Tell the Whole Story

[Joe Sperling]

Tom said on another thread:
Flora,

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.  This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I started the "Good things you learned" thread.

I was, I must confess, shocked at the vehemence of the objections to the idea.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

Warning: Please prepare for long-winded message. I wound up writing a novel again.

I started a different thread to avoid going off topic once again on the other threads. Tom is responding to a post by Flora on the "good things you DID" thread. I have to state that the reason for the "vehemence" Tom speaks of , was a result of how his question was originally framed. If you read Flora's post you will notice that several of the "good things she learned" came as a result of reaction to the "oppression" she mentions in several of the points she makes. Tom's original post dealt with "ideas" or "tips" he felt he had learned that he would be sharing with a church. He states that what Flora posted is "the kind of thing he had in mind". I wish he had made that more clear in his post, because Flora's experiences did not appear to be the same type of "good things" he was referring to at all. I believe if he had clearly stated what he meant, all of the "vehement attitude" he speaks of towards the idea could have been avoided.

The "vehement objection" expressed was the result of others responding to Tom's question, and not towards Tom himself, but as they attempted to whitewash everything that led to the "learning experience" Flora is mentioning. This caused a vehement response, because it was an attempt to set the the type of "oppression" Flora so clearly speaks of aside, and speak only of the "good things" learned, without recalling the oppressive system under which these things were experienced. This is not really a balanced answer to the question and is deceptive. I must confess,  I am surprised Tom does not see or acknowledge this.

An example of what I am saying is this (maybe this is a poor analogy, but it will suffice)---often you hear people give a "testimony" of their former lives. They will mention the former drug use, alcoholism, carousing, etc.----and sometimes they seem to be almost waxing "nostalgic" about it. They will speak in a humorous manner about some of the stuff they "used to do", like driving their car into the side of a building while "high", etc. (not funny at the time, but hilarious when told years later).  BUT, what if they left the story there? What if that was all the information they gave you? What if they stopped short of reminding you just how damaging and terrible those drugs and alcohol were? You could walk away from the story not really seeing just how devastating those things were, since all you are hearing is a nostalgic type of humor about events that happened long ago before the person was "saved". They could tell you they "learned good things" from their experiences, but if they failed to mention how damaging the drugs and alcohol were to them, then the message would lose all of it's importance and meaning. This is the very reason a "testimony" is given--to contrast the bad things you did with what the Lord has done and is doing for you, and show others just how merciful the Lord is.  What if someone said "Hey, we're sick of hearing about the bad stuff you went through before you came to the Lord. This time give your testimony, but only mention the good stuff you learned". Could we really tell our story, and tell of the "good things we learned" without also mentioning what we came out of before we received Christ?  There is always the chance of waxing "nostalgic", even about experiences and events long gone, that were actually very bad for us. We can begin to speak of them in almost an affectionate manner, and unless we remind ourselves, we could come close to forgetting how very bad those things really were for us! Could a topic about the Assembly devolve into a "nostalgic" discussion also? I believe it could if we are not careful to tell the whole story.

If we mention "good things" learned in the Assembly and only say "amen" to them,without also mentioning the oppression and abuse that led to this learning process, we are not telling the whole story at all. Flora's post is excellent as she not only mentions the things she learned, but also does not fail to mention the "oppression" that she learned these things under also. She is not white-washing her experiences, and is being even-handed in her explanations, while also being very positive at the same time. What "vehement objection" can I have towards a post like that?  Absolutely none.  The only "vehement attitude" I might display would be towards anyone who tries to white-wash the oppression that Flora mentions in her post, or towards one who tries to lessen what she went through in gaining that knowledge. I have absolutely no argument with her post, or with the "good things she learned" at all. How could I?  I wish there were more posts like hers. I just want to hear the whole story, not just part of it. Did I learn to witness in the Assembly? Yes--and that's a good thing. Did that same witnessing lead others to attend the meetings and join the Assembly as a result? Yes. Was that a good thing? Every coin has two sides.

The Israelites I'm sure learned some "good things" in the "Wilderness" too--but when speaking of the "good things they learned", can they leave the wilderness itself, and all they suffered (even if it was their own fault),
out of the story?

[Mark C.]

Great post Joe!

  I hope Tom, and others, read your post carefully and try their best to understand "the vehemence" from some re. this question that "shocked" them so."

  There is a element of forcing readers into a kind of mental corner by suggesting we must be able to extract good methods learned while in the group.  Especially by telling us we can't "qualify" those experiences with the real context.  I will not allow myself to be forced into this kind of limitation re. this issue.   

