Why Leaders Are Responsible

[MGov]

Laurie, vbeers,

I have been following the BB for quite a while now.  I do not think that Matt is disagreeing with the fact that there were problems in the assembly, but that there is an unbalanced picture being presented on the website and the BB.  The positive elements of the assembly are not being presented, hence Matt is presenting some of them.

Matt, am I on the right track??

M

[Margaret]

Matt and MGov--
I appreciate your point that the website could be more encouraging.  I think you are right that there needs to be a recounting of the benefits and the blessings that came in the assembly.  We will work on that.  I have had that in mind as Part II of the Green Bay Tree.

We created separate sections for the Final Weeks and Personal Accounts with the express purpose of segregating them, or quarantining them, so that people who are not helped by those perspectives don't have to go there.  We have seriously considered deleting the Final Weeks from the website and making those articles and letters available by request only.  Do you think that would help?

Margaret

We purposely chose the wording on the Home Page--"for those who have been affected"--so that it could include those who might have had a positive assembly experience, and yet are in distress because of the dissolution.  We did not intend to imply by those words that everything about the assembly was negative.  If you can offer a concise way to express that we would gladly consider changing the wording.

[MGov]

Margaret,

I'm not sure that deleting stuff is necessary; but if you feel that that's what the Lord wants you to do, then my opinion does not count.

Because of 'external controls' being applied in the assemblies, there was a lack of sensitivity to the leading of the Lord.  The Lord approached/was approached by a variety of individuals (Rich young ruler, blind Bart, Samaritan woman at the well, woman caught in adultery, etc. etc.). he did not 'deal' with each situation in the same manner. In some cases He was quite 'radical' like touching the leper, letting the woman caught in adultery go free though the OT required her to be stoned, stopping to notice blind Bart. etc.  No rules.

How does this apply to your query:
As we learn of Him and see Him then we can be re-tuned to follow His leading, rather than a bunch of rules.

Anyway Lord bless and lead you in this endeavor.
M

[Matt]

Brent, Laurie, MGov, and Margaret,
So many people vying for my attention! I'm honored.

Laurie: Thanks for your concern, but no leading brothers have comissioned me to speak on their behalf. My whole argument is that the vast majority of LB's owe nothing to the saints on this board and therefore their presence here is unnecessary.

MGov: Yes, I think the website could use a major overhaul, but that's just part of the reason I'm on this thread, but it gets too much emphasis. It is not infallible like the Bible, and so it's not as "necessary" to read as Brent pushes it to be. There are demonic elements involved for now as there are a lot of accusations, bitterness, and anger on that site.

Margaret: Which brings me to you, Margaret. Thank you for your post. I'm pleased that you are going to include a section on the blessings and encouragements that we received while we were in the assembly. I think that will serve a more Godly purpose.

Brent: Before I address the following quote, I would like to point out an inconsistency I see with you. I mentioned before that the Saints are holding leading brothers to double standards. Either the LB's were following GG and not the Lord, and were therefore not true elders and are therefore not accountable to the saints.
OR
The LB's were following God, not GG, and are therefore not responsible for deceiving anyone.
You are one of these saints, Brent. Sometimes you indicate that the assembly was not a Christian church as in that post in which you told Vbeers: "Matt has made it clear that he actually attends a Christian church, not the assembly." Now, if you try to weasel your way out of that one by saying that "I didn't say the assembly wasn't a Christian church," I'm not going to buy it. It's pretty clear what you meant by that wording. So, Brent, if you don't believe it was a Christian church, then the LB's aren't really elders and the verses that you mention below don't really apply to them.

The issues are far more than just DG's wife beating, or George's adultery.  We are talking about a legacy of spiritual abuse here.  Perhaps 2 dozen people knew about David, and may 3 dozen about George.  However, hundreds of people had stories to tell about abuse, coercion, elitism, exclusivity, etc.

The idea of being a sharer is someone's sin, according to the bible:

1 Tim 5:19  Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.  20  Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.  21  I charge [you] before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.  22  Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure.

