State of the "Ministry"

[David Mauldin]

What is the update on "the Ministry"  Are there assemblies besides So Cal that are receiving George?  Are there Assemblies in other places receiving Tim? If so it looks like these guys have made out pretty good for themselves despite the past events.

[Bluejay]

My sources tell me that Tim  has left the ministry all together to pursue a career as a  go go dancer in Las Vegas.  He apparently likes those cash businesses.

George apparently is dillegently planning for the midwest seminar in Champagne Memorial Day weekend.  Apparently no one in the midwest was able to get the word to him that no one wanted to spend a weekend listening to an adulterer/advocate of wife beating/money laundering individual who makes absolutely no sense when he preaches.

[editor]

Hi David

I'm a little out of the loop now, but to the best of my knowledge, here is where the groups stand:

The Hardcore bunch, who still receive GG are  San Francisco, Sacramento, Pasadena, Riverside.

The groups that continue to meet, who have renounced GG:

Santa Barbara, West LA, Placentia, Fullerton (Tim G spells trouble here), Seattle, Hastings.

I'm not sure what is happening in Omaha, Annandale or Chicago, but I know that these groups do not fall under what I have labeled the hardcore GG supporters.

I have a huge problem with the "hardcores," but I really don't have a problem with the others, per se.  On the one hand, I don't think they are really being wise in continuing to meet, in light of their history.  On the other, who am I to say that Christians can't get together?

In most cases that I am aware of, they purged the leaven from their midst as best they could.  Do I disagree with them?  Yes I do, however I do think that these groups are in a far better position to hear from God now, after having rid themselves of GG, than they were 2 years ago, when they were serving him.  God broke through my thick skull when I was in the group, surely He can get to them in an Assembly-lite group.

Now, if (notice I said if) some of these groups are clinging to the old teaching and practices, and I have an opportunity to enlighten them, I will certainly do so.  That's what this forum is all about.  However, I will not presume to visit them for the purpose of correction, etc.  Even if they invited me, I would only share about Jesus and His love.  

On the other hand, if they come out of the group, for the purpose of seeking, I would have no qualms about sharing my views about the Assembly system, and the whole idea of a "New Testament Gathering."

For all intents and purposes, the Assembly is gone, except for the hardcore groups mentioned above.  If it does live on, it only does so in our hearts and minds.

Rom 12:12:1  I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the compassions of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, [which is] your intelligent service.  2  And be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of [your] mind, that ye may prove what [is] the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.  3  For I say, through the grace which has been given to me, to every one that is among you, not to have high thoughts above what he should think; but to think so as to be wise, as God has dealt to each a measure of faith.  4  For, as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office;  5  thus we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and each one members one of the other.  6  But having different gifts, according to the grace which has been given to us, whether [it be] prophecy, [let us prophesy] according to the proportion of faith;  7  or service, [let us occupy ourselves] in service; or he that teaches, in teaching;  8  or he that exhorts, in exhortation; he that gives, in simplicity; he that leads, with diligence; he that shews mercy, with cheerfulness.  9  Let love be unfeigned; abhorring evil; cleaving to good:  10  as to brotherly love, kindly affectioned towards one another: as to honour, each taking the lead in paying it to the other:  11  as to diligent zealousness, not slothful; in spirit fervent; serving the Lord.  12  As regards hope, rejoicing: as regards tribulation, enduring: as regards prayer, persevering:  13  distributing to the necessities of the saints; given to hospitality.

[David Mauldin]

Tuesday nights I hike with Sierra Club in Fullerton. We do a different route every week (there are quite a few trails throughout Sunny Hills. Last week our path took us right behind GG's house. Two club members had to wrestle me down because I kept lobbing rocks over his fence. (Not really but I was tempted!)

[MGov]

This is my response to Brent's post below.
Thank-you Brent; that clarifies for me where you stand with regards to the 'assembly issue'.
It is sad that some gatherings continue to receive GG.

Lord bless,
M

[editor]

This is my response to Brent's post below.
Thank-you Brent; that clarifies for me where you stand with regards to the 'assembly issue'.
It is sad that some gatherings continue to receive GG.

Lord bless,
M

Uh..thanks.

This almost sounds like you agree with me.  Have I just assumed something again, or do you really agree?