  Margaret's question is a much better one because it shows the need for a separation in our evaluation of those experiences between a dysfunctional group and ones ability to get free as Flora did.  Margaret admits in her own question that she is struggling with how to make that separation and wanted us to address that issue.  Without making "qualifying" comparisons all we will get is a Pollyanna whitewashed version of these past events.

  It should be clear that "the vehemence" in the reaction was not against Tom personally, but was directed toward some of the responders to that question (Trac4., Marty, etc.) who launched into a justification of Assembly behavior.  I was "surprised" at the lack of "vehemence" in response to some of the assertions of these Assembly abuse deniers and their logic. 

  Marcia believed that "Trac4. had a point."  I'm not clear what that "point" was, that she was suggesting I needed to understand, but I do wonder what former members think about all the other points Trac. and Marty were making. 

I with great "vehemence" reject the notion that:

1.) As long as "the Word is preached" (within 80%-100% essentially accurate levels) God considers this church to be a good healthy place.

2.) The quantity of bible verses, prayers, meetings etc. you can log in equals exactly what is the true "following of Christ."  The quality of those disciplines are meaningless in calculating what is true service to God.   

3.) The worst kind of bad behavior by leaders is excused if they don't actually teach these bad practices from the pulpit.

4.) The Assembly was no different from any other church, because any group is actually an inanimate object that can't be either good or evil (Marty's position).

5.) Trac. agreed with Betty that it was basically Judy's fault that Dave beat her, and the Assembly leadership should be exonerated of any culpability in this, as well as in the child abuse issue.

6.) The Assm. leaders were good mentors.

7.) I can have an authoritative opinion (in other words, suggesting God is actually endorsing my views) re. the Assembly even though I know very little about the group.

8.) God doesn't care about justice, the harm done to individuals in the Assm., because he just wants me to forget about it and go out and be a blessing.

9.) "Time is short", so my failure to accept all the above will put me out of the will of God and cause me to lose out! (maybe on the inheritance?

   These are the arguments that I was "vehemently" opposing.  Somebody like to defend these and say that there is validity to them?  I find them totally specious, and they clearly hide an agenda, which when I challenged them, were ignored by those making their defense of the Assembly.

                                                                         God Bless,  Mark C.     

[Joe Sperling]

Thanks Mark. I think sometimes it is hard to see the "roundabout" way some use to actually
defend the Assembly system. If one doesn't recognize that, they will not have a strong reaction to it. Today, I visited a board I have only infrequently visited, and for very short jaunts. I took the time to read a couple of the posts today. One of them caught my eye as it "quoted" all of Flora's post from the "What good things you DID" thread. A few of the people who visit this BB use the same logic, though the person who posted this is not a regular visitor to the board any more.

From 10-18-07 post on SWTE board after quoting Flora's complete post:

Amen.  How encouraging in the Lord.  God is learned in wrong situations, among wrong brethren and wrong "systems" as they call it.  The world IS a wrong system.  Many churches are wrong at times.  The Lord spoke of false shepherds as if to say they are not uncommon....so we can conclude - since He allows them to abide over the sheep - that the people are going to profit from the mistreatment.  Although God does not call false shepherds, He allows hardship under them so that man can learn to be a leader first of his own life and then a leader among other mistreated folks. 

After all, was He not this kind of example.  He had big shoulders and laid down His life and by doing so went back to save others so to speak.

Getting bitter and blaming on breeds corruption and death in a soul.  It's good to be a good judge of character, but to prejudge and condemn others is to forget one's own great debt and sinfulness.

I made one area of the post bold because it shows the "logic" these people use to basically say "the system may have been bad, but it was good for you, so therefore we all learned good things while we were there. So stop mentioning the "abuse" and see all that happened to you as a "good thing".  This is a paraphrase, but basically that is the message.  Notice what the above statement says once again: "The Lord spoke of false shepherds as if to say that they are not uncommon, so we can conclude--since he allows them to abide over the sheep--that the people are going to profit from the mistreatment".

I have to ask do we REALLY come to the conclusion this person has reached?  Is this at all scriptural? Paul the Apostle wept when speaking of the False Teachers who would invade the flock--if "we can conclude that the people are going to profit from the mistreatment" wouldn't Paul have mentioned this? Wouldn't he speak of the day, due to this mistreatment, that they would themselves be leaders, and able to lead others?  No--he does not say this! He calls the false shepherds "accursed", and weeps for those who will be deceived in the future. He sees the abuse, false teaching, unnecessary false guilt, etc. etc. and he weeps for them.

