of pride and bitterness towards organized churches (maybe because he was fired as a pastor??).  Him teaching false doctrine was inevitable, because his walk with the Lord is questionable.  The Assembly never was a healthy church from the beginning, because its self-proclaimed leader was willfully living in sin.

Denver sang the song!  It's on his Greatest Hits album!

And at 150 years of age too;  Now here's a REAL leading sister !!   :) :)

You know why the assemblies did not have sisters as doorkeepers?
Rhoda didn't open the door for Peter, so that was the LAST time a sister was given that responsibility. :)

M

Matt  :)

You're aging pre-maturely.  You're developing this sense of humor, and writing long long posts.  And all at the young age of 21 (or have you had your Y2003 Birthday already?). I'm impressed.
That is funny though.
(BTW I am not being sarcastic).

That's all for now (TAFN)
M

Hello there:

I'm the author of the brochure you mention, and I can guarantee you that the literature cited is genuine, straight from any Assembly's booktable.  During announcements at the end of meetings, especially seminars, one or more of George's books would be recommended by Leaders and Elders, so they definitely promoted George's teaching!

I can't imagine how anyone could suggest that the Assembly leadership didn't promote George's teaching.  The very idea is ludicrous!

I am NOT the author of the second paper you cited, but before I published it on the website, I checked out the references there, and they are 100% accurate as well.

What you cited below is a fair sampling of the core beliefs of the Assembly.  There are other aspects, related to George's doctrine as well.  For instance, while much of his Deeper Life teaching is debateable, it does fall within the realm of evangelical Christianity.  However, the way these doctrines were expanded upon and put into practice is yet another form of false doctrine.

I vote for a new thread, where we can examine before/after views on doctrine.  There used to be a thread like this called:  Smashing Spectacles.  It was short quips, but some of them really good.   I think we should expand upon that, but keep the discussion civilized and honest.

Read a GG teaching, and then sort it out.  Any takers?

Brent

Why Verne, nobody commented on your relationship with those individuals. Although, the board could see that you condoned those condemning remarks from that anonymous woman in STL - so your relationship couldn't be that great. Anyway, you need to reign that wild imagination of yours in.

I would like to comment on 2 points:
1.  Allowing GG to teach false doctrine
2.  Exclusivity and elitism

1. Matt brings up an valuable point with regards to this.
quote:
Andrea, if your husband felt that he allowed GG to be arrogant, then perhaps he did. Perhaps he felt led to repent for that. However, you have to remember that we cannot hold our own personal experience in the assembly as the gold standard by which to judge the entire assembly system. Because your husband felt he let GG be arrogant, that doesn't mean every leading brother let him be such. As I stated before, it's kind of silly to say that the leading brothers "allowed" GG to be a sinner (in this case via arrogance). That's like saying they "allowed" the sky to be blue or that they "allowed" the sun to rise. In other words they "allowed" the only thing that could happen to happen. Again, GG is a man and is therefore incapable of being anything but a sinner. So elders don't really have any choice but to allow a sinner as their leader. If the standard for being a leader in the church is to be sinless, then we would never have any kind of church leadership or any kind of elders, etc. So, I don't believe the arrogance issue is a major one at all - we're all arrogant from time to time.
end-quote
I personally tended to give GG 'the benefit of the doubt' treatment when I did not fully understand him.

Which brings me to
2.  If I were to hold every leader accountable for everything he preached that was 'false doctrine' then I cannot think of any church that I could comfortably fellowship at without, then being accused of being elite/exclusive.

Comprendez-vous.

M

Why do these game shows make me think of the Assembly:

"Truth or Consequences"
"To Tell the Truth"
"Family Feud"
"Jeopardy"(especially "Final Jeopardy")
"The Weakest Link"
"Survivor"
"I've got a secret"


hmmmm.... oh well

Andrea, you have articulately expressed exactly how I look at it.  Thank you!

I am getting some really great email from some former Assembly people today.  The Lord is doing a great work of recovery, and it looks as if something of real significance is about to happen.  No, I'm not talking about someone getting in trouble with the law, or anything like that.  I'm referring to someone influential who is beginning to see some things.

Brent

Verne, sir, why so emotional? So you think that Luke and Paul Robinson are both raving lunatics? In your desperation, you have turned to name calling. Ask yourself - does the Lord want me to call Luke and Paul "raving lunatics?" Am I building up my brothers by calling them names? Or is the devil using me to say hurtful comments to them to bring them down and discredit them? Verne, the hatred and bitterness on Brent's website and this BB has started to affect you. Some people can handle it and rise above the promotion of hatred and bitterness, wrath, etc on this board, and others can't - trust me, you're one who can't. I also think it's odd that it's ok to slander Luke and Paul Robinson, and Tim G, and anyone else who doesn't think that all the leading bros are responsible, but yet, if anyone says something slanderous about Tony Edwards, Brent, Verne or anyone else who agrees with them - well then that grounds for going to hell. I'm worried that people are building Brent Tr0ckman up the same way they built GG up. I know that comparing people to GG has been the ultimate insult on this BB and I'm not saying that Mr. Tr0ckman is like GG. No, sir - that's ridiculous. But I'm saying that nobody jumped to L and P's defense when Verne viciously attacked them here, and it was probably because Brent Tr0ckman has been known to disagree very much with them. Think about why.



Chop-Chop, King Brent has spoken. Come on Brent's followers - get to it, start that thread up!




Most leaders teach that we must be Christ-like. No leading brother is Christ-like - none of them are Christ. Again, if your standard for Church leadership is perfection, is to be sinless, then you will never have any leadership in the church.



Why, this is interesting. You said in your last post that it's that "extra twist" that made GG's teachings false. But who added the extra twist here? (hint: you did in this case) "Only heavenly people go to heaven" makes sense to me. Heavenly=having to do with heaven,having characteristics of heaven. What are the characteristics of Heaven? The saints will be there: it will be filled with the saints! So only the Saints will go to Heaven - and this is true. If you added an extra twist that made it false, that's not the leader's fault.


Since Brent was the author of this, and not God, I do not feel that it is as infallible as you do, Lurker. I especially like the last line: they promote their own events LOL. What church doesn't?!! Do you think any church out there vigorously promotes another's churchs' events over its own? No, sir - that's ridiculous.
 

Well, I testify that in my 3 yrs of involvement with the Geftakys ministry, I have never heard them demean or mock local Christian churches unless they brought up actual un-Biblical points about them (for example, 7th day adventists, or catholics). If, in my 3 yrs of assembly involvement, mocking and demeaning of other churches was never brought up, then I can't imagine that it was a common issue.


This is again Brent's opinion. We must watch out for that - we've seen its bias. Maybe at Brent's assembly this was not the case, but I know the people at my assembly all had many Christian friends outside the assembly - many of whom we prayed for - for their health, their job security, for their encouragement. Lurker, you placed such value on Andrea Denner's witness for her time in the assembly. Well, I'm a primary source as well. I have eyes and ears too and I was there. You, sir, have only secondary sources and are only able to make an opinion based on that. I can understand you using GG's own writings - that too is a primary source. But Brent's pamphlet is his opinion and his view of the assembly is peppered with his own bitterness and wrath based on his personal experience - it hardly an all-encompassing witness of the assembly. Lord bless.

- Matt

Thank you, sir, for the compliment concerning my behavior recently. However, I'm confused why you wanted to "stridently rebuke" Paul and Luke when neither of them post on this BB anymore? Anyone who disagrees with you must be "raving lunatics," right sir? I'm not trying to ruin your reputation: I think you will hurt your reputation yourself if you don't retract your statement and apologize. So, please tell us if that was the Lord who wanted you to call Luke and Paul those names. Thanks!
- Matt

P.S. This reminds me of the time that somebody called one of Luke's posts "plain dumb" and both you and he awkwardly made up these convoluted posts trying to justify yourselves after you were called on it. Just say "Luke and Paul, I was needlessly attacking you with untrue, hateful comments last night and I ask your forgiveness." It would save you time, and that perfect reputation of yours that you're so worried about would remain unblemished.

The saints will be there: it will be filled with the saints! So only the Saints will go to Heaven - and this is true  

by Matt


I can seem to find this in my Bible, care to expound on this statement?  

Matt-

To SLANDER someone is to tell things about that person that are untrue.  Didn't Brent write the same thing to you??  You are using slander to mean anything BAD said about the person.  Well, "bad" or not, exposing Tim G. and his ways are not slander-it's telling the truth.  And no matter how many times you stick up him, he indeed did what he did!  I can say Tim G. is a fraud for a zillion days, and some may think I'm a liitle cooky by doing that (lol), it's the truth-he is a fraud.  So, please use the word "slander" very carefully.  Remember, the Assembly twisted the meaning of certain words to justify what they were doing and teaching (examples: gossip, persecute).

Mkoley, the saints = all believers. Try John 3:16 for evidence of their salvation. It's the book after Luke.

Only Saints=All Believers

I'm not trying to be critical, but I find a bit of disparity in this comparison.  I may have misintrepreted what you meant by "Saints".  

Matt, this is Mc-theology.  (as in Mcmuffin, Mcmeal, Mcwisdom, etc.)

Have you any idea what George taught about entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven?  Have you ever read one of his books?  If you answer no, you have no business commenting on it in this manner.

Brent

Oh, Brent, but you're not the moderator. I think it is funny that you are still trying to tout yourself as some authoritative figure. Now, I'm confused. I thought you were going to post anymore on this thread? Brent, I don't trust you at all, and I'm not sure what you're after on this board. It's funny how I use actual reason when I try to refute you. You tend to resort to saying things like "oh, well that just can't be - that's mc donald's philosophy" lol. Or that one time in which you said "Matt, that's like saying so and so has bad breath and is therefore an idiot" LOL.  Come on Brent, when you don't have anything to say but your emotional outbursts, it's better to just say nothing - you'll keep more honor and dignity that way.

Andrea: thanks for your post. Firstly, forgive me if you were offended - I know my tone was kind of harsh. Forgivest thou? I was trying to say that I think people can get primary information from the Bible and then use secondary souces (like GG) for expounnding on. I guess that is why I thought he meant heavenly people = christians because christians are Heaven bound. Does that make sense? I'm not saying that GG is a perfect teacher, and I'm not saying that he didn't have any false doctrine. I agree that he has much to repent for. But my only argument on this board is that the vast majority of leading brothers are not guilty of hurting the flock (the sheep metaphor is getting annoying LOL).

Brent, I'm not trying to offend you brother, but you could learn a lot from Andrea Denner. She is less emotional and more understanding of all sides. MGov is like that too. You tend to throw your weight around like you're a source of authority here, so please, for our sakes try to behave yourself a bit better. You are promoting a lot of wrath, bitterness, anger, etc, and those things are not coming from the Lord - you know they aren't.
- Matt

     Call me naive, but i just don't get all the Brent-bashing.  
i was gone for two weeks, during which time Brent returned from his six week hiatus, and now it seems every time i look at the bb, somebody is taking a shot at him.  i'm not writing this to defend Brent, he's a big boy.  i just don't get it.
     His comments are often tongue-in-cheek, and quite amusing (but maybe that's because i'm not passionately debating him over something).  i don't read in his remarks that he's throwing his weight around, trying to be someone important or even getting emotional.  But claims are being made to that effect and quotes presented to back those claims (although they fail to do so) that make me think that maybe the patients have taken over the asylum.

     Let me ask this:  If the Son of God, during three years of ministry, was misunderstood by everyone who heard him (even his closest disciples), why should we feel that we must keep hammering away at our points of view until everyone else accepts them?  Do we just post whatever pops into our heads, or do we carry that thought to the Lord and ask him whether HE wants it posted?
     Suppose we do that and are convinced he wants us to post, but when we do, someone else refutes our words?  Do we at once engage that person in debate without consulting the Lord?  If we follow human instinct and attack, the results resemble a cheap talk-radio program.  (Still, someone will probably refute what i'm saying here without seeking the Lord's counsel about it).
     
     Let's face it, it isn't human nature to carry everything to God in prayer.  But then again, human nature isn't what's going to overcome this present evil world and the temptations of the flesh and carry us to our heavenly reward.  That is all attributable to the nature of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, AND our partaking of IT.
     Well, that sounds awfully preachy and takes all the fun out of showing everyone how much more clever i am than are those whose views oppose mine.  Maybe i should just stuff all this spiritual business under a rug and get on with tearing into my brothers and sisters as if they are my enemies.  That oughta have our REAL enemies (those powers and principalities) rolling on the floor with laughter.  It won't make me more than a conqueror, but if i "win" my debate, i can pretend it does!

Verne,

I direct this query to you.
I understand that you believes that everything that was/is of GG's ministry should 'disband'.
If a LB steps down from his position of leadership, what do you suggest he should do after taking that choice?

M

Fair enough.  We hope and pray that any LBs that have chosen to step down and go to a different gathering, will learn from the good example of Wayne Mathews.
Lord bless,
M

Hi Al,

by all means, don't defend me.  Let's concentrate on defending the kids attacking me, and slandering blind men, with imaginary contents of fabricated email.

I'm not accusing you of defending them, I am merely pointing out something interesting.  Just because a person is intellectually or morally sub-par doesn't mean they have extra rights.  

If we are going to defend the truth,  and those who speak it from specious lies, and ad hominem attacks, then I deserve it no more or less than those who have made a practice of abuse on the BB.

Brent

     No two viewpoints are the same, so it would be useless for me to attempt to define the purpose of this bulletin board.  i can only state MY purpose in posting here:  It is to exalt and glorify God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, and to be a channel of blessing to his people (which can ONLY be done by exalting and glorifying him).
     Some of my following remarks are specifically addressed, as they respond to posts by specific persons.  However, they are for general consumption, and should not be interpreted as verbal assaults against any:
....................................................................

Brent,

     While i am not at all offended by your last post, i also do not understand your point.  Since it is specifically addressed to me, it seems i probably should.  If you have a personal issue with me, please send it to me personally, and let's not trouble the saints who it does not directly concern.
     It occurs to me that you may have misinterpreted my previous post as having been directed at you.  It was not (in fact, its application to you never entered my mind), but if you see a personal application, you should definitely feel free go over my head to take it up with the Lord.
....................................................................


     The topic of "Brent-bashing" was simply a springboard for me to address the concern of indiscriminate posting.  While i try to not be judgmental of individual posters' personal motives, it is difficult to see the Lord's hand in the broad spectrum of posts which feature little or no mention of Christ, unless it is to tell an "opponent" that God disapproves his methods.  They are virtually devoid of any signs of grace or love, except to emphasize negatively critical points of view.
     This BB has been the vessel of spiritaul reawakening for me and, if testimony can be believed, numerous others.  Must it now decline into a spitting match between opposing factions?  Maybe i'm missing something, but with email and personal messaging available to us all, the only reason i can see for ANYONE to assault another's character, OR EVEN CRITICIZE another saint on the BB is to cause public humiliation, WHICH IS GUARANTEED to bring negative reaction & agression.
     I am not saying that sin which damages the saints should not be publicly decried.  But i AM saying that most of the open BB hostility we have been seeing would have never reached its present stage if its protagonists had had the courage to eschew public SELF-vindication, and had taken the discussion to a personal venue, out of sight of the BB.  Humility leads us to prostrate ourselves before the Lord, allowing him to vindicate us, in his time.  It is ego that demands instant justice, standing us toe-to-toe in a verbal slugfest that honors no one and injures many.

     Again, the above comments are addressed to ALL.  If anyone finds them offensive, or wishes to discus them with me personally, i'm in the book (check my BB profile for details).  If, on another hand, you find them convicting, you may want to take them up directly with the Lord.
....................................................................

Verne,

     My understanding is that GG/Fullerton were in "fellowship" with a few (?) assemblies that came into being prior to any contact with him, and which received George and/or others from "the work" as no more than visiting ministers.  My questions are:
     (1.)  Is this true, & if so, where are these assemblies?
     (2.)  If such an assembly was established without input from GG/Fullerton, and has since renounced GG/Fullerton and rejected all association with same, of fellowship or doctrine, have they been able to continue, and how are they faring?
     This is addressed to Verne in view of his previous post, but responses are invited from any who have answers.

Earnestly, in the love of Christ,
al Hartman

Verne, I answered this for Al in a PM.

The only gathering that I am aware of that was in existence before GG, was Tuscola and Omaha.  (Al, I forgot about this one in my message to you.) Read about its history in Brinda McCumber's excellent article on the main webpage.

George agreed in the late 1990's that the lampstand had moved from Tuscola up the road to Charleston.  I think Charleston may still be meeting, but they were on of the first groups to renounce GG.  As far as I know few if any of the saints who were in Tusclola before GG are still there.

Omaha, as far as I know, continues to meet.  (Can someone else elighten us further on this?)

PS, I was invited to a wedding in Omaha, between Mike Duwelling and Rebecca Sjogren next month.  I don't think I can make it.  If I do go, you all can count on me to dress nicely, and behave like a true gentleman.  I promise, I won't read a copy of Churches that Abuse, in the third row.   ;D

Brent

Please allow me to suggest some qualifications to MGov's opinion, below:

     Differences which cannot be quickly resolved, particularly those which take on venemous worldly charactaristics are best resolved OFF the public forum, THEN presented fully resolved for all to see & rejoice in.
     Discussions, and even debates which honor the Lord through the evidence of honest inquiry, expressed respectfully and in love, can be a blessing to all.  A difference of opinion that degenerates into disrespectful remarks and/or accusations becomes a liability, threatening the peace of God's people, and is best resolved privately.

     We must all be responsible to ask ourselves what our purpose is in posting, and to ask the Lord whether it is his desire that the thoughts on our minds be posted.  This is no different than any other aspect of the Christian life.

al Hartman

 

Um...isn't Rebecca 20 years younger than Mike??  YIKES! :o

     Yikes???

     Don't you know that older men have had time to make their mistakes & learn from them?

     Besides, everyone says that girls mature more rapidly than boys, so a nice age gap kinda evens things out!!!

al

Al and Eulaha

I am 40.5, and my wife is younger than me.   Uhhhh.....she doesn't "look" a day over her early thirties.....

I told her that I thought is was a great idea for men in their forties to marry young women, in their early twenties.  That way, for the rest of my life, I'll be married to a beautiful young woman!

Seriously, if two people are in love with eachother, and understand that one is older than the other, etc.  and still want to marry, this is great!

I think that perhaps the men are jealous, while I don't know what the woman think. ;)

OK, I think I just poured hot water all over myself with this last post.....

Brent

Al and Eulaha?   Together?   ???

Did I miss something?

Had a good laugh with that one.

Arthur, you must read the whole thread veeery carefully! :)

M

Yes the assembly or maybe politically correct would be to say an assembly is still meeting in omaha. I am not sure of what they are doing, I have enough problems keeping track of my own family. I have been attending diffrent places of worship for about three months. It has been a blessing to meet with a verity of Gods people here in Omaha.

and Brent, if you do come to town, we can put another nail on the wall to hang your coat on.

Thanks for the offer Moose!  One thing no one nobody can deny is that Assembly people are definitely some of the most hospitable people in the world.  When pressed by people to say something good about the Assembly, hospitality is always one of the first things that comes to mind.  Especially when they burn cows in the Mid-West!

