Why Leaders Are Responsible

[lenore]

 your right, i agree, amen.

Lenore

[lenore]

Restricting access to information is a common ploy of many "institutions" such as governments, PR agencies, and cults or religious groups.  The information that is either restricted, hidden or discouraged is anything that would deter a member from believing what the group says is true.

The Assembly had/has recommended reading lists and I have heard Assembly leaders "discourage" various books or authors.

The Assembly discouraged close ties with unsaved family members for fear that a saint would be pulled away from the Assembly.

The Assembly discouraged people from being involved in other religious groups or going to other churches.  Why?  You might see the light of your freedom in Christ and your bondage to a manmade system that does not allow members to decide God's will for themselves.

The Assembly discouraged people from taking certain courses at university or working at certain jobs that had fundamental differences in ideas such as military or political work.

The Assembly discouraged people from being critical of the Assembly by labelling such people as "railers," etc.  However, more than a few workers I had dealings with openly talked about the shortcomings of others and why certain people were not "good brothers" or "good sisters."  Such people were not allowed to go on MTT Teams and were often barred from marriage in the Assembly.  These rumors (supposedly the fact of "living in a fishbowl") helped to show who was good because they conformed and who was bad because they did not follow the dictates of the Assembly.  Leaders had the right to criticize others but not vice versa.  (On a few occasions, I brought up issues in certain people's lives and I was told never to do so again and that I did not have the right to do so anymore.)  From what we have read, the worker's meeting and George himself made a habit of criticizing others that did not match up to the Assembly's supposed light.  However, to criticize the Assembly was a major sin and to leave it is to fall away to something less than God's best, something less that includes shunning.  Sadly, according to MM, this is still practiced in one of the old/new Assembly still exists.  Such a tactic basically says that unless you are with us, you will be against us.  Jesus spoke against this practice when there was a man casting out demons in his name but was not part of Jesus' following.  We can only be for or against Jesus himself, not some manmade system of right and wrong.

To preserve the testimony, the old/new Assembly was guilty of trying to cover up problems or ignore them.  One of the ways they deal with/dealt with problems was to "discourage contact" with former members who realize the truth of Galatians 5:1ff.

To leave a place that has basically ruled your life for years takes a lot of bravery because it means beginning a new life free of bondage.  Bondage can be comfortable because you don't have to think--others will tell you what is right, true, how you should act and what you should believe.  What a sad way to live.  The "light" of the mind in bondage is darkness.  It is also hard to give up old habits that come from deeply engrained beliefs.  It is also difficult for leaders to give up the power and prestige they once had AND it is even more difficult for people who are so accustomed to be lead to suddenly start thinking and acting for themselves.

Basically, leaders should only be held partially responsible for the evils in the old Assembly because those in committed fellowship yielded their wills over to the leadership who were following a system of right and wrong imposed from Fullerton/the worker's meeting.  To admit that and leave the Assembly is to be brave, honest and, at the end of the day, free of bondage.

But leaders are/were still guilty of covering up the sins of the Assembly because of the need to "preserve the testimony."  Leaders are also guilty of hiding financial resources and, above all, fostering an environment that openly teaches that the Assembly is better than all other Christian gatherings.  To teach that the Assembly "has the most spiritual light" and is the best place to fellowship implies that to leave is wrong.  Such teaching is cultlike.  

Basically, if old/new Assemblies still exist and still have this "us versus them" teaching then God help them escape from the darkness of spiritual pride!  Nowhere in the Bible does it say one group is allowed to boast that it is better than others.  If the old/new leaders have not repented openly and in practice that such exclusive, cultlike practice is wrong, then it is clear the Assembly system started by George will continue under new leadership.  Very sad indeed.  

In the Psalms it says we should not be like DONKEYS who need to be lead around by others.  Thus, to leave the Assembly system that dictates God's will is to no longer be an ass.  In another thread it talks about how the leadership/worker's meeting instituted a "no-earring rule" that most people blindling followed and accepted as God's will/or a godly example.  Little did people realize at the time that most people in the Assembly had a very real nose ring inserted through their noses that "godly brethren" could yank at any time to get them to go a certain way or do what they want simply because it was labelled as "God's Will/What the Lord wants/a godly testimony."  Thank God I am not the ass that I used to be.  

Lenore, I quoted this for you, because you are fairly new on board.  But it is a good reminder to all.  This is about the Ottawa assembly (which was not that influenced by George ), but it is relevant to all other localities.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Marcia: I see, I agree and Amen.
Your right, influence is influence. and it does depend on if it is positive or negative influence. and the amount of pressure that people will use to control that influence over others.
Marcia: I had forgot, you were a brand new baby Christian went you enter and you grew up in the influence of control by the assembly.
I had grew up in the Brethren, it was my only source of Christian message, but I had at least some idea.
Marcia: I am still growing up in my faith.
You know something, I am glad , that although you are working out the steps of recovery. I am so glad that your faith in Jesus is still so strong.
You are able to explore , the great love of Jesus has for you, freely given,. Marcia you are very much appreciated , so long ago, and now.
A GREAT BIG HUGE THANK YOU.

[lenore]

Leaders are to be responsible:
How much of the responsibility is ours? Not to put leaders on a pedestal?
When does respect for leader of a church, crosses the line into treating them as a god.

