The Assembly experience: Were there any good things you DID?

[Joe Sperling]

Dave---  you stated: (this is your take on Tom's original question):

"Personally, I doubt if all that is implied in the simple question that was originally asked.

How this all started is Tom said:
1.  I am involved in a church plant.
2.  We would like to use ideas in this church plant.
3.  Any idea that you may have picked up in the Assembly that we could use?

It was a simple straight-forward question that I answered in two minutes ... "

That would be great if that was what Tom "actually said" but it wasn't. Not trying to be "nit-picky" here--just
stating the case. If you feel it was "implied" in Tom's question, fine. But the question at the end of Tom's post is really quite open-ended--"what good things did you learn" could apply to almost anything.


The original post was not asking for ideas--it stated something "learned in the Assembly", and then asked "what was your experience--what good did you learn?

Original Post:
Folks,

Many have discussed the pain and suffering aspects of their assembly experience.  Some have spoken of problems that followed them out.

Tomorrow night I will attend a planning meeting for a church plant that I am currently involved in.  I will be sharing some ideas about outreach.

Guess where I learned them?  That's right, in the Assembly. 

It will be interesting to see what "normal" Christians think of these ideas.  Of course, I will remove elements that I now see as weird or counterproductive.

This will be interesting.

How about your own experience.  What good things did you learn?

Tom Maddux

Tom was not asking for "ideas" to use for his "church plant"(as you state #3). He is stating that he learned some things he is going to use, and is interested in seeing how those people react to his ideas. He then asks in a general manner: "How about your experience. What good things did you learn?" This is not a question regarding giving him ideas, this is a general question about what "good things" we learned in the Assembly. Your two minute
answer may have satisfied you, in that whatever you learned you felt was "good" for you. This is very subjective---but objectively, this question could take quite some time to answer: What do you mean by "good"? Good that came from a negative? Good that came from a positive?  Is it really an objective question at all?Sorry, but a very short answer just ain't gonna cut it when trying to answer a general question like that. Again, your short answer my satisfy your interpretation of what is meant by "good", and your take on Tom's original post, but it won't satisfy all, especially when you go back and carefully read what the post really asked. Unfortunately, a "subjective" question was asked: "what was your experience", which is hard to determine in
an objective manner when you consider all of the variables.

Also note how Tom's post started--I think this is important also towards seeing how some interpret his "question".  He proceeds from "problems" others experienced that "followed them out", then goes on to tell about what he feels was a "positive" lesson in his case---all well and good, but as Mark has suggested, some (such as abused wives) will not see the "good" that was "learned" by him in quite the same way, or from you in your simplified manner.

The very question, and the way it was asked will lead to disagreement. Naturally it will---and that's a "good" thing actually!! We don't all have to fall into line with some pat answer that makes everyone happy. I admit, I overreacted due to the post of someone obviously defending the system, and then speaking in a condescending manner towards me. I will not retread all of that ground. I just believe it is not all as simple as you are trying to make it sound in your post. Didn't mean to go off Thread subject with long post, but felt I needed to respond to your post, because it held incorrect information.

An addition:

By the way I am very surprised at this statement you made:

If someone asked me the same question about the Mormon church, I would talk about their radio and TV ads as good ideas without feeling the need to relate the question somehow to the history of Nazi Germany.

I realize that you mean the radio and TV ads as used by Mormons are a good concept, but I have
A question Dave---when speaking to that "someone" about the Mormon church, mentioning the "good ideas" they have concerning radio and TV ads, would you also mention that they are completely deceptive ads, and designed to lead one into a cult? Because that is the real truth.  These innocent good "ideas" from the Mormon Chuch orginate from evil and lead to evil, no matter how much of a  "good idea" they may appear to be. And that was the whole basis of the counter-argument being given concerning the "good" learned in the Assembly in other posts. Can one speak of the "good ideas" or the "good thing learned" without also mentioning the deception/ deceptive place where these ideas originated? Can we learn "good things" from Mormons without also mentioning that it is "evil" that has produced that very church?  Can we mention the good things we learned in the Assembly without also mentioning what type of group it really was? That has been my whole argument.

[Mark C.]

Personally, I doubt if all that is implied in the simple question that was originally asked.

If someone asked me the same question about the Mormon church, I would talk about their radio and TV ads as good ideas without feeling the need to relate the question somehow to the history of Nazi Germany. 