God did not "call" these false teachers, as the above post mentions--true---but God does not "allow" them to abide over his sheep so that those same sheep can learn "good things" through their mistreatment either! God "allows" these men to be there because they are willful, evil men, with a "free will"---and God warns us to beware of them, and flee!! They have "taken" a position that does not belong to them, and God will judge them for it.

He will judge them horribly one day, consigning them into Outer Darkness for what they have done to his people!! Both Jude and Peter speak of this very fact!!

It is not a "good thing" to be under these men and to "profit from mistreatment" under them. That is the type of logic that tries to defend the Assembly system as something God is using for good, despite all evidence to the contrary!! It is a type of logic that says "Stop whining about that system. God used it for good. Only speak of the good things you learned, and leave the rest behind". I have to ask once again, is that Scriptural? Did Paul say "endure the False teachers, for you will grow and learn under their mistreatment, so that you can learn to lead others"?  Absolutely not. And any attempt to try to put forth that type of logic should be met with a vehement negative reaction.

[Flora]

Please find my posting attached.  I attached it because it exceeds the 6000 character limit. 

I am unfamiliar with bulletin boards, so I hope this method works.

Flora

(Since Tom said the attachment didn't work for him. I took his advice and posted it in two parts. See above. Also I removed the attachment from this posting. F.)

[Oscar]

Flora,

I don't think attachments work on this board.   Yours didn't.

What you have to do with long posts is to break them up into sections that will fit the allowed amount of characters.

I usually lable mine Part 1, Part 2, and so on.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

[Marcia M]

Please find my posting attached.  I attached it because it exceeds the 6000 character limit. 

I am unfamiliar with bulletin boards, so I hope this method works.

Flora

Tom, the attachment works if you go to the actual thread and click on the attachment link at the bottom of Flora's post.


Flora,

You make some very good points.
I believe that there is also the aspect of the little leaven leavening the whole lump of dough, which would apply to some aspects of assembly life and teaching.

Regards,
Marcia

[Flora]

PART 2

2) Some characteristics of the Geftakys organization are still alive and well on this Bulletin Board. In particular, I observed these traits:
a) not believing the best in the other person,

This is definitely a controlling characteristic of this organization. If you didn’t comply 100% with their every instruction and rule, you were being rebellious, unsubmissive, and you were accused of not wanting to follow the Lord. They did not believe the best about us – they didn’t believe that there might be another very valid reason for not following their instructions.

Here on the bulletin board, I am noticing the same attitude regarding anyone saying anything good about their experiences. They are accused of ignoring the evil, minimizing the effects of the evil, etc. if they don’t qualify their comments in some way. You both stated supportive comments regarding my posting on October 18th on the thread “The Assembly experience: Were there any good things you DID?” However, would you have been as supportive, if I had not already written my story on the Assembly Reflection’s web site? Without knowing my history, would you have believed the best about me? Also, would you have been as supportive, if I had only posted the ‘good things’ that were not learned under oppression (# 5 & 6). In # 5, I remember the day that we learned how to do one-minute gospels as a day of a lot of fun. In # 6, I learned about the value of worship by listening to George preach on it. Since the qualifying phrase ‘under oppression’ does not apply to my # 5&6, if I had only posted those two good things, would I have encountered your accusations, as others have encountered them?

b) publicly criticizing, judging, ridiculing others who think differently than we do,

Many of us experienced this treatment from George or others in positions of leadership if they disagreed with something we said or did. This is not Christ’s way. Is it not better to prayerfully challenge someone, or to appeal to them, or to ask them to explain their position so you can understand it, etc.? Is our desire not to win our brother or sister? Publicly criticizing, judging, ridiculing others who think differently than we do will never unite us in Christ and it will never accomplish God’s purpose. However, it will succeed in killing people’s desire to open up and post their thoughts on this bulletin board. No one likes to be on the receiving end of that kind of treatment.

c) not realizing that God’s working in a soul is different for different people – His timing and ways are not our timing and ways.

The Spirit of God is the only One that can affect a soul for eternity. We are only His instruments. We can’t discern all the inner thoughts and workings of a soul; but God can. God knows when it is the right time for different individuals to receive certain truths. We must wait for God’s timing, as His ways are not our ways.  If we force them to see something before they are ready to accept it, it will often lead to them rejecting it. It is better to pray for someone that their eyes of understanding would be opened, and wait for God’s timing.

