Why Leaders Are Responsible

[Oscar]

"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

A few weeks after GG's downfall, I attended the Fullerton prayer meeting.  It was not a regular meeting as they were explaining to the folks why they had excommunicated GG.  

I got up an said a few words.  After I talked about some corruption issues with GG, I said that "this is the fountain you've been drinking from for 30 years.  I can hear George talking through you. You need to get help from Christians outside the assembly."

What I meant was that GG had so inculcated his ideas, vocabulary, and practices that they were still thinking from WITHIN  the categories of those ideas.  Although the Assembly system was in meltdown, MENTALLY they were still in it!  

They needed, and still do need, to get a broader, Biblically sound perspective from which to evaluate what has happened to them.
Contact with godly, wise Christians from healthy churches can do this.

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

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.

I don't see how anyone can insist that I have lumped all LB's together and assigned all of them equal guilt, corruption, ignorance, deception, and complicity.

They ALL, every single one of them, were picked and OK's by brother George.  And any single one of them could have been removed in 30 seconds, with one phone call from brother George.  They were his leading brothers, and his workers.  If they did someting George didn't like, he could fire them on the spot, and no one would have questioned his judgement.  One day they would have been clothed in authority, the next they would have been shunned and ignored.  This, in black and white, demonstrates that George had total control over the leading brothers, because he could fire them if they gave him too much difficulty.  There are people on this forum who had exactly that experience.  Others stepped down, because of conscience sake.  There can be no argument about this, but they were not all guilty to the same degree.

We are talking varying degrees of guilty, here, as I posted in many previous threads.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can you guys see this OK?  Can you read the yellow parts, from one of my past posts?

This really is the last post I will make on this topic.  Please don't misrepresent what I have said.  (oops, second to last, sorry.  )

[editor]

Brent I disagree that the leaders were 'totally' under GGs control.  Some actually brought him to task on different issues.

I controll the people who work in my office.  I hired them, and gave them certain job descriptions.  If they fail to do what they are supposed to do, or do things they are NOT supposed to do, I fire them.  I am in control.

Read Kirk Cesaretti's account.  He was a LB, who learned that he was under George's control.  He quit.


Brent

[MGov]

Brent,

The impression I get from those huge big letters on your second last post is that I am a 'dumb sheep'.  This is the atmosphere you create when you get adamant, and it does NOT promote open communication.
It appears that you are focussed on 'your cause' and will take down any one who stands in the way of furthering that cause.
I would have sent this to you in a PM, but you do not like PMs either so...

M

[editor]

Hi Mgov

I don't mind you saying it here.  I didn't post that in order to make anyone feel dumb.  I am just trying to figure out why when I say things, like what was in yellow, people repeatedly post as if I never said it.

It makes me wonder if I should make my posts shorter, so folks don't get tired reading them, or something like that.  

When you, gently, kindly, patiently told me that you didn't agree that all the leaders were "totally" under George's control, I answered with a "normal," post, in order to explain my position.

When others attacked me, and misrepresented what I said, I felt that I should make it clear that I was being misrepresented.  I had said it in normal sized, non-highlighted letters several times, but no one seemed to notice.  2 people are demading that I apologize to "all those LB's that I libeled," by claiming that they are accountable in some way.  Many times I have said that there were varying degrees of guilt, and it seemed that some people were perfectly OK with ignoring that and then supporting another person who was misrepresenting me.

It's rather tedious to do that, and only insures that any discussion we attempt degenerates into name calling.  

It is much better to read, and comprehend what a person is saying, and then launch the discussion from there.  If something is unclear, then we can ask them to clarify it.  If we disagree, let's disagree over what we are actually saying, not over what we insist the other person is saying, when in fact they are not.

For example: (of how NOT to do it)

I want to take you to task for your rascism and prejudice.  You act all holy here, and quote scriptures, but you are a rascist!  What a hypocrit!