To me, this conversation is like a parent driving along with his son and asked casually, "Isn't that a lovely church steeple?"  The son whips around in anger and screams at the parent, "STOP SHOVING RELIGION DOWN MY THROAT!!!!" 

The problem is clearly not with the question but something going on under the surface.

Tracy (I'm going to give you a real name  ) and Dave,

  Tracy your accounting system only lists positives.  If you want to develop a true picture of the real net value of the Assembly you will have to add in the negatives.  It is apparent you were not a member of the group and so are unaware of certain negatives. When you give values that suggest that all hours spent in flipping to many bible verses equals "following Christ", you are making a huge assumption.

  When we punch in the negative numbers we have to assign values to these--- How many points do we give to wife beating, child molestation, those driven away from faith in Christ and to suicide for not being able to live up to the "holy calling", etc.? For instance, is one wife beating equal to one hour of "following Christ" in the meetings?

 Dave, I admit that this is a highly charged emotional issue for many and causes reactions to Tom's question that seem to be unreasonable.  To understand why this is I will take your Father and Son driving by the church illustration and add some things to it.

  Dad drives by church with son inside and points to the church and the son reacts violently demanding that his father not shove religion down his throat.  Then the Dad asks, "why did you react like that Son?  After all, it was just a simple pointing out of a church."  "Well, Dad, I never told you but I was molested by the pastor of that church when I went to VBS as a child."  "Well son", the Dad answers, "I went to that church and the pastor never molested me and I had a great time reading the bible there and following Christ.  Can't you just please try and get something positive out your church experience by remembering all the Sunday school lessons that you learned?"

  Some former members are like the Dad and some are like the Son.  A dismissal of the injury and pain of those like the Son because of ones own positive experiences is myopic in nature and really is immoral.  So, you are right Dave, there are many things going on under the surface that don't appear here.

                                                                            God Bless,  Mark C.

  

[trac4yt]

Followed Christ, 10,950 days.

When you give values that suggest that all hours spent in flipping to many bible verses equals "following Christ", you are making a huge assumption.

My calc = every day by faith...not a calc by reading volume
..Morning, afternoon, evening, job, meals, etc.

(trials factored in)

------------------------------

For instance, is one wife beating equal to one hour of "following Christ" in the meetings?

Was wife beating taught there?

"..molested by the pastor of that church when I went to VBS as a child.."

Were all your leaders taught to molest there?

[Mark C.]

Tracy,

  "Was wife beating taught in the Assembly?"  (Tracy's question in the last post).

  I think you must be kidding with me, but I'll go ahead and answer your question as if it was posed sincerely.  The Assm. was a closed in community that didn't operate like a regular church.  Many of us lived in homes together and all areas of our lives were monitored and controlled.  The "teaching" that was the most damaging was not that which was received from the pulpit. 

  There are different ways to "teach" something: one is by spoken/written instruction, and the other is by example.  Every committed member knew the message behind the message because we knew how things really operated.  It was this instruction that was the most powerful and really represented the Assembly experience.

  Re. the "wife abuse" situation, for instance:  Betty Geftakys blamed Judy G. because David G. kept beating her up!  Obviously Betty wasn't teaching that Assm. husbands should beat their wives, only that if it happens it is because the wife is not properly submitting to her husband and thus causing the husband to beat her to a pulp!  Many different leaders were aware of this abusive situation and nothing was done to bring it to a halt!  Indeed, it was excused, covered up, and Dave enjoyed a position of leadership in the Assembly (along with many other special favors).  What's the lesson to be learned there?

  There were "wife training" meetings instituted to teach the wife how to "submit" and to learn to do so in silence.  Wives "usurping the authority" of the husband was seen as a big problem as some of these women were considered "rebellious" in their allegiance to the group.  By instructing that the first priority of faithfulness to God was mindless subjection and fidelity to the Leaders we were brought into a different kind of ethic that clearly was cultic.  It was called "biblical", but the truth was twisted in Assembly practices.  Now, if you attended a meeting you might hear taught "Wives, submit to you husband-----" and you would miss the "deeper meaning", but our other instruction provided us with the real interpretation of the teaching here.

  Another example: A child was molested by a very loyal brother to the group.  When this was discovered the leaders excused the behavior and applied absolutely no discipline toward the offender!  Why?  I was told by one leading brother, "anyone of us could have done this too, and the brother has already confessed his sin to God"!  When I asked, "what about the little girl?" I was told "the family has left fellowship."  I got the secret teaching here which was the central moral precept of the group: those that leave are worthless and only committed members have any value at all.  The brother continued on with the group as if nothing had happened at all!