Brent

 ;)

I don't remember you being at the BBQ, but yes it did get burnt. now I must say it does seem to be a whole cow on the grills out here in the midwest, I beleive that is due to the graciousness of the midwesterners and the large portions typically served.

Hehe ;D   ;)

Eulaha, my Dear,

     Apparently, no one yet suspects!
     Shall we come out of the closet???

RSVP,
Your al

     (Now THAT'S an age gap!!!)

Hi MM! :)
  I will return to my oft used analogy in regard to, " those who may have had positive Assembly experiences", of Nazi Germany.  Loyalty to the Nazi German govt. brought rewards to individual Germans that most certainly were positive, but this was not the case for those who opposed Hitler.  Can we then say that Nazi Germany was good for some and bad for others?  Most would find such moral relativity repugnant.
  The Assembly was/is not Nazi Germany, and so some would say it is not a fair analogy, but both were authoritarian systems that completely controlled the lives of those under it's power.  Members of the Assembly feared leaving the group thinking that departure would lead to an eternity in outer darkness as a disembodied spirit! :'(  All rebellious Germans faced from the Nazi's was physical death; not nearly as great a loss as eternal separation from Christ in a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth!
   Coupled with the above power of fear the Assembly wielded there was the emotional dependance of individuals on the group for their acceptance; not just the affection of the members that had to be earned, but the necessary "faithful continuance" to earn God's love.
  Now, for those who are part of the power structure and "faithfully" continued the personal rewards were/are substanial:  Adulation/respect from the members, a deep affection, the feeling of being superior, etc.  We all have egos and all this stuff feels great.  It shouldn't be surprising that some present leaders are trying to preserve their positions in the system as their whole reason for being is tied into the group.  It should be obvious that this is an inordinate affection and why these leaders should step down and disband their groups immediately.
  Were there individual acts in the Assembly that were done as unto the Lord by individual believers?  Of course, and these were received from the Lord as sincere, as in the widow who placed the one mite in the box.  Jesus commendation of the Widow was not an endorsement of the erroneous Pharisaical system in Israel.
  Let's be clear in our repudiation of the evil system that GG built, and in our support for individuals seeking recovery from the toxic influences therin.
                                                   God Bless,  Mark    

Marcia,

Bingo!

When I first started reading the website and posting questions for the leaders I heard the same reaction that you have:

"There are 2 sides to the story, so we don't want to get just one side.  Besides, you have to be careful not to let the pendulum swing too far the other way in reaction to what you read on the net." (the second part was a reaction from one of the leaders after he supposedly repented)

My response was/is as follows,

"Yeah, and all those years in the assembly we got only one side of the story - the leadership's side.  Those who have told the other side of the story got excommunicated."

"The pendulum has been welded to the wall by the leadership.  Now that the website is up the pendulum can now swing freely."

"Have you read the website?  What specifically is unbalanced about it?"

As you have noticed, the leaders don't like the net because they can't control the information on it.  All they can do is try to discredit it with lame comments like the one you mentioned.

At the end of Terminator 2 the bad terminator re-forms itself after being frozen in liquid nitrogen then shot to pieces.  That's what some of the disbanded assemblies will do - THEY'LL BE BAAACK!

Jack

One of the ex-SLO leaders has begun "discipling" people here in SLO again.   This ex-LB doesn't tell their new prospect who they are, or what their background is.  The LB doesn't mention the problems with honesty and discernment that they had over the last 20 years, neither does he mention the fact that his leader, GG, and his idol, The Assembly has been overthrown.  No, this ex-LB still thinks he has something to offer and is happy to help a young, unsuspecting man in his walk with the Lord.

I am speaking the the pastor of the Church that this ex'LB attends later today.  I have several conversations with this pastor in the past, regarding this person and the other "saints."

Sadly, it appears that people are still very much addicted to the illusion of power and importance that they enjoyed in George's system.  The thing to do, is to let the leaders from other churches know about these people, who they are and where they came from.  People who were serving George Geftakys with their whole being six months ago, have no business discipling people, and being deceptive about it at that!

Brent

AMEN Brent-I totally agree with you. :)

A few thoughts on this subject...
Leadership here said we left "because of the web site".
That's not true.  We left because of the information and testimonies on the web site.  Because we finally had access to people and their stories without the leaders here filtering our information, straining out what they didn't think we were "spiritually mature enough" to handle (see worker's characteristics handbook).  I was told all the info. on the web site was like The National Inquirer (a tabloid like "Elvis Lives and Gives Birth" stuff)  Then an LB, when we challenged him about not telling us of all the information out there, said "Rick Ross-they're railers, not even saved!" He said he wouldn't  look at anything himself. (Years ago, they told us the Enroth book was just disgruntled ex-members, and provided discrediting info. on each one so we wouldn't even bother to read it.  And we believed them.) :(
But now we finally heard the other side of many stories, and God used it all to wake us up.
They could control what we heard to some extent before, and now they can't.  No wonder they don't want the remaining assembly members to read what's on the internet.
If someone staying in an assembly is reading this, are your leaders yet accountable to you with the finances? If not, why are you still putting money in that box?
Have they apologized at all for letting a false teacher in the door all those years?  
For letting themselves be so deceived?  We all should be taking responsibility for that in our own lives, and they even more.
Have you seen Jack Hutchison's article called "Ask Questions" on the assembly reflections web site?
If they balk at your questions, it could be time to vote with your feet and go.  If you lose friends, then I wonder if they were ever truly your friends in Christ anyway.  Maybe they were just "assembly" friends, a quite conditional sort of relationship, in our experience.
Just offering my opinions here, as one who was set free by that broken 'code of silence' and is glad beyond telling.

Becky, in since 1985, out 2003

BTW, That's out of the assembly, but still "in fellowship" with all those who love the Lord Jesus and want to be in fellowship with us.  :)

Restricting access to information is a common ploy of many "institutions" such as governments, PR agencies, and cults or religious groups.  The information that is either restricted, hidden or discouraged is anything that would deter a member from believing what the group says is true.

The Assembly had/has recommended reading lists and I have heard Assembly leaders "discourage" various books or authors.

The Assembly discouraged close ties with unsaved family members for fear that a saint would be pulled away from the Assembly.

The Assembly discouraged people from being involved in other religious groups or going to other churches.  Why?  You might see the light of your freedom in Christ and your bondage to a manmade system that does not allow members to decide God's will for themselves.

The Assembly discouraged people from taking certain courses at university or working at certain jobs that had fundamental differences in ideas such as military or political work.

The Assembly discouraged people from being critical of the Assembly by labelling such people as "railers," etc.  However, more than a few workers I had dealings with openly talked about the shortcomings of others and why certain people were not "good brothers" or "good sisters."  Such people were not allowed to go on MTT Teams and were often barred from marriage in the Assembly.  These rumors (supposedly the fact of "living in a fishbowl") helped to show who was good because they conformed and who was bad because they did not follow the dictates of the Assembly.  Leaders had the right to criticize others but not vice versa.  (On a few occasions, I brought up issues in certain people's lives and I was told never to do so again and that I did not have the right to do so anymore.)  From what we have read, the worker's meeting and George himself made a habit of criticizing others that did not match up to the Assembly's supposed light.  However, to criticize the Assembly was a major sin and to leave it is to fall away to something less than God's best, something less that includes shunning.  Sadly, according to MM, this is still practiced in one of the old/new Assembly still exists.  Such a tactic basically says that unless you are with us, you will be against us.  Jesus spoke against this practice when there was a man casting out demons in his name but was not part of Jesus' following.  We can only be for or against Jesus himself, not some manmade system of right and wrong.

To preserve the testimony, the old/new Assembly was guilty of trying to cover up problems or ignore them.  One of the ways they deal with/dealt with problems was to "discourage contact" with former members who realize the truth of Galatians 5:1ff.

To leave a place that has basically ruled your life for years takes a lot of bravery because it means beginning a new life free of bondage.  Bondage can be comfortable because you don't have to think--others will tell you what is right, true, how you should act and what you should believe.  What a sad way to live.  The "light" of the mind in bondage is darkness.  It is also hard to give up old habits that come from deeply engrained beliefs.  It is also difficult for leaders to give up the power and prestige they once had AND it is even more difficult for people who are so accustomed to be lead to suddenly start thinking and acting for themselves.

Basically, leaders should only be held partially responsible for the evils in the old Assembly because those in committed fellowship yielded their wills over to the leadership who were following a system of right and wrong imposed from Fullerton/the worker's meeting.  To admit that and leave the Assembly is to be brave, honest and, at the end of the day, free of bondage.

But leaders are/were still guilty of covering up the sins of the Assembly because of the need to "preserve the testimony."  Leaders are also guilty of hiding financial resources and, above all, fostering an environment that openly teaches that the Assembly is better than all other Christian gatherings.  To teach that the Assembly "has the most spiritual light" and is the best place to fellowship implies that to leave is wrong.  Such teaching is cultlike.  

Basically, if old/new Assemblies still exist and still have this "us versus them" teaching then God help them escape from the darkness of spiritual pride!  Nowhere in the Bible does it say one group is allowed to boast that it is better than others.  If the old/new leaders have not repented openly and in practice that such exclusive, cultlike practice is wrong, then it is clear the Assembly system started by George will continue under new leadership.  Very sad indeed.  

In the Psalms it says we should not be like DONKEYS who need to be lead around by others.  Thus, to leave the Assembly system that dictates God's will is to no longer be an ass.  In another thread it talks about how the leadership/worker's meeting instituted a "no-earring rule" that most people blindling followed and accepted as God's will/or a godly example.  Little did people realize at the time that most people in the Assembly had a very real nose ring inserted through their noses that "godly brethren" could yank at any time to get them to go a certain way or do what they want simply because it was labelled as "God's Will/What the Lord wants/a godly testimony."  Thank God I am not the ass that I used to be.   :)

Excellent Points One in All!! :)
  To follow-up on Brent's mention of a SLO LB and the need to warn churches where these folks may land:
   There were 2 LB's from the Valley and another Bro. who have been attending a small church there.  The Pastor is young, and just out of seminary, and I was concerned that these LB's still were following GG's "vision."
  I emailed a warning to the pastor, with a description of the Assembly, why it fell to pieces, and the possible danger these folks might be to the sheep there.
   The pastor never responded to me (unwise) and then showed the email to these Bros. (a further lack of wisdom)!  I guess he didn't tell them who wrote it as they jumped on Eric Buchman for it (sorry Eric, I signed my name not yours ;)).
    Anyway, I warned the Pastor that these individuals had been under false teaching and involved in a cult like group that abused it's members.  And furthermore, they still maintain their innocence in all of this and would be capable of trying to syphon off members into a "bible study."  I told him I hoped I was wrong, but it would be a good idea to keep an eye on them.
  If we are aware of these kind of situations it is not an unkind or retalitory action on our part to advise Pastors.  If one of the L.B.'s from that church in the Valley is reading this now please do not send any hate mail to Eric and instead direct it to me.  Also, if you need a further explanation I would be happy to talk with you about this.
                                                     God Bless,  Mark

Greetings everyone:

In my locale I recently read in the newspaper under religious news that a certain ex-LB (he was there to the end until the assembly here disbanded)  was going to address an independent bible church as a former missionary to Providence, RI. I too wondered how much of his background he revealed to these people to whom he preached. It seems to me that some of these LB's think of themselves still pretty highly. While I want to see EVERYONE recovered, it may be a good idea, as Mark has said, to warn others if necessary. Years ago I warned a faculty member at a local comm. college and at the local university with what little info was out there at the time. At most places a faculty member is required in order to have the right to be a student organization. At the university the assembly study was stopped as a result of that effort. The comm. college outreach may have stopped bec. the assembly didn't have anyone there anymore. Later, I did some long-distance internet searches using key assembly phrases and warned other Christian organizations such as IV and CCC, etc., about the assembly and their recruiting- often for brevity's sake comparing them to the International Church of Christ (Boston Movement). At one university, I was unable to get through to the faculty sponsor (who was also a Campus Crusade worker), and had to go to their regional director for any action to be taken. He later thanked me for pursuing it with him. In that particular case I believe that the CCC worker was close to becoming an assembly member, judging by how defensive she became of them. Other efforts were sometimes ignored. A couple of times I became the issue and was accused by non-assembly people as being judgemental,etc. I called a church in Champaign, IL. right before the Memorial Day MW Seminar, and lo and behold the pastor at that church knew about the assembly and George Geftakys. I sent him the info that I had gathered (about 10-11 years ago) but he probably wasn't too convinced then that I was anything more than a disgruntled former member. I have heard from a member of that church thay are well aware the assembly now bec. of his input.
   There is now a lot of info out there. The assembly is really darker than we even imagined. It really needs to be stopped.

We watched a Star Trek- Voyager episode 'The Gift' where 7 of 9 is being released from her Borg contraptions. She has a difficult time dealing with not hearing the voice of the collective, and being an individual human being in a community of human beings.  Reminded me of those who prefer to stay in their 'comfort zones' ie bondage, rather than being 'set free' to that which is unfamiliar to them.

Marcia

Brent,

When you find out what the church leaders say about the former LB who is discipling that young man without mentioning his past in the assembly, could you let us all know what happened?

Thanks,
Jack

Should that not be a requirement for ALL former menbers before they take positions in the church they attend?

All the leaders, from every "right-on" church in SLO is well aware of the "saints," and the difficulties that many of the ex-LB's face.  None of these people are going to be leaders in any church in this area.  The problem is that this person is "discipling" a 21 year old, hyper-zealous male, and is doing so without mentioning it to anyone.  In other words, he is not accountable to anyone.

Furthermore, he didn't tell this potential disciple about his very recent past, which casts serious doubt on his ability to disciple anyone.  He is to be confronted by 2 pastors ASAP.  I may not post details here, for obvious reasons.

Brent

Leaders were directly or indirectly appointed by GG. I do not recognize them as valid leaders because the assembly is a false religion. They are brothers among brothers and should not hold position of leadership even now. They were trained by GG and faithfully implemented his direction. There are always a few exceptions to the rule.

Those who knew better and did not warn the saints - shame on them.  They are now very proud of the fact that they did not succumb to GG 100%. - this is not a fruit of repentance.

A particular LB does not even acknowledge his faithfulnees to GG's system. Yet most who have left will say otherwise.

When asked about 'false teaching' they basically shrugged their shoulders and said 'Oh well, we just disagreed with GG/TG/whoever'.
They failed to protect the sheep from 'false teaching' by not taking a stand for us 'dumb sheep' who were actually deceived by the 'false teaching' and did not have their 'discernment' in order to just shrug it off.

I AM SPEAKING OF RECENTS EVENTS, EVEN AS RECENT AS LESS THAN A MONTH AGO.

THESE LEADERS AND OTHERS WHO STAND WITH THEM ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PART THEY PLAY IN THE SYSTEM.

MAT 7:15 ¶ "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
MAT 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
MAT 7:17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
MAT 7:18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
MAT 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
MAT 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
MAT 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.
MAT 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
MAT 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

I received two email replies to my post quoted above. Both replies came from ex-assembly members from the same mid-West assembly.

Reply # 1:
Your quote of Acts 3 is very appropriate.

Reply # 2:
Email Subject: quoth the raven
Quote:

"The people heard the message. the leaders were greatly disturbed and arrested Peter and John and warned them to speak no more... etc.   Sound familiar?"

Come to think of it, that does sound familiar!!  Let's see...a while ago, ?? and I tried to get you people to think reasonably and stop with the nonsensical arguments.  We tried to show people that bitterness was wrong, that holding on to your anger or "letting it out" is not godly, but totally psychological, that many of you here are using this bulletin board to meet your needs instead of Christ, that it is not doesn't make sense to blame your problems on the assembly, that the midwest had many good assemblies unlike California, that most of you don't know what you're
talking about when it comes to "legalism" and "authoritarianism", and lastly, that YOU DO NOT GAIN A FULL INHERITANCE WHEN YOU ARE SAVED.  The Bible clearly shows differently.  And do you know what happened, Madame?

Well, ?? got kicked off and we both got banned as well as ??.
Hmm...we got "excommunicated" by the anti-assemblyites!!!  Well, well, well.  Now isn't this fun!


I post reply # 2 on behalf of the brother that got 'excommunicated' from the BB and therefore is not allowed to post on the BB, and had to email me instead. Highlights by Marcia M.  I guess it is not OK to let out you anger on the BB, but it OK to do so in an email!

MM

I’ve heard there are leaders that not only claim that they never engaged in manipulation, etc., but that they followed God instead of George.  Some of these same LB’s are still leaders in their existing assemblies.  Even the sheep still think they are fit to be leaders.  Here’s my take on those who were leaders in GG’s assembly system.  Even in the case of nice, easy-going, mild mannered LB’s, I do not believe they should be leaders anytime soon.  Every LB falls into one of the following categories:

1)  They claim that they did not know that GG and his assembly system were corrupt, so they were just sincerely serving God in their local assembly.

My conclusion:  Shepherds are supposed to protect God’s sheep from wolves.  If they could not recognize a wolf like George, then they are admitting they have no discernment as shepherds.  This is a classic case of the blind leading the blind.  Their long-standing spiritual blindness disqualifies them from being a shepherd over God’s sheep.  They need to be taught by OTHERS to gain their sight before they can lead God’s people again.

“And He spoke a parable to them: ‘A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he?  Will they not both fall into a pit?’”  Luke 6:39


2)  They claim that they did see problems with GG and his assembly system and that they addressed those issues privately through personal contact and letters.  They may even express regret over the fact that they didn’t do more.

My conclusion:  Shepherds are supposed to act self-sacrificiallly to protect God’s sheep from wolves.  They obviously realized at some point that GG was not going to change his ways.  They then CHOSE to remain quiet and maintain their positions as leaders due to their fear of the consequences of rocking the boat.  Their long-standing cowardice disqualifies them from being shepherds over God’s sheep.

“Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.”  John 12:41-42


3)  They knew very well GG and his assembly system were corrupt, but out of ambition they went along with the program.  These men love having young men and women under their authority and will do anything to maintain their position.

My conclusion:  Corrupt men that have authority over God’s sheep are not shepherds, but wolves.

“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”  Acts 20:29-30


4)  They saw that GG and his system were corrupt, and eventually left when they saw that their efforts to reform the man and his system were doomed to fail.

My conclusion:  These are men who have repented of their blindness, cowardice and/or corruption, and as a result, left their positions of power as leaders (or were booted from the system).  These are men like Steve Irons, Jim McCumber, Gerald Matthias, Paul Boyer, Kirk Cesaretti, among others.  From what I know about these men they are either not seeking positions of leadership or they are leaders again only after having been taught by others for awhile.  They have clearly been zealous in their repentance.  I think that they are the only leaders who can truly say that they followed God instead of George, and yet, they would be the last people to make that claim.

"For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong!  In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter."  2Cor 7:11

People in existing assemblies would be much better off at a healthy church in their community.  No church is perfect, but at least at other churches one can discuss problems without being labeled as a troublemaker.  To remain in existing assemblies is to CHOOSE to be under the authority of leaders that are either blind, cowardly or corrupt (or all three).

