Existing Assemblies

[vernecarty]

I think one of the most difficult thing that Assembly leaders have to face is the prospect of being another "Joe" in the pew.  In the Assembly, they had significance and respect.  I don't mean this in a bad way.  When we were in the Assembly, we all believe that we were a part of something that was bigger than ourselves and it gave our lives significance.

Now, if they begin to attend the local community megachurch, they know nobody and are nobody.  It will take years to find their way around and rebuild.

Perhaps their motivation to hold things together is not a cruel desire to hold the sheep in bondage.  But, perhaps, they are driven by a fear of the alternative.  Is it easier to believe that they are still a part of this great movement that has defined their lives for the past 20 or 30 years than facing the pain of starting all over?

How sad! I do think that you may be right on about this. For those brothers in fear of loosing a place, I offer the following:

For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.
Psalm 84:10

Hi Dave

Yes, you've got it right.  However, in order to be a "shepherd" of "God's dear people," there must some people to shepherd.  Therefore, a person with this desire has got to have some sheep in the pen.  That is what is going on in the groups that are still meeting, especially San Francisco,  Sacramento,  Riverside,  Placentia,  West LA, Pasadena,  Anandale, etc.

Fullerton is a little different.  They are are on Assembly Hospice, where they are just caring for the terminally ill patient.

Brent

Brent this is something of a mystery to me. If these men are truly motivated by a shepherd's desire, what they are doing is the exact opposite of what one would expect. I really question whether the concept of "shepherding" as we understand it finds resonance in the thinking of the men currently propagating the Geftakys phenonmenon. What is more remarkable is the willingness of some to continue to participate! Just my opinion...

Verne

[M2]

I think one of the most difficult thing that Assembly leaders have to face is the prospect of being another "Joe" in the pew.  In the Assembly, they had significance and respect.  I don't mean this in a bad way.  When we were in the Assembly, we all believe that we were a part of something that was bigger than ourselves and it gave our lives significance.

Now, if they begin to attend the local community megachurch, they know nobody and are nobody.  It will take years to find their way around and rebuild.

Perhaps their motivation to hold things together is not a cruel desire to hold the sheep in bondage.  But, perhaps, they are driven by a fear of the alternative.  Is it easier to believe that they are still a part of this great movement that has defined their lives for the past 20 or 30 years than facing the pain of starting all over?

Dave,

I agree that these LBs do not have a cruel desire to hold the sheep in bondage. In fact I truly believe that they sincerely care for the sheep. I think it's more in the line of the old programming kicking in, hence the need for a fresh new environment.

I am attending another church as a 'frequent visitor'. My desire is to observe and learn. But as I sit in the Bible Study I have this strong urge to thrown in some of my old assembly knowledge. When I hear the pastor say 'the body of Christ which was broken for you', everything in me cries out and says "NO! not a bone in His body was broken."

I believe the process of recovery is not as simple as we have the Holy Spirit and the Bible to guide us, so we do not need outside help. Selah.

Marcia

[faith]

Samuel Ochenjele has been visiting the assemblies (Chicago, WLA, Santa Barbara, Placentia, Fullerton and....?)  His message is the same - "the enemy is sifting...stay true to the vision" With this continuing to be preached how can anyone say that the leaders have good intentions?  The message is that if you leave you have fallen prey to the enemy.  I don't know if Samuel is in this for the money or he truly believes this, but it sure makes me sick.

[jackhutchinson]

Last year at a prayer meeting in SLO I learned that Samuel's brother (named 'Sunday') had left the ministry, then returned, then finally left for good.  We were told that he was publicly critical of Samuel and the ministry.  I remember thinking at the time that Sunday must have been a deceived instrument of the devil, just like I thought Brent was.  I hope I'm wrong, but if Samuel is telling people to be faithful to the 'vision' it doesn't look good.  I wonder what the story was with Sunday.

I remember Samuel telling stories in SLO about miracles God did for them in Nigeria.  I do believe God does miracles.  But, if God has so miraculously worked wonders in Samuel's ministry and life, then how did Samuel not see (or not say something publicly about) GG's wickedness?  After all, we all got the impression that God spoke to and led these men in incredible situations.  They risk being killed by serpents and witch doctors according to the stories we heard (in GG's letters).  Why weren't they bold enough to rebuke a wicked man?  Maybe it's easier to see it in a witchdoctor than a false prophet like George.

