Existing Assemblies

[Matt]

Why is it now that we spend so much time on petty arguments?  I wonder why you even respond to Matt or people like him.  Has he demonstrated much understanding in regards to the assembly?  Has he allowed himself to see the truth, or rather is he intent only on generating strife and keeping the hostile argument alive?  Look at his posts, esp. his first twenty or so and you'll see that he is a confused young man who needs help, but it will not come by public confrontation on the board.

Arthur,
I'm afraid I can't take this seriously. You didn't say anything publically to Brent or Verne Carty (aka Brent Jr.) when they mercilessly abused the Robinson boys, Affirming, the Teater boys, myself, etc. I'm afraid that the double standards you have prevent you from looking at this from a fair perspective. It's that blindness  you have to Brent and Verne's viciousness that is so similar to the blindness that people had to GG. Look at Brent and Verne's posts. Do these look like men in their 40's or haughty teenagers? What an example for the younger brethren! On the other hand, you're quick to defend Brent in the same way that people were quick to defend GG. Brent has become your new Godhead. A lot of people have warned on this board that Brent was becoming your God - teaters, Robinsons, me, etc. But you will be sorely disappointed if you trust in Brent - and that is the biggest understatement of the year!

I finally understand...a legend in his own mind...!
Verne

Your words, not mine. I was just stating fact - listing the opposition on this thread. Nice try, though, Verne.

MGov,
I thank you for taking a stand. These men (Arthur, Verne, Brent) are huge hypocrites. They act out the same thing they criticize. Namely, they abuse people verbally, try to stamp out opposition, rally around a man (brent), but then criticize the assembly for the same. What did Verne say once? The Lord reserves his most strident criticism on hypocrisy? Interesting.

[editor]

I for one hope that Matt does not leave the BB.

At the same time, I would appreciate not being called "God," and being told that people are propping me up as they did GG, etc.

Talking about things, without stooping as low as our habit has been of late is what I prefer.

Brent

[Matt]

Matt:  I was trying to compare myself with you yes, but not in the way that you think.  I guess I didn't go far enough to show you the comparison.  I included in my description that I defended the head leading brother in my assembly staunchly as well.  This same man (now that I know him MUCH better) who I staunchly defended and thought he was a "godly" man (because that is the facade they put forth) has now been shown to me to be what he truly is.  1)  A false teacher; 2) A man who is unwilling to submit to the governmental authorities in his business dealings; and 3) a man who extends little grace or mercy to his flock.  It is only through years of dealing with the man that I have come to know his true character not that which he attempts to put forth.  I don't believe that you can after only three years of involvement have a real understanding of how the assembly functions (i.e. what the leading brothers were taught to preach and how to govern in the church, etc.)  Thus, you are defending the system of things by your defense of certain individuals and you aren't even aware of it.

Kim, I don't know who you're talking about, so I will trust that you are right with regard to your LB. You must remember, however, that LB's are not one and the same. You said that your LB didn't submit to governmental authorities - I remember once a brother asked our LB if paying taxes instead of tithing was unBiblical because we were making the Government instead of God. The LB said that we were to submit to the government, and that if doing so meant we had to pay taxes, then we must pay taxes. I also know that my LB extended abundant mercy and grace to the saints in his care. He was so thoughtful, kind, soft spoken, patient, more willing to listen than to talk, never humiliated anyone, always had a word to cheer you up. I cannot place this man in the same category that you put your LB. You see, you assume that your experience is the same as everyone else's. I want you to know that I respect your position. I do not say that all LB's are innocent of hurting the flock - I can't say they are all innocent just because my LB was. But on the other hand, I don't say they are all responsible for hurting the flock - just like you can't say that because your LB hurt you. If he truly hurt you, I want you to know that I pray for your healing, and I don't mean to minimize that. I just don't want to see innocent LB's abused by disgruntled saints, most of whom they've never met.
 

