Rape

[Flora]

Folks, pardon me, but I am baffled and very confused about some points made on this thread. 

Just me, you stated in your posting that you were told:

"That there needs to be 2 or 3 witnesses to the actual act in order for there to be an accusation."

So, they are saying that they will not believe a victim unless two or three other people witnessed the sinful act.  How utterly bizarre!  If one interpreted scripture this way then an elder could do almost anything as long as there was no more than one witness.   He could shoplift, commit murder, commit adultery, commit physical and/or sexual assault or any other crime and get away scott free.  This is completely ludicrous!

This is obviously another example of George and his supporters twisting scripture to cover up sin.

Flora

[brian]

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 against priests in the Catholic church!

These, Vandyke, are direct quotes.

...

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.

this is powerful. i admire your courage in putting this out there. i can't imagine what you've been through. you have more authority on this topic than any of us, because you've been through it. we're on the outside, blundering towards understanding.

i've heard other rape and abuse stories from the assembly that will never be told. the rape story on the geftakysassembly website  is entirely plausible. i believe her. (http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/PersonalAccounts/StrangerRape.htm)

i agree with what jem said about situations varying from leader to leader and assembly to assembly. the problem is in the system itself - a system that allows leaders, however well intentioned, to hold such absolute power over people's lives. in that situation, they will eventually make the wrong decision on a horrific situation such as this with devastating results.

not all leaders were ignorant, heartless or oblivious. some of them were, and the assembly system still allowed them this unbridled power over individual's lives. that will always result in abuse, eventually. the general conformism that permeated the leadership ensured that the most ambitious got their way, and ambition is strongly correlated with corruption.

and at the top we have george, a man with a proven history of surrounding himself with the most ambitious yes-men he can. he is a textbook narcissist whose top priority in life will always be to fill his life with people who build up his ego, buying into his grandiose self-delusion. that is more important to him than anyone's feelings, or justice, or truth - as he has repeatedly demonstrated. to think of him as a righteous man is laughable.

its heartbreaking to read how this woman was so excited to meet with the leadership, sure that they were about to step up and protect her, only to have them crush her with the worst sort of condemnation.

rape and sexual abuse are some of the most under-reported and unprosecuted crimes in the country for exactly these reasons. when the unfortunate soul that has been deeply traumatized finally gets up the courage to open up to someone about it, they all too often get an ignorant response. they are doubted, or even condemned. this drives the trauma much deeper, and the psychological fallout can last for years, or even a lifetime. the victim may never have the courage to talk to another person about it. this is why its so important to get professional help. a professional may not be perfect, but they won't make these kinds of glaringly ignorant mistakes.

for reference: http://crime.about.com/od/sex/a/rape_myths.htm

brian

[brian]

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 agree to an extent. i'm sure it wasn't arbitrary. in this case, the woman was talking to a leader's wife about it regularly.

Immediately the brother told me that I could not see any counselors and that his wife and another Leading Brother's wife would counsel me through this. I stayed home for several days and just didn't wanted to get out of my house. I constantly called one of the wives and talk to her. It made me feel better. A few days later she called me to say that she was not going to support me anymore in this and that she would not talk to me at all anymore. About an hour later her husband called me and told me that all the Leading Brothers and their wives would like to meet with me the next evening. I said okay.

my guess would be that it all started with that wife she was talking to. it sounds like the wife drew her own conclusions about the situation and went to her husband with them. then the assembly system took over and really flaunted its weaknesses.

brian

[moonflower2]

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

Very interesting, Tom.......

At the time of the conversation with Betty, I had the feeling that her response had something to do with GG, himself, but I had no idea of his escapades until the fall.

Moonflower

[just me]

Folks, pardon me, but I am baffled and very confused about some points made on this thread. 

Just me, you stated in your posting that you were told:

"That there needs to be 2 or 3 witnesses to the actual act in order for there to be an accusation."

So, they are saying that they will not believe a victim unless two or three other people witnessed the sinful act.  How utterly bizarre!  If one interpreted scripture this way then an elder could do almost anything as long as there was no more than one witness.   He could shoplift, commit murder, commit adultery, commit physical and/or sexual assault or any other crime and get away scott free.  This is completely ludicrous!

