Why Leaders Are Responsible

[Matt]

Matt,

You are correct in your statement that not all of the leaders were aware of David's sins.  Not all were aware (or even had a clue or heard any rumors) of George's adultery.

Thank you. It's encouraging to hear someone else finally say this on the board!

There is another reason that leaders are "responsible"...if that's what you want to call it.  It was no secret that GG was a very arrogant man who was critical of many other Christians/ministries.  He also was known to treat people harshly (to put it nicely) in his own "ministry".   All of the leaders allowed this, whether they knew about the philandering, cover-ups, money stashing or not.  
GG was idolized, whether it was a conscious decision to do so, or by default of no action (or too little action).
I believe that all of the leaders fall under this category.

ALL of the leading brothers allowed this? No, ma'am - that's ridiculous. Remember that "all" is a tricky word. If just ONE leading brother in the assembly stood up to or questioned GG, then we can no longer say that ALL of the leaders "idolized" or "allowed" his arrogance. In reality, we know that it was far more than just one leading brother out there who stood up/questioned GG. So, I beg you to reconsider your comment.

Here is why I feel that the arrogance issue is minor:
It is well known to all on this board, I'm sure, that everyone is a sinner whether he is saved or not. Therefore, nobody can hold somebody else to a standard of perfection - even leaders. GG is just a man and is thus incapable of not being a sinner. So to say that the leading brothers "allowed" him to sin with his "arrogance" is kind of silly. If it isn't his arrogance, then somebody else will say his pride, somebody else will say his vanity, somebody else will say his lack of charity, etc. We are all guilty of these sins, it's the nature of man to sin, isn't it? The leader of every church out there is a man, and therefore will be a sinner. Are the elders of every church then inevitably responsible because the leader of their church is inevitably a sinner?

I quoted this because it reminded me of our last prayer meeting.  The format of the meeting had totally changed, and Joe had just given out the requests.  We went to pray, and people started praying for the teen team, the teen conference, etc.  Joe and I just looked at each other like "what do they not understand about us not being a part of this ministry anymore?"  It is because many assembly members can't see outside the box.  IE; all of the other churches are "worldly"....this is how a prayer meeting should go...., etc.  

Oh my GOODNESS! Don't tell me they were praying for the teen team and the teen conference. What is wrong with praying for the teens, ma'am? Do you imagine that any other church is going to pray for our teens? Of course not! So should our teens go without prayer? And how can you criticize this when the saints praying may have felt led to pray for the teens - you wouldn't know because only the Lord knows if they were praying as they were led. Thanks, though, Ms. Denner for being more of a moderate than an extremist. It's a relief. Lord bless.

MGov:
This message is completely unrelated to anything on this thread or on the board. I noticed you know a lot about older songs. I've been trying to track down a song my dad used to sing to me on his guitar when I was growing up. I don't remember the name or who sings it or anything like that. I could hum the tune a bit, but that's not going to help here! I just remember a bit of the lyrics:

Follow me where I go, what I do, and who I know
make it part of you to be a part of me
Follow me up and down all the way and all around
take my hand, and I will follow too.

Does this look familiar to you (or anyone else reading this) at all? Do you know who sings it and what the name of the song is? Thanks!
Matt.

[David Mauldin]

John Denver

[editor]

John Denver

How dare you even suggest this.

Brent

[Matt]

Matt,
Hold de horses here.  My husband was a leading brother for nine years combined in Lombard and Chicago.  We were never workers.  We have never met David and Judy (save one time my husband saw him in chicago).  We had no knowledge of prior or current abuse in their home.  We had never heard rumors that George was philandering.  My husband met with and questioned George on the "seventh day" teaching.  He never called George for counsel (although he did ask advice and received biblical counsel on at least two occassions that I can remember), and in the last few years the brothers out here really didn't meet with any that you might tag as "servants" to George (at least not regularly).  Yet he would be the first to say that he "allowed" George to be arrogant and treat people the way he did.  In fact, he stated just that at the one and only workers meeting that we ever attended in Jan.

