The Lucifer Factor

[Oscar]

Folks,

The other day I was in the Buena Park library.  As I looked over the shelf of new books, I spotted the name Phillip Zimbardo.  My interest was piqued immediately. 

As I have done more reading on cults and mind control in the past few years the name Phillip Zimbardo has come up many times.  He has been the president of the American Psychological Association, a researcher in his field, a college professor, (Stanford), and an author of several books.

In 1971 he conducted an experiment at Stanford.  A group of typical college students was selected, then divided into two sub-groups.  One group was designated "guards", and the other was designated, "prisoners".  The subjects were then placed in a facility where their conduct was monitored constantly by cameras.

The guards quickly bacame abusive, and then the prisoners became rebellious, and then depressed.  The experiment was supposed to run for two weeks.  After one week the monitors became so alarmed that they called it off! What had happened was that their was a prison rebellion with barricaded doors and attempts to break them down.  When interviewed the "guards" testified that they had rapidly come to hate the prisoners, and vice versa.

In this book Zimbardo uses what was learned in this experiment to shed light on many incidents in history including the Abu Graib, (sp?) prison abuse scandal.  He concludes that in just about any group of people there are factors present in human personalities that can be activated by placing the person in the right conditions.

I think that this goes a long way to explain the way the assembly leadership developed and behaved, as well as the response of those subject to their influence.  Increasing abusiveness producing rebellion, (I'm outa here), and depression, (I wish I were outa here but I can't bring myself to make the break), followed by depression caused illness.

By showing that these possibilities are present in all of us, it seems to me that Zimbardo has unintentionally shed light on the question of how Christians can do such things.  We do not shed human nature the day we are born again. So,the right conditions can trigger these tendencies unless we "have our senses excercised to discern good and evil" and the spiritual strength to excerise enough courage to stand against the crowd.

Below, I have copied an editorial review:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Book Description
What makes good people do bad things? How can moral people be seduced to act immorally? Where is the line separating good from evil, and who is in danger of crossing it?

Renowned social psychologist Philip Zimbardo has the answers, and in The Lucifer Effect he explains how–and the myriad reasons why–we are all susceptible to the lure of “the dark side.” Drawing on examples from history as well as his own trailblazing research, Zimbardo details how situational forces and group dynamics can work in concert to make monsters out of decent men and women.

Zimbardo is perhaps best known as the creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Here, for the first time and in detail, he tells the full story of this landmark study, in which a group of college-student volunteers was randomly divided into “guards” and “inmates” and then placed in a mock prison environment. Within a week the study was abandoned, as ordinary college students were transformed into either brutal, sadistic guards or emotionally broken prisoners.

By illuminating the psychological causes behind such disturbing metamorphoses, Zimbardo enables us to better understand a variety of harrowing phenomena, from corporate malfeasance to organized genocide to how once upstanding American soldiers came to abuse and torture Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib. He replaces the long-held notion of the “bad apple” with that of the “bad barrel”–the idea that the social setting and the system contaminate the individual, rather than the other way around.

This is a book that dares to hold a mirror up to mankind, showing us that we might not be who we think we are. While forcing us to reexamine what we are capable of doing when caught up in the crucible of behavioral dynamics, though, Zimbardo also offers hope. We are capable of resisting evil, he argues, and can even teach ourselves to act heroically. Like Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem and Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate, The Lucifer Effect is a shocking, engrossing study that will change the way we view human behavior.

About the Author
Philip Zimbardo is professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford University and has also taught at Yale University, New York University, and Columbia University. He is the co-author of Psychology and Life and author of Shyness, which together have sold more than 2.5 million copies. Zimbardo has been president of the American Psychological Association and is now director of the Stanford Center on Interdisciplinary Policy, Education, and Research on Terrorism. He also narrated the award-winning PBS series Discovering Psychology, which he helped create. In 2004, he acted as an expert witness in the court-martial hearings of one of the American army reservists accused of criminal behavior in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. His informative website, www.prisonexperiment.org is visited by millions every year. Visit the author’s personal website at www.zimbardo.com.
----------------------------------------------------------

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[brian]

i agree, tom, a very interesting study. i posted some thoughts about this same prisoner study a while ago here: http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=1151.0

zimbardo is one of the psychology's most recognized and respected leaders. he did a bunch of video seminars that are used extensively in college classrooms. one of the interesting aspects of the prisoner experiment was how zimbardo himself got caught up in it. even though some of the young men were clearly suffering real psychological damage, he was so blinded by his position of power and excited by what he was observing that he didn't see how unethical it was until his wife harshly took him to task. thats one of the catch-22s of the field - its almost impossible to get interesting results without risk of damaging the subjects.