This due to the fact that you look at these men and women as they present themselves to you, not realizing their support of a corrupt system of things (i.e. heretical teachings, controlling lives of others, etc.)  If you are defending them.....you are defending the assembly system of things.  It is only those who have clearly repented from their association with the assembly that can clearly be defended.  (And I think that is the point Brent is trying to make with you.  The "All" Brent I think is referring to is those LB's who refuse to repent and say that there was nothing wrong with the assembly.  Those who are the exception and thus fall into the category of "separate from the 'All'" are those LB's who took a stand against the assembly and it's corrupt system.)  Do you see the difference?

I don't think that being associated with the assembly is something that an LB needs to repent of. No church has perfect doctrine, so must all leaders step down? No leader is sinless, are they thus disqualifed? You see, you will never find a church that has perfect doctrine, and you will never find a leader who is without sin. You will never find a church without corruption. The Lord didn't make us to be perfect. So we cannot ask the LB's as a whole to repent for their assembly involvement because that would be asking them to repent for not being perfect.

Please consider that the assembly was not a "christian group".  Again, I was trying in my post to ask that you receive from those who have been involved far longer than you and have since gone out to the mainstream evengelical community and learned one thing:  THE ASSEMBLY WAS A CULT - NOT A CHRISTIAN GROUP.  I would not suggest to a new believer who had just received Jesus as their savior to go the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormon church to be discipled.  In the same way the assembly is very similar to these groups.  Do some research.  Read some books on the subject.  It is very enlightening - not to mention massively liberating in your walk with Christ.  

This brings us back to the same point that I had with brent. If the assembly wasn't a Christian church, then the LB's are not accountable because they weren't christian leaders. It soon becomes evident that people who are hostile to the assembly will twist their stand around in any way possible to hurt the LB's. You can say it was a Christian church and then blast the LB's for "allowing" GG to be a sinner. Or you can say it was a cult, and not a Christian church, in which case the LB's are not responsible for anything.

We have not chased anyone off Matt.  They left of their own accord.  If they are uncomfortable with the dialogue where we were presenting our viewpoints (something not allowed in the assembly) perhaps they should question what is making them uncomfortable.  The reason most of us former assembly members are on this site is to reach out to those who are hurting or those who have been misled by the assembly and don't understand how dangerously they have been influenced by the assembly (I put you in that category).  Unfortunately, we are human and we don't always communicate in the most loving, effective way possible.  I hope others are learning, even through involvement on this BB, to communicate with these ones with grace, compassion and love.  Strangely, I believe those were attributes that were greatly lacking in relationships in the assembly.

I look forward to future correspondence with you that might open your mind to looking at things differently.

Kimberley  

Kim,
I just want to reiterate that I thank you for you concern for my spiritual condition. I know that it's sincere. I know that you are showing me what God has shown you, and I appreciate that. I know that you were hurt, and I never want to minimize that or belittle it - in fact I pray for you. But you must trust that God speaks to me too. You are right that I know very little about other churches aside from the assembly. But I'm saved and I have been taught the importance of getting into the Word every morning to see what the Bible says for itself (something taught in the assembly!!!). I don't agree with everything about the assembly, again no church has perfect doctrine. But I do believe that God has put it on my heart to defend the vast majority of LB's from wrongful accusations. Thanks for your understanding.
Lord bless.

I for one hope that Matt does not leave the BB.

At the same time, I would appreciate not being called "God," and being told that people are propping me up as they did GG, etc.

Talking about things, without stooping as low as our habit has been of late is what I prefer.

Brent

Brent, I'm glad that you said "our habit." I don't think anybody called you God, they said that you think of yourself as God. When I said the "GG" comment, what I meant is that people are blind to your abusive behavior, but are quick to notice your opposition's sin. I know that I have not always glorified the Lord in my conversations with you. I know that I have hit below the belt (well, haven't we all at sometime?) Forgive me for that, although I'm not so foolish as to promise that it won't happen again. I don't trust you , Brent, not that it matters to you if I do. But you are my brother-in-JC, and so I must believe the best about you. Lord bless.
- Matt

[MGov]

Matt,

A general principle about accountability of leaders.
All leaders are accountable, Christian and non-Christian.
As a President, or a church leader, or a teacher, or a parent or... each is accountable, because God is over all.

I understand your line of reasoning, but since they were in a place of leadership they are accountable (for good and for bad).

