Why Leaders Are Responsible

[Matt]

It ought to be obvious to any objective reader that the treatment dished out to Luke and Paul Robinson for some of the things they posted was well-deserved. It is sad that I had to be the one to do it. Kinda reminds you of how things were in the assemblies doesn't it?. You think anyone buys that garbage about being a good example when you are dealing with raving lunatics?

Verne, sir, why so emotional? So you think that Luke and Paul Robinson are both raving lunatics? In your desperation, you have turned to name calling. Ask yourself - does the Lord want me to call Luke and Paul "raving lunatics?" Am I building up my brothers by calling them names? Or is the devil using me to say hurtful comments to them to bring them down and discredit them? Verne, the hatred and bitterness on Brent's website and this BB has started to affect you. Some people can handle it and rise above the promotion of hatred and bitterness, wrath, etc on this board, and others can't - trust me, you're one who can't. I also think it's odd that it's ok to slander Luke and Paul Robinson, and Tim G, and anyone else who doesn't think that all the leading bros are responsible, but yet, if anyone says something slanderous about Tony Edwards, Brent, Verne or anyone else who agrees with them - well then that grounds for going to hell. I'm worried that people are building Brent Tr0ckman up the same way they built GG up. I know that comparing people to GG has been the ultimate insult on this BB and I'm not saying that Mr. Tr0ckman is like GG. No, sir - that's ridiculous. But I'm saying that nobody jumped to L and P's defense when Verne viciously attacked them here, and it was probably because Brent Tr0ckman has been known to disagree very much with them. Think about why.

How do you know that I am emotional? I just write well for effect. Ask Luke or Paul whether anything in our our private communications betray any rancour whatsoever. Are you trying to destroy my reputation Matt?
I am nothing if not careful in my choice of words. Would you like me to go back and re-post some of the things that prompted by admittedly strident rebuke of the Robinson boys Matt? It seems to me you have a very short memory. Next thing you will be telling me is that I somehow abused you for condmening your own violent musings not too long ago. Why don't we move on? I think you have been a perfect gentleman of late, really...
Verne

Thank you, sir, for the compliment concerning my behavior recently. However, I'm confused why you wanted to "stridently rebuke" Paul and Luke when neither of them post on this BB anymore? Anyone who disagrees with you must be "raving lunatics," right sir? I'm not trying to ruin your reputation: I think you will hurt your reputation yourself if you don't retract your statement and apologize. So, please tell us if that was the Lord who wanted you to call Luke and Paul those names. Thanks!
- Matt

P.S. This reminds me of the time that somebody called one of Luke's posts "plain dumb" and both you and he awkwardly made up these convoluted posts trying to justify yourselves after you were called on it. Just say "Luke and Paul, I was needlessly attacking you with untrue, hateful comments last night and I ask your forgiveness." It would save you time, and that perfect reputation of yours that you're so worried about would remain unblemished.

[mkoley]

The saints will be there: it will be filled with the saints! So only the Saints will go to Heaven - and this is true  

by Matt


I can seem to find this in my Bible, care to expound on this statement?  

[Eulaha L. Long]

Matt-

To SLANDER someone is to tell things about that person that are untrue.  Didn't Brent write the same thing to you??  You are using slander to mean anything BAD said about the person.  Well, "bad" or not, exposing Tim G. and his ways are not slander-it's telling the truth.  And no matter how many times you stick up him, he indeed did what he did!  I can say Tim G. is a fraud for a zillion days, and some may think I'm a liitle cooky by doing that (lol), it's the truth-he is a fraud.  So, please use the word "slander" very carefully.  Remember, the Assembly twisted the meaning of certain words to justify what they were doing and teaching (examples: gossip, persecute).

[Matt]

The saints will be there: it will be filled with the saints! So only the Saints will go to Heaven - and this is true  

by Matt


I can seem to find this in my Bible, care to expound on this statement?  

Mkoley, the saints = all believers. Try John 3:16 for evidence of their salvation. It's the book after Luke.

[mkoley]

Only Saints=All Believers

I'm not trying to be critical, but I find a bit of disparity in this comparison.  I may have misintrepreted what you meant by "Saints".  

[editor]

Why, this is interesting. You said in your last post that it's that "extra twist" that made GG's teachings false. But who added the extra twist here? (hint: you did in this case) "Only heavenly people go to heaven" makes sense to me. Heavenly=having to do with heaven,having characteristics of heaven. What are the characteristics of Heaven? The saints will be there: it will be filled with the saints! So only the Saints will go to Heaven - and this is true. If you added an extra twist that made it false, that's not the leader's fault.

Matt, this is Mc-theology.  (as in Mcmuffin, Mcmeal, Mcwisdom, etc.)

Have you any idea what George taught about entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven?  Have you ever read one of his books?  If you answer no, you have no business commenting on it in this manner.