Jack

Jack,
I agree with you 100%.
These men accepted the position of leadership. The LBs & workers I encountered had no problem with 'correcting the sheep' with zeal. When it came to correcting themselves by correcting their leaders George & Betty, where was the zeal ? Were they afraid to face the truth because they would lose their position ? If that's true, then they loved their position more than the truth.

Mark

MM,
 Reply #2 is not surprising at all.
To hammer on, belittle, use whatever method necessary to stop the sheep from "working out your own salvation" of course all the while ignoring the doctrinal errors and methods of leadership that were taught by George Geftakys.
The doctrinal errors and failures of leadership will never be discussed by this individual with the same zeal he has in analyzing this BB. This is how he has been programmed.

Mark

Brother #2's  (funny title)  email is a study in blindness, bad judgement and hypocrisy.

The difference between the Assembly excommunicating someone, where the person gets no chance to talk, and where they are silenced is not to be compared with the patience shown to this person on this BB.

In the former instance, people were excommunicated by an adulterous blowhard for telling the truth!

In the latter, people were banned for being rude, abusive and obnoxious, and this only after thouroughly proving their character with their own, unedited words.  Funny, #2 here started threads on this very BB, and his words of "trooth" are still there for everyone to see.  

#2, thanks for the clear, concise reminder of why you can't post here anymore.  You should thank Marcia for putting your un-edited email on here for you.  Keep it up!  It really helps.

Brent  (sparky on the other board)

Jack and others,

There was one scenario presented to me. I am interested in your perspectives:

This lays out Jack's position clearly. His categories leave no room for a sincere leading brother remaining in an assembly. He did not include a category where the brothers were aware and resisting and the sheep were protected. In Ottawa, we tend to think that distance (i.e. less influence) protected us from much of the trouble. Many of the brothers say they have been cautious about George since some event or something he said raised a warning flag. Others have had trouble with George; when they raised issues and got a bad reaction. One could make a case for an individual leaving or an assembly dissociating itself from George. Some may have been thinking about this but no one did it.

Marcia

PS. The person who presented the perspective above is not a LB, and has been an 'honest inquirer' and therefore merits that he/she be treated as such.
MM

Marcia,

Good point, and I knew that would come up.  LB's who make this claim are really in category #2.  Here’s why:

They claim they saw that George and his assembly system were corrupt and protected their local assemblies from the wolf.  This is easy to claim, but difficult (if not impossible) to prove.  Here are some questions to ask those LB’s who make this claim.

    a)  If you saw that GG was a wolf (and he would not repent of the things you saw), then why didn’t you PUBLICLY and specifically warn the sheep about what was wrong with him and his system?  The poor sheep only recently found out GG was a wolf.  If you had done your job they would have known long ago that GG was a wolf.  Others did make PUBLIC warnings, and they weren't even leaders (they also left or were given the boot).  No doubt you PUBLICLY warned the sheep about those who were thought by the leadership to be wolves.  Why not warn them about a wolf that was purported to be a great, godly leader?

     b)  If you saw that GG and his system were corrupt, then why did you stay in the system?  I know you were part of the system.  We only prayed for GG’s ministry (with VERY few exceptions).  We prayed for the Midwest, Canada and the East Coast all the time.  If you had PUBLICLY and faithfully protected the sheep from the wolf we would have all been told that you had lost your ‘heavenly vision’ (George’s term for loyalty to him and his assembly system).  This was done whenever a LB was bucking the system.  We would be asked to pray for ‘unity in the leadership’ (another term for loyalty to GG and his assembly system).

     c)  If you protected the sheep from the wolf, then why did you wait until GG was excommunicated (ie when it was safe) to stop doing the following things?

Attending his seminars
Attending his workers’ conferences in Colorado every year
Attending his workers’ meetings every other week held by those who answered to him (or Betty)
Selling his books on your booktable
Listening to and watching his taped seminars
Allowing him to preach in your gatherings
Allowing his itinerant preachers to preach in your gatherings
Allowing his MTT's to ‘help’ your gatherings
Sending ANY money to Fullerton
Reading GG's Torch and Testimony magazines

By the way, these are things that GG himself mentioned at his last seminar.  He said that they facilitated the maintainence of his 'heavenly vision'.  If you did these things then distance did not protect the sheep from his influence in any meaningful way.

My conclusion:  There is only one answer to any of these questions - fear of the consequences of making a PUBLIC stand against George.  Again, this is really just the same category as #2.  This is not a case of a momentary lapse in judgment, but of long-standing cowardice.  Anyone that stays in an existing assembly is CHOOSING to be under the guidance of leaders who have exhibited a long-standing refusal to PUBLICLY protect the sheep.  Is this really what the sheep want?  I hope not.

Jack

I'm not really sure where to start on this but....

Think of the GG ministry as a business. You have GG who is evil and corrupt. He can't hire men who will stand up to him. He hires the youthful, the young and in school. The ones he can manipulate. In the business world a corrupt boss cannot hire honest men, his business will never last. We all know that fruit doesn't fall far from the tree, look at DG and TG. The elders and leading brothers will all have characteristics that can be used. And yes, this was a business for GG. A business to make money.

The leaders who stayed and are still perpetuating the ministry are most accountable. They have heard and read about George being excommunicated, however, they still welcome him with open arms. Most of those sheep in SF and Sacramento don't know about the excommunication letter. It is men like Scott Testa and Dan Mattsson-Boze who have the most to be worried about. They have led the sheep even further astray. Men like Jim McAllister who really are holding the sheep hostage. The people still involved with each assembly that know the truth and still stay. They are accountable for their actions as well as the leaders.

Heide

AND some existing assemblies continue to receive prayer requests and pray at their ENOPs for the 'work' in some of the above mentioned localities.

Lack of spiritual discernment ? OR blind?  ???

Marcia

MM>"AND some existing assemblies continue to receive prayer requests and pray at their ENOPs for the 'work' in some of the above mentioned localities."

*The Work*   produced such incredible fruit!   While it was ripping apart families, degrading women and abusing the weak it was praising the wisdom of it's vision!

MM>Lack of spiritual discernment ? OR blind?

Hmmm, Maybe an abundance of spiritual pride.   Totally confused???  I don't know nor do I understand why a God fearing person would continue in anything resembling "the work!"   As for the blindness, maybe they feel that now they see and can work with the *good*parts...but I'd liken that to a totally blind man putting on a pair of glasses.

-Tony

The nerve of these ones. To actually pray! If that isn't blindness what is?

It isn't always wrong to criticize a prayer.

Jesus criticized this prayer:

Luke 18:11-12
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.  I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Jesus thought this prayer was much better:

Luke 18:13
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I detect sarcasm James! On that basis (ie you were being sarcastic) I point out the fact that I said they were praying for the 'work'.  I do believe that they should pray, but to pray for repentance would be more like it.
If you were not being sarcastic, please forgive me for mis-interpreting your comment.

Lord bless,
Marcia

My! This thread has certainly come alive the last few weeks! Great posts! We do have a great responsibility not to repeat the silence that allowed Geftakys to weave his sticky web of deception. I think Sebastian Andrew, Heidi and Mark Campbell have the exact right idea...

p.s Marcia, is that really you...??!! I hardly recognize you! ;D ;D ;D

I think Heidi's comments are remarkably insightful. I took a bit of heat on the other BB for asserting that anyone who served and remained with the false prophet George Geftakys for any length of time was by definition compropmised. I  believe the reality of this is what so many former leaders have difficulty coming to grips with, i.e. that they are damaged goods...those of you in locales that Heidi have mentioned need to take a stand for righteousness...whatever form that takes...
Verne
ps. the mutterings of brother #2 are as mal-odorous as ever...whew!! Let the sublime and fragrant breezes continue to blow...  :)

This must be reminder week for me!

Why are the leaders responsible? Why are the shepherds responsible? Why are the pastors responsible for what they say? Why is it so important that are shepherds be above reproach? What's that verse? "Blameless...." Can anyone here say the Geftakys family are blameless? Or that Wes Cohen, Scott Testa, Dan Mattson-Boze, Jim McAllister or any leading brother still involved with an assembly is above reproach? All of these men have put George in front of God. I don't care if it was last month or last year. Anyone who stands on assembly principles is false.

You cannot take an assembly group, kick GG out and expect to suddenly follow God. Your basic principles/doctrine are false. There is a stench of evil in your group. That evil is the darkness in your hearts that you once followed and compromised yourselves to darkness. Until you disband you won't be free. It has taken me three years to work thru the dysfunction from the assembly and I'm not through. This evil comes thru my very speech, my heart and soul.

You leaders that think you are doing something great... PRIDE comes before the fall. You are still arrogant and thinking God is working thru you but you are the cracked crystal. Step down. Let those people go. Find a healthy church. Pay attention to Psalm 23. He will lead you to fresh water and lush grass so that you can rest. Still waters.

Everything about the assembly is false. And George indeed was a false prophet. Don't be suckered into thinking you're ok. Stand down, let the people ask questions and think for themselves.

Heide

P.S. Hi Verne!

I think about this question alot, "Who paid the price of the sheep?" It is an easy one, of course Christ.  But the flip side is who betrayed the sheep? That one isn't so easy. It is clear but it hurts my heart to see it.

GG was clearly the head of the church but everything that filtered down to each assembly came via leading brothers. The LB's ensured that each assembly act accordingly. They made sure there was enough money in the box, people acted accordingly and mostly everything was running smoothly. They were the enforcers. They encouraged us to rat on each other and were obviously there to hear when we had to rat. They were there to enforce the reward program if you sold your sister or brother out. They allowed us to betray one another and then they betrayed us.

Sure, they prayed with you and listened to your deepest confession but that was not held privately. Your confession was then spread thru the assembly, quietly of course. In the text of how we need to pray for this sister or how this brother has a weakness in this area. If you made friends with certain LB's and there wives you heard alot more. There was nothing private.

The very man that you looked up to and called your friend, that  LB was giving your information out, betraying you at every corner and every opportunity. Yet, you still call him friend and are still willing to follow him. If he can betray your very confidence what makes you think he can lead you now?

In real terms, the shepherd protects the flock from outside influence. He is the one who leads you away from anything dangerous, who puts his life on the line when there is a predator around. In contrast we see in the Assembly where the shepherds/LB have actually led the sheep right into the wolves presence. If you think this shepherd did this last week or last month and certainly he won't do it again! Think again and ask yourself a question, "Why wouldn't he do it again?" Has he changed that much. Those of you who have children know that once a child gets away with something they keep doing it. George may be gone from your gathering but there are other wolves out there. It is just a matter of time before you get sold out again.

Heide

This post is for those who are still meeting in Goleta and San Francisco.

We all know that George is paranoid.  For example, he uses cash because he doesn’t want the government (or us) to track his spending habits.  He only let TRUSTED people handle his tapes (and refused to make them available to the public) because he was afraid that someone might use them against him.  George has been very concerned about maintaining his reputation before the ‘saints’ because he knew that without our trust he would lose his power.

Then, in December of 2002, when it was openly acknowledged that David had in fact beat his wife and daughter, George was asked to come to SLO to ‘make things right’.  Think about this.  For the first time George had to PUBLICLY face potentially damaging questions.  Those who showed up who had been known to PUBLICLY ask the tough questions were locked out of the meeting by the leaders.  He was not taking any chances.  He had to have men with him whom he could TRUST to defend him.  By default the SLO leaders had to be there, since this ‘repentance’ meeting took place in SLO (and, of course, his son Tim was there too).  But, two other leaders were with him in his time of crisis.  And, who was there to protect this paranoid, corrupt manipulator in his darkest hour?  Scott Testa and Wes Cohen.  The fact that George trusted these men speaks volumes about their character.

So ask yourself, if these men were free of George’s evil influence, then why would George trust them in a time of need?  If they were corrupt, then why remain in their assemblies?  Or, if they were just deceived and manipulated for the length of time they were in leadership, then do you really think they are qualified to lead God’s people?

Just something to think about.

Jack

Ooo, hey good point. I don't suppose Scott and Wes were there by coincidence.  Haha

Jack's post re. Goleta and San Francisco is a good one.  But unfortunately, it will not reach its intended readers if it remains only on this bulletin board.  These things need to be posted in a much more publicly accessible forum if they are to do any good.

And while we're talking, what can be done to make people see the truth about men like Jack Hanson and groups like Placentia?  The grievous thing for me is that I know him and what kind of control freak he is, and I know what kind of gathering Placentia is, and yet I know good friends especially among the young people who are still devoted to that place.

mithrandir

I believe Matt is gone now, but I have to point out that, yes, the assembly was in fact racist.  I cannot prove my point without telling stories that are not mine to tell, but I know this is true.

This is sort of off the topic, but I wanted to speak anyway.

I have started to check things out for myself.  For example, the occult.  Harry Potter is accused in some circles of being occult; so is, outlandishly to me, Pokemon.  I picked up a Christian book that said so.  Well, I am tired of Scripture abuse, so I decided to research the matter for myself by researching what people who actually practice the occult have to say.  After all, they're the experts in that subject, right?

Harry Potter:  The only danger I can see is that it has the potential to foster interest in the actual occult.  I think parents should work this issue out with children reading the books.  Otherwise, what is practiced in there is not, in my opinion, true occult magic.  They don't draw symbols, do rituals, light candles, or whatever.  They attack each other with magic wands.  That's make-believe, folks.

Pokemon:  Accused of being occult because of ties to Japanese mysticism.  Lots of things have ties to whatever.  I don't see it as being occult at all.

I was also researching role-playing games and discovered two things.  I found a DIRECT connection to the occult, and also found that fantasy role-playing games have borrowed heavily from actual occult practices for their subject matter.  So, I will stay away from them and encourage others to do so.

I figured out all these things for myself, and didn't trust other's opinions until I had researched them.  I am glad I can do that nowadays.  

But it took awhile to get there.

Cool post, Laurie.  Thank you.

Please don't.  Segregating them is good, but please don't eliminate them.  I feel telling them is needed and important.  You don't know how long after all this someone will come across the website and need the information under those links.

God bless,
Amy

Interestingly enough, I am 12 years out of assembly participation.  I have moved on and into a church that I personally believe in.  However, when this all hit, I found myself assailed by underlying assumptions I had no idea I still had, assumptions taught to me in the assembly.  I am struggling to get rid of them -- they are making a mess of my faith at the moment.

I have to tell you something amusing.  I was in the Huntington Beach assembly, but at the time, lived closer to Placentia.  I used to erase the tapes on Saturday mornings to be re-used.  

Well, I wanted to sometimes go to the Placentia meetings.  After all, they were closer.  Harmless, right?

Earl Somerville, an LB at the time, told me I had to get permission to do THAT and that I was out of line for wanting to (gasp!) visit ANOTHER ASSEMBLY.

What a level of control! :)

Do visit Colorado -- it's a nice place.  There's a huge Irish/Scottish festival coming up in September in Estes Park.

But no, not for workers' conferences.   ;D

Where's the other BB?

Good Job Jack!!

I think the smell of sulfur is getting stronger at George's door!

Heide

[/b]
by Chuck Miller


There has been any number of posts to various bulletin boards as well as to the www.GeftakysAssembly.com site concerning the Leading Brothers in Assemblies around the country.  Some of these men have "stepped down" publicly while  others, have simply assumed a position of non leadership (whether temporary or otherwise is yet to be seen).  Then there are some who have continued in their role as "leaders" on the basis of claiming or assuming non complicity with the events surrounding the "ex-communication" of George and David Geftakys.  I won't address any of my comments to those Assemblies who still receive George and refuse to hear against him.  They are more to be pitied than censured since they are wallowing in self-deception and God alone can reach them.  They are the blind leading the blind and will all fall into the pit.

In virtually none of these aforementioned scenarios has there been evidence of there being very much, if any,  consideration given to the scriptural qualifications for church leadership as outlined by Paul, Peter and Titus in their letters to the churches.

The question that each of these men should be asking themselves is, "What qualifications did I have for becoming a leader in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ?"

If we were to be honest,  the only qualification any of us had was that we were chosen by George Geftakys, according to his qualifications  for his church.  And George's qualifications were based upon a willingness to place oneself under his authority.  In some cases, such as my own, it was that, plus a matter of expediency in the process of George taking over an existing gathering of believers.  Since the little gathering in Omaha had been raised up in our home, as God had led, it would have been a bit cumbersome for him to have not included me in the ones he had selected for leadership in his newly attained "Assembly."  It was not a matter of spiritual maturity.  I was no more qualified to be a leader than were any of you.  I was, indeed, a leading brother in the church of George Geftakys, but I held no such distinction in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But lest you might suppose that you were, nevertheless, spiritually mature even before being selected by George -- think about it - would a spiritually mature brother have been taken in by George's deceptive teaching about what came to be known as "church government?"  Would a spiritually mature brother remain silent when confronted with  unscriptural practices, double standards, and even blatantly evil conduct?  Would a shepherd of the flock stand by silently and tolerate the sheep being abused and lorded over by one who called himself "the Lord's Servant?"  Were we shepherds or mere hirelings, having been appointed by George, not Christ, to suit his purposes, not Christ's?  And weren't we at least a wee bit proud to have been placed above the rest of the saints?   And didn't we savour, at least a wee bit, being called "Leading Brother" even while knowing that Jesus abhorred titles?  Didn't we readily accept the deception that, having been chosen by George, we had therefore been chosen by God?  Didn't we accept the lie that, even if we were in error, we were "untouchable" and above reproof from any of the saints?  Spiritual maturity or spiritual blindness?   Were we in God's hand or Satan's?

I too "stepped down" as a leading brother, but spiritually, in God's eyes, I never had been a leader, so the public act was merely an inadvertent acknowledgement of what Christ had never ordained.   So it is with the rest of those whom George had designated for the title.  It's time to start being honest with yourself -- you were never qualified in accordance with Christ's standards,  and, perhaps, may never be.  I will say, however, that those who have "stepped down," either publicly or privately, have exhibited at least a small measure of maturity that Christ seeks for those in his church -- each and every member of His body.

To those who choose to remain in "leadership" positions, I would have to ask, "On what basis did you become a leader, and on what basis would you continue?"  On what basis did you promulgate the rationale of leaders being immune from criticism or reproof?  On what basis did you choose to ignore Paul's instruction, "Do not receive an accusation against an elder EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF TWOP OR THREE WITNESSES.?" (1 Timothy 5:19)

An elder in the church of George Geftakys may have been justified in ignoring such instruction, but one in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ enjoyed no such privilege.

To those who are still gathering as an Assembly, nominally or otherwise, I would only suggest that you consider why it is that you are seeking?  What is it that binds you to this fraudulent church.   Why would you want to retain anything of the sterile "liturgy" (for that is exactly what it is) or the practices of the Geftaky's church.   Oh, I'm sure there will be some who will posture themselves on the timeworn cliche, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."   Have you considered that this baby was a child of the devil himself?

Were these scrupulously orchestrated meetings led by the Holy Spirit,  or were they orchestrated by Leading Brothers who acquiesced to the instruction to interject with a prayer when there were too many songs or to interject with a song when there were too many consecutive prayers?  Was it the Holy Spirit leading us to deny someone partaking of the Lord's supper when we deemed them as unworthy, based upon the standard of the church of George Geftakys?

