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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Matt

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

M

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for setting me straight on that point above.

Brent

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


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


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


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


Providing another perspective is hardly rewriting history, Brent.


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Love, Laurie.