What is the update on "the Ministry"  Are there assemblies besides So Cal that are receiving George?  Are there Assemblies in other places receiving Tim? If so it looks like these guys have made out pretty good for themselves despite the past events.

Hi David

I'm a little out of the loop now, but to the best of my knowledge, here is where the groups stand:

The Hardcore bunch, who still receive GG are  San Francisco, Sacramento, Pasadena, Riverside.

The groups that continue to meet, who have renounced GG:

Santa Barbara, West LA, Placentia, Fullerton (Tim G spells trouble here), Seattle, Hastings.

I'm not sure what is happening in Omaha, Annandale or Chicago, but I know that these groups do not fall under what I have labeled the hardcore GG supporters.

I have a huge problem with the "hardcores," but I really don't have a problem with the others, per se.  On the one hand, I don't think they are really being wise in continuing to meet, in light of their history.  On the other, who am I to say that Christians can't get together?

In most cases that I am aware of, they purged the leaven from their midst as best they could.  Do I disagree with them?  Yes I do, however I do think that these groups are in a far better position to hear from God now, after having rid themselves of GG, than they were 2 years ago, when they were serving him.  God broke through my thick skull when I was in the group, surely He can get to them in an Assembly-lite group.

Now, if (notice I said if) some of these groups are clinging to the old teaching and practices, and I have an opportunity to enlighten them, I will certainly do so.  That's what this forum is all about.  However, I will not presume to visit them for the purpose of correction, etc.  Even if they invited me, I would only share about Jesus and His love.  

On the other hand, if they come out of the group, for the purpose of seeking, I would have no qualms about sharing my views about the Assembly system, and the whole idea of a "New Testament Gathering."

For all intents and purposes, the Assembly is gone, except for the hardcore groups mentioned above.  If it does live on, it only does so in our hearts and minds.

Rom 12:12:1  I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the compassions of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, [which is] your intelligent service.  2  And be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of [your] mind, that ye may prove what [is] the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.  3  For I say, through the grace which has been given to me, to every one that is among you, not to have high thoughts above what he should think; but to think so as to be wise, as God has dealt to each a measure of faith.  4  For, as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office;  5  thus we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and each one members one of the other.  6  But having different gifts, according to the grace which has been given to us, whether [it be] prophecy, [let us prophesy] according to the proportion of faith;  7  or service, [let us occupy ourselves] in service; or he that teaches, in teaching;  8  or he that exhorts, in exhortation; he that gives, in simplicity; he that leads, with diligence; he that shews mercy, with cheerfulness.  9  Let love be unfeigned; abhorring evil; cleaving to good:  10  as to brotherly love, kindly affectioned towards one another: as to honour, each taking the lead in paying it to the other:  11  as to diligent zealousness, not slothful; in spirit fervent; serving the Lord.  12  As regards hope, rejoicing: as regards tribulation, enduring: as regards prayer, persevering:  13  distributing to the necessities of the saints; given to hospitality.

This is my response to Brent's post below.
Thank-you Brent; that clarifies for me where you stand with regards to the 'assembly issue'.
It is sad that some gatherings continue to receive GG.

Lord bless,
M

Yes, I agree. However, at this point I'm not 100% certain of my leanings with regards to what you have stated you disagree with.
I will re-state that it is sad that some groups continue to receive GG in their midst.

M

 

Brent, are you preparing an article in response to this?
i, too, am interested in your perspective on N.T. gathering.

al Hartman

The ideal would be an 'assembly-like' gathering without the 'assembly system' attitudes.

There is something to be said 'for' open worship/prayer, open ministry, the hospitality of the saints.

Do you agree??