3) Although you are making some excellent points, your methods are causing you to loose credibility. Therefore your methods appear to be defeating your purpose.

The observations mentioned above are counter-productive to your purpose of helping people to heal and helping people to see the evil in the Geftakys organization. True healing can only happen when there is an acknowledgement of both the good and the evil, of both the wheat and the tares. Both sides need to be acknowledged, if you want those individuals, who see the good and not the evil, to take your comments seriously and take them to heart.

Also, when you endeavour to destroy someone’s respect in another individual by criticism, the only thing you succeed in doing is destroying your own credibility to the very person you are trying to reach. Only the respected person can destroy that respect by their own actions or words. One suggestion might be to provide a link to other information that might challenge their perspective, for example, Judy’s story, Joyce H.’s story, my story, etc. Then, you might want to challenge them to humbly and prayerfully ask God to show them whether or not this organization is oppressive, abusive and controlling.

My understanding is that most of the people still in this organization have already lost most of their respect for George, but they are remaining because they are taking their direction from other brothers that they still respect, such as, Mike Zach, Tim Geftakys, etc. That was the main motivating factor in my telling my story on the Assembly Reflections web site. My story reveals that the Ottawa Assembly took its direction from Mike Zach, and consequently, became very oppressive and controlling. I strongly felt that people needed to see and understand that this oppressive organization can continue in its oppressive ways, because George trained others to follow in his own footsteps.

Since, it is God who opens the eyes of understanding, and God who delivers from the oppressor, let’s be careful how we respond to others and let’s leave room for God to work. I’m praying for you both,

In Christ,
Flora

(Please forgive me for such a long posting.)   

[Flora]

PART 1

Mark and Joe, after reading your comments (October 19 & 20), I felt compelled to respond to them. First, let’s look at the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt 13:24-30. We note that the field contains both wheat and tares. The wheat represents the good – the Spirit of God at work in a soul. The tares represent the evil – the work of the enemy (Satan). According to the NASB margin note, tares are a weed resembling wheat. Therefore, the tares could probably be called a counterfeit. In the Assembly, we had a mixture of both wheat and tares.

In the Assembly experience, the wheat could be identified as the good solid Bible teaching, identical to what you will find in many evangelical churches; and souls were affected for God’s honour and glory. The tares could be identified as the Bible verses that were being twisted and used to abuse, control and oppress God’s people, identical to the practice of many cults; and souls were devastated, crushed and had their faith destroyed. Those in authority that master-mined this system (George and his helpers) skillfully and masterfully interwove these two opposites together, so it has the appearance that God’s word is teaching their practices. The young in Christ and the undiscerning often cannot see the difference between the wheat and the tares.

Since there were a number of different Assemblies, and since each Assembly consisted of people from various spiritual backgrounds, it is safe to assume that there would be a wide range of experiences among the members and former members. The portion of some might have been a lot of wheat and only a little bit of tares; and the portion of others might have been a lot of tares and only a little bit of wheat. Then, still others would have experienced other varying degrees of both wheat and tares. The perspectives of each person would be different depending on the degree of wheat or tares to which they were exposed. 

After reading your comments, the first thing I did was go to the thread “The Assembly Experience: What were the GOOD things you learned?” Then, I re-read every posting on that thread. Next, I went to the thread “The Assembly experience: Were there any good things you DID?” Then, I re-read every posting on that thread. Finally, I browsed this bulletin board and re-read many other recent postings.

As I read these postings, here are some observations I made:
1) Your strong emotions appear to be blinding you to any other perspective but your own. This makes me wonder whether or not you have adequately healed from your own experiences.

Since both of you are having a hard time acknowledging the good in the Assembly, I am assuming that you experienced a lot of tares. When our wounds are raw, we will not tolerate anyone saying anything that re-opens that wound. Some of your postings appear to have this lack of tolerance; that is why I am wondering how far along in the healing process you have come. How long is it since you left the assembly? Wounds take time to heal; but eventually, under God’s nurturing care, our wounds heal and He restores our soul. After healing happens, there is usually a greater tolerance level of different perspectives.