Did Jesus attempt to reform the practices of the Jews in the synagogs? No -- he instituted the church under a new covenant.   Should we attempt to reform that which was never of God to begin with?   Can we, by any stretch of the imagination presume that God was "surely in our midst."   The George Geftakys Assemblies have defiled the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and for having been a part of it, you will have to bear a stigma with believers and unbelievers alike, perhaps for your entire life.

For those who continue to  meet, have you considered the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ to unbelievers as well as other believers?  Is that of so little importance to you that you would consider continuing to meet in a manner that would even have the appearance of evil with outsiders? But rather than be dogmatic in asserting that Christ can't reform old Assemblies, let me pose a few questions to those who choose to attempt to do so.

Considering the only thing of importance -- the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Wouldn't it be better to err in exercising too much caution, than to err in assuming that you are now spiritually mature enough to discern the good from the bad?

Would you err by putting aside the old, and simply getting humbly before Him, whose church it is, and praying "Lord Jesus, we know nothing as we ought.  Please forgive us for our blindness and guide us and keep us from error as we study your word.  We desire nothing save pleasing you by
obedience to your word."

Would not Jesus honor such a prayer?  Would not the Holy Spirit reveal the truth to those who seek it with their whole heart?  Would there be some semblance's of the "old" that Christ would redefine and rightly establish?  I believe so.

Some would say, "But God hasn't led me to leave," or, "God hasn't led me to step down,"  To them I would ask, "What must God do to cause you to flee from the evil He has so blatantly exposed?  How much must He do to convince you that you are not, and have never been, an elder in His church?  What excuse will you give at His Judgement Seat?  Will you try to deceive your own children by refusing to acknowledge before them, your own complicity in the sorry events that led to the exposure of the entire ungodly system that you helped to perpetuate?

We have a merciful and forgiving God who forgives those who repent.  Will you do so today?


[/b]


Chuck and Mary Ann Miller and there nine children were a Roman Catholic family in Omaha, Nebraska. In 1974 at the age of 47 Chuck became a Christian. Most of his children followed him into the faith and very soon a small church began meeting in their home. This gathering was soon taken over by George Geftakys and his disciples.

George Geftakys horrifically split the Miller family in 1978 and wrested control of the church that met in there home. After twenty-five years of estrangement and division the family has been experiencing the Lord's reconciliation  and restoration since the eventful days of early 2003.

Chuck is married to Mary Ann and is the father of Pat Mathews and father-in-law to Wayne Mathews, father of Chris Sjogren and father-in-law to Mark Sjogren, father of Becky Cohen and father-in-law to Wes Cohen, father of Nancy Lehmkuhl and father-in-law to Jeff Lehmkuhl, father of Mike Miller and father-in-law to Carolyn Miller, father of Ann Vanasse and father-in-law to Chuck Vanasse, father of Tim Miller and father-in-law to Monica Miller, father of Bill Miller and father-in-law to Karen Miller, father of Ed Miller. Chuck and Mary Ann are grandparents to 34 grandchildren.

Just out of curiosity...

Speaking of "leaders", whatever became of Jim Hayman and  Dan Notti?
Were they around when this all broke or did they leave before.

Luckily, I was usually never  forced to stick around for the Sunday PM meetings.  The exception was when one of these two clowns or one of George's other henchmen came through and was giving some sort of special meeting.  I always hated when people like this would come to town.

Jim and Dan both work at AMR, in Brea, CA.  Dan was the first LB to "step down."  As far as I know, Jim still goes to the Fullerton meetings, although he sits in the back, etc.  I could be wrong about Jim.

However, neither of them are expending any energy towards correcting the damage they did with all their years of service to George and Betty.  Both of them promoted the group all across the US, and in Europe.  A little zealous repentance would be in order, but we can't expect too much from men like this.

After all, they were geftakysservants for a very long time.

Brent

One of the clearest signs that something was rotten in Denmark was the way so many of the men in leadership were loosing their children to the world. It was enough to make some of us conclude we would never be put in that position. I heard from several folk that Jim Hayman's family fell on really hard times and that he even suffered from some mental instability. Can anyone confirm this? I heard for example that he would stand up in meetings and prophesy about the destruction of Southern California...I know several of the men George recruited came from a background of drug abuse...
Verne

Verne,

I was told by a "recent leaver" that Jim Hayman had become convinced that some really bad end-time things were about to happen.  
He, according to this person, suddenly packed up his family and moved back to Illinois.
On another occassion, I'm not clear which happened first, he took off for Illinois by himself.

What I was told was that El Supremo, The Great Dispenser of Spiritual Light, ie, George Geftakys, forced Jim to  publicly repent on two occassions.

The charge was "false prophecy".   Apparently this is a new sin.

However, it seems that El Supremo has never repented of having brayed repeatedly that "The 1980's is the decade of the Lord's coming".  This went on for over 10 years.

My guess is that GG invented the need for Jim to publicly repent in order to thoroughly discredit him before the church, so that he couldn't be a threat to The Great Source of All Truth.

Seems to me that the only penalty in the Bible for false prophecy was getting stoned.  By the way, did they get stoned before or after the prophecy?  ;)

This whole business illustrates the dangers of the type of subjective mysticism taught and practiced by GG's flock and other groups influenced by the Deeper Life movement.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Jim Haaman packed up and left for Illinois not once but twice! because of all of those frightening end of times scenarios!! What a complete and total Jack #SS!!!

Phewwwwwwwwwwww!!!! I am so relieved that none of those scary "end of times things actually happened"....

I do remember growing up in the assembly in the 80's, and hearing George preach on the end of times, the rapture, the mark of the beast etc...He would say things like "in the end of times there will be "earthquakes, wars, floods, catastrophes, etc" and point to the current "earthquakes, wars, floods, catashtrophes, etc." that were taking place as evidence that it was the end of times.  Frankly, when I was between the ages of 6-8 years old, that was kind of scary...But then I got a little older, and realized that during every generation throughout the history of mankind that there were "earthquakes, wars, floods, catastrophes, etc" and that this loud, belligerent, Greek piece of crap was full of hot air and should go stuff himself with some more gyros...

Just another fond memory of assembly life...I sure hope for Jim Haymans sake that
something catastophic - like a three car pile up on the Southern California interstate doesn't occur and force him to run off to Illinois for fear that this is a sure fire sign that the end of times is near...

Speaking of signs of the end of times...I wonder if "Whataburger" would close down...Would Tim Geftakys view this as a catastrophic occurence and preach that this to was a dead giveaway that the end of times was near...

What is considered to be evidence of "zealous repentance?"

Is this a serious question?

In other words, are you really wanting information on what constitutes repentance?  Or are you asking the question in a manner as if to say, "who are you to determine whether these men have repented or not!"

Brent

You might try reading an article titled, Biblical Repentance, by Rob Kazarinoff.  It's on the GA.com website.  http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/FinalWeeks/BiblicalRepentance.htm (http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/FinalWeeks/BiblicalRepentance.htm)

According to the article, in what way have these guys not repented? Yes that is a serious question.

OK then....

Repentance mean both a change in behavior and a change of heart.  My idea of Zealous Repentance comes from this passage:

2 Cor 7:10  For godly sorrow produces repentance [leading] to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.  11  For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, [what] clearing [of] [yourselves], [what] indignation, [what] fear, [what] vehement desire, [what] zeal, [what] vindication! In all [things] you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

Zeal, in the passage quoted above, means this:

2205 zelos {dzay'-los}
from 2204; TDNT - 2:877,297; n m/n
AV - zeal 6, envying 5, indignation 2, envy 1, fervent mind 1,
jealousy 1, emulation 1; 17
1) excitement of mind, ardour, fervour of spirit
1a) zeal, ardour in embracing, pursuing, defending anything
1a1) zeal in behalf of, for a person or thing
1a2) the fierceness of indignation, punitive zeal
1b) an envious and contentious rivalry, jealousy

So, here is my observation.  Leading brother X, who represents the vast majority of leader/worker/itinerate geftakysservants, for years zealously taught and promoted the ministry of George Geftakys.  So dedicated were they that many of them lost their firstborn children in the process.  All of them shunned ex-members, who actually tried to tell the truth, and habitually defended George's behavior, going so far as to call him a godly man.

Leaders of current assemblies have the audacity to say things like, "we weren't that influenced by George.  We never followed him."  In saying this, they demonstrate that they hold those they rule over in contempt, or that their own intellectual capacity is so diminished due to their servitude in George's corrupt organization that they are no longer able to discern right from wrong, and project this ineptitude onto others.

Leaders who have stepped down are in a different category.  The reason they stepped down, for the most part, (there are a few exceptions) is that they knew something was wrong and that they could no longer be a part of it.  This is the correct thing to do, and they are to be commended for taking this initial---and imperative--- step of repentance.  However, years of support and promotion of George's ministry, in the postition of leadership and "worker," means years of false teaching and misplaced loyalty.  In addition, the plain, undeniable fact is that MANY people were hurt by the leaders' actions and inactions.  

Repentance, in this case, includes cessation of behavior(not acting like a leading brother) and change of heart. (Not excusing their actions done while acting as leading brothers)

Zealous repentance, according to the passage quoted above, means public correction, and public change of behavior in a clear, exercised and unmistakeable manner, for the purpose of correcting error and/or false teaching.

While some of these ex-leaders may have done so in private conversations, the vast majority of people have no idea where they stand, and have certainly seen or heard nothing that would in any way be mistaken for zealous repentance.

These guys are not zealously repenting, period.  If they showed as much zeal for saying, "We led God's people astray by doing ______" as they did when they taught "Conflict Under Two Trees,"  or "Study Guide for Testimony To Jesus," then things would be quite different.

If you want to see some examples of diligent repentance,  look at what Tom Maddux, Steve Irons, and Mark Campbell have written.  They were all ex leader-worker geftakysservants, and they have zealously, clearly repented.

What was the last thing you read from Dan Notti, Jim Heyman, Timothy Geftakys, etc.?

Now, George is starting up the money machine in their own backyards, and these guys are doing nothing about it.  Zeal is not a word that can be used to describe their actions towards what they served so diligently for 20-30 years of their lives.  A much better word would be apathy, or lethargy.

"What lethargy, what apathy, what incomplete clearing of yourselves it produced in you....."

I'm not asking them to be as zealous as I am, I did it for conscience sake.  I am only hoping and praying that they have actually repented.  It certainly doesn't fit what the Bible says about repentance.

Brent Tr0ckman

just suppose......some Baptist minister is exposed for commiting adultery along with covering up wife abuse and a few other crimes.  So the elder board fires him and the Baptist Convention hears of his wrong doing.  Then this Baptist minister goes down the street to another Baptist church and is hired on as the new minister and nobody does anything to stop him.  Who is responsible?

"but it was a local issue"
"we weren't affected by him over here"
"we're done with the guy, he can't touch us anymore"

what does it say about the whole Baptist (for example) Convention?

Food for thought

Brent:

Actually, AMR is in Fullerton, and Jim Hayman has not been at the assembly meetings (as far as I have heard) since all this came down.

Matt Sciaini

I hope for Jim's sake that it's true.  Phill was told Jim's "sin" that he had to publicly apologize for not once, but twice at the 2002 worker's conference was the sin of "not following the counsel of his brethren in leadership".   :P
If that is true, Jim should be praised and commended for ignoring their counsel, given who his leaders were at the time.  
BTW, Phill did not ask anyone what the sin supposedly was, but he was told anyway.

Becky

Failure to repent in the face of undeniable sin justifies the designation of "vessel of wrath", no matter what they profess...
Verne

Thanks Matt.  For those of you who don't know, Fullerton and Brea border eachother.  I am truly glad to hear that Jim Hayman has not been at the assembly meetings.  I am sorry to have stated otherwise, and hope this clears up any confusion.

I do know, for a fact, that Mark Miller and Tim Geftakys attend the meeting in Fullerton.

Faith:
Your scenario is right on the money.  Sadly, I must answer your "hypotheticals" like this:

Who is responsible?----the Baptist Convention.  They are supposed to look after the people who trust them.

What does it say about the whole Baptist(for example) Convention?---It says that they don't take what they do seriously, and have little regard for Jesus Christ, Head Over All Things to the church.  

However, with the "elders and leading brothers," who excommunicated George, it's different. Right??  I mean, these guys have repented, haven't they.  Can't you just "move on."  Can't you show a little love?  I don't believe the gossip that's on the Internet!  NO, I dont' read it.  I don't need to know, and I don't want to know!  I am just clinging to The Lord and the Word! It shouldn't have been done that way.  That's not The Lord's way!  In spite of what George did, he faithfully taught the things of God!.....right?

God scattered the ministry in order that we could go out as missionaries among the other churches and share our advanced Bible knowledge!  Any of us could have done what George did!  George didn't do anything wrong, and it was all blown out of proportion!  Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I never followed George!  George only visited our Assembly, in SLO, twice a year!  We had very little to do with him.  David Geftakys only visited the SLO Assembly 8 or 9 times a year!  We weren't following him!  You don't know what went on behind closed doors!  

You think that everything and everyone that had contact with George is tainted!  You misinterpret the passage that says, "a little leaven leavens the whole lump."  It has nothing to do with the assembly.  It was for the Corinthians, who were involved in overlooking immoral behavior.  George was the only one who did what he did.  The brothers didn't know.

Brent is a liar.  The stories on the website are lies and exaggeration.  They aren't true.  I never did that.  We never did that.  George and David had some problems, that's all.  You've got to give people time to repent!

ad nauseum.

I think I have covered most of the arguments against the idea that anything bad ever really happened.  

Of course Jim Hayman has not been at the assembly meetings...He has been hiding under a rock in Iceland - trying to escape "the end of times"....

Good for these two....Im sure its an incredibly enlightening and spiritual experience every time ministry is shared at Cult Central in Fullerton.

When are these people going to quit playing church and get a life?  Its almost comical. Mark always seemed to be a nice and sensible guy...Why on earth he hasn't cut the umbilical cord with that place with all that has been exposed is beyond me.

I spoke with Cheryl Hayman at length in May of 2002.  I did so because I had heard that Jim had a nervous breakdown, and was hearing voices, which told him to flee southern CA, due to end-times stuff about to go down.  Cheryl was unaware that these rumors were being spread about her husband.

I specifically asked her if Jim was OK and she said that he was never better, and was thinking more clearly than ever.  

Jim was made to publicly repent for not following the counsel of the brethren, and for moving without their permission.  He gave this public "apology" twice.

My take:  Jim was confused about plenty of stuff, and was very absorbed in end-times teaching.  911 caused him to act, which meant he left "fellowship."  Originally, the plan was that he would carry on as a worker in Illinois, which is what he had wanted to to for some time.  (This all according to Cheryl)  However, the timing for Jim's indepentent decision could not have been worse.  The RickRoss articles were having their toll on the ministry.  People were leaving.  Jim's exodus must be managed properly, otherwise people would conclude that he, too was leaving fellowship.  Jim was well respected, afterall.

So, Jim came back, under pressure, and did what he was told to do.  His testosterone levels rose again and he left again, this time for a longer period.  Again, he knuckeld under and was forced to return and repent even more, for not being under the guidance and counsel of the brethren.  This was critical, because if people got the idea that they could make independent decisions, without getting permission, everyone knew they would all leave!

I wish Jim had not come back the first time.  When I heard of it, I was overjoyed and prayed for him.  When I heard he came back, I was crushed, because he had to damage his conscience, searing it with a hot iron, in order to emasculte himself publicly like that.  Very sad.

The worst thing about it is that Jim was brave enough to give 2 public apologies for moving without permission from headquarters, yet these other clowns read a paragraph, or have someone else read a paragraph, that gives a vague, pseudo-apology for something that may or may not have taken place; and if it did, it was because they were deceived!

Even worse, many of them claim to have been totally innocent in the whole affair, and insist that they were never influenced by George, despite the fact that both they and their spouses lived in his house for years!

How pathetic!  If these guys think they are going to "move on," they are simply demonstrating that they are still as deceived as ever.

Brent

Betty has a hundred or so glass jars in a closet that contain the testicles of the young men she discipled.  Mark, along with so many others,  has yet to retrieve his, which is why he still attends the meetings.  

Brent

Brent,

So 'God's government' spread rumors and false accusations?  Wow!  I thought that was your job! ;D

Jack

Ironic, isn't it?

You would think with all the Selfer's prayers, and "Way of the Cross," stuff, coupled with the training homes and seminars, that people wouldn't have been fooled by my lies.  I wonder what went wrong?   ;)

Brent

That's true, I've been totally decieved by the website. :)
Maybe I didn't pray the selfer's prayer enough times.

But then the person who preached the gospel to me influenced me into getting saved.

Marcia

The fact that someone of Jim Hayman's public intellectual and spiritual stature allowed himself to be so publicly diminished and humiliated speaks not only to the spiritual power the man Geftakys wielded, it also illustrated a hallmark characteristic of Geftakys' methods - anyone viewed as a person of esteem ultimately had to in some way be compromised and therefore the men who remained with him are (a priori!) damaged goods; George absolutely brooked no competition and would see to it...I believe Mark Miller stays because he is having great difficulty coming to grips with this sad reality...he knows much that we do not...



This goes a long way toward explaining the current state of affairs and the reaction from the "men" formerly associated in leadership with George and Betty "Harridan" Geftakys...
Verne

Yikes! :o  :o  :o  She nearly sliced off mine.  She had them in her clutches for a while, but last I checked they were still in tact.  Glad I escaped before it was too late. :o

So, do you think they are being preserved in formaldehyde?  Is reattachment even a possibility?  Or will they carry them with them around in a box and be burried with them when they die.  Did she ever nab yours, Brent?  You have demonstrated some testosterone of late so if she did I assume they must have grown back.  

Hey being a eunuch isn't all that bad anyways :D  Daniel was one and Jesus mentioned being a "eunuch for the kingdom".  But being a eunuch for Betty doesn't sound all that noble. Interesting that you mention Betty and not George.  Maybe his was her first trophy, placed on the mantle above her bed...or on her nightstand maybe?

Growing up a dairy farm, I've watched neutering occur a few times--poor beasts loosing their masculinity, you have to feel sorry for the poor guys.  Ah well, at least they're not sentient so as to realize what they're loosing.  Actually performed the operation myself once on two of my bulls.  I used rubber bands though--much more humane than the knife.   ::)

All I got to say is, if you're over at the house of a veterinarian (not a vegatarian...nor a veteran) for dinner, you might want to pass on the chicken nuggets.   :P

Arthur

How did Betty go about performing the castrations?  How can an 185,000 year old woman create so much trouble?  

I hope it's OK for sisters to post on this thread. I know Brent said that some of us were 'manly', but I do not feel that manly yet. :) So I will change the trend of this thread.

Most LBs/ex-LBs were trained by GG, directly or indirectly, so I do not 'blame' them for not being shepherds as they ought to have been. The did care for the sheep, but they promoted GG's system when it came to 'shepherding'.

