WOUNDED PILGRIMS

[outdeep]

Actually, my comment about heavenly vision was kind of a side point.  I understand, as Margaret pointed out, that George attached much more meaning to the term “heavenly vision” than I gave him credit for.

However, Tom was correct about my point on this.  Any meaning that George attached to the term “heavenly vision” is bogus, in my opinion, because Paul used the term to speak of his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, not some vision of God’s purpose for the church.

Samuel did cross the line a bit into unhealthiness with his “warfare mentality” (see my previous post on this).  However, I am not going to fault him too much for trying to be persuasive for what he honestly believes.  I don’t think I have been in a church where leaders didn’t try to persuade that what we were involved in was something we should give our lives to.

Bill Hybel and Rick Warren will try to persuade their members that they are involved in a great evangelistic movement that is able to reach seekers in ways that the traditional church can’t.  John MacAuthor will try to persuade his members that his church is more Bible-truth-oriented than the seeker-sensitive types.

Persuasion is part of volunteer-based churches.  And I'm sure you have read enough Reformed, Dispensational and emerging church literature to know that this persuasion can be pretty strong-worded and sprited.

However, as long as someone in the currently-gathered Assemblies can say when all is said and done “You know what?  I don’t think this church is right for me.  I’m going to go to Calvary Chapel (or whatever church they want to go to)” and they are free to go with blessing (which seems to be happening in Fullerton according to those I spoke with), then I am not going to be overly concerned about these folks meeting.

It was the intimidation against leaving as well as the exclusivity of the Assembly that moved them from being a group with some wonky ideas to demonstrating cult-like behavior.  If that wall has fallen down, I put them in the category of a word-faith church, a hyper-Calvinist church, a Pentecostal church or any other church where I don’t buy into everything in their message.

[Oscar]

Dave,

You said:

It was the intimidation against leaving as well as the exclusivity of the Assembly that moved them from being a group with some wonky ideas to demonstrating cult-like behavior.  If that wall has fallen down, I put them in the category of a word-faith church, a hyper-Calvinist church, a Pentecostal church or any other church where I don’t buy into everything in their message.

In addition, all of the types of churches you have named, as well as those you might agree with, both can and have sometimes turned into "The great leader has special needs that you are privileged to meet" churches. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Margaret]

Okay, Dave, I can see where maybe we sought to give Fullerton credit on ga.com for now allowing people to leave on good terms. That's a good step in the right direction.

But I'm not persuaded that Plymouth Brethren teaching on the Overcomer and the Inheritance are relatively benign and no more dangerous than Pentecostalism. I think this needs more discussion. To say that failing to overcome will result in losing out on the Kingdom and ending up in the lake of fire seems worse than wonky.

[M2]

Actually, my comment about heavenly vision was kind of a side point.  I understand, as Margaret pointed out, that George attached much more meaning to the term “heavenly vision” than I gave him credit for.

However, Tom was correct about my point on this.  Any meaning that George attached to the term “heavenly vision” is bogus, in my opinion, because Paul used the term to speak of his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, not some vision of God’s purpose for the church.

Samuel did cross the line a bit into unhealthiness with his “warfare mentality” (see my previous post on this).  However, I am not going to fault him too much for trying to be persuasive for what he honestly believes.  I don’t think I have been in a church where leaders didn’t try to persuade that what we were involved in was something we should give our lives to.

Bill Hybel and Rick Warren will try to persuade their members that they are involved in a great evangelistic movement that is able to reach seekers in ways that the traditional church can’t.  John MacAuthor will try to persuade his members that his church is more Bible-truth-oriented than the seeker-sensitive types.

Persuasion is part of volunteer-based churches.  And I'm sure you have read enough Reformed, Dispensational and emerging church literature to know that this persuasion can be pretty strong-worded and sprited.

However, as long as someone in the currently-gathered Assemblies can say when all is said and done “You know what?  I don’t think this church is right for me.  I’m going to go to Calvary Chapel (or whatever church they want to go to)” and they are free to go with blessing (which seems to be happening in Fullerton according to those I spoke with), then I am not going to be overly concerned about these folks meeting.

