Rape

[Vandyyke]

 I am really upset about how the "saints" handled the Rape that is posted on the website. I shudder to think that I supported this group. I suspect it had everything to do with George and does not reflect on the groups that are still meeting. Yet I can't say for sure. I wish people would visit and try to determine what is going on with these groups. when I visited in December it seemed to me that there was genuine change. There was recognition of other ministries. I was treated well. Can anyone comment?

[outdeep]

I would feel a little better if there was at least one other person identified by name who was in that meeting who would come forth and confirm this is exactly what happened.  This person states she was raped went to the leading brothers who decided that this person brought it on herself and is in a state of sin and should therefore be pubicly disciplined.  A transition is missing somewhere here. 

For many leading brothers, their character flaw was conformity, not heartlessness.  If the story went, "George announced that this person brought it on themselves and all the leading brothers remained silent" I would be more prone to believe it because this sort of thing happened repeatedly.  But there are several former leading brothers I can think of (and I don't know if I am even thinking of the right ones since none are named) who I just don't see arbitrarily saying to a rape victem, "what happened tonight is all your fault - go sit in the back until you repent" unless there is more to the story than is being told or they were acting on the specific direction of George and Betty.

I'm not saying it is impossible that this story is completely accurate.  Nevertheless, we have the problem of having a story with one accusor with no possible way of coorborating the story because no person, place, or time was mentioned.    I'm really not trying to put this person down, but no one can make a judgment on an accusation with no specific details.

[Marcia M]

I would feel a little better if there was at least one other person identified by name who was in that meeting who would come forth and confirm this is exactly what happened.  This person states she was raped went to the leading brothers who decided that this person brought it on herself and is in a state of sin and should therefore be pubicly disciplined.  A transition is missing somewhere here. 

For many leading brothers, their character flaw was conformity, not heartlessness.  If the story went, "George announced that this person brought it on themselves and all the leading brothers remained silent" I would be more prone to believe it because this sort of thing happened repeatedly.  But there are several former leading brothers I can think of (and I don't know if I am even thinking of the right ones since none are named) who I just don't see arbitrarily saying to a rape victem, "what happened tonight is all your fault - go sit in the back until you repent" unless there is more to the story than is being told or they were acting on the specific direction of George and Betty.

I'm not saying it is impossible that this story is completely accurate.  Nevertheless, we have the problem of having a story with one accusor with no possible way of coorborating the story because no person, place, or time was mentioned.    I'm really not trying to put this person down, but no one can make a judgment on an accusation with no specific details.

You're kidding right??

"Conformity not heartlessness" 

[Flora]

If you read my story on Assembly reflections, you will find that the leadership was quite heartless. As a sister, who was not a worker, I had no idea what was transpiring between the local leadership and those in higher positions of authority - George, Betty, Mike Zach, and the other itinerant brothers. I only know what I experienced.

This brave woman came forward to tell a horrific story, in order to enlighten others regarding the true nature of this organization. That took an incredible amount of guts and courage!! As a student, she probably had no idea what was transpiring between the local leadership and those in higher positions of authority. She probably only knew what she had experienced. We can be very grateful that she had the courage to relate her experience to us.

Concern was expressed that since no names are mentioned, it is hard to corroborate her story. I agree and initially this also caused me concern. However, since it was posted on the Assembly Reflections web site, I came to the conclusion that Margaret Irons knows the identity of the woman, and the Assembly in which it took place.

Also, no rape victim wants to revisit those memories. Since she courageously came forward to tell her story, I want to go on the record as saying: "I believe her entire story." I am ashamed and embarrassed to admit I once respected these people.

There is another reason why I believe her story. A similar experience happened to a sister in one of the Assemblies in Canada. The leadership refused to believe that she had been raped and insisted that she sit at the back of the meeting and not partake of the breaking of bread. She left fellowship within a month of the incident. A number of months later, she phoned me and told me her story. For me, this was the straw that broke the camels back. I left fellowship shortly after I learned her story.

To the woman who has just courageously come forward with her story, I want to say: "Thank you for the insight to the collective heartlessness that you experienced. Their attitudes and behaviour reveal that they are false ambassadors of our Saviour's love and grace. May the Lord's everlasting arms continue to support, strengthen and comfort you. May the Lord richly bless you for being willing to tell your story."