Love and God bless,
M

[sfortescue]

If the assembly wasn't a Christian church, then the LB's are not accountable because they weren't christian leaders.

And Jesus said, For judgement I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.  And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?  Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.  John 9:39-41

Even if a "leading brother" is not a genuine leading brother, he is still held accountable if he claims to be one.Perhaps some of the confusion is that you believe that there is very little that leaders are supposed to do.  Others believe that certain things the leaders were supposed to do didn't get done, that they were AWOL from their job, that even though details aren't known as to why these things didn't get done, it was the leader's job to see that they were done by any means necessary.  This is most people's definition of leadership.

I can see why you would believe that there wasn't much that the leaders were supposed to do, since a number of the people chosen by GG to lead were not capable of doing more.  They were too young and inexperienced in life to know how to do more.  It was not right for GG to have put them in such a position.

I for one hope that Matt does not leave the BB.

I don't trust you, Brent, ...  But you are my brother-in-JC, and so I must believe the best about you.  Lord bless.
- Matt

[Matt]

And Jesus said, For judgement I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.  And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?  Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.  John 9:39-41

Even if a "leading brother" is not a genuine leading brother, he is still held accountable if he claims to be one.Perhaps some of the confusion is that you believe that there is very little that leaders are supposed to do.  Others believe that certain things the leaders were supposed to do didn't get done, that they were AWOL from their job, that even though details aren't known as to why these things didn't get done, it was the leader's job to see that they were done by any means necessary.  This is most people's definition of leadership.

I can see why you would believe that there wasn't much that the leaders were supposed to do, since a number of the people chosen by GG to lead were not capable of doing more.  They were too young and inexperienced in life to know how to do more.  It was not right for GG to have put them in such a position.

Sorry, Mr.Fortesque, but the passage you have talked about is more of a rebuke to the pharisees for their self-righteous attitudes. The pharisees in that passage assert that they can see and thus can pass judgment. But Jesus says that HE was sent into the World for judgement  Jesus is pointing out that they are still sinners - as all men are. Nobody is saying that the LB's aren't sinners. Jesus is asserting to the pharisees that they are guilty of sin - and we all are. Just as we are all pharisaical. It doesn't mention anything about non-Christian leaders being responsible for a Christian flock.

In my defense of the LB's, I'm generally referring to Brent's favorite passage in 1 Timothy 5 about rebuking elders if 2 or 3 witnesses are present. That passage is clearly talking about rebuking elders of a Christian church. If the assembly wasn't a Christian church, then that passage can't be applied to the LB's because they aren't elders of a Christian church. You can't have it both ways: we were either in a cult, not a church, and thus the LB's are only as guilty as we are OR we were in a christian church and we have yet to hear 2 or 3 witnesses come forward for a specific offense against every leading brother in the entire assembly history. Until we do, we can't say that ALL leading brothers are responsible for hurting the flock.

By the way, your last paragraph was entirely assumption. I don't think the LB's weren't supposed to do anything. I think they were supposed to serve - and did they ever. Giving their lives and opening up their homes to the saints - you'd be hard pressed to find such dedication at most churches on such a personal level. They (the LB's, not the workers) weren't even paid to do this, and they continued working full time and raising families. I'm sorry, sir, but you are mistaken if you think they did nothing. You have a Biblical obligation to esteem and honor the LB's who served you (see my signature line). Nice try, though, sir.

- Matt

[MGov]

....
In my defense of the LB's, I'm generally referring to Brent's favorite passage in 1 Timothy 5 about rebuking elders if 2 or 3 witnesses are present. That passage is clearly talking about rebuking elders of a Christian church. If the assembly wasn't a Christian church, then that passage can't be applied to the LB's because they aren't elders of a Christian church. You can't have it both ways: we were either in a cult, not a church, and thus the LB's are only as guilty as we are OR we were in a christian church and we have yet to hear 2 or 3 witnesses come forward for a specific offense against every leading brother in the entire assembly history. Until we do, we can't say that ALL leading brothers are responsible for hurting the flock.

....
- Matt

I think what you are saying is:

If the assemblies were not a Christian church, but a cult, then should we still apply Biblical principles when rebuking/correcting the LBs/elders?