It was the intimidation against leaving as well as the exclusivity of the Assembly that moved them from being a group with some wonky ideas to demonstrating cult-like behavior.  If that wall has fallen down, I put them in the category of a word-faith church, a hyper-Calvinist church, a Pentecostal church or any other church where I don’t buy into everything in their message.

Margaret,

Is the exclusivity issue the only reason the assembly achieved 'cult' status?

Mike Zach shouldn't be reconginzed by a leader - period. A big part of being a leader is doing the right thing, no matter how tough it may be.  Turning a blind eye to some serious abuse, manipulation, and blatant fraud should show everyone that Mike Zach and leader have no business even being in the same sentence. 

Even if MZ were to apologize up and down, and do it sincerely, does it...

- Undo all the years of George's training that Mike obviously bought into?
- Does it magically (no pun intended) make a very below average speaker (and thats on a good day) turn into someone who has the ability to keep the attention of those who are somewhat sane?
- Make right all of the times that MZ shared extremely sensitive and confident information in order to put himself on a pedastal and gain the trust of others.  You have to be willing to trust a leader - can anyone real trust this guy?  Give me a break.

I would argue that those who were/are still  in assembly leadership positions are the ones who need the most counseling, are the ones who need the most to be reprogrammed, and the ones who if they are serious about leading any sort of a Christian life are the ones who should be doing the listening, and certainly not the talking.

On the other hand, I've seen the guy around Omaha from time to time and the sight of him makes me physically ill.  So I guess if Chicago wants to listen to him that bad, maybe he could do us all a favor and pack up and move there.

I guess at the end of the day, a lot of people will have accomplished a lot of things, and all people like him and TG will accomplished is career cult leader.

IMO Uh Oh was right on the money re. his analysis of leaders, and I would extend that to all adherants.

Marcia

[outdeep]

Both you and Tom bring up good points.

As for the leader whose needs are met via the group, that very thing happened at a Baptist church up the street.  They had a pastor whose ministry was all about him.  I spotted pretty quickly when we were there for some function.  Sure enough, within a couple years, they had a nasty split and lots of tears.

Margaret, yes those teachings do put alot of weight of guilt on the innocent.  I would catagorize it as the the same camp as Weslians or other denominations that teach that you can lose your salvation.  Or, even the Catholic teaching of purgatory.

I have found, however, many folks in the Assembly were not aware of the lake of fire teaching (because very few really read George's books or completely followed him when he made his point at the seminars).  This doesn't mean it is OK, but I don't think that is pushed much practically though it is part of things George taught.

I am not saying we don't speak out against such teachings.  I think we should and I think that is the purpose of GA.com  And, I certainly don't ever intend to fellowship on a regular basis.   I just feel alot more hopeful and that there might be more opportunity for folks to sit down for a cup of coffee with those still gathering, build a relationship and have a meaningful conversation about it than there was five years ago.  Further, I feel I could visit a meeting if I wanted to (I don't know that I do) and not feel that I am going to be scrutinized for not walking in the light.

And if folks decide to stay?  Part of true freedom is that we allow people to make what we might think are bad decisions as well as good ones.  This is certainly something the Assembly never understood.

[Oscar]

Okay, Dave, I can see where maybe we sought to give Fullerton credit on ga.com for now allowing people to leave on good terms. That's a good step in the right direction.

But I'm not persuaded that Plymouth Brethren teaching on the Overcomer and the Inheritance are relatively benign and no more dangerous than Pentecostalism. I think this needs more discussion. To say that failing to overcome will result in losing out on the Kingdom and ending up in the lake of fire seems worse than wonky.

Margaret,

I heartily agree that the Overcomer teaching is not benign.  It is not like other views on eschatology, which differ regarding various times and details.  Overcomerism is about the meaning of the Gospel itself.  Are we saved by grace through faith, or are we saved by grace enabled works?

The apostles, the reformers, and modern Evangelicals teach the first one.  Catholics and this PB group teach the latter.

Remember though, this is held by only a small minority of Plymouth Brethren teachers.  Years ago I read G. H. Lang's book on Revelation.  The forward was by his brother-in-law who wrote that Lang was a godly man, even though his teaching was in error.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Margaret]

Dave said about the Fullerton Assembly,

I just feel alot more hopeful and that there might be more opportunity for folks to sit down for a cup of coffee with those still gathering, build a relationship and have a meaningful conversation about it than there was five years ago.  Further, I feel I could visit a meeting if I wanted to (I don't know that I do) and not feel that I am going to be scrutinized for not walking in the light.

I'm wondering if there might be a big difference between various continuing Assemblies on this point. Marcia, do you feel about people in the Ottawa Assembly the way Dave feels about Fullerton? I know I couldn't say the same about Placentia, but then, some Fullerton folks might not want to have coffee with the Irons' either. Which brings up another point--Dave, do you think what you said holds true for the current leaders in Fullerton, or maybe just the ordinary saints?

Tom--good point about "only certain Plymouth Brethren teachers." But GG was one, and presumably the current Assembly leaders.

[M2]

Dave said about the Fullerton Assembly,

I'm wondering if there might be a big difference between various continuing Assemblies on this point. Marcia, do you feel about people in the Ottawa Assembly the way Dave feels about Fullerton? I know I couldn't say the same about Placentia, but then, some Fullerton folks might not want to have coffee with the Irons' either. Which brings up another point--Dave, do you think what you said holds true for the current leaders in Fullerton, or maybe just the ordinary saints?

Tom--good point about "only certain Plymouth Brethren teachers." But GG was one, and presumably the current Assembly leaders.

Margaret,

I believe that it applies across the board, that Geftakys-lite assemblies are trying not to be exclusive, with some individual exceptions.  However, I disagree that they are like any other church because of it.

There is so much else to consider, like the years of indoctrination and abuse, and,  like you said:

There is a difference between Mike Zach and people who have problems in a church. Mike was an elder and a full-time paid worker. His treatment of one of the sheep in his care is documented in "Our Story" by Bill and Joyce H. http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/PersonalAccounts/BillJoyceH.htm

His dealing with other people in the Omaha Assembly is recounted in "Gretchen W.'s Story" http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/PersonalAccounts/GretchenW.htm

He and Cheryl were delegated to stay with David and Judy Geftakys to help them resolve their problems, and they saw David's abuse firsthand. They promised Judy they would advocate for her, but failed to follow through, leaving her and the children in what they knew to be a dangerous situation. http://www.geftakysassembly.com/JudyWritesToVerne.html.

This is a bigger problem than just an individual in a church who has problems.

Mike Zach was not behaving at the time any differently than many of the other leading brothers would have under George's domination. But since then, when he is no longer under George, he has not openly acknowledged that his behavior was wrong or apologized meaningfully to the many individuals he wronged. Mike should not be recognized as a leader of God's people until he has made these things right.

I think your characterization of GG's Heavenly Vision is inaccurate, Dave.  See the first two pages or so of Brent's article, "George's Heavenly Vision" http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/AssemblyTeachingPractice/HeavenlyVision.htm. The Heavenly Vision is the lampstand of pure gold, etc. In view of that, although current Assemblies may not shun people who leave any more, they do seem to still preach, as Samuel did, "Don't lose your grip on the Heavenly Vision and settle for less." That still puts a burden on people who leave--can they find a church that measures up enough in their minds to assure them they're not settling for less than God's best. Admittedly, this is a more subtle pressure than shunning and preaching against them, and gives people a little wiggle room, but it still promotes the elitism.

Several other aberrant signs are control--"Don't read the internet," "Sisters mustn't have short hair," "Submit to the leadership." Performance--"Don't lose your fervency to be an Overcomer--come to the prayer meeting, the outreach, etc." Fear--"You don't want to miss out on the Kingdom, and end up outside looking in."

Marcia

[outdeep]

Dave said about the Fullerton Assembly,

I'm wondering if there might be a big difference between various continuing Assemblies on this point. Marcia, do you feel about people in the Ottawa Assembly the way Dave feels about Fullerton? I know I couldn't say the same about Placentia, but then, some Fullerton folks might not want to have coffee with the Irons' either. Which brings up another point--Dave, do you think what you said holds true for the current leaders in Fullerton, or maybe just the ordinary saints?

Ultimately, I would have to plead ignorance on this one as I am looking though things through a small keyhole with first-hand information that is very dated.  When the Assembly fell, there was a dramatic change of folks who at one point probably wouldn't talk with me who were more than happy to chat or get together.  Even at Ariel (or whatever they call themselves now) there was a mix of prominent saints where some were still involved in the Assembly and some were not and there didn't seem to be any contention over that.

It would be unfair for me to take my little anecdotal experience and apply it to all Assemblies that are still meeting, so I really don't know.  One good sign is that since the great band leader is gone, different people are playing different tunes.


I certainly agree that the Overcoming teaching is wrong (that is what we wrote the Nobel Inquirer on, after all).  So don't interprete the following that I don't agree that it is a false teaching.

However, in thinking back, I think it had different effects on different types of people.

Those who were naturally guilty would always feel they were not measuring up.

Others who were needy in other ways developed a sense of self-righteousness that they were more spiritual that the garden variety Christian.

However, I think many with greater confidence didn't think too much about it.  They thought, "Yeah, carnal Christians who are sleeping around and getting drunk, they won't enter in.  But I have no intention of doing that.  Thank God, I'm walking with the Lord" and they really didn't get hung up over the teaching. 

Though this doesn't justify the teaching, George at the initial stages probably used this teaching to deal with a real theological problem¹:  what do you do with the person who seems to have received Christ but outward evidence seems to indicate that they are not Christians?  How do you reconcile current outward behavior with "once saved always saved".  George dealt with it by splitting up levels of salvation.  I believe the Reformed (and many others) deal with it by saying in spite of earlier evidence that person was never saved in the first place (he was just faking).  Still a third group would say that God will still save him no matter what.  Even Chuck Smith teaches some form that a Christian can stop abiding in the Vine and suffer loss (I won't try and say exactly here because I am doing it from memory but I can research it if folks are interested).  J. Vernon McGee tried to deal with this by saying the true Christian will land on the right side of the line before he dies. The false one wont.

¹Of course, he eventually evolved to using this teaching indescriminately to motivate the Saints to do things he wanted them to do such as attend meetings or submit to leadership which is another issue of lack of accountability to any standards of Biblical interpretation.

If Overcomer theology is wrong (which it is), how should this question be answered?

[Mark C.]

Hi Everyone!

 Dave is correct, when trying to judge where exactly existing Assemblies fall as to their true condition, that trying to look through the "keyhole" of what little we know about each present group, there just is not enough info. for us to go on.

  However, this is not how we should evaluate Assemblies anyway.  God alone knows how to judge whether individuals are truly saved or have bad motives; and we, like the disciples, will almost always judge incorrectly on the basis of this kind of analysis--- God alone knows their hearts'.

  We can only judge behavior and expressed attitudes as being what God wants or what he does not want.  The Bible does strongly encourage us to speak out and make judgements among those "that name the name of Christ;"  Indeed, it is our solemn duty to do so.

  These judgments not only have to do with teachings that the group may still hold to that are false, but to practices of the group as well.  Evil practice is just as wrong as erroneous teaching.

   "Well Mark," some may say, "they have changed from their past teaching and practices and all is now well."  On this point I have to strongly agree with Marcia: The group has a history, and this history must be honestly faced.  There are many issues between the group and former members and we are straightly charged by the bible to "leave our gift at the altar" and to go and get things right with those we have offended.

       The following actions must be taken for the Assembly to approach Biblical directions for proper conduct:

1.) The present Assemblies, or former leaders, can no longer refuse honest and public discussion re. the grievances many have over their past treatment by the group/leaders.

2.)Any and all of the religious activities by present GG inspired groups (what they bring to the altar) will not move them forward in their desire to serve Christ.  Bible studies, worship, and prayer meetings are "wood, hay, and stubble," if the issue of reconcilation with brethren who have been sinned against is not resolved.

3.) A willingness to accept accountability not only for their past, but a commitment to continuing dialogue that, like the wisdom that comes from above, is willing to listen to those outside the group and receive constructive criticism.

   These actions above can only be beneficial for all the parties concerned and has the potential to produce a great healing benefit among:

1.) The deeply wounded.  However some may disdain and dismiss this group as being those "mired in bitterness" the loving attempt by present/former Assembly members to come clean re. their past can only bring great joy to the heart of God.

2.) The deeply confused.  Those that still suffer with love for their Assembly friends and yet their knowledge that the Assembly was was out of the will of God in teaching and practices.   These are those that live their lives on a very emotional basis who have great difficulty adjusting to post Assembly life.  Telling these people to "just be more rational" is not the answer, because their thinking is so deeply involved with their emotional condition.  Honesty from their Assembly friends in admitting their past errors can help these folks in dealing with their inner turmoil.

3.) The present Assembly members and former leaders:  These actually have the most to gain.  Their present religious, or other, pursuits have Jesus on the outside and knocking to gain entrance; like the church of Laodicea in Rev.

   Ignoring, or explaining away past Assembly teaching and practices, is not honest or humble and God judges this kind of behavior to be totally repugnant ( it makes Jesus sick) and should be vigorously exposed for the sinful and unloving conduct that it demonstrates.  For us to do less makes us defenders of what should be condemned as destructive to God's people.

                                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

[M2]

Margaret,

I believe that it applies across the board, that Geftakys-lite assemblies are trying not to be exclusive, with some individual exceptions.  However, I disagree that they are like any other church because of it.

There is so much else to consider, like the years of indoctrination and abuse, and,  like you said:

Marcia

Hi Margaret et al,

People accuse me of being bitter and revengeful.

My desire is for reconciliation, and for what's best for all parties.

Marcia

[thomasson]

Hi Everyone!

 Dave is correct, when trying to judge where exactly existing Assemblies fall as to their true condition, that trying to look through the "keyhole" of what little we know about each present group, there just is not enough info. for us to go on.

 

I also agree that there is not enough information to go by when trying to judge the existing Assemblies.  If I have opportunity when I visit I address any issues that may come up during conversation.  But I don't have enough information to say that they have not gone to individuals who they have wronged and made it right.    I know Roger did approach me in 2003 and apologized if he had offended me in any way.  At the time everything was so new I couldn't think of anything.    And when I went to worship last year I was allowed to partake of the Lord's supper when before I was not allowed (which is a long story) that I won't bore anyone with. 

So I think some significant changes have taken place but I can't say that they meet all of the criteria you listed in your post.

[Mark C.]

Hi Thomasson!

   The point I was trying to make with the post that you quoted was that we should not be trying to judge present Assembly members re. how sincere they are; that is, we don't know their hearts'.

   However, we are to make judgments re. the clear facts surrounding Assembly history.  To just wipe the slate clean and deny the past actions of present members is not good for them, or for the many who were hurt as a result of their behavior.

   For Roger Grant to approach you and ask, "if I ever did anything to offend you please forgive me", misses the mark of what effective repentance should mean in this situation.

   Roger needs to see that the Assembly was a system, not unlike Phariseeism, that was utterly corrupt.  Jesus said that, "the axe needed to be layed to the root" of that false religious system.

   This fact that the above approach of Roger asked you to come up with the "if there was anything, etc." shows that he was just trying to go through the motions and putting all the burden of his part in an abusive system onto the one he hurt.

  A former leader from the SFV called me up and asked the same question.  When I responded in a lengthy email he had my address blocked and refused to respond!  He expected me to say,"it's okay bro.", and were it just me and my relationship with  him I might have said that---------- but, this is not just a personal situation, it has to do with serious evil having been done in the name of Christ!   This, he did not want to have to face!

   Former/present leaders need to completly close shop and zealously pursue an education re. the true nature of the group and their part in it.  Any attempts to run "Assembly lite" will never deal with "the root" from whence comes the whole system.

   One former leader of an Assembly who I talked with told me,"can't God teach us and correct us?"  My answer was, "yes, but from your present vantage point you don't realize the baggage that you are carrying in your thought processes.  The Assembly formed some pretty strong asumptions, and most of these are distorted at best, and for true recovery to occur you will have to have a new start."

   Calls to follow this advice to present members are no more "judgmental or bitter" than were Jesus' words to the church at Laodicea.

                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

[al Hartman]

Not to detract from the whole of this conversation, but I want to address one particular aspect of Mark's post because of my personal experience with it:

   For Roger Grant to approach you and ask, "if  I ever did anything to offend you please forgive me", misses the mark of what effective repentance should mean in this situation...