NOW, however, they are totally responsible for not boldly and publicly making things right.  Making changes to the assembly schedule and/or just leaving a letter-of-exit to be read by someone else, is not owning the baby(I hope I have this expression correect). Maybe, they are afraid that they will get sued if they 'fess up ??? I do not know. And there's more and more...

That's all for now,
Marcia

68 / The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by Johnson & VanVonderen

The "Can't Talk" Rule

The most powerful of all unspoken rules in the abusive system is what we have already termed the "can't-talk" rule. The "can't-talk" has this thinking behind it: "The real problem cannot be exposed because then it would have to be dealt with and things would have to change; so it must be protected behind walls of silence (neglect) or by assault (legalistic attack). If you speak about the problem out loud, you are the problem. In some way you must be silenced or eliminated." Those who do speak out are most often told, "We didn't have all these problems until you started shooting your mouth off. Everything was fine before you started stirring things up." Or else, to make it sound really spiritual, "You were angry-you didn't confront the matter in a 'loving' way. So it proves you weren't handling the matter in a mature, Christian manner." In either case, the problem remains.

The truth is, when people talk about problems out loud they don't cause them, they simply expose them.

In abusive spiritual systems, there exists a "pretend peace"--what Jeremiah decried, saying, "The prophets say 'peace, peace' when there is none." If what unites us is our pretending to agree, even though we don't agree, then we have nothing more than pretend peace and unity, with undercurrents of tension and backbiting. This is far from "preserving unity and peace in the Holy Spirit," which is to be the hallmark of healthy Christian churches. That is to say, any topic should be open for discussion, and on some points we may agree to disagree and to continue open dialogue on the subject, both parties willing; or we may both agree to suspend discussion for a time if it raises tension. The important point is that both parties be involved in forming the agreement. If what unites us truly is the Holy Spirit and love for one another, then it is possible to disagree and it will not destroy our unity.

The "can't-talk" rule, however, blames the person who talks, and the ensuing punishments pressure questioners into silence.

Here is another test. Susan is being counseled by John, a Christian counselor and leader in the church. John makes aggressive sexual advances toward Susan after a counseling session one afternoon. Susan reports the incident to the church leaders and the secular authorities. John gets in trouble and is taken before courts and boards and committees. Why did John get in trouble?

Was it because Susan exposed him? No. John got into trouble because his advances were inappropriate and illegal. What he might do, however, is somehow communicate to her (and maybe enlist the help of the pastor and other people in the church) that the reason why he's in so much trouble is because Susan spoke up.

Sadly, there are many women like Susan who suffer spiritual abuse when they are called "unsubmissive," "too strong," "disloyal," or "a Jezebel" for exposing abusive Christian male leaders, or even for questioning them. Too many churches communicate this kind of shaming message: "The problem is not that your boundaries were crossed and violated, the problem is that you talked. If you would not have made such a big deal, everything would still be fine." If a person accepts that message, they will stop talking.

The real problem, however, is that if a Christian who feels violated stops talking, then the perpetrator will never be held accountable for his behavior. And the victim will have to "freeze up" the pain and anger of being spiritually abused.

Though some in authority would love to never be questioned or opposed, the fact of the matter is that such a system is a trap and a downfall for any leader. If noticing problems is labeled disloyalty, lack of submission, divisiveness, and a challenge to authority, then there is only a facade of peace and unity. It is impossible for wounds to be healed, and abuse will one day escalate. If authorities are not accountable, then you have built a system that is in opposition to the freedom that is in Christ. You are ignoring James 3: I, which says, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment."

Leaders are more accountable because of their position of authority-not less accountable. Why? Because if you are a leader people are following you, behaving the way you do. You are spiritually reproducing after your own kind. What are you reproducing?

Identifying the Abusive System / 69

My Shepherds

I stood before my shepherds
gushing blood
though I tried so hard to hide
to deny
the shame
the fear
and the wounds
from the attack
by the wolf among their ranks ...

Not one of my shepherds saw
my wounds
or the pools of blood.

My shepherds … why
are they devoid
of indignation
that a wolf among their ranks
stole, killed, destroyed ....

Am I really one of God’s?

A wolf …

How could he do this?
Why did he do this?
Who is next?
Who else is bleeding?

Has anyone not survived?

My shepherds … why
are they devoid
of urgency
for others like me
and for me …

The wolf …

The wolf might still be hungry
for sheep
and he’s free to roam, to prey
to steal
to kill
to destroy.

God where are you?

My shepherds …
as I stood before them
torn
bloody wounds untended
strictly
instructed me
I must forgive
and not tell anyone else about
the wolf among their ranks …

then sent me on my way.

He lied …
He looked like one of them …
He even talked better than most of them …

Are they all like him?

My shepherds … Why??

They don’t want me any more ...
They
all
one by one
refuse to see
refuse to know.

Where is God?
Was I really one of His?

The wolf …

The sheep …

My shepherds …
Don’t any of them care??!!
Who are they?

Who am I?

Ah …

I get it …

The wolf among their ranks …
is one of them.

I surely
am not
one of them.

- Kathy Cox (Amos 3:3)

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(  :'(

...and I thought I was quite done shedding  tears...
Verne

He sprang upon the tender flock
And ravaged all at will
Sad cries rang forth, he did not stop
but moved to  maim, and kill
And all the while,
The watching shepherds
Did remain silent...still...
Did remain silent still!

Verne

...hope you don't mind the slight correction Brent...
Verne

Did you write that Verne? It's pretty good. You should have a verse 2 about how the watching shpherds learned by observing and started imitating... or something like that.

Marcia

You are most kind...another humble offering:

One voice with strident note, at last
Did rise in strong protest
A website was conceived, and fast
Control from George did wrest
The sheep streamed forth with joyful cry
Thank God! At last we're free!
All glory be, to God on high
Who gives men liberty
Who gives men liberty...!

Verne

p.s.
I know there is a world of narrative poetry between those book-ends...feel free to contribute all....

Dear Sondra:
As administrator of a new BB I would encourage you to observe some modicum of decency and fair play. I have not chosen to participate in your forum and for that thug of a young man to lift one of my posts from a forum in which I freely chose to participate and post it on yours where I did not, is at best boorish and at worst unethical in the extreme. It really ought to be obvious to even one as dense as 'Matt" that I, for one, have nothing more to say to him. There are any number of reasons, not the least of which is the obvious removal of the original post from the context in which it was made, that what your partner did was most inappropriate and would never be allowed by any self-respecting BB administrator. Particularly in view of what transpired on this BB. I am truly surprised that a person of your supposed delicate sensibilites would permit him to do what he did.  Please remove that post from your BB. I am sure in the fine print somewhere Brian maintains copyright purview on what appears on this BB. A savvy business-woman like you would be sure to get my drift...I trust "Matt" will recover from his recent illness soon and return to posting his own muddled musings, unaided by the empty pretension of responding to what I have written for the consideration of those with whom I was actually engaged in dialogue. Thank you.
Verne

Verne,

Maybe if you just pretend that it's not really there, it will just go away/disappear. :-\

Marcia

You are probably right; unless he keeps responding to his own posts over and over and over and over.... ???
Verne

The Lord Jesus is my example, and He definitely did NOT take a moderate stance on situations that He encountered. He forgave those that knew not what they were doing, but He also publicly rebuked the Leaders for their behaviour. He did not mince words either, He all out told it like it was.

Mt 23:13  But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Mt 23:14  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mt 23:15  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mt 23:23  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Mt 23:25  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Mt 23:27  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Warning: bitter irony and "moderate" sarcasm to follow

I have always thought that Jesus wasn't in the Spirit in Matt 23.  He should have forgiven His enemies, not called them "children of hell,"  and given them a greater damnation.  It's almost like He didn't give them a moderate damnation, but just let Himself get carried away with bitterness and gave them a greater damnation.  That just can't be right.

Also,  I want to condemn and judge all of you who are bitter and unforgiving.  Matt 23 does not apply to God's people.  It especially doesn't apply to the Assembly system.  They didn't travel land and sea to win one proselyte.  Sometimes there were none, and a few times there were two.

George didn't present a false image, where he tried to look holy on the outside, but was really filthy on the inside.   No, he is no different than you or I.  We all do the same things he did, but you are all so bitter.  You are no better than----nay, even worse than he is!

Matt 23 applies to people who are bitter and unforgiving, who want to call God's people "children of hell," and judge people.

Jesus was condemning people in this passage.  He wasn't condemning the Pharaisees, he was condemning all of you who are bitter, and judgemental, who won't forgive, and who criticize.

I extend forgiveness to all of you Pharisees, but I condemn to greater damnation all of you who want to take the Pharisees to task, and point out their sin.  

In this, I stand against Jesus, who was not "in the spirit."

End of "moderate," speech here

Interesting how Jesus spoke to Pharisees, isn't it?  Why do you suppose we are so uncomfortable and afraid to do the same, even though we have a clear example in the Bible?  Who and what has influenced our thinking?

Brent

 The thinking is the thing. You will indeed be in possession of remarkable testimony to the effectiveness of George Geftakys methods by carefully scrutinizing the thinking of those who post. This is indeed a key! Queston is...are you outside the box?
Verne

Wow!! I never realized how bitter Jesus was in Matthew 23 before. He wasn't being very "Christ-like" was he? Where was his moderation and forgiving spirit? He just seemed to "find fault" with everyone. Maybe he was just having a bad day.

--Joe

Warning--"moderate" speech to follow:

Yes, He wasn't being very Christ-like.  If He had been in the spirit, and not just in the soul, He would have extended love and compassion on them.  He should have reached out, like a mother hen, and attempted to gather them to Himself.  However, His bitterness got the best of Him, and he did not...."

Let's not follow His example, shall we?

Warning--"moderate" speech ends above

I am amazed at what I read and hear sometimes.

Brent

Quick everybody! Let's rip Matthew 23 out of our Bibles before anyone else gets the wrong impression. Can you believe the "vindictive" torrent? un-Christ-like (according to some) indeed! While we are at it it may be advisable to also rip out Jeremiah 23...a remakable coincidence of the same chapter number is it not? A good number to remember...
Verne

p.s. And another thing, how could He blame all Scribes and Pharisees for the sin and failure of just a few? or even one? Wasn't the High Priest the guy really in charge anyway? Was it fair to blame all the Scribes and Pharisees for the blindness of Caiaphas? Was Jesus relly being fair?... I ask you... ;D

Warning---"moderate" speech to follow:

The reason so many of you are reading Matt 23 wrong is because you are abiding in bitterness, and in some cases hatred.  

The words of the Bible are spirit, and as such can't be comprehended if we are in the flesh, or in the soul.  As long as we abide in bitterness, not forgiving those who served us for so many years, we cannot be in the spirit, and therefore can't understand God's word.

The words themselves, and the meaning of the words, even the ideas that they seem to convey are all a mystery, and are incomprehensible to the Natural Man.  1 Cor 2:7  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages for our glory,

Unless we enter into the spirit, and make the choice to repent of the flesh and soul---read Watchman Nee and the other great mystics---we can no more understand God's Word than the tax code.  Verne, because you are so judgemental and highminded, it is obvious that you are in the flesh.  

So, the words themselves are nothing but a mystery...unless we are in the spirit.  Most Christians, especially the ones on this board are not in the spirit, therefore they don't understand the Bible and only hurt and confuse God's people.

 extreme "moderation" to follow.  I am in the spirit

In Matt 23,  Jesus was not rebuking the Pharisees.  How could He do that?  He loves them as His own people.  Afterall, they are someone's children, are they not?  He was reminding us that if we don't forgive them, He won't forgive us.  He wasn't against them at all.  He was actually against those who are bitter, and extreme, in the realm of the soul.  

Just because George and his system, leaders included,  SEEM to be a lot like the Pharisees in Matt 23, doesn't mean they are!  Only God knows, and it is not up to us to judge.  My spirit tells me this, and I'm not letting a bitter man's theology or reason cloud the clear voice in my spirit.

Again, Matt 23 is not in the Bible!  What you read when you THINK you are reading Matt 23 is NOT what it is actually saying!  On the contrary, your vision is clouded and you are only reading what the Enemy wants you to read and understand.  You must be in the spirit to see the hidden words and meanings.

"Moderate" speech ends above

Please understand that I am using the Code of Silence definition of "moderate,"  with all of my warnings.   I am probably not going to do any more posts like this, because they cause me to reflect on how dangerous it is to handle God's word in a capricious manner.  I am quite uncomfortable with this, especially when I know that there are some who are teaching the travesty as fact.

Brent

Both amusing and sobering is it not? Your point is very well taken my friend...very well taken...there is a definite whiff of something truly unwholesome...enough said

Arthur m'lad let a conviction of the unchangeable goodness of God permeate all of your thinking. I have never had so much fun as when pounding out some of my more memorable observations on this forum.  I believe one secret to not getting overwhelmed by all this is to be able to maintain a sense of humor and really not take oursleves too seriously. I am going home to sweep my two lovely daughters off their little feet and smother them with kisses...man they are cute! Find some great folks with whom you can fwllowship, pray, argue, and enjoy life with. Remember He came that you might have life! and that more abundantly! Hang in there m'lad!
Verne

Hi Verne.  I'm sorry, did I say something?  Do you mean "Brent ,m'lad" or "Joe, m'lad"?  An old man indeed you must be for these guys to be your lads.  Hehe ;)

Strictly a term of affection my friend. It just seemed as if you could use a little encouragement to get chin up high, grin at the sky, and wave those assembly blues bye, bye bye!  :)
Verne

Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem...her iniquity is pardoned  


I was greatly humbled by a post from a former leading brother on the other BB recently. The funny thing was that I had responded to a post asking why in the face of so many obvious red flags that no one seemed to have heeded the danger signals. After giving my own view of why I thought this had occurred, someone posted with only the first name and indicated that they were with me in my perspective. I responded with  a brief "thank-you". I was surprised (and I must confess a little sheepish) to read a post from the brother a short time later in which he identified himself as one of the leading brothers from SLO. (a good reminder to me why it is always important ot be gracious! especially when you don't know who you are dealing with  :))
Have you ever wondered about that verse that talks about how the angels in heaven rejoice over the repentance of one sinner?
I cannot explain why, but when I read Ray's simple, honest, straightforward expression of  how he accepted responsibility for his part in what happened something strange happened in my heart. I was filled with an inexplicable and irrepressible joy. In that moment I think I really understood a bit more about that verse about the angels. I must say frankly that it was not the reaction I expected. After all the things I have written about the leadership, one would not have expected such jubilation over one who humbly came forward. What he did affected me profoundly. That one post, in my view, was worth more than everything I have written. The Lord immediately began to speak to me about the need for healing and comfort among his flock. I have been posting about the importance of faith in this process. Ray Dienzo I want to thank you for being a leader who is responsible...from my perspective, the slate is clean dear brother...
In Christ,
Verne
p.s. Former assembly leaders who refuse to repent for their part in what took place in the assemblies and to seek forgiveness from and reconciliation with thir brethren have robbed themselves and the church of a tremendous blessing. This in my view is far worse that any transgressions they committed in the assemblies...far worse.  Why?
I do not believe there is a single saint who would not joyfully forgive and reconcile with these men if they came forward. As long as they refuse to do so, the offences remain, and many are denied the opportunity to forgive and rejoice...an unrepentant spirit is literally adding insult to injury...this is not good....neither for them, nor for us...not good at all.

p.p.s If you visit the other site, send Ray an e-mail. I am sure he would enjoy hearing from you.

I agree with you Verne. Ray is one of those ex-LBs who has 'proved himself clear in the matter' of repentance. His willingness to acknowledge his former involvement with promoting an 'evil' system demonstrates that he is a humble man. Even his attitude to now be a brother among brethren is refreshing.

Lord bless,
Marcia

The men to whom this question should be directed are the men in leadership in Fullerton. They were all aware that all receipts went directly to George's house. Wayne Matthews lived in the Midwest and was not a part of the Fullerton leadership. Your query is unfair.
Verne

I suppose any of us are subject to scrutiny: Brent, Tim, GG, Wayne. Personally, I think that you are not objective on this matter.

Why would GG discuss financial matters with Wayne while travelling with him on a missionary journey to Africa? By GGs own admission, I believe that BG controlled the purse strings. I have a lot more to say on this matter but will resist blasting you with it for now.

Marcia

We want the truth do we not? Wayne has been touted as a man of God over all the others in George's inner circle. He is the one who travelled not only with George but was in such close association that George sent him alone to Africa. Very few got in that close. If anyone, it would be he who is in the know. He is the one we can trust here. The question is simple. Did George steal money from his followers?

Question number 2. Tim fondled sisters. If Tim did this, what are the names of these individuals? Not difficult.


Bob,

Answer to question 1: Yes. He used money earmarked for "the work" to support two shiftless sons who had no business being in spiritual leadership, had no qualifications to be in spiritual leadership (by secular or biblical litmus) and severely abused their positions of spiritual leadership. He used these funds improperly, based on the trust he deceitfully engendered in well-intentioned Christians.

Evidence is currently being sought and compiled to prove that he also stole in a more traditional sense: took money and did not put it back in circulation for the work.

I personally know a family that deeded to George farm land worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1970's. That ground was sold long ago and the money unaccounted for.

Fortunately for George and those who still cling to him, this family washed their hands of George and the Assembly years ago and are not interested in getting mixed up this current mess.

Rest assured though, someone will come forward at some point. I'm more sure of that than Brent is that George will repent.

Question 2: Not difficult? Only if you are completely insensitive to the women involved. I'm sure they are just dying to be humiliated and to put stress on their marriages and post-Geftakys lives.

I don't know why these cowardly women won't come forward with what they know. They are obviously liars. (Lurkers, please catch the sarcasm).

Once again, I'd bet it will come out in the open sooner or later.

Meanwhile, Bob, stick your fingers in the wounds if that's what it takes for you to see what is clearly before your own eyes.

Or not. This forum was originally for revealing the truth. The truth has been revealed. The rest is on your head.

Scott McCumber

I don't recall ever saying that Tim "fondled" sisters.  I do have the names of two women who claim improper contact with Tim.  One of them is on this BB, and another left the ministry some time ago.  Why don't you ask them to come forward of their own accord?  It is very difficult to "out" people.  That fear is one of the main weapons used by George to keep his personal failings under wraps.  I know the names of the women George assualted, do you?  Same with Tim, except that until the women are ready to come forward and say something,  Tim is innocent in my eyes.  Others can say what they will.

As to your financial queries,  nobody knows where the money went, except George, Betty, and perhaps his family.

Bob Anderson tried to figure out where the money was going, after George was excommunicated.  They knew how much was coming in over the years, and tried to piece together where it went.  They didn't know where it went but Bob told me,

"Your numbers are not far off.  They are pretty much on target."  We know that plenty of money is unaccounted for.  You can't have unaccounted for money if you know where it went.  If we knew where it went, it would be "accounted" for.

I am the author of the RickRoss articles.  I am the "member of 17 years."  I find it rather ironic that you, an anonymous person, are using my writings to defend George and Tim!  I think I know my way around what I wrote better than you do.  Not to mention what I know that I am not telling.  

