AssemblyBoard

Hello folks, it me again.  I'm here to express my frustrations, and I believe you all can in some way or another see my point.  I am in contact with a woman who is no longer involved with GG's Assemblies, because this particular Assembly has dissolved.  She is going to church and all, but she is quite miserable.  She doesn't want to continue on in this location, however, she feels she "has to", because she made a commitment to God to stay there for at least 3 years.  I've been trying to convince her that she made that commitment while a member of a cult-like group, and that God isn't holding her to that commitment-she is free to move to the location of her choice.  But, she won't listen to sound reasoning.  It's as if she is willfully remaining in her misery.  I believe she is very stuck in the Assembly ways of thinking, and I've suggested to her to visit the BB's, to talk to people who have left the Assembly, to talk to her pastor, etc, but she refuses.  I know that I can't force her to anything, but it makes me upset that she allows herself to remain in the darkness of the Assembly teachings.  I know that frustration won't amount to a hill of beans, but still I am frustrated.  I'm wondering what other feel about keeping commitments that were made while being members of the Assembly...and about commitments that we impose upon ourselves that make us miserable. ???

Ah, yes.  The false holiness of the Geftakys brand of legalism. (GBL)  If I utter the words, "I am making a committment to do_____," according to GBL, my standing with God depends on my success at keeping my committment.

This is nothing more than works-based righteousness.  If your committment is successfully kept, then you have a good conscience as a result of your good performance.

However, if you fail at keeping your committment----like missing a morning time, etc.---then you have a bad conscience, and have sinned.

In either case, there isn't anyplace for God's righteousness through faith.  This is one aspect of the danger of this type of thinking.

Another point where this type of thinking leads to trouble is when we make a committment to ____, and due to GBL thinking our idea becomes "The Will of God."  In this case, we obstinately set ourselves in our ways, and make sure we don't listen to reason, should it contradict our "committment."

In essence, we put ourselves in the position of saying,  "No Lord.  I can't do that.  I have made a committment."  This is nothing more than saying, "Sure I'll follow you Lord, as soon as I bury my father, or I can't go now Lord, I just bought some new oxen," etc.

Keeping committments, as a means to "obeying God," is not a good thing to do.

Some will say, "Wait a minute Brent!  Are you saying it doesn't matter if I say I'll do something and don't do it?"

No, I'm saying no such thing.  Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.  However,  If your "Yes" conflicts with God's "NO,"  you must be humble enough to change your yes to no.

GBL, which arrogantly assumes that performance of committments leads to righteousness, has no place for the humility that allows us to say,  "Lord, I was wrong."  No, if we say, "I am going to stay here for 3 years,"  we must do so, in spite of what God may or may not want for us.

I hope your friend reads this, and considers it.

Brent

Nope.

The only purpose for the committments we made in the assembly was to keep us pegged and beaten down.  They did not originate from God.  They were a mind control technique.   The leaders, who were themselves bound, made the suggestion in the ministry and sometimes directly commanded it.  Our minds were overthrown and we were ensnared.

Committment lay at the core of the group.  It was the glue that bound us together, sometimes four to a room.  Time and again the idea was reinforced that a committed Christian was a superior Christian, a true believer.  Everyone else was inferior.  It was because other Christians were compromised, lazy, fearful, unbelieving or unwilling to make the committment that they were not in our group.  They would not obtain the kingdom.

There was nothing godly about our committments.  
It was not the will of God.  
It was just pride.

I kick myself for making the committments that I did.  I was so sure it was right, but I was wrong.  I am very angry at those who caught me in their trap and took from me those years of my life.  Every time I made the committment, I marked the days off on the calendar until it was over.  It should not be so!  There is more to life than just waiting for it to be over!

They said it was for God.  How dare they!  
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:  Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:6-8  
For us, it is a shame to have listened to them.  For them it is to -"be cursed to the lowest hell."  So be it.

But God can heal and restore.  I no longer am a prisoner of committments.  Thank the Lord.

Your friend needs help to be free from the control that yet lingers in her life.

Arthur

     i know that i may be the last person you want to post on this thread, Eulaha, but i too am concerned for your friend, and i hope to share an insight that may help you to understand and help her her:
    Where commitment was at our core, in many cases occupying the place that should have been held by the Lord Jesus Christ, it also became our fortress of security.  There was no uncertainty for those who knew exactly what their commitment was.  So surrounded by its walls were they, as to be buried under its weight until they could see nothing else.
    Why would someone willfully remain miserable?  Because it is a familiar state.  As Arthur points out, we were already miserable in our commitments.  We know our way around in that territory.
     When the assemblies began to topple, and saints were crying out for guidance, Brent counseled taking six weeks away from the familiar, out of the darkness to seek the Light.  The call was to those who would hear, and was the pathway of deliverance for many.  The seekers sought and, as promised, found.
     But then there are those who didn't seek; who, like your friend, had been pummeled into submission repeatedly;  lambs who, everytime they sought to venture out of the cote & into the green pastures were kicked in the teeth by the bad shepherds.  They had become fearful.  They no longer looked up for their redemption, but only at the ground because whenever they looked up they received another harsh blow.
     For such a one, and there are many, six weeks were not enough-- six lifetimes may not be enough.  She seeks not deliverance, but security in the familiar, for mortal fear of the unknown.  To her, a broad and bottomless gap exists between self and deliverance.
     Of course you will always try to explain to her that the bridge across that awful expanse has been built, from one end by our Father in heaven and from the other by the Son of Man; that the whole structure is God's construction:  its name is Grace, and all that remains is to cross it.  But to her it is invisible; she has been blinded to it by the prince of darkness.
     What you want her to see is that the key to this life is not in our commitments to God, but in His commitments to us:
   that He will never leave her nor forsake her;
   that He has begun a good work in her and will continue it;
   that He is with her always, unto the end of the age;
   that she is seated with him in heavenly places in Christ;
   that His Holy Spirit will lead her into all truth...
   
     Her hope and that of all such lies across the battleground of prayer.  As you want her to believe the promises of God on her behalf,  even so God wants you to believe  
   that righteous fervent prayer availeth much;
   that whatever you ask in His Name shall be given you;
   that His strenght is perfected in your weakness;
   that you can do all things through Christ Who strengthens you;
   that greater is He that is in you than he that is in the  
      world...
    Every time you feel that frustration, channel its energy into intercession on behalf of your friend.  Use your frustration as the call to prayer.  Ask God, as the early disciples did, to teach you to pray (for we know nothing yet as we ought to know).  Refuse to give up on her behalf.

     And all who read this, make it our call to prayer as well: please pray for the deliverance of Eulaha's friend, our sister.

al Hartman

Hello Eulaha, :)

Oh yeah! I know about commitments. "He swears to his own hurt, and does not change;" (Ps 15:4b) is the verse that was used to keep us in bondage once we had audibly said that we would do such-and-such. There was always the possiblity of saying, "Something else came up, so I have changed my mind", but then one felt that one had dis-honored the Lord. This was so ingrained, it was not funny.

I wonder if Philip missed pre-prayer the day he 'ran like the wind' so that he could preach the gospel to the eunuch in the chariot.

Your friend has been boxed in and therefore is not free to serve the Lord. It is OK to drop off some chicken soup to a sick sister even if it means being a few minutes late for the meeting. It is OK to minister to that sister who is about to be 'shelved' because she is struggling with some issue and cannot meet the rigorous demands of the assembly. It is OK to miss a Sunday afternoon meeting so that you can be at that annual family re-union. It is OK to change one's mind about something that they never should have committed to in the first place. Only one commitment is necessary, ie one's commitment to be free to serve the Lord.

That's all for now,
Lord bless,
Marcia

That is excellent!  Ponder that statement.  If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed.  Very nice Marcia!

Brent

Al,

Regarding your reply to Eulaha.

Well said!

Thomas Maddux

What was true for all of those of us that spent time in the asemblies under the influence of George Geftakys is still true today - We are responsible for the choices we make.

One substantial difference bwtween those of us who were deceived by this man and those making choices today is that they can make informed choices. The choices we make nevertheless are always  ultimately ours alone.
Verne

Ahhhhhh......"Do you have your application, brother?"