I post this with an attitude of just asking questions.  I know Samuel has access to the internet (my former roommate emailed him at least once).  Maybe he could post on this board so we could know exactly where he stands.  Does anyone have Samuel's email address?

Jack

[vernecarty]

Last year at a prayer meeting in SLO I learned that Samuel's brother (named 'Sunday') had left the ministry, then returned, then finally left for good.  We were told that he was publicly critical of Samuel and the ministry.  I remember thinking at the time that Sunday must have been a deceived instrument of the devil, just like I thought Brent was.  I hope I'm wrong, but if Samuel is telling people to be faithful to the 'vision' it doesn't look good.  I wonder what the story was with Sunday.

I remember Samuel telling stories in SLO about miracles God did for them in Nigeria.  I do believe God does miracles.  But, if God has so miraculously worked wonders in Samuel's ministry and life, then how did Samuel not see (or not say something publicly about) GG's wickedness?  After all, we all got the impression that God spoke to and led these men in incredible situations.  They risk being killed by serpents and witch doctors according to the stories we heard (in GG's letters).  Why weren't they bold enough to rebuke a wicked man?  Maybe it's easier to see it in a witchdoctor than a false prophet like George.

I post this with an attitude of just asking questions.  I know Samuel has access to the internet (my former roommate emailed him at least once).  Maybe he could post on this board so we could know exactly where he stands.  Does anyone have Samuel's email address?

Jack

These are all very legitimate questions Jack and the bottom line is that Samuel and others could and should have done more. In speaking with him about just this question, he indicated that he felt constrained to defer to the U.S. brethren serving with George to attempt to deal with some of the problems he was seeing. He indicated to me the most salient quality about George Geftakys was his unwillingness to be entreated, which suggests that some tried. I know for a fact that he and others not only discussed some of George's failings they also apparently sought God's counsel in leading in prayer. The question I have is what did the Lord say to them? We now know of course that George began his minsitry in a state of rebellion from churches he was previously in fewlowship with. We need to understand this man was disqualified from the beginning! Those arguing that he somehow went astray are missing the most important point in all this:

Supposedly godly men of discernment completely failed to recognize a false prophet!


I understand Samuel's cultural constraints. I do not excuse it. God's Word is not limited by culture and we cannot invoke that as an excuse for disobedience. I am hoping that Samuel will take the opportunity to provide a fuller explanation to those who are wondering. I consider him to be a faithful, if like the rest of us, flawed, servant of Jesus Christ.
Verne

[mithrandir]

Samuel Ochenjele has been visiting the assemblies (Chicago, WLA, Santa Barbara, Placentia, Fullerton and....?)  His message is the same - "the enemy is sifting...stay true to the vision" With this continuing to be preached how can anyone say that the leaders have good intentions?  The message is that if you leave you have fallen prey to the enemy.  I don't know if Samuel is in this for the money or he truly believes this, but it sure makes me sick.

Can anyone confirm this?  If Samuel has been doing these things, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me.  If I'm not mistaken, he has been trying to visit the assemblies in the U.S. ever since March or April, in order to "encourage" them.  I also heard a while back that Samuel had been rather slow to tell the Nigerian assemblies what had happened with George, and that he needed some prodding.  I think this is to be expected, given the fact that the leaders of the Nigerian assemblies modeled themselves after what they saw in George & company.  I believe there was the same hierarchical structure, the same rank and privelege and authority conferred on those at the top of the ladder.  Granted, I was never in Nigeria, but this is how it seemed to me...if anyone knows anything different, please enlighten me.

Regarding what Dave Sable recently wrote, "I think one of the most difficult thing that Assembly leaders have to face is the prospect of being another "Joe" in the pew.  In the Assembly, they had significance and respect.  I don't mean this in a bad way.  When we were in the Assembly, we all believe that we were a part of something that was bigger than ourselves and it gave our lives significance.

Now, if they begin to attend the local community megachurch, they know nobody and are nobody.  It will take years to find their way around and rebuild.