If the assemblies were Christian and not a cult, then Biblical principles must be applied to each LB individually, and not collectively.  (In this case Brent has already said that not ALL LBs are guilty).

Correct me if I am wrong.

M

[editor]

If the assemblies were not a Christian church, but a cult, then should we still apply Biblical principles when rebuking/correcting the LBs/elders?

Yes, we should apply biblical principles, especially if dealing with a cult.  There are many passages that tell us how to relate to false teachers, and false brethren, and we should apply them!

Was every person in the Geftakys group a false brother?  In no way!  Was every leader a false brother?  No sir--that's ridiculous

Was the group a cult?  I think that they have cultic practices, and a cultic culture, so a strong case can be made that they are a cult.  On the other hand, people did actually get saved there, and the vast majority of the members are true Christian brethren.

My conclusion?  It's a moot point.  If someone wants to call it a church, that's fine with me.  I am not offended at all by people who call it a cult either.  It's the teaching and practice that is the problem.  People taught and practiced, so we must also identify those who promoted the false system, in order to contend for the faith!

So, when dealing with George Geftakys, and those who are of his ilk, we should apply the Bible.

Here's a good one:  3John 9  I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.  10  Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting [them] out of the church.  11  Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.

Here's another:  2John 7  For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ [as] coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.  8  Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but [that] we may receive a full reward.  9  Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.  10  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;  11  for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.  (note, I am not saying that George taught that Jesus didn't come in the flesh, but he and David hinted at it a few times.  I share this only as an example of the many verses pertaining to false brethren)

1John 4:1  Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.  2  By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,  3  and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the [spirit] of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.  In this one, we are to test the spirits, in order to determine what is false.  It is implied that the false should be identified, pointed out, and avoided.

You all know what my favorite verse is regarding discipline of REAL christian leaders.

Brent

[Arthur]

If the assemblies were not a Christian church, but a cult, then should we still apply Biblical principles when rebuking/correcting the LBs/elders?

Yes, we should apply biblical principles, especially if dealing with a cult.  There are many passages that tell us how to relate to false teachers, and false brethren, and we should apply them!

Was every person in the Geftakys group a false brother?  In no way!  Was every leader a false brother?  No sir--that's ridiculous

Was the group a cult?  I think that they have cultic practices, and a cultic culture, so a strong case can be made that they are a cult.  On the other hand, people did actually get saved there, and the vast majority of the members are true Christian brethren.

My conclusion?  It's a moot point.  If someone wants to call it a church, that's fine with me.  I am not offended at all by people who call it a cult either.  It's the teaching and practice that is the problem.  People taught and practiced, so we must also identify those who promoted the false system, in order to contend for the faith!

So, when dealing with George Geftakys, and those who are of his ilk, we should apply the Bible.

Here's a good one:  3John 9  I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.  10  Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting [them] out of the church.  11  Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.

Here's another:  2John 7  For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ [as] coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.  8  Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but [that] we may receive a full reward.  9  Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.  10  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;  11  for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.  (note, I am not saying that George taught that Jesus didn't come in the flesh, but he and David hinted at it a few times.  I share this only as an example of the many verses pertaining to false brethren)

1John 4:1  Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.  2  By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,  3  and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the [spirit] of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.  In this one, we are to test the spirits, in order to determine what is false.  It is implied that the false should be identified, pointed out, and avoided.

You all know what my favorite verse is regarding discipline of REAL christian leaders.

Brent

Good post.  This answers the question very well.  Thank you, Brent.

[Matt]

 No sir--that's ridiculous

No, you said it wrong. No, sir - that's ridiculous.

I am not offended at all by people who call it a cult either

Surely, you jest. Brent wouldn't be offended if someone called the assembly a cult? I'm eating my hat right now.

Here's a good one:  3John 9  I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.  10  Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting [them] out of the church.  11  Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.

What does this verse have to do with disciplining LB's? It says do not imitate evil. Are you saying that the LB's were evil?  I know what you mean! They selfishlessly opened up their homes to prayer meetings and Bible Studies. They callously talked on the phone or visited the saints in their times of need. They viciously prepared Sunday messages and coordinated outreaches. They cruelly denied payment of any kind for their leadership. Then they had the gall to try to work full time and raise a family of their own. Thank goodness the abuse is over!