Andrea, if your husband felt that he allowed GG to be arrogant, then perhaps he did. Perhaps he felt led to repent for that. However, you have to remember that we cannot hold our own personal experience in the assembly as the gold standard by which to judge the entire assembly system. Because your husband felt he let GG be arrogant, that doesn't mean every leading brother let him be such. As I stated before, it's kind of silly to say that the leading brothers "allowed" GG to be a sinner (in this case via arrogance). That's like saying they "allowed" the sky to be blue or that they "allowed" the sun to rise. In other words they "allowed" the only thing that could happen to happen. Again, GG is a man and is therefore incapable of being anything but a sinner. So elders don't really have any choice but to allow a sinner as their leader. If the standard for being a leader in the church is to be sinless, then we would never have any kind of church leadership or any kind of elders, etc. So, I don't believe the arrogance issue is a major one at all - we're all arrogant from time to time. The issues like wife-beating, adultery, squandering, etc, are not the same. I'm sure the vast majority of the saints don't partake in those kinds of sins, so for GG to do it definitely requires him to be rebuked. But, as we said before and as you also said, the vast majority of leading brothers didn't know about the adultery, wife-beating, squandering, etc, and therefore cannot be responsible for it.

I'm not trying to argue with you.  In fact, I would like to publicly state here that I have the utmost respect for Roger Grant (who was the elder for the time of my involvement in the assembly).   Go ahead and charge that he spent time with George.  I will go ahead and charge that there weren't many who gave themselves like Roger.  He and Geri had and still have their home and selves available for those who need them 24 hrs. a day.  
Whenever I would ask Roger a question, he would show me a biblical answer.  Sometimes he would say "well, that could go a few different ways".  He didn't always have the answer.  I never got the idea that what he said must be what I must take as the final answer.
I'm sure that there are some who may have had a personal run in with Roger, but I have only seen a man of integrity.
It really hurt when I knew that he had stepped down, but I understood and agreed with the move.


I will also publicly state my thankfulness and respect for my own husband.  I could go on and on with how he has always lived what he has preached, given his life for God's people, and I will also publicly defend him as to his integrity and his change in the last three years to preaching a real message of grace and truth.

Amen, sister! I cannot thank you enough for these 2 paragraphs in which you give Godly elders the esteem and honor that we are called on to give them. The Lord bless them.

Also, about the praying for the teens.  Don't jump out of your skin man!

Oh, Andrea, but he who jumps out of his skin lives beside himself!

I wasn't meaning that the teens should not be prayed for.  I guess it would take almost telling you my whole story to understand, but it wasn't the "praying for the teens" that we had a problem with.  We had publicly stated that we were not going to be a part of this ministry anymore.  This was when most of the assemblies were trying to continue to still move together as an entity.  We were not in agreement with participating in activities that were "assembly".  This included teen team, teen conference, etc..  When certain saints began to pray in that way, we saw that we were at odds with them in this matter.   Anyway, that's what I meant if that makes it any clearer.  I certainly pray for all of the teens.  Joe and I worked with the teens for our first years in the assembly and still know and love many in the current teen age groups.

So you are saying that because you and Joe were not members of the assembly, you didn't want the assembly to pray for assembly outreaches in your presence? You will find that any church will continue to pray for its ministries whether or not there are visitors or non-members present. It doesn't make sense for a church to cut out all prayer for its ministries because visitors/non-members are present. I understand though that you may have been uncomfortable praying with them, but it's something that you should have expected.

Did you give me that negative point?  I don't even know how to work the positive and negative points!!!

Yes, ma'am, I did. I'll give you a positive point though because I really appreciate your tone - you're not an attacker and I appreciate that. You're also not as one-sided. Lord bless you, ma'am.