[Oscar]

Zimbardo has made slide show about the experiment.  It is posted on his website at:

http://www.prisonexp.org/

Reading it is unpleasant, but informative.

Tom Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

The amazing part to me was when they broke that fat kids glasses first, and then
dropped a boulder on him. "Piggy" didn't deserve that. Oh wait, that's "Lord of the Flies", not the Zimbardo experiment.

Just kidding.  But seriously, I remember reading "Lord of the Flies" (as many were required
to do in school) and thinking "Oh come on! People wouldn't turn into savages that quickly!"

Though fictional, and with the result that the kids turned into literal "savages", it makes one wonder. If College students can turn into brutal guards after 6 days, and a professor can be taken in by it also, what really is in the human heart? The Bible says it is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked".  That is a very enlightening article.

[Mark C.]

Yes, very interesting indeed!

  "What does this Lucifer factor have to do with the Assembly?", some will surely ask.  The Assembly had no prison walls, guards, or any other physical restraints---- and, "people were free to come and go as they chose."

   "And besides all that, the Assembly was made up of good bible believing servants of God who were maybe just a little bit misguided," some still say to this very day!  "We weren't un-regenerated college kids, or even just regular religious people, and as such were not subject to the same kind of psychological reactions as the unspiritual folks in this study!"

   What do you think?

                                                                                God bless,  Mark C.

[Oscar]

Yes, very interesting indeed!

  "What does this Lucifer factor have to do with the Assembly?", some will surely ask.  The Assembly had no prison walls, guards, or any other physical restraints---- and, "people were free to come and go as they chose."

   "And besides all that, the Assembly was made up of good bible believing servants of God who were maybe just a little bit misguided," some still say to this very day!  "We weren't un-regenerated college kids, or even just regular religious people, and as such were not subject to the same kind of psychological reactions as the unspiritual folks in this study!"

   What do you think?

                                                                                God bless,  Mark C.

Mark,

Zimbardo's point, in his new book, is that this sort of thing has been happening all through history.  The prison experiment and Abu Ghraib are extreme cases, but the tendency is there in all of us.  Parents of the "prisoners" in the experiment came in on visiting day and behaved as if their kids were in a real prison.  When the bogus officials told them their kids were ok, they just believed it and went along...after all, a designated authority figure had told them so.  Only a few subjects or parents ever really kicked up a fuss.

Anyone who has been subjected to the brutal humiliation tactics that the assembly leadership practiced..."gang bang" confrontations, preaching against people without naming them when everyone knew who was being targeted, and more, will understand just how much pressure a person was under.

In addition, one knew that everyone would go along with the leadership's position, and even publicly back them up if asked.  You were in a hopeless bind and there was no one to appeal to.  It was submit or leave.  No other alternatives were available.  You were not physically restrained, but if you had been indoctrinated sufficiently into GG's "church truth" and "Heavenly Vision" you believed there was no where else to go.  So the bonds were mental, but effective nonetheless.

One example, a brother who GG decided should be suppressed was attacked and criticized publicly and privately for a couple of years.  Soon he began showing the signs of stress induced illnesses.  Depression, general weakness and lack of energy, rashes, sleep problems, on and on.  He went out of the assembly the same way I did later on.  He dragged his depressed, broken-hearted, discouraged, sick butt out the back door by withdrawing from contact with 'the saints" until he finally just quit showing up.

The attacks on his character had worked so well that he spent many years feeling that it was his fault!      I had had sweet fellowship with this brother before I ever heard of George Geftakys.  When he heard GG had been exposed it finally dawned on him that it was not his fault, and he is making a good recovery.

