civil discussion about the Assembly

[Lurker]

Lets get off some of the more volcanic threads and bring some rational discussion on the topic over here, eh?

Was God truly in the Assembly, or do we have an ulterior motive to assign Him to it?

This is a question that is impossible to answer in a simple yes or no manner.  Please think about what you have to say, and  no personal attacks please.  

[outdeep]

Was God in the Assembly?  It depends what is meant by the question.

Often the question presupposes an incorrect attitude about the church that was developed in the Assembly namely:  if a group of people meet a certain set of criteria (in attitude, practice, etc.) then God gives his endorsement to the group.  (Or, said euphemistically, “raises a lamp stand” there.)  Groups that don’t meet this criterion do not get God’s endorsement.  In practice, George seemed to be the only one with spiritual discernment to recognize whether or not God gave the OK and an Assembly was truly “raised up”.

If you are asking, in this sense, whether or not God was in the Assembly, I would reply that the whole premise of the question is hogwash so the answer wouldn’t make very much sense.

If you are thinking, “did God Providentially work in and through the Assembly”?  My answer would be, absolutely!  God raises up and brings down both good and bad leaders.  He used godly David and pagan Nebuchadnezzar to do his bidding.  In the midst of the apparent mess, God indeed taught us to study His Word, to pray, to assert ourselves in ministry, to build Christian relationships, to read good books, to recognize deceit and understand the psychology of dysfunction, and to learn how to correct incorrect thinking in ourselves.  Many of these items we may not have learned had our path been smooth and we glided happily through a traditional gathering.

One may question how I could say that God worked Providentially through the Assembly when several were hurt and destroyed through its system.  This doesn’t negate my argument, but merely moves us to the larger discussion of why there is sin and suffering in the world in general.  Is God in the world?

God Providentially worked through the circumstances and relationships of the Assembly in spite of its problems.  However, I think we need to abandon the former notion that God looks at a church and gives it some sort of mystical across-the-board “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”.  It just doesn’t work that way.

[Lurker]

Dear Dave

I'm with you on this one.  God is present in His people, therefore, by definition He was present in the Assembly.

As is often the case when one gives one's self over to a cause, guru or movement, only to suffer the loss thereof at a later date, there is the natural desire to attach profound meaning to the guru/cause/movement.

To not do so is to painfully admit any number of the following:

1.) I was a fool
2.) I wasted years of my life
3.) What might have/could have/should have been
4.) I don't believe what I fought for anymore, I have lost my faith.
5.) Add in your own here______

As you pointed out, biblical Christianity is the only solace for the people I describe above.  If we are successful in seperating the sacred and the profane, Jesus Christ and the Assembly, then we can escape, not only with a strengthened faith, but also with the testimony that God used our time in the group for His glory.  He causes all things to work together for good to them that love Him and are called according to His purpose.

Christian cults confuse things.  They make improper links between their group and the Bible.  Passages that speak of the nation Israel, become passages about their group.

Psalms that speak of Christ, become psalms that speak of the body of Christ, which they interpret as their group.

Passages about the king, or one of the prophets become passages about their leader.

This very incorrect, non-contextual approach to the Bible results in people who leave the group, (or watch it explode) concluding that the Bible is false. They reason that because they "followed the Bible" in the group and it blew up, or the guru turned out to be a pervert, the Bible and Christianity is false. Nothing could be further from the truth.  It is their faulty interpretation of the Bible, and understandable reluctance to deal with points 1-5 above that forces them to this sad conclusion.

Drawing on my experience with Christian apologetics, I suspect that many of the people who seem to defend or apologize for Geftakys and his Assembly are actually suffering great doubt about the very truth of the scriptures, as they have inextricably linked them to their former group.

This is such a universal problem in groups like this, that I believe it is the chief diabolical reason behind the whole system.  The enemy only seeks to steal and destroy.  If he can do so in the name of God, all the better.  I think this is why Jesus called the Pharisees, "Sons of the Devil."

So,  God was certainly in the Assembly.