[sfortescue]

http://www.leaderu.com/common/green.html

Quote from the above, which was addressed to leaders:What do you think future generations will say of us--is there some outrage or bloodshed going on every day that we placidly ignore, and our grandchildren will say, "How could they have been such monsters? How could they have been so evil?" We think of ourselves as pretty-good people, but a future generation may think we were hideously cruel, for ignoring some great injustice that to them will seem horrifying, and to us seems business-as-usual. For this reason we have to always be questioning the authority of our age, and questioning ourselves, wondering where we fall short and where we need to change.

[MGov]

Matt,

Did you give me those negative points? I'm up to -8 now.  

BTW I found the lyrics for the John Denver song at
http://www.absolutelyric.com/a/view/John%20Denver/Follow%20Me/

I just checked Andrea's age, and now understand why you call her ma'am.

I was reminded of the Narnia Chronicles by C.S.Lewis today; have you read them Matt?

M

[Lurker]

Rev 2:18  And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, ` These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass:  19  "I know your works, love, service, faith, and your patience; and [as] for your works, the last [are] more than the first.  20  "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.  21  "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.  22  "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.  23  "I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.  24  "Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden.  25  "But hold fast what you have till I come.


It would seem that the Risen Christ has some concern regarding what we allow to take place in a church, especially in the realm of teachers.

Please take note that the passage does not say that each of the people in the church were guilty of the practices of Jezebel, although without a doubt, some were.  Jesus only mentions that they ALLOWED her to teach.  It doesn't even say that they themselves taught, or even held her doctrine (as with those who hold the Nicolaitan doctrine, which is practiced in all authoritarian leadership groups).  It merely says that they allowed her to teach, and therefore fell under the judgement of God.

I believe Andrea has a good grasp on what went on, and her witness as a former leader certainly carries weight.

Lurker

[MGov]

Interesting translation.
Rev 2:22  "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. ...
25  "But hold fast what you have till I come.

This does not speak of disbanding the church gathering if there is repentance.

M

[Matt]

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.

 You're in sin....

Gee...what does this remind us of...?

Verne

Why, Verne, sir, do you know what? This reminds me of something that Matt Peeling would say. Doesn't it?

[Matt]

Rev 2:18  And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, ` These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass:  19  "I know your works, love, service, faith, and your patience; and [as] for your works, the last [are] more than the first.  20  "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.  21  "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.  22  "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.  23  "I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.  24  "Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden.  25  "But hold fast what you have till I come.


It would seem that the Risen Christ has some concern regarding what we allow to take place in a church, especially in the realm of teachers.

I'm sure nobody has an argument with that point, sir. However, there are stark differences here. As you will see below:

Please take note that the passage does not say that each of the people in the church were guilty of the practices of Jezebel, although without a doubt, some were.  Jesus only mentions that they ALLOWED her to teach.  It doesn't even say that they themselves taught, or even held her doctrine (as with those who hold the Nicolaitan doctrine, which is practiced in all authoritarian leadership groups).  It merely says that they allowed her to teach, and therefore fell under the judgement of God.

Jezebel taught sexual immorality and the eating of sacrificial idols. In addition, Jezebel made no secret of her adultery, especially if she was teaching it. Therefore everyone must have known and still allowed her to teach. GG, on the other hand, did not teach or preach sexual immorality. Also in contrast to Jezebel's case, very few leading brothers knew about GG's adultery. Those few brothers that did know and didn't say anything are indeed with guilt. However, the vast majority of leading brothers didn't know he was an adulterer (in contrast to the church in Thyratira) and GG didn't preach sexual immorality or eating idols (in contrast to GG's preaching). When GG's adultery was made known, then he was no longer allowed to be a teacher - he was ex-communicated. Therefore, the vast majority of leading brothers did not allow GG to teach after they found out about his adultery.

I believe Andrea has a good grasp on what went on, and her witness as a former leader certainly carries weight.