Brent

[MGov]

This is my response to Brent's post below.
Thank-you Brent; that clarifies for me where you stand with regards to the 'assembly issue'.
It is sad that some gatherings continue to receive GG.

Lord bless,
M

Uh..thanks.

This almost sounds like you agree with me.  Have I just assumed something again, or do you really agree?

Brent

Yes, I agree. However, at this point I'm not 100% certain of my leanings with regards to what you have stated you disagree with.
I will re-state that it is sad that some groups continue to receive GG in their midst.

M

[MGov]

...

In most cases that I am aware of, they purged the leaven from their midst as best they could.  Do I disagree with them?  Yes I do, however I do think that these groups are in a far better position to hear from God now, after having rid themselves of GG, than they were 2 years ago, when they were serving him.  God broke through my thick skull when I was in the group, surely He can get to them in an Assembly-lite group.

Good one Brent Re: Assembly-lite

...
On the other hand, if they come out of the group, for the purpose of seeking, I would have no qualms about sharing my views about the Assembly system, and the whole idea of a "New Testament Gathering."

I'm interested in your views on 'the whole idea of a "New Testament Gathering."'

Lord bless,
M

[al Hartman]

Quote from: B. Tr0ckman on May 21, 2003, 04:24:38 pm    
...
On the other hand, if they come out of the group, for the purpose of seeking, I would have no qualms about sharing my views about the Assembly system, and the whole idea of a "New Testament Gathering."

 

I'm interested in your views on 'the whole idea of a "New Testament Gathering."'

Lord bless,
M

Brent, are you preparing an article in response to this?
i, too, am interested in your perspective on N.T. gathering.

al Hartman

[editor]

Brent, are you preparing an article in response to this?
i, too, am interested in your perspective on N.T. gathering.

al Hartman

I have several papers that I wrote in the past, which I would be happy to send you.  I am going to wait just a little bit before responding here with my views on NT gathering.

Let me just say this:

God is not interested in a corporate pattern.  He is interested in individual people.  Tom Maddux has said some very good things regarding this.  One that stood out in my mind was when he mentioned the Plymouth Brethren Mass.

While there is nothing wrong with the pattern that the PB's use, per se,  when they elevate their style of meeting into something that God sanctions as opposed to "other" ways of meeting, it becomes analogous to a mass.

The Assembly took this and went several steps further.

I'll have more to say later, but if anyone is interested in some unpublished stuff I have on the topic, email me.  Be warned, the stuff I am referring to doesn't make GG look too good, but it does offer help for people who feel guilty about forsaking "God's pattern."

Brent

[MGov]

...

God is not interested in a corporate pattern.  He is interested in individual people.  Tom Maddux has said some very good things regarding this.  One that stood out in my mind was when he mentioned the Plymouth Brethren Mass.

While there is nothing wrong with the pattern that the PB's use, per se,  when they elevate their style of meeting into something that God sanctions as opposed to "other" ways of meeting, it becomes analogous to a mass.

The Assembly took this and went several steps further.
...

Brent

The ideal would be an 'assembly-like' gathering without the 'assembly system' attitudes.

There is something to be said 'for' open worship/prayer, open ministry, the hospitality of the saints.

Do you agree??

M

[Kimberley Tobin]

My experience with "open prayer" is like the parable the Lord used to illustrate how we are justified completely by faith apart from works (Luke 18).  A Pharisee and tax collector go to the temple to pray.  You remember the story.  The Pharisee was full of himself and the tax collector (standing afar off - he couldn't even bring himself to completely enter in) simply asked for mercy.

The assembly always contended they were "better" at worship because they had "the" pattern.  Those "worldly churches"  didn't worship correctly as they didn't "exalt Christ" through prayer, etc, ad nauseum.  I'll tell you how it made me feel over the course of the 15 years I was in attendance.  The same people prayed constantly (pious, scripture filled prayers).  I felt many times that I couldn't measure up to the prayers of the others and many times I wouldn't pray due to measuring myself against these prayers.  When I was "doing well" in the eyes of the leadership, I could enter in and pray.  But when I was being entreated, being told I didn't measure up, it produced in me an absolute inability and paralysis to pray.