What this is saying is that elders (leading bro's) should be publicly rebuked, in front of all.  Why?  Because their sin affects everyone.  There is to be no double standard, no partiality.  If you read what is on the website, you will that this was hardly the case in the Assembly.  The stories of double standards, partiality, ignoring multiple witnesses, etc. are absolutley rampant!

In verse 22 above, it says "do not lay hands on anyone hastily."  This means, check out who they are, and their character and fitness for leadership before you promote or acknowledge them as elders or deacons.  George was promoted like a Swami, while at the same time no one was willing to entertain why there was such a double standard and hypocrisy.

Again, in the second part of verse 22, if people fail to rebuke/examine an elder, or if they promote one that is a scoundrel, they become a sharer in his sins.  That means complicity and responsiblilty, hence the thread title,  "Why leaders are responsible."

It's all there in black and white.

Now, if this was a Christian church, as I maintain it is, I can allow that some LB's abused the saints and should be rebuked (especially the Gs). However, we cannot say that every LB abused the saints. It's too much of a blanket statement to implicate every LB for the sins of few. I don't agree with the way you tacked on your own meaning to the end of verse 22. It does NOT say in the Bible:
"if people fail to rebuke an elder or promote a scoundrel, then they become a sharer in his sins."
It says
"do not become a sharer in other people's sins; keep yourself pure."

You will note that all the saints are being addressed, not just the elders in that passage. It's more of a call to purity. Everyone is charged not to become a sharer in other people's sins (the Bible does not say other people= exclusively elders). When someone is causing you to stumble, don't partake in the same sin they are, but rather keep yourself pure. So, I can't imagine most leading brothers committed adultery or beat their wives. They didn't follow GG's example and therefore kept themselves pure in that regard. So, I don't see how these verses can be applied to every leading brother right now.

I'm going to cut and paste a point I had a while back that you never addressed, but that I feel is very valid.

Quote from: B. Tr0ckman on May 15, 2003, 01:08:22 am    
I totally disagree with this one.  I would like to hear some others weigh in on this.  The idea that God destroyed the ministry so that the saints could go out and share the wealth of biblical knowledge with others really tweaks me, for many reasons.  Also, the enemy didn't bring down a church.  He can't.  Jesus promised this, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  It is almost unanimous that God judged the house of Geftakys, only you and one other person have suggested the contrary, so we don't see eye to eye on this one.
 


Well, Brent, because something "tweaks" you is not reason enough for it to be false. Remember, you can't believe something to be false, just because you want it to be. I'm not saying that the Lord broke up the ministry to send saints out to spread the knowledge they've gained in our ministry. I'm saying it's a possibility. Now, there's something wrong here in the way you quote Jesus. Jesus did not say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against "a" church. He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. His church=the body of Christ=all believers who are living and have ever lived. I'm not saying that the enemy has prevailed against the body of Christ (all believers everywhere from all time). No, sir - that's ridiculous. But the Lord does not say that the devil will not try. Therefore, it would be hard to rule out that this hasn't been an attack from the enemy. Where else is all this bitterness, this accusation, this hatred coming from in the assembly? From the Lord? I'm not saying that it was an attack from the enemy, I'm saying it's a possibility. I know that you would be against that for personal reasons, seeing that you credit yourself with the fall of the ministry and could therefore be implicated as being deceived by the enemy into helping him. Do not worry though, we are all deceived by the enemy from time to time. I'm not asserting that you were though - just a possibility.

Lord bless.
- Matt

[editor]

Either the LB's were following GG and not the Lord, and were therefore not true elders and are therefore not accountable to the saints.
OR
The LB's were following God, not GG, and are therefore not responsible for deceiving anyone.

Hi Matt

The reason I didn't answer this in the past, is because I didn't think it was as important as some of the other questions in your posts.  I shall answer it now.

You give 2 possibilities here.  What parameters do you base these on?