However, His involvement was not so much in building it up, but in protecting His little lambs until such a time as was right for their deliverance.  

Also, if one looks back at the last 2 years with an objective eye, one must conclude that God was quite invoved in the methodical, and rather total destruction of the group.  I think that is undeniable.

Hopefully, these thoughts can progress beyond mere disagreement, and someone can recognize how Faith in Christ is NOT synonomous with the Assembly, or at least gain a clearer understanding of the clear teaching of the Bible.

The "baby" is Jesus Christ.  The "bath water" was the Assembly, and everything in it that was not of Christ, which would seem to include the inner circle of leadership, the meetings, the books, and many other things.

This is nothing new.

[Arthur]

After having escaped the assembly, I now recall why I joined it in the first place.  To escape the corruption in the world.  In a certain sense, the rest of the world doesn't seem to be all that much different than the assembly-system, except that in the assembly the proximity of the control and influence of evil was close and daily at hand.  
But in the world, there is the same evil.
Just take a look at countries under communism and you'll see similarities to the assembly system yet on a national scale.  There are some differences of course. For one thing, it was our choice to join the assembly (whereas, communism was forced upon the vast majority of those poor people who live under its oppression).  
America for the most part still has great liberties and it was our choice to join this group.  We were like a communist community within a community, heheh.  A community of slavery and group-think in a community of personal liberty and individuality.  No wonder we thought we were undergoing persecution. We were--from within!  

Believing the gospel of Jesus Christ is the true way that leads to life eternal.  All religions in the world are man-made and are cults.  Take Catholicism--one of the largest and oldest cults in the world.  Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, JW's, etc.  are all false and destructive to individuals.  
But it doesn't stop there.  There is the also the cult of the almighty dollar.  Did you know that two-thirds of the CEO's of the Fortune-500 companies (and 84 out of the top 100) are disciples of Stephen Covey (who, btw, is a devout mormon)?!  

And then there are the cults of (note, if you're squemish you may not want to look--people are strange and have strange, fantastic ideas floating in their heads):

-(respect your) mother earth
-animals have rights too
-global warming
-trolls may exist and I may come back as a cherry blossom some day
-I believe in higher forms of energy
-there's a balance in life, what comes around goes around (karma bro)
-truth is relative
-I'm ok, you're ok
-do what you please so long as you don't hurt anyone else and it's between consenting adults
-woman's right to choose--keep your laws off of my body
-sexual revolution/liberation
-homosexuals are the next step in evolution--homo superior
-planned parenthood
-sex education (esp. for first-graders???)
-public schools (ok, ok I'm just throwing this one in here, it's debatable)
-federal reserve
-welfare
-universal health care
-NOW
-evolution as the explanation for the origin of the cosmos, species, complex chemicals, etc.
-God is dead
-(4 out of 5 dictators agree:) give peace a chance
-and the list, unfortunately, goes on and on and on....


From that larger question you mentioned, Dave --"Is God in the world", comes the next question--and why did Jesus suffer and die?  Like it or not, this is the world in which we live, and apparently suffering is what God is using as part of his divine plan.
Question: did God choose this method of sin, death and suffering before-hand or is he just using it because that's all he has to work with after his creation that he gave free-will to, i.e. man, chose to disobey?

I think the former is true due to the fact that Rev 13:8 states "...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".  How else would God demonstrate just to what extent he loves us other than by the death of his beloved, blameless Son?  However, I wouldn't say that it is a "method" that God uses.  Death, suffering and misery are in the world because man sinned.  We must never blame God for that.  It was man who disobeyed.  God is good, blameless, perfect and does no sin.  He dwells in inapproachable light.  

[jackhutchinson]

Was God in the Assembly?

George was corrupt and unrepentant long before he started the first assembly.  God doesn't use unrepentant people to start churches, He uses REPENTANT (though fallable) Christians to start anointed churches.  God had no hand in "raising" up GG's ministry.  As satan disguises himself as an angel of light, so do false apostles and deceitful workers.  While I do not think George is a satanist, his words and actions have served satan well.  God's presence did not anoint our gatherings.