Here's another:  2John 7  For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ [as] coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.  8  Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but [that] we may receive a full reward.  9  Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.  10  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;  11  for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.  (note, I am not saying that George taught that Jesus didn't come in the flesh, but he and David hinted at it a few times.  I share this only as an example of the many verses pertaining to false brethren)

1John 4:1  Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.  2  By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,  3  and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the [spirit] of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.  In this one, we are to test the spirits, in order to determine what is false.  It is implied that the false should be identified, pointed out, and avoided.

Neither of these verses discuss leaders of a non-Christian body for being responsible for the flock. Rather, it puts the responsibility on the saints to avoid non-Christian leaders.

You all know what my favorite verse is regarding discipline of REAL christian leaders.

Brent

Don't we ever. So, what is it? It's not a moot point, Brent, if you're attempting to wreak havoc in the lives of the LB's who served us. Which is it? We were in a cult and therefore the elders were not leaders of a Christian church and are not accountable for anything OR we were in a Christian church and we are still awaiting 2 or 3 witnesses to come forward for a specific offense against every Lb in the entire history of the assembly - from China to Providence, RI. From Calgary, Canada to San Diego, CA. From 1971? to June 6, 2003.

Also, you can't say that you believe that not all LB's are guilty. You said quite clearly that the LB's are guilty because they promoted GG, were appointed by GG, had direct contact with GG or his workers every week. Then you said that the LB's who left or were forced out before GG's ex-communication were not guilty. Were the LB's who left earlier not appointed by GG? Did they never promote him? Were these LB's not in contact with GG every week? It's just an inconsistency, Brent. You have to stop twisting what you're saying around to inflict the most damage on the LB's and their families.

I'm not saying those LB's that left before GG's ex-comm are guilty. I'm saying that they are just as deserving as honor as the rest of the LB's. They're not guilty for promoting a sinner - every leader is a sinner. They're not anymore guilty than any other church leader for there being some false doctrine - every church has false doctrine. They're not guilty because they didn't know GG and DG were corrupt and immoral - they barely saw the man but a few times a year and his sin wasn't the topic of seminars and those "weekly" phone calls. These men having nothing to repent for in terms of their assembly involvement.

We, on the other hand, have a Biblical obligation to esteem and honor these men. Do what the Bible says, not what Brent says.

Lord bless.

- Matt

[Eulaha L. Long]

Matt,
You  know, sometimes you remind me of a spoiled brat. (Mind you- I did not call YOU a spoiled brat, just for the record, in case you were planning to say I did).  Why don't you just make a meaningful contribution to the website?  You yourself is one complaining that the BB is vile and evil-why don't you help to make it better?  Attacking Brent has gotten real old.  The world doesn't revelove around you and you're negativity.  Give it up, be a grown-up, and let us see some of that intellect that I'm SURE is within you (hint, hint: that was a COMPLIMENT!!)

[editor]

Quote from: B. Tr0ckman on June 04, 2003, 04:04:49 pm    
Here's a good one:  3John 9  I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.  10  Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting [them] out of the church.  11  Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.
What does this verse have to do with disciplining LB's? It says do not imitate evil. Are you saying that the LB's were evil?  I know what you mean! They selfishlessly opened up their homes to prayer meetings and Bible Studies. They callously talked on the phone or visited the saints in their times of need. They viciously prepared Sunday messages and coordinated outreaches. They cruelly denied payment of any kind for their leadership. Then they had the gall to try to work full time and raise a family of their own. Thank goodness the abuse is over!

Hi Matt

This is a good question.  My line of reasoning on this was to look at the passage in the context of the church, and its leader, Diotrophes.  Diotrophes loved to be number one in "his" church.  He had the habit of prating against Paul, with malicious words, and he didn't receive other Christians in his church, but instead had the nasty habit of excommunicating them!

Paul said that he was going to remember Diotrophes' deeds, in other words, publicly expose his evil behavior.