Flora

[Vandyyke]

  Dave when I first met the saints at Fullerton college I was 19 years old, attending Calvery Chapel with my fiance'. After we were married we started attending the Assembly. By the next summer I was desperately aware that my marriage had problems. I dealt with it by becoming a more and more committed Christian in the Assembly. This only made things worse for my marriage. I came home from work one night to find that she had committed adultery and left me. I was devastated. I needed help, support, understanding. Of course I went to the saints. They said, "You need to talk to leadership!"  Not long after this Steve Irons said he would like to have breakfast with me. I thought, "He is going to be consoling to me, he is going to give me the words I need to get through this situation."  After we sat down he started asking questions, "How long were you together,...." Then he started in on me, "Are you cheating on your wife?"  "Who is this girl you are cheating on your wife with?"  Dude it was exactly like the Rape story!  I left our meeting devastated. "This guy thinks its all my fault!"  And this is how I lived with my divorce from then on. "Its my fault!" So when I read the story on the Rape, I could see it happening just as it was written.



 Today I hold no grudge against Steve. Why?  I saw what he went through after leaving the Assembly. (He definitely regrets some of the things he did.) Today he is a humble man.

  I would also like to think that this is all George's doing. I can't believe that the people in the existing Assembles would continue on with this sort of thing, "Blame the victim" but I could be wrong. This summer I plan on visiting the WSLA and Fullerton assemblies. I know I will get some resistance but I believe when they see my heart they will be open with me. I wish others would do the same.

[Jem]

Dave,

I would like to think that the anonymous nature of the rape story was to protect the victim and perhaps even leaders who have since repented. Things got much weirder after you left fellowhip. In the assembly I was in I could see one leading brother doing this kind of thing, but not the others. And I could see this kind of thing happening in some assemblies more than others. But it got so bizarre I have no problem with the veractiy of this claim.

[Mark C.]

You're kidding right??

"Conformity not heartlessness" 

  I understand Dave's reluctance to believe that former leaders could be so heartless as the "rape story" seems to indicate.  I think this desire to "believe the best" comes from the view that derives from those outside the inner circle where GG had his most devastating effect of formation.

  To say it is "more conformity and not heartlessness" is a phrase that needs to be reflected upon a bit more.  Is not conformity to callous disregard for a person's well being a form of heartlessness? If conformity to Assembly norms means a leader must close off their consideration to care for the needs of those seeking their help it means that they have to shut off their feelings of compassion in order to obey GG.

  I can believe this rape story as I, as a leader in a local Assm., was involved in a situation where we had to make a choice between doing not only the compassionate thing, but what was just.  A former member of our group contacted me with the report that one of our current members had molested his daughter when they were still members in the group.

  This current member (to his credit) admitted it (and has since made things right with those he wronged) and we "leaders" were left with the decision of what to do.  The compassionate and just thing to do was to hold the bro. responsible and require him to take ownership for his actions (and all that this required).
  However, this bro. was of value to "the work" and the damaged family was now out of the Assm.  The message from Full. was that we were to accept his private reconciliation with God and that there were to be no other responsibilities or consequences connected with this bro.'s failure.

  I was told by the "Worker" leading bro. that, "after all, anyone of us could have done the same thing", thus indicating that it was no big deal to molest children!    Talk about a lack of compassion!  So, what did I do?  I tried to argue against this course of action, but ultimately I did "conform", though in my heart I knew this was very wrong.  I was aware that this decision not only would not help the one molested it would also be bad for the bro. who needed serious help in being recovered!

  Was I a better person because I only "conformed" vs. advocating the direct unjust and hard hearted Full. line of reasoning?  In the end, passivity in the face of evil is just as unloving as those actively promoting the evil and both attitudes need to be admitted to and repented of.  I fear many former members excuse their own culpability as former members based on their belief that their roles were more conformity vs. active evil.

  I'm not saying that each attitude is equal as to the degree of wrong it involves, but the two parts (active and passive) had to be in place for the Assm. to function as an abusive organization.  Both parts worked toward the end of wounding precious souls for whom Christ died and this needs to be recognized and repented of.

                                                                                  God Bless,  Mark C. 

[just me]

Dear Vandyke:
I recently spoke to a brother still in fellowship in the Pasadena assembly.  He told me that the brethren still consider the testimony of the women that were abused by George as lies.  That it is his word against theirs.  That there was no proof.  That these women were as guilty as he was before the Lord.  That things were not handled spiritually.  That there needs to be 2 or 3 witnesses to the actual act in order for there to be an accusation.  They likened it to the false accusations brought agains priests in the Catholic church!