This is obviously another example of George and his supporters twisting scripture to cover up sin.

Flora

You are exactly right, Flora.  I was recently told by a brother in fellowship that this is how the assembly handles things correctly, unlike the Catholic church.  In other words, the Catholic priests had all of these false accusations about abuse, but that won't happen in the assembly because we use the scripture (2 or 3 witnesses) so that leaders can't be falsely accused.  That is why they say that the brethren in Fullerton did not handle things correctly.  They excommunicated George before the 2 or 3 witnesses could face George (and he could have denied it).  It doesn't matter that the 2 or 3 witnesses came forward and called every assembly to tell their stories.  They still claim there was no proof.  Because those who chose to remain loyal to George chose to believe his word over theirs and wanted documentation, evidence etc.  To my knowledge all the women did not keep his love letters, emails etc.  Even though they had gifts from him and could give details that was not evidence enough.

Also, the women tried to facilitate a meeting with George.  Mike Almanzor was going to arrange it.  When he contacted George about it, suddenly it wasn't going to happen anymore.  No explanation why.  The spinmeister had swayed Mike into believing something else would be more spiritual and Mike A stopped receiving phone calls from the victims and began claiming that the brethren in Fullerton hadn't handled things correctly so they should be shunned and not George.

It is a sick system that protects the spiritual hierarchy of the men at the expense of all others.  They really do look at themselves as sinless in all of their choices and actions.  Everything they do is spiritual.  Therefore anyone who sins must be blamed.  That is why I got the comment from a woman, "don't we all walk before the Lord?"  In otherwards, there are no victims.  Just people who willingly sin and therefore should be shunned.  I told her "yes" we all walk before the Lord and fail.  We confess our sins when we do.  But we are all subject to the influences of others as well -- husbands, children, employers etc.  She did not respond.

They are beyond feeling.

Brian thank you for your understanding.  The leadership in the assemblies definitely could be divided into two camps.  Those that were immediately horrified by the stories of George's abuses and those who waited to be told how to think and feel.  Those that were horrified acted immediately, spiritually and compassionately.  They immediately separated themselves from George.  Those that waited could not feel or think appropriately so they spun complex biblical, theological webs to sort out the truth.  These are the ones who now are more corrupt than they were and cannot think or feel at all.  These are the ones who recently came to my house and sat in my living room and told me it is my word against George's.  That "aren't the women to blame also?"  That "things were handled incorrectly", blah, blah, blah.  In my own home!

Even though George is no longer meeting with these groups, they claim to have a more spiritual outlook on all that happened.  They repeat the same comments that they have been for the last  5+ years.  They are locked in the past as if it happened yesterday.  And they still blame me/us for making false accusations toward different brethren that supported George.  That is why we will not be allowed to attend an assembly wedding this summer.  Because we need to make things right with the people we offended.  People that we warned should not take George and Betty in because of G & B's abusive nature.  People who cut off communication with us after calling us satanic, children of the devil etc.  Isn't it true that someone is offended they are supposed to come to us?  Pathetic

more another time
just me

[Vandyyke]

   Just Me- I guess I met with the former camp. Funny while I was at the Sunday meeting they announced a Downtown L.A. Bible Study. This means they still support the latter camp? Just what is the association between the existing assemblies?

  P.S. I can't believe they did this to you in your own home.


   As an outsider/historian I am removed from the condescending relationships I had with these people. If I wasn't, if I was still trying to be justified in their minds, I think I would go ballistic to have someone come into my house and tell me "You are the problem..."


  What kept you from pushing a frying pan through his nasal cavity?

[Flora]

Just me, I definitely believe you; I just can’t figure out where the others are coming from. The elders in Fullerton treated George more than fairly.

My understanding of this controversy revolves around the perception of the question: “Was George’s excommunication fair and scriptural?” I wonder if it would help them to compare George’s own excommunication to another similar situation, except this time George himself is the one counseling and guiding the disciplinary action.

In 1979, when the Ottawa assembly was only a few months old, we were listening to tape ministry. I don’t remember what the series was called. However, I clearly remember George saying that if you are aware of sin in the life of an elder or someone in a position of leadership, you have a responsibility before God to make it known. He explained that for the sake of the Lord’s people, to keep them from being stumbled, sin must be dealt with and removed from the leadership.