A year or two ago, plenty of people were casting baseless accusations against me, and no one questioned their credibility.  I commend you for questioning mine.  You should have questioned George's as well.  Nevertheless,  I have satisfied most people as to the accuracy of my statements, and I did so using my own name.

I invite you to continue to question and disagree with everything, however I think you should at least let us know who you are in doing so.  Biblically, we all have a right to face our accusers.

Also, if you know where the money is, please tell us.

Brent

I think that what you are revealing here is a lack of understanding about how healthy churches handle money. When you say, "“The wording of the above is almost identical across the country. So, needs are never mentioned in specific terms, but it is quite clear that tithes are accepted", I think you are revealing a lack of experience in healthy churches.

Healthy churches are very open about money.  When there are pressing needs, God's people are told about it.  When the need is met, they tell them that too.

Anyone who wishes to find out where the money goes can pick up a copy of the annual financial statments or budget from the church office.  The only "secret" information is salaries of church employees, and that figure is always there, just lumped together so as not to reveal the exact amount of an individual's income.  

Even then, it is not exactly rocket science to come up with a pretty good idea of somenone's income of you care to.

This way, they "provide for things honest in the sight of all men".
Quite a difference from the secrecy practiced by GG, his clones, and others like them.

Thomas Maddux

Not quite correct. The trips Wane made alone to Africa were not under the auspices of George Geftakys. The stature of Wayne among the Nigerians does not require the sanction of any person or organiztion to persue  his medical missionary work there. Wayne Matthews is a "Son of the Soil"...
You really ought to be more careful Bob...

Verne "Black Mamba" Carty

The first paper I wrote, which the leadership refused to read, was all about Us Vs. Them.  I know the drill.  The fact that "they" are able to speak here, without censorship, is proof against your assesment of the BB.  Nevertheless, you are free to view things as you wish.

As for the truth,  I could not agree with you more.  Lots of truth was revealed since November, 2002.  I did the best I could with what I wrote.  All of it can be corroborated by at least 2 or 3 witnesses.  I wrote quite a bit about the money.  Have you read these things?

I am not addressing you with this next comment, "bob,"

One of the most amazing things in all of this is that almost without exception, the people who have the most negative things to say about the website and BB are the ones who have never read any of the articles, or have only read parts of a few.  There are those who claim to want the truth, but won't listen to anything true.  The only truth they want is truth that says that they were OK.  I understand this propensity, but at its core is fear.

Now I am addressing you, "bob,"

If you want the truth, do what I did.  Look for it.  Ask where the money went.  Do the math.  Ask,  "Why was there no public record?  Why would a church hide the money?  What could be the motivation behind something like this?"

Call the people that knew George in the past.  Talk to his family.  Talk to Rachel.  Talk to Judy.

Ask yourself,  "If George lied about David and Judy, is it possible he could have lied about other things?"  

Talk to the women who George abused.  Ask yourself,  "Does a man of God do this to people?"

Ask yourself,  "How is it that a large, 10,000 sq. ft house is built in a lovely city in Mexico, paid for by the "work."  (I paid for a large chunk of this house.)  It had a nice library and study for George.  How is it that this is now owned by a person,  Marta Velasco, and that she didn't have to pay for it?  It was supposed to be for the "work," namely George.  This house was paid for primarily through people gifts, ABOVE AND BEYOND the tithes.  

Where is the money?  What kind of man does the things that George did?  Why was he excommunicated?

Here is another thought:

You wouldn't be stuck with a prideful arrogant person like me if those who were responsible hadn't allowed themselves to be Eunuchs for Geftakys's kingdom.  Think of that.

What did you do, "bob?"  How much time have you spent trying to find out the truth?  I could have used your help,  where were you?

It is easy to call into question everything that another does, especially from the place of anonymity.  It is quite another to get up and do something about it, in the light.

Please continue to say whatever you wish, and don't feel you have to answer my rhetorical questions.  If I have said something wrong, please tell me what it is so that I may correct it.  I too, would like to find out the truth.  Are you willing to help?


Quite right.  He didn't steal it from me, I gave it to "The work."  George misrepresented where the money was going, after I gave it as unto the Lord.  I don't think that's right.  It is stealing, but from Someone Else.  How do you see it?

Brent

 
I think that it would be fair to say that Tim was no saint.  Perhaps you could ask Tim about question number 2.  He might tell you the truth, or he might lie, or he might just say that it is none of your business, but it is still a fair question to ask him.  He asked others about the intimate sordid details of their lives with such direct questions, so wouldn't he be understanding if you did the same?  Judy Geftakys tells us a little bit about Tim at http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Judy1.html (http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Judy1.html):


I think that the "girlfriends" situation may have been before what Tim will admit to as his "experimental years", and I assume that the "more recent" signed statements that Judy is referring to are after this "experimental" period (but I am not sure).  Has anyone asked Tim recently about his side of the story?

Not that this excuses how things were done: but as I understand it, Marta owns the house simply because in Mexico, only citizens can own property, at least on a private level.

I would guess that a legit church would probably create a Mexican organization that would own the property.

Isn't "the work" basically continuing in Mexico?

Supplies provided by School of Medicine where Wayne works. Trip planned and executed by Wayne and other medical personnel with similar desire. George had nothing to do with it(except to take the credit). Ask the folk in Otukpo.  :)
Verne "Cobra" Carty

No, the work is not continuing in Mexico.  However, it is not clear what shall become of the house.  I would like it to be sold, at a substantial profit, and be reimbursed for my contribution.  I think others who gave money for this would like it as well.

My point below was not clear.  What I was trying to say was that this house was built with private money above and beyond what went into tithes.  George cannot claim that he gave the Lord's Treasury money for the house in Mexico.  On the contrary,  I have clear records of what I tithed, and what i gave to "the work."  George didn't spend "his" money on petty things like retirement homes in cosmopolitan foreign cities.  (Look up Cuernavaca on the web)  No, he let us buy those things, not to mention the brothers who donated their labor and architectural talents, free of charge.

There were miniscule expenses and substantial monies coming in, and no one has any idea where things went.

However, we do know that George lied, plagiarized, and had a habit of adultery.  Of course, his character really isn't the issue here.  The real issue is how un-christlike this BB is.......

Brent

I don't know why I did this at the time, but I had a seperate bank account called, "The Work of The Lord."  I digress.

I'm glad "the work" isn't continuing there.  Last I had heard, it sounded like things weren't changing much there.  Perhaps somebody should update the existing assemblies page on ga.com.

You should probably be chastized for keeping those records, but since you have done so much other evil, I guess we'll let you go on this.

I'm sure much of the money went in to "projects" and things, but it sure seems like there is a lot missing, just from the offering box.

I am thankful that I never "got around" to contributing any money beyond the offering box.

Dave

True. The trips Wayne made with George were at the expense of Wayne's own vacation time, etc.  - some of it unpaid. He did not receive any money for going. There was no financial gain in it at all for Wayne or our family at all, ever. Wayne's priority was the spiritual and medical "gain" of the people he visited. Period.

To suggest that Wayne would know what George did with the money shows me you didn't know George very well.  The few times I heard someone question George about assembly finances they were ridiculed and made to feel like an unbelieving fool in front of all involved. George was an expert in intimidation and this subject, so dear to his heart, was obviously one he wouldn't allow anyone to touch.

In addition, we personally know people on the mission field (under the auspices of the assembly and the work) who were supposed to receive money for their needs from George when he travelled to see them and never received it. Guess who took it?

Bob, please get the facts straight before throwing around innuendo and accusation, especially about my husband. At the very least, email us with honest inquiry. Thank you.
Pat Mathews

"Moderate"  "Courteous" speech follows:

Pat, when you signed up to be a worker, you clearly understood that are no guarantees in The Work.  It was your privilege to be involved, and why shouldn't it cost you to do so?  After all,  it cost Jesus everything.  Why shouldn't you and Wayne have had to pay for the privilege of being a footnote in one of a George's grand journeys?  He is an Apostle afterall!

I am leaving the "moderate" part of the post now.

When I went on teams, I always paid more money than others did, I came to find out.  I was slightly disturbed when I learned that the homes who had the privilege of hosting us had to foot the entire bill, food and all.

On the Spokane team, Tim left early and left me in charge.  There was no more money, and people needed gas to get home.  I went to my ATM and withdrew my own cash, and didn't tell anyone about it.  No one knew that Tim left us broke.

I paid for my own plane ticket there, and the Guske's paid for all of our food.  I gave Tim 1500.00 cash for this great opportunity---all 3 weeks worth---and then had to shell out another 600.00 of my own money for the other people's gas, food and lodging on the way home.  I used about 150.00 dollars worth of gasoline during the 3 weeks I was there.  I wonder where all that money went?

I dunno, is it possible that Tim sort of managed the funds in a less than equitable way?  (I know he did with regard to me, but I don't count...I was "rich")

Here's a neat verse that applies:

2 Cor 11:19  You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise!  20  In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the  face .  21  To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!

We were the fools, who thought we were wise.  (pride)

George, Tim, David and the chief Geftakysservants were the ones who enslaved, took advantage, slapped us, etc.

Please note, many of the leaders didn't do this, and were victims like the rest of us, however, they were still fools, even as I was.  We shouldn't have put up with it, but we did, and we bear the consequences.

I agree with Pat;  "bob," you need to view the facts.  You say you want truth, and there is a truckload of truthful facts all over this thread alone.  It is ludicrous to suggest that there is no proof for the things said here.

Brent

Some days I feel great anger over what Mr. G has done, and other days I feel great sadness.  After reading this account, I feel great sadness.  This is just so utterly disgusting.

 :'(

Although these things are in the past, and I am rejoicing that God is cleaning His house, I still feel sadness at times.  I guess that it must be possible to experience sadness and still rejoice at the same time.

on one of the teams i participated in (a very positive experience for me), danny edwards was able to give us all some money back (after paying for all the gas and food, apparently). we all went on several very fun and not cheap outings, got thick quality souvenir sweatshirts, and spent plenty on many outreaches, yet there was enough money left over that we all got some back to put in our pockets.  :o  i don't remember exactly how much i got, but it was a decent little chunk that really helped me as i started fall semester. i'm saying this to point out that i believe danny was honest (although also secretive) in his dealings with the team's money. if we could afford all that we did and still have that much money left, then where did all the money go on the team tim was leading??  >:(

i think there was just enough sincerity and honor in the leadership to cover for the immense corruption and dishonesty festering at its pinnacle. again, in my opinion the problem with many (if not most) leaders was not insincerity, but blindness combined with apathy to take decisive action on what they did see. (note: the problem with the rest of them was insincerity, and thats putting it Moderately (TM) sondra and matt, 2003)

brian

I was always a little amazed how much it cost to send our children on teen teams. It was over $100 a week and the homes they lived in had 3-4 teens living in them at least.  I'm sure it wasn't a picnic having that many people in your home for a month, especially if you weren't used to teenagers, but maybe the extra $400-500 a week helped.  Although, if all of the teens were like my own maybe they needed all that cash for groceries and hot water bills.  8)

The point is that the homes they stayed in paid for the food and were not re-imbursed by the "team."

It cost us plenty more than 100.00 per week to go.  I went on 4 teams.

Brent

OMG talk about taking a statement out of context! couldn't you at least have quoted the entire sentance?? i can see it now - front page headline for the New Torch and Latter Day Testimony: BRENT DECLARES TIM INNOCENT "Although we all know how evil Brent is, even demons know the truth, and tremble. God has shown us this is the same motivating force behind a press release from that nest of lies, The BB, in which Brent officially declared Tim innocent of all charges. Our eyes have been opened to the truth of this statement, the first such statement which the Spirit has given us peace about passing on to you. It is truly a new thing the Lord is doing in our midst. This is not to say you should read the website, or listen to Brent, but you can be sure we will pass along any other pertinent revelations as the Spirit moves us."

i'm curious, "bob", who is the 'we' that are digging, er, looking for such statements?

brian

Of course initially it was with George. Frankly the relationship between Wayne and the brethren in Africa evolved to where the role George played was quite marginal. They now view Wayne and his well-established ministry quite separately from George Geftakys. Wayne has also been specially honored by the people he has served there. Make no mistake about it; he is an independent force for the gospel in West Africa. For all intents and purposes, those trips became fairly independent. As a matter of fact, we are both praying about returning to Africa for further medical and humanitarian missionary labors. Pray for open doors my friend...
Verne

i am endlessly curious, aren't i? i apologize for the inference. i don't believe you are a part of any organized conspiracy. i do believe you are representative of a group of people who sometimes refuse to be convinced, even after they have pushed their fingers into the wounds.

you forgot to question my integrity, since i am also an admin on this bb. but thats understandable, because brent is much more curious and proactive than you or i or most of the former leaders of the assembly will likely ever be.

brian

That's not what I said. To further clarify: Wayne's travel expenses were paid for by "the work", but he never received any other compensation and often was gone longer than he had vacation for and then lost pay from work. That's what I meant.  I hope this clears up any confusion. Apology accepted.

I'm curious. Why are you so interested in Wayne? What about Roger G.? Jim? Mike Z.? Rod? Dan? Mark? David? Les Roberts (who travelled with George in Europe almost every year)?

In fact I'm so curious, I am wondering what your real name is and what assembly you are or were in. Can you answer that? If not, why not?
Pat Mathews

"bob", Perhaps you missed the part on ga.com where it was clearly shown that Tim knew his brother was beating his sister-in-law and niece.

Well, hey, that's not such a bad thing right? Had to protect the work, right? There are worse things than keeping your mouth shut, right?

Guess when Rachel wrote that her emotions got so carried away she just made it up, huh?! Not factual at all.

Let's pretend for a minute that's all Tim did: Not such a bad guy. Certainly qualified to continue to lead God's people.

After all, what's a shepherd for if not to turn his back on the sheep?

Scott McCumber

You mentioned Wayne in 2-3 of your posts. In fact, you brought it up. You seemed interested. Now you say aren't. I don't get it. Does anyone get this?
PM
p.s. Yes, "Wayne spent a lot of time with Roger". What is your point?

Bob---

We're just curious, you said in a post below:
"If there is something you know about them in addition please let "us" know". Yet it is just you posting. Is there a reason for posting in the plural? I was just curious is all.  No you're not.  Yes I am. No you're not. Yes I am, don't argue with me. I will if I feel like it.
Look, I'm asking Bob the question, not you. I don't care who you're asking--it's a dumb question. No it isn't. Yes it is. It's a dumb question. What do you think Bob? Yeah, what do you think Bob?

-Joe
-Joe

"bob",

You backpedal faster than Sylvester turning a corner on Spike the dog!

You're a had cad, my anonymous friend!

Scott McCumber

Yes, there is evidence to support that supposition, as I stated in a previous post. In addition, as an example:  in recent years on journeys to Africa, George flew first class, while Roger and Wayne did not.  We were told George needed rest. I'm sure he got it. George loved expensive things (don't we all?!) and he had them. I ironed some pricey shirts and jackets when he stayed with us. He always bought lots and lots of books wherever he went. I know because I organized his library. I guess I should have looked in the table legs while I was there.  8) ::) ???
Pat
p.s. any other questions, just email us.

Just a couple of observations re: leader's responsibility and finances.

I spent quite a few minutes reading through this thread just now.  
There is plenty of responsibility to go around.

We who put money in the boxes are responsible for not holding leaders accountable for where the money went.  

Leaders are responsible for not giving an account and for twisting verses out of context to explain why they didn't. II KIngs 22:7 for instance.
Another example is I Cor. 16:1-2, misused here when Geo. came through on an off-pay week.  We were exhorted the next week that even if you get paid every other week, it is scriptural to divide it up and give weekly lest the box be too empty the next time the Lord's servant comes through.  Totally out of context.

Then there was the "don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing" regarding giving to God's work.  Now that we've been out and thinking again for awhile, this seems esp. ludicrous. It is about giving alms to the poor.

Then there was the attitude that it's carnal to keep account in God's house and organizations like the EFCA are for those poor people who don't fear the Lord like we do.

My point here is, we are all responsible before the Lord for how we handle what He has entrusted to us.  And to repent when what we do turns out to be wrong.

We were also on a team where we rec'd some money back at the end.  We totally trusted the man heading up the team, had no reason not to and still would today, but we weren't privy to how the money was handled or what went on behind the scenes.

And I believe we all gave as unto the Lord, trusting Him to use it as He saw fit.  Hence the greater responsibility of esp. the Fullerton leaders
who at least put forth the idea that there was accountability there. "Faithful men..." ? (see II Kings ref. above)

Becky

I don't know about the last few years, but George's trips were financed almost 100% by Kevin Healy up until the time he left.

Kevin called them "junkets."   George's travel expenses were not 100% from the tithes, but from personal donations from people like Kevin.

I financed 2 of Tim's European trips.

In spite of this, do the math.  If you don't like math, I have already done it for you.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/assembly/assembly15.html (http://www.rickross.com/reference/assembly/assembly15.html)
Brent

Must be the 'collect'ive. :) (Star Trek)

Marcia

As far as GG being a thief, he definitely knew about his son David and continued to support him as a full time worker from 'work' money. DG should never have been a LB, a worker, nor a full-time worker. He only achieved this status because he was a Geftakys.

Marcia

I find this so amazing. I always thought that the money-in-the-box-at-the-back-of-the-room was used to finance GGs trips. Where did all that money go?

After you left Brent, Tim found someone else to finance his European trips. What a privilege!

Marcia

While in the assembly, I was hospitalized for a month following an accident. Tim and married couple came to visit. As soon as Tim & I were alone he asked me if I was going to sue. I told him I had no plans to sue anyone, he probed into the accidents possibilities of financial gain.
I always thought that was an odd conversation. Looking back he never once asked if my families financial needs were being met.
I never realized until now what a bunch of mooches the Geftakys family is.

What do you all think when the saints are accusing one another of things? If you all have issues with individuals why don't you go talk to them...why are you posting here say and accusing individuals...
....do you want to take the place of the devil who is the accuser of the brethren?

PS.. has any one heard of frequent flyer miles? since GG did many journeys he could upgrade for free ...so who cares if he flew first class. ....getting pretty petty around here

It is lately becoming more and more difficult for me to think about the Fullerton leaders at all.  This is because when I think of them, I remember how I used to be in awe of them, how I used to let them tell me what I could and could not do, how I bore with their constant "putting me in my place" - and then I think of what kind of wretched, contemptible men many of them turned out to be.  They make me mad.  Truly in the case of some of these men, the following applies: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater damnation...Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.  You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence...You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the damnation of hell?"