Perhaps their motivation to hold things together is not a cruel desire to hold the sheep in bondage.  But, perhaps, they are driven by a fear of the alternative.  Is it easier to believe that they are still a part of this great movement that has defined their lives for the past 20 or 30 years than facing the pain of starting all over?", I have the following comment: I agree with Dave concerning the desire of Assembly leaders, both present and former, to hold on to their positions.  As Assembly leaders, they are not just "average Joe's", but they are the vanguards of a cutting edge ministry, a cut above the rest of their brethren.  Yet for these leaders to build an identity on this is dangerous for the people under them, for then they don't exist to serve their brethren whom they lead, but to dominate them.  Abuse is bound to happen when people are led by such insecure shepherds.

And there's nothing wrong with being a nobody.  I'd much rather be a simple hobbit minding his own business and enjoying life than to be constantly seeking after the Ring of Power.  Or, as Derek Webb wrote, "We're all just bus drivers...it's time to go home."

mithrandir

[editor]

I am attending another church as a 'frequent visitor'. My desire is to observe and learn. But as I sit in the Bible Study I have this strong urge to thrown in some of my old assembly knowledge. When I hear the pastor say 'the body of Christ which was broken for you', everything in me cries out and says "NO! not a bone in His body was broken."

I believe the process of recovery is not as simple as we have the Holy Spirit and the Bible to guide us, so we do not need outside help. Selah.

Marcia

If you study the effects of Roman cucifiction on a person's body, you will conclude that Jesus's body was indeed broken.  His bones may not have been fractured,  but his body was definitely broken, and that severely.   There is no problem with this verse!

Also,  Samuel is indeed travelling around, and was here in SLO.  Not everyone was told he was here, and I certainly was not told....nevertheless I know he was here.

Darkness is what is needed, and they are operating under cloak of fear and darkness.   Round two began with George and Riverside.

Lots of people complain about this, but few do anything about it.  Remember the uproar over Almanzor and Riverside?  How many of you did anything at all?

I know of two people who did, three counting myself.

In honor of Mithrandir,  as long as the Elves continue to flee Middle Earth,  the power of darkness grows unchecked.

Brent

[d3z]

If you study the effects of Roman cucifiction on a person's body, you will conclude that Jesus's body was indeed broken.  His bones may not have been fractured,  but his body was definitely broken, and that severely.   There is no problem with this verse!

But, there is a problem with GG.  I never quite understood why he had these verses he would change like this.  Many of them weren't about his weird doctrine, and just seemed arbitrary to me.  Perhaps it was just an assertion of authority.  He got many people to strike out words in their Bibles.  It does remind me of some of the things the JWs do.

I remember, in the anchors, being shown 1 Cor 14 as an example of why everybody was to come to the meeting prepared.  When I read the text, it seemed to me that the problem Paul addressed was that everybody was trying to share something.  The LB who shared this with me didn't seem to get that he was completely misreading the verse.

[psalm51]

Samuel Ochenjele has been visiting the assemblies (Chicago, WLA, Santa Barbara, Placentia, Fullerton and....?)  His message is the same - "the enemy is sifting...stay true to the vision" With this continuing to be preached how can anyone say that the leaders have good intentions?  The message is that if you leave you have fallen prey to the enemy.  I don't know if Samuel is in this for the money or he truly believes this, but it sure makes me sick.

Faith,
Just to clarify, we recently had Samuel  in our home. He and my husband, Wayne, are good friends as Wayne has been to Samuel's home in Nigeria a number of times. Samuel was very supportive and joyful about our decision to leave the assembly here in Champaign and felt the same about his son's decision to leave the assembly in Charleston. His son attends college there. Samuel never once gave us the impression that he felt we had "fallen prey to the enemy". He, himself, had been having grave doubts about George before the assemblies fell apart. He certainly is not in it "for the money" or anything like that. I suspect that his use of language about the vision has more to do about the Lord and little to do about the assembly. He is a humble and sincere man who is trying to make sense of it all just as many of us are attempting to do. I hope this helps.
Pat Mathews
p.s. if you have any questions or hear something that needs verification please email me and we'll try to get the answers.

[jackhutchinson]

Pat,

That's good to hear about Samuel.