Brent

[Matt]

Why, this is interesting. You said in your last post that it's that "extra twist" that made GG's teachings false. But who added the extra twist here? (hint: you did in this case) "Only heavenly people go to heaven" makes sense to me. Heavenly=having to do with heaven,having characteristics of heaven. What are the characteristics of Heaven? The saints will be there: it will be filled with the saints! So only the Saints will go to Heaven - and this is true. If you added an extra twist that made it false, that's not the leader's fault.

Matt, this is Mc-theology.  (as in Mcmuffin, Mcmeal, Mcwisdom, etc.)

Have you any idea what George taught about entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven?  Have you ever read one of his books?  If you answer no, you have no business commenting on it in this manner.

Brent

Oh, Brent, but you're not the moderator. I think it is funny that you are still trying to tout yourself as some authoritative figure. Now, I'm confused. I thought you were going to post anymore on this thread? Brent, I don't trust you at all, and I'm not sure what you're after on this board. It's funny how I use actual reason when I try to refute you. You tend to resort to saying things like "oh, well that just can't be - that's mc donald's philosophy" lol. Or that one time in which you said "Matt, that's like saying so and so has bad breath and is therefore an idiot" LOL.  Come on Brent, when you don't have anything to say but your emotional outbursts, it's better to just say nothing - you'll keep more honor and dignity that way.

Andrea: thanks for your post. Firstly, forgive me if you were offended - I know my tone was kind of harsh. Forgivest thou? I was trying to say that I think people can get primary information from the Bible and then use secondary souces (like GG) for expounnding on. I guess that is why I thought he meant heavenly people = christians because christians are Heaven bound. Does that make sense? I'm not saying that GG is a perfect teacher, and I'm not saying that he didn't have any false doctrine. I agree that he has much to repent for. But my only argument on this board is that the vast majority of leading brothers are not guilty of hurting the flock (the sheep metaphor is getting annoying LOL).

Brent, I'm not trying to offend you brother, but you could learn a lot from Andrea Denner. She is less emotional and more understanding of all sides. MGov is like that too. You tend to throw your weight around like you're a source of authority here, so please, for our sakes try to behave yourself a bit better. You are promoting a lot of wrath, bitterness, anger, etc, and those things are not coming from the Lord - you know they aren't.
- Matt

[al Hartman]

     Call me naive, but i just don't get all the Brent-bashing.  
i was gone for two weeks, during which time Brent returned from his six week hiatus, and now it seems every time i look at the bb, somebody is taking a shot at him.  i'm not writing this to defend Brent, he's a big boy.  i just don't get it.
     His comments are often tongue-in-cheek, and quite amusing (but maybe that's because i'm not passionately debating him over something).  i don't read in his remarks that he's throwing his weight around, trying to be someone important or even getting emotional.  But claims are being made to that effect and quotes presented to back those claims (although they fail to do so) that make me think that maybe the patients have taken over the asylum.

     Let me ask this:  If the Son of God, during three years of ministry, was misunderstood by everyone who heard him (even his closest disciples), why should we feel that we must keep hammering away at our points of view until everyone else accepts them?  Do we just post whatever pops into our heads, or do we carry that thought to the Lord and ask him whether HE wants it posted?
     Suppose we do that and are convinced he wants us to post, but when we do, someone else refutes our words?  Do we at once engage that person in debate without consulting the Lord?  If we follow human instinct and attack, the results resemble a cheap talk-radio program.  (Still, someone will probably refute what i'm saying here without seeking the Lord's counsel about it).
     
     Let's face it, it isn't human nature to carry everything to God in prayer.  But then again, human nature isn't what's going to overcome this present evil world and the temptations of the flesh and carry us to our heavenly reward.  That is all attributable to the nature of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, AND our partaking of IT.
     Well, that sounds awfully preachy and takes all the fun out of showing everyone how much more clever i am than are those whose views oppose mine.  Maybe i should just stuff all this spiritual business under a rug and get on with tearing into my brothers and sisters as if they are my enemies.  That oughta have our REAL enemies (those powers and principalities) rolling on the floor with laughter.  It won't make me more than a conqueror, but if i "win" my debate, i can pretend it does!

[MGov]

Verne,

I direct this query to you.
I understand that you believes that everything that was/is of GG's ministry should 'disband'.
If a LB steps down from his position of leadership, what do you suggest he should do after taking that choice?

M

[MGov]

Verne,

I direct this query to you.
I understand that you believes that everything that was/is of GG's ministry should 'disband'.
If a LB steps down from his position of leadership, what do you suggest he should do after taking that choice?

M

I would do what Wayne Matthews in Champaign did. He spoke publicly about the sins of the ministry and condemned the conduct of George Geftakys. He continued to go out to the saints and was instrumental in seeing them find new places of fellowship and worship. He is a man of stature and integrity and in my view, very fit for service in the House of God. Any more questions?
Verne

Fair enough.  We hope and pray that any LBs that have chosen to step down and go to a different gathering, will learn from the good example of Wayne Mathews.
Lord bless,
M

[editor]

 i'm not writing this to defend Brent, he's a big boy.  i just don't get it.
     

Hi Al,

by all means, don't defend me.  Let's concentrate on defending the kids attacking me, and slandering blind men, with imaginary contents of fabricated email.