CONTINUED ON PART 2

[Joe Sperling]

Flora----

Thank you for your post. I thank you for both your comments, criticism and understanding
in the matter. There is one paragraph though, that when I read it, I thought, "but this is exactly
what I have been trying to say in my argument all along. You cannot mention the "good things"
without also mentioning the "bad". Here is your quote:

The observations mentioned above are counter-productive to your purpose of helping people to heal and helping people to see the evil in the Geftakys organization. True healing can only happen when there is an acknowledgement of both the good and the evil, of both the wheat and the tares. Both sides need to be acknowledged, if you want those individuals, who see the good and not the evil, to take your comments seriously and take them to heart.      Though I understand where you are coming from Flora, I do have to state that in the Assembly System the tares far outweighed the wheat, and eventually led to it's total downfall. If there were an "even mix" of wheat and tares, the Lord would most likely have let it continue, --but the tares in that system were numerous, and the Lord "cleaned house" due to the massive amount of abuse and legalism there. Sifting through all of the tares to try to find the wheat is a noble effort---But in my opinion, it's best to be glad we are no longer in the system, rather than trying to find good things we learned when under that system. Again, just my opinion--I'm entitled to it, and you are entitled to yours if you disagree.

Perhaps you have misunderstood what I am trying to convey. I have typed an allegory above, which is an attempt to show that Tom's original question, along with the response he received to it from those attempting to defend that system and "white-wash the abuse", could have a far different affect on some people than he anticipated. Though the question was innocent, it opened the door for those who always seem to appear, who want minimize the suffering of others, and through their twisted logic, defend the Assy system. In my opinion their should be a "vehement objection" raised to those types of posts. If you are of a different opinion, that's fine, and I respect that. God bless.

--Joe

[Joe Sperling]

An allegory:

Mary Partridge had a wonderful idea. At least to her it seemed like a wonderful idea. You see, she had once been in a very abusive relationship, and felt she had now overcome the pain associated with that relationship. She decided to be more "positive" about it, and share some of the things she had "learned" with others. What she failed to take into mind was that the "abuse" she may have suffered in the past might be totally different than the "abuse" others had endured. She was sure everyone would profit from her question.

Mary arrived at her destination and looked up. There was a sign which read "BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTER/RECOVERY COUNSELING CENTER". Mary walked in with a big smile on her face, walked up to a crowd of women and said:  "I'm going to a class tonight, and I am the teacher. I'm going to share with them my cooking expertise. Yes, I learned to cook. And you know where I learned it? In my abusive relationship with my ex-husband. That's right! I learned to cook many different things. The relationship was terrible--I was often beaten if I didn't have the meal on the table at precisely six o'clock, but I did learn to cook a variety of wonderful meals. And now, years later, I'm going to share some of those wonderful recipes with others".

Mary then looked at the quiet crowd and said "I learned to cook in my abusive relationship. What good things did you learn"? There was quite a reaction to this question as you can imagine. Several women, recently abused, with blackened eyes, and bruises, stared at Mary vacantly. Another woman, years away from the abuse, but who worked at the center to help others recover, looked at the scars on her arm, and remembered broken bones from beatings. She answered "The only good thing I learned was to get away from the relationship for good." Of course, those most recently abused were more upset than those abused years before. But those seeking to help the recently abused felt almost as flabberghasted at the question as those abused just days before.

There were a couple of other women there. They were sisters of a former abuser of one of these women, and they immediately jumped to Mary's defense. "That was an excellent question Mary. It is good to remember the good things you learned in that relationship. It can't have been all bad, in fact, I suspect much of the abuse is exaggerated" said one of these women. This caused the battered women to be more angry with these enablers, than with Mary herself, because they were trying to white-wash all they had endured in their own relationships.

One of the formerly battered women asked Mary "What is your motivation for asking this question? Are you trying to go through a garbage heap to find a shiny can? Why would you even want to ask such a question of these people? Perhaps you have never let go of that abusive relationship, and are trying to find something of value from it to soothe your own conscience." Mary herself had abused others as a result of her own abuse, so this actually caused her to question her own motives a bit. One of the women asked increduously "What good things did we learn? What good things did we learn!!??" She walked towards Mary.

Mary found herself laying on the sidewalk in front of the center, having been forcefully thrown out of the building. The two sisters of the former abuser ran up, and helped Mary to her feet. "Ai Chihuahua!" 
Mary cried, "It was only a simple question! Why do you people have such a vehement objection to a simple question like mine!!??"  The battered women, gathered at the door, were a bit amazed that Mary would even have to ask such a question--after all who even wants to try to find "good things" in a relationship where one was battered and beaten by an abusive person, and an abusive marriage? One would rather consider where one was going after that relationship, and be thankful they escaped it, rather than searching for "good things" they learned during the experience.  The two sisters comforted Mary, and agreed with her, saying "these people just can't leave the past behind".