That is not what God intended when he asked us to worship him.  And where in scripture does it ask us to worship in this way?  It has been so liberating to worship in the "worldly church" where there is such joy and a lifting up of the Lord without the pious prayers of other believers.

Open ministry?  What did that lead to?  Heretical teaching.  It allows for anyone who thinks they "have the mind of the Lord" to get up and lead others astray.  I'm not telling anyone else what to do, I know that Chuck Vanasse worships in a similar way and it has worked for his family.  But I will never worhsip in another place that does not have a trained pastor/staff to teach the flock.  I don't ever want to be led astray again by men who think they have been taught something "heavenly" without having gone through the exercise of learning from learned men through the established means of seminary and being accountable to the body of Christ for such ministry.

The Hospitality of the saints?  Does this form of worship have the "market" on hospitality?  I have received wonderful hospitality from the saints where we began attending after we left the assembly.  It is not the pattern of worship that engenders hospitality.  It is peoples hearts moved by our Saviour to reach out to others with His love.  I haven't received much hospitality from the assembly saints since we left (in fact much the opposite - most have shunned us and won't talk with us.)  This is hospitality?  The assembly encouraged hospitality for one thing:  bring men and women into the "work" and thus bondage to the assembly system.  

Thanks but no thanks!

[Arthur]

     I must say that I didn't see the way we met for worship as being something to boast of.  That didn't make sense to me.  How can we boast of how we worship God?  There is a contradiction.  We were there as a people gathered together to give glory to God.  To be there to say, "look at me," or "look at my prayer" would obviously be contradicting the actual prayer of praise itself.  
     To be honest, I thought that that was not what was happening.  I thought it was all genuine.  Was that being naive?  But could it be that it was genunine for many?  I think so.  
     Isn't it a matter of what each individual had in his or her heart?  Could it be that some people in the assembly really were thankful to God when they said, for example, "Thank you, Jesus, for saving a wretch like me"?  
     Well, that's what it seemed like to me.  Maybe I was being proud and didn't know it  But I know that what was in my heart was thankfulness to God.  I am a sinner and he saved me.  Thank you Lord!  Isn't it right to proclaim that good news from the rooftops--how much more among my dear brethren?!  "Encourage one another with these things!"
     I was glad for how things were set up because it allowed me to concentrate and focus on the Lord and the praises that were being said of him.  It did not enter my mind that we were superior for how we did it.
     On the other hand, I do admit that I did come to be more fond of the way we did it over other ways.  To this day I can't think straight to worship with a loud band playing.  But I was that way before joining the assembly.  Is that pride?  Maybe it is, I dunno.   I don't think so, though.  Maybe it's just preference.  
     Perhaps if I was in the assembly longer, the hypocritical leaven of the ministry would have infected me.  I know that it began to do so for the year that I was down in Fullerton.  That was a trying time.  I didn't enjoy worship anymore after going through that.  The meetings then became to me what many have described them to be.  Interesting, isn't it?  I guess it's a matter of perspective.
     I'll tell you one thing, though.  I wouldn't mind getting together with you all and giving thanks to God for how he has carried us through this tumoltuous experience of being in the assembly.
If that's being proud, then call me hubris.
 
Arthur

[Joe Sperling]

Kimberly---

I read your post and knew exactly what you were talking about. I remember it very well indeed. If you had been entreated, or spoken to about some "rebellious attititude",
naturally you would hold back. "He thinks he's holy and righteous enough to lift up a prayer after he's been exhorted for his rebellious behavior?" And it's true--it was always the same people---the extroverted usually--who could lift up the loudest, most eloquent prayers.

Extroverted people had a distinct advantage in the Assembly---because "outward form" was very important. "Giving a Word" and giving it well was a sign of Spiritual growth. I remember once as introverted and fearful as I was to get up in front of people, forcing myself to get up and "give a word" one Sunday. Afterwards several people said "You're really growing in the Lord".

Is "giving a word" a sign of Spritiual growth? Some people have a "natural" gift of communication, have no fear of getting up in front of people, and are very dynamic when they are the center of everyone's vision. I agree with Kimberly that giving "everyone" the opportunity to preach the word is actually not correct Biblically. The Bible clearly states that a "novice" should not be a teacher or he could be lifted up in pride---and I think many brothers were lifted up in pride.

