AssemblyBoard

Ove the past couple of years, I have pondering the true meaning of Hebrew 10:24-25 (if you're not familiar with the verses, look them up! ;))  Does the Lord really say the we have to meet in a building on Sunday with other believers in order to be obediant to these Scriptures?

My boyfriend is a believer, and we have wonderful times of fellowship together-pondering the Scriptures, singing hymns of the faith, praying together.  I don't believe that we have to "go to church" in order to have fellowship.  I also enjoy listening to sound doctrine on the radio and watching reputable christian pastors on television.  I feel blessed everyday!

So...is it really necessary to find a "church home"? I was wondering what you all have to say about this...

Hi Eulaha! :)
  Great question!
     In the days that Hebrews was written in order to hear the Bible one had to go where copies were being read publically.  There were no printing presses and Christians did not have entire copies of the Bible in their homes.  Christians had to gather together to hear the Word of God and to be taught.
   In interpretation of particular verses it is important to ask the question, "who was the exhortation addressed to, and what was the historical setting?  An example of the above is the exhortation to Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply";  this commandment was directed to them, not us, and reinforces the old adage, "all scripture is for us, but not necessarily to us."
    Today, we not only have the Bible but books that teach us about the Bible.  As you mentioned, we also have other media for the purpose of instruction.  Why it is even possible to receive instruction from this BB from time to time ;)!
   Having said all that, the Bible does mention the advanatages associated with gathering with other Christians.  After all, we are called "the body of Christ" and are to function together in a manner that is to "build up" one another.  The Spirit has distributed gifts to each member and the sharing of our part is to benefit others and is a necessary function for the blessing of other Christians.
   The list of these gifts includes more than just teaching/pastoring.  One such gift is called "showing mercy".  As former Assembly members God has given us a sensitivity to the needy, confused and broken Christians we may come across in a church.
   The only "have to" re. "going to church" is the imperative of love that provokes us to seek the blessing of my brother/sister in Christ.  To gather with believers as some kind of duty that "must be obeyed" in order to be "spiritual" misses the entire context of the Hebrews passage where the point is that we are needed by others (and we need them).
  It is difficult for some who have been in a group like the Assembly to feel comfortable in a Christian setting.  There are certain things that trigger negative memories, and there are churches that are more interested in their "church" than the individual(sound familiar?).  
We can also have a feeling that we don't fit into the "program" or that we don't have a contribution to make.
  Those who have been broken in a false holiness system and who have lived under an abusive religous system know the grace of God like no one else.  We have a great wealth of blessing for a Christian church that often strays from Christianity into Churchianity.
  The Assembly may have "intended evil" to us, but God has prepared us to be a great blessing!
                           God is blessed and will bless,  Mark

Hi Eulaha

I have always looked at this verse as a warning to those who would REFUSE to meet with other believers.

This is a subtle, yet important difference than if we understand the passage to be a command that we must meet with other Christians.

In the former case, it is a warning to the person who adamantly states,  "I hate church, and I won't ever be around christians, or any kind of church ever again."  While we may feel like this at times, especially after being in a place like the Assembly,  this passage is telling us not to forsake the gathering.  In other words, don't refuse fellowship.  Taking a few years off, if need be, is not the same as forsaking.

In the latter case, if we view the passage as a command to go to church, then we must ask, "How often?  If I am on vacation, must I find a church every Sunday?  What if I'm on an airplane all day Sunday?  Is this not God's will?  And so on.  This type of view, will lend itself to attendance out of duty, and not the "considering of one another."

It also lends itself to a performance based holiness, where attendance commends the blessing of God, and absence means we have disobeyed one of His direct orders.

A desire for christian fellowship is normal for all believers, but an aversion, or caution about being involved in a church is normal and healthy, given our Assemlby experience.

It won't last forever!  Someday, you will find a church and rejoice.

Brent

Hi Eulaha, found a good article recently (http://www.lifestream.org/LSBL.May01.html).  This whole going to church/what is the church issue is really in the forefront of a lot of Chirstian blog sites these past few weeks.  What I am saying sister is that you are in no way alone in your thoughts.

One more thing/site!
This quote is from Chip Brogden http://www.watchman.net/  He has a whole series of pieces on "the Church" which are worth reading when you have time.
 

YBITL
G[url=http://]]] (http://[/url)http://

Hey!  Peacefulg!

It's good to have you back.  Great advice to Eulaha.

Brent

Thanks for the welcome Brent.  As saw from the post caught up in other things, but will check in here and there and see what is going on.

The web is so cool in that you are not alone, sometimes you can feel like Jeremiah "whoa is me I am so alone!", but this site and MANY!!!!! others show that there are dear brethern all over who have not bowed the knee yet.  Too much of the "Church" has given in to systems created by man, and what is sad is that they like it, and want it that way.

Hey Eulaha, what part of the big Apple are you in (might know of a group or few people that enjoy FELLOWSHIP).

My Hope is built on nothingless than Jesus blood and righthousness.... On Christ the soild rock I stand ALL other ground is sinking stand!

Lord Bless,
G

I think Heb. 10:24-25 isn't implying a "have to" as far
as going to church. It's for our benefit--when we gather
with other Christians we definitely are stronger--we see
that everyone is going through the same things and we
can comfort and strengthen one another.

BUT, as we gather we are INDIVIDUALS within a corporate
gathering, each just as important as the other in God's eyes. I think as we realize that God calls us to gather on Sunday for worship for our benefit and his glory all the "have to's" evaporate quickly.

--Joe

Hi Joe, your post brings up a question that I wanted to just throw out.

You mentioned

How do you feel about the HUGE swing towards Sat. nite worship services or Sat. nite church?

This whole question bring up three things to me.

1. Where else in the new testament do we regulary see gathering together to BREAK BREAD on the first day of the week as in Acts
2.  Does Hebrews 10:24-25 limit itself to only one day?
     - I say no, I also say it is said that when Sun/Sat rolls around there is not a Ton of encouraging one another going on, it is mainly about being encourage by one (the Pastor, leader, etc.)
3. If Sat nite is "ok" to be considered a main nite, why not Tuesday Morning.