Lurker

Actually, she wasn't a leader. Her husband was a leading brother. And you are right, her witness is important.  That's why I was pleased when she mentioned that she and her husband had had no idea about George's adultery or had even heard rumors. (most leading brothers hadn't)  That's why the passage you quoted is for a different situation than the leading brother's in the assembly.
Lord bless.
- Matt

[Lurker]

Matt,

The point I was trying to make, as well as the point in the passage, especially if taken in context,  is that God is concerned with what is taught in churches.  

I would like to pin you down, by asking you to answer something:

If a church holds to, and vigorously teaches false doctrine, does God hold the teachers accountable?  Or is it only moral sins, like adultery that matter?

A corrolary to the question posed to you above, which must be considered and dealt with if one were to attempt to arrive at a position on the former question, is:  Were the leaders in the Geftakys group aware of what George taught publicly, both in speech and in print?

I think what some people are trying to say is along these lines:

Comparatively few leaders knew about the adultery, quite a few knew about the wife abuse, and virtually everyone should have known about the false doctrine, while it seems unanimous that George and David's character was not becoming a minister of Christ.

James 3:1  Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. ........

11  Can both fresh water and salt {[11] Greek bitter (see also verse 14)}water flow from the same spring?  12  My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.  13  Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.

This passage, again taken in context, clearly teaches that there is a link (at least in God's estimation, men may hold other opinions) between teaching and character.  If a leader claims wisdom, their life should adorn this claim, not contradict it.

If a leader's fellow leaders (in a system that is presbyterian in nature) observe an inconsistency in a teacher's life and words, they are obligated to examine the doctrine, knowing that teachers incur stricter judgement.  Teachers are held to a higher standard than others.  

(another very interesting fact is that exposure of George's sin did not come from his close associates in the ministry, but by lay people who had either left, or been kicked out.  A biblical leadership structure would have held this man in check decades ago.)

There is simply no rational argument to the contrary,  although leaders caught with their proverbial pants down, often try to claim a seperation between their private life, and their teaching.  Our ex-president Clinton has been known to promulgate this theory, which is rejected by God.  Again, if a man has been authoritatively teaching doctrine, as George Geftakys did, and his life is a contradiction to his words, the Bible calls this type of widom, demonic.

Again, the context of the passage is not that of a man of God who stumbles and repents.  The context is that of a man who for some time has been spewing bitter water, or bearing improper fruit.  

If we conclude that George Geftakys is this type of man, then we must also conclude that the leaders who served under him lapsed in  their biblical responsibility to examine his doctrine, or as it is put in another passage, to test the spirits.

It all boils down to this:

What false doctrine was foisted by George, and who allowed him to foist it?  There is where people can determine their degree of culpability.  It is not up to us to try these people in court for doctrinal errors (criminal acts is another matter altogether).  The Holy Spirit will teach the former leaders what they need to repent of.  I see this forum as a tremendous inroad for God's Spirit to bring much needed light to a very dark place.

Lurker

[Tanya]

..."If a leader's fellow leaders...observe an inconsistency in a teacher's life and words, they are obligated to examine the doctrine, knowing that teachers incur stricter judgement..."


I agree with this but would add that we ALL--not just the LB's--should have been doing the examining.   Most of us saw or heard things that were "off" but few of us followed up on our suspicions.  A few brave men & women kept pursuing the truth until the darkness was exposed. But most of us (including myself) plugged cowardly along, not willing to rock the boat. Thank God many of us were pulled off the Titanic before she sank!

[Eulaha L. Long]

I agree with you, Tanya.  Around 1999 is when I started hearing things in the ministry that just did sound right-like at that couple's meeting where David said women should remain with their husbands, even if the woman is being beaten.  How Lisa was in sin cause she left her husband.  How we are to obey the leaders even if they are wrong, etc.  It was at the end of 2000/beginning of 2001 that I refused to believe the hype any longer!  I got out.  It takes a lot of courage to stand up to darkness, and I thank God for the forerunners who said "enough!".  They truly inspired me to make the right choice, even though it was scary to think about life outside of the Assembly...