What I have just done is to totally misrepresent what you said in a post about the cultural aspects of tardiness in India.  Since I have travelled extensively, I knew that what you were saying was not in any way racist, but a statement of fact.  In some cultures, tardiness is expected.  When this is the case, it is no longer tardiness, but "on time."

However, to wrench your thought out of context, either out of sheer ignorance, or malice, is not acceptable.  Should I do that, we have no basis for any meaningful discussion, because you are talking about Indian culture, and I am acting like a moron, while under the mistaken impression that I am exposing your racism.

Now, as to my cause....the post with the big letters was not in any way designed to rally people to a cause.  Its intended purpose was to make it somewhat more difficult for people to misrepresent what I am saying.  If someone wants to say, for instance, that I have lumped all the LB's together, and claimed they all knew about DG's abuse, and GG's adultery, they will have to do so under a billboard that clearly contradicts what they are saying.  The person who wishes to misrepresent me in this manner will clearly portray themselves as a liar, which is an accurate statement.

So, the post was not intended for you Mgov, but for people who had a habit of misrepresenting me.

Brent

[MGov]

Brent,

I still disagree with the use of huge big bold lettering. In 'netiquette' caps and bold lettering often indicate that you are shouting.

Also, I do not think that a work situation analogy fits with an assembly situation 100%.  The saints are just not your co-workers $/or emplyees.  There is a difference.  And I know for a fact that what you said about GG control is mostly true, but not 100% true.

God bless,
M

[editor]

Hi Mgov

I was shouting.  Almost as loud as I could.

I agree with you, that work and Assembly are not the same.  However, control is control.  He held the livelyhood of some of the LB's in his control, and he held the esteem of the others.  It's worse, the fact that it was in a church setting.

Also, you are correct, it is probably mostly true.  I have yet to talk to someone who thinks that there wasn't enough control exercised over people under GG.  Most people are quite agreed on the fact that too much control was one of the main problems.

Brent

[MGov]

Hi Mgov

...
However, to wrench your thought out of context, either out of sheer ignorance, or malice, is not acceptable.  Should I do that, we have no basis for any meaningful discussion, because you are talking about Indian culture, and I am acting like a moron, while under the mistaken impression that I am exposing your racism.
...
So, the post was not intended for you Mgov, but for people who had a habit of misrepresenting me.

Brent

Brent,

If you do not want to be misrepresented, then I suggest that you be an example by your posts.
I see a few 'assumptions' made by you in what I have quoted above:
ignorance and malice - only 2 possiblities??
acting like a moron -  not necessarily
habit of misrepresenting you - could it be not fully agreeing with you??

I also noticed in an earlier post that you assumed that Matt was being coached as to what he should write.

This kind of terminology lead to the omniwhatever conclusions about you, which I do NOT want to make.

'A sister is born for adversity'  

M

[editor]

I see a few 'assumptions' made by you in what I have quoted above:
ignorance and malice - only 2 possiblities??
acting like a moron -  not necessarily

You are absolutely correct.  I want to repent of these words, and correct them, so that I can be a good example in my posts, in order to not be misrepresented.  (this is a joke.   )

It should have read:

However, to wrench your thought out of context, either out of sheer ignorance, malice, or an indefinite number of other, equally improper reasons, is not acceptable.  Should I do that, we have no basis(or perhaps a certain degree of loss of basis) for any meaningful discussion, because you are talking about Indian culture, and I am acting like a moron, although not necessarily like a moron---it is possible I could be acting otherwise than a moron; any number of possibilities exist each of which would adequately explain my behavior as other than moron-like---while under the mistaken impression that I am exposing your racism.

Of course, anything I write is based on my assuming I understand something, which may or may not be correct at any given time.  In fact, it is quite probable that everything I, or an indeterminate number of other people, know is based either wholly, or partly on assumption.  That being the case, it is a dubious prospect that anything said, by any number of people, at any given or pre-determined time, is simply not true.  Then again, it could be true, despite assumptions made in an indeterminate number of thought processes which were employed by a person, or persons, in order to arrive at, what could be called, barring other factors, and opinion.  The probablility of being correct, due to sheer happenstance is also something to consider, although this probability could, or could not, be as rare as any other possible reason for arriving at truth.