Mary walked off in a huff, believing her question was valid, and should not have had any kind of negative effect on anyone. She walked away hurriedly, almost bumping into a woman with bruises on her arms heading into the center. The woman met a Counselor at the door and said "I was going to go to a cooking class tonight, taught by someone named Mary Partridge. But my husband was infuriated that I was going, and beat the hell out of me".

Is this allegory extreme? Perhaps. But it does get a valid point across.
This Bulletin Board in many ways is a "BATTERED SHEEP SHELTER/RECOVERY COUNSELING CENTER"- see also
www.batteredsheep.com      Also, see the Wounded Pilgrims thread. Mark Campbell has some excellent posts dealing with the recovery process. An alcoholic is an alcoholic for life, even if he doesn't drink for years. In like manner, the recovery from the Assembly can take years for some, with wounds healing into scars. 
 Deep scars never go away. We may recover from the "wound" but the scar will always remain. We will always need to "remember" and deal with issues that deeply affected us from that time. We need to remember that there are some just entering the recovery process, and we need to keep our hearts open for them, and not ignore, or belittle the pain they are feeling. This allegory is just an opinion, but is a point I have been trying to make all along.

[Joe Sperling]

I ran out of room below and want to make sure the allegory is fully understood.

Tom's original post said(parapharase): "I am meeting with a church plant this evening, and I am going to share with them concerning Outreach. You know where I learned it? The Assembly. That's right!"  Then he asked "What good things did YOU learn there?" This post began the thread that caused some
controversy. It appears to be a very simple question on the surface, and nothing to stir up any waters.
Perhaps when asked in the context of this allegory, the reaction to it can be better understood.

I'm sure he asked this question cheerfully, with the best of intentions--but some posters leapt upon it, using it as a springboard to go into defensive mode of the "system". This caused a "vehement objection" from myself and Mark, which has since been greatly called into question as being to "severe" and "negative", and "overreactive". It has been extremely difficult, for some reason, to convey the simple message I have
been trying to communicate. Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine. I thought maybe an allegory might better explain the logic, concern, and emotions that have been brought into play because of one simple question.

Mary in this allegory represents Tom and his question, approaching the BB with his question(which is a type of "shelter" in a way for the formerly abused, and those recovering). The sisters of an abuser, that come to Mary's defense, represent those posters that seem to appear during "arguments" and white-wash the abuse, and defend the ASSY system in their twisted logic.

The abused "wives" represent those on this BB, and those who have escaped the ASSY system--some recently, and some years ago. And some represent those who are trying to help those who are attempting a recovery. Both the abuse and the recovery are very serious to them, and the Assembly system at this point,
is not a place where they would be trying to find "good things they learned" at all, but a system whose grip and teachings they are trying to escape forever.

I apologize for being so longwinded concerning this issue. But being accused of being "too severe" and "negative", or "overreactive", or causing posters to leave the board due to this position, is a bit frustrating
when I believe Mark and I are making a very valid point. Perhaps it all seems to be a matter of semantics, and why should we even bother to argue a point that seems so harmless? I can't really apologize for holding this view--though I do apologize that I have had to be so longwinded to try to get it across. And after all of this, it could be I have still failed to make the point truly clear.

Sometimes I miss Brent Tr0ckman's posts. Perhaps he would "set me straight" here and tell me I am completely off base. But I always liked the fact that he would hold his ground on a subject, with almost the whole board against him, and literally tell all of them to go take a long walk off of a short pier if they didn't like it.   He was far less apologetic than I.  I kind of miss posters like that.   If you take the time to read all of this though, thanks. I know it's a lot of keystrokes to read!

[Oscar]

Joe,

I understand your analogy.  Anologies can be effective in arguing for a position, and you have done a good job in making your point.  I do, however, see a serious problem in your analogy.
 
In order to be effective, there must be a strong paralell between the reality and the analogy.  You have likened the assembly experience to that of an abusive marriage.  The husband beats up his wife, and years later she speaks of the good things she learned.  The problem with your analogy is that the parallel is not close at all.

A marriage is between two people.  The assembly, if you counted up all the folks that were in it over its 30 or so years of existence, involved over a thousand, maybe two thousand.  Most of us had relationships of various kinds with hundreds of people over the years.