I would like to suggest a few more:

1.)The LB's were NOT following God, and were following George, and are resposible before God for what they did, and did not do. Rom 1:18  Rom 2:1  Nowhere does it say that we are not accountable because we don't follow God.  We are all accountable and without excuse.

2.)The LB's were following God, and ARE responsible for deceiing people.  James 3:1  Nowhere can you see that if someone is "following" God, they must be non-deceivers

3.)The LB's were sincere, and did the best they could, but were deceived by George.  They were NOT biblical leaders, no matter what anyone might say, and are therefore responsible for what they did and didn't do.  

4.) Some of the LB's were just plain corrupt.  Read about the "super apostles," in the NT.
5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

Ad nauseum.

The passage in Timothy, is addressing Timothy.  Either way, the point is moot.  Don't be a sharer in other's sins, due to passivity about the character of those we allow to lead over us.  That's what the passage is saying.  Get a few commentaries and check it out for yourself.

Also, I don't take credit for the downfall of the ministry.  How could I do it?  It was God, working through flawed servants, myself being one of them.

As to the idea that if the leaders are partaking in some sin, you should just not do it, and keep yourself pure....

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Your idea flies in the face of the concept of accountability by leadership.  They are held to a stricter judgement, precisely because their sin DOES affect the little  lambs under them.

The problem we had, was that we had our focus on the ASsembly, and its various people, and our view of Christ, and His grace was obscured.

Brent

[Matt]

Brent,
I did read some commentaries and will post one that I found that most accurate:

@Verses 17-25 Care must be taken that ministers are maintained. And those who are laborious in this work are worthy of double honour and esteem. It is their just due, as much as the reward of the labourer. The apostle charges Timothy solemnly to guard against partiality. We have great need to watch at all times, that we do not partake of other men's sins. Keep thyself pure, not only from doing the like thyself, but from countenancing it, or any way helping to it in others. The apostle also charges Timothy to take care of his health . As we are not to make our bodies masters, so neither slaves; but to use them so that they may be most helpful to us in the service of God. There are secret, and there are open sins: some men's sins are open before-hand, and going before unto judgment; some they follow after. God will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make known the counsels of all hearts. Looking forward to the judgment-day, let us all attend to our proper offices, whether in higher or lower stations, studying that the name and doctrine of God may never be blasphemed on our account.

Based on this commentary, I cannot see how all of the LB's were sharers in the sins of the Geftakys. They did not "partake" in adultery/wife-beating/plagarizing/money squandering, etc. themselves. They did not "countenance" or condone it because they weren't aware of it. They didn't facilitate the sins of the Geftakys unless they helped to cover it up (again, this does not apply to the vast majority of leading brothers).  Therefore, I see these verses as applicable only to those select brothers in SLO and Fullerton that have been mentioned ad naseum (to borrow one of your favorite terms). The verses previous to the ones you mentioned (convieniently left out by you) also mention that the leading brothers who are laborious in their work are worthy of double honor and esteem. I haven't seen that represented on the site at all, not in the attitudes of the saints on this board. But, again, the vast majority of LB's tirelessly served the saints and are therefore worthy of this esteem.

You give 2 possibilities here.  What parameters do you base these on?

Common sense.

1.)The LB's were NOT following God, and were following George, and are resposible before God for what they did, and did not do. Rom 1:18  Rom 2:1  Nowhere does it say that we are not accountable because we don't follow God.  We are all accountable and without excuse.

Oh, everyone is accountable..we will all face judgement, unbelievers and believers alike. But, if the LB's weren't following God and if the assembly wasn't a Christian church (as you've implied), then the LB's weren't truly elders of a Christian church. If that's the case, then 1 Tim 5 isn't referring to the leading brothers because they weren't elders of the church. You can't have it both ways, Brent. If the assembly was a Christian church, then the LB's were elders. Now, are you going to make an argument that God is referring to elders of any kind of religion? I would have a hard time believing that.

The passage in Timothy, is addressing Timothy.  Either way, the point is moot.  Don't be a sharer in other's sins, due to passivity about the character of those we allow to lead over us.  That's what the passage is saying.  Get a few commentaries and check it out for yourself.