Even in the Chapter Summary Bible studies we were roped into legalistic commitments.  One night I convinced myself that since God had 'spoken' to me when I did ALL those chapter summaries, then I needed to continue keeping those commitments (applications) in order to be right with God (and not get sick or die after the Lord's Supper).  All I was doing was taking the reasoning behind applications to the logical conclusion.  So, my application that night was to make a list of ALL my applications from ALL my chapter summaries that I still had in my journals (7 years worth).  I dreaded every moment of reading over my chapter summaries to make the list.  Every time I added an application my burden grew heavier and my self condemnation grew stronger.  Here's the real ironic part.  I finished the list a year later.  There was no way I could be involved in the assembly and keep ALL those commitments (let alone remember all of them).  I then asked David G what to do about my predicament.  David told me that I didn't have to keep all those commitments, and that I only needed to TRUST the Lord by faith (yeah, even a broken clock is right twice a day).  I immediately threw out all my old journals and my list.  I felt so relieved.  I suspect that the reason David said that was that he could see that my commitments were getting in the way of my commitment to the assembly.

In the same vein I once kept a list of all the NOP requests and added new items as they came up at the NOP's.  I committed myself to praying over every item for every country, state and city on my list every week.  I would also add the burdens from the prayer letter to my list.  As the weeks and months went on, and the list grew longer, I had to spend more time in prayer.  I'd go into a closet and close the door and pray for hours (often I would procrastinate til Saturday).  Of course, I loathed prayer more and more every week.  I think it was my talk with David ended that insanity as well.

It is interesting to note that sometimes even the Geftakysservants would say we were free.  But then, 98% of the rest of the time they would coerce us to do this or do that.

2% grace + 98% legalism = 100% bondage.

Jack

    Thanks, Jack!  That question used to strike such fear into me that just the deja vu from reading it here made my stomach flip-flop! :P
     Any body besides me ever try to legalistically "pray without ceasing?" ::)
     It's only the Lord's grace that we all aren't living in rubber rooms!

al

Jack did you burn them? A sister told me that when she burned her ouija board, after she got saved, it made quite a flame in the fireplace. :)

Marcia

Marcia,

I just threw them away.

Al,

Yes, in fact, I also tried to meditate on the Word of God day and night, just like it says in Ps1.  The problem is, you can't do both.  Here's what I did do, though.

After reading Practicing the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence (Betty gave me a copy, bless her heart) I concluded that it was sin for me to think about anything other than one of the following:

Prayer
Memorizing verses
Meditating on verses
Talking to God about what I was doing at any given moment

Any other thoughts were sin in my opinion.  I carried around with me a 3x5 card that I would mark any time I caught myself off track in my thoughts.  I gave myself a 1 minute consequence for every mark.  I did my consequences by working at other people's houses (I was not living in a training home).  When I had racked up 180hours of consequences I finally gave up.  I held myself accountable to a leader, who never told me that this was insane.  Last year at a singles' conference I asked Betty about this issue, and she told me that to entertain any thought other than the ones I mentioned above was 'a waste'.  Yep, that Betty is a work of art, isn't she?

Jack

     Makes you wonder which one of those she was thinking about when she was ignoring or excusing George's and David's "indiscretions," doesn't it?

al
 
             

I remember this Jack.  I was meeting with David every Sunday for lunch.  I liked this because it meant I did not have to go on outreach!  I heard things, from him, about every member in the Assembly, and all of the brothers in Fullerton and Tuscola, and several of the ones in St. Louis and Chicago.  I knew the dirt on everyone, including you.

It was funny, because when he told me what you did, I felt sorry for you, but at the same time I was pondering in my heart why it was wrong.  Afterall, we were taught, clearly and explicitly, to keep our committments.  In fact, David would hammer home to me frequently, that I had made a committment to only make a certain amount of money, and to give the rest away.  (I made no such committment, but he really wanted me too....I wonder why?)

So, I had to keep my committments, or at least that one, and the one where I said I would go to all the meetings; but you didn't need to keep yours.  I remember this clearly.

However, I must say that David gave you good advice in that situation, regardless of his motivation.  I guess if your committments to The Lord conflict with your committments to the Assembly, something has to give!

Brent

So David told you about other peoples' sins?  Hmmmmmmm.... David told me explicitly last December that he NEVER divulged any confidential information to ANYONE (not even to other leaders).  David is the Lord's servant.  Therefore you must be lying. ;D

Jack

Jack

I am sad to say that I know all sorts of "information," about many, many people, due to David's discipling times.  How much of it is true is another matter.  Many times, I have come to find out, he was poisoning the well with his info, or he had an ulterior motive for telling me half of the truth.

Brent

'Committments' made by many of us in the assembly were made without us being fully informed as to what we were committing to.  For instance, we made a committment to go on a summer team in 2000, unaware that a young man's parents had him intercepted from going on (I think) this same team, and 'deprogrammed' from the assemblies.  I'm almost certain that if we had had access to that information, we would have cancelled our 'committment' to go.  (Although I'm also pretty sure leadership would have explained it away somehow.)
Also, when we left the meetings here, an LB called to tell Phill, "Brother, you made a committment here.  It's like a marriage, you stay and work out the problems!"  
There's a huge difference.  Marriage was God's idea.  Turns out the assembly was George's idea.

Becky

Becky,

I'd be interested to know what that same LB said to the brother who left recently; the brother who did stay and tried to work out the problems!

Marcia

Marcia,

I know what he didn't say.  He didn't say, "Thank you, brother, for your honesty and care and service.  Thank you for bearing long with us and trying to help us see where we might need to consider our ways.  We see it was the love of Christ motivating you to try and help us wake up.  We will miss you and your valuable contribution here.  God bless you and your family. "

He didn't say that.

Becky

Interesting thread here....I love the way people"know" what everyone else should say or do....

Hi  Golden

I like this thread too.  Isn't it great to be able to freely state the obvious?  Just being able to see straight is a relief.  Like when we were in the Assembly, and we were told by people to miss a friend's wedding, or not go to family functions during meeting times,  we should have been able to see the obvious and "know" what we should say or do.  But we didn't.

Now, many of these people are able to see, and have confidence in the difference between bondage and freedom,  grace and obligation.

It's great to be able to say to someone,  "You know what you should do?  You should get out of the cult you're in!"  Or, "You shouldn't be in bondage to what you think are your committments."

I am with you.  It is great that that people know what everyone else should say or do.

Brent A. Tr0ckman----alias  "Red"

Golden -

Yeah, the nerve of these people for saying what they really think or feel.

The only thing interesting here is moronic and condascending your post is.  Kind of similar to your other "brilliant" post mocking people who are having a hard time moving on.

After all that has happened, I liken Geftakys supporters to trash.

Yes...and all this edifying to the body of Christ.  I have no resentment or bitterness toward anyone..but these pages are dripping with spite.
...and the post always degrade to name calling.

This weekend I was pondering the subject of keeping commitments, and I remembered that in the Assembly, I was always taught to go the way of the cross, and that sometimes, keeping commitments was difficult, but that doesn't mean I should quit.  "The Lord doesn't like quitters, sister."  So, in order to be spiritual, I needed to go the way of the cross in light of the commitments I made.I remember making a commitment to go to all the meetings on Sundays.  When my mother would visit me in SLO, Iwas not able to miss any of the Sunday meetings to spend time with her, because of my commitment.  What a fool I was to put the Assembly before my own family!

You do make a good point Golden.  We should seek to edify, even if we must tear down first.  It should never stop at the tearing down, but should always proceed to building up the Body of Christ.

Can you give some examples of how we could improve?

Brent

The reality is that people are angry, bitter, spiteful, and embarassed that they were involved in a ministry that was more Satanic than Christ like.  They were fooled, and now have a right to express their feelings.  As a matter of fact, it would be unhealthy for them to not express their true feelings.

OK. Well, I fully disagree with your statement. So where does that leave us?

One of the fun things to do is to listen to what other people are saying and then say little things, just to irritate them.

It is more enjoyable when I play this game if I never offer anything of substance, but just repeat things like,  "My, lot's of arrogance here!"  I like watching people react, and get upset about this, because It proves to me (kinda) how much power I have over people.  I never use my real name when I do this, because I don't want others to misunderstand.

Here, I'll give it a try......ahem....

"Hey Uh Oh,  why can't you get a life?"   ahaheaheheee!!!!  That was fun!

"Hey Brent,  if you are so into healing, how come you're still here?"

This is fun.

Red

It doesn't leave us anywhere.  You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to my opinion.  I am admittedly thick headed, you appear to be thick headed, so there is no real sense in arguing.

Hi again Eulaha :)

I learned more from the example of those who were 'rebellious' to the system, than from those who religiously followed their assembly commitments. So when my parents were in town, I took off after worship or the morning meeting and stayed home with them, unless they had other plans for the day. Interestingly enough I didn't get exhorted for that, probably because I was imitating a good example who had a 'say' in assembly politics. There were other invitations that I 'bowed out' of, which I can now say that I feel ashamed for doing so.