Ok, maybe I am taking this a little far, but to me the main thing missing in the church in regards to this topic is the encouragement of one another.  Sad that Sunday morning happens to be one of the most divided and segagrated times in America.  You will see more diversity and unity of people at a sporting event, than you will see in most "gathering together to encourage!"

Lord Bless,
George

George---

That's a good question. I know that the Seventh Day Adventists and a few other groups say that Saturday worship is essential to please the Lord. I haven't heard from others that Sunday worship is essential to please God.

I think the reason we meet on Sundays are from the Scriptures that say they "Break bread" on the first day of the week which is Sunday. Also, because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday.

I agree with you also George that I think what God had in mind was a gathering of saints and one Pastor or main teacher. At least I don't remember any Scriptures which mention when "any of you teach"---it seems to mention those with "specific" gifts for preaching and teaching. It's good to remember that all have been given different gifts--and not "all" are teachers. that was an Assembly error. Just like the error in the Charismatic church(at least some) which say all should speak in tongues as a sign of salvation. The Bible simply does not teach that.

---Joe

Hey Joe, it is very refreshing to see not only this post both others discussing what is the ministry, worship, and preaching.

Like I have been reading it is so sad to see Christians (mainly Americans), but sit back and let men fleece them and lead them and take their money, and they not only do nothing they like it in fact.

Amazing how Satan has deceived many in the church to fall into the the religious pattern of ho-hum.

Last, it is sad that in most places the only way to "exercise" your gift is found in three positions Pastor, musican, or childern's teacher (and it seems that the last one is spoken about weekly in most places, up their with give).

Cheers,
George

I see Christians today thinking that Hebs 10:24-25 refers to church (building, main site where people gather, etc.).  But the passage does not say that, it is more in line where two or more are gathered together in my name..........

If Vern, Joe, and I were to on Thursday get together where that sissy coffee is mad (i.e., Starbucks) and fellowship with one another would we not in fact be doing Hebrews 10:24-25?   BTW, I do not think that bulletin boards count (though is is so nice to know that throughout the world you are not alone).

And Vern thank God that plurality is found all through the word of God, as I have said is sad that most are happy, satisfied, with the one main guy in these days.  As Os Guinness eludes (Is it eludes or alludes, one of you grammer folk will correct me :-)) to in this article http://www.leaderu.com/marshill/mhr08/os1.html most Christian treat their pastor like a Pope, and do not really question them or at least what they say, do, and teach.

George
P.S. Man this walk of Faith and Journeying with other is a blast.

Verne---

I believe a church can have many "teachers"(Sunday school
teachers, Bible study leaders, etc.)---But revelation seems
to state that one person is truly "responsible" for each
church as it's shepherd. He speaks of the lampstands and
the stars. John the Apostle was actually the Pastor of Ephesus before his banishment to Patmos. This "pastor" is not to have complete control by any means over the sheep(as a George did)--but to be their servant and example.

I'm open to correction if I'm wrong about this---but it seems to be the teaching of Scripture.

--Joe

One other thing I forgot to mention was that it seems that almost all churches have a main "Pastor". I know it would be wrong to say that because man has always done something one way it must be God's way. But it seems that it must be what God wants--would all of these churches with "one pastor" be displeasing God?

The Assembly, whether they chose to admit it or not definitely had one Pastor. He said to just call him "Brother George" but everyone knew he was the Pastor. They said they had no "musical director" but everyone knew(at the time) that Gary Halverson was the music director and often led songs out in worship. They had no "Assistant Pastor", but everyone knew Steve Irons(at the time) was Assistant Pastor, and so on.

So there are many "teachers" in a gathering, but it seems the Lord usually sets up one "Pastor" to do the bulk of the teaching to the assembled church on Sundays.

--Joe

Joe, you are so right on with what I quote above.  It is absolutely true.  The power hiarchy in the Assembly was clearly defined, far more so than in "Pastored" churches.

I came to this conclusion.

There are 3 main types of church government seen in the NT:

Presbyterian
congregational
Episcopal

and one type seen in the OT: Moses, or the combo of Priest plus King.

Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that a church should have elders, who are appointed by someone, like a Pastor.  This is what Paul told Timothy to do in one place.  These elders must be recognized by the congregation.  The pastor must be recognized by the elders and congregation, and both the elders and pastor must serve the congregation.

If the congregation becomes hungry and depressed, they will move on to greener pastures, which is the ultimate act of voting, because they use their feet!

If a church is ruled by elders, who then appoint a pastor, the pastor could be a hireling, and if he teaches anything they don't like, they fire him!  (Happens all the time, and happened in a large SLO church not long ago.)

If the church is run by one man, when that man falls--which he will-- the whole church falls with him.  GG is a great example of this.

If the church is ruled by democratic action of the congregation, politics and slim majority win out over God's Spirit, not to mention that potentially unsaved, and likely ignorant people are making decisions that have a significant spiritual impact!

Most churches today are set up like I outline above, and I think the reason why is because they are smarter than we thought ourselves to be, when we insisted that the ASsembly was "God's" government.

Brent

Hmm, what is outlined sounds kinda like Calvary Chapel's setup.  You're not biased or anything are you, Brent? :)

It also sounds like the way the assembly's government was setup.  And yes we did use our feet!

In that case, the pastor (George) who set up all the elders, was tyranical and twisted--to the point where the sheep were hypnotized and had to be awaken before they would use their feet.  Well, shoot, the pastor was a wolf, let's put it that way.  Lot's of sheep already had big chunks bit out of them before awakening.

I don't think any government can be trusted because of the simple fact that it is composed of men.  What church movement has survived more than a couple of hundred years without either dying out or turing into a monster (e.g. Catholic church) ?  
However government is necessary.  So what's a believer to do?  Keep his eyes and ears open and be ready to use those feet, I guess.   Maybe that's why we've heard the term "Pilgrim Church".
 
Would a church where there is no pastor but only elders who take turn preaching be considered presbyterian?

How about I set up my own church?  Yeah, how about every church be a one-family church where the father is the priest :)

Arthur

You can say that again.  Excellent point!

The Assembly was a little different in this respect:

We claimed that the elders and leading bro's governed the Assembly, but in reality it was George.  They claimed that God raised up the leadership, but really George did.