Ok, I did, and it fortified my opinion. And, the Bible is meant for all people for all times. So what is being said to Timothy applies to all Saints in this case. If we say it is only for Timothy, then only Timothy is allowed to rebuke elders. Only Timothy is a sharer of sin if he condones/facilitates/partakes in the sins of another. So, it's for everyone.

Also, I don't take credit for the downfall of the ministry.  How could I do it?  It was God, working through flawed servants, myself being one of them.

hmmm...guess I misunderstood you?

Quote from: B. Tr0ckman on May 13, 2003, 09:53:07 pm    

Now, your Nazi analogy is a valid one.  I undertand your disclaimer, and am following your thoughts.  I know you don't think I am a Nazi.

What we are talking about here is a church/ministry.  If we grant that God raised it up, and that the ministry was top-notch, how is it that one bitter person (me) brought it down?

Again, I noted you said that it was God who chose you to bring down the ministry: "working through flawed servants like me." Well, you may comfort yourself with that, and it may true. But the enemy have used you too. This is the 3rd time I posted it, but I think it's valid:

Quote from: B. Tr0ckman on May 15, 2003, 01:08:22 am    
I totally disagree with this one.  I would like to hear some others weigh in on this.  The idea that God destroyed the ministry so that the saints could go out and share the wealth of biblical knowledge with others really tweaks me, for many reasons.  Also, the enemy didn't bring down a church.  He can't.  Jesus promised this, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  It is almost unanimous that God judged the house of Geftakys, only you and one other person have suggested the contrary, so we don't see eye to eye on this one.



Well, Brent, because something "tweaks" you is not reason enough for it to be false. Remember, you can't believe something to be false, just because you want it to be. I'm not saying that the Lord broke up the ministry to send saints out to spread the knowledge they've gained in our ministry. I'm saying it's a possibility. Now, there's something wrong here in the way you quote Jesus. Jesus did not say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against "a" church. He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. His church=the body of Christ=all believers who are living and have ever lived. I'm not saying that the enemy has prevailed against the body of Christ (all believers everywhere from all time). No, sir - that's ridiculous. But the Lord does not say that the devil will not try. Therefore, it would be hard to rule out that this hasn't been an attack from the enemy. Where else is all this bitterness, this accusation, this hatred coming from in the assembly? From the Lord? I'm not saying that it was an attack from the enemy, I'm saying it's a possibility. I know that you would be against that for personal reasons, seeing that you credit yourself with the fall of the ministry and could therefore be implicated as being deceived by the enemy into helping him. Do not worry though, we are all deceived by the enemy from time to time. I'm not asserting that you were though - just a possibility.

Lord bless.
- Matt

[editor]

Hi Matt

Quote:Now, your Nazi analogy is a valid one.  I undertand your disclaimer, and am following your thoughts.  I know you don't think I am a Nazi.

What we are talking about here is a church/ministry.  If we grant that God raised it up, and that the ministry was top-notch, how is it that one bitter person (me) brought it down?
 

Matt, this is hyperbole.  This is not in any way saying, "I brought down the ministry."  In fact, quite the opposite.  It is saying how improbable it is that one person brought down the ministry.  God did it, not me.

Paul uses language like this in 1 Corinthians 13:1, where he says, "though I were to speak with the tongues of men and of angels..."  He is not saying here that he speaks the Angel's language, what he is doing is using hyperbole, in order to make a point.  His point is that giftedness, minus love, is worthless.  While that is NOT the point I am trying to make in this thread, it is worth remembering!

This is the 3rd time I posted it, but I think it's valid:

Quote from: B. Tr0ckman on May 15, 2003, 01:08:22 am    
I totally disagree with this one.  I would like to hear some others weigh in on this.  The idea that God destroyed the ministry so that the saints could go out and share the wealth of biblical knowledge with others really tweaks me, for many reasons.  Also, the enemy didn't bring down a church.  He can't.  Jesus promised this, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  It is almost unanimous that God judged the house of Geftakys, only you and one other person have suggested the contrary, so we don't see eye to eye on this one.