I'm not accusing you of defending them, I am merely pointing out something interesting.  Just because a person is intellectually or morally sub-par doesn't mean they have extra rights.  

If we are going to defend the truth,  and those who speak it from specious lies, and ad hominem attacks, then I deserve it no more or less than those who have made a practice of abuse on the BB.

Brent

[al Hartman]

     No two viewpoints are the same, so it would be useless for me to attempt to define the purpose of this bulletin board.  i can only state MY purpose in posting here:  It is to exalt and glorify God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, and to be a channel of blessing to his people (which can ONLY be done by exalting and glorifying him).
     Some of my following remarks are specifically addressed, as they respond to posts by specific persons.  However, they are for general consumption, and should not be interpreted as verbal assaults against any:
....................................................................

Brent,

     While i am not at all offended by your last post, i also do not understand your point.  Since it is specifically addressed to me, it seems i probably should.  If you have a personal issue with me, please send it to me personally, and let's not trouble the saints who it does not directly concern.
     It occurs to me that you may have misinterpreted my previous post as having been directed at you.  It was not (in fact, its application to you never entered my mind), but if you see a personal application, you should definitely feel free go over my head to take it up with the Lord.
....................................................................


     The topic of "Brent-bashing" was simply a springboard for me to address the concern of indiscriminate posting.  While i try to not be judgmental of individual posters' personal motives, it is difficult to see the Lord's hand in the broad spectrum of posts which feature little or no mention of Christ, unless it is to tell an "opponent" that God disapproves his methods.  They are virtually devoid of any signs of grace or love, except to emphasize negatively critical points of view.
     This BB has been the vessel of spiritaul reawakening for me and, if testimony can be believed, numerous others.  Must it now decline into a spitting match between opposing factions?  Maybe i'm missing something, but with email and personal messaging available to us all, the only reason i can see for ANYONE to assault another's character, OR EVEN CRITICIZE another saint on the BB is to cause public humiliation, WHICH IS GUARANTEED to bring negative reaction & agression.
     I am not saying that sin which damages the saints should not be publicly decried.  But i AM saying that most of the open BB hostility we have been seeing would have never reached its present stage if its protagonists had had the courage to eschew public SELF-vindication, and had taken the discussion to a personal venue, out of sight of the BB.  Humility leads us to prostrate ourselves before the Lord, allowing him to vindicate us, in his time.  It is ego that demands instant justice, standing us toe-to-toe in a verbal slugfest that honors no one and injures many.

     Again, the above comments are addressed to ALL.  If anyone finds them offensive, or wishes to discus them with me personally, i'm in the book (check my BB profile for details).  If, on another hand, you find them convicting, you may want to take them up directly with the Lord.
....................................................................

Verne,

     My understanding is that GG/Fullerton were in "fellowship" with a few (?) assemblies that came into being prior to any contact with him, and which received George and/or others from "the work" as no more than visiting ministers.  My questions are:
     (1.)  Is this true, & if so, where are these assemblies?
     (2.)  If such an assembly was established without input from GG/Fullerton, and has since renounced GG/Fullerton and rejected all association with same, of fellowship or doctrine, have they been able to continue, and how are they faring?
     This is addressed to Verne in view of his previous post, but responses are invited from any who have answers.

Earnestly, in the love of Christ,
al Hartman

[editor]

Verne, I answered this for Al in a PM.

The only gathering that I am aware of that was in existence before GG, was Tuscola and Omaha.  (Al, I forgot about this one in my message to you.) Read about its history in Brinda McCumber's excellent article on the main webpage.

George agreed in the late 1990's that the lampstand had moved from Tuscola up the road to Charleston.  I think Charleston may still be meeting, but they were on of the first groups to renounce GG.  As far as I know few if any of the saints who were in Tusclola before GG are still there.

Omaha, as far as I know, continues to meet.  (Can someone else elighten us further on this?)

PS, I was invited to a wedding in Omaha, between Mike Duwelling and Rebecca Sjogren next month.  I don't think I can make it.  If I do go, you all can count on me to dress nicely, and behave like a true gentleman.  I promise, I won't read a copy of Churches that Abuse, in the third row.  

Brent

[al Hartman]

Please allow me to suggest some qualifications to MGov's opinion, below:

     Differences which cannot be quickly resolved, particularly those which take on venemous worldly charactaristics are best resolved OFF the public forum, THEN presented fully resolved for all to see & rejoice in.
     Discussions, and even debates which honor the Lord through the evidence of honest inquiry, expressed respectfully and in love, can be a blessing to all.  A difference of opinion that degenerates into disrespectful remarks and/or accusations becomes a liability, threatening the peace of God's people, and is best resolved privately.

     We must all be responsible to ask ourselves what our purpose is in posting, and to ask the Lord whether it is his desire that the thoughts on our minds be posted.  This is no different than any other aspect of the Christian life.

al Hartman

 

[Eulaha L. Long]

Um...isn't Rebecca 20 years younger than Mike??  YIKES!