George was a "episkopos" but he claimed to be a brother-among-brothers.

The congregation was not free, unless their only recourse was to forsake all.  If we missed a meeting, we were asked to give account!

The whole thing was twisted and backwards!

They should have just said, "George is the pastor of the movement, and we have been appointed by him, in order to help him and promote his vision.  Part of that vision is that we shouldn't ever miss meetings, and we need to submit a schedule to leadership...etc."

And yes, Calvary Chapel is but one of many churches set up in a way that I outlined.

Brent

Oo, oo, I think we're hitting on to something here.  Why is it that what was said was different than what was practised?  Why wasn't it just all out in the open?  I mean, if it was all legitimate and no one was doing anything wrong then let's just let it be out in front of everyone, clear and in plain view.  
Well, of course we know it wasn't legit, but why the excessive need for coverup and tight control?  I think it is because we all had our Bibles right there in front of us, clearly proclaiming the truth.  

I mean, think about it.  What kind of a con-artist would give lectures to you out of the manual that tells you the truth about his con-job?!?
 
One thing that I thought of when I was first joining the assembly was--"there something strange here, but these people seem to be following Jesus.  I want to follow Jesus too.  Well, if there is something wrong then I'll find out because we sure do read the Bible alot."  :)   One of the first verses that really struck me and that I held on to was that Jesus said, "If you continue in my word then shall you be my disciples indeed and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."  Indeed.  

Here is a group that I have recently looked into.  I was contacted by a parent of one of their members.

They read their Bibles as much or more than anyone I have ever encountered.

http://www.specialministries.org (http://www.specialministries.org)

Read especially the one where they say they are proud to be a cult.

Lurking...

Wow do they make Peter out to be the bad guy!  You know that's funny, because I remember one message from GG in which he said something about how Peter just implied that he had obtained the crown whereas Paul explicitly stated it.  I got the impression from that message and some others of GG that he likened himself only to Paul and not to Peter.  A cursory glance of the New Testament does not show Peter in near as good of a light as Paul (after all, Peter didn't rebuke Paul in front of everyone, but Paul sure did--hmm, GG's modus operandi and not for the good reason Paul had) and no doubt GG noted that into distinction into his overcoming catalog, missing the point of Peter's example of how Jesus changed his life and that it's not about importance or the preeminence of any person--all are servants of Jesus and said so of themselves, including Paul.  

What is so interesting about the specialministries.org website, and the group that it represents, is that these people are clearly teaching a false gospel.

They make no apologies for it.  Quite the opposite, they say that the entire Christian world is teaching a false gospel!  They read and study, pray fervently, and practice biblical submission to God's chosen servant.

They also teach, among a variety of falsehoods, that a person must die to sin in order to be born again.  Christians can't falter, or sin, so if someone is sinning, they are not a Christian.  Of course, one of the signs that really shows that a person is a sinner, and therefore not a Christian, is if they leave the Greater Ministries group....

I am curious if any of the people on the forum who defend the Assembly, or its leaders, would care to comment on this group?

Lurker

Verne, you are so correct when you mention what is the quality of those men making the choice.

Brent to add to your government example where would you put the time of the Judges.  Looking at things, we know the Lord never wanted to give the people a King, and judges seem to be the new testament principle of what Elders were intended for (our close too it).

Last, the whole position of a pastor is very strange to me the way the church sees them today.  In Eph. 4 we see that there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.
1.  Does this mean only one in each place, or could there be 3 of them here and none over there.
2.  Are pastors and teachers one in the same all the time?
      - If no, then why are the teachers not more prevlant in teaching.
      - Elders and Deacons must be apt to teach, so why do we rarely see them (now I go to a Calvary, but why do places like them and others you mainly only see an elder or deacon preach or teach when the pastor is out sick or travelling).
3.  What type of leadership position should the others hold (please do not start a discussion over is there apostles today in the church).
4.  Lastly in context are these more gifts, or leadership positions.  

Cheers,
George

Hi George:

Good questions!  I certainly don't have an authoritative answer to them, but they are things I have mulled over quite a bit.

I see Moses as a Priest/King, in that he ruled and mediated.  I see the Judges the same way.  The Kings of Israel were not priests (Uzziah comes to mind), but ruled with the priest's counsel, so it was a continuation of the Priest/King model, after a fashion.  As for Judges being like elders, I must think about this before commenting.  It never crossed my mind before.

I think most churches have more than one pastor.  Most churches also have a senior pastor, with assistants, worship pastor, college pastor, etc.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having more, but I would say that every church has pastors, whether they admit it or not.  Someone is going to function in this way.

Elders and Deacons teach regularly in my church, especially in small groups, retreats, conferences, and Bible studies.  The senior pastor teaches mainly on Sunday, and spends much of his time counseling and overseeing the direction of the church.


Here at Calvary SLO, the emphasis is to see people not looking to Sunday as their whole "church" life, but to get "plugged in" by getting involved in other things, like home groups, etc.  There are plenty of opportunities for people to teach and pastor in this setting, and it is encouraged.

As far as leadership, I think people should be free to act according to God's leading.  There have been several quite ambitious projects started by different people during the time of my involvement, some of which have been totally successfull, while others have been total failures.  The point is that people had the freedom to step out in faith, with the full support of the church leadership.   (I am not aware if any endeavors were stopped, but they could have been)

Leaders should be gifted people, and I see them as a gift.  I thank God for my pastors!

Brent

Hey Verne and Brent, thanks for the replies, and like Brent said these and other questions are ones to be mulled.

Brent, I take it that your other pastors along with "the" pastor,  and the elders and deacons have a very good thing going there (which is rare I must say).

One thing, what in the world is a Music, College, etc. pastor?  If they are people assigned to watch that particular group then should not the princple set in Acts 6 apply better to them (i.e., be deacons leading or over such and such ministry)?  

I do not mean this to be an attack on Pastors, but in the bible Elders and Deacons are the "main" leadership you read about in a gathering not the pastor.  I knew from day one that GG pulled the strings in the Assembly, but he was only a man and I was not about to let him stand in my way (I guess that is why on the campus, I never went the extra mile to win people to the Assembly, but rejoiced more when they got on with the Lord and not with George).