God dwells in the hearts of those who are born again (in the person of the Holy Spirit).  He was in the hearts of sincere (sincerely deceived) Christians who were in a system that was much like the churches of Galatia, with all its legalism.  That grieved the Holy Spirit.

I think God was working in the hearts of all of us trying to get us to leave and/or speak out.  Some listened, most of us did not.  I think He was working all along to bring about the eventual destruction of the Assembly system in all its demonic "glory".  The internet was a crucial part of its destruction because it proved to be an accessible form of communication that was not under the control of George or his leaders.  It was one place where the Code of Silence could not be enforced.  The facts were the explosives that brought it down.

It reminds me of the classic movie, "The Bridge On the River Kwai".  For those who haven't seen this great flick, it involves an egomaniacal snooty British commander who in his delusion builds a bridge that will benefit the enemy forces in WWII.  He and his men are prisoners of the Japanese.  He gets his fellow prisoners to do the manual labor, even though they all think he is nuts.  He thinks that he is building an eternal monument to all things British.  He repeatedly calls it a "proper" bridge.  The Allies send a team of commandos to try to blow up the bridge before it is finished.  The ending is one of the all time great epic scenes and it alone is worth the price of the rental.

Sodom and Gomorrah were judged even though there were probably some nice people there.  Yes, we all had some positive experinces in the assembly, but let us NEVER forget that God judged it - and He doesn't want us to be ensnared in a yoke of bondage ever again.

Jack

[MGov]

Was God truly in the Assembly, or do we have an ulterior motive to assign Him to it?

GG wasn't around when my co-worker shared the gospel with me.
GG wasn't around when I got saved.
GG wasn't there when I went to my first assembly meeting and I knew that the Lord was there.
GG wasn't around when I did my first bible study and knew that the Lord had spoken to me.
GG did come on itinerant ministry.
I guess maybe the Lord honored His Word that was preached in the assembly in spite of GG's corrupt and unrepentant attitude.
However, I'm glad I was never in SLO when DG was a LB.
God does not honor the 'assembly system', but where we obeyed His Word, He honored that.

M

[Lurker]

If we conclude that God was invloved in the formation of the Assembly,  what is the reason for the collapse of the same?

"Every tree not planted by my Heavenly father will be uprooted."  a paraphrase.

Do we assume that this is talking about a particular gathering?  If so, where is the church at Ephesus?  Do we conclude that New Testament Ephesus was not planted by God?

The reason I bring these points up is not to engage in circular arguments, but in order to stir you up to think about certain premises you may have learned in the Assembly.   What Dave Sable said below is really quite important.

Is there any biblical teaching where God gives a "thumbs-up" to a particular church?  If so, does this make inclusion in the Body of Christ dependent on works, or obedience?

These are the types of knots that must be untied in order to free us from the false teaching promoted by people like Getakys, Lee, Russel and others.  At the core, is a suggestion that Christ didn't wash his church, the church needs to earn its charter by works, then God will endorse it.  If we slip up, he will yank His endorsement.  It's all up to us.

In reality, Jesus says, "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will NOT prevail against it."

All you Assembly people, go back and read the passages that seem to sanction your group and honestly inquire if they are really in context.  Is the passage really talking about a small gathering of believers, or is it something else?

All of this is a good start, but instead of me just spouting off the answers, as I see them, perhaps it would be best to hear how some of you look at these things.  

Grace is the foundation.  Examine your doctrine of the Assembly according to the doctrine of grace.  This is paramount.

[Kimberley Tobin]

Used to Be a Lurker:  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  What is so difficult for those of us who have come out of the assembly to come to an understanding of (It is all of God-He is sovereign and it is all of Grace-nothing of myself), you have stated simply.  The problem I find having only been out six months is that I was so warped with the teaching that I find it difficult to read the word on my own.  I find soooo much of the old teachings creeping in.  