Jack

[brian]

Samuel was very supportive and joyful about our decision to leave the assembly here in Champaign and felt the same about his son's decision to leave the assembly in Charleston. His son attends college there. Samuel never once gave us the impression that he felt we had "fallen prey to the enemy". He, himself, had been having grave doubts about George before the assemblies fell apart. He certainly is not in it "for the money" or anything like that. I suspect that his use of language about the vision has more to do about the Lord and little to do about the assembly. He is a humble and sincere man who is trying to make sense of it all just as many of us are attempting to do. I hope this helps.
Pat Mathews
p.s. if you have any questions or hear something that needs verification please email me and we'll try to get the answers.

thanks for saying this pat. in the few times i met him, samual always struck me as very sincere and humble as well. its nice to have confirmation that i was occasionally connecting with something real and genuine in the world i was raised in.

this is a good example of how its easy to start rumors on a bb, but its also quite easy to set the record straight. it cuts both ways.

brian

[BeckyW]

[quote author=Pat Mathews
Just to clarify, we recently had Samuel  in our home. He and my husband, Wayne, are good friends as Wayne has been to Samuel's home in Nigeria a number of times. Samuel was very supportive and joyful about our decision to leave the assembly here in Champaign and felt the same about his son's decision to leave the assembly in Charleston. His son attends college there. Samuel never once gave us the impression that he felt we had "fallen prey to the enemy". He, himself, had been having grave doubts about George before the assemblies fell apart. He certainly is not in it "for the money" or anything like that. I suspect that his use of language about the vision has more to do about the Lord and little to do about the assembly. He is a humble and sincere man who is trying to make sense of it all just as many of us are attempting to do. I hope this helps.
Pat Mathews
p.s. if you have any questions or hear something that needs verification please email me and we'll try to get the answers.

This is good to hear, Pat.  Samuel is coming to Annandale this weekend, to visit those still meeting as an assembly here.  Some of us who have left were concerned that he might be encouraging the people still in that, because they are "in", they are the only ones not "sifted by the enemy", while the rest of us (close to half the assembly now) have "fallen away because it is the end times", or something like that.
May he be able to impart a vision of the Lord there, apart from the assembly.
We'll be praying for his visit.
Becky

[vernecarty]

Samuel Ochenjele has been visiting the assemblies (Chicago, WLA, Santa Barbara, Placentia, Fullerton and....?)  His message is the same - "the enemy is sifting...stay true to the vision" With this continuing to be preached how can anyone say that the leaders have good intentions?  The message is that if you leave you have fallen prey to the enemy.  I don't know if Samuel is in this for the money or he truly believes this, but it sure makes me sick.

Faith,
Just to clarify, we recently had Samuel  in our home. He and my husband, Wayne, are good friends as Wayne has been to Samuel's home in Nigeria a number of times. Samuel was very supportive and joyful about our decision to leave the assembly here in Champaign and felt the same about his son's decision to leave the assembly in Charleston. His son attends college there. Samuel never once gave us the impression that he felt we had "fallen prey to the enemy". He, himself, had been having grave doubts about George before the assemblies fell apart. He certainly is not in it "for the money" or anything like that. I suspect that his use of language about the vision has more to do about the Lord and little to do about the assembly. He is a humble and sincere man who is trying to make sense of it all just as many of us are attempting to do. I hope this helps.
Pat Mathews
p.s. if you have any questions or hear something that needs verification please email me and we'll try to get the answers.

I want to say an amen to what Pat has said. I am afraid that it is too easy to let unsettling rumours cause us to think the worse. It is also understandable. My meeting with Samuel also left me with the impression that Pat's assessment of him is correct. I believe what he is doing is motivated not so much by a desire to continue the assemblies but a love for the flock of God. Please let us give him the benefit of the doubt until we have reason to do otherwise.
Verne

[Tony]

Hello,

Pat said:
"
I suspect that his use of language about the vision has more to do about the Lord and little to do about the assembly. He is a humble and sincere man who
is trying to make sense of it all just as many of us are attempting to do"

  Dear Pat, that may be, but I can't ignore the suspicions that after talking to you and Wayne and also Verne, that he made no attempt to contact Brent.   If I was trying to make sense of this, I would consider talking to the one who played a HUGE role in it's fall!   Especially if I were a Shepherd who has supported this man and his ministry before his lambs.


Verne said:
"I want to say an amen to what Pat has said. I am afraid that it is too easy to let unsettling rumours cause us to think the worse. It is also understandable."

   I don't think the worst but I am certainly suspicious.