The prison was mental....but very real.

Thomas Maddux

[Mark C.]

Tom,

  I was also wondering about what happened to those that participated in this experiment---it is obvious both groups suffered some damage--- so, did these participants need some therapy in order to recover from the experience?

  I have been out of the Assembly for many years and there are still certain situations where I experience a weird kind of post traumatic reaction.  An example of this happened just the other day when at work I was challenging "the leadership" at work re. a minor alleged rule infraction re. hours logged for the purposes of truck driving (don't ask for the details as it would take several posts to explain). 

   I had to go into a small closed room and sit at a conference table filled with management types all in suits and ties.  I was the odd man out in my shorts, dirty work shirt, 4 o'clock shadow, etc.  Out of no where, my heart started to race and my breathing quickened---- I was feeling extreme anxiety and almost unable to speak!

  Nothing bad happened, and I don't know if anyone noticed, but I think that this experience might hearken back to my Assembly days where I lived for 20 years as  "prisoner" # 123.  It was weird because I almost lost control of my composure and felt an intense desire to escape!

  I believe both the guards and the prisoners (and the Assembly version of these too) were hurt in some way and that those only "escaping" the circumstances would still require some kind of help.  Think of the basic kind of damage that occurs when the conscience is hardened in the guard and on the prisoners part think of the total feeling of powerlessness in the face of abuse!

   As to a Christian in such circumstances as we were in the Assembly:  Is there a way to apply recovery psychologicaly (as the soul was what was broken or turned into a instrument of breaking) and still allow for a person to hold on to their faith?  Better yet, can the two work together to be means of solace and healing?

   Has anyone else had an experience like mine after leaving the group?

                                                                         God Bless,  Mark C.

[outdeep]

For a long time, I tensed up whenever a pastor invited me out to lunch.  I always thought I was going to be corrected about something.  After years of this not happening, I started feeling more relaxed.

To this day, my mind still goes completely blank and I lose all strength when confronted by someone who feels more powerful than me.  This is why I consciously decided to never go into management because of this limitation.  For me, I trace it back to my over-brearing and over-controling mother which prepared me to see Assembly dysfunctions as "normal".

[Chuck Miller]

Tom 

I read in amazement, these posts concerning the experiment conducted by Phillip Zimbardo,  president of the American Psychological Association.  I was not unduly surprised by the results of the experiment.  I was, however, somewhat taken back by your failure to recognize the protection that a follower of Christ has against succumbing to such Satanic activity.  As Brian stated, “it’s almost impossible to get interesting results without the risk of damaging the subjects.”  That is certainly true for unbelievers, for they are without the protection of the Holy Spirit and become prey to the wiles of Satan who  “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:.  However,  we are told, “We are of God, little children, and have overcome them [the spirit of the antichrist]; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). 

I would wager that the “typical college students” that professor Zimbardo employed in his experiment were non-Christians or, at best,  nominal Christians.  For, a Christian with any measure of maturity would have recognized the foolhardiness  of participating in any such psychological experiment, except for the purpose of demonstrating the power of Christ over the power of the antichrist.  I find it hard to believe that any mature Christian would be so easily reduced to functioning in the same manner as would a non- believer in the situation.
To attribute the results of this experiment as going “a long way to explain the way the assembly leadership developed and behaved,” seems to indicate that there was a very low level of maturity in those who were in leadership and those who acquiesced to their leading.  For anyone who had even a cursory knowledge of the Scriptures and of their Savior would have eventually recognized that George Geftakys was not a follower of Christ
When we first came under George’s tutelage I was extremely immature in my knowledge of scripture, but as I began to hear his teachings, it began to become more and more apparent that there was something wrong, particularly with his teaching on church leadership.  Initially. it had been exciting to presume that he truly was “God’s man for this age,” but after being subjected to his teaching either directly or through his subordinates, I felt compelled to question his doctrine.  From that point on it was just a matter of time until I realized that I was alone in my convictions and that I wasn’t going to be able to bring about any change.  Oh, the coercion was difficult, but Christ was always there to say, “Stand.”  And eventually He said, “Leave.”   The Word and the Holy Spirit had been my protection. 
I have tried not to be unduly critical of those who remained in fellowship for a long period of time, but I cannot accept the contention that there was an underlying psychological reason for their doing so.  I have asked the question before, but it bears repeating – “Had not George’s immoral conduct been exposed, how many would still be in His Assemblies?” 
How could anyone who studied the scriptures fail to come across 1 Peter 5:2-4, Matthew 20:26-28, and its companion verse in Mark 10:42.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
"It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;  just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."                                  Matthew 20:26-28

“ shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;
 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.”
   2 Peter 5:2-3

But even if one was totally ignorant of these exhortations, wouldn’t the understanding of Jesus’ attributes have clearly indicated that the authority that George ascribed to leadership in the church was totally incompatible with the teachings of our Lord and Savior?
And by simply observing the double standard that was applied between the saints and the leadership, one could surmise that Jesus would never sanction such hypocritical conduct.  This alone should have been ample warning that the man was a fraud.

So I think we must acknowledge that the reasons that many had for remaining in this man’s Assemblies, were not rooted in any psychological responses, but rather, in a reluctance to step out in faith when doubts arose in their minds

I can’t believe that the leading of the Holy Spirit that prompted me to leave was exclusive, and I’m sure that many others were equally enlightened regarding the man’s un-Christ-like qualities.  It didn’t take a spiritual giant to recognize that he was ill-mannered, insensitive and egotistical, and the adulation he demanded from the saints belied his title of “The Lord’s Servant.”  Whatever factors there may have been for dissuading one from acquiescing to his “lording over” them, I believe we can be too quick to adopt a defensive posture to explain away a failure to even question what had to be obvious discrepancies between George’s teaching and the teachings of Christ. 

"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
 "A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." (John 10:4-5)

[Mark C.]

 

I would wager that the “typical college students” that professor Zimbardo employed in his experiment were non-Christians or, at best,  nominal Christians.  For, a Christian with any measure of maturity would have recognized the foolhardiness  of participating in any such psychological experiment, except for the purpose of demonstrating the power of Christ over the power of the antichrist.  I find it hard to believe that any mature Christian would be so easily reduced to functioning in the same manner as would a non- believer in the situation.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
"It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;  just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."                                  Matthew 20:26-28

“ shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;
 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.”
   2 Peter 5:2-3


So I think we must acknowledge that the reasons that many had for remaining in this man’s Assemblies, were not rooted in any psychological responses, but rather, in a reluctance to step out in faith when doubts arose in their minds

 Hi Chuck!
  (side note:  I have tried to email you in response to the article of yours re. "The Founding Fathers" that you asked me to respond to, but have received no response.  Do you have a new email address?)

  I think that your "amazement" re. this psychological experiment and rejection of any analogy re. former members of GG's group is understandable----how can any truly regenerated person fall into this kind of psychological manipulation? We have the Holy Spirit in us, and the promises from God that we are victors over the World, Flesh, and the Devil!

  There is a classic misunderstanding among many bible believing Christians called "triumphalism" that assumes our new birth somehow turns us into a super-person that is no longer subject to "psychological" influences.  Followers of GG would call this achieving the status of "Overcomer". 

   While having the Holy Spirit does give us a resource the unsaved do not have --Rom. 8--- in this life we still struggle in our minds re. our fallen humanity---"I do not understand what I do.  For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate to do------" RM 7:13--.   This demonstrates that within the Apostle Paul there was a psychological conflict and it is this human weakness that allows for the kind of failure that many of us experienced in the Assembly.

   Peter demonstrated this weakness (Gal. 2) after Pentecost when he succumbed to the pressure he felt from the big guns from Jerusalem that visited the church at Antioch.  Surely Peter had the Holy Spirit in him and should have been able to respond to the promptings of God vs. the psychological pressures of men---- but, he failed!

   You can call it failure of faith vs. failure of mind, but in Rom. 7 and here (as well as many other places in the NT) it is described as just ol' human weakness that all sinners own, including those saved by grace!  Maybe that is why Jesus mentions the verses you quoted above in warning that leaders in the church not "lord it over" the members as he recognized this harmful social dynamic and it's ability to manipulate our thinking and deceive us.