The fact is, many of them still haven't really, fully, completely repented.  But I've decided that I'm not going to spend my time being preoccupied with them.  As one character in a Western said, "I'm mighty particular about what
I look at!"

mithrandir

Oh...and one thing for golden, whoever you are.  If you'll take off your rainbow-colored sunglasses, you'll find many people who were abused by the leaders in Fullerton and elsewhere who tried to settle things by private talks with the leaders.  But the leaders were so arrogant, so bewitched, so hard-headed that they would not listen.

mithrandir

I think it safe to say that those posting about their assembly experience fall into two broad general categories. The ones who believed it to be a wicked system that abused and defrauded gullible believers, and those who think the only problem was George Geftakys and his profligate sons and shrewish wife. (There is a bit of fringe thinking that does not even acknowledge he had a problem; after-all, we're all sinners...).  The problem Golden is that many  people  acutally lived a nightmare horror in the assemblies; for others who perhaps did not have it so bad (like me) or had no experience with the assemblies at all, the strong expressions of outrage and recriminations can appear to be nothing more than a general anger-fest. If you knew what happened though, you would be more sympathetic.
Verne

People think that only the money given as tithes and offerings was used to line George's wicked pockets. The fact is that these people fleeced many a well-off saint and robbed quite a few assembly kids of their inheritance. I could tell you stories about a widow or two...Most peole do not understand that in all likelihood the greatest depth of the wickedness of this man and his enablers remains undisclosed...
Verne

  WHAT HAS IT GOT IN ITS WICKED LITTLE POCKETSESSSS??    ;D

Viva Tolkien!

And this is the reason for the website and BB.  The leaders who do repent are totally forgiven, same as the "members" who repent, etc.   There are a good number of ex-LB's and workers on the BB,  and they don't seem to mind.  Lot's of people tried numerous times to settle issues with people one on one.  These blockheads not only wouldn't listen, they EXCOMMUNICATED people who tried to settle things.

Golden,  your grasp on reality is tenuous at best.   It's a good thing you are an anonymous poster...it takes a lot of courage to say some of this stuff,  which you probably don't possess.  Much safer to make little quips from the safety of an anonymous position.



Brent

Golden,

Before leaving I attempted to discuss assembly matters via private talks, but was unable to meet with the LBs. I then decided to leave and emailed everyone I could to tell them why I was leaving. Both LBs then met with me together to get information to discuss at the brother's meeting (or maybe it was to satisfy my request to meet). I then attempted on a couple of occasions to open up communication with them, but received the silent treatment. At that point I took my discussions, once again, to the BB. So... it's not like I didn't try. And many others have experienced similar dilemnas.

Marcia

For two years before leaving the LB's knew very well that I was not "standing with them" concerning many things they taught and did.  I had learned my lesson and refused to be subjected to the "gang bang".  That means having six or eight men all yelling at you about how evil and decieved you are in the Leading Brother's meeting. :P

I told them repeatedly that I would meet with any one of them at any reasonable time or place to discuss these issues.

I have, to date, had no takers.  I think I'll go sit by the phone...maybe they will call today.   ::)

Oh yes...I told them that in 1987.

Thomas Maddux

Maybe they were concerned that you would convince them to your point of view. That's what I was told as to the reason(partially) that they did not want to meet with me individually. Even Felix (Acts 24) became concerned when he heard the truth from Paul.

It's great being an individual and free from the collective. I do not hear all those voices in my ear, yelling(in Tom's case) do this, do that etc. Though I am grieved to be thus alienated from friends of many years. But then maybe they weren't real friends after all...

Marcia

The more I learn about this guy, the better I like him.
You people reading here listen to me carefully. What Tom's testimony proves is that we not only had the internal witness of the Spirit of God convicting these men of sin and wrong doing, they also had living witness among them of one who attempted to stand for the truth and God's interest and for his efforts was reviled. If I hear another person whining about how "THE LEADERSHIP DID NOT KNOW! " I am literally going to puke!
THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE!! What will be their excuse??!
Verne

Good Point.

[

Tim on the other hand, though people may dislike him, is not as clear cut in my mind. Things pertaining to Tim do not appear to be factual but emotional. I can stand corrected, but that is how it appears to me.


Tim in my eyes is a bigger piece of crap than the rest of them.  Tim was every bit as abusive as George and David - he just wasn't as blatant as it...He is flat out a sly and shady individual.  

Lets face it, someone who does not have a job, has never had a real job should, and who has no talents whatsoever should not drive the cars that he did and live in the house that he did.  That right there should tip you off that something is not right!!!

Personally, I have had horrible dealings with Tim Geftakys.  I got to believe that every accusation leveled at him is accurate.  

By the way Tim - nice beer gut!

Dear Golden Geftakys,

Had the leadership  been willing to address the issues at the time instead of being "untouchable", then maybe things could have been resolved differently.  H

I am quite sure that Georgie Porgie would have flown first class regardless of his accumulation of frequent flyer miles.

I have not yet fully figured out why they were unwilling to meet with me individually.
I guess I'll have to speculate since any attempt to communicate has brought forth 'the silent treatment'.

Interestingly enough, today I was reading 'Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse' by Johnson and VanVonderen. On page 67 in the 'Unspoken Rules' section the author says this:

When you find unspoken rules by breaking them unintentionally, you will then suffer one or two consequences: either neglect (being ignored, overlooked, shunned) or agressive legalism (questioned, openly censured, asked to leave -- in extreme cases cursed).  --end-quote

I have experienced being ignored, shunning, assumed I was leaving though I hadn't planned to at the time, censure.
All I wanted was to talk with them! Oh well...

Marcia

 I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
Hebrews 13:5,6

I seem to remember George telling us that he paid his travel agent with cash.  I doubt he had a credit card, so he would not have frequent flyer miles of his own to use to upgrade to 1st class.  Maybe he had someone else pay with their credit card (Kevin Healy perhaps?) and then used THEIR frequent flyer miles to upgrade to 1st class.  Either way, he got what he demanded - the royal treatment at the expense of mere mortals.

Jack

This disgrace to the gospel of Chirst would so pride himself on his "apostolic" calling. Can you imagine the apostle Paul traveling with Timothy and the other bretheren insisting that he be given the VIP cabin while the men ministering with him slept below deck? There were so many obvious signs of this man's lack of fitness for duty, I just don't understand how he got away with it for so long...
Verne

Yes, you are correct. The request was to meet with them individually, my husband would also be there.

Marcia

wow, thanks for that insightful comment.

something that was very common in the assembly in my experience was fear of too much communication with those who had real criticisms of the assembly. the perspective i picked up on was that when people leave who were not involved in gross, obvious sin its because they have been deceived in a most subtle and contagious way. communicating with them about anything but their repentance from their hidden, unknown sin was to be avoided at risk of being deceived oneself. when people who left were open about their critisism of the assembly, there was only one word used to describe them: divisive! that word would strike fear into the hearts of any true assemblyite. anything but that! cover your ears, don't get contaminated! so what marcia is saying here does not seem at all far fetched to me. and thats apart from the fact that its marcia posting it, who is not one to spin tall tales, but is always dignified and careful in what she posts.

didn't you come across this perspective in the assembly at all, bob?

brian

Someone said, in a PM response to mine, that you are an honest inquirer. So on that basis I will make this response. I have emails to back up anything I have recently posted. I will not publicly display those emails as I only wanted to make a point that I had made every effort to meet and talk with them, but it did not happen. After I left I received the 'silent treatment' ie no more email replies from the LBs. They even told the brothers at their General Brother's Meeting that if they replied to my emails then I would write back. Why state the obvious? I will not display personal information to you as I do not know who you are. If you reveal your identity, I may change my mind depending on what I discover.

Marcia

What Brian says below hits the nail on the head. There really is a "built in" fear of being deceived in  groups like the Assembly. Full blown cults display this same fear by never allowing a solo contact with an "apostate"(someone who has left the group) for fear the apostate may lead to deception. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a good example. They always have several people meet with the"offender" at once, or have the individual come to them and stand before an "open court"--that way, through strength in numbers, they reinforce one another with the "group's" stance on that individual.

Yet, if you address this "fear" you would meet the standard response---to laugh it all off as untrue. "Why should we be afraid of being deceived?" they might mockingly ask---but will you see them meet with this individual out in the open, one on one, allowing the individual to TRULY express their concerns? No---they need a "group" setting to address the individual, where they are totally in control and can manipulate the direction of the conversation.

This is standard procedure and well known by many who have had a disagreement and tried to express their concerns.


--Joe

No question about it. What made the manipulation so effective was inculcation of the "herd" mentality early and often. I was struck by Tom's description of the leading brothers' cowardly ganging up on him; not a single one of them, despite knowing the man's testimony and example, having the courage to break ranks and honestly ask the question:
"What are we doing here?"  
It is truly tellling that none of these men have gone to Tom in repentance and to seek reconciliation. After-all it is true that he was right and you were terribly wrong is it not?
Verne


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

Verne,

Anyone who has taken the time to read the accounts on the website will find this a well-documented and common theme.

Steve Irons, Brent Tr0ckman, Tom Maddux, Jim McCumber . . . The list goes on.

None could meet with the great man without his lieutenants and none of the lieutenants were allowed (or had the b@!!s) to meet them individually.

Many times these men requested to meet one-on-one with men they were supposedly friends with and had labored with for 20 years only to be ambushed when they showed up to meet!

Cowards. Liars. Backstabbers.

Scott McCumber

PS - George wanted to take me to task one Sunday afternoon in Fullerton. I faced George, Steve Irons, Mark Miller and a couple other thugs and withstood about 20 minutes of loud berating by the Mad Greek.

I was 15. Guess he was afraid of me! ;D

Why Scott....I had no idea...!
But seriously, what you are describing is part explanantion for the damgage done to the relationships of some of these men and their children. What must have been going through the minds of young and  impressionable persons seeing men who were supposedly God's servants conducting themsleves in such a cowardly and ignoble fashion. The confusion and despair must have been intolerable - no wonder many left and choose not to folllow in their parents footsteps. It was the children who ultimately displayed some integrity! Notwithstanding the unfortunate result of some throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think when all is said and done it is the effect to undermine and ship-wreck the faith of many that will move God to exact the heaviest toll from those responsible. I believe this is just the kind of thing Matthew 18 ominously warns us about.
Verne


 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!  

To Those of you who know;

Was there ever appointed anywhere a Leading Brother without George Geftakys's approval ?

Was there ever a Leading Brother anywhere who freely challenged any of George Geftakys's teachings and maintained their position as a leading Brother ?

Good questions. I have some answers, but I will instead make this comment.

I was never a LB/LBW/worker so I was not appointed. While I was "in" I disagreed with various ones on various occasions. BUT I confess that I was guilty of participating in a spiritually abusive system and that I was sincerely decieved at the time of my involvement in it.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Marcia ,
I commend and admire you for your honesty. I also want to confess that I was guilty of participating in a spiritually abusive system and that I too was deceived. I want to apologize to those individuals whose faith I adversely affected because of the false doctrine I embraced while in the assembly.
Sincerely,
Mark Kisla

Mark,

I was not looking for commendation. I was attempting to make a point. I.e. I have heard certain LBs and others say: well so-and-so was not appointed by GG, and so-and-so withstood GG on such-and-such issue and etc. So.... we weren't really that influenced by GG, and we are not as close to Fullerton as SLO, and we do not have the same problems as .... and it goes on.

My point: position, appointment, withstanding on issues, proximity has not exempted us from our involvement in the Geftakys assembly system.

Lord bless,
Marcia

I understand & agree

Marcia and all,
I have another thought on why leaders hesitate to meet one on one with those who disagree with them.  It may be because, one on one, they will actually find themselves agreeing with the dissenter, remembering that they are talking with someone, a fellow believer in Christ, who has served in the assembly with them for many years.  They might realize that the person is not an apostate, or a flake, or a railer, or "has issues", or whatever label leaders may apply in order to justify their ungracious treatment of them.
One on one, they might hear their conscience, or the still small voice of God Himself.
But leaders together may experience the years of programming that kicks in and says, "unity", "stand together", etc. It was taught and caught from the top down to behave in these loyal-to-the-system ways.
Many of us treated ones who left badly, because we thought there was never a 'good' reason to leave.  
And leaders led the way.
Becky

Hi all,

Last Sunday I had a brief encounter with  an "un-leading brother" from a nearby assembly.

I now understand much better why these people are continuing.

What I encountered was an attitude of smug superiority.  He obviously considered his group to be the spiritual elite.

I asked him who the leading brothers were, and his answer was "we don't have any leading brothers, they have all stepped down".

So, I asked him how they make decisions.  His reply was "by the unity of the brethren". (this is straight out of PB teaching).

Sooo, I said, "Now that's very scriptural, an assembly with no leadership.  Where do you see this "unity" idea in the Bible?"

His reply was, "Acts 15".

The conversation didn't go on much after that.  I was invited to eat lunch with him and some others, but I felt it would be best to apply my time elsewhere.

I am apalled, but not surprised, by his answer.  This is the result of only hearing one explaination of the scriptures and not having anything to compare it with.

The conference of acts 15 involved two different assemblies, and had two apostles and the brother of Jesus Christ present!  The apostle James was killed by Herod prior to this.

Eusebius says that he became much beloved and respected and was a pillar of the faith.

So...he told them what they were going to do, "I give my judgement", and they agreed.

When this crowd decides to meet at 9:30 instead of 9:15 or such, they think that they are doing the same thing.  When I left the assembly I told Steve Irons that the fundamental reason was that the whole thing was based on a false mysticism.  

THIS IS EXPONENTIAL FALSE MYSTICISM!

What pathetic, abysmal ignorance....and all of this was said in an attitude of condesension.  

So very very sad.

Thomas Maddux

I do not mean this in any way to be condemnatory; I simply make it as a strictly theological observation.
God has spoken with absolute and conclusive authority concerning the work of George Geftakys and the system of assemblies that he established. I believe it was his Divine purpose to deliver His own from a satanic system of deception and depravity, though a convincing counterfeit.  That this has indeed been accomplished is in no way disputable.
One is therefore left with the conclusion that those still clinging to what which God has judged must have been designated for just that purpose. Behold the goodness and severity of God...!
Verne
I would have been curious as to his explanation for why he as a former LB stepped down...they after-all need leaders now more than ever don't they? Exactly what kind of shepherd is he anyway, abondoning that poor and hapless flock. Could it be that he has plans to "step-up" in the near future? ;D

But Tom, they have repented from "elitism". Surely you must have mis-understood. :)

Marcia

Marcia,

One would think so, but there is just something about a sneer that you can't hide.

Thomas Maddux

Well, I have an Idea..why not go talk to these leaders one on one..instead of moaning about it on this BB?  Why not confront them head on..give each of them a call today and set up a time to take your own advice?

did you even take the time to read the posts on the subject, the articles on ga.com, etc? those who have done exactly that have been put off, put down, and put aside. contributing these observations to the discussion is not moaning. this is another classic assembly 'catch 22' where the leaders refuse to meet with someone one-on-one and then the person who is not allowed to meet with them in that way is blamed for not meeting with them.

as a heads up, golden, if you keep coming back here, you are going to keep reading observations and analysis of the assembly, almost all done by people who have left it. if those kinds of posts bother you so much, why do you keep coming back? is taking potshots while hidden behind a fake name so satisfying?

brian

Bob no question that each person will have to answer to God for their part played in the assembly drama, and the enabling of a vile apostate like George Geftakys.  I am sure in retrospect there are some things that Samuel would have liked to have done differently. I do think you do have a point in saying that the men who were closest to George and saw first hand his godless behaviour all those years yet did nothing to take a stand against it bear by far the most repsonsibility. May God be merciful to those who have repented for their failure. When it comes to resposibility of the leadership, you are preaching to the choir my friend. Any apparent "pass" I am prepared to give to any of these men is based on my personal discussion with them regarding their view of what transpired. In view of the fact that I could have easily been in their position, some compassion for those who have repented is certainly in order don't you think?
Verne

It is apparent from the articles by Kirk Cesaretti and others that meetings between leaders and those who had complaints about the ministry were unfruitful (Kirk told me personally that he did have some one-on-one meetings with other leaders).  The problem (regardless of who was there) was that the leaders did not respond to those meetings by making any PUBLIC, OPEN stands against George or any of his leaders who mistreated God's people.  They did respond soon after Judy's and Rachel's accounts appeared PUBLICLY on the internet.

Remember how during seminars George would talk about what he described as 'hate mail'?  He would talk about how he would read the letters (addressed personally to him), weep, pray for the authors, then throw them into the garbage without responding?  He told us this to give us the false impression that he was so humble that he would not answer such 'false accusations'.  What were those letters about?  They were countless letters written by sincere bretheren who wanted to see problems corrected.  Since repentance was not in the equation in George's thinking, they might as well have been sucked into a black hole.

Here are links to articles that show the pattern of the leadership's refusal to make any PUBLIC stands against George or his system as a result of meeting with concerned bretheren:

Kirk Cesaretti, LB from SLO - http://www.geftakysassembly.com/kirkcesarretti.html

The abuses in the Midwest and Tuscola - http://geftakysassembly.com/midwestandtuscola.html

The Code of Silence, enabled continued corruption in leadership with no meaningful accountability - http://www.geftakysassembly.com/codeofsilence.htm

Jack

Matthew 18 stiill applies. I find it difficult to believe that there were no two or three leading brothers in all of the assemblies that had the cohones to sit down with George and recite the facts, followed by wider dissemination among all the assemblies. Look at what happened when Brent Tr0ckman did just that and he was not even in leadership at the time! These men empowered Goeorge and protracted his tenure by their cowardice and rank disobedience to the clear teaching of Scirpture. Case closed.
Verne

good question. i think it is likely related to the extraordinary humility and sincerity with which samuel has conducted himself throughout his life. i have never seen or heard of him exerting authority and control over anyone, or excluding anyone, but rather going where he is invited and preaching with sincerity. it was samual's character and reputation that george capitalized on in order to help validate his own percieved authority. i believe this is why george kept samuel so close to himself. i suspect that is also why george kept roger grant so close to himself.

in stark contrast, almost all of the leaders of local gatherings in north america have exerted excessive control over people's lives, far exceeding healthy levels of control. in many observed cases, leaders really did get corrupted and cross blatant lines of morality. the overwhelming vast majority of those who leave get a harsh taste of where their former leaders priorities really are. this leaves them with little doubt in condemning their former leaders. but even with all that, almost none of us here on the board think of all the gatherings that have disassociated with george as nests of evil. from my observation point, many of them seem very sincere but misguided, and certainly vulnerable to falling back into unhealthy and isolated, controlling ways. it is out of genuine concern for them (and because of what i clarify in my thinking in the process) that i keep re-explaining these same issues over and over on here. i think this is what motivates a lot of us, as would be clear to anyone who came on here without an agenda to make us look as bad as possible.

you have been strangely tight-lipped concerning your own observations of the assembly, bob, even for someone who is probably still in one. you must have observed at least some of the more blatant problems and behaviors we talk about on here. having seen them yourself, don't they concern you?