Well, Brent, because something "tweaks" you is not reason enough for it to be false. Remember, you can't believe something to be false, just because you want it to be. I'm not saying that the Lord broke up the ministry to send saints out to spread the knowledge they've gained in our ministry. I'm saying it's a possibility. Now, there's something wrong here in the way you quote Jesus. Jesus did not say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against "a" church. He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. His church=the body of Christ=all believers who are living and have ever lived. I'm not saying that the enemy has prevailed against the body of Christ (all believers everywhere from all time). No, sir - that's ridiculous. But the Lord does not say that the devil will not try. Therefore, it would be hard to rule out that this hasn't been an attack from the enemy. Where else is all this bitterness, this accusation, this hatred coming from in the assembly? From the Lord? I'm not saying that it was an attack from the enemy, I'm saying it's a possibility. I know that you would be against that for personal reasons, seeing that you credit yourself with the fall of the ministry and could therefore be implicated as being deceived by the enemy into helping him. Do not worry though, we are all deceived by the enemy from time to time. I'm not asserting that you were though - just a possibility.

Lord bless.
- Matt

OK, Matt.  If you insist that I answer this question, then we set a precedent.  If I answer all the questions that you demand of me, than you must answer questions that I ask you.  OK?  It seems fair, yes?

Believe me, I'll answer it, but in the answering you may find yourself, and your coach pressed to answer some questions I pose to you.  Let me know if you want to play fair, and I promise I'll answer you.

Now, as to the passage in 1 Tim 5, and your commentary's rendering of it....I agree.

The problem is that you insist that the only sin was that of wife beating and adultery.  The people who knew nothing of this are indeed without guilt.  However, there was far more going on than just these two things, and people knew about it.

By promoting and supporting a man that was clearly disqualified, they became sharer's in his sins, because they "countenanced," them, as the passage reads.  Again, we are talking degrees of guilt here, and in my last post I definitely said that there were leaders, who due to their godliness, left or were forced out.

Common sense.

Really?  Do you really insist that the only two possible ways to look at things are what you said,

Godly--not deceptive
ungodly--not real elders--not accountable?
 

If you really believe that these are the only possibilities, then we have reached a point where we have no basis for discussion, and this is nothing more than a strife generating argument, in which case I will concentrate on something else, namely the free-will/grace thread.

So, I'll answer the question, in detail, if you agree to play fair.  You must answer all the questions I pose to you, and you give me to permission to pester you until you satisfy me.  Furthermore, if you don't answer me, or seem to ignore me, I will post the question over and over, and pretend that I have scored a point.  Fair enough?

Brent

[Matt]

Hi Matt

Quote:Now, your Nazi analogy is a valid one.  I undertand your disclaimer, and am following your thoughts.  I know you don't think I am a Nazi.

What we are talking about here is a church/ministry.  If we grant that God raised it up, and that the ministry was top-notch, how is it that one bitter person (me) brought it down?
 

Matt, this is hyperbole.  This is not in any way saying, "I brought down the ministry."  In fact, quite the opposite.  It is saying how improbable it is that one person brought down the ministry.  God did it, not me.

Paul uses language like this in 1 Corinthians 13:1, where he says, "though I were to speak with the tongues of men and of angels..."  He is not saying here that he speaks the Angel's language, what he is doing is using hyperbole, in order to make a point.  His point is that giftedness, minus love, is worthless.  While that is NOT the point I am trying to make in this thread, it is worth remembering!

So, the question originally posed by you was:  if God had raised up the ministry, how could one man bring it down? Now you are saying you were exaggerating - that you in fact did not mean it that way. Ok, I see. So I suppose we will need more evidence then to justify with complete certainty that it was God who wreaked havoc on the ministry and not the enemy.