   I do not believe that the Holy Spirit takes control over our inner lives (psyche) via some hidden power and erradicates all of our human sinful dispositions-- "we know what is right, but we find ourselves failing to do what is right"--- is a fact that works into us probably the most important component of godliness and that is humility ("my grace is sufficient for you").

   As an Assembly member I was very proud of the group, and myself, for I considered myself the opposite of "a nominal believer" whom had acheived a higher status than your normal run-of-the-mill church goer.  One very big lesson that is an advantage for all former members is learning that the above is Laodicean in nature and thoroughly repugnant to our Lord (it makes Jesus sick!).  We, as believers, are just as human as the next guy, and just as subject to psychological manipulation as anyone else, if we come to it with an attitude of "Triumphalism" that believes we are secure in our own higher victorious status that makes us immune to the perils of humanity.

  "Stepping out in faith" is a development of character (read the life of Abraham) and is not some kind of magic possession of our inner life via regeneration that somehow skips the learning process that comes from Rom. 7 real life failures.

                                                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

[Oscar]

Chuck,

I was, however, somewhat taken back by your failure to recognize the protection that a follower of Christ has against succumbing to such Satanic activity.

Actually, Satan's primary tool is deception.  He is the inventor and grand master of deceiving men and women.  George deceived you, me, and lots of other folks, and I do not consider myself or anyone else deception proof.

Cult researchers strongly warn parents and journalists who wish to infiltrate cults to rescue kids or expose them not to do so.  The reason is that even people who place themselves in the cult environment with full knowledge that it is destructive usually end up becoming part of it!   

The reason for this is that the mind-control techniques used by cults are both powerful and subtle.  MInd control techinques work, and many Christians have been captured by them.  I do not know if Satan is behind the techniques.  They are based on human nature, and work by activating people's deepest desires and most cherished values.  These things are used as levers to move people into accepting things that go against reason.  A Ronald Enroth said in one of his books, it is amazing just how good Christians are at excusing the sinful behavior that they see in their abusive leaders.

For, a Christian with any measure of maturity would have recognized the foolhardiness  of participating in any such psychological experiment, except for the purpose of demonstrating the power of Christ over the power of the antichrist.

Which, of course is why George and every other cult leader does his recruiting among young, intelligent, idealistic people. This is why they focus their outreach on college campuses.  I was 27 when I met GG, so I should have known better I suppose.  However, I already believed much of what GG taught from my having grown up in the Christian Church/Church of Christ movement, and then having been exposed to Plymouth Brethren teaching.  I believed I had found a man who was sold out for Christ, committed to His word and will, and that I could learn from him.

You must have been around 40 or so when you met him.  Fred Boyer was older than I was also.  Almost everyone else was younger.   How long did you stay?

When we first came under George’s tutelage I was extremely immature in my knowledge of scripture, but as I began to hear his teachings, it began to become more and more apparent that there was something wrong, particularly with his teaching on church leadership.  Initially. it had been exciting to presume that he truly was “God’s man for this age,” but after being subjected to his teaching either directly or through his subordinates, I felt compelled to question his doctrine. 

After a couple of years I began to question his doctine as well.  By that time, however, the influence of Deeper Life teaching on my thinking plus the subtle destruction of my trust in my own ability to discern the truth had made me susceptable to his influence. 

I discussed my problems with his teachings with GG many times.  His answer was always the same: You are depressed and upset Brother Tom, you are not rejoicing. (that was true)  "You have given way to the Devil and have opened your mind to his wiles.  He always opposes the truth, and your are using your carnal mind to try to figure things out instead of allowing yourself to be broken by going the way of the cross so that the wonderful light of Christ can renew your mind."  (Straight out of Watchman Nee's, "The Spiritual Man".)

That worked for years.  I was not alone in my bondage to GG, and in that environment I, and we, were wide open to psychological manipulation.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

Chuck---

You said:

I can’t believe that the leading of the Holy Spirit that prompted me to leave was exclusive, and I’m sure that many others were equally enlightened regarding the man’s un-Christ-like qualities.  It didn’t take a spiritual giant to recognize that he was ill-mannered, insensitive and egotistical, and the adulation he demanded from the saints belied his title of “The Lord’s Servant.”  Whatever factors there may have been for dissuading one from acquiescing to his “lording over” them, I believe we can be too quick to adopt a defensive posture to explain away a failure to even question what had to be obvious discrepancies between George’s teaching and the teachings of Christ. 