This really convicted my heart as I had been sexually molested by an elder in the Brethren church that I had previously attended. This elder was also a very close family friend, who I had loved, trusted and respected since I was an infant. The first person I told was Armand, who then talked to George. George advised and guided us each step of the way in bringing this sin to the attention of the other elders in that church.

George and Armand both knew that the sexual molesting had been committed privately, with no other witnesses to the sinful act. It was definitely a case of my word against his. Yet through out the whole ordeal, George and Armand believed me and supported me. George counseled Armand to support me in whatever way I needed, which he did. As the time drew near to talk to the elders, I was scared stiff. Armand met with me once a week to discuss the situation and to pray with me.

Since my Dad was an elder in another Brethren church, George counseled me to talk to my parents and let my Dad be the one to interface with the other elders. I did this, and both my Dad and my Mom were wholly and completely supportive of me over the next difficult months. Dad was willing to interface with the other elders on my behalf. The argument that came back from the other elders was that I needed to follow the instructions in Matt.18, and talk privately with this abusive elder first.

George strongly advised against this step. He was adamant that we needed to follow the instructions of I Tim 5:19&20, which state:
“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest may be fearful of sinning.”

George explained that the “two or three witnesses” was not referring to ones that had witnessed the sinful act, but that “two or three witnesses” were required to be present if an accusation is to be made against an elder. George strongly believed that this needed to be the starting point for two reasons:
1) This man is an elder; therefore, any meeting must have others present.
2) The sin that was committed was sexual molesting. Since meeting privately would further traumatize the offended one (the victim), this step needs to be avoided. Therefore, any meeting must have others present.

It took approximately four months to bring about the actual meeting with witnesses present. The abusive elder kept insisting he would only agree to a meeting with me in private. With George and Armand’s strong support, and with the Lord’s enabling strength, I stood my ground and refused to meet privately, insisting on a meeting with witnesses present. George counseled that if the abusive elder continued to refuse to meet, then the sin needs to be told to the church; and if he still refuses to repent, he needs to be excommunicated. Refusing to meet in order for the sin to be addressed does not prevent the elders from disciplining him.

After I presented this direction to the elders, I got a lot of pressure from my parents and from the other elders to just drop the issue. There argument was that since I had already left this church, it didn’t really matter. They did not like the box in which they found themselves. I argued in response that this man was in the position of an elder, and that the Lord’s people could be stumbled if his sin is not addressed. Also, I had a responsibility before God to make the sin known and to work together with others for the purposes of repentance and reconciliation.

Finally, after about four months, the meeting was finally arranged. We met in my living room and sat in a circle. My Dad and my Mom sat on either side of me giving me emotional support. Then there was the abusive elder and his wife. My Dad had insisted that the man’s wife be present, because he had violated his marriage vows. Then there were two of the other elders present.

The abusive elder contradicted himself constantly, with even his wife catching him in the middle of a contradiction. He refused to acknowledge his sin and he definitely did not repent. The two elders present went back and reported to the elders that had not been there. Then, the discipline action they decided on was to remove this man from being an elder. However, they still allowed him to preach and to break bread.

When George learned of this disciplinary decision, he stated that the discipline should have progressed to the sin being told to the church; and if the man still didn’t repent, he should have been excommunicated. George mocked and ridiculed their weakness to deal with the sin, and their lack of back bone to excommunicate him.

So, I have to conclude that George’s own excommunication was done scripturally and fairly. Any other conclusion would mean there are one set of standards for George and another set of standards for everyone else.