Actual growth in the Lord does not necessarily consist in being able to "give a word" well, but in charity, brotherly love, kindness, longsuffering, etc---the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Therefore in the Assembly, the vocal, most visible, were the esteemed ones--considered "mature"--while someone who was shy and introverted was considered less spiritual, and "immature".

As in virtually all false teaching, there is a two-tier system set up--whether deliberately, or just the result of the teaching. There are the "spiritual ones" and "the failing ones". I see what Arthur is saying too--I went to worship wanting to be as sincere as I possibly could---but I was severely limited as ones would ask "Why don't you ever worship the Lord?"(meaning verbally in front of everyone) why don't you contribute?" When inside I was contributing with all of my heart.

I have to disagree with Arthur--I always disliked the Assembly form of worship--I much prefer worshiping silently even if it is to blaring music!! No one has to hear what I have to say in front of the Lord--in fact, I'd prefer only the Lord hears what I have to say to him from my heart. But, to each his own--what's important is that we do worship the Lord.

--Joe

[editor]

What you have described in your post is 'assembly system' attitudes. I agree with you that those attitudes are harmful.

My question is: do you agree that the ideal would be an 'assembly-like' gathering without the 'assembly system' attitudes?
M

Mgov, I would like to take a little liberty with your question above, and assume that what you mean by "assembly-like, without assembly-system attitudes," means that you appreciate the freedom of being able to vocally pray, and have truly open ministry, while losing all of the politics, corruption, elitism, etc.  This assumption is based on what many people have expressed over the years, but if it is not what you meant, please clarify.

Many people see Assembly liturgy as unique, because we were "free" to worship.  I contend that this isn't necessarily the case.  Catholic Mass is rigid, and well regulated.  The priest says what he is going to say, and the people say their part.  The priest must perform, the people must spectate.  The parishoners are free from having to speak, teach of comment.  The priest is free from any checks or balances.  

In the Assembly system, we were not free with regard to when the meeting started or stopped.  We were also under constraint to participate.  This was true more for men, than women, but both were expected to have a contribution proportional to the years spent in the group.  Many a brother got up and "gave a word," out of contraint, and not freedom.  Many others abused their freedom by getting up and wasting time, without God's leading.  There were also plenty of times when encouraging ministry was shared, and God did minister to his lambs.  Nevertheless, this freedom was more along the lines of regulated spontenaity.  We all knew the unwritten rules about who could speak when.

However, if we assume that the freedom to worship was the strength of the Assembly-system, I think we need to re-examine that.  For example, we were not free to have music.  We were not free to hear outside speakers.  The leading brothers defined who was free to speak, and on what topic.  They were free to censor, we were constrained to submit, etc.  In spite of all the freedom that we imagined, the meetings all started and stopped with the precision of a German railway.

The idea of Assembly church government, minus Assembly-attitude is merely to say that the Assembly was presbyterian.  Plenty of other groups are governed by elders.  This has both good and bad aspects, as does congregational and episcopal church government.  In fact, while George claimed that the gathering was run by the elders, no one who spent any amount of time in an Assembly can be fooled into thinking that George wasn't head over all.  In spite of the claims to be prebyterian, the Assembly was actually quite episcopal.

The idea of congregational led worship is both good and bad.  How many times did you cringe when some zealous brother would insist we belt out a hymn, when quiet reflection would have been more in order?  Also, did you ever observe that when people were exercising their freedom to worship, a leader would step in and re-direct everyone, even exhort them to pray, etc?  That is hardly free.

A truly free church pattern would include music, acapella, muliplicity of ministry, and stated ministry, worship team, and congregational led singing, starting and stopping at different times, etc.  Even with all this, it is no guarantee that it would be better than another system.  In fact, it could very well be confusing.

I have come to the conclusion that the whole pursuit of church pattern, is at best unnecessary.  All too often it results in a huge, multi-media entertainment based production, or a sick, cultic group like the Assembly.  The church meeting should be designed in such a way that people are able to worship, pray, study and fellowship in a meaningful way.  This is largely dependent on culture, and is certainly not to be found in the New Testament, in the form of a blueprint.

The groups that seem to having the most beneficial impact today are not at all like the Assembly in form, neither are they all like one another.  Obviously, God is less concerned about the NT pattern than we are!

Brent