   This fact that the above approach of Roger asked you to come up with the "if there was anything, etc." shows that he was just trying to go through the motions and putting all the burden of his part... onto the one he hurt.
                                                                               (added emphases mine-- al)

I have an extensive past history of using the "If I ever..." defense.  I must say in all honesty that I was sincere in my efforts.  I truly believed that my conscience was clear before God, and that anyone who had taken offense at my words or actions owed me an explanation of what they perceived I had done.  My self-deception lay in this: that I fully trusted in my conscience (rather than in Christ) that I was in the right and they (whoever they may have been) were in the wrong-- therefore, if anyone dared claim I had sinned against them, I would be able to clearly explain and defend my actions.

Thank God that Brent Tr0ckman (remember him?) saw through my baloney and called me on it publicly.  I don't recall his exact words, but they were to the effect of, "'If' isn't good enough, al.  Confess exactly what you have done and repent of it, then we can have dialogue."

There are a couple of reactions one can have to such a challenge.  One is the approach (read: retreat) that Mark's SFV leader used:

                             ...he had my address blocked and refused to respond!

My reaction was to recoil in shock, after which I asked God, "Can this be true?  Can I be so willingly blind as to believe I am right when I am wrong?  If so, please show me..."  I really expected to be vindicated, but instead God answered my prayer and showed me exactly what I had been guilty of and what I needed to do about it.  It is no credit to me, but only by His enabling grace was I able to see the truth and to respond appropriately.

My point is that we can't know the heart or motivations of another-- whether they are deliberate deceivers or simply being deceptive because they themselves are deceived.  But no matter how sympathetic we may be toward them, we cannot compromise integrity.  We can pray for those who err, but we cannot lower our (God's) standards to give them a free pass.

Brent could have accepted my plea, or he could have simply ignored me, but he did neither-- he said what needed to be said, and by so doing, he was the vessel of my deliverance.  It is by our integrity and courage in the face of wrong, and not merely by sympathy, that we can help to heal the wounds of our fellow pilgrims.  Let our empathy lead us to prayer and to gentleness, but never let that gentleness detract from our exercising unyielding firmness on behalf of the truth.

al

[outdeep]

   For Roger Grant to approach you and ask, "if I ever did anything to offend you please forgive me", misses the mark of what effective repentance should mean in this situation.

   Roger needs to see that the Assembly was a system, not unlike Phariseeism, that was utterly corrupt.  Jesus said that, "the axe needed to be layed to the root" of that false religious system.

   This fact that the above approach of Roger asked you to come up with the "if there was anything, etc." shows that he was just trying to go through the motions and putting all the burden of his part in an abusive system onto the one he hurt.

I don't know if I buy into this sweeping generalization.  I can certainly see where someone who ought to know better uses this phrase as a smokescreen.  On the other hand, I can think of many instances where I may have offended back when I was in the Assembly or college but I don't remember all of my conversations or actions.  I remember one then-leading brother who stayed in our home when I first got married.  My wife was sick so I did much of the cooking.  He later reported to the workers that we weren't ready for the work because my wife wore the pants in the family and I wore the apron.  He told them he talked to me about this but he didn't. 

This happened so long ago, I really doubt that he would remember the experience or have any idea that it hurt us at the time.  If this guy was still around (he is long gone) and asked me "if there is anything . . .", I suppose I might bring the incident up for a good laugh.

Case in point, when Roger asked this question Thomasson really couldn't think of anything.  So, why pursue it any further?  If Roger was being deceptive in his question, only God knows.  If he was being as honest as he possibly can, then they are clear as far as I or anyone else should be concerned.

I can certainly understand where Mark is coming from because his closest friends in the Assembly were leading brothers who acted liked royal hypocritical asses and essentially consciously and deliberately screwed him over.  So, I can appreciate from his experience why he would expect a higher degree of repentance.  They did things that they cannot "not know" was wrong.  On the other hand, I was lower on the Assembly food chain so my experiences were not that horrific.  For me, I see my Assembly aquantenances  as fellow-victims of believing and acting out the same erroneous teachings.  So, if someone said to me that I couldn't work late and had to be at a meeting or I shouldn't do this or that, it was only because we embraced the same assumptions about reality at that time.  I'm not particularly offended that we believed the same collection of ideals and acted upon them.

Now that the curse of exclusivism and shunning is gone, I don't feel that every Assemblite (whether in or out) has to rise to some standard of repentance and refutiation before I can sit down and have a cup of coffee with him.