Do you not remember sitting around the dinner table in a brother's house laughing uproariously at some story or joke?  How is that like a wife beating?  Do you not remember playing practical jokes on one another?  Once at my house a couple of brothers carried Chris Small's bed out into the back yard while he was sleeping in it.  He woke up at about 4:00 AM, and was quite surprised, to say the least. He returned the favor by going inside, waking them up, and asking them to carry it back inside.  We all thought it was hilarious.  It still makes me smile to think of those things.

I know there were also many negative experiences.  There were many abuses.  But I spent many, many hours involved with people and projects that I am glad I did to this day.  That was just as real a part of the assembly experience as the suffering part.  That is undeniable.

I recently met the grandchild of a man I led to Christ 30 years ago in an assembly sponsored outreach.  Should I be sorry?  I had good fellowship on the phone a couple of months ago with a brother that I both respected, and still respect, even though fellowship was cut off by the assembly system from 1989 until after 2003.  I cannot think of one negative thing he ever did or said to me.  Yet my entire relationship with him was within the assembly system, usually at Worker's Seminars.

The assembly was made up of hundreds of people just like you and I, Joe.  Good desires and intentions mixed with terrible weaknesses and moral failures.  It was the lack of legitimate limits on authority that led to such ugly outcomes in so many cases.  The denominations that we felt so superior to understood much more than we gave them credit for.  They have structures in place that avoid such outrages, at least most of the time.

My point, Joe, is that the assembly system was vastly more complex than a marriage.  Any good analogy must take that into account.  Yours does not.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Mark C.]

Hi Everyone!

  I have been absent from the BB due to being evacuated from my house here in the San Diego area since Monday.  All is well, though the fire came very close.  Please pray that this situation will cause many here to think of their need for the eternal security that is found in Christ.  The circumstances due to the fires in San Diego County were truly devastating. 

  I read through the latest posts on this thread, but to respond thoroughly to all of them will be impossible.  I would have to rehash a bunch of previous explanations that I have made on this topic, and Joe has answered many of them anyway.

  I feel like I should try to answer some of Flora's comments though, as she is new to the BB, and has not seen our previous discussions on this topic.

  First, Flora, I am glad that you are here and that you are willing to share your opinions.  If my views differ from yours please do not see it as an "Assembly like mentality" that seeks to dominate, shame, ridicule, or otherwise attack you personally.  I respect your right to see things the way you do, but you also must respect my right to have my own strongly held opinions that differ with yours.

   Respect, however, does not mean I must sit silently by when I read things that I believe are not factual, or contain harmful ideas (I do not believe that you are guilty of any of these BTW).  Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, etc. used very strong language against some religious folks that I'm sure the recipients thought was very rude.  Were those using this language being judgmental?  There is a difference between the need to have discernment between good and evil and being "judgmental."  Clearly, your post was making judgments about my opinions, and re. what you felt was wrong with my views and how I expressed them.  I would not call you "judgmental", or "Assembly like", for doing so.   

   Consider this quote: "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.  But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." ( MT. 18:5-6)

  The reason I used such "vehemence" in response to Trac4., and Marty was that I believed their views were not factual, moral, and had the potential to harm God's people.  Some people believe that the Assembly was not abusive to the degree that I assign it by quoting the above verse about the millstone.  I do, and hence my passionate opposition to those that in anyway wish to excuse or minimize the abuse of God's people in that group.

  Tom sees the Assembly as a bunch of different individuals, so Joe's analogy of a marriage relationship (in his view) is flawed.  Possibly, a better general analogy might be of a dysfunctional family.  In this family we have an abusive father, a passive codependent mom, a compliant child, and a "rebellious" one.  Each has a role to play and none of them see a way out of the situation they find themselves in.  However, the police arrest the dad and the whole dysfunctional family is torn apart and now must face the aftermath.  This would be analogous to GG's demise and the falling apart of the group.

  In order to recover this "family" and repair all the damage that each "individual" member received there must be an honest review of what part each member played and a resolve to face those facts.  Denial of the facts will keep them from finding healing in the grace of God.  There are different ways to deny these facts:
1.) Outright refusal to admit my role in this family.
2.) Attempts to excuse the dysfunction.
3.) Trying to minimize my participation.

   Suggesting to this family that they, "just forget those things that are past," and try to remember all the good times they had together, or even when apart from the family as individuals, does not resolve the deeper issues that must be faced.  Some members of this family escaped the worst of the dad's abuse, yet their passive role of silently watching others "get theirs" is not a moral position that should escape acknowledgement and repentance.