I chose this passage, because it is an example of a Christian church, lead by an evil person!  This is a passage that applies to dealing with leaders of a church, which was the topic.  In other words, this passage applies to LB's,  if we grant that the Assemblies of George Geftakys are a legitimate Christian church, with an evil leader(s).  Other passages apply in other situations, as outlined.  

That's why I chose it.  I also wrote some other words in that post that explained my position further.

Brent

[Matt]

Hi Matt

This is a good question.  My line of reasoning on this was to look at the passage in the context of the church, and its leader, Diotrophes.  Diotrophes loved to be number one in "his" church.  He had the habit of prating against Paul, with malicious words, and he didn't receive other Christians in his church, but instead had the nasty habit of excommunicating them!

hmmm...as I recall, the assembly DID try to receive other Christians in its church. Also, I don't know what LB's you're talking about  but what LB's had a "habit of prating against Paul with malicious words" or any other Godly man? Come on, sir - that's ridiculous.

Paul said that he was going to remember Diotrophes' deeds, in other words, publicly expose his evil behavior.

He sure did! Good thing the vast majority of LB's don't fit Diotrophes' description, however.

I chose this passage, because it is an example of a Christian church, lead by an evil person!  This is a passage that applies to dealing with leaders of a church, which was the topic.  In other words, this passage applies to LB's,  if we grant that the Assemblies of George Geftakys are a legitimate Christian church, with an evil leader(s).  Other passages apply in other situations, as outlined.  

Ok. So the assembly was/is a Christian church. I'm glad that this is established. So, now the problem is proving that the LB's were "evil." That was my question - the one you called a "Good question." It remains unanswered. How were the LB's evil (and I'm talking as a whole, not individual cases)? Also, the example you gave was of a Christian church. My point was, if the assembly was a cult and not a church, then you can't use a passage about rebuking leaders of a Christian church.

The point still has not been addressed:

1. We were a cult, not a church, and the LB's were never elders of a christian church (and thus did not have the Biblical responsibility that elders of a Christian church have. that means, it doesn't matter how many witnesses come forward, they were not elders and we are not required to publically rebuke them...)

2. We were in a church, not a cult, and the LB's are responsible. We know that the vast majority of LBs served the saints well and fulfilled their responsibilities many times over. We also know that the vast majority of LB's were not evil men. And we also know that 2 or 3 witnesses have not come forward against every LB in the assembly history for a specific offense. Those leaders who have had witnesses come forward (mainly GG and DG) have already been publically rebuked.

Eulaha,
You're so sweet to me and the other younger brethren! Thanks so much for the "compliment".

XOXOXOXOXO Love you,
Matt

[editor]

Ok. So the assembly was/is a Christian church. I'm glad that this is established. So, now the problem is proving that the LB's were "evil." That was my question - the one you called a "Good question." It remains unanswered. How were the LB's evil (and I'm talking as a whole, not individual cases)? Also, the example you gave was of a Christian church. My point was, if the assembly was a cult and not a church, then you can't use a passage about rebuking leaders of a Christian church.

The point still has not been addressed:

1. We were a cult, not a church, and the LB's were never elders of a christian church (and thus did not have the Biblical responsibility that elders of a Christian church have. that means, it doesn't matter how many witnesses come forward, they were not elders and we are not required to publically rebuke them...)

2. We were in a church, not a cult, and the LB's are responsible. We know that the vast majority of LBs served the saints well and fulfilled their responsibilities many times over. We also know that the vast majority of LB's were not evil men. And we also know that 2 or 3 witnesses have not come forward against every LB in the assembly history for a specific offense. Those leaders who have had witnesses come forward (mainly GG and DG) have already been publically rebuked.

Matt, I shall do my best to answer your questions again.

First of all, recall the post I did a while back, where I highlighted a bunch of stuff in yellow.  I was attempting to communicate, with that post, that not all the LB's were evil.  In a recent post, I asked the rhetorical question:  "Were all the leaders false brethren?"  I answered that one "No, sir, that's ridiculous."

So, you are asking me speak of the LB's as a whole, in which case we must allow for varying degrees of guilt, as outlined in my "yellow" post.