No matter what a lot of former assembly leaders say, they were also trying to grow into the "grace, knowledge, and good favor" of George.  I so rejoice that many have seen the light in this life and not the next.   PTL!!!!!

Cheers,
G

Yep, I must say that we have a really good thing going here, at least for the 3 years I have been there.  We lost our "pillar," the assistant pastor, to a missionary endeavor in Scotland.  I honestly didn't think the church would recover, because this man was so gifted, (He was a key player in the website/exposure of the Assembly, and helped me with some of my writing).  However, we have only grown in his absence, although we miss him and his wife dearly.


The current worship pastor started off as a guy who knew how to play guitar, and sang in a home group.  Before he was on staff, he oversaw the worship team, and did pre-marital counseling and weddings.  He was brought on staff when the assistant I mentioned above departed for Scottland.  

The Worship pastor is responsible for the people who sing and play intruments.  Besides the practice schedule, I am sure he tries to stay as close as possible to each person involved, in order to insure that the very important role they play is adorned by a Christ honoring life, and that they are able to grow in grace.  He has also written many songs, etc.  Also, he oversee's the home groups, and serves as a resource for the people who lead and teach in them.

We live in a college town.  On Sunday morning, there are probably 400 college students attending each service.  The college pastor has the busiest job of all, and he oversees the campus, and the college mininstries, trips, studies, etc.  There are plenty of deacons serving with them, and with all the other aspects of the church.  BTW, there is no office called, "deacon," but there are plenty of them, and they are not hard to find.  


Well, yes and no.  Paul exercised a little extra-local muscle, and asked Timothy to do the same.  So you have biblical precedent for a Bishop here.

Also, the congregation elected/appointed deacons and elders, so you also have precedent for congregational rule in the NT church as well.

As you mention, there is also precedent for elders and deacons to be the main leadership.  I look at it this way:

Pastors are elders, but not all elders are pastors.  If someone is going to pastor the flock, they are going to be out front leading, regardless of the leadership structure of the particular church.  If this is too heavily dominated by one man, the members will suffer.  Conversely, if one man is shirking his responsibility, and not taking the lead as he should, the members will suffer.

We need grace!  Every hour, every day.

Brent

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:  If any be blameless...

Ok, this is cool that we're talking about this, now I get to ask a question I've had for sometime:

Was this passage of Paul telling this to Titus only good for that time?  I mean, is it only one of the original apostles who can tell another guy like Titus to setup elders in every city on an island?

Are there apostles today?  Or is there apostolic ministry as GG touted?

Arthur

I have never seen signs and wonders.  I don't know too many who have.  Why do you think that is?  Do they exist today?

Some people say that elders can only be appointed by an apostle.  Who gets to be an apostle?

The fact is that THE apostles were 12 in number, 13 if you count Matthias.

When one of them died, apart from Judas, there is no record of them electing any more.  The bible speaks of THE 12 apostles.  I think it is literal.

Plenty of people function like Apostles today.  We call them missionaries.  Some people also function like false apostles, and we call them cult leaders.

The passage where Paul tells Titus to appoint elders has to do with establishing order, part of which means having elders.  I think it totally applies today, because we want our churches to be orderly.

That passage alone shows that at least 2 of the 3 main forms of church government are biblical.  Namely that of episcopal and presbyterian.

---

I am totally loving where the BB is going lately!!  Did you guys notice that we aren't being attacked all the time?  We are barely talking about the Assembly any more!  I am learning things...wow!  I guess this BB can be a blessing, eh?

Brent

Yes, that's my take on it.  And their names are on the 12 foundations of the city there in Revelation.


Ah, yeah I can see that.  


It's great!   :) :) :)

Two things!

1. I thought Paul was an apostle, so technically you would have to have to go with the 13 apostles.  And McGov I agree with you regarding connecting signs and wonders with apostles.

2.  Joe, you reference that the word angel in Rev 2-3 are pastor/humans, but the greek word use there is aggelo, which is use throughout the bible for "angel" as we know them.  This is the second time I have heard angel used this way, but there is no other passage that I have yet to find in Rev. or the rest of the word to back up the word angel being used to describe an actual human being.  Just looking to get more info!

Cheers,
George

PeacefulG----

I thnik the actual word in the greek when properly defined
is "messenger". That's why in several cases when the King
James uses "angel" it could be the Lord Jesus Christ Himself because the actual word is "messenger". A "messenger" can be a man, an angel or the Lord himself.

At least this is what I have read in several commentaries--I am definitely open to correction though. I guess it's just an opinion about there being one Pastor for each church---but it seems to be the way of the Lord. The Puritans back during the Great Awakening all had One Pastor for each church, and it seems down through the ages this has been the case--so it seems to follow that it might be the way the Lord wants it to--but I'm just a layman, what do I know?


--Joe

At 40, Brent, I thought you would have figured out by  now that if you stop attacking people, you're more likely to escape being attacked, sir. Although, I have to laugh at your comment "did you guys notice that we aren't being attacked" LOL. I'm relieved for you sir - it's easy to see how you can feel attacked - you have um...1 person on the bb disagreeing with you at present. You said something like...um...99% of your emails are in support of you. I don't know how you handle all that opposition, Brent. I'd also like to add to your comment that I'm glad you're not attacking people anymore - but I guess that's not out of choice, but more out of necessity considering that your opposition (affirming, luke, paul, etc.) all moved on to better things. Maybe one day you will too? For now, I will do the best I can to repair some of the damage that you've inflicted on innocent people and hopefully reign you in a little more...
Lord bless.
- Matt

Ok, after doing more research on words, there are two main greek words used for messanger in the NT.

1st is Aggelo, a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God
          Example Rev. 1:1,20  and Rev 2:1

2nd is Apostolos, a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders
         1. specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ
         2. in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
               1. of Barnabas
               2. of Timothy and Silvanus
          Example found in Rev. 2:2, Heb 3:1

Love the way this BB is moving in the discussion way.

Cheers,
George

Again, I have nothing against Pastors, but the church has rasied them up to a level they should not be.  

Ok, to be on the fair side have done some research on the word pastors and elders.