Lord bless,
Flora

[moonflower2]

So, I have to conclude that George’s own excommunication was done scripturally and fairly. Any other conclusion would mean there are one set of standards for George and another set of standards for everyone else.
Lord bless,
Flora

Even though GG's own excommunication was done scripturally and fairly, there was still, in his own mind, a different set of standards for himself.
I can't believe how so many of us were blind as to what his real character was. He was/is a complete a$$#@!&. (admin, if you feel you need to delete that last word, feel free to do so. I just feel better seeing it in print, even if just for a fleeting moment.  )

Moonflower

[Vandyyke]

        George's attitude about rape reflects what was considered once as normative in western society. (It is still considered normal amongst the good ol boys) last semester I was assigned a book on "Rape in colonial America" I can't remember the exact title but I will find it if anyone is interested. Rape in the colonial period was very hard to prove. Society had a tolerance of what we would identify as extreme sexual abuse. Men were allowed-even expected to, advance themselves on women! This was only natural! The responsibility for purity was her duty! It was her job to "guard the citadel"! But the man had every right to at least make an attempt to overtake it! It was even common for a women who had been beaten to still be found guilty of "consensual sex." In other words she should have fought him off harder! Now my whole point in bringing this up is the fact that a lot of these same attitudes are still around today!  I can remember being told by a friend in Jr. high school, "When a girl says, No! She really means YES!" George's attitude reflects this thinking but it is in no way exclusive to just him! Many people in our society still, although not openly, hold these attitudes about rape. The truth is we really haven't come that far in our thinking. A professor shared a stat, "33% of college students (men) said yes to the question, "Would you rape a girl if you knew you could get away with it?" George and the brothers are just a small fraction of our society.

[Margaret]

Just Me - What you have just gone through is horrible!! The heartlessness and arrogance of these guys is chilling. And yet they are blind to it, and they probably appear to be harmless in most circumstances. If someone who was not a threat visits their Assemblies they would be so friendly, so innocuous, and would consider themselves very gracious and loving. The outside of the cup is clean, but inside there is poison. Thank you for this evidence of the evil that still lurks in the Assemblies.

Flora - Thank you for this very instructive account. It is just as you said, "...there are one set of standards for George and another set of standards for everyone else." The double standards show that George Geftakys did not have integrity about what he taught. Teaching could be changed to fit the moment, i.e. scripture was twisted. Contrary to what many still think, we were not "well taught". Thank you for permission to post this account on ga.com, where it sheds light on the Final Weeks, as well as the rape article.

[Vandyyke]

   About eight years ago another Christian teacher and I decided to ride our mountain bikes through Yosemite. His dad used to pastor a church in Merced so he had a lot of contacts we could visit on the way. We end up staying the night on a dairy farm. Its an elder from the church CMA? who is a big Swede and has about five kids. This family turns out to be the coolest family I have ever met. They just make us feel so welcome! He takes us around the farm and explains the operation. I learn all about how to run a dairy farm. What impressed me most was the father's relationship with his family. He is totally involved in their lives. They are "The praise band" at their church! Dad and teenage son can really jam together on the guitars! That evening he took us out to a nice restaurant where he discussed all the blessings of the Lord in his life. (The farm was doing really well!) As I still had the memory of The Assembly fresh in my mind I kept comparing all of this with it. I kept telling myself how awesome these people were and how lousy the saints were. The next day I got up and wandered into the kitchen. The wife was cooking breakfast, my friend was outside doing something so I thought I would make my way back to my room and get a book to read. As I turned the corner of the hallway I suddenly stopped, quickly turned around and headed back to the living room. A voice was yelling at me inside my head, "DAVE! THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!"  I was staring out the window when I realized the dad was standing right behind me. I turned around and could see him looking into my eyes. "What are you doing?" he said. "oh nothing, (I stumble for something to say) I'm just looking at all of the open space." "You guys have it so good here, where I live its all cement." He turned off and said, "Well, breakfast will be ready soon." and walked away. What I saw was this hulk of a man laying prone over his 12 year old daughter. She was in a nightgown. He was on top of her like Romeo. She was just laying there, flaccid, resigned. He didn't see me but she did.



  So much for my comparison with the Assembly! The fact is sexual sin is everywhere! E.V. Free Fullerton has a big history! When you go to church tomorrow chances are you will be shaking hands with someone guilty of it! EEEEEEuuu! Yuck!  This doesn't diminish George's crap and I am not excusing it, but the fact is churches are filled with these kinds of people. They walk around  sophisticated, moral, aloof from the low life morality of the poor but its all a sham!

[Mark C.]