God has been good to lead our family to a healthy church where there is good teaching and more importantly they don't teach dogmatically insisting that we believe what they teach, but ask us to search the scriptures ourselves (as the noble bereans.)

The BB was in need of your fresh perspective (a note to other "Lurkers" out there for more contributions.)  That is what I love about this BB community.  The OPEN sharing and dialogueing of ideas.

Please keeping writing "Lurker".

[Lurker]

Dear Kimberley

Many people have trouble reading the Bible after being involved in a group that abused people with the scriptures.  Their trouble can be on several levels:

1.) They feel they were wrong to leave the group, and they are only being hypocrits when they try to read God's Word again, but are not willing to go back.

2.) They retain the training that was inculcated in the group to the effect that the group has the correct, pure teaching of the Bible.  When these people reject the group, even for good reasons, like those with Geftakys, they still maintain the training they received and insist that the groups' teaching was correct.  Only the practice was wrong.  At some point, they arrive at a place where they must either find another church just like the one they lost (2nd time cultists) or they must reject the Bible all together, because they followed it in its purest form, and it failed.  The latter type of people really can't read it anymore, unless it is to atempt to disprove it.

3.) Another problem is that people litterally hear the voices of their false teachers every time they read a passage.  They can't get around it, and it is emotionally difficult, so they avoid the scriptures.

If I could counsel this type of person, it would be to encourage them to NOT read, but to listen.  Christian radio, gifted teachers in healthy churches, Bible on CD.  Hear someone elses voice read the scriptures.  It really helps.

Also, put the Bible that has all the leader's "anointed" interpretations and "greek" definitions in it on the shelf!

I promise you, if you look up Geftakys' greek "definitions," you will find that many of them are erroneous.  It's the same with so many of these types.

So, His church is founded on grace, according to His Word.  If YOUR church requires your work, in order to receive status from God, and if YOUR church is based on erroneous  interpretation of God's Word, are there any conclusions to be drawn?

The above paragraph is NOT an accusation, but merely a question.

Has anyone ever dissected Geftakys's books?  They will tell you what he really taught, whether you thought so or not.

[Arthur]

If we conclude that God was invloved in the formation of the Assembly,  what is the reason for the collapse of the same?

"Every tree not planted by my Heavenly father will be uprooted."  a paraphrase.

Do we assume that this is talking about a particular gathering?  If so, where is the church at Ephesus?  Do we conclude that New Testament Ephesus was not planted by God?

The reason I bring these points up is not to engage in circular arguments, but in order to stir you up to think about certain premises you may have learned in the Assembly.   What Dave Sable said below is really quite important.

Is there any biblical teaching where God gives a "thumbs-up" to a particular church?  If so, does this make inclusion in the Body of Christ dependent on works, or obedience?

We now understand that the concept conveyed by George as to what a "church" (aka lampstand, testimony) is, was in error.  
To George, a testimony was a group of people in a geographical location that held to his "vision" of "the house of God".   If you didn't share his vision then you could not be part of his church.  
In reality, what George deemed "the house of God" was really his house, in the sense that everyone was expected to follow and highly esteem George, under the pretension that it was done for Christ.

This was from a journal entry:
"When Bill Bradbury was explaining this[Heavenly Vision] to us at a T to J class for the Fresno MTT (June 2000), he said, "What unites us is a common vision."  And I got the impression from that class that what separates us in "this ministry" from other Christians is our "vision".  That is the explanation given for why they will go into a town, say Fresno, that has existing churches, and start up a new assembly there, not working with any of the existing churches.  Bill said, "Sure, they can work with us, but only if they see the vision of 'this ministry'."  Bill said, "We're not separating ourselves from any Christian group.  We just want to be faithful to what the Lord has shown us.  We're going to do what God has shown us, and if you want to join us, great."

So you see that this man-made system, the assembly, was more exclusive and into itself that some others, citing its so-called vision ("what the Lord has shown us") as the descriminating factor.  
But we need not worry about such things.  God knows of their existence and uses them for his own purposes.  Remember the man-made system known as "Egypt"?  God said to Pharoah "in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth."

