I wonder whether George's confusing form of expression is intended to be interpreted differently by different people. Some people would only hear teachings that are pretty close to right, while old-timers would understand something completely different -- legalistic and enslaving. (Kind of analogous to those trick pictures which are optical illusions in which two different things can be seen depending on how you look at it.)
that is an excellent observation! in psychology, this phenomenon is called 'confirmational bias'. i think george's preaching style is a reflection of the chaotic state of his mind, but what we read into it tells us a lot about ourselves (think ink blot tests). if we believe he is righteous, has (ever)actually set foot in the 'kitchen of heaven', and is the mouthpiece of God then we hear 'heavenly pearls of wisdom' that we don't fully understand but we are sure must be very important - in short, we are 'blessed'. if we know he has been sleeping around with young ladies his entire life, has a severe narcissistic mental disorder, and has been an out-of-control physical and psychological abuser, then we hear only the manipulative ramblings that any reasonable person would expect from the mouth of such an individual.
in short, we tend to overlook what does not line up with our current opinion, and we tend to focus on what agrees with our current opinion - reinforcing that fundamental feeling that we are right that we so crave. beware of this! it can lead you down many blind alleys, and anyone who was in the assembly for any length of time is particularly likely to indulge in it. we need to re-train ourselves to think critically, carefully, and clearly - and what requires the most courage - for ourselves!
brian
I worry about the implication in your observations that objective truth regarding George Geftakys and his assemblies is elusive, "confirmational bias" notwithstanding. The
facts regarding the history, conduct and spiritual denouement of all that the man George Geftakys touched (even prior to the assemblies) are not in anyway obscure...I prefer to invoke the old adage:
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"Verne,
I am wondering if it is correct to say that deception takes place "with our willing permission."? After all, isn't the very nature of deception such that one doesn't know they are being deceived? Believe me, George et al had an answer for every doubt, fear, or question. It was only fairly recently that my nagging doubts, fears, and questions could not be assuaged by the answers I received.
PM
Pat I think your question is one of the most important that I personally have wrestled with in this entire matter - i.e. our own degree of culpability for what transpired. We Christians have the distinct advantage that God's word has clearly instructed us about
how and
why deception occurs so while it is true a person in that state may not know it, every Christian should understand how to avoid that sad condition. James comment on this is remarkable insightful!(James 1:22), As I wrote on the other BB "Dealing With Deception" thread, the peculiar nature of deception
requires a
rejection of revealed truth generally and in the life of a child of God, a rejection of revealed truth
specifically. The resulting impotence and paralysis is no less debilitating in the believer than it is in the un-regenerate, the
process by which one arrives to such a condition is my focus...
It took me a while to stop arguing with the Lord about how much of what happened was George's fault...If we do not understand
how and
why we fall prey to deception, we run the risk of becoming repeat victims and will fail in our attempts to deliver others...Look again closely at the series of events that transpired in the first and greatest deception in Eden...I honestly don't know what to think of those remaining in that situation knowing what they know...I have my suspicions...
Believe me, George et al had an answer for every doubt, fear, or question. It was only fairly recently that my nagging doubts, fears, and questions could not be assuaged by the answers I received.
PM
Pat here is the six billion dollar question, what did the one Who died for you say in response to George's supposed satisfactory responses to your nagging doubts? Did you ask Him? Sadly, in many instances I also did not...
Next time we talk I will tell you what happened when I finally asked...
Dear James!
I have been absent for the week from the BB, and in reading back a few posts I came across your statement that suggested that the Assembly was not a cult. I believe you made the point that the teaching of the Assembly was orthodox, but the practices were cultic. I would like to answer that suggestion.
CRI (Christian Research Institute) makes the same kind of distinction that you do between "teaching" and "practice". CRI also separates erroneous teaching into two categories: heretical and aberrant. While the above classifications may be useful on a scholarly basis they are not Biblical distinctions.
The NT talks of "fruit" (behavior/practice) as one of the tests in discovering whether a teacher is false or true. Some have said, "well, all are sinners and therefore all ministries are disqualified if we judge their fruit." We see in Peter an example of what God wants us to understand in that respect. Peter sinned, but repented; false teachers sin and refuse to repent (GG). So, it is not sinful behavior per se, but a leader's reaction to being called to repent of same. Humility is the hallmark of Godly leadership vs. pride, the sin of the Devil.
Can you imagine Jesus telling GG, "Well done! you held to some aberrant teaching, but you were pretty much orthodox in other areas, and as a side note you abused my little one's, but that is a separate category!"
I don't think Jesus will see things that way.
I don't know how much of GG's teaching you are aware of. There is some that he has not made public for years, and in an attempt to diffuse criticism he has tried to present true orthodoxy, that contradicts heretical teachings he holds, but he claims both can exist together. (this, among others, is a very subtle subterfuge that GG used.)
Of these the most dangerous is his false holiness teaching. CRI may find this teaching "aberrant", but Paul declares it as Galatianism and "cursed". Paul goes on to make the point that it is destructive to the individual's Christian life, the Christian testimony, and a most serious departure from the Gospel! Paul calls it a "pseudo gospel".
God Bless, Mark
Thanks Mark. There is still a lot of confusion about the nature of George's so-called ministry. How remarkable that with the myriad clues God's Word provides to us, so many are still unwiliing or unable to recognize a false prophet. You are quite right - inability to repent is the most salient and distinguishing feature of the vessel destined for wrath...there is no Scriptural example of an approved servant of God who refused to acknowldge and repent when confronted with sin...the reason is that no such species exists...there are however several outstanding examples of those who
refused to repent...
Verne