Caution should be exercised when reading  anything, written by anyone, due to the above, and an indeterminate, yet infinite, number of other factors, which could, at any given time, influence the veracity, acceptability, truthfullness, or lack thereof, of the said statements read by a particular author.

That being the case, one of the likely conclusions that could be drawn from among any number of equally likely conclusions, is that nothing is to be gained from listening to any  given person at any given time.  It is impossible to know(although it could be possible), if an opinion stated by any given person, is done so without assumptions on their part.  Also, the likelihood of the reader, or listener, making assumptions while attempting to read what any given number of people might write, is high---although it could be low--- it is impossible(or possible) to tell if any given reader is assuming something when reading what any number of writers may have written at any given time prior to the reader reading what the writers wrote.  The possibility also exists that a writer may not have written what is credited to them, by any given reader, at any time.  It is impossible(or possible, under an indeterminate number of certain circumstances)  to rule out impersonation, fraud, mental illness, or a plethora of other equally plausible factors which could conceivably influence a writers words.

Finally, we must never(actually, this ranges from always to never) rule out the possibility of hyper/hypo sensitivity on the part of any given reader or writer, in which case the truthfullness of any given statement becomes increasingly in doubt, even if it is only in doubt in a given(or not given) number of people involved.

It may or may not, depending on an indeterminate number of influencing factors, be prudent to disregard everything said above.  Then again, the aforementioned factors, being indeterminate in number, could influence any given person, at any given time to heed the warning stated above.  It is impossible to tell (or possible) when such factors could influence any person towards any equally plausible conclusion.

I also noticed in an earlier post that you assumed that Matt was being coached as to what he should write.

Keeping the above in mind, it could, or could not be possible to determine if I assumed that Matt was being coached, or merely suggested it as one of many equally plausible explanations for the change of his writing, based on other knowledge, which I may or may not have had in my possession at the time.  Then again, an indeterminate number of other explanations exits, one of which is the statistically likely possibility that it was a sarcastic "dig."

I hope this helps!

[MGov]

OK Brent - you win; but I think Stephen is trying to tell you something by his latest 'quote to ponder'!  

M

[Matt]

Brent,
Uh oh! It seems that you are sad   because you have been "misrepresented" on this thread:

"The person who wishes to misrepresent me in this manner will clearly portray themselves as a liar, which is an accurate statement.

So, the post was not intended for you Mgov, but for people who had a habit of misrepresenting me."

Do you call yourself a liar for misrepresenting me numerous times on this thread? Or does that statement from you apply to everyone else but you? Let me ask my imaginary coach for advice on that one...but I guess for now we are "sharers" in each other's sin. Let's you and me meet for a repentence meeting soon!

Anyway...so you feel I misrepresented you because you said this:

"I don't see how anyone can insist that I have lumped all LB's together and assigned all of them equal guilt, corruption, ignorance, deception, and complicity." - Brent

in response to this:

"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." - Matt

hmmm...my my my Brent, I have to watch you like a hawk! Somehow, you added "assigned all of them equal guilt, corruption, ignorance, deception, and complicity" to my statement. No, sir - that's ridiculous. You like to stretch the truth , Brent!  Or is this one of your "hyperboles?" I don't believe in hyperboles. It's better just to say it clearly. So, let me say, clearly, that I have never said that you said the LB's were all EQUALLY guilty. I said that you think the LB's are all guilty. Why else would you say that this:

 The leading brother in every Assembly had more than 2 or 3 people come to them and express problems, which were squelched.  I guarantee it.  

(Either Brent is omniscient or he phoned every single leading brother over the past 30 yrs from every assembly and asked them if they had 2 or 3 people come to them and express problems - and not just problems, but problems that were squelched.. I wonder which one it is...)