Why did God allow Jacob and his family to go to Egypt in the first place when he knew that hundreds of years later they would be slaves? Wasn't it to display his power to the end that he may be glorified?
And why is it now "that blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in"?   Well, we then read, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." (Rom 11:25b-26)
It seems that God's way of working is for there to be blindness then light, slavery then freedom, death then resurrection.  
This may then be the answer to the question "Why did the assembly come into existence in the first place?"
No wonder Paul exclaims:
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever! Amen."


The true church of God is spiritual and eternal.  It is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the family of God.  It is comprised of those who believe in Jesus Christ.  It is as simple as "where two or three are gathered together in my name..."  There were believers in the assembly, ergo the spiritual church was there--living, breathing and even growing in the midst of a polluted, harmful man-made assembly.  The spiritual church was not what George was proclaiming, but what Jesus bought with his own blood--George and his system could neither destroy nor supplant what God has done and is doing.  God has prevailed!

Jesus said, "You are not of the world even as I am not of the world."  What I was trying to communicate in my ealier post in this thread is that the world outside the assembly is not that much different than from within.  Christians were there in the man-made system, just like they are throughout the world.  The assembly was just a subset of a larger mechanism, and the eternal church passes through the world-system refined as by fire to the praise and glory of God.  


Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.

[Lurker]

We now understand that the concept conveyed by George as to what a "church" (aka lampstand, testimony) is, was in error.  
To George, a testimony was a group of people in a geographical location that held to his "vision" of "the house of God".   If you didn't share his vision then you could not be part of his church.  
In reality, what George deemed "the house of God" was really his house, in the sense that everyone was expected to follow and highly esteem George, under the pretension that it was done for Christ.

This was from a journal entry:
"When Bill Bradbury was explaining this[Heavenly Vision] to us at a T to J class for the Fresno MTT (June 2000), he said, "What unites us is a common vision."  And I got the impression from that class that what separates us in "this ministry" from other Christians is our "vision".  That is the explanation given for why they will go into a town, say Fresno, that has existing churches, and start up a new assembly there, not working with any of the existing churches.  Bill said, "Sure, they can work with us, but only if they see the vision of 'this ministry'."  Bill said, "We're not separating ourselves from any Christian group.  We just want to be faithful to what the Lord has shown us.  We're going to do what God has shown us, and if you want to join us, great."

Arthur

Are you familiar with George's teachings?  While I have read everything on the website, I have recently been told that most of it is libel, or exaggeration.

I don't believe that, there is too much agreement accross the board for that to be true, and no evidence to the contrary.  I am just wondering if you are familiar with George's teachings, and not just what you "thought" was taught.

A man named Witness Lee, who was a former associate of Watchman Nee, also had a strong teaching on the nature of the church.  Basically, he taught that the New Testament teached there is only one church per geographical location.  He cited verses that read,  "The Church in Jerusalem," or "The Church in Thesalonica."  Lee was careful to emphasize the definite article, and concluded that there was only one local church, called The Church.

This doctrine did two things.  It revoked "local church status," from the Baptists, Reformed, and everyone else, and gave God's endorsement to churches that saw themselves as "local expressions of the Body of Christ."  I'll give you two guesses as to who the REAL "local churches" were, and who their leader was.

What happened is that a vigorous recruiting program was undertaken, where local church (Lee) disciples began to recruit other believers, from other churches, into The church.  (Lee's)

Also, the doctrine emerged in such a way that the church became the 4th person in the trinity.  Lee taught that the church IS Christ, because it is a partaker of the divine nature.  Since the church shares the same nature as Christ, it has become Christ, because Christ won't give His glory to another.

By taking the focus off of Jesus, and slightly overemphasizing the church, a true heretical teaching emerged.

Incidentally, there are some tremendous similarities between the Assembly and the Local Church of Witness Lee.

Could it be that the basic premise that Geftakys and Lee have latched onto in order to develop their exculsive doctrines is not Biblical in the first place?