  The "Workers Meeting" was the core Dysfunctional group in this greater Assembly family.  Those in it had to harden their consciences often while they watched folks "get theirs".  It is understandable that these, in order to be able to look in the mirror, will want to escape the difficult task of admitting their terrible failure by avoiding honest consideration. Some will try to resolve their feelings of guilt by making the situation "better" in their minds than it was, while other less privileged members, victims of the "work" of that inner circle, might make it "worse" than it actually was, but they remain emotionally devastated.  All these issues need to be resolved.

  It may seem "harsh and judgmental" to press the facts re. "the evil" in this "family", but for the many still in denial it is very important for them, as well as those they watched silently being abused, to "leave their gift at the altar" and get things right.   

  I hope this helps a little in answering your objections on this (please be assured I do not like to stir the pot-- I was the compliant child ), but, what I say here comes from a sincere desire to stand up for what is right.

                                                                                  God Bless,  Mark C.

       

     

[Oscar]

Mark,

You said:

"Tom sees the Assembly as a bunch of different individuals, so Joe's analogy of a marriage relationship (in his view) is flawed.  Possibly, a better general analogy might be of a dysfunctional family.  In this family we have an abusive father, a passive codependent mom, a compliant child, and a "rebellious" one.  Each has a role to play and none of them see a way out of the situation they find themselves in.  However, the police arrest the dad and the whole dysfunctional family is torn apart and now must face the aftermath.  This would be analogous to GG's demise and the falling apart of the group."

I think that the assembly was much more complex than a dysfunctional family.  Perhaps one could construct an analogy of a small town with a corrupt city government.  It seems to me that that would work better.  One has to remember, Mark, that there were many people in the assembly system that never attended a worker's meeting or a leading brother's meeting.  This is just like a small town where many never meet the mayor or the sheriff, but are affected by their actions.

Some of us were directly involved with GG and his closest lieutenants.  Others were much less involved.  As a result the degree of damage or deception differs from person to person.  Some were able to shake the assembly off and get on with their lives.  Others still have not recovered from their experiences there.

Over the past few years many have posted about having the experience of going to Sunday church meetings or some other church function, and then experiencing strong negative emotions as a result.  Many have avoided Christian fellowship as a result of this. 

This experience can vary in its intensity.  What it is is a form of PTSD, (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)!  When external events or situations cause one to have a recurrence of strong negative emotions such as fear, anger, depression, desire to get away and such, that is usually a form of PTSD.  I am not talking about merely liking or disliking something.  I am talking about having the feeling of being back in the situation that hurt you even though you know your in a different situation altogether.

There are many things one can do to relieve this sort of thing.  One of the most readily accessable solutions is simply to forgive.     Bitterness and anger at past wrongs and those who perpetrated them acts as a poison in our souls.  By forgiving we free ourselves from bondage to the past.

If the perpetrators refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing or to repent, that is sad.  But to continue to harbor bitterness only hurts us.  The folks who treated us badly didn't care then, and they don't care now. Letting that get to us only effects us.  The effect is emotional bondage to the past.

Forgiveness is a process, not an event.  At first the memory of the hurt or injustice brings up strong feelings and we can only resolve to forgive by an act of will, a determination to obey Christ.  After that one has to return to that act of forgiveness many times, usually every time something brings up those old memories.  This is not much fun.  Something in us cries out for justification and vindication.  But we must remember that having been hurt in the past did not cancel Christ's call in our lives today.  Our focus should be on walking with God and serving him now, not mulling over what happened years ago.  As we forgive others and serve Christ, the past loses its power to bind us to it.

Sometimes we need the help of another person, a brother or sister who will listen to us and pray with/for us.  Sometimes this can be a pastor, especially one who has some training in counselling.  There are some victims of past abuses that will need the help of a Christian counsellor.  There are techniques that they know that can help to turn our horror stories into history stories. 

I do not believe in minimizing the negative experiences of the past.  I also do not believe in "maximizing" them, allowing them to dominate our lives and thinking today.  The assembly culture had a lot of problems, as you well know.  You also know well how I was emotionally brutalized by the Top Dog, GG himself, aided by his faithful pack of "Killer Yes Men".  You also know what a physical and emotional wreck I became, hardly able to function well in any area of my life.  Yet for all that, I still recognize that there were many enjoyable times of service and of play.  I believe that we should remember both sides of our assembly years, and draw all the profit we can from them.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

[Explorer]

Tom,

This was very clear and helpful.

Thank you.