"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
 "A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." (John 10:4-5)

I would just mention that the Book of Galatians is written to a whole church which knew the voice of Jesus Christ (they had been born-again), yet somehow had been "bewitched" by false teaching. Paul wasn't just writing to immature believers, but to everyone in the church---especially the leaders! They had gone off the right path and were attempting to be sanctified by keeping the law. This church was definitely following "the voice of strangers", though they were true sheep of Jesus Christ.

As Jesus said: "a little leaven leavens the whole lump". The Galatians had slowly been manipulated away from the true Gospel of Jesus--even though they knew his voice! How had that happened?

A boat leaves the dock for a destination. But somehow, someone sets the compass just one degree off course. At first, everything seems fine--the one degree error is not noticeable. But after a time, people begin to feel uneasy as they begin to become aware that something "just isn't right". After traveling some distance they realize they are really far off course---that one degree off at the beginning had been almost unnoticeable, but over time and distance it had led them far from their intended destination!! This is truly the Assembly experience for many--it took time to realize just how far off the teaching was---despite both outward and inward warnings.

As Tom noted, the Devil's greatest weapon is deception. His greatest work is not the full blown cult, but the groups that come so close to appearing real that they fool everyone at first. Of course, we know, that the best counterfeit bill is not the obvious one, but the one that looks so much like a real bill that you are fooled, if you are not exercised to know better. Unbelievers fall for obvious counterfeits, like the Jehovah's Witnesses--believers need a far better counterfeit---one that closesly resembles the true church and true church teachings. But take 90% correct teaching and add 10% leaven and pretty soon the whole lump is leavened. Some say about a false teacher "Oh, most of what he had to say was right on the money!"---yet it is the other 10% of what he taught that did all of the damage---just as the church of Galatia!!! "They shall secretly bring in damnable heresies..."(2 Pet. 2:1) They "sneak" their teachings in slowly, little by little, deceiving the unwary person.

Paul warned the church with tears in Acts 20 that teachers would arise amongst them that would lead many astray. If it were not possible for true sheep to be deceived he would not have bothered to warn them so severely. The Assembly went the way of the Galatian church--God became a Moses/Jesus hybrid whose combined voice of fear and comfort led many into a psychological quagmire---a Catch 22. Both sincerity of heart (the vast majority of people in the Assembly were deeply sincere, true sheep of Jesus), and deep fear kept them frozen.  Fear (from the booming voice of Moses) that they would lose out, and sincerity of heart (because they really loved Jesus Christ) because they sincerely did not want to displease Jesus, and did not want to leave "his best".  This combination lead many after leaving into deep despair--an angry Moses-like voice accusing them of failure and rebellion, and a grieved voice of Jesus asking why they had forsaken "the highest, and best way"? And such is the case with so many groups that are led astray by a false teacher--many lay broken in the aftermath.

Perhaps the Lord allowed this to happen to many so that they would never be fooled by an imitation voice ever again---they would be exercised to know what is REAL and what is FALSE. For when the Lord says that his sheep will not follow the voice of strangers, he is not saying they can never be deceived, but that they will eventually realize their state and return to the voice that loves them so. Again, I believe that is why Paul warns the church so vehemently---the sheep CAN be deceived by a hireling if they are not careful and watchful. "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."

As for a College experiment I would say that Christians are no different than anyone else--they are saved by Grace--but they are sinners with wicked hearts. If one were to get into that situation and follow the flesh I think a Christian could be just as capable of falling into it as anyone. If he had his heart set on the Lord it would be a far different result though--I believe it would be far harder to sway him to be an accomplice of evil.