[Lurker]

..."If a leader's fellow leaders...observe an inconsistency in a teacher's life and words, they are obligated to examine the doctrine, knowing that teachers incur stricter judgement..."


I agree with this but would add that we ALL--not just the LB's--should have been doing the examining.   Most of us saw or heard things that were "off" but few of us followed up on our suspicions.  A few brave men & women kept pursuing the truth until the darkness was exposed. But most of us (including myself) plugged cowardly along, not willing to rock the boat. Thank God many of us were pulled off the Titanic before she sank!

Tanya,

You are quite right.  Everyone must give account before God.  Teachers, however, incur a stricter judgement, which implies that non-teachers also incur a judgement, but it is less strict, for obvious reasons.

In light of the confusion expressed by many of the former members of the group regarding Justification/Sanctification, please understand that when I say "judgement," I am in no way speaking with regard to justification and atonement.  Conversely, teachers who promote healthy doctrine do not get "extra" grace.

Each of you, who experienced an active conscience in the presence of Geftakys, or his teachings, and did nothing, is guilty.  I think Tanya expressed this very clearly.

The wonderful thing is that God's grace abounds, and there is cleansing and forgiveness for this.  He desires to turn it into something good, and for us to grow as a result.  What the Enemy means for evil, God means for good.

Now, there is another aspect to accountability that should be mentioned at this point:

Mat 18:6  But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.  7  "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

and

42  "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

The context here is regarding the Pharisee's, who were regarded as the religious authority of the day.  They saw themselves as defenders of the faith, and they sat in Moses' seat.  Furthermore, the people viewed them as such.

However, their teaching did not bring people closer to God, but the opposite.  Jesus said that they made it impossible for people to enter the kingdom.  The judgment they incurred for stumbling the little ones is far greater than the judgment the little one's incur for listening to a "blind guide," or a "son of the devil," as the Pharisee's are called by Jesus.

On another note,  Andrea, is it true that your husband was considered a leader but you were not?  Is this teaching characteristic of your former group?  Were the leader's wive's viewed as any other woman in the group, or were they seen as one flesh with their husband, and therefore a leader also?

Lurker

[Laurie]

Matt,
Please listen to me. You are being used by the leading brothers simply because they are too cowardly to step up and repent or step up and justify their actions. It is really hard to watch a young one, like yourself, take the flak on this board in the service of all the leading brothers who harmed the people in the assemblies. You know that many guilty leading brothers must be reading this board and instead of coming on here themselves, they let you do their dirty work. They don't love you Matt, they want you to get hurt so they won't. You are sort of like the Don Quixote of the this board. You are on a quest to defend all the leading brothers: the impossible dream. You keep coming back and coming back, but you don't see it. You're 1 against hundreds. They're going to overpower you in the end. Do you see? When you're done with one, the next one in line steps in. First Verne, then Brent, then Andrea Denner, now Lurker than who? You'll never be done with it. I have to say that you have some incredible posts, but you don't have to keep putting yourself out there to be shot down. You're not nearly as guilty as the leading brothers and you don't have to take the flak for them. You are lot braver than a lot of the leading brothers. They don't love you, Matt, or they wouldn't let you do this. Remember that, sweetie.

Leading brothers:
I know I've already said all this. But don't let someone who is a kid compared to you do all your dirty work for you. Be ashamed. Very ashamed. You're going to hurt him. He obviously thinks you care for him or he wouldn't try to defend you all the time. And he's going to be crushed when he realizes the truth about you. QUIT BEING COWARDS AND COME HERE AND DO THIS YOURSELF!

Matt again:
Do you think there is a chance that all the leading brothers are wrong? We all do stupid things before? Do you think you've never done something stupid? Try to see it from everyone else's perspective.
Love,
Laurie.