  I could go on and on with example after example of just this kind of "teaching" and if anyone can't see how pervasive and evil this instruction was in this group--- well, then I'm "sorry for you" (to quote another post).

  I would recommend that you visit the Assembly Reflections site and read the many articles and testimonies that explain how this cultic organization really functioned for a better understanding(that is, if you aren't just pulling my leg here).

                                                              God Bless,  Mark C.

[trac4yt]

..Obviously Betty wasn't teaching that Assm. husbands should beat their wives..

So, a "leader" was not teaching this.
Assumed, is other leaders were not beating their wives.
Assumed, is other leaders were not teaching church husbands to beat their wives.
Assumed, is other leaders were not instructing single men to beat their wives if they should marry.

Assumed, the wife beaten was involved 30, or so, years with her leader husband in your churches?  Did she or he want help?

Unique situation?
 

[trac4yt]

From m.c...

..A child was molested by a very loyal brother to the group..

What might have been your course of action?
Would your leaders agree with you?
Why or why not?
 

[trac4yt]

Perhaps, to Tom and all..

Extract every possible lesson learned, good instruction, good method, etc. and apply it in your next course of action.  Leverage it for the Master's glory.

God taught you much through it all.  And He's not done.

Just simply leave out everything God doesn't want.

But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. (Ac 20:24)

 

[Mark C.]

Tracy,

 Re. the "teaching of wife beating":  No, it was not an isolated event, though the best example, because Betty Geftakys was the wife of George Geftakys the founder and leader of the group.  GG and Betty knew about it, and yes Judy early, often, and desperately sought help from the leaders only to have the issue turned back upon herself!

 Again, instruction from leaders does not have to be a direct order like, "thou shalt beat thine wife."  David G. was instructed, via Betty making Judy the reason for David's rage, so that he himself was not responsible for controlling his anger.  The dysfunctional culture of the Assembly was based on "God's govt." ruling over the members.  We were taught from the pulpit, and otherwise, that we were to submit to the leaders as God's men and to do so even if they were wrong.  If we dared to challenge we were marked out as rebels---- and if we did not submit we would be forced out!  This instruction was also given re. the marriage relationship, except that the "rebellious wife" was not forced out---- indeed, she had nowhere to go.

  For a wife going along with the program and loyal to the group her experiences would be tolerable.  For a wife who dared to publicly question the teaching or practices of the group her husband would get a good talking to urging him to "have the power over your wife brother." (This was told to me, btw, and then spread all through the group that my wife was negative and not in submission to me.  Tom will remember this).  Though I did not beat my wife as a result of the above kind of instruction, I did try to intimidate her via declaring the "promises" of God re. those who refuse to obey authority!   Something in me prevented me from taking it any further (physical violence) but sometimes emotional violence can be just as destructive.  Especially, when you start to bring in God's word as a justification for what you're doing.

  Your questions take on a kind of legal narrowness where you almost become obtuse as to what is really right or wrong here.  As demonstrated in your next question.

 Re. the child abuse and what I would advise the leaders to have done. 

 1.) Don't make excuses for the sin, ignore it, and sweep it under the rug.

 2.) Bring the brother into the leading bros. meeting and talk with him.

 3.) Place him under church discipline where he is not allowed to partake, take away his leadership duties in any ministries he may be involved with.

 4.) Have him write an apology letter to the parents and the child where he begs their forgiveness.

 5.) Place him in a treatment program for pedophiles. (those with these kind of problems usually need some specialized help).

                                                    God Bless,  Mark C.

       

[trac4yt]

mc,

Did this D. and J. ever display affection over many years?

I assume they displayed some kind of Christian service together that others would notice.  Surely a lot of good that they both did to help others.

The wife got beat up for many, many years?  Daily?
Did she ever consider it non-Biblical when the first punch was thrown?

If she talked to leaders, did they tell her to actually take more punches?
I would assume fellow leaders would want to see both helped.
You're saying they didn't?

Why did she insist it stop after so many years?
Was there a new relationship and, perhaps, assets/legal strategy difficulties became part of it?

It sounds like this was one isolated couple.

If there were hundreds or thousands of church members, surely they weren't behaving the same way were they?

I would assume many husbands would have "return-fire-response" from their wives and incur some battle scars to show from it. 

It still seems much can be "harvested" from your church experience and applied to the next church involvements.
 