[Chuck Miller]

[continued from above]

People followed George Geftakys because they wanted to follow him.  Men accepted leadership in George’s Assemblies either because they wanted to be leaders or because they, like myself, were too immature to recognize that they didn’t meet the qualifications set forth in the scriptures. George had his own standard for those he chose for leadership.   It had nothing to do with the requirements set forth by the apostle Paul or Titus and everything to do with selecting men that he could control.  In my own case, my being selected was only because of the fact that our little group had been established at my instance and we were meeting in our home. When George came and virtually took control, he recognized that it might not serve to his advantage to exclude me from leadership and that it might cause some disturbance if I were not to be selected.  To guard against that possibility, he moved Jim Hayman to Omaha to maintain that control.  If I sound redundant in my emphasis on “control” it’s because the nature of George’s leadership required absolute control. Those who rebelled against it were coerced into either succumbing or leaving.  I cite this merely to show that there was nothing patently psychological in George’s modus operandi.  He merely chose those he assumed would submit to his authoritative style and would help him to maintain it.  He dealt with those who rebelled against it as the occasion arose.

When it became impossible for me to reconcile with scripture, George’s conduct and his teaching, my first impulse was to try to point it out to others.  When I did, the floodgate was opened and the coercion began.  I don’t remember for one instant, being in doubt as to the course of action I was taking.  Needless to say, the most discouraging aspect of the whole scenario was the actions of my brothers who seemed blinded to the truth and unable to reason rationally.  Was it a “psychological barrier” that made them react in this way?  I don’t think so.  I believe it was a willful decision of each one individually for reasons known only to them and the Lord.  I know for certain that there were some who knew in their hearts that the man was a hypocrite, yet they chose to ignore the obvious and remain silent in my defense.  I’m not suggesting that there wasn’t some deep mental trauma going on in their minds and in their spirit, but it eventually came down to one of two things – following Christ or following George. It was that simple.  For I never attacked George’s character – something the Lord had me forego – but I attacked his teaching and his conduct.  I suppose you can inject some deep-seated psychological basis for their response, but when the whole thing imploded in 2002, none of those who sought our forgiveness pleaded innocence due to the influence of some inner psychological struggle.  They knew and admitted that they had sold out.  Men broken by God have no option but to confess and repent.  And though there was a question about the genuineness of some of the confessions, that is in the Lord’s hands and each will all have his day in His court. 

Mark, you say, “We, as believers, are just as human as the next guy, and just as subject to psychological manipulation as anyone else, if we come to it with an attitude of "Triumphalism" that believes we are secure in our own higher victorious status that makes us immune to the perils of humanity.  Let me put  my own definition on some of the terms you use.

psychological manipulation = temptation
Triumphalism = self confidence
Perils of humanity = sin

I prefer to say, - We, as believers, are just as human as the next guy, and just as subject to temptation as anyone else.  If we have the attitude that we have victory over sin just because we are believers, we are mistaken.  Jesus said, “Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).   We must recognize that we still have a sin nature to deal with, and must depend upon the power of Christ to overcome it.  As Paul said, ““Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”  and remember – “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).  Praise be to God!

Paul said, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).  But he also said, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”  (1 Corinthians 10:12)
We must understand that His grace is sufficient to take us through any temptation, yet we never reach a point in this life when we can say that we have conquered that temptation.   

You can put some psychological spin on it if you desire, but I believe it merely clouds our thinking. 

God bless      Chuck

[Chuck Miller]

Mark,

You wrote: , “I do not believe that the Holy Spirit takes control over our inner lives (psyche) via some hidden power and eradicates (sic) all of our human sinful dispositions.”   

 And

“There is a classic misunderstanding among many bible believing Christians called "triumphalism" that assumes our new birth somehow turns us into a super-person that is no longer subject to "psychological" influences.”

It sounds as if you are suggesting that I actually believe this.  But if you will re-read my post you will find that I neither said nor implied such ideas.
I would therefore ask that you refrain from introducing these ideas into our discussion. If you want to rebut this theory called “Triumphalism,” you can initiate another BB Topic, but please don’t interject it into our discussion as if it were something to which I subscribe.

What sets the follower of Christ apart from the unbeliever is grace.  When subjected to these “perils of humanity” (temptations) the follower of Christ can avail himself of the grace of God to provide the way of escape.  The unbeliever has nothing but his feeble will power to rely upon and any “victory” is merely temporary.   