These, Vandyke, are direct quotes.  The men in the assemblies are spiritual and faultless.  When they confront sin and failure they have to spiritualize and condemn it, or they are condemned.  They are true pharisees who have no fault. 

I am not surprised by the rape story, although horrified and shocked.  After all, none supported my story of abuse by George.  And they still call me a liar.  They claim it was my fault because I could have walked before the Lord and remained pure!  They claim that I had no proof.  It is all a story of perfection and spirituality that does not consider humaness, feeling, emotion and sinfulness.  I was told by a sister in fellowship "but we all are accountable before the Lord." as if we could control all of our outward circumstances and remain pure.  There are no victims in the assembly.  Everyone who fails is an outcast and the rest puff themselves saying, "thankfully that is not me.".  Shocking but true.  And the continuing assemblies still will not consider my story of victimization and study their own personal responses to my telling the story.  They all rallied to George and "the brethren" rather than rally to me and other women.

Just me

[moonflower2]

I can vouch for a reported rape of a sister who had been attending the Chicago assembly in the early years. I had been told that the victim had been on a date with the rapist.

Two sisters had told me about it. The response that the rape victim had received from the Chicago sister was, "What were you doing there?" I was shocked.

Later, during a time when I regularly talked to Betty, I mentioned what the rape victim had been told. Betty agreed with what the victim had been told: "what were you doing there." I told Betty that I disagreed with that response; that there is never an excuse for someone being raped, and you are placing the guilt on the victim who is already going to have problems dealing with guilt.

I then brought up an example of when my mother, working as a nurse, had avoided being raped by a patient by making as much noise as she could, by knocking wastebaskets around, etc., in the patient's hospital room.

Betty's response: "What was she wearing? Was she wearing a short skirt?" My reply was that she was wearing her nursing dress, and, pressed for more details by Betty, I mentioned that it was just above her knees, to which Betty replied, "Uh huh!" I was really shocked at Betty's attitude.

Who knows how this assembly rape victim had been treated by the brothers............but, as far as I know, she had left before I started attending assembly meetings. Smart woman.......

I felt I had to add this information because there are still disbelievers in what victims of this abberent assembly behavior have experienced.

[Vandyyke]

    Forgive me if I assumed too much. When I attended the Placentia assembly I witnessed the acceptence of other ministries, announcments about saints who on their own decided to travel to Hungary and work with another ministry.(These deciscions were made on their own, Randy Sutton, Nancy Hocking) I was vaugly aware that there is not an agreement with the G.G. situation between the Assemblies.  Funny when I ran into the WLA saints at the music center I just assumed they would embrace me. Yet it seems as if they are in a time warp. So there may be change in some places and not others? Are things in WLA and Pasadena still functioning as a cult? I just can't see any cult functioning without its megalomaniac leader. Isn't that a fundamental ingredient? someone has to rise to the occasion. So I will have to see for myself.

[outdeep]

I think my ill-worded phrase "For many leading brothers, their character flaw was conformity, not heartlessness" I was not trying to think the best of the leading brothers.  My point was that I can think of many examples of leading brothers who would not do this on their own unless they got specific direction from George and Betty to do this.  This is why I was looking for the "who" in the story because I was looking for this connection.

I can see how this scenerio could have taken place with certain folks in the Assembly.  Nevertheless, I still think it is good practice with an accusation of this magnitude to have some measure of coorboration.  I don't think it is too much to ask, "is there any one else willing to admit that this is exactly how it happened?"

I understand the person may not want to be identified but if the leading brothers were so cruel in this matter as folks on this thread believe why not name them?  Or if, as Jem suggested, they repented and all is settled, why even bring up this matter or at least mention the repentance as a postscript to the story?

I am not trying to be antoginistic or "blame the victem".  I'm just saying that the more specifics that are offered in a story, the more coorboration can be made by others, and the more weight a story can have.  The more vague and non-specific a story, the less effective and the more one is left to wonder if there is more to the story that another perspective could offer. 

[Margaret]

Fair enough, Dave.  This person has disclosed the whole story - names, location, etc. - and is eager to go public with this information, but there are compelling reasons not to do so at this time. I would say, though, that in general, it is better to err on the side of believing and supporting the victim, rather than believing the best about Assembly leadership, even when this casts a shadow over leaders who still retained some humanity.  George and Betty's pernicious influence ran very deep. The purpose of posting this account at this stage, before all the details can be made known, is not to call out the leaders in a particular Assembly, as was the case when Brent led the charge against the system, but to give the victim a public voice when they are ready to tell their story and hope it will make a difference. This woman wrote in response to the news that George and Betty are beginning all over again. She hopes that someone who might get ensnared today will recognize the danger because of what she went through.