OK, Matt.  If you insist that I answer this question, then we set a precedent.  If I answer all the questions that you demand of me, than you must answer questions that I ask you.  OK?  It seems fair, yes?

Believe me, I'll answer it, but in the answering you may find yourself, and your coach pressed to answer some questions I pose to you.  Let me know if you want to play fair, and I promise I'll answer you.

You need to keep calm here. I didn't ask you to answer every question. I asked you to address that one. I am well aware that you already do not respond to a lot of my points and questions. As for the coach business, that was a sly trick, Brent. haha. But nobody has ever told me what to post on here. No leading brother, no other saint, it has all been my own writing. You said once that you won't let me talk about assumptions if I don't read all your website including your book. I'll tell you what, I don't need to read that website to see that assumption or others. If you don't want me to talk about assumptions, here's all you have to do: don't make any assumptions.

Now, as to the passage in 1 Tim 5, and your commentary's rendering of it....I agree.

The problem is that you insist that the only sin was that of wife beating and adultery.  The people who knew nothing of this are indeed without guilt.  However, there was far more going on than just these two things, and people knew about it.

eeeeeek! another assumption. If knowledge of the sins of the Geftakys was so widespread (not just talking about adultery and wife beating here), then the ministry would have dissolved a lot sooner. Again, we need more than hunch that EVERY leading brother knew EVERYthing going. To really claim that, we need to go back to the omniscience issue...and you've already admitted that you aren't omniscient.

By promoting and supporting a man that was clearly disqualified, they became sharer's in his sins, because they "countenanced," them, as the passage reads.  Again, we are talking degrees of guilt here, and in my last post I definitely said that there were leaders, who due to their godliness, left or were forced out.

Again, in order to condone someone's sin, you need to know about their sin. There were...what...40 assemblies in the US? 50? How many leading brothers at these assemblies had direct accesss to GG? The vast majority didn't even live in the same state as he. I guess the main problem with your post is that you said GG was "clearly disqualified" when clearly most LB's did not know.

So, I'll answer the question, in detail, if you agree to play fair.  You must answer all the questions I pose to you, and you give me to permission to pester you until you satisfy me.  Furthermore, if you don't answer me, or seem to ignore me, I will post the question over and over, and pretend that I have scored a point.  Fair enough?

Brent

Brent, I'm afraid you haven't agreed to play fair at all. There are many inconsistencies with you. First you say one thing, then another. Oh no, I didn't mean you were irrational. You're only irrational if you don't read my website. Oh no, I didn't *really* mean I brought the assembly down, I only was exaggerating. Oh no, the assembly wasn't a Christian church raised by God, but the elders are responsible because in a Christian church they are sharers of sin. Matt, I can remind you of stuff publically in your emails. Matt, don't talk about assumptions, but I can make assumptions such as someone is coaching you. Come on, Brent. You're not one to talk about being fair, ok?

If you really don't want to keep this discussion going, that is up to you. I will delete my user account because my only purpose on this board is to defend saints that I feel are being wrongly held accountable. If you do want to keep this discussion up, you, sir, have to play fair too. Thanks and Lord bless.
- Matt

[Joe Sperling]

I can't believe that someone would bring into question
whether it was the Lord who exposed the Assembly or whether the enemy brought it down. George Geftakys was EXCOMMUNICATED by the church for unseemly conduct and behavior. This is a cleansing act, an exposing act brought about by the Lord to make things right. The Assembly was not brought down by rumor, but by fact---facts so strong that the leaders excommunicated him and then stepped down themselves.

It was a "cleansing of the Temple". To try to say the enemy has done this is to take the things of God and apply them to the enemy. What took place was taking things hidden in darkness and exposing them to the light. It's amazing that as that light was shed fully upon this leader, he did not face it and kneel down and repent, admitting that what had happened was the Lord's chastening hand, but he actually turned and fled in a sense. He showed he really didn't care for the sheep, just his own "purpose and calling" and has not admitted one bit of wrong.