Lord bless,
Marcia

I think it leaves us with this question? What do you think people should do whose lives, families, marriages, children, etc. were devastated by George and Betty Geftakys and their evil system?
-shrug it off?
-say, "oh well, better luck next time."
-forgive and forget (easier said than done)
-try, try, try to be a 'good" Christian who prays and smiles and acts like nothing is wrong (just like the "good old days").

Many of us need this forum to exchange ideas and experiences. I personally know people who don't seem to need to ever look back and I know others who must look back and reflect and ponder what has happened in order to move forward. I think it is important to respect that. This is a board where anger, pain, humor, etc. is permitted. It is a safe place to express what many of us could not express for years and years. Give us a break!
PM

Golden-

"Moving on" doesn't mean to just stop talking about it.  What happened was real, and it was damaging.  You can pretend to not have been affected by the Assembly, but you're fooling yourself.  The very fact that you are making all these comments, and yet have chosen to keep your identity a secret, tells me you are still functioning in "Assembly mode".  By the way, are your initials Z.U.?

I just saw the original post and tried to get caught up on what everyone was saying, but forgive me if I am rehashing something someone else has said:
-----------------------------

I guess three years isn't too long of a time if she really has to stick it out.  I'm glad she didn't commit to God to, say, live in the North Pole for 20.

Seriously, why does she feel God wants her to stay wherever she is?  How is God going to benefit with her being there as opposed to, say Yuma, Arizona?

More importantly, how did God give her this command?   I never experienced God talking to me directly especially about where to live and how long.  I would be interested in knowing what that is like.  I suppose if God told her directly (and there would be no mistake if He did as His voice tends to be unmistakably thunderous) or through an Angel appearing to her, I would probably lean towards sticking out the three years.

If God used a gobetween such as a leading brother to convey this information perhaps a simple phone call to the brother saying, "since we no longer have a church, any problem with me moving out of the area?"  That should clear things up.

Or, did she made it up herself thinking that by making such a commitment she was somehow doing God a favor?  Like the guy who groans in dispair because he has to speedread tonight 20 chapters in the Bible to get caught up with his "Bible in a year" commitment.  You know, to keep his commitment.  I hardly think such a negative ordeal is doing anyone a favor.

In this case, maybe its just better to drop the white knuckle martre approach and confess to God that she is just a silly child who at one time had an erroneous perspective on what is pleasing to God.

Or, she can sit still and be miserable for three years while the rest of the world moves on.  Maybe God will be greatly honored at such commitment and service.  But, I doubt it.

The more I think about this, the more perplexed I get...You fully disagree with my statement???  Maybe if I break it down and simplify it for you, it will make things easier for you...Here goes:

A) "People are angry, bitter", and spiteful...Hard to argue that!

B)" More Satanic than Christ Like"...The evidence backs it up!

C) "It would be unhealthy for them not to express their true feelings"....You sound like a true Geftakysite if you disagree with this...

Golden - what color is the sky in your world?

Thinking along the lines of keeping commitments, I was perplexed by the following: I was always told that just because some situation in our lives gets difficult, it doesn't mean that we should just abandon ship.  I agree to a certain extent, but I do not feel it is SIN to want to abandon ship.  Take the Assembly, for instance.  Many people left before all this excommunication stuff came out, and many of us were told that we were avoiging the cross in our lives by leaving, "just because things got difficult".  And, if one is to be steward over great things, one must be willing to steward the difficult things.

The difficult thing was to leave, especially before GGs excomm...  So you were being a good steward. :)

It is a difficult thing to choose what's right (the Lord's will) and have to sacrifice an assembly-full (a continentful of assemblies) of friendships because of your choice.

Lord bless,
Marcia

I agree, it is not sin to "abandon ship".  Quite the opposite can be the case.  GG is dependent on his followers.  Many of his followers believed that they depended on him, but he is really the one who depended on them to practice his wicked ways.  If he has no followers to enslave, then the means that he used to practice his wickedness will disappear.  If you don't want to partake in his wickedness, then not only is it not sin to leave, but it is your obligation to leave. He only exists through his followers.  Unfortunately he has convinced a good many people that they are the ones who are dependent on him. :(  I guess that if people can be fooled to reverence men like Hitler and make them their leader, they can also be fooled to reverence men like Geftakys.  Sad, very sad. :( :( :(

I  never go to sea without a method of safely abandoning ship.  To do otherwise is foolhardy and will invite disaster.

Brent

Regarding commitments, I read this last night from The Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Ring (Book II, Chapter 3).  The point made in this passage by Mr. Tolkien would have been a wise thing to consider before making many of the unbreakable commitments that I made to the assembly.


Elrond said, "The Ring-bearer is setting out on the Quest of Mount Doom.  On him alone is any charge laid...The others go with him as free companions, to help him on his way.  You may tarry, or come back, or turn aside into other paths, as chance follows.  The further you go the less easy will it be to withdraw; yet no oath or bond is laid on you to go further than you will.  For you do not yet know the strength of your hearts, and you cannot forsee what each may meet upon the road."

"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens," said Gimli.

"Maybe," said Elrond, "but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall."

"Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart," said Gimli.

"Or break it," said Elrond.  


Making a rigid commitment without knowing what lies ahead may break the heart.  So true, so true.

Brent,

Your last comment was very thought-provoking.  Would you say that that also inclused marriages where one or both of the spouses do not get along and are generally tired of each other?  I've been thinking about marriage relationships for a long time now...

If you are thinking that marriage and sailing are synonomous, I don't agree.  I told Suzie, till death do us part.  That means I am going down with the ship, unless we reach a safe harbor first.

Boats, while often a type of mistress, are not "till death do us part," stuff.  We carry life-rafts, emergency ditch kits, radios, etc.

Marriage is not something you enter into with an escape clause.  If you think you need one, don't get married.

Brent

I have been stumbled by all the "keeping one's commitments" ministry.  To this day, I find myself staying in unhealthy situations because "God doesn't like a quitter, sister".  It's hard to work one's self out of such a rut.  I have been through all kinds of counseling, and still this teaching is etched in my thinking.

There should be an illness called Battered Christian Syndrome!

Eulaha,
     I understand exactly what you mean:  In a sense we were all "mat-trained" to behave in certain ways, & the habits of years are not easily changed.  This BB is surely the best support group we could ask for.

My brother is one who has changed jobs to position himself better for his career.  I am one who generally stays put, even in hard times, and found that things often get better.

Both approaches have their strong points and it takes wisdom and risk to select the path we take.  Often my "stay put" attitude at job (or in the Assembly) is tied to my natural passivity, distrust of self, and desire to avoid conflict.  

But, I'm learning.  Recently I changed my son to a new Boy Scout troop - from one that had some internal problems to one that was better financed and organized.  My only thought was, "why didn't I do this earlier?"

Marriage is in a somewhat different category because you are not simply dealing with a husband and wife.  You are also dealing with children.  No child survives a divorse completely unscathed.  Almost all mariages, short of abusive ones, can be saved if one partner is willing to sacrifice for the other.

Almost all marriages can be saved?

How would you know?  Have you been almost all marriages?  

Seriously,

And when do we hear from all the children who grew up in homes where the parents 'stuck together for the good of the children' and the children suffered more than they would have if the marriage was dissolved.  Sometimes, we presume we know what's best for everyone.  

I too have made this mistake.  It is a mistake.  You are mistaken.

I think.

Delila

I guess you have a point, Delila.  I was told by a marriage counselor that when a relationship gets to the point where each depises the other (essentially writes them off in their heart), there is really nothing they can do.

Too bad it gets that far.

Nevertheless, the kids are always still hurt.

Yup Dave, Verne:

Line up the firing squad.  I'm currently filing for divorce.  Out of consideration for the children, I will wait out the year and not file on the grounds of 'cruelty'.  There's no adultery either.  

Now I'll wait here, real still so you can line up your verses and fire.

-incorrigible cynic
Delila

I feel offended being drawn into this as my original point had to do with my learning that changing jobs and Boy Scout situations is sometimes healthy just as staying put is something healthy.   As stressful as my family life has been at times, I never saw my marriage in the same category of committment as my job.

I'm not going to analyze your divorse from across the country on a bulletin board.  Why do you want me to fire verses at you?  So you can confirm to your heart that we Christians are nothing but insensitive, out-of-touch prudes who follow a God who is irrelevant?