You seem to have totally misunderstood what I said, Mark.   No, I don’t believe our new birth turns us into a “super person that is no longer subject to psychological" influences.”  But I believe that the Holy Spirit gives us protection against those influences.  Yes, Paul talked about his sin nature and the battle between the flesh and the spirit.  So, the battle is real.  But Paul said, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.”  (Romans 7:24-25)

I don’t believe Paul was speaking of some sort of “psychological conflict” but rather, the temptations of the flesh?  And he knew the source of his deliverance from them saying, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13).  No, not a “super person” just one who knew His Savior and the means by which we are to deal with temptations that inevitably beset the follower of Christ. 

Regarding our participation in the Assemblies, however, I believe we have an entirely different set of circumstances, and certainly those circumstances varied from saint to saint.  Coming from different backgrounds, and different stages of spiritual maturity, a bond of unity was formed locally and globally as we gradually accepted the attitude of exclusivity that was subtly introduced by George’s exposition on “God’s having His man for every age.” Admittedly, I myself experienced a certain sense of excitement in contemplating the possibility that our own “Brother George” might actually be that man for the current age.  And having accepted such an awesome premise, it wasn’t difficult to concur with his disdain for the “traditional” churches and their un-scriptural practices, and subsequently to develop one’s own cavalier attitude toward other Christians. To be selected to be a part of the leadership in such an august group merely served to enhance that attitude.   Satan had all the ingredients for a cult led by a man who quite possibly had been duped into believing he actually was God’s man for this age.” 

But God is faithful and He has His own means of exposing those who oppose Him. We may not always understand the “means” nor the timing, but we can be certain that His word is true in that He - “causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). In retrospect, I can now see how He used it in my own life to teach me some valuable lessons and to draw me closer to Him.

Well, Mark, at this point you’re probably wondering where I’m going with this in relation to how the psychological factors enter into it.   Let me make some observations.

I believe strongly in the fact that the Holy Spirit intervenes in our lives to safeguard us from error, I also believe that, knowing our weaknesses and the sincerity of our heart, He gives us whatever measure of enlightenment is necessary to lead us on the path of righteousness and to overcome these so-called “psychological barriers.” And may I suggest that what some might view as psychological barriers may be nothing more than pride and a lack of fortitude.

From what I’ve read and observed, psychologists try to discover (or invent) the causes of our behavior in order to change or cure that which is detrimental to our well being.  Many people subscribe to their conclusions and take comfort in being told that they are not responsible for their actions.  I find nothing in scripture to substantiate such a premise. The only thing that could exonerate us for failing to make righteous decisions is ignorance.  However, once enlightened, there is no excuse.

[continue below]

[Oscar]

Chuck,

You said:

I believe strongly in the fact that the Holy Spirit intervenes in our lives to safeguard us from error, I also believe that, knowing our weaknesses and the sincerity of our heart, He gives us whatever measure of enlightenment is necessary to lead us on the path of righteousness and to overcome these so-called “psychological barriers.”

You also said:

People followed George Geftakys because they wanted to follow him.  Men accepted leadership in George’s Assemblies either because they wanted to be leaders or because they, like myself, were too immature to recognize that they didn’t meet the qualifications set forth in the scriptures.

It seems to me that you are claiming that the Holy Spirit intervenes to safeguard us from error....but that he did not do so in your case.  Or if he did, he waited until enough time had passed to do significant damage.

Huh?

If God protects us from error...then no deception should be possible.  Joe said the entire church at Galatia was decieved.  Galatia was a region, not a city, so many many people must have been caught up in the error Paul was opposing.  Why didn't the HS intervene?
Or was Paul's letter the intervention?

I don't see much profit in getting caught up in a long wrangle over the validity or non-validity of psychology.  Remember however that there are many subjects the scriptures only address in part, or not at all.

Some psychologists may claim people are not responsible for their actions.  Most, from what I have seen and read, are about helping people understand why they think and do certain things and helping them to take responsibility for their own lives.  They sure enough aren't perfect, but then is there any field of study in which we have perfect understanding? 

I am not about to discard theology merely because theologians don't know everything.  Same thing for psychology.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux