WOUNDED PILGRIMS

[summer007]

I think Brent has set his face like Flint, and may be gone for awhile. Don't forget last May he left until Sept. Of course he does what he wants, but I think he's really sick of this BB. Even though he's the Patron Saint and all. Just my take on the situ.......Summer  (May is a signifcant month no dought)

[Mark C.]

Hi Everyone!

  Have read back over the thread and I will try to respond to a few of the comments made this last week.

Marcia:

  We have discussed this issue quite a bit and I hope to move on to something new.  I will make some comments on your previous points below.

Style of communication: 

   This phrase presents the idea that my concern re. how Lenore has been addressed is only one of "style" vs. a matter of rude behavior on the part of some.

   Presenting the truth with blunt directness is called for in some instances and in other circumstances will create ill will.

  Examples:   A slightly plump wife asks her husband how she looks in her tightly fitting new dress.  The husband, ascribing to the always speak the truth maxim, tells her she looks fat in the dress and should go for a Moo-Moo dress instead!

  A small child makes a drawing of his mother with crayons that is nothing but squiggly lines.  The child presents it to his mother with pride as a great work of art, but the mother, who also ascribes to a blunt presentation of the truth, tells the kid it does not look like her and is awful.

  Both of these examples above show that concentrating on "truthfulness' in our relationships alone can be a negative.  Truth must be spoken in love--- but what does that mean?

  In the Assembly it meant that leadership could not be challenged without us grovelling at their feet, and only in private, presenting our view of the truth to them in this manner.  Assembly leadership rejected truth if it was not presented in a "spiritually correct" manner.  This was a false interpretation of "speaking the truth in love" and one that naturally we are eager to avoid on the BB.  They did this to protect the group from criticism.

  When I brought up "the weak and the strong" from Rom. 14-15 it probably wasn't the best example of what I'm trying to get across re. our present distress on the BB.  Maybe a better comparison would be "the mature and the immature."

  In I Jn.2:12-14, we read an address to "dear children, fathers, young men", and then, all three groups are mentioned again.

  John above makes a distinction re. each "class" and gives each one a positive affirmination re. the level to which each has attained and then says it all over again with added emphasis!  It shows that the Bible does not teach egalitarianism in the church, among other things.  We are all at different levels in our lives (stages on the journey )

   Dear Children: "Forgiveness of sins on account of his name."

   Fathers:  "Because you have known him who is from the beginning."

    Young men: "Because you have overcome the evil one."

   The repeated positive affirmination of all 3 groups

    My only point in mentioning these verses is to point out how John had something good to say about each level of maturity.  Truth telling, to John, had to do not only with pointing out their character flaws, but with giving them hope that as born again they had great value in their lives.

       In the example of the child "artist" above: most of us can see the value of trying to find something good to say, thus sacraficing "blunt truth telling," with a concern that the child wouldn't become discouraged from trying to mature in his art work.

  On the BB we need to recognize those that have professed their faith in Christ and seek to "strengthen our brethren" in that faith.  We all have character flaws that represent our maturity level in Christ.

  A spoon-full of sugar will help the medicine go down, and John realized that if he was going to "speak the truth" he had to accompany that with a hopeful encouragement that his brethren were making progress (which is an equal part of the truth btw).

   Certainly shame based techiniques that use name-calling should not be used on God's children.  Heretics and unrepentant sinners, after several private entreaties, should be publicaly rebuked, but the immature needed to be treated in a different manner (style or discernment?).

  Lenore is a child of God, and as such is a "dear child' of God.  She has reacted sometimes in immaturity to those seeking to address her character flaws.

But, "God has accepted her, and by her own Master she stands or falls."  We need to accept her with the same kind of affection that God has for her.

  Her maturity level may be like the child "artist", but if we are really going to help her "grow-up into Christ" we may have to ignore some of the imperfections with the belief that as she practices her faith she will mature.

  When the focus on Lenore's dependence on public assistance was made the stand-out issue of her life, to the exclusion of everything else, it made this the sum and substance of her life.

  If she admitted it was wrong, and got a job, all would be solved in her life, but if she continued on welfare she would be a worthless fraud and a hypocritical "Wind-bag."

   The above paragraph is not the "truth", because it excludes the total picture, and only magnifies a blemish in her life.  God sees "beloved, forgiven, accepted, saint, etc." as well as her liabilities.  Boy am I thankful that this is just as true for me as it is for Lenore!  

                                                     God Bless,  Mark C.

     

 

 
   

   

   

[M2]

Hi Mark,

You just called Lenore immature on public forum, and suggest that we treat her like a kid.  I was treating her like an adult based on history I had developed with her in person and otherwise.

Brent's "immature" behaviour, on the other hand, merits adult like treatment.

I hope Lenore does not get offended.

Re. rude language, while you were offended by Brent's last crude comment, another actually saw it's humor and message as Brent intended it.  Should still be on this thread, you can read it.  Why are some so overly sensitive and other's can actually "get it"??

BTW you quoted some of the colorful language usage out of its original context, and it does sound awful as a result.  I would love to send you the emails received from Lenore, but that would not be a nice thing to do to Lenore.  Do you really believe that the colorful commentary came out of a desire to force Lenore to change her mind?  Maybe you feel that Brent has a personal agenda??  I am disappointed.  Please ask Lenore to send you the email she received from Brent.

Yes, we accept Lenore as a dear child of God, but not as a handicapped sub-standard individual that you have made her out to be.

Brent is one who takes action while everyone else criticizes from their comfort zones.

In the assembly we focussed on "preserve the testimony".  Now we are focussed on "________  _____   _______________".

Marcia

Marcia:
.....
  In the Assembly it meant that leadership could not be challenged without us grovelling at their feet, and only in private, presenting our view of the truth to them in this manner.  Assembly leadership rejected truth if it was not presented in a "spiritually correct" manner.  This was a false interpretation of "speaking the truth in love" and one that naturally we are eager to avoid on the BB.  They did this to protect the group from criticism. ....

There's a couple of points to be made from this comment so I isolated it.

First, I want to resate:
BB leadership rejects truth if it is not presented in a "spiritually correct" manner.  This is a false interpretation of "speaking the truth in love". They do this to protect the wounded pilgrim from criticism.

Second:
Since when do we reject something just because that was the way we did it in the assembly.  We are just stuck with a new set of rules then i.e. don't do it the way it was done in the assembly.  Many adults reject child training techniques their parents' used, just because they came from somewhat disfunctional homes.  Silly, isn't it.

That's all for now,
Marcia

[Mark C.]

Hi Marcia!

  I don't think that it is good to continue this conversation about Lenore, or Brent in public, and I apologize if anyone has been offended by my doing so.

  The more I post in an attempt to bring closure to the issue I seem to fan the flames even higher than before. 

  Since so much of this situation has happened in private, and to which I know nothing, I am attempting to moderate in the dark.  As a "moderator" on the BB I attempted to do just that in this situation.

  I will say for the last time I hope:  It is a misrepresentation of my position to say that I believe that Lenore is somehow defective as a person.

 From what I know of her, she is struggling with some emotional problems that require medical treatment.   These kinds of problems can cause difficulties in one's ability to deal with some of the simplest realities of life.  This behavior can only be described as "immature" because it reacts like a child to such things as criticism, taking responsibility, etc.

   If this is her condition, then she does have some difficulties to overcome (handicaps?).  I certainly have no desire to keep her in that state, but apparently we disagree on how best to help her find strength in her life to grow in Christ.

  I expect every Christian to behave as our Lord has commanded us to, and this means everyone here.  We will often fall short of these commands, but the true test of maturity will be a willingness to forgive and forget the sins of those who have sinned against us.

   Yes, I understand that Brent was joking, but I found it in bad taste and an attempt to deliberately mischaracterize my argument.  It is one thing to accidently offend and another thing to plan on doing so.  The first is inconsiderate, and the second is malice;  we are told to "lay this aside."

 I have admitted that I provoked this response of Brent and asked his forgiveness.  I have not heard from him, and he does not respond to my email's.

    Whatever info you have on any of this please send to me in private, rather than make the BB the place for this endeavor.

                                                    God Bless,  Mark C.

[M2]

.....
  Since so much of this situation has happened in private, and to which I know nothing, I am attempting to moderate in the dark.  As a "moderator" on the BB I attempted to do just that in this situation.

  I will say for the last time I hope:  It is a misrepresentation of my position to say that I believe that Lenore is somehow defective as a person.

 From what I know of her, she is struggling with some emotional problems that require medical treatment.   These kinds of problems can cause difficulties in one's ability to deal with some of the simplest realities of life.  This behavior can only be described as "immature" because it reacts like a child to such things as criticism, taking responsibility, etc.

   If this is her condition, then she does have some difficulties to overcome (handicaps?).  I certainly have no desire to keep her in that state, but apparently we disagree on how best to help her find strength in her life to grow in Christ.

  I expect every Christian to behave as our Lord has commanded us to, and this means everyone here.  We will often fall short of these commands, but the true test of maturity will be a willingness to forgive and forget the sins of those who have sinned against us.

   Yes, I understand that Brent was joking, but I found it in bad taste and an attempt to deliberately mischaracterize my argument.  It is one thing to accidently offend and another thing to plan on doing so.  The first is inconsiderate, and the second is malice;  we are told to "lay this aside."

 I have admitted that I provoked this response of Brent and asked his forgiveness.  I have not heard from him, and he does not respond to my email's.

    Whatever info you have on any of this please send to me in private, rather than make the BB the place for this endeavor.

                                                    God Bless,  Mark C.

I promise not to publicize any private or personal information, but I will respond publicly to any public comment made by you or any other.

Re. moderating in the dark. The way I understand your comment is that you made a public judgement call on insufficient information.  It is kind of late to be asking for more info from the people who were directly involved, but better late than never.  I do not know how many emails you have sent Brent and how many he has not responded to.

Re. calling a poster immature and suggesting that we treat them like a kid is, in effect, giving them a sub-standard status.  I treated her as an adult, and based on our historical relationship, I had no reason to treat her like a kid.

My question still stands as to why some are sensitive while others "get it" ??

I feel that this BB is headed in an unhealthy direction and that is the purpose of my continuing with this.

Maybe it is necessary to step back and see the bigger picture.  Your perspective still seems to be "focussed" on Brent's language.

Marcia

[Mark C.]

Hello Everyone!

  I have promised to offer an explanation for the title of this thread again in the hope that I can clear up some misconceptions re. what I mean by the title "Wounded Pilgrims."

  I am going to share my own personal "pilgrimage" from the point when I left the assembly until now.  Fear not, I will not give a day by day exposition  .

  When I was in the Assembly I was very sure that I was in "God's House" and in the very center of His purpose.  This created a very deep feeling of security and emotional stability.  My whole sense of reality revolved around my involvement in the group.

   Upon leaving I was cast upon a great sea of uncertainty, because I had great fears and doubts that now invaded the formerly secure place in my soul.

   I received great help from former members at that time, who helped me to see that the Assembly was theologically off, and I embarked on an intense re-education effort in an attempt to get my thinking in line with true Christian teaching.

  This helped a great deal with my emotional difficulties as well.  The nightmares that I was having stopped, as did the constant gnawing anxiety that was controlling me.

  However, though I knew that the Assembly was wrong, my life was absent any passion for what was right.  I went to work, had family life, went to church, etc. but seemed to be missing a meaningful purpose.

   It is this loss of passion for a meaningful life that some former Assembly members discover is the deepest wound received.

   Of course recovery involves understanding how one's faith needs to be in Christ, and not in a group.  It also involves learning about grace, vs the awful merit system the Assembly loaded us up with.  

   This kind of brings us back to neutral, where all the heavy burdens are lifted from our backs, but it does not engage our lives with God in a confident and determined direction filled with purpose.  We may wonder if there is really any such thing as a God directed life.

  It is this aspect that has never completely been recovered in my soul, and thus places me still among the wounded of the Assembly.  I am not trying to plead for sympathy, because God allowed this to correct a very wrong notion that I had while in the Assembly.

  God broke Jacob's leg, and he limped for the rest of his life. Peter denied Christ, and it grieved him for all his days.  Both of these worked for good in these men because out of this weakness God brought strength.

  The purpose of this thread is to offer help to those in whatever stage they find themselves along their pilgrim path to recovery.  To those of us who still feel like we are missing a "spiritual gene" because we can't "feel" our relationship with God, or lack certainty that God is directing our lives it is meant to be a place of consolation and hope.

   Telling such people to just "walk by faith" is correct advice, for religion based on experience was a major part of the problem,  but for those who based decades of their lives in living their spiritual lives via their emotions it isn't so easy.

  Emotions can be damaged, and to have a joyful life in Christ we have to be able to regain a healthy inner being that matches our theological orthodoxy.

  As an example:  I can believe that "God loves me for the Bible tells me so", but have an unhealthy preoccupation with what a horrible person I am.  The Assembly created an unhealthy preoccupation with a process of inner searching and purging of sin.  This develops into a habit of self debasement and self loathing that becomes an automatic reaction to life situations.

  I can tell you that I still wake up some mornings with an automatic time of self contemplation and reflection on my inner spiritual lack.  It can spiral me downward into a depressed state that takes control, and at that point I have to make a conscious effort to just stop it.  It is a painful and difficult reality that is such a part of me that I wonder if I will have to fight it all my life.

    This emotional reaction becomes a deeply embedded character trait that simply won't respond to just "good teaching" because the habit controls the behavior.  But, that is not the end of the story by a long shot.  

      More on this later.   God bless,  Mark C.

  

[summer007]

Mark, Sometimes you have to choose to have a good day no matter what happens you rise above and yes step out on Faith, out on the waters. I know it's not that simple! I was wondering why you don't see that because you were playing head-games with Brent he gave a sarcastic responce, he asked a fairly simple question 3 or 4 times and you did'nt see it, said for him to get out the greek etc. And you still think he was mis-representing you, when you admitted you were trying to provoke him, it does'nt make sence. Summer p.s. What Eastern Religion were you Buddist?, Hindu?

[Mark C.]

Mark, Sometimes you have to choose to have a good day no matter what happens you rise above and yes step out on Faith, out on the waters. I know it's not that simple! I was wondering why you don't see that because you were playing head-games with Brent he gave a sarcastic responce, he asked a fairly simple question 3 or 4 times and you did'nt see it, said for him to get out the greek etc. And you still think he was mis-representing you, when you admitted you were trying to provoke him, it does'nt make sence. Summer p.s. What Eastern Religion were you Buddist?, Hindu?

 Hi Summer,

   I was not a member of an official Eastern Religious organization, and basically followed my own natural inclinations toward escaping relaity via mysticism.  I did read mystical literature and spent many hours in meditation.

  I read you quote above and don't quite understand the connection to my previous post and my admission that I had been playing "mind games" with Brent.

  If your question is why I would do something like that?

 It is a common character flaw among humans:  As we make our argument our goal is to "win" the point, and this means we search for info. to support that argument.  I selectively read a commentary and interpretation of the Greek text, and ignored anything that might have given creedence to Brent's argument.

   This was dishonest, and I have admitted it.  His sarcastic response, while understandable becuase I provoked it, mischaraterized totally what I was trying to say.

 My point  simply was that we need to "make a differnece" between when we use confrontation and when we choose a friendly response.  This is called discernment, and if my many examples on this thread are not clear re. how to make that difference than I think it's time for me to give up trying to explain it.

                                                       

  Yes, and absolutely yes!!!  We must battle against "the dark side" of allowing our negative emotions to control us.  I only mean to point out that some former members struggle with this for many years after leaving, and that this is what I mean by "wounded pilgrim."

  If you don't have this problem it probably is difficult to understand those that do, but I do not advocate surrender to that downward spiral; that is the whole point of the topic which is to gain encouragement in the fight against it.

                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.

 

 

[M2]

Hi Mark,

I accept your public apology. Any reference I make to the event is for context and illustration, and not because I am holding it against you.

God bless,
Marcia

[moonflower2]

Happy Sunday, Everyone!

Preacher talked about Jonah today.

Thought I may as well post something, since this BB has me logged in everytime I click on this site.

Anyone want to officially log me OFF? I tried it about 4 or 5 times already, even set the logged-in time for 1 minute, and each time I come back here, it shows me as online and my name as one of the logged-in wounded.

Shalom

[vernecarty]

My point  simply was that we need to "make a differnece" between when we use confrontation and when we choose a friendly response.  This is called discernment,
                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.
   

I think Mark makes a critical point here which is key to understanding why there was such tragedy in the assemblies. It is possible to be angry and not sin. If you do not know exactly what it is you are dealing with, will simply not be able to formulate the proper response.
 If a person comes after me with an eight inch switch-blade, my response is going to be entirely different from what it would have been had they come after me with their bare hands. You have to understand the level of the threat.