[M2]

Leaders are to be responsible:
How much of the responsibility is ours? Not to put leaders on a pedestal?
When does respect for leader of a church, crosses the line into treating them as a god.

...
I already believed much of what he taught about the church, and his charisma was real.  Charisma has been defined as, "the ability to get other people to work your agenda."   That, sadly, is what I did for many years.

Lenore, only you know when you have crossed that line.

Marcia

[lenore]

Leaders are to be responsible:
How much of the responsibility is ours? Not to put leaders on a pedestal?
When does respect for leader of a church, crosses the line into treating them as a god.

...
I already believed much of what he taught about the church, and his charisma was real.  Charisma has been defined as, "the ability to get other people to work your agenda."   That, sadly, is what I did for many years.

Lenore, only you know when you have crossed that line.

Marcia

True Marcia True, but so many people, especially of other faiths , put so much emphasis on  their spiritual leaders of their church, that they worship them instead of God. So in otherwords they replace God for their spiritual leader, and maybe their are times when they dont realize they are doing it, because it is expected of them.  I guess I  been blessed the last couple of pastors of my church, has been younger than me, so I could treat them as an equal, not just as a leader. I respect them as my shepherd of my church, but I also realize they are also sheep of the  Mighty SHepherd.

[M2]

...
It should be apparent from my timeline that the leaders in SLO only acknowledged facts AFTER someone from the outside made that information public.  For example, it was only AFTER Kirk’s letter informed everyone of its existance that Jeff told me about the restraining order (and David was given the opportunity to apologize).  The leaders only specifically acknowledged that David had abused anyone AFTER Rachel’s detailed letter appeared on the website.  People from within the ministry did come forward, yet I wonder if they did so after reading Rachel’s story.  If so, I’ll bet they were thinking, “My God!  They told me that this was taken care of years ago!”  Jeff would later tell me that three of those people approached him at a wedding in Fullerton on 12/7/02 (the same day that he claims Rachel's story first appeared).  They gave information about abuse that had happened long ago.

I am certain that many leaders did attempt PRIVATELY to address many issues in George’s and/or in David’s life throughout the years (and that was appropriate early on).  It is apparent to me now that those efforts proved to be in vain, as neither men changed their attitudes or behavior.  Some of those leaders came to the conclusion that meaningful change was not going to take place and then made the choice to leave and/or make the issues PUBLIC.  In my opinion the line can be drawn between those who went public and those who didn’t.  It disturbs me that leaders who claimed to be acting with good will refused to acknowledge the obvious relevance of the victims’ detailed accounts.

All this being said, I don’t think that the scandals surrounding George and David (as bad as they were) were the worst aspects of the assembly.  Few people left over the years because of the adultery and the physical abuse.  Many more people left each assembly because of the arrogant, controlling, deceptive and demeaning leadership style created by George.  The oppressive nature of the leadership (expressed in varying degrees in different assemblies) was far more subtle and pervasive than the physical abuse.

It is my contention that George began his first assembly in 1970 while he was in a state of rebellion and long-standing corruption.  Therefore, I don’t believe that George’s minstry was initiated by God or built on the word of God.  I believe it was designed as a spiritual safe-house for George and was built on the sand of his own devices and desires.  The scandals brought on the storms of truth, against which the counterfeit foundation could not hold, bringing the house down with a great crash.   How sad it is that there are those who choose to live among its ruins.

Jack,

Just this week, I was thinking that so many lives have been scarred by 'this ministry'.  The scars of physical abuse are horrendous in that the victim get wounded physically and emotionally.  But there are also the victims of spiritual abuse who are scarred in a not so apparent way, but are scarred nevertheless.  "The oppressive nature of the leadership (expressed in varying degrees in different assemblies) was far more subtle and pervasive than the physical abuse."  Ottawa was not exempt from oppressive leadership despite the fact that it was so distant from Fullerton.  Even the China assemblies had the Geftakys influence.

You have summarized it quite accurately.

God bless,
Marcia

[vernecarty]

Hey Scotty!!
Where have you been?
Verne

[vernecarty]

With the 20/20 vision of hindsight, most reasonable folk would agree that the greatest failure of those of us associating ourselves with a man like George Geftakys was not so much insincerity, or a lack of knowledge of what the Bible teaches, per se, but it was ultimately a lack of discernment.
After all is said and done, this is really what it boils down to.
We failed to spot a lying, adultering hypocritical fraud even when he was seducing  sisters in Christ under our very noses at the same time he was responsible for their spiritual care.
It has been of great interest to me note the vigor with which so many of have affirmed the wickedness of the man, and bemoaned our spiritual obtuseness that kept us from seeing him for who and what he was.
One would think that with all the volumes that have been written and the interminalbe analysis that eventuated, that if there were anywhere a group of folk who would have antennaes at the ready, instantly able to spot a spiritual fraud, it would be ex-assembly people!
One noted historian has wisely pointed out that those failing to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. As it turns out, it is still true that it is people in responsibilites of leadership, or at least so viewed and who view themselves thusly, who ultimately bear culpability for the havoc wreaked on the flock of God by ramapaging wolves.
Some things never change...
Verne