Divorse is legal and it's a free country that values personal choice as the highest virtue.  Go do what you want and live with the consequences.

Dave, Verne,

     Lighten up.  First of all, Delila wasn't speaking exclusively to the two of you, but to us all.  Yeah, yeah, I know she addressed her comments to you by name, but if you've really read all her posts, you know that she's still recovering from the post-traumatic stress (shell-shock) that has beset us all at some point after leaving the covering of the wet blanket.  She's had a tough time, she's still in a tough situation, she's concerned for her kids & she's only recently started calling on the Lord again & fellowshipping with His people.


Delila,

     Lighten up.  You aren't in prison the assembly any more.  You don't have to be so defensive about your decisions or so sensitive when someone's opinion differs from yours.  We love you & are on your side.  (I'm speaking in the plural here-- someone correct me if I'm wrong).
     This isn't the first time you've had a chip on your shoulder, Sis, & dared someone to knock it off.  My advice is that you should "knock it off."  You're so sure that some brother is going to blast you that you want to strike a preemptive blow.  Give us half a chance to show you that we don't want to be the bad guys anymore.
     

     Now that I have endeared myself to the three of you, can we set personal feelings aside & address real issues?  OK, I know our feelings are real issues to us.  But seriously, who is on the Lord's side?  What else matters?

     Anybody seeking counsel here?  Ask your questions...

     Anyone have a contribution to make?  Have at it...

     Someone have an apology to make??  Well, then...


     This post may be the worst idea I've had in a while, but I love you guys & I don't want to see hard feelings grow between you.


Marcia, Brent, Eulaha, Arthur, Anyone,

     Someone please post & save me before I blurt again...

al

You forgot me Al!  ;)

I already responded on the thread about "I want to talk about the curse" regarding this same situation.

Most of the people on this BB, posting, are men.  Us woman are outnumbered, I believe (the daily posters, that is.)  PLEASE have some compassion on Delila.  Al aptly described the outline of Delila's situation and I, for one, would like to see us reach out to Delila to show her that we are different;  With compassion.

She is still being told today that what happened to her in Canada was her own fault and that she is "the Scarlet Woman."  If we were in a war, she would be bleeding by the roadside with bullet wounds and shrapnel everywhere.  Would you save that one by "winning the argument" with logical answers?  No, you would bring that one to a hospital and begin treating her wounds, very tenderly and with great kindness.  And some of the wounds wouldn't even be apparent.  Wars produce numerous men and women suffering from psychological damage.  This is what we are dealing with, let's be cognizant of that (and for the future Delila's.)

I broke an important personal rule - never submit writing when I am angry and I was angry last night.

I also want to apologize for making a sweeping judgement based on a couple of posts.  I didn't have the time (nor the interest) to look up all of Delila's posts to understand her better.

However, in some measure of defense, Kimberly, I don't believe the situation is that I wanted to beat Delila down with logical arguments.  That is the very sterotype that I was trying to fight.  

In my original post, I was attempting to make an encouraging statement about change.  I wanted to clarify about marriage so people didn't think that I was saying that we can change marriages like we change jobs.  I wasn't trying to make a statement about anyone in particular.

Delila obviously took my statement as an attack on her.  So in my following post, I attempted to back off my statement and say that I understand that some marriages get to the place that no one can help it.

But, apparently that was not enough as Delila still interpreted it as an attack on her and gave her defiant "I'm doing what I'm doing so why don't you line up and shoot me with Bible verses" statement.

Frankly, that is a sore spot with me right now.  I am incredibly grieved over the blatant disregard for any consideration of God's truth from the homosexual lobby who are saying similar statements:  "We are going to marry in spite of law, in spite of how it affects society, in spite of how it affects our children and you can just line up with your irrelevant Bible verses and beat me over the head, but we're still doing it."

So, when I heard a similar statement from a sister, it just pushed me over the line.

I'm sorry, Delila, because it is probably true that you are not acting out of maliciousness, but out of hurt.  We all say things we shouldn't because we are angry or afraid.  I believe as a general principle that the Lord can bring reconciliation in non-abusive marriages if one party chooses humility.   I really don't have an opinion about your marriage in particluar because I don't know the details and I have no expertese in marriage reconciliation.

This is why I hate BB's.  :(  It is very one dimensional in it's communication and difficult to dialogue when such sensative topics are being broached.

Dave, I wasn't making my comments DIRECTLY to you.  If the shoe fits.....We can all get a little touchy and defensive re: our personal posts.  These are our thoughts, put out in public for all to see.......and to criticize.

The ice berg illustration that Al used on the "I want to talk about the curse" thread, is a very potent and illustrative analogy.  Communicating amongst ourselves here is just seeing the "tip of the iceberg".  In each of our lives, there is very possibly a huge, behemoth of an iceberg underneath, that none of us see.  In our posts to one another, without knowing the "iceberg underneath", we can rub each other the wrong way, say things that we think couldn't possibly hurt, etc, etc, etc.  

My main point ............ and please everyone hear this.......is to try and relate to one another with compassion, and to be particularly sensative to new posters who don't have the history of knowing each of us and our little quirks and mannerisms.  These are the walking wounded who come here as new posters with a HUGE history (usually) that they bring to bear here.

Kimberley,
     Be assured I did not forget you, dear heart!  I was simply calling upon the most recent posters on this thread.  I always count on you to be a voice of sanity in the midst of turmoil.  (Unless, of course, it is your turmoil! :D)


     It must be time once again to point out to everyone how easy it is to misinterpret the intentions and the very words of those who post.  Our written words lack the intimacy of tone-of-voice, facial expression, hand gestures and body language, making it extremely difficult to speak with clarity & very easy to misunderstand & be misunderstood.  That is why it is so important to pray about both our posts and what we read.
     Statements made tongue-in-cheek can come across as downright cheeky.  Anxiety, anger, humor, encouragement are difficult to express in words alone.  The natural human tendency is to see the worst when reading mail & wish for the best when writing it.  We must learn to let the Holy Spirit be our interpreter when speaking and when listening.

     Another thing we should be mindful of when we get our undies in a bunch:  Is the issue at hand truly the issue?  If the principle at stake isn't roundly focused upon Jesus Christ's work of redemption, chances are it is subterfuge, a spiritual scud missile attack if you will, launched by the enemy of our souls to divert our attention from the real topic du jour.
     Maybe the hype is overblown, but the upcoming opening of the film The Passion of the Christ could be a wonderful vehicle of recovery for the Christian community and a harvest of souls.  Could that be why we are being bombarded with distractions centered on personal feelings & non-issues?

     What do you think?

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow,
al

The point of my last post is that the shoe doesn't fit.  Nevertheless, good thoughts otherwise.

I have a mouth on me, no doubt.  And fingers too, that type faster than I speak, generally.

I have this to say about marriage, about homosexuals, about any 'issue' or 'topic' for which one can reach into their tissue thin pages and pull out a verse, or fire verses from guns as I mentioned earlier:

What are the scriptures?
Somebody else's mail?
Quotes?
Words, word of God?  A collection of geneologies, records of various coloured peoples and their fathers and sons, with a few women thrown in?

And I have another question:

What would Jesus have done?

The answers to these questions tell us much about our individual religions.  But to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.  What is pure and undefiled religion?  NO, I'm not finished.  Bear with me.

Here's a George trap:
To believe that the verses in the bible can be fired like a pop gun in order to fix people's lives.  We make bold statements on the BB about issues like divorce, and here I speak not simply for myself.  We made similar bold statements to one another in the gg dynasty about what was 'God's will' in our lives, like we knew.  

Can we do this?  Can we just take a notion: God hates divorce, for example and pass it out like we're feeding the ten thousand with it?  Do we think we do anyone a favour by raving about homosexuals and their right or no rights to marriage?  Does this heal people?  Does this help anyone?  Or are we continuing the GG traditions like faithful ones, dishin' it out.

I don't know If I'll call myself a Christian.  I admire Christ, his treatment of those who were stepped on, how he didn't just quote scripture and tell people to submit and then pass on.  Take three Eph 2 or 3's and call me in the morning.  I think, instead, I'll stick with my conscience, consider scripture, question and learn and rethink and figure and say:  I don't know,  but I think...

I think.  I'll be very careful to pass judgement on other people's lives.  The divorce rates have risen over the past couple decades haven't they?  More domestic abuse is reported now too.  More shelters for abused women exist now too.  I've worked in many of them as a family crisis worker while I went to university.  We can not look at numbers and statistics and think for a moment that we know anything about the reality of people's hell.  To say that God hates divorce, well, he may not like licorice either, or cotton candy, I don't know.  But I know he loves the protection of the downtrodden and many verses too precious little to procure that.