The pastors are ones in which we commit ourselves to to be watch over.  The elders are the adminster and overseers of an assemble.

This now brings up a whole new slew of questions one would ask, but in all the studying of the NT you only see pastors mentioned once when referred to some man in relation to the church, whearas you see elders/deacons even workers mentioned multiple times.  Where you see the word for pastor (Presbuteros) mentioned the most is in relationship to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, since he is the Great shepard of the sheep.

Again pastors are needed, but one they must be men of high regard (noticed I said Men, oh boy look what you just went and started George, Christian Feminist of the world unite).

Last, Matts verse in his signature is a good one in regards to whom we see honor given.

Cheers again,
George

This is good stuff!  Thank you so much for sharing the info. and insight.

Arthur

Brent and others,

I am totally jazzed that this thread is staying on subject, and what you all have to say has encouraged me a lot!  Brent, yup, it is cool to not always be talking about the Assembly, but to figure out together what the Bible says about the verses we are discussing!  .

Keep on writing!  I've learned so much so far... :D

The way I understand it is that pastors are indeed elders, who pastor the flock.  Not all elders function entirely in the pastoral sense.  I think the idea of pastoring is implied, and was assumed as self-evident by Paul, due to the words he used to describe the various aspects of church government.

The key here is that we NEED pastors!  We also need elders, etc.

Paul did not rebuke Diotrophes because his church had the pattern of "THE pastor," but because Diotrophes lorded it over the flock.  In other words, the model of having "A" pastor seems scriptural, but when the pastor is an evil man, others must stand up and rebuke him.

Brent

What verses in the Bible do you think supports the model of having "A" pastor as opposed to having a plurality of elders?

Arthur

Hmm, could Diotrophes had just been and elder though, and since elders were to be teachers as well, he used his teaching gift to rise to "power" and start Lording over other.  

For example (hate using the assemble, but.....)  In Fullerton you had quite a few elders (Mark, TIm, etc.), say Tim rose to the point where he demanded the control (no need to go down the, "well he did" alley right now though).  There you have an elder becoming a Diotrophes.  I have also heard of this happening in other places.

Just another "rabbitt" hole to go down.  

Cheers,
G

Dear Matt

May I please ask you to try your hardest not to go back to your former ways?  The recent discussion has been quite edifying, and your contribution has been the only stain on an otherwise uplifting discussion.

I know you are capable of far better.  Brent does not deserve your latest message.

Lurker

     I cringed when i saw this post, but i kept silent:
    Why did i cringe?  Because (1.) the underlined statement was utterly unnecessary.  We are ALL enjoying not having the childish give-and-take accusations, insults and blame-tossing going on.  THERE IS NO NEED TO STIR IT TO LIFE AGAIN BY MENTIONING IT!!!  (2.)  It doesn't take a middle aged man with a doctorate to know that the highlighted quote above will be viewed as a challenge/insult by the person who has strong differences of opinion with the one saying it.  Any school kid would know that, because that's exactly how school kids behave.  (3.)  As there is no apparent justification for fanning the embers, the action is easily construed (even if mistakenly so) as a deliberate taunt.

     So, of course, Matt's response (hoped against, yet unsurprising) turned my cringe to a shudder:
    This post was altogether as unnecessary as Brent's, and far more insulting and inflammatory.  But that's how these boys have historically played the game (and let's be clear on this:  It is a game to them, for if they were serious about serving the Lord on this BB, they would not be flaunting their negative attitudes nor their self-ascribed conversational cleverness and tongue-to-ear combat skills in an attempt to gain an appreciative audience.  Rather, if they feel they MUST carry on in such manner, they would do it out of earshot of the rest of us.  Their audience is CAPTIVE, but assuredly NOT appreciative!

     Finally, my shudder became horror when yet another county was heard from:

     The problem with Lurker's remarks is that they are only partly true:  Matt's contribution was NOT the only recent stain.  The first such was Brent's irresponsible comment, cleverly couched between "good" phrases, to make it appear to be utterly innocent.  The technique apparently worked on Lurker, who totally ignores Brett's indiscretion and bounds to his defense with remarks almost certain to bring another salvo from Matt, who insists on giving as good (read BAD) as he receives.
     Doesn't anyone understand that the issue here is not who's right & wrong, but the testimony to our Lord Jesus Christ?!  Doesn't anyone get it:  The problem won't go away if you keep dragging it back!  LET IT DIE!!!

    Saints, if you want the war to stop, POST your thoughts to the protagonists:  Each and ALL of them, BY NAME.  Some of us have tried repeatedly to reason with them by private messages, but apparently to no avail.  Now that it is on the public forum again, but BEFORE it reaches its former proportions, TELL THESE BROTHERS YOU WANT THEM TO CEASE & DESIST!
     This isn't about choosing sides:  There are only two sides.  Jesus Christ wants to express His nature through us all in Love, Peace, Joy.  Satan wants anything else but that.  The self-righteous character assassination of one's brother is just another form of pagan rite of human sacrifice.

     Brent, Matt, Lurker:  You are welcome to address any comments you wish to me personally.  i don't care if you ban me from the BB, IF ONLY YOU WILL STOP, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THE PUBLIC TRASH-TALKING AND ANY FURTHER MENTION OF IT!!!

     Dear Saints, there have been a lot of posts over the months in defense of righteous indignation and justifiable anger.  The above is my version of them.

al Hartman
     

Al

I don't know who you are, in fact I rarely get on the bulletin board.  However, when Brent told me he was done with this, I asked why and he showed me your post.

I read Brent's post, to which you responded, and I thought, "wait a minute.  What's wrong with your post, Brent?"  To me, it was a positive, encouraging post.  Since I live with Brent, I knew that he was greatly troubled about 2 weeks ago, and had been really encouraged lately, until your post.

I just don't get it.  I don't understand where you are coming from at all, but to just stir up the matter, and tell everyone that my husband is playing a game is outrageous.  Have you ever met him?  Did you ask him what he meant by saying, "Did you guys notice that we aren't being attacked all the time?"  I looked back at the posts, and these people were rejoicing, and were having great, meaningful conversations.   Your post was totally inappropriate.

However, I must say that all things work for good, because now I have all of his time, and don't have to share him with cyberspace anymore.

I hope you all get away from the Assembly and its influence.

This is my final post, not that it matters.

Suzie

Brent and Suzie---

If you are serious about posting no longer I wanted to say I am very sorry to see you go. Brent, I've said it before but want to repeat how grateful I am that you began the Geftakys Assembly Website and brought everything to light by it. Thanks for all of your posts and for your encouragement too. Maybe the Bulletin Board has run it's course, I don't know. I do know it is enjoyable to me to be able to come in and converse with Christians here.

It does seem lately that a lot of bickering seems to be going on, but there is still enough good posting going on that I find it a blessing too. I hope you change your mind and continue to post Brent, and you too Suzie.

But if not, may God bless you always.  take care,  Joe

Hi Everyone!
  I have tried to follow the postings of the last week and to understand what is going on before weighing in with a post re. our embattled BB.
  As I've said before, I've been involved with such forums in the past and this one is still far and away the best I've ever experienced.  I know that may sound hard to believe, but situations like the Laurie debacle were very common on these past sites.  Yet, at the same time, there were some good thoughts I was able to draw out from time to time from the former sites.
  Verne mentioned on one thread that Truth is as important as Grace and re. this he has mentioned a very important fact.  God's  Truth is not relative and it is key to our recovery from the Assembly deception we were involved with.  It is not arrogant to be confident in the facts of the Gospel, nor to anchor one's argument therein.  It is not judgmental to critically examine the teachings and practices of the Assembly, as the Bible commands us to do so.
   There are crucial Biblical truths that must be defended with great vigor and if some posters who have presented false teaching will not be entreated they can not be allowed to post unchallenged.  It has been said that "Affirming" was "chased" from the BB, but she was teaching Witness Lee local church nonsense that had to be rebuked.
   I realize that there are those who view all such arguments as confusing doctrinal "bickering", and those who hold this opinion show how little they learned in their Assembly instruction.  In the Assembly we were raised on devotional styled teaching that amounted to "let's get on with the Lord Saints", and "God can help you in your life with him." (nothing wrong with devotional thoughts, but there is more to our instruction then this)
    The Gospel is simple and can be easily grasped by those willing to have a change of thinking from their previous  Assembly twisting of the grace of God in truth.  There are areas where Christians have different opinions, but the nature of God and His Gospel are not matters of opinion.
   Now, to those who will not accept entreaty in the above matters:
   It has been suggested by some that there comes a point where the BB must be abandoned as further argument is futile; a point where gainsayers have stolen the forum and perverted the purpose of healing and restoration that is intended for those damaged in the Assembly.
   The BB will never be a perfect place that can be protected from the messed up folks of a messed up world.  Some will come here with self centered, mean, disturbed, or even evil intentions.  It is impossible for us to judge the motives of these individuals, or if their activities are conspiratorial.
   I would like to suggest that we take their presence as an opportunity to present the truth of the Gospel, if they refuse entreaty, we can try to patienty instruct.  When we feel we have done all that we can it is time to ignore them.  This worked with others who were obnoxious and/or sought mastery of the BB.  If those who stand for the truth leave, then the gainsayers have taken the forum for their own use.
  The truth, in the context of our discussion on this forum of the Assembly, is not just doctrinal/ practical theory re. Christianity, but it will illuminate what the Assembly was in fact.  The truth must help us to understand where the Assembly was in error.  If we don't understand the errors we can never understand the blessed liberty we have in Christ.  Assembly members sharing their histories and the distortion that was their life is not negative bitterness, but a necessary part of discovery.
  There will always be those who don't understand what we went through.  Some will ridicule us, others will defend the abuser, and still others will offer lofty "spiritual" formulas/attitudes for "overcoming" our past experiences.  This should not cause us to abandon our journey to understand and strengthen our life with God.
   In the Assembly all the evil was kept outside and as long as we were "faithful" we were kept safe inside.  We didn't have to think things through in the Assembly.  Now that we are out we have to learn how to think again.  What is the Gospel, the church, proper relationships, etc.
  If we leave the thought process that this BB provides it is true we might lessen some of the contention in our lives that others provide here, but remember that strife may help in the recovery of some free independant thinking; it helps us to learn how to frame persuasive arguments re. both truth and grace.
  Take some time off if you feel like you are spending too much time at it, but don't give up all together.  We all have a part to play and a gift to share here and it would be a shame to miss those contributions.  I have been greatly helped often from the posts of those here, and for this I thank you.
                                God Bless,  Mark    

I am really very angry that Brent has been allowed to be verbally abused.  I am upset that Brian Tucker, the "moderator" has done nothing to stop this.  Brent has taught us all a lot about the Assembly history, as well as church history.  His insight is the only reason I continued to come to this BB.  And now he has been shood away by someone's insensitive remarks.  Since when did thanking God become wrong?  What is the matter with some of you?  You are acting like George Geftakys himself, and you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Now we no longer get to read Brent's insight and learn from his wisdom.  Well, it's ALL of our losses, it really is.  Maybe now some of you will learn that a person can only take so much abuse before they say "forget it!

Did you know that some people are finding out for the very first time that Judy was involved in an abusive relationship with her husband? Did you know that people are still finding out for the very first time about Brinda McCumber and reading her story for the very first time? Did you know that what happened in the mid-west in finally coming out to the light, for the very first time?

Do you know WHY this is happening? Because PEOPLE are talking about it. We were under gag rule for so long in the assembly, oh, don't talk about that, it's bad. STOP bringing it up and discussing it. Let it DIE and go away. You know the bad thing about something dying and going away is that eventually it stinks up some place else.

WHAT is it that has so many of you afraid of talking about what happened in the assembly? Is it the knowledge that you were duped? Or conned? Or used? You were exploited? Is your pride so high.... Thank God everyday that you weren't beaten...