[trac4yt]

from m.c...

Re. the child abuse and what I would advise the leaders to have done. 

 1.) Don't make excuses for the sin, ignore it, and sweep it under the rug.

 2.) Bring the brother into the leading bros. meeting and talk with him.

 3.) Place him under church discipline where he is not allowed to partake, take away his leadership duties in any ministries he may be involved with.

 4.) Have him write an apology letter to the parents and the child where he begs their forgiveness.

 5.) Place him in a treatment program for pedophiles. (those with these kind of problems usually need some specialized help).

Sounds like a management decision of which you had no part in.

Sounds like it can get complicated.

Lots of churches have a lot of difficult cases to work through.

Was it taught policy to deal with such a problem this way through
all your churches?

Would there be improvement/better solution the next time?

Again, seems as though much good can be leveraged from your churches, into new churches, through so much that went on over so many years.

 

Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, (Php 3:13)

[Mark C.]

Tracy,

 Now I know that you are pulling my leg!  You sound like a defense attorney trying to find explanations for getting a guilty client (in this case abusive churches/cults) off!

  There is nothing complicated or difficult at all with dealing with someone admitting they committed child abuse---- what would you have done?  Would you be confused as to what course to take?  Would you have excused the behavior, covered it up, and left this victim without even an apology?  Of course not! But for some reason you feel the need to defend those who have demonstrated this kind of evil.

  Re. the verse you shared: "forgetting those things that are past."  This verse has often been pulled out of context to mean that victims of unrepentant evildoers should just forget what was done to them and not hold their abusers accountable.  This allows these false religionists to carry on with their antics into the new places they will go---- sharing another kind of harvest.  Paul did not mean by that verse to stand passive in the face of those who have a history of evil and refuse to repent of it.

  As to your list of questions re. Judy:  Again, the list reads like a version of the OJ defense where we know where the guilt lies, but the main intention is to try and explain away the facts in an effort to subvert justice!  You can read her story for yourself on the Assembly Reflections site and see exactly how it happened, and also read many others who experienced other kinds of abuse.  I urge you to educate yourself about what really went on there.

                                                           God Bless,  Mark C. 

 

[trac4yt]

For Tom's original point, I'd repeat...

"Again, seems as though much good can be leveraged from your churches, into new churches, through so much that went on over so many years."

Extract all the good things learned and apply where ever you go.

Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort [you] by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, [so] ye would abound more and more.   (1Th 4:1)

 

[Oscar]

Y'know,

After reading Trac4yt's posts minimizing and dismissing the bad aspects of the assembly culture and the behavior of leaders, I am reminded of a poster from the past named FrankRuthAffirmingSondraandawholebunchofothernames.

Could this possibly be the 10th coming?   

Tom Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

First Technician: "Geftakavision activated".
2nd Technician: "Check!"
First Technician: "Geftakablinders on. Tunnel Vision fine-tuned".
2nd Technician: "Check!"
First Technician: "Run AC2114 voice sequence test"
2nd Technician: "Beginning AC2114 voice sequence test".

AC2114: "The Ass...sss...em-b-b-bly wa-wa-sn't s-ss-so-o  b-b-b-b-aaa-d".

2nd Technician: "AC2114 voice sequence failure. Stutter detected. Hey Boss, by da way,
what's an AC2114 anyways?"
First Technician: "Assembly Clone #2114, you nitwit..we've been working on them for years now!"
2nd Technician: "Oh, dats right. I forgot. Sorry boss.  Voice sequence repair--vocals unified. Beginning
second attempt, vocal sequence on my mark---go."

AC2114: "Abuse, what abuse? It must have been very isolated. Wife beating? It could all be
hearsay. Let it all go. Take what are good experiences and forget the bad. Why are you all so bitter?"

2nd Technician: "Hey boss, dis "AC2114 Trac4yt Geftakaclone" sounds exactly like the "AC2112 Frankgeftakaclone"
and the "AC2113 Ruthgeftakaclone" we woiked on foist. Why do they all sound the same boss?"

First Techincian: "Because they're clones you nitwit! They're designed that way. It happens during the "assembly" process. Now get the headcovering, this one's ready for action".

2nd Technician: "Head covering in place Boss. AC2114 vertical and ready for release. During "assembly" huh?

[trac4yt]

Yikes!
Sounds like pentecostal* reverbs into in-house lingo.
 

--------------
* a non-cessationist axiom is assumed.