Cheers

Delila

Epiphany:
I've made people mad.  People are mad, offended because I wrote that I expected to be shot full of holes by verse shooting Christians.  I expected to be shot full of holes for writing about choosing divorce.  People don't like to think of themselves as capable of shooting others full of holes.  People don't like to be acccused of being ready to shoot others full of holes.  People don't like to be accused of hurting others.  Epiphany: Now I understand why you're all so mad.  Now I get it.

Al and Kimberly: Put away your umbrellas.  I don't expect a stoning today.

Al: icebergs?  Ice makes my teeth hurt.  I don't even like cold water.  I drink green tea lots.  Maybe too much, lately.  But don't worry.  It's not fermented.

Cheers!

Delila

     We sometimes/often/usually/always fail to recognize that there are many universes-- as many as there are us.  We don't take into account that, although many of our universes overlap, some extremely closely, I can only occupy the dead-center of my own.
     No two perspectives are precisely the same.  My universe revolves around me-- yours around you, etc.  In my universe I may be a great explorer, scholar, oracle and healer and, being such, think that I have far-reaching insights into your universe:  I discover what makes me tick, and assume that enables me to understand what makes you tick.
     There are a couple of problems with such an assumption:  First, I will never attain to the level of self-understanding necessary for self-healing & regeneration.  Furthermore, I cannot begin to comprehend your viewpoint, no matter how much I may suppose that I do.  The very best I can achieve in this direction is to appreciate that you have an outlook that is uniquely your own.

     There is a solution to the dilemma of being lacking in every essential, and it is not in introspection or in getting together and comparing notes.
     The first step is to recognize that I am indeed the bullseye in the center of my reality.
     The second is to accept and confess that the puzzle of my existence is too vast and complex for me to solve in one lifetime, or in several.
     Third is to awake to the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ took on a human universe of His own and mastered it completely and successfully from start to end, thus qualifying uniquely to achieve the same for you and me.
     This is the point at which I must surrender the pilot's chair, the command center, to Him.  "Lord, this life is too much for me.  I've tried it and I know.  I welcome your offer to fly this vessel to its destination and land it safely.  You're in charge now-- I'm just working crew.  Tell me what to do."
     Finally, I need to realize that that's the best any of us can do.  Nobody is flying his own ship successfully.  Let me take pity on, have mercy toward, be generous to my brother and my sister, for their need is no less than my own (which is infinite).

     I am an extremely slow two-finger typist, and still my fingers sometimes exceed the speed of my brain.  I hope these thoughts compute...

al

Perhaps: presumption and accusation are close brothers (cursed too)

drj

     ...and why, pray tell, are they not close sisters?  Could it be because they are negative qualities?  Hmmmmmmm???

gotcha,
al ;)

Whether accused or presumed and a tree falling... no one there to hear the screams for help... did it really happen... does it really matter.

I tried to make a point a few posts back on this thread.  Did anyone get it or was it worth getting?  I thought I was groping toward something important.  No?

Delila

The Scriptures are God's Word. But then I think that you knew I'd say that, so I am just confirming your suspicions here.


Great verse. and good questions to ask oneself each time one has to make a decision.


This is where the shoe leather hits the road.  Yes the scriptures are where we learn of Christ, how He would respond in each situation.  He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery even though the Scripture demanded that the adulterous man and the woman be stoned to death.  God hates divorce, and the kids do hurt when their parents get divorced &/or have an unhappy relationship.  However, I gathered from the discussion on this thread, and I agree, that each marriage situation must be evaluated on its own merit re. divorce.

Definitely, the problem with Geftakysism was the performance based righteousness, which attempted to put everyone into the same mold.  Christ was out of the picture, and Pharisaism was "in".

MIC 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?

Lord bless,
Marcia

Delila,

In the post quoted above you have touched on a variety of subjects, any one of which could spark an extended discussion.

In some cases you trivialize other folk's opinions.  In others you make moral assertions.

It is much easier to point out what you think is wrong with another's position than it is to argue for a position positively stated.

Regarding divorce, the statements Jesus made constituted a virtual declaration of war on some ideas that were current in His days.

The Pharisees had some "schools of thought" within their own movement.  One was led by rabbi Hillel, who taught that divorce was only for serious causes.  Another, led by rabbi Shamai, taught what we would call today, "no fault divorce".  The one difference was that only men could initiate it in those days.

Jesus side-stepped the debate by saying: "...everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matt 5:32).

Much could be said about the cultural/economic context of the verse, further teaching by Jesus or Paul, and so on.

However, I think we can safely say, in light of "what would Jesus do", that He would consider divorce a VERY serious issue that is only a legitimate action in a VERY few circumstances.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

In your original post you said you were not talking about abuse situations at least in reference to your own circumstances.  But, since you later brought up abuse, I think some response is in order.  

I don’t know of an Evangelical pastor would not counsel at least separation when there is abuse.  Even Steve Irons counseled that in a particular case I know in the Assembly.  The only person I know who says one ought to stay together in abuse is David Geftakys and he was demented and an abuser himself.

Whether the separation should also include divorce as well as remarriage (as Tom says, one of the “few circumstances”), Evangelical Christians are divided on that one.

In all painful honesty:
I think divorce is often our last ditch effort to pull our etcha scetches clean again - to tell ourselves we can start again, that our whole lives are not wasted just b/c we've chosen poorly... b/c b/c b/c
Separation can help us protect our children, this I know.  But to be legally divorced or not... to ever be able to contemplate an ever after with anyone else... that is just as much a sore spot as every contemplation one has to return to a brutally painful marriage.  There are no ready and easy answers.  Really, my whole point on this thread has been that we have no space to tell one another what 'God wants' as we did when once assembly followers.  I think that in many ways, God is silent b/c he wants us to choose, not to imply His will for one another.  And I'm NOT saying that people were doing that on this thread.  I'm saying that that's what I learned in the assembly, and I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that giving that kind of directive is wrong.  If it weren't, I wonder why God didn't make it one of the ten commandments.

drj

I think I understand what you are saying and I would agree to a point.  However, allow me to make a clarification.

I believe we can tell people some things that God wants; otherwise, there is no sense in having a religion.  I think we can confidently tell people that God does not want us to plan out and murder politicians we don’t like.  He doesn’t want us to rape our neighbor’s wife.  He doesn’t want us to shoplift hot dogs from the grocery store.

However, some Christians reduce God’s will to a practice called prooftexting.   To illustrate, I was 19 years old when I came into the Assembly in 1978.  I was worried because there was some scuffles in the Middle East and there was a real possibility (that never panned out) that they might reinstate the draft.  I always assumed I would go if I was called up, but then Tim Geftakys says to me, “How can you go and kill people?  The Bible says, ‘Thou shalt nor murder.’”

I have since learned that this verse of the Ten Commandments is dealing more with premeditated murder in society rather than a statement whether Christians should sign up for the Army.  Nevertheless, Tim took a verse, slapped it on me, and that was the end of discussion (in his mind) about being available for the draft.

Prooftexting is popular for those who don’t want to take the time to study and think comprehensively.  But, it is shallow.

On the other hand, just because Tim “prooftexted” me, it would be wrong for me to say, “well then, I don’t believe we can tell people what God wants about going to war and we certainly can’t tell people what God wants about killing.”  Frankly, the Bible says much about when you can and cannot kill.  The problem is not that God’s opinions are unknown.   You just can’t represent God by slapping a favorite non-contextualized verse on someone and saying, “end of discussion”.

Marriage is a fundamental theme and institution that was initiated in Genesis, discussed by Jesus and expounded even more by the epistle writers.  To say that God doesn’t have anything to say about marriage is simply wrong.

If you do choose to do some reading and get understand about God’s purpose in marriage (Christian bookstores overfloweth with marriage and family books), it is beyond my capacity to tell you how to work God’s ideals for marriage into your present situation.  Further, I cannot ascertain if it is even possible for you to have a Christian marriage in your current state.  Have you and your spouse loused up the relationship to such an extent that it is completely unsalvageable?  Here, you need an expert to answer and I am not one.

Dave,

While I agree with you in THEORY; i.e. there is much in scripture that gives us direction for our lives, etc.  I don't believe we can go around telling people what they should or should not do with their lives.

Christians for centuries have made the mistake (and thus the bad reputation) of poking their noses into other people's business (I am NOT talking about the legal issues i.e. murder-ie abortion, civil law, etc.)  I am talking about their PERSONAL choices in life.  My feeling, POST assembly, is that the most effective tool is not to IMPOSE my opinion upon people, but to be INVITED to respond.  While I don't necessarily have to AGREE with someone's choices (i.e. I might not have made that choice, BUT how can I even know that..........I'm not living their life) I still LOVE THEM.  This is what enables dialogue.  This is RELATIONSHIP.  Relationships are what enables us to effectively impact people and their lives (for Christ and eternity,) not dictims.

Christians often lose their audience by spouting scripture, believing that is what wins those who are listening.  That is often proved to be the exact opposite.  Please don't sight the scripture that spouts that it is by the hearing of the word that people are saved.  Salvation through the word is one thing.  Being CONDEMNED by the scripture is another.

Kimberly,

How is what you are saying different than what I said?  Specifically, what is it that I am proposing in my post below that you disagree with?

-Dave

Dave:

I don't REALLY know if you and I disagree or not.  But I would not UNLESS INVITED discuss people's marital status/problems, what they should or shouldn't do in their marriage.  Please note the qualifying words - UNLESS INVITED.

The point I was trying to make, is that Christians, because they have the bible, THE only document we have that we believe is directly from God, we use it AGAINST people.  If I, UNINVITED, begin to tell people what they should and shouldn't do, because of how I interpret the scriputres, in my never to be humble opinion, we are OUT OF LINE.  

Christ did not give us a directive to tell other people what to do.  He told us to preach the gospel, not maintain the law.

Yes, God has a lot to say about a lot of things, but the only direction I received from my savior was to preach the gospel, not to make sure that people kept the law (i.e. God hates divorce.)  If I am INVITED by someone to share my OPINION, then I can share FROM MY HEART, how I interpret the scriptures.  But this is not a direction from God and perhaps isn't even what God wants the person to do - we're not God, how can we speak to someone else's situation so vehemently and say, "I know the will of God for your life"?  We can't.  Only God knows what His will is for other people.  I can only share FROM MY HEART.  And sharing from the heart is a far cry then just expounding on what the scriptures say.

Kimberley----

I totally have to agree with what you are saying. It is very easy to use the Bible AGAINST people. And we can be so hypocritical when we do it too.

We could say to some teenager "The Lord doesn't like tattoos you know---says so in the Bible" while we chow down on a burger and wash it down with milk(the Lord says not to mix meat and dairy products in the Law too).


 And we can quantify and qualify certain things as bad beyond other things too. "The Lord hates divorce you know". Yet, it goes without saying that God hates lying, stealing, murder, gluttony, drug use, adultery...etc., etc.. too.  In the Assembly, because the Bible defined a Bishop as being "the husband of one wife", brothers who had been divorced(even BEFORE being saved!!) could not become "leading brothers". But what if this verse is referring to polygamy? And what of "If any man be in Christ he is a new creation, ALL THINGS have become new"?  "Sorry---applies to everything but divorce. Oh--you used to be a heroin addict? Everything has become new!!! Oh---you used to be a bank robber? You are forgiven!! ALL has become new!!! Oh---you used to practice witchcraft? You are forgiven!! All has become new!!  Oh---you were once divorced?  Ewwww.
wish I could help you with that one...God hates divorce you know....you can attend here, but don't ever think of being a leader...that 'everything has become new' stuff applies to everything but divorce. Sorry brother".

That teaching always used to amaze me  when I was in the Assembly. I never understood it.

--Joe

Milk with a hamburger, now I see a shake (dang wish they had In-N-Out here).  Also that means my double cheese burger is out as well, and heaven forbid I do a double bacon cheese burger!    (http://www.gnjallen.com/copcar.gif).  

BTW; are we still not to provke and encourage one another to love and good works (notice that verse was not given to leadership alone, because I know some Assembly leaders abused it)?  Here I go again stepping on toes!  :P

Cheers
G

Kimberly,

What I hear you saying is that we should not approach people we don’t know and give unsolicited advise – especially the type that carries the authoritarian weight of “thus says the Lord”.  It not only alienates the poor victim but it probably isn’t an accurate representation of what the Lord wants since we don’t know the person and do not understand his or her circumstances.

I have many memories of participating in such practices many years ago – especially while witnessing.  I can recall times where I flipped to a verse somewhere and used it as a definitive command for someone to, say, leave the Catholic Church or come to a Bible Study or have a quiet time, etc.

I think you have to understand that I have been out of the Assembly for 14 years and even in the latter years started backing away from such practices.  I won’t go into a lengthy defense, but I don’t believe my comments on this thread reflect the stereotype you are seeking to rebut.  I have simply been sharing my personal opinions in response to Delila’s comments and questions which she, not I, initiated.  I haven’t given her any advise about her situation specifically and on at least two occasions stated plainly that I don’t know what she should do.

I appreciate your zeal for shedding the Assembly thinking of the past, but I think we are actually on the same side on this one.

-Dave

I think you're mistaken about that.

Stephen----

"According to Jewish Law, it is prohibited to cook meat and milk together. It is also forbidden to eat meat and
milk together, or to derive any benefit from such a mixture. Milk and meat must be kept as separate as possible."

http://www.siks.org/whatiskosher.html

This probably all comes from the one verse which reads: "you shall not seethe a kid in it's mother's milk"--whether this teaches not to mix meat and dairy products is up for question.

What I was basically trying to say though is that it is easy to espouse one part of what the Law teaches while breaking another part. This has happened in the past when witches were burned--yet those same people who burned the witches most likely ate pork.

--Joe

Delila,

I'm a divorced mother, and children suffer when a family is divorced. No matter how bad it is, they don't really want mom and dad to divorce. It's their father who is gone. We as wives may be better off, but unless we or the kids are being physically/sexually abused, statistics and articles show that the kids are better off in a family where mom and dad stay together.  In fact, the only kids who do fare better are the ones from a divorced family where abuse was the norm.  

I realize that I don't know your situation at all, but I feel I need to post a little about the affects that divorce does have on kids.
Be prepared for anger and blame from the kids that are focused on you when the kids are going thru different stages in their development, because it will be coming. Just be prepared for it.

I'm not passing judgement on you, or telling you what to do. I grew up in a dysfunctional famiy and wished that my folks had gotten divorced. But looking back and learning now about the long-term affects of divorce on kids, I not so sure that I would have been better off.

And I'm not saying that you will get remarried, but from what I've personally seen with "blended" families, they are an incredibly difficult venture. In my opinion, not worth all it would take to get it going, if it ever would. It's another situation that seems unfair for the kids. It asks so much of them; accepting new siblings, a new parent. And in most cases, they had no say in the matter.

Again, I have no idea at all of your living situation, but have you asked your children what they think about a divorce?

Moonflower2

Dave,

I would say, for the most part, you are right.  We are on the same side.  However, you stated, "What I hear you saying is that we should not approach people we don’t know and give unsolicited advise".  That is not EXACTLY what I believe.  I don't think you should approach people YOU KNOW, UNLESS INVITED.  I am not God.  God did not call me to intervene in others lives' to tell them what HE believes about their lives.  I don't care how much direction is given in the bible regarding marriage (or other life situations.)  IF, AND ONLY IF INVITED, would I DARE to comment on someone else's situations.  It is NOT my place.  And it is offensive.  The Pharisee's were VERY good at this.

I have had experience with this in the very recent past with someone very dear to me (noone needs to know the circumstances.)  Because we share a deep friendship, in a very tender moment, we were able to discuss spiritual issues and the impact of decisions that clearly would not be pleasing to God.  I did not offend, I was VERY careful to share in a tender, compassionate, non-judgemental way with this friend.  BUT, I was invited to this discussion.  I did not impose my opinions UNASKED.  

This is the difference I am talking about.  People WON'T hear you, if they haven't asked to LISTEN.  I love people. I might dislike their sin.  But Christ won people through relationship, not in condemnation and a holier than thou, "I have the truth, you should listen to me" type of attitude.  I am striving to be more like my savior in these endeavors.  I am sure you are too, Dave.  I'm not wanting to split hairs, but I do believe there is a distinction to be made.

I'm striving to understand what difference or distinction you are talking about.

I keep saying, "I did not give unsolicited advice."

Then you keep saying,  "Yeah, but I believe that people shouldn't give unsolicited advice."

How is this different?

Dave,

You really should stop giving unsolicited advice. ;) ;D

S

Dear Moonflower2:

We have more in common than I imagined.  I too was brought up in a dysfunctional/abusive home.  My mother threatened to use the door regularly.  My father threatened to throw her through it.  Alas, we hung (literally) on to their legs and tried to keep them apart while they beat one another.

When I saw I could no longer shield my children from the abuse (mostly verbal/emotional) in my own house, I asked my husband to leave.  The worst scars I got growing up, weren't from beatings.  I think the studies are interesting.  Whether I remain seperated for the rest of my life or get a divorce, my children will not suffer more abuse from living with their father.  There is a civil exchange between us during pick up and delivery of the children.  My daughter was sad, as she put it, that she'd no longer have a dad.  But she has not forgotten what it was like to constantly walk on egg shells, to have no ability to defend herself or reason against his constant anger.  I have to live with my conscience, I guess, just like you do.

drj

Original quote:


Most Recent quote:


Thank you for clarifying this.  Your original quote gave the impression that there was no abuse.  I'm sorry for what you had to endure.  Obviously, I have no way of validating your claim, but most Christians I know would agree that if genuine abuse is happening then separation is in order.

Dave and Kimberley,

I have not been involved in this discussion between the 2 of you, but have read your posts when you posted them. As Dave has said, it looks like both of you are indeed saying the same thing.  Delila asked a question, Dave gave his opinion.  This is not unsolicited IMO.  Of course, any of us has the right to bring in something new into the discussion, because we are seeking answers ourselves, or giving information. But that would not be unsolicited either because of the nature of this BB.

Anyway, I agree with you Kimberley that we need to be sensitive with the kind of advice we give and when we give it.  There have been situations when I have made comments (advice) to ones I considered to be friends without them having asked me first.  But it was based on my previous history of friendship and listening to them in the past, that gave me that liberty to do so.

Re. divorce - many marriages remind me of Ro 2:28-29 where the only real indication of marriage is that they have a marriage license, wear a wedding band, and live under the same roof, but otherwise they are divorced from each other.
(Rom 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.)

Happy posting,
and Lord bless,
Marcia

_________________________________________
Delila,

It becomes like a recurring nightmare doesn't it? You want a family that is different from the one you had growing up, and in my case, it was worse.
I called the police on my husband the night that two of my boys were pounding their dad on the back to get him to stop hitting me. It made me realize that it was upsetting the kids enough so that they wanted to do something about it. That was enough!
My husband left when I wouldn't drop the charges. He didn't want counselling, but his agreement to it is what kept him from getting any permanent record.

Even tho my husband initiated leaving and a divorce, from time to time as my kids grew up, they went through an "angry with mom" stage. Are they better off? Yes!

How well I remember that "walking on eggshells" life. The kids had to do it, too. You just never knew. This had gone on for a number of years and it was a relief when it was finally over.

By the way, I didn't call the police in the presence of the children . I don't recommend doing that or having their father arrested in their presence.

Moonflower2

OK.  Let me try and clarify.  Read your above statement......."we should not approach people WE DON'T KNOW" (emphasis mine.)  Using logic, this would mean that you WOULD approach people who you DO KNOW.  If this is not your meaning, I apologize, but you made the distinction, not me.  What I am trying to state, is that I don't believe you ever give UNSOLICITED advice.  I'm not talking about your "advice" to Delila.  I'm talking about your generalization about the subject and your statement above.  Hope this clarifies.  Certainly willing to clarify further if necessary.

Are you saying that we should never post unless we know the person?

Or are you saying that we should never post unless the person expressly asks us our opinion first(unsolicited means giving advice without first being asked)?

Are you saying I should not have generalize about committments without first being asked?  Or are you saying that I should not have generalize about unsolicited posts (what you call "my statment about") without being asked?

Dave:

First, I am not addressing with my previous post, the BB.  We were talking (I thought) about giving advice to people we knew and didn't know (outside of the BB.)  I tried to clarify that with my statement re: this didn't apply to your "advice" to Delila (of which, I will comment in a moment.)  Let me repeat, what I AM ADDRESSING, is in our daily contact with people (not on the BB.)  Just because you KNOW someone (not on the BB), does not give you the right to give UNSOLICITED advice.  I was assuming that your comments were directed in that regard, not our interaction within the BB community.

Just by the nature of the BB being a public domain and there is dialogue back and forth and asking of questions or putting forth statements that anyone can respond to, it places the BB context into a different category.

Having said that, I do believe there needs to be a modicum of discretion and care when responding to someone on the BB with sensative topics (i.e. divorce.)  

For example, your post below:


I believe you apologized later for not waiting to respond, however, this kind of response to someone who is in great emotional pain and turmoil already, is lacking in compassion and understanding (something Christ was remarkably adept at.)  "Go do what you want and live with the consequences."  How compassionate, how assembly.   :(  Yes, I know you repudiate all that smacks of the assembly, but perhaps with having been out for 14 years, having resolved many of the issues for yourself, you have forgotten what it feels like to have someone treat you in such a cavalier fashion, placing a "guilt trip" on them - "live with the consequences."  Yes, what you say is true.  They will have to live with the consequences.  But please, this is not the way Christ treats us when we are grappling with such a heavy duty subject.

Does this clarify?

Can someone just post the rules on when, how, what, where, and to whom you can post/reply too?  

Are you serious or are you just being funny?

Had not seen your post as both of ours post were within minutes of each other, but no I was not being funny.

But now that I have read it, how is your last post any diffenent than what you accuse Dave of doing.  He had already apolgized as you pointed out, yet you continue to throw his statements back in his face.  My question is would Christ do that?

Dave, forgive me if you or others in your situation do not want to be defended, but I have seen too many bulletin boards lose good posters becasue a person(s) does not like thier way of responding.  We are body of Christ and some memebers are more forward than others, no need to cut them out like they are a cancer.

Cheers,
G

KimberLEY,

Was Christ "given permission" or "invited" before He spoke about personal issues with people?  Sometimes, yes.  Other times, His interjections and judgements were not asked for.  Why?  'Cause He cared!  

There are times, when its OK to give, as you put it, uninvited advice and input.  Yes, there needs to be discernment and wisdom.  But, if you care for that person, you will, at some point, choose to get involved, even if, at that particular moment, your intervention appears to be "uninvited".

You are making blanket statements - sort of a rebound from the negative stuff we all encountered in the assembly - when in reality, each situation is unique and involves complex (and at the same time) needy people.

This reminds me of the ancient Chinese proverb: ;)

If one sticks one's neck out, it is bound to get chopped off at some point or another.

Marcia

Hmm Peking George!  Is that with duck sauce done is a light sesame oil, or is it in Hosin with peanut oil?  ;)

BTW; could I get a sharp blade for the cutting (i.e., a nice Highlander sword), and not one of those dull French guillotine blades where they had to drop they thing 5 plus times.  

Cheers,
The Headless poster!

(http://www.gnjallen.com/splat.gif)

OK Nancy,

Yes, Christ spoke to personal issues with people.  But that's just it, he's Christ.  I'm not.  He died for my sins.  Can you die for my sins?  Please bear with me.  I'm not trying to argue for arguement sake.  I'm not trying to say, "Hands off!  Noone can discuss the hard issues."  You mentioned the crucial issue - He cared!  When we are in relationship with people and we care about them, yes we dialogue with them.  But for these kind of issues, there must be, as you pointed out, real discernment.  I'm not saying you don't discuss the issues.  I'm just saying there isn't a blanket rule that if someone is in "sin" with an issue you think you have the answer to, God is not necessarily directing you to open your mouth and speak.

Maybe the bb isn't the place for this kind of discussion.  I hate that we can't have real time discussion and interact with facial expression, tone of voice, etc., but oh well, it is what it is...

I'd respond further (will discuss Peaceful G later) gotta go take my kids to school.

G,
     The category here is General Mayhem.  Does that help?

 ;)al

     I think that perhaps what is making this discussion difficult for some to follow is that your whole line of thought in this vein, Kimberley, began with your commentary regarding specific BB posts, but has now gone to emphasizing non-BB relationships.  I, for one, missed the switchover...


     Points well taken.  I wonder Kimberley, in reacting to Dave's "compassionate" & "assembly" replies to Delila, whether you considered that he, too, might be in pain for reasons unknown to us?  Each of us has an achilles heel of some sort-- a vulnerable area in which we can be easily wounded.
     Some matters, which by nature affect the whole BB community, need a public airing.  Others, involving specific personalities, may be more wisely addressed in EMs or PMs.  In either case, pushing the wrong button(s) can elicit gut-wrenching, kneejerk reactions.
     Too, sometimes an individual may be overly sensitive about matters that are of little consequence to the kingdom of heaven, such as the spelling of a name or the use of a nickname.  These non-issues must never be allowed to influence our feelings toward one another.  (In fact, a wise man ??? would probably never use such an example ::), even as a nebulous illustration :-[.)


     What a refreshingly un-assembly setting of priorities :D!!!

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

     I hope to be perfectly clear that I am not choosing sides in this discussion as I see it as having only two legitimate sides, the Lord's side and any other consideration.  The latter is to me not an option...

God bless,
al

Al:

Here is where the switchover occurred:


I was responding to Dave stipulating that there are some things we can tell people God wants.  So it switched from simply a discussion on the BB (and so of course it invites response) to a declaration by Dave that there are things that we can tell "people" that God wants.  If that wasn't Dave intention, than I apologize.

In regards to publicly responding to Dave's posts in this matter, I felt that it needed to be addressed.  I don't believe the issue I have been addressing here is solely a problem with those who came out of the assembly (that of telling people uninvited what God's will is for their lives, based on the scripture.)  Many evangelical Christians do the same thing and alienate the very people they are trying to win for Christ or their brother/sister in Christ.  While I believe it was disproportional in the assembly, still, I believe it is one of the biggest problems in the Christian community today.  I felt that it needed to be stated publicly verses simply pm'g Dave.

And please, I hope, Dave, you aren't offended by my comments. You are a great guy, I'm sure.  I'm sure if we spent an evening with our families together, we would have a great time of fellowship (hate that word now, but don't know what else to use.)  :D  This happens to be a topic I am passionate about and thus my passionate involvement here on this topic.

Anymore comments/questions/disagreements??????

To whom it is of concern:   

   To have confidence before God, in my own conscience, is something I really
hold as something of value.  In my assembly life, that was difficult.  Often I did things
because I was instructed by God’s people and submission to that instruction, ruled out
my own conscience.  On the issue of divorce, I assumed a certain fundamentalist
Christian response from all of you.  As I’ve already posted, assumption is kin to
accusation and has done no one any good.  I apologize for springing my assumptions
on all of you, for the defensive and negative effect that’s been a result of this
‘assumption springing’.  Not well thought out, on my part now, was it?  I know it was
particularly hard on Al H. to see the words pushed back and forth, the offensiveness
that was sparked.  That, believe it or not, was not my intention.  What was my
intension?  I had an itch that needed scratching? A burr that needed removing?  A
question that needed exploring?  I was searching for answers, and as usual, offending
as I searched.  My social skills are still evolving; I do not excuse or justify them.

   So, I read on in Genesis and this is what I found.  God found a man (Gen 15),
Abram.  God came to him in a vision (not via leading brothers or other believers).
God wanted to make a covenant.  That’s nice, eh?  God says to Abram, he’s going to
give him lots of offspring.  Abram, who’d already ‘screwed up’ in Egypt, as he sought
to protect himself from those who were after his beautiful wife.  Abram, telling that
little white lie.  And apparently, Abram had never lived ‘in fellowship’ for seven
years, because, unlike me, he wasn’t overwhelmed with guilt and shame over that
screw up.  It isn’t even written that God was especially angry with Abram.  God still
had an intention for Abram, regardless of this ‘mistake’.
   So Sarai gets tired of waiting for kids and pushes Hagar at Abraham, “Do with
her whatever you think” they made a baby.  Then Sarah, mother of God’s chosen, gets
all jealous and abuses Hagar.  Does God get all mad at Sarai and say: okay now,
deal’s off!  Nope.  And to poor Hagar, who didn’t have much of a say in any of this
(though she got pretty cocky when she turned out to be carrying Abraham’s kid) runs
away.  Does God even write her off?  No.  He comforts her in such a way that she
comes away saying: “You are the God who sees me... I have now seen the One who
sees me.”
   So now, what does all this have to do with my choice to get a divorce?  I have
to protect my children and myself, legally.  Legal divorce will do that for me.  It’s that
simple.  With the problems the man I married has, by virtue of being his wife, I could
be liable for the consequences of his behaviors, as I have been since I married him,
continually cleaning up his messes, which get bigger and bigger and consume the
resources with which I seek to feed and clothe my children.  Since under the law, I am
considered only part of a unit (he being the other part), his financial indiscretions are
my legal liabilities.  And without going into many more details, that’s it.  I do not
expect for any of you to understand or agree.  You haven’t a clue, just as I have no
clue of the choices you make daily and feel are justifiable.  That’s your business
before God, not mine.  That I’ve bothered any of you with all the information, is
regrettable.  But today I’m finishing it.  Today I’m saying, God sees me and that I
can’t really screw things up if I am acting in good conscience before God.  I have seen
the One who sees me.  I do not see a trap, laid for me.  I do not see a serpent waiting
to deceive me or that I’ve deceived myself.  I just see God.
   Please be good to one another in spite of the trouble I’ve made on this
thread.   Moonflower2: I wish we knew each other.  I have much more to say to you.
drj

Delila---

You have caused no trouble on this thread. What happened was actually healthy. Christians can disagree about things, misunderstand each other concerning things and apologize if they need to, and basically be human beings.

We sometimes fall into the Assembly mindset that we must all "be of one mind"--though "being of one mind" basically meant to submit to what a few taught, who in turn were submitting to what one man taught. The subject of divorce is left open to debate, because despite what some may say, the Bible does not have a clear, one-way teaching on divorce. That is why a place like the Assembly taught that even a man who was divorced BEFORE he was saved could not lead in the church--and yet another church, following Bible doctrine just as closely, will teach remarriage is acceptable. In the Assembly mindset no discussion was open on anything that was "taught"--to do so was to be in rebellion, and to be "un-entreatable."

Thanks for sharing what you have Delila and I hope you continue to do so.

--Joe

I second that, Delila. You aren't causing trouble here.
We're ALL learning.
I have to admit that I have a somewhat rigid way of looking at divorce, but sometimes that is exactly what gets a spouse to realize they have a problem and want to change it. What they tell the spouses of alcoholics, is to first change their own behavior, i.e., stop picking up "his" messes, covering up for him, doing for him what he should be doing for himself, etc. That is what helps the dysfunctional one to see himself and his problems, and it has worked.
And you are right, we don't have a clue because we really don't know the situations in the lives of others. Sometimes telling someone of an inside scene is exactly what is needed for that person to know that they were passing unfair judgement.

Moonflower2

Kimberley,

     Thank you for your thorough explanation-- it all makes sense to me now, as I hope it does to others.  I couldn't be more in agreement with you on the following, which is why I'm quoting it:


     Waving the Bible in people's faces is akin to the noises a shaman makes to drive off evil spirits-- it is a courage-booster that the fearful use to convince themselves they are unassailable.  Basic human nature is more comfortable talking down to someone than on an even level.  I regret to admit that I say this from personal experience.  The true servant of God may have occasion to be bold, but will not be brash.

     But the love of Christ in us is a new standard of human nature, not base at all but divine.  And the Word of God is swift and powerful, having no need of our loudness or our pointing finger to reinforce it.  We are at liberty to share from a wellspring of loving concern for the other person, having full confidence that God's Word will not return to Him void.  Besides that we have the wonderful gift of prayer, being able to intercede on behalf of the one we care for.

     If we are partakers of the peace that He gives us, we find no need to dictate terms of conduct to another.  We do not care that others follow 'proper' form for appearance's sake.  Rather, if we see a spiritual need in our brother or sister, we seek a spiritual solution-- the working of God, not of man-- a remedy of the heart that will bear fruit in life-practice; not a change of practice that pretends to affect the heart.


Dave,

     After the repeated "proof-texting" many received in the assembly, I think we need to be de-versified! ;D


     BTW, Kimberley, Cathy & I plan to spend an evening or two with the Sables later this spring, so I'll let you know if he's still "a great guy" or not! ;)

God bless,
al

Al:

Yeah  ;D  You got it!  Yes!  This is what I was trying to communicate.  Boy!  And I thought I was a good communicator.  Well, my husband would say, "You sure know how to talk alot, you want to tell them where you were born, how bout where you went to school?"   ;D  (My husband is a funny guy!)

Your eloquence conveyed far better than I have been doing what I was trying to say.  Thank you.

Hey Dave!  Where are you, did you fall off the face of the earth?  I would really like to hear your comments.

Delila - I love you for exposing yourself here for this topic to be discussed.  I think it was ultimately beneficial and I hope that is how you can come to view it.

Have a great day everybody!