Here is my two cents for Brent & Suzi. If it wasn't for people like them, you would still be stuck in the mire that you loved! If it wasn't for people like us who have been ridiculed and pounced on for standing up and telling the truth over and over, where would YOU be? This isn't a game folks, it is life. To say, oh my assembly was so far removed from George's touch is such a deceiving lie. If it was an assembly, it had George written all over it and it was full of lies. God did not call those men to look over you, George did. You bunch of sniveling cowards that saw abuse and did nothing about it except for get on the BB and point your fingers at the people who did something about it.  You be glad someone stood up for you when you didn't deserve it. You be glad his name was Brent Tr0ckman. If it wasn't for him, you would still be thrashing around in the dark thinking everything was ok. Thinking the assembly was just dandy!
If it wasn't for Brent who opened the door to the light so some of you could get out YOU would still be stuck. Shame on you for being cowards. Shame on those of you who left the SLO assembly after you knew the truth, after George's bogus repentance, and after all the dirty deeds came out. Shame on you for not having the courage to stand up and fight.

Heide C. Johnson

How ironic!...Another sister to the rescue...Heide, as a brother I am so ashamed...
Verne

Just to clarify that last paragraph. The sniveling cowards that I was referring to were the ones who heard everything and still stayed to the very end. You are the ones in the corner cracking jokes about the very people who led you out. Kinda like biting the hand that feeds you. I am in  NO way implying the people who heard, read or saw and got out. It is YOU passives that I am going after. The deceived ones who are trying to say that the assembly was good and the LB's don't need to repent nor apologize for their actions.  

Let's talk character for a moment. There was an LB in our midst (SLO) he was young and hadn't been an LB for very long. When the whole thing went down with Dave & Judy, he was there. However, he had not been there in the years following up to the explosion. He played a part in some of the things the other LB's did. However, once he saw what was going on, he left. Now the turn around is, he went and apologized to all that he had hurt. I think that took a great deal of courage. I also think that this ex-LB has great character.

Now I ask you. Where is George? Where is George's character in all of this?  Oh yea, he took the money and ran!

Heide C. Johnson

I agree with Heide.  My experience in the SF Valley ever since the Valley disbanded has been disheartening.  

When GG was excommunicated, my husband and I had great hope that we would be reunited with our friends.  That having the truth come out, would have vindicated our decision to leave and that all of our friends who were still meeting with the assembly would come to their senses and "see the light".  NOT THE CASE!!!!!!

I was stunned!  These people, armed with the same information as my husband and I (which caused us to FLEE the assembly) continued to reject us and continue to say things like, "you didn't leave in the right way", "you are devisive and a railer", "you told so and so that you wouldn't talk..........and you are talking!"  These same people SIX MONTHS LATER are still not speaking with us.  Now I must say, like Heide, there were people (the little sheep) who, upon learning of all this information, began to question and when those questions were refused to be answered, they left and thus the DEMISE of the assembly in the SF Valley.  Still others, would have remained with the assembly if they could have "worked out the issues" and so are struggling deeply, though not shunning our family.  

Some do not want any negative conversation to be conducted in their presence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  WHAT??????  This is quintessential denial!  That's like an alchoholic who gets sober but says he doesn't need any counseling to recover from what made him drink in the first place.

I would venture to say that everyone of us who remained in the assembly for any length of time had a predisposition towards this type of gathering (i.e. problematic upbringing, drug or alchohol abuse, or just plain pride-wanting power and a place of position.)  If you don't look back at your involvement in the assembly and really address the issues, you are bound to repeat it elsewhere.  To not want to talk about it SCARES ME.  That is why I appreciate this BB so much.  It is a place to come and share your experiences and learn from others (I don't believe this should replace getting into a HEALTHY church - where you can get grounded in the TRUTH of the word.)

My 2 cents worth!

I have a question, and I don't know whether post here or to start a thread entitled, "Still Looking for a Church." But I have attended seven churches for varying lengths of time during the two years since I escaped from the Geftakys asylum, and I'm still looking.

My biggest beef with most evangelical churches is the worship.  I believe that worship should be a majestic affirmation of the timeless truths of the Christian faith.  I actually like responsive reading of Scripture and reciting the Apostles' Creed, for instance!  And of course, I like the ancient hymns because of the doctrine and instruction they contain.  But the "worship" favored by so many churches seems designed simply to melt congregations into a plastic emotional goo, so that the pastors can work on them without resistance.  I see far too many praise bands that are so loud you have to sit in the back of the "worship center" (what! no one meets in "sanctuaries" anymore?!), fronted by musicians with Taylor guitars (thank God I own a Larrivee ;)) strumming away while we all sing "I can only imagine" or "Open the eyes of my heart, I want to see You" ten or fifteen times.  Just on a technical level, the guitar work is so elementary that a trained chimpanzee could play most of the praise songs.  These songs are pushed on churches by contemporary Christian business, which requires churches to register with an outfit called the CCLI and pay royalties every time they copy a praise song for public use (including, I believe, PowerPoint presentations, but I could be wrong).  Having to listen to and to sing that drivel is one thing that makes me want to sleep in on Sunday mornings.

I have other beefs.  Some of the pastors I have talked with have been really nice people, but a few have impressed me as control freaks who tried to pressure me into greater involvement in their church.  If I had more time, I could elaborate.  Also, during the last election I voted for Bush, but not because I thought he was the savior of the world.  Yet I was angered by the presence of people outside the doors of the church I was attending at the time who were handing out "Christian Voters' Guides."  This same church impresses me as one that tends to preach on popular "hot button issues" during its main Sunday services as a means of packing more people in.  I'd prefer a greater emphasis on simple expository preaching of the whole Word of God.  Another thing about this church, and about other churches in Southern California is that they offer classes on how to bounce back after a divorce - even including how to find another "significant other."  I still think that divorce and remarriage is sin!

I think the divorce issue is part of a larger problem within the evangelical church, namely, a refusal to embrace the fact that life is difficult and that we can't always get what we want if we truly seek to please God.  Thus there is an unclear picture of what the Christian life really looks like.  I go to churches where the parking lots are full of Escalades and Lincoln Navigators and BMW and Lexus SUV's, yet their homeless food pantries are nearly empty.  (BTW, has anyone read "The Street Lawyer" by John Grisham?)  When people get tired of each other, they can divorce and remarry and the church will even help them through the process.  The Christian life is reduced to simply opposing abortion and homosexuality(by the way, I oppose both, so don't get me wrong), and voting Republican.  If you do these things, you can have whatever you want and God will be happy.  But is that all there is to our faith?