"My meeting with Samuel also left me with the impression that Pat's assessment of him is correct. I believe what he is doing is motivated not so much by
a desire to continue the assemblies but a love for the flock of God."

   Then I expect that there will be an upcoming statement from Samuel as to how he assesses what happened to George's ministry and the false doctrines that he preached.   I think that this would be a very humble and sincere gesture to aid in the healing of many.

   How many of us would deny that Samuel's presence gave credibility to the ministry of George Geftakys?   It was the overseas ministry that was  *shown* to me as the power of the ministry.  On two occasions when I questioned the growth (or lack of) in the assemblies, it was these ministries that were used as examples.   And there was excitement whenever they came to town.

" Please let us give him the benefit of the doubt until we have reason to do otherwise."

I currently feel that my suspicions are reason to do otherwise.   I feel that suspicion is warranted in most cases involving leaders that were connected to GG's ministry in any way.

   I have nothing against Pat, Wayne or Verne's opinions regarding Samuel's intent, but to me, they are just that...opinions.

Verne, you said to me in a different post:
"So you see Tony, a mere reflection of the facts already at your disposal should fully dispel any confusion you have over the basis for my observations-"

  I'm sorry but the facts that I have at my disposal are what makes me suspicious.   IMO, the worse case scenario is  that this is just another case of damage control.

  I hope that I am wrong and that he is really HELPING those who are still in the Assemblies to understand what has happened.  And, I hope that it is done humbly as was described above.

Blessings, Tony

[vernecarty]

Hello,

Pat said:
"
I suspect that his use of language about the vision has more to do about the Lord and little to do about the assembly. He is a humble and sincere man who
is trying to make sense of it all just as many of us are attempting to do"

  Dear Pat, that may be, but I can't ignore the suspicions that after talking to you and Wayne and also Verne, that he made no attempt to contact Brent.   If I was trying to make sense of this, I would consider talking to the one who played a HUGE role in it's fall!   Especially if I were a Shepherd who has supported this man and his ministry before his lambs.


Verne said:
"I want to say an amen to what Pat has said. I am afraid that it is too easy to let unsettling rumours cause us to think the worse. It is also understandable."

   I don't think the worst but I am certainly suspicious.

"My meeting with Samuel also left me with the impression that Pat's assessment of him is correct. I believe what he is doing is motivated not so much by
a desire to continue the assemblies but a love for the flock of God."

   Then I expect that there will be an upcoming statement from Samuel as to how he assesses what happened to George's ministry and the false doctrines that he preached.   I think that this would be a very humble and sincere gesture to aid in the healing of many.

   How many of us would deny that Samuel's presence gave credibility to the ministry of George Geftakys?   It was the overseas ministry that was  *shown* to me as the power of the ministry.  On two occasions when I questioned the growth (or lack of) in the assemblies, it was these ministries that were used as examples.   And there was excitement whenever they came to town.

" Please let us give him the benefit of the doubt until we have reason to do otherwise."

I currently feel that my suspicions are reason to do otherwise.   I feel that suspicion is warranted in most cases involving leaders that were connected to GG's ministry in any way.

   I have nothing against Pat, Wayne or Verne's opinions regarding Samuel's intent, but to me, they are just that...opinions.

Verne, you said to me in a different post:
"So you see Tony, a mere reflection of the facts already at your disposal should fully dispel any confusion you have over the basis for my observations-"

  I'm sorry but the facts that I have at my disposal are what makes me suspicious.   IMO, the worse case scenario is  that this is just another case of damage control.

  I hope that I am wrong and that he is really HELPING those who are still in the Assemblies to understand what has happened.  And, I hope that it is done humbly as was described above.

Blessings, Tony

No argument here Tony. Thank you for your candor and forthrightness on this. You are doing what many of us failed to do in the assemblies- hold one another accountable. You can probably tell that I do have some mixed feelings about this. I tried to reach Samuel in California to give him Brent's number but was not able to get through to him. You must remember he is a guest of the people he is visiting and probably dependent on them for setting his itinerary. If they indeed are unwilling to have him meet with Brent, he should have forcefully rejected that position. I think it vital that he met with Brent and told him so when I promised to call back with Brent's number. I intend to follow up with Samuel when he returns next Monday.
Verne