M

     I must say that I didn't see the way we met for worship as being something to boast of.  That didn't make sense to me.  How can we boast of how we worship God?  There is a contradiction.  We were there as a people gathered together to give glory to God.  To be there to say, "look at me," or "look at my prayer" would obviously be contradicting the actual prayer of praise itself.  
     To be honest, I thought that that was not what was happening.  I thought it was all genuine.  Was that being naive?  But could it be that it was genunine for many?  I think so.  
     Isn't it a matter of what each individual had in his or her heart?  Could it be that some people in the assembly really were thankful to God when they said, for example, "Thank you, Jesus, for saving a wretch like me"?  
     Well, that's what it seemed like to me.  Maybe I was being proud and didn't know it  But I know that what was in my heart was thankfulness to God.  I am a sinner and he saved me.  Thank you Lord!  Isn't it right to proclaim that good news from the rooftops--how much more among my dear brethren?!  "Encourage one another with these things!"
     I was glad for how things were set up because it allowed me to concentrate and focus on the Lord and the praises that were being said of him.  It did not enter my mind that we were superior for how we did it.
     On the other hand, I do admit that I did come to be more fond of the way we did it over other ways.  To this day I can't think straight to worship with a loud band playing.  But I was that way before joining the assembly.  Is that pride?  Maybe it is, I dunno.   I don't think so, though.  Maybe it's just preference.  
     Perhaps if I was in the assembly longer, the hypocritical leaven of the ministry would have infected me.  I know that it began to do so for the year that I was down in Fullerton.  That was a trying time.  I didn't enjoy worship anymore after going through that.  The meetings then became to me what many have described them to be.  Interesting, isn't it?  I guess it's a matter of perspective.
     I'll tell you one thing, though.  I wouldn't mind getting together with you all and giving thanks to God for how he has carried us through this tumoltuous experience of being in the assembly.
If that's being proud, then call me hubris.
 
Arthur

Mgov, I would like to take a little liberty with your question above, and assume that what you mean by "assembly-like, without assembly-system attitudes," means that you appreciate the freedom of being able to vocally pray, and have truly open ministry, while losing all of the politics, corruption, elitism, etc.  This assumption is based on what many people have expressed over the years, but if it is not what you meant, please clarify.

Many people see Assembly liturgy as unique, because we were "free" to worship.  I contend that this isn't necessarily the case.  Catholic Mass is rigid, and well regulated.  The priest says what he is going to say, and the people say their part.  The priest must perform, the people must spectate.  The parishoners are free from having to speak, teach of comment.  The priest is free from any checks or balances.  

In the Assembly system, we were not free with regard to when the meeting started or stopped.  We were also under constraint to participate.  This was true more for men, than women, but both were expected to have a contribution proportional to the years spent in the group.  Many a brother got up and "gave a word," out of contraint, and not freedom.  Many others abused their freedom by getting up and wasting time, without God's leading.  There were also plenty of times when encouraging ministry was shared, and God did minister to his lambs.  Nevertheless, this freedom was more along the lines of regulated spontenaity.  We all knew the unwritten rules about who could speak when.

However, if we assume that the freedom to worship was the strength of the Assembly-system, I think we need to re-examine that.  For example, we were not free to have music.  We were not free to hear outside speakers.  The leading brothers defined who was free to speak, and on what topic.  They were free to censor, we were constrained to submit, etc.  In spite of all the freedom that we imagined, the meetings all started and stopped with the precision of a German railway.

The idea of Assembly church government, minus Assembly-attitude is merely to say that the Assembly was presbyterian.  Plenty of other groups are governed by elders.  This has both good and bad aspects, as does congregational and episcopal church government.  In fact, while George claimed that the gathering was run by the elders, no one who spent any amount of time in an Assembly can be fooled into thinking that George wasn't head over all.  In spite of the claims to be prebyterian, the Assembly was actually quite episcopal.

The idea of congregational led worship is both good and bad.  How many times did you cringe when some zealous brother would insist we belt out a hymn, when quiet reflection would have been more in order?  Also, did you ever observe that when people were exercising their freedom to worship, a leader would step in and re-direct everyone, even exhort them to pray, etc?  That is hardly free.

A truly free church pattern would include music, acapella, muliplicity of ministry, and stated ministry, worship team, and congregational led singing, starting and stopping at different times, etc.  Even with all this, it is no guarantee that it would be better than another system.  In fact, it could very well be confusing.

I have come to the conclusion that the whole pursuit of church pattern, is at best unnecessary.  All too often it results in a huge, multi-media entertainment based production, or a sick, cultic group like the Assembly.  The church meeting should be designed in such a way that people are able to worship, pray, study and fellowship in a meaningful way.  This is largely dependent on culture, and is certainly not to be found in the New Testament, in the form of a blueprint.

The groups that seem to having the most beneficial impact today are not at all like the Assembly in form, neither are they all like one another.  Obviously, God is less concerned about the NT pattern than we are!

Brent