Bob,

I'm wondering if you have read the articles below.  They offer a perspective that the assembly leaders did not give.  If so, what do you think about them?

 http://www.geftakysassembly.com/kirkcesarretti.html

http://geftakysassembly.com/midwestandtuscola.html

http://www.geftakysassembly.com/codeofsilence.htm

Jack

You know it's a fine line between having judgement(the ability to discern between right and wrong)and passing judgement (passing condemnation on someone for their offences). We often see this line trampled on the bb; and what's the tough thing to deal with is that those willing to condemn past or present leading brothers have been guilty of the same offences themselves. But have acquitted themselves or are acquitted by other posters so they feel free to fire away at their enemies(or those who have legititamately offended them) . This is a shame because we have no right to either condemn others or acquit/justify ourselves.
That being said I must be quick to admit that in an equaly wrong way I've seen myself do this same thing.
Yes we should evaluate the sincerity of others and seek justice or what have you when necassary but were often very out of line considering the meekness we should have having once committed the same offenses.
On another note the gang bang method of cowing/controlling people can be substantiated by many and it's effect is profound.
I also at the age of fifteen found myself after having confided in Tim G. a sin I had commited  thinking he could help me.He told me to wait there a few minutes and the next thing I knew I was surrounded by Steve I.,Jim H.,Tom M., and who else I can't remember.The thing is these guys weren't all psycho contol freak monsters but the method they used/followed and the effects it brought were monstrous it stripped you of your dignity I barely knew any of those guys but Tim and had confided in him. I never agreed to gang bang counsel.as time went on you knew everyone knew everything about you and it was so effective in breaking you into a pulp of a human being. Well I could go on but theres others out there who had similar experieces maybe they can add/elaborate from here.
PS. Scott isn't it funny how bad they wanted us to feel for being normal teenagers.
You know our High School Outreach had a group of teenagers who really loved the Lord. The Assembly(not just George or any individual) stumbled every single one of them. How sad... we need to pray more and condemn less.
PPS I really hope this comes across in a spirit of reconciliation not with undercurrents of bitterness.  

Hey, Kevin,

Wanna know what's really funny? My "gang bang" counselling at the hands of GG and company centered around . . . my crush on Melanie! Don't beat me up. ;D

Scott

Kevin,

As those summer schools began I was very much wanting to serve the Lord. But it seemed like the more I "labored in prayer", "struggled to overcome", "reckoned myself dead" and "took the way of the cross" the more keenly I felt the contempt of Tim G, Steve I and company. {Side bar: Steve has made a personal and heartfelt apology to me. Accepted.}

It began to dawn on me that no matter what I did I was not going to be able to attain the shifting, secretive standard that would gain their approval. The approval of "godly" men being a reasonable goal for a 15 year old boy.

This treatment of the first generation of assembly children bore absolutely disastrous, well-documented results.

Unfortunately, Generation Deux is just as screwed up - they just don't know it yet.

Scott McCumber

Bob,

Just to clarify:

I believe that every assembly on the continent was corrupted by GGs influence. The reason I hold this belief is that we all had the same 'problems' that were cult-like (please do not be offended by the 'c' word here, I do not know how else to label it). I know that every gathering has problems, but the problems we had in the assemblies, and even in the Ottawa assembly, were a symptom of a deeper issue. The symptoms indicate to me a 'false religious' system similar to that of the scribes and the Pharisees. Africa and China were definitely a lot more autonomous than Canada where we had our connections to Fullerton via Omaha.

I do not agree that the leaders are corrupt, but rather sincerely deceived in following the system even as I was and as many others were. However, I believe that those who do not honestly inquire now, and say the the web-site and BB is a tool of the enemy, are accountable for not using all the resources provided in order to know the truth of the matter. This is even more dangerous as it can lead to the 'system' being revived and a greater darkness.

All LBs have not been painted with the same brush GG is painted with. But leaders are definitely more accountable than the laity.

Lord bless,
Marcia

In your opinion Bob, what are the fruits of repentance?

Marcia

Leading brothers publicly took a place of authority, regard, and respect in the lives of those around them (the saints).  If a man in that kind of public position uses that position to abuse others or just stands by and supports a man who is abusing others, he should, when he sees what is by definition a public sin, repent openly and publicly.  There have been some in leadership who have done this.  I think Kirk C is a good example.  When he saw what he had been a party to, he was open in his repentance.  However, many of the leadership have not even so much as personally gone to those whose lives have been forever altered by their stand with an apology of any sort.  It is that sort of silence that would make one question their true repentance.

Personally, I know that my mother as well as myself went to the leadership for help on numerous occassions.  I myself, attempted to speak with the leadership regarding the sins being committed and was, at best, ignored, and in many instances shunned and slandered.  To this day, there have been a number of those in leadership who were directly involved in my family's situation that have never so much as said a word to me.  While at this point, I really don't need an apology from them in order to get on with my life, I have done that just fine.  I use my situation as an example of a system of handling blatant sin by public authorities and a pervading arrogance in the assembly leadership.  They have taken public places of authority, but when the corruption and sin is shown very few are willing to publicly admit they are wrong and repent publicly.

I stated my story publicly only after a long time of trying to deal with it privately.  I would be truly curious to see how many people never tried to deal with any of the offenses against them privately for an extended period of time before voiceing those offenses publicly.  

Bob, I would be curious to read what you would think the proper way of handling such public sins would be.

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:14   :'(
Verne

Sometime soon I am going to walk away from all this, but you mark my words...there is going to be he--  to pay for all this....

I watched a video taped message from Charles Stanley. The message was televized this past Sunday (19th). Stanley's message was on the topic of God is a God of Grace. One snippit from his message paraphrased by me:

The Lord Jesus came full of grace and truth. ... Let us draw near to the throne of grace...
The Lord Jesus rebuked the leaders (woe to you scribe and Pharisee..), but He showed grace to the sinner, the women at the well, the women caught in adultery, blind Bartimaeus, etc. etc. etc.

Interesting.

Marcia

Charles Stanleys Ministry has been a blessing to me.
Mark

In that case you should call and thank George and the boys right now...you didn't know what you were getting into with my sister~!!ha!ha!(if you forward this post to her I will beat you up)

Funny. :) Has she read anything on the site or the board?

Back on topic: I never perceived the same attitude from the leaders in the Tuscola "teen group".

But by the time I came back from summer school I was working pretty hard on reflecting back a lot of that contempt. I wasn't invited to a lot of the Midwest teen outings. Something about an attitude problem! Can you imagine? ;D

There were some adults in Fullerton who treated me well: Charlie and Cheryl Mathers, Perry, Joe Bush . . . hmm. Well I guess that's it but at least it's something, huh?

Scott

How is this revelation going to come? With regards to the leaders the Lord Jesus publicly declared it without disclaimers. I.e. He did not say, "except for Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea".


Our judgement comes from the bible. Do you agree that 2Cor7 is a good passage to use when evaluating sincerity of repentance?

2Cor 7:11 For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.


I agree that they do not have to publicize their repentance on this BB (though it would be nice if they did), and that there isn't a 4 step program for repentance. I am still curious as to what are the LBs to show as fruits worthy of repentance.

Personally, I believe that there is a reason that God expects us to 'voice' our repentance when we first get saved (A B Confess with your mouth...) and then making a public declaration via baptism, spreading the good news etc. Hence, I would conclude that showing fruits of repentance involves a public proclamation. In some locales I have not seen this demonstrated. It is possible that the leaders have not fully seen the degree of their involvement in promoting the Geftakys system.

And then when one considers that many of these LBs travelled on itinerant ministry 'publicly' declaring their support of the system via counselling and preaching, then should there not be a corresponding zeal to publicly declare that they were wrong when they promoted such-and-such teaching.


God has already told us in his word how to determine the value of that fruit. He has taken care of it.

Lord bless,
Marcia

One characteristic I noticed that might be of some interest. LBs/LBWs get others to feel sorry for them. eg I know of one LBW who managed to convince a good number of people to feel sorry for her because her family (ie parents, brothers, sisters) were not in town and she was alone with the assembly and her husband and children. Many people rallied to comfort and encourage her because of her dilemna. I was inclined to do so myself until it occurred to me that my own family was not in town either, but no one was feeling sorry for me (not that I wanted them to). This is only a smoke-screen (correct expression??) and a distraction from the real issue. I know of LBs who have succumbed to this as well. To tell you the truth, I do actually feel sorry for these individuals, but I cannot allow my sorrow to distract me from the real issue at hand. LBs LBWs workers and all assemblyites who promoted Geftakysism (including myself) are responsible to repent.

Marcia

This is the last line of the article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, on GA.com.  http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/Narcissism.htm (http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/Narcissism.htm)


Here is some food for thought:

"IF" George indeed suffers from NPD, we must wrestle with two issues, and several implications for each issue.

1.) Did God use George to "raise up" The Assembly, in spite of the fact that His "servant," had NPD?

2.) Was George's "work," merely that; the result of an NPD's intense desire to be admired, etc.?

The second possibility seems easiest to grapple with.  It wasn't God's work, I was deceived/duped, and God kept me in spite of the terrible situation I was in.  Leave the "ministry," and get on with life, somewhat wiser as a result.  The implications for adopting view two are many, but chief among them, in my eyes, is the sense of responsibility for getting others out of a totally fraudulent system, masquerading as a Christian ministry.  There are others as well.

The first possibility is the one that presents the most problems.  Let's suppose that God used George to start the Assembly.  It was founded and nourished on George's teaching and practice, right down to the food we ate, and in many cases the people we married.  Children were trained the Geftakys way, careers were suspended, education was directed, reputations were built and destroyed, all on the whim of one man,  God's man.

George taught us that unless we were free from self, we were not useful for God's work.  George taught that God could use a man who had experienced "real brokenness," and that most people were soulish, being led about by their knowledge of Good and Evil, not the will of God.

George taught that unconfessed sin rendered a person non-operational with regard to ministy, and that the inheritance was based on our faithfulness to yield to God, and reckon "Self," dead.

In order for God's work to be done God's way, there must be "Heavenly Vision."  The ability to see was granted to clean vessels, meet for The Master's purposes.  According to George, if we were diligent to yield to God, being transformed in the inward man,  then we could be put in a position to be used "of Him."

Okay,  let's suppose that God did use George.  

George was none of the things he taught.  His character in no way reflected the kind of person that he taught "The Lord's Servant," must be.  George had plenty of unconfessed sin, more than a little "self-life," a good deal of the outward man showing at inappropriate times, not to mention the fact that he was obviously not "broken."

The above facts,  (they are facts, regardless of the views a person may have regarding the Assembly) present some very difficult and mutually contradictory issues.  If we adopt number one, above, and conclude that God used George to start a ministry, then we must come to grips with the following:

God's servant doesn't have to practice what he preaches. "Truth in the inward parts," applies to the rank and file, but not to the leader/prophet.  This is unbiblical.  If we adopt this idea, than any heretic has as much right to declare his cult "God's work," as anyone else.

God's servant taught false things. A work of God does not require Geftakys/Keswick/Nee/Brethren style theology.  George is clear evidence that God can and does use anyone.  Sin doesn't stop Him, He can use an adulterer and a hypocrite to raise up a glorious testimony to Himself.  What George taught about self, sin, the soul and the cross is superfluous.  It might be of some help to some, but clearly George didn't need it in order to be chosen as God's servant.  God's servant directed God's work in a way that was wrong, yet it is still God's work, even though it was built on a foundation of erroneous teaching.  This seems to be where most of the current Assembly folk reside, whether they have thought of it in this way or not.  George's books are thrown into the trash,  George's character and sin have been exposed,  yet his teachings and practice live on in a modified form.  This implies that God's chosen servant can be a false teacher.

God used George, and much of what George taught is true, in spite of the fact that George was flawed. Okay, let's adopt this viewpoint.  Again, George and his leading brothers taught all about the "inward man."  Many of these people point at the website and BB and say, "It's not Christ-like!  Jesus is not bitter, etc."  So, George wasn't Christlike, yet God used him to raise up a ministry?  Again, if what George taught was true, than how could God have used him?  He was disqualified before the Assembly ever started?  God used a man steeped in "self," to teach people to reckon self dead.  A liar and an adulterer was used to communicate precious truth, in spite of the fact that his message declared that no such thing could take place, and that sinful behavior quenches the spirit.

Perhaps George repented, God got the Assembly started through George, then George sinned, then he repented, etc.  Again, this possibility is mutually contradictory given what George taught.

There are many other twists and turn here, and other possibilities as well.  All I am trying to do is to get people to think about the consequences that their ideas have.  If doctrine and character are really that confusing, and God breaks His own rules in a capricious manner, how can we know anything at all?  

Perhaps a righteous man, who is pastoring a great church, who really is a godly man, ISN"T doing God's work?  How are we to know, and does it really matter?  Is it all just a bunch of BS?

(I know it isn't.  I am clear on where I stand on this.  I print this so that others can go through the process themselves, if they haven't already.)

Brent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent,

I went through the process years ago.  I concluded two things:

1. God's ways are mysterious.  The categories you have proposed don't exhaust all possibilities.  Isa. 55:8-9.

2. God uses all sorts of men to work his will in history.  He called a pagan Persian king, (Cyrus), "my servant".  Then there is the sad story of Solomon.

I have a problem with the idea of an evil "system".  It seems to me that there really is no such thing.  It isn't as if there is some entity that can be tested on the good/evil scale.

The assemblies existed in time.  All the existence that they ever had was a product of what was in our heads.  We believed in certain ideas and acted upon them.  That produced meetings, outreaches, brother's houses and so on.  

Now, did we change at all during our time in the One True Church?  I know I did, and I believe we all did.  I also know that GG changed.  The man I knew when I left in 1989 was very different from the man I met in 1969.

Once I was going away for a weekend in Santa Barbara. In my later assembly years I used SB for an R&R getaway spot.

George asked me to drive by a little Assembly of God church and see if a certain brother was still the pastor.  That is where he fellowshipped when he was first saved.  

He was a memeber of the college age group.  They did the Pentecostal thing there.  George used to march around the hall singing victory songs and praising God.  That, my dear Watson, is called a "Victory March" in Pentecostal circles.

Now, was that the same man that we now see exposed as a false teacher and adulterer?  Well, yes and no.  The young GG praising God had some hangups and potential problems, but he seems to have made the wrong choices as the years went by.  He, just like all of us, reaped what he sowed.

This, again, is why I don't see the assembly as a scam from the first, an evil conspiracy by GG and BG to make money and have fun abusing the flock.  Some on these boards seem to see it that way, but I don't.

I see the assembly as a tragedy.  It was started by imperfect men for a variety of motives, some of them very praisworthy. It grew and developed for 32 years.  It became a sort of Frankenstein's Monster.  This happened because of George Geftakys, AND everyone who supported and followed him.  As he deteriorated, and as we acceded to his increasingly wrongheaded demands, the corporate expression of our ideas and acts, the Assembly, became darker and darker.

The real problem was that the assembly grew more and more distant from the true headship of Christ, which works in our hearts and minds.  It grew darker along with the increasing delusions of the one we followed, frequently silencing the voice of conscience in order to avoid suffering.

We let GG be our head, dethroning Christ.  Yes, he was a deciever, a pretty good one at that.  But we were all willing to be decieved.  For whatever reason, we became followers of this man.

Did you read the story of Steve and Margaret's leaving.  What happened to Steve was that GG finally touched an area that he wouldn't compromise.  If you think about it, that is what happened to all of us that left before the fall.

That my friends, was the work of the Good Shepherd.  He took us out in His good time.  In His good time, he will recover all his sheep.

It is a praise to God's mercy and grace that he is recovering us and refurbishing us to serve Him.  The glory is all His.

God bless all undercomers,

Thomas Maddux
Windbag- in- Chief  
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much food for thought.

My convictions at the time of my departure and even now is that the Geftakys assembly system is a false religious system, where Christ is not the head. Wherever Geftakysservants laboured the testimonies were tainted by Geftakysism. I now include Africa, China, and Europe to those assemblies on the American continent as being tainted by GG's influence.

Verne, I agree that the fruit is not evident until later, hence the inability to see GG as a false teacher right from the start.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Tom I find your perspective most thought provoking. It would seem to me that the ultimate production of fruit constrains us to strict determination of the kind of tree (unless of course some spiritual grafting took place... :)). Is it possible that inherent in your conclusions is the assumption, seeming Godly deportment notwithstanding, that you were able to perceive even early on, GG's true nature, fig or thorn?
Remember the Lord cautioned us that it was only by their fruit, we would know them...Oh for eyes to really see!
I do appreciate your insight Tom
Verne

Thanks for the reply Tom.  I agree, my two possibilities are not the only two, but they are two that must be reckoned with.

Obviously, knowing what you know now, you would not get involved with the Assembly, were it to begin today.  

Is this because you don't want to get into God's work, or because you see that God's work and The Assembly are not synonymous?   (I know the answer.  However, I think it helps people to think about this)

Brent

Verne,

You said:
"Tom I find your perspective most thought provoking. It would seem to me that the ultimate production of fruit constrains us to strict determination of the kind of tree (unless of course some spiritual grafting took place... ). Is it possible that inherent in your conclusions is the assumption, seeming Godly deportment notwithstanding, that you were able to perceive even early on, GG's true nature, fig or thorn?
Remember the Lord cautioned us that it was only by their fruit, we would know them...Oh for eyes to really see!
I do appreciate your insight Tom"
Verne


Verne it seems to me that you are misapplying a verse here.

It speaks of false prophets and bad fruit in Matt 7:15-20.

One of the things it says is that "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce good fruit". Verse 18.

The contrast here is between saved and unsaved men, not between wise and foolish, or spiritual vs carnal Christians.

One problem is verse 18.  GG has produced some good fruit!  Through his ministry, many people confessed Christ and were saved.  To me, that is good fruit.  He also produced some rotten fruit. That doesn't fit verse 18 at all because it speaks of an either/or situation.

So, I think the verse is being misapplied.

I also want to return to this "evil system" idea.  The problem here is that "systems", in the way you are using the word, do not have objective existence.

It is sort of like a country.  A country has some land, some laws, and a bunch of people who believe in the ideas and laws and constitute the "country".  

But, where is the country.  Can I touch it?  Can I travel to where it is?  Can I put some of it in a bag and take it home?

No.  The reason is that the "country" actually exists in the minds of the people.  If everyone in the USA changed their minds tomorrow and decided that they were the Kingdom of Slobovia, thats what they would be. "America" would cease to exist.

Countries are actually CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTS that exist in people's minds, but do not have real, objective existence. The United States of America is our name for the construct we citizens share.  

The "Geftakys System" was the same thing. Our name for that construct was the "Assembly".  However, it only had existence in the minds of its members.  When the "fall" came, a lot of people changed their minds, that is, they reorganized their conceptual constructs by introducing new information...and the "Geftakys System" dissolved.

How can something that does not really exist be evil?  Or, for that matter, good?   How can God judge something that has no being?

Now, all of us were at one time participants in the assembly system.  We acted on the basis of a conceptual construct that included the leadership of GG, and many of his teachings and practices.  We were the medium through which the concepts were expressed in the physical world.  

The "word" of GG "became flesh" by entering our minds as ideas, and then we acted on them. So, when God supposedly "judged" the Geftakys system, does that include all of us?  Are you under God's judgement Verne?

I rather doubt it.  We learned a lot of hogwash from GG, but we also learned some good things.   We bore some rotten fruit, but also some good fruit.

A few weeks ago, Caryl and I rejoiced to fellowship with a brother and his wife in our home who had left the assembly.
I led that man to Christ after an outreach of the GG "system" back in 1976.  He is rejoicing in Christ today.

I'm glad I preached the gospel to that 18 year old kid back then.  I don't repent a bit.  Why....it was good fruit.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Windbag-in-Chief