What is the church?  Perhaps more important, What is the church NOT?

[Arthur]

Arthur

Are you familiar with George's teachings?  While I have read everything on the website, I have recently been told that most of it is libel, or exaggeration.

I don't believe that, there is too much agreement accross the board for that to be true, and no evidence to the contrary.  I am just wondering if you are familiar with George's teachings, and not just what you "thought" was taught.

George's teachings, including the errors, are common knowledge by now, no?  There is no longer any mystery about it as far as I know. Who is it that is saying what is libel or exaggeration?  To settle the issue, read for yourself his books and/or articles in the T&T.  Some people still have his tapes as well.  This is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. There is overwhelming evidence and consistent accounts from hundreds of witnesses.
Yes, I was in the assembly for five years--went to all the seminars, etc. You can read my story if you want to know the extent of my involvment.  There are others who have far more experience with him, but to answer your question, yes.  

A man named Witness Lee, who was a former associate of
Watchman Nee, also had a strong teaching on the nature of the church.  
Could it be that the basic premise that Geftakys and Lee have latched onto in order to develop their exculsive doctrines is not Biblical in the first place?

I am vaguely familiar with Witness Lee.  I heard him preach his heresy on the radio once or twice.  If I recall correctly, I ran into some of his disciples on the CSU Fullerton campus and had an interesting, though heated, discussion.  Yes, the two systems (Geftakys and Lee) are very similar.

What is the church?  Perhaps more important, What is the church NOT?

I answered that in the previous post.  The church is eternal and spiritual--the body of Christ.  It is not the man-made system that George developed.

[Eulaha L. Long]

I think that once upon the time, the Assembly was a pretty safe place to learn about God and to serve Him.  But, as time went on, George got more and more greedy and corrupt, and things went downhill from there...

[Matt]

I am told there are still some in St. Louis contending that all that has happened is nothing more than an attack of the enemy, and are trying to preserve and/or resurrect who-knows-what from the ashes of God's judgment.

Verne,
I am curious as to who told you this about st. Louis? A man from STL emailed me with those same fears, but you will soon find they are groundless when you talk to more of the saints there. The midwestern assemblies are not disbanding as rapidly as the Cali ones did - too far from Fullerton. Some ex-assemblyites and I were talking about this last night. The difference between the midwest assemblies and the Cali ones are strange at best. People have been making statements that all assemblies were the same, and all followed GG. Perhaps to varying degrees, people followed George. In the midwest's defense, I'd have to say that they did not follow GG to the same extent as Cali. That's why they were able to hold on longer after the ex-comm. The break-ups weren't as bitter and sudden as here...think of the San Fernando valley. It's very sad. Even at campus conferences, it was possible to tell a difference between the saints in Fullerton and close to Fullerton (like Placentia), and then the rest of us. I definitely had the impression that there was something strange about those saints when they gasped "you still listen to secular music? you still watch tv? I understand now why they had different standards...they went to GG's home assembly. I was told that our assembly was rather "tame" compared to other cali assemblies because Bob Starr was from the midwest. I believe it too. It's all varying degrees. From what I gather, St. Louis did not follow GG as much (either because they were too smart to, or because they had a lot more distance between GG and themselves) and therefore his sin was not an undermining factor in sustaining this assembly.

Now, Verne,
Why do you think it's impossible for this ministry to be a great one if it is purged of GG? All churches go through reform. Why not this one? And how can we be sure that this really wasn't an attack of the enemy? Just curious. I will return your email, pronto.

Lord bless.
- Matt

[Matt]

Verne,
It is regrettable that the assemblies weren't perfect, yes, I know. But one has to admire the commitment to serve Him. I agree that it is unlikely that the assemblies can recover. But still we cannot be sure what the Lord will do with the remnants until we see it. I'd be wary of that man who sent you the information. If he's the same guy that sent me that information, you'll soon find that you have to separate truth from the lies in his email. Lord bless him though.
- Matt