What the Lord has shown us is who this leader really is,
and to flee from him and his teachings. As for the Leading Brothers all I can say is "the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree", and they are guilty of protecting George up to the last minute until they were forced to do the right thing and excommunicate him and step down themselves.


--Joe

[editor]

Hi Joe

I think most people see it exactly the way you described it below.  However, the darkness is thick, and there are those who want it to grow again.  (I'm NOT referring to you, Matt.)

Remember, there are people who deny the holocaust ever took place.  There are people who think that AID's was invented by the CIA in order to kill black people, and there are those who credit, "The Enemy," for the exposure of Geftakys.

I wrote a piece last September, before GA.com was ever thought of called,  "How I brought Ruin to The Assembly."

I am loath to post it, because I use hyperbole, sarcasm and acerbic rhetoric.  I wrote it before the Assembly had been ruined, but it is interesting nontheless.

When I look back on the whole thing, I conclude the following:

George was/is a charlatan.  The leaders were appointed by him, and were totally under his control.  They spoke with him, or one of his chief servants, on the phone weekly.  They sat under his teaching at worker's seminars yearly, and had special meetings with him whenever he visited, which was at least once per year, often more.  His servants visited more frequently, so that any given Assembly has contact with headquarters at least weekly, in one form or another.

The Lord judged that it wasn't worth continuing, and shut it down.  Plenty of people have wanted to snuff out churches before, but were unable.  The blindfaith required to believe that it was "The Enemy," who ruined Christ's special Assembly, is on par with a belief in evolution.  It is faith way beyond me.

Brent

[editor]

Now you are saying you were exaggerating - that you in fact did not mean it that way. Ok, I see. So I suppose we will need more evidence then to justify with complete certainty that it was God who wreaked havoc on the ministry and not the enemy.

No, Matt.  Hyperbole is not exaggeration.  It's hyperbole.  Exaggeration is like saying, "The waves were double-overhead!"  when in fact they were shoulder high.

Hyperbole is like,  "The waves were so big I had to take off my hat."  In other words,  the waves were small, and I could surf on my longboard, with my hat on.  There's a difference, and my post was clearly hyperbole, and as such, made my point perfectly.

The argument you are engaging in is the intellectual equivalent of tic-tac-toe.  The only way to win, is if one side gets distracted with the television, and even if someone does win, it means nothing.  I won't have any more of it.

Saying that I was exaggerating is the intellectual equivalent of telling Steve Fortescue, while he is holding forth with quantum mechanics,  "Yeah, well, your feet smell, so you don't know what you're talking about."  It ain't worth it.

Now, this debate is over.  I won't do it anymore.  I think the outcome is clear for all to see.

I'm going over to the free will/grace thread.

Brent.

[Matt]

Now you are saying you were exaggerating - that you in fact did not mean it that way. Ok, I see. So I suppose we will need more evidence then to justify with complete certainty that it was God who wreaked havoc on the ministry and not the enemy.

No, Matt.  Hyperbole is not exaggeration.  It's hyperbole.  Exaggeration is like saying, "The waves were double-overhead!"  when in fact they were shoulder high.

hmm...hyperbole is not an exaggeration? I guess the dictionary disagrees with you...

hy·per·bo·le    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (h-pûrb-l)
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

There's a difference, and my post was clearly hyperbole, and as such, made my point perfectly.

Sorry, Brent, but you didn't know what a hyperbole was. So how could it make your point perfectly? It actually made my point perfectly...you said one thing, and then pulled out and said you were doing a hyperbole, aka exaggeration for effect...like I said in the first place =)

The argument you are engaging in is the intellectual equivalent of tic-tac-toe.  The only way to win, is if one side gets distracted with the television, and even if someone does win, it means nothing.  I won't have any more of it.

I didn't realize we were in it to win? I was trying to get everyone else to see a different perspective. Anyway, there is a lot of speculation going on here. Let me speculate a bit...I think you got upset when you realized I had a lot of points that you couldn't refute and that didn't line up with your agenda. You don't want to handle any more of these points (you said yourself that you are afraid of facts) and so the best thing would be just to say that this dialogue has been useless and move on.