But yes, there is more to the story, and when the details can be posted, it will be for a different reason.

[Mark C.]

Fair enough, Dave.  This person has disclosed the whole story - names, location, etc. - and is eager to go public with this information, but there are compelling reasons not to do so at this time. I would say, though, that in general, it is better to err on the side of believing and supporting the victim, rather than believing the best about Assembly leadership, even when this casts a shadow over leaders who still retained some humanity.  George and Betty's pernicious influence ran very deep.

  I think Margaret's quote above displays the best course to take when evaluating claims of abuse by former members---- "it is better to err on the side of believing and supporting the victim."  Enroth was attacked by the groups he wrote about in his books because it was claimed he allowed victims to "tell their stories" vs writing a book based only on objective forensic styled observations.  When I talked to him about this he told me that (and also wrote this somewhere) "after hearing hundreds of stories--- all very similar--- I already knew where the one sharing their story was going and could finish it for them."  A very clear objective picture emerged from many stories all pointing to a group that used religion to abuse it's members. 

   Telling ones "story" is not necessarily perfectly cut and dried, as we as individuals do try to shade a story to make our side sound better and to put the abuser in the worse possible light.  In a court of law a prosecutor knows how to put the victim on trial and get them to admit some culpability for their "getting into the situation in the first place."  Moonflower's recollection of her conversation with Betty demonstrates this perfectly when Betty tried to blame her nurse Mom for "wearing a skirt above her knees," and thus alledgely inviting a rape attempt.

   We are all very human, and have struggles with a desire for things we know are sinful.  It would be normal for a member to exclude anything that might admit this, as they would be very aware that "the leaders" would latch onto that as the sum total of who was responsible for any situation like this.  This, as in much modern litigation, leads to the terrible injustice of minimizing the culpability of the victimizer and casting doubt on the victim.

  The need for "more specific details" is the claim, apparently, that those still defending GG against his excommunication are asking for.  They also cast doubt on the women GG preyed upon, as these women "seduced" GG. "Where", they ask, "are the two to three witnesses of GG's inappropriate behavior?"

  As Enroth discovered, we too must get to the truth, not by cross examination of the victims, but by forcing out into the light the practices of those who use the name of God to abuse his children.  The focus is not for more compelling and complete evidence, but for those accused of abuse to come forward and confess and repent of their horrendous behavior!  If any of the multitude of charges of abuse levied against the Assm. system are true they are responsible to answer for them.  The NT clearly tells these Assm. defenders that the ball is in their court and that they must answer the charges levied against them.  This venue is the perfect place to do so and I call on them to humbly step forward.  Better to do it now then on the day when they will have to give account to God for their behavior.

                                                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

                                                                                     

   

[Vandyyke]

   The two to three witnesses argument works great for anyone who abuses others in private. How can people use that as a criteria? I think this is one of those verses used to protect the guilty.

[Oscar]

Moonflower,

You said:

I can vouch for a reported rape of a sister who had been attending the Chicago assembly in the early years. I had been told that the victim had been on a date with the rapist.

Two sisters had told me about it. The response that the rape victim had received from the Chicago sister was, "What were you doing there?" I was shocked.

Later, during a time when I regularly talked to Betty, I mentioned what the rape victim had been told. Betty agreed with what the victim had been told: "what were you doing there." I told Betty that I disagreed with that response; that there is never an excuse for someone being raped, and you are placing the guilt on the victim who is already going to have problems dealing with guilt.

I then brought up an example of when my mother, working as a nurse, had avoided being raped by a patient by making as much noise as she could, by knocking wastebaskets around, etc., in the patient's hospital room.

Betty's response: "What was she wearing? Was she wearing a short skirt?" My reply was that she was wearing her nursing dress, and, pressed for more details by Betty, I mentioned that it was just above her knees, to which Betty replied, "Uh huh!" I was really shocked at Betty's attitude.

Who knows how this assembly rape victim had been treated by the brothers............but, as far as I know, she had left before I started attending assembly meetings. Smart woman.......

I felt I had to add this information because there are still disbelievers in what victims of this abberent assembly behavior have experienced.

I suspect that Betty needed and wanted to believe that George was the victim of being allured by other women's advances.  That way, she could blame others and not have to cause problems in her own marriage.  George, in effect, was the victim.   

However,  this is what I suspect, not what I know.

Tom Maddux