 Dear Vandyke,

   This story helps me to understand your strong rejection of "orthodox" bible based Christian belief.  Think of how the daughter of this father will grow up to probably have a visceral hatred for anything that sounds like Christianity!    You just having left the Assm. and looking for a healthy place free of the hypocrisy you had just been living with--- and then this!

  How can we explain the tremendous gap between the profession of those claiming that they are "in Christ", possessors of the Holy Spirit, and walking with God yet these can still commit such evil?  Furthermore, how can we explain those that reject the bible and seem to be very good people indeed?

  No one can be blamed, who has experienced what you have, if they become very cynical re. having social interactions with those who make strong claims re. their "life with God" and claim a very devout following of God.  No doubt, this is why you have chosen to associate with religious groups that are opposite in their views from evangelical belief.

  Though cynicism is understandable in many of us wounded by bad religion it can badly cloud our thinking and cause us to be reactionary vs. on a true path to healing and wisdom.

  I must admit I struggle with my own natural cynicism re. those making strong claims of superior belief systems and their own claims to spirituality. 

Christians are just as human as any other person.   We expect more of ourselves and other believers, and thus when we fail to live up to these expectations there is a tendency to question our faith in God's redemptive work in our lives.  "Maybe", we might think, "the whole thing is a fraud and should be scrapped?"

     When I realized that the truth of the Gospel is not about the superiority of my character as a believer, but is essentially about the fact of my own need as a sinful soul and God's recovery of that soul, it changes the whole way I look at people gathered at a church.  If a church is loaded with people with struggles with evil in their lives, that in itself should not be an indication that the group is far from God.  If they try to cover it up behind a hypocritical profession then it would be a huge problem (as in the Assm.).  The "sinners" in Jesus' time hungered for his message and the "religious" mostly rejected him.

     Thanks for sharing the story (though it broke my heart), because it might help some others in understanding why certain former members have taken the path they have since leaving and also help them to find healing from their own painful experiences.

                                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

   

[Vandyyke]

Hey Marc, I originaly posted this back in 05

On the Topic of Evil in Leadership!!!!
« on: March 13, 2005, 10:39:31 pm »
Quote
   I just finished reading the History of the Assembly thread. Yes I agree, I believe that G.G. is a very wicked and evil man. After reading "Krystan's Story" I recant my comments about regreting to "clean his clock" after running into him at Starbucks. I think he is a psychotic control freek bordering on pedofilia?  (Krystan seemed to have a 14 year old mentallity/psychology) George thrived on making us all into children and then indulging his desires on us.  Think about it, there are brothels all over the Los Angeles area and all over the countries he visited 9 months of the year. If it was just sex he was after he could have/probably did/ drive to Santa Monica and been home before the afternoon. "Hi Betty!" Instead he had to play sick games with the sisters. A few years ago I was working in a hospital in Tustin. I had a patient who had some very curious wounds to his stomach.  Later I discovered that this man molested children and was the victim of small town justice. I had the impression that the police were not trying too hard to find the attacker. But anyway what I wanted to adress in this thread is the fact that "evil" seems to be in every leader I have come across. Recently I had breakfast with an old high school friend. We went to the First Baptist Church of Lakewood  together. He brought me up to date on the leaders there. Pastor Bore (No pun intended) was given papers for adultery in 1986. Randy Sikes (The high school leader) was kicked out in 82 for having sex with the high school girls (Randy was in his 30's at the time) You may remember Randy was later arrested in La Habra for kidnapping and rape in 1985. He was later cleared of charges but the circumstances ruined him for good.) Bill McKee a youth  pastor at Hume lake, was found to be having sex with women at E.V. Free Church. While I was attending grace Bible Chapel in Fullerton the Elder, Bob Seeker, who was married with 4 children was sleeping with a girl in the college  group. Next we all know about David Hocking, Mike Crocorous? spelling?(Church of the Open door) and most recently the most aggresively anti-homosexual pastor in O.C., Paul Crouch was exposed for paying hush money to a former partner. Ironic that all these men made it their buisness to make sure I was not having sex!!!  Funny I never did!!!  But sure felt guilty for wanting to!!! I ask you is anyone really qualified for leadership?