Now to address another one of your inconsistencies:

This is your point that you reminded us of so loudly in order to show us that, no, you never said that LB's were all guilty:

" 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." - Brent

Oh, but yet they accepted appointment to an elder position from a corrupt man and spoke to him on the phone every week until they left (because you said that every LB spoke to GG or his workers every week on the phone).  In order to be appointed by GG, they would have had to promote him at some time, just like all the other LB's.

"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."  - Brent

Now, clearly by your standards, the LB's who left before GG's ex-comm are still guilty. You don't go by your standards though for some reason in this case. However, the funny thing is that I agree with you! I don't think they are all guilty either. They didn't know about GG's corruption or any other Geftaky sin and therefore are indeed not guilty (just like LB's who didn't learn about the corruption/adultery/plagarizing/wife-beating until shorty before the ex-comm). You said yourself that if people did not know, and they are indeed not guilty:

The people who knew nothing of this are indeed without guilt.  
Brent

Now, Brent, as you have stated, in order to be a sharer of someone's sin, you need to condone, facilitate or partake in sin with someone. In order to do these things, you need to know the sin is occuring. The vast majority of leading brothers did not know and therefore cannot be accused of sharing in the Geftakys sins.

As for individual abuses by leading brothers, we need to have 2 or 3 witnesses come forward for every leading brother out there before we can say they are all guilty. That has not happened yet. Therefore, you are in sin because you are implicating innocent leading brothers. Brent, you're going to have to repent sooner or later. Get it over with now. As you noted on your former website by someone who repented - the Angels will rejoice!

- Matt
P.s. Now, Brent. Remember the verses directly before the passage (1 Tim 5) that you quoted. The ones before the public rebuking of elders who deserve it. Remember? You must honor and doubly esteem the leading brothers who labored in good cause. You've done the opposite, Brent. You're in sin....


17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

phew, I am SO glad I checked this before I went to bed. I saw Matrix Reloaded last night. It was good. you NEED to see it.

[MGov]

I also noticed in an earlier post that you assumed that Matt was being coached as to what he should write.

Keeping the above in mind, it could, or could not be possible to determine if I assumed that Matt was being coached, or merely suggested it as one of many equally plausible explanations for the change of his writing, based on other knowledge, which I may or may not have had in my possession at the time.  Then again, an indeterminate number of other explanations exits, one of which is the statistically likely possibility that it was a sarcastic "dig."

I hope this helps!

Brent,
you added this part after I had posted 'you win'; you are diabolical.  This is only to illustrate a point of the need for carefulness and clarity in communication.
M

[editor]

Quote from Mgov

Brent,
you added this part after I had posted 'you win'; you are diabolical.  This is only to illustrate a point of the need for carefulness and clarity in communication.
M

Yep, the time signatures make that pretty clear.  My last post was a joke, and was meant to be humorous, including the last part, quoted above.  Maybe I wasn't clear, but in the last sentence, I humorously confess to the possibility that saying Matt had a coach was a "dig."  He and I had already talked about that in email.

I assumed (I know bad idea) that your post, quoted above, was also meant to be humorous.

Brent

[MGov]

OK Brent - you win; but I think Stephen is trying to tell you something by his latest 'quote to ponder'!  

M

Brent,
The 'diabolical' part was meant to be humorous, as well as illustrate a point.


Stephen,
I apologize for misrepresenting you with the post I have quoted above.
Brent,
I was joking and did not mean it as a dig/jab.


M

[MGov]

Brent,

With a statement like this:
The person who wishes to misrepresent me in this manner will clearly portray themselves as a liar, which is an accurate statement.
I get the impression that you are implying an 'intent' to misrepresent and therefore 'lie'.  Please clarify for my benefit.
Also, I understood that Matt's postings were on the lines of 'honest' inquiry in order to explain and to gain understanding.

With regards to LBs:
All LBs and non-LBs are responsible to repent for the part they/we played in 'co-operating' with GG to keep the ministry going.  At this point in time, however, most, if not all, LBs have repented and are very humbled for their involvement.  They are willing to step aside and let others take the responsibility and to not interfere in any way.

M