If the Assembly was a church, then it is quite clear that we are to hold fast to sound doctrine, and rebuke those who do not.  Elders are to be rebuked in the presence of 2 or 3 witnesses.  With regard to adultery, there were more than 2 or 3 against George.  With regard to false doctrine, taught in EVERY ASSEMBLY, there are hundreds of witnesses, dozens of them have written publicly about it.

Have you read the material on GA.com yet?  The last time we had this discussion, you had not, but you will find your 2 or 3 witnesses there.  Matt, you must remember that there are several LB's who post regularly on this BB.  They readlily admit to false teaching, among other things.

In the case where we conclude that the Assembly was a cult, masquerading as a christian church, we are to expose it, resist it, and warn people about it.  The verses that come to mind are many.  The entire epistle to the Galatians fits this bill, in one sense.  The many conflicts with the Gnostics also does.  The Bible uses the term false apostle for a reason.

In the book of Revelation, God tells his people to come out of Babylon the Great.  Babylon is hardly a legitimate church, but yet God called HIS OWN people out of her.  The fact that Christians were in the Assembly does not mean the Assembly system was legitimate.  Certainly the leader and founder of the ASsembly was in no way legitimate.

Were there sincere people among the leaders?  ABSOLUTELY!  Mark Campbell is but one of many.

Were these sincere people deceived?  MOST DEFINITELY!

Are/were some of the leaders corrupt?  YOU BETCHA!

It is up to each of us to rightly divide God's word, which is what we have been doing for the last few days, much to our delight.  I invite you to join us, and I answer your questions again, as a gesture of goodwill.

Brent

[Mark C.]

Hi Everyone!
  I'm happy to be back from the hot and dusty streets of Bakersfield and to conversation on our beloved BB .
   I notice the word "cult" has come up more than a few times on this thread and I thought I might have some helpful thoughts on the definition of the word, and it's possible application to the Assembly.
  The word "cult" is not really a Biblical word.  This word has a secular understanding and an evangelical Christian use as well; the 2 senses being different.
   On previous BB's re. cults/abusive/dangerous groups that I have been on arguments raged back and forth concerning the meaning of this label, as no group wanted to be associated with the likes of Jim Jones or the Branch Davidians.
 Christian Scholars use the word "cult" in it's classic use as describing a particular system of worship, and this has no negative connotations.
  Evangelical Christians describe a cult as something negative, and this negativity has to do with the areas of both doctrine and practice.
   The secular use of the word "cult" has to do with only the sociological aspects of the group (the world could care less about the orthodoxy of the teaching of a group).  The world also reserves the use of the word "cult" in the most extreme sense of it's abusive and controlling application.
   The sociolological aspects have to do with the practices of the group.  Enroth, in his book "Churches that Abuse" details 10 criteria that can be used to decide whether a group's practices are cultish in the "practical sense" of the word.  Since Enroth is a Christian his study of the practices are often more subtle and less dramatic than a secular study would be.  (I would recommend again the reading of the book, "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" as this book was written about just your normal evangelical church on the corner and not about cults.)
   The NT warns of false teaching and false practices and the need to constantly pay attention to these issues in the church.  There is no need to detail the obvious again here, as I believe there was always one central key to the Assembly problems and that was a lack of entreatability (pride).
   The defensive reactions of GG and his followers were what kept the Lord from reaching the hearts and minds of the members.  However we label this attitude of resistance it was what led to all the other abusive practices of GG and his loyal followers.
  The suggestion that there were those who believed they were loyally committed to the Lord in their defense of GG and his ministry is undoubtedly true; sincere, but sincerely wrong.  One can have a zeal that is not according to knowledge, and the need is not to defend the zeal of the deceived, but the attitude of the deceived to receive correction in this situation.
  To try and justify individual leaders of individual Assemblies, or of specific Assemblies, is exactly the opposite of what our response to the Lord should be.  To ask the Lord to help us examine what we believed and practiced in the Assemblies of GG is not an "attack" but an invitation to restoration and renewal.  To listen to those desiring dialogue re. these issues is not to face torment, but the wonderful blessing of God's healing grace!
                           God Bless,  Mark