  Marc, you are correct, "Christians are just as human..."  Coming to terms with this reality was very difficult for me. I remember preaching once on the subject of sanctification, "If I can't be delivered from myself then there is no hope!" (Having been in the Assembly you know what I meant! ("No hope of Rapture, Resurrection, Rewards etc...) I wanted to believe that people were good! Good enough to be trusted! Good enough to find true love and happiness. Yet, the reality is just what you said! We are just as human...  The myth of sinless perfection is the cause of tremendous dissilusionment and psychotic neurosis. Accepting the fact that no one deserves the assumptions of "holy servant of God" and that we ourselves will live with/in darkness for the rest of our lives is just a reality we must accept. In short we have to grow up! we have to accept the fact that this is the reality we were born into. Yet it isn't some hopeless reality, it can be just as much if not more of an adventure in itself!


   There is no meaning to life! This is the meaning of life!

[Mark C.]

  Since you wrote that post there have been some other prominent evangelical leaders who have been unmasked as well.  There was that pastor in Colorado (I forget his name) who was caught with a male prostitute and doing meth.  We could explain away all this stark hypocrisy from those professing so much, while they are losing the battle with sin in their own lives, but I think it best to ask the question why does this happen?

   I think that one of the main causes of this problem comes when we believe as Christians that God will remove perverted sexual desire from our lives.  I believe many of those who fall just deny that they have these kinds of desires.  When they fall they become deeply ashamed of their failure, but as leaders where do they go for help?  They feel the only thing they can do is hide the problem and hope that it will go away.    They have their AM times, they study their bibles, they pray, they go to church---- they are involved in all of the formulas that are supposed to control their sinful tendencies.  Formulas don't take away the human desires God has placed in us by creation.  They also don't take away the perversions of those desires that are a result of our sinful natures.

  The only way to deal with sin is to admit it, realize God accepts you the way you are, and struggle against giving in to the behavior.  Trying to "reckon dead" the sinful desire will have all the effectiveness of chanting or making the sign of the cross.  Also, it is important to have someone to talk to about your struggles and to pray with.  I'm not trying to create another simplistic formula here, as sin is a complex problem, and one that involves our psychological makeup as well as our spiritual attitudes.

   People who won't face up to the truth in their own lives are heading for a train wreck.  Leaders in this position are headed for an even bigger explosion.  I think God can use these situations to finally get our attention and help us to understand how to deal with our sin.

  Sexual sin is not just a problem with evangelical Christians, but since these are so vocal in their denunciation of this behavior when they are found to be involved it makes it appear more ugly (and more newsworthy).  If a leader from the "Flower Power Church Of Free Love" were to be found indulging himself with his female congregants it is not something that would make the news, or cause us to gasp at his terrible hypocrisy.

  The next thought I have about this topic is one that I don't know if I can clearly express.  I speak as a bible believing Christian when I say that part of the problem with our position is when we separate ourselves as somehow being essentially different from the "unsaved."  I think that we might have a tendency to think that based on our assumed theological superiority it somehow makes us morally superior (automatically better people).  Your comments, Vandyke, re. Anne Frank also come to mind on this.

  Jesus' teaching on the Good Samaritan should lay that to rest as a heretical Samaritan becomes the example of obeying God's directive to love.  If I have a great orthodox theology, but am morally reprehensible to God in my life what does that make me?  Will GG enter heaven (even barely saved )? I don't have all these answers, but I'm hoping for a lively discussion on this.

                                                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

 

[Vandyyke]

O.K. Marc,

   But the direction I was going had more to do with the fact that George Geftakys and The Assembly are not as unique as some people would like to believe!


   Now think about it. How many times in our (American Culture) history has "The Fallen Minister" appeared? It happens all the time!  It is just a given! Minister has a great testimony, is well respected in society, etc.. then it happens. "Oh Mabel, Did you hear about....."  "No!" "I can't believe it!"   


    Its like we continually set ourselves up for disappointment. We should know by now that no one is infallible! Yet we want our graven image, we want our hero, someone we can look to for guidance and inspiration. But it always comes back to reality. And we do it all over again. Why can't we just grow up and live independently from "Spirtual Leaders!"?