Saying that I was exaggerating is the intellectual equivalent of telling Steve Fortescue, while he is holding forth with quantum mechanics,  "Yeah, well, your feet smell, so you don't know what you're talking about."  It ain't worth it.

Saying you were exaggerating was the same as quoting the dictionary - it was a fact based on what you told me - that you were using a hyperbole! It was a nice try, Brent. I'm going to say that you did force me to think a lot, and I'm probably smarter for it. I read somewhere once that the best way to improve your IQ and critical thinking skills was to study reasoning and logic, and analyzing your arguments gave me practice in that. I agree with you that it's not worth it though. For a different reason, though. You have a one-sided stance against the leading brothers as you lump them all together as one big group - all of whom are guilty in your eyes. I have tried to take a moderate stance: I do not defend all the leading brothers as innocent, nor do I defend them all as guilty. I do not say that it was necessarily the Lord who decided to wreak havoc in the ministry not do I say it was necessarily the enemy. I guess you're an extremist in this sense and that's what's so scary.

Contrary to popular belief, I have not been in contact with any leading brothers - not a single one. Nobody has told me what to post here. I have posted as I have felt led. The Lord spoke to me a lot on this thread. Strangely, Brent, He spoke to me in that passage in 1 Tim 5 that you posted about elders needing to be rebuked if they are a "sharer in sin." Whereas you chopped off verses 17-18 in that passage, I did look it up. I see that we have a duty to doubly esteem and honor those who were laborious and served us. I realized then that the Lord was confirming that I was doing the right thing in defending those leading brothers who worked so tirelessly for so many years. As stated before, in order to condone (countenance), partake in, or facilitate sin (i.e. share in it), the elders would have to know about the sin. You claim they did here:


"George was/is a charlatan.  The leaders were appointed by him, and were totally under his control.  They spoke with him, or one of his chief servants, on the phone weekly.  They sat under his teaching at worker's seminars yearly, and had special meetings with him whenever he visited, which was at least once per year, often more.  His servants visited more frequently, so that any given Assembly has contact with headquarters at least weekly, in one form or another." - Brent Tr0ckman

So, evidently on the phone, his workers or even GG himself said: " I want you to know that my son is beating his wife and that I commit adultery. I also plagarize my seminars and I squander money into a special slush fund. Is that ok? Any problems with that?"

Just ridiculous, brent. You are in sin, Brent, by implicating innocent brothers when you have a duty to esteem and honor them. If there are individual cases of leading brothers harming the saints, then those are just that - individual cases. Individual cases do not add up to every leading brother. Otherwise, you do have that responsibility to honor them. You can't ignore parts of scripture because it doesn't fit your cause. I know you are my elder and therefore I'm not sure how appropriate it is for me to rebuke you like this. But I do hope that I have forced you to think a little bit.

- Matt

[Eulaha L. Long]

Matt, I will pray for you.

[Matt]

Matt, I will pray for you.

Thank you.

[MGov]

"George was/is a charlatan.  The leaders were appointed by him, and were totally under his control.  They spoke with him, or one of his chief servants, on the phone weekly.  They sat under his teaching at worker's seminars yearly, and had special meetings with him whenever he visited, which was at least once per year, often more.  His servants visited more frequently, so that any given Assembly has contact with headquarters at least weekly, in one form or another." - Brent Tr0ckman

So, evidently on the phone, his workers or even GG himself said: " I want you to know that my son is beating his wife and that I commit adultery. I also plagarize my seminars and I squander money into a special slush fund. Is that ok? Any problems with that?"
- Matt

Brent I disagree that the leaders were 'totally' under GGs control.  Some actually brought him to task on different issues.
Matt, I suspect that because GG was a charlatan(to quote Brent) then the counsel and advice he would have given to the LBs would have been 'tainted'.  That's where the 'assembly system' aka 'Geftakysism' comes in to play.

In His love,
M