In the midst of such a religious landscape, I have trouble fitting in.  Maybe I'm being too cynical.  Maybe I'm being judgemental.  You might call me nuts.  And you may be right.  I may be crazy.  But if any of you have had similar struggles in finding a church that you can fit into or even a church that you enthusiastically like, please let me know about it.  I'd like to know how you faced your struggles and how you worked through them.  I know I'm not the only one who struggles with church.  I know of at least two other people who don't go to Sunday worship for various reasons, yet who like meeting with other Christians in a different setting.  Thanks!

Clarence Thompson

I'm going to repeat the cliche'   there is no such thing as a perfect church

One of the main reasons the Assembly was so attractive is because it was so much better than most other churches.  Worship, prayer, holy living, strong stands on issues...we had it all.

At some point you must realize that most of the NT was written to correct some really messed up practices by.....the churches.

If God is happy to be somewhere, than I feel safe there as well.  If there are problems, I can trust that He is able to either address them, or I have the freedom to leave when He leaves.

And yes, I have found two churches that I very happy at.  I have also been to three or four that I didn't care for....oh well.  In the final analysis, I think that you are using an Assembly filter or two in relation to your view of the church.

Brent

We're probably never going to find someplace that has a one hour worship, but there are churches that have "praise" services, that are not with large noisy bands. (Lutheran)

The one I usually go to has only 2 guitars, a piano, an organ and anyone else who wants to sing along before the service starts. After, there is a short praise session (after everyone else has gotten there). These songs are a combo conservative modern and old-fashioned hymns, for the young and the old. (local Bible church)

I've been to a CMA that had a worship service that I thought lasted about 1/2 hour.

Maybe the Midwest is more conservative? If I want more praise, I just do it myself. Play the radio, tape, CD, DVD and sing along.

The thing that bothers me is that it seems that only Catholics and Lutherans have the Lord's Supper more than once per month. There's no logic behind this that I can figure out, and I think there is a blessing everytime it is done (to say the least) and it's a clear reminder and picture of what Christ did for us, so why not every week?

Anyone out there have any opinions or answers that make sense?

Let's Hear it For The Lutherans and Catholics  ;D,
Moonflower

I have to agrree. Most Sunday morning music is maudlin and mediocre. I left a CMA church recently and for several months attended a Bible Church where they have excellent musicians and a used a good mix of the old and the new. The contemporary songs they did tended to have more than just one, three, five changes if you know what I mean.
There are some very good and muscially interesting contempoarary artists. Michael Card's music is elegant and musically sophisticated, and also fun to play and listen to. I really love the words and music to "Asleep on Holy Ground".
The bassist's execution of his lines is slick and groovy and the whole arrangement is almost symphonic.
At the church I am attending, I particularly dislike some frustrated would- be- star getting up and singing to that disgusting canned music. I find it totally embarrasing! There is a guitarist also in the congreation who did some jazzy special music and I have been asking him why he does not play more often. (We got together and played some jazz) and I was surpised to hear him say that most folks there do not appreciate that kind of playing.
I occasionally play bass with the worship team and certainly don't hesitate indulge in a bit of harmonic intrigue and a occasional funk slap. No one seems to mind.
If you are a player, try and work with one of the worship teams to influene the repertoire. They might be responsive.




Let's face it. The evangelical community has now normalized divorce and remarriage.
It seems as if I cannot turn on the radio without hearing some divorced and remarried couple carrying on about their ministry to "blended families" and the like. Some almost seem proud of their position!
There was a time when Christians who failed in this way would show  humility by serving in a quiet and unobtrusive kind of way.
These days they seem to be front and center everywhere, some remarried more than once.
Without sounding critical, I really find this all heart-breaking. I am not saying that people who fail in their marriages cannot serve but that once used to be viewed as a very serious failure and would preclude public service. I think it  deeply tragic that those involved in ministry these days no longer always represent God's ideal. I don't know about other folks, but I personally want to be instructed by someone whose life adorns the doctrine. I suspect having so many of these folk serving in a very visilbe way evokes pity in some and contempt for the church in others. I find it very very sad. God derserves the best we have to give, and that includes those who serve at the altar. Were I to fail in my marriage, public ministry would be unthinkable; I do not think it would be honoring to God. Just my opinion.
Verne

Hi Clarence,

Is it possible that you are using an 'assembly filter' in your quest for a new place of fellowship?

There is no such thing as a perfect church.  Where people are, there's problems there :).  Even those disciples who surrounded Jesus and walked with Him had big time problems.  Peter suffered from foot-in-mouth disease.  They fell asleep during prayer time in the garden.  They all fled when Jesus was arrested; what cowards eh??  Thomas doubted the Lord's resurrection.  and the list goes on...  Yet Jesus associated Himself with this miserable bunch rather than the classy leaders who had an 'answer' for everything.

Recently someone had visited the largest growing evangelical church in Ottawa, but she was not impressed because it was not traditional enough like she was used to.  As we discussed it we concluded that even in the Lord's days it was the multitudes that flocked to Jesus, and the traditionalists were rebuked by Him for their traditions.  So maybe we need to change our view to, How does the Lord see it?

Re. worship bands, there are some churches where the bands are too loud and are featured in the worship service.  Other churches use the bands as accompaniment to help the congregation sing along.  The bands are not intended to be highly talented as one would expect if they were professional.  The worship songs can be worshipful to you or not; that is up to you.

Re. fitting in, it is a problem because most of us are joining churches when most people have established friendships.  Though we (my family) have good friendships which various church members, our closest connections are with ex-assemblyites.  In the large churches, one has to join small groups to get the fellowship and the Bible Study.

The evangelical community might be compromising on the matter of divorce and re-marriage.  I have not 'investigated' it as I have not had a need to.  However, I believe that there is one scenario where re-marriage would be Scriptural; this would be a change from assembly teaching on the matter.

Dave Sable's Healthy Assembly Afterlife article is excellent.  see: www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/HealthyAssemblyAfterLife.htm (http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/HealthyAssemblyAfterLife.htm)

God bless,
Marcia