Geftakys was an evil man.
The system he devised was a wicked system and intended to fulfill his own selfiish and godless ambitions.
Judging from the results, he was able to achieve his objective and in spades. Think about what the man did and for how long!!
If you do not understand this, you will spew nothing but hogwash in your assessment of that era.
Witness the fact that there are still some folk claiming this apostate and his wife as their "spiritual parents" and enjoining on some of us the same calamitous disposition. Thinking that produces a statement like that, in view of all we know about George and his history, does not qualify for sweet reasonableness in my  view.
On the other hand, if a person is just confused or misguided and as a consequence making statements that are clearly in error or contradictory, one should make every attempt to appeal to sweet reasonableness in that situation.
Christian love would require a sincere attempt to reach that individula by whatever means necessary.
If a person is engaging in outright wickedness, and I don't give a rat's petootie what they call themselves, you have a duty to hand them their head...
As Mark said, our problem is that some of us are juist to dense too recognize the difference...and sometimes even when we do, we lack the proper understanding that ruthlessness is not only permissible, it may absolutely be required. This is what, in a nutshell, I believe spearated Brent from the rest of the pack...no reference here of course to his disagreement with Mark.
Verne

[summer007]

Mark,  Your point was clear, no need to explain again. What made it difficult to give your argument legs was you using a veiled confrontation, which you admitted (several times) and then expecting a proper characterization from those following along during that discussion. It's between you and Brent. I only commented because some of us were looking up the passages in Romans 14-15. I'm dropping it now. Summer.

[summer007]

Verne, Yes he pulled it off in Spades as you said. Can you see him riding down the river nile, then having an affair in Paris, yachting in the Greek Isles and then waltzing into any Assm pulpit on the "Journey" and preaching and anything slightly threatening or questioning all he had to say to the LB is bro thats not of the Lord and the person was outed! All these people robotically doing the same thing at the same time,same hymn book, same pre-prayer, worship, etc He had it Wired! No questions asked, running Wild over the globe, and these people PAID for it! Yes he kept them all in line with the workers meetings, etc, I think he equated Sold out for the Lord with fool and knew he had them all in his back-pocket. Well until the fall-out, but it seems only age will stop him, so he burnt through a few areas, that no longer meet, there's plenty more people out there who'ev never heard. Just my take.  Summer

[Oscar]

Verne,

You said...

"Geftakys was an evil man.
The system he devised was a wicked system and intended to fulfill his own selfiish and godless ambitions.
Judging from the results, he was able to achieve his objective and in spades. Think about what the man did and for how long!!
If you do not understand this, you will spew nothing but hogwash in your assessment of that era."

Nevertheless, I think you are giving GG too much credit here!

GG did not "devise" a plan to get what he wanted and carry it out.  All he did was to imbibe a lot of deeper life and Plymouth Brethren ideas...then strike out on his own.

I knew him well during the period between 1970 and 1988.  George is extremely clever...but I don't think he is the kind of evil genius that such a plot would require.  He's just not smart enough.

I regard him as a fallen Christian who, at a very early stage, didn't deal with sin problems and progressed into delusion and deception.   

I Corinthians 10:11-13

I recently got a phone call from an old friend from the 60's.  A dear brother I knew back then fell into the deception that anyone who disagreed with him was being decieved by or used by demons.

BTW, he got this way by taking the deeper life teachings seriously, particularly Jesse Penn-Lewis.

This led to all sorts of problems in his life.  His wife had to leave him during the 70's as he became quite abusive.

Now he is dying, still in his delusions.   

There is no question this man is a brother.  Satan simply found a man who would allow himself to be "devoured".

I Peter 5:8

That is why we must hate "even the garment spotted by the flesh" Jude 23.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux 

[summer007]

Tom, Although you don't think the plan was 'devised" but developed over time how do you explain the church with no name (I understand it started with just a few meeting) then paranoia over the tape ministry, and all the cash eventually no checks, I have checks that were handed out to workers not one went through his accounts. Then the door-keepers checking who was allowed in. GG had quite a hsitory and I think he was somewhat paranoid of being found-out. How would  you have responded to him preaching 7th day creation had you been attending at the time? I would say this is more then a fallen away Christian ( He was Pastoring many ) Summer.