Lord's supper

[aguyoutthere]

I read somewhere in this message board that a big problem with the doorkeepers was that they tried to stop people from partaking, judging them.  I also recently read in an article (on this site) that George shouldn't be allowed to partake.  Could some when clear up this apparent contradiction for me?

[Peacefulg]

Hi aguyouthere, could you explain better the contradiction you are seeing, I do not want to take a stab at this without being clear of what you are asking.

I think you are saying, what is the difference between a doorkeeper stoping someone and people on this board saying that George should not partake  I.E. What give yous the right to say George should not, but the doorkeeper cannot do the same.

Thanks,
G

[aguyoutthere]

it seemed that the persons problem with the doorkeepers telling people not to partake was that it takes away a man/woman's right/responsibility to examine themself.  why would the person with the article, then, be concerned with George's personal decision to partake (in the article it was said in such a way as to imply that he should not)?

[karensanford]

My guess is that one person made the statement about the doorkeepers, and another person entirely made the statement about George not partaking.  

If they were written by the same person...well, I don't know.

[editor]

Hey aguyoutthere:

This is an easy one.  I wrote the article you are talking about.

When you don't know someone, and they profess Christ, giving absolutely no reason to doubt their sincerity, they are to be received.  These people sit next to you every sunday, if you attend a church with a few hundred members.  You don't know everyone, and neither do the deacons or elders, let alone the pastor. We are to judge ourselves.  If we choose to play the hypocrit, then the Bible indicates that we will reap consequences.

However, if you KNOW someone is in sin, you are to rebuke/entreat them. If they don't hear you, take 2 or 3, if they refuse them, tell the church.  If they fail to hear the church, then treat them as an unbeliever, which means they don't partake at the Lord's table.

What's the trouble?

The main point of that article was not the Lord's supper.  Please try to see the big picture intead of getting picky about small details.

Brent

[Oscar]

The Plymouth Brethren practice of having people "sit back" and not "partake" is based on the idea of their special status with God.  They believe that God is "in the midst" in a way not enjoyed by other Christians.  If they allow "sin in the camp" the Holy Spirit will be grieved and their gathering will become "Ichabod".  
This has always been George Geftakys' justification for leaving the Open Bretheren assemblies.  They had become Ichabod, the glory had departed, so he "was led" to found a new work where God would be truly honored.

I have never felt that this practice has any real scriptural warrant.  In the case where it says, "no, not even to eat with such a one" it is dealing with a man who had so violated Christian morality that he was expelled until he repented.
In I Cor5:11 it says "...not even to eat with such a one".
But remember, this man was delivered unto Satan by Paul,(Verses 4-5), and the church was told to "remove the wicked man from among yourselves, (verse 13).  

Having George sit in the back row for a period of time, what would that accomplish?  What is the proper period of time?

I feel that the proper procedure would be to give a man in open sin, any man, the choice of repentence or separation from the church.  Then, if he repents, as the man in Corinth did, receive him back into fellowship.

At present, I don't see that as a very real possibilityin the case of George Geftakys.

So, I guess I would summarize my thoughts as;
1. If it really worked this way the Holy Spirit would have been gone for 25-30 years.
2. If God were going to judge George with bodily destruction for this he would have been dead years ago.
3. The whole idea upon which the practice is based is bogus.
4. The real need is for ALL the leadership to repent and open the doors to their bretheren, that they might be helped and healed.
5. I don't see this as happening yet.
6. Who told these folks they were special anyway?

Tom Maddux

[editor]

Tom,

You get 3 out of a possible 3 overcomer points for that last post.  Also, I am going to award you an extra overcomer point as a random award.

Editor

[4Him]

After reading Tom's post I can only say, Boy, do I have a lot to learn, or maybe it's unlearn.  I have only had light for a couple of weeks, only enough time to realize that I had to come out.  It's going to take me a while to examine the teachings I've previously accepted w/o question and allow the Holy Spirit to teach me.  I very much appreciate Tom's perspective in this matter as I believe it leads me in a new way of seeing.
Glory!

[anonymous ak now grown]

tom-
not sure if im clear on what you mean with simply confronting the brother (in this case George).  I think  you are meaning that you confront the brother, if he repents, let him partake, if he doesnt, dont let him into the gathering.  In George's case, his repentance wasnt just before God but before man.  How then would he be dealt with scripturally? If he still has to make things right with people he has offended, then is the brother left out of the gathering?
I like how you pointed out the "sitting in the back until the leadership feels the person has repented"....growing up in fellowship it was strange to notice....  
ak

[Kimberley Tobin]

In George's case, his repentance wasnt just before God but before man.

Anonymous:  Did George really repent?

[Peacefulg]

What is being said I take it is this.

1.  If a person is living in known open sin to the leadership, it is not even an issue of sitting in the back (which really means nothing, because everyone who knows me know I love to sit in the back or near it), but they should not even be in the building PERIOD!

2.  If no issue is known, then the bible clearly states let each examine themselves.  
As a doorkeeper I was told never to not let a know believer not partake (thank God), but I was asked to question them, and looking back that was wrong.  If leadership suspected something they knew waht that something was and should have approched the person.

In the end if George and others have not repented of this issue then they should not be allowed in (do not fellowship with them).  From what I have "heard" people in S.F. "seem" to think he is not in sin.

Lord Bless,
G

[outdeep]

I was on the elder board of our church for two years until last May (it is a two year cycle and I decided not to continue in order to focus on my family).  We have 13 elders – a good mix of wise business people, University professors, and folks with a shepherd’s heart.  Each pastor is automatically one of the elders and there is a good, healthy agreement that the collective wisdom of the group safeguards us from being knocked to extremes.

We are an elder led church that means we that though we genuinely seek congregational input, we make the final decisions on budgets, pastoral hiring, and general direction.  I personally found this to be the best church organization I have seen.  I have personally experienced the problems of a congregational led church.

On the last year of my term, we had an incident involving church discipline.  This may be the only one our church had or there may have been one other in the 20+ years of existence.

Basically, the youth pastor crossed the line and got too familiar with one of the girls in youth group – we will leave it at that.

Here is how we handled it:

1.   We immediately confronted the pastor who admitted what had been going on.
2.   He lost his job.
3.   We provided a very generous severance package.
4.   We required that he tell his wife.
5.   We required that he go to counseling and paid for it for the period of his severance.
6.   We required that he not have any contact with the girl.
7.   We required that he actively seek employment.
8.   We did not announce the details of the sin to the congregation – only that he was no longer a pastor at the church.  We wanted to protect the identity of the girl and keep her from embarrassment.
9.   We set up a team of men to meet with the pastor at least weekly, pray with him and hold him accountable.
10.   The denomination got involved because he was ordained.  He had to meet with their team as well.

Over time, it came out that the pastor did not honor the agreement.  We had clear evidence via e-mail records that he was still in contact with the girl. So,
1.   We announced to the congregation the general details of the sin (still not mentioning the girl’s name).
2.   He moved out of the area.

The point of sharing this is that that the basis of our church discipline was all along practical lines.  We did not see our monthly Lord’s Supper as a weapon or tool to provide punishment or healing.  I know in the culture of the Assembly, this ceremony takes on that kind of significance, but in normal churches, it does not.
The question of church discipline is:  How can we put a procedure in place to promote restoration of the brother?  What practical ways can we help the brother see his or her sin and be restored to healthy living?

Brother George’s basic need is a deep-seated internal requirement to control everything and be prominent.  Whatever happened in his upbringing, it resulted in a complete inability to trust anybody but himself and habit of treating others as objects to be manipulated.

I hear what people are saying about George should not receive financial support from the group.  However, if the brethren do decide to continue such support, it should, at the very least be tied to certain measurable goals.   These goals should be practical in nature and promote his corporation with those stronger than himself who are genuinely trying to help him.

For example, he should be required to participate in counseling by a specialist who is strong enough to handle George and give weekly reports back to the Leading Brothers and Elders.  

He should not be allowed to have any kind of prominent ministry because that is the crux of his pathology.

He should have a mentoring group made up of those in leadership and perhaps other pastors in the area for the expressed purpose of dealing with his problem and praying for him.  The mentoring group must be stronger than George and be clearly in charge.

He should be required to meet with Judy and Rachel with an impartial moderator to work through the issues and offences with them.

George should make a public statement.  It is better if he makes the statement in the form of a letter that the leadership approves that names the sin and the offences.  Having him confess in a “repentance meeting” is not a good idea as, again, he enjoys the prominence and will certainly manipulate the meeting to his advantage.

Any ministry that he has in the church should be at the administrative level – something that he is gifted in that is behind the scenes and would have a supporting role to other brothers and sisters.

All of these things should be tied to practical benefits.  If he decides to balk at the requirements and, for instance, refuses to participate in counseling then all money should be withheld and he can begin doing church by himself at 2007 Calle Serena.  

What if someone in Africa calls George to preach and George goes over at his own expense?  Well, you can’t control what you can’t control.  All you can do is be clear what the requirements are and make it known that George’s activity outside the church walls are not sanctioned by those within.

I think you see my point.  Worrying about whether or not he sips a tablespoon or wine is not where the energies should be laid.  The goal of church discipline is restoration.  The plan should be laid out to George by the leadership and George can decide whether or not he wants to work on his life or continue in the dysfunctional ways he has always known.

[karensanford]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for your input on the subject of church discipline.  I can really tell that you are a writer, as your words flow clearly and are enjoyable to read!  

I am somewhat familiar--or at least opinionated--on this situation involving the youth pastor because it has happened three times in two churches with which I was previously involved.  The most recent incident involved a very close friend of mine who was completely taken advantage of (BTW, I understand that it is not always a situation of one person being completely abused, though I would hold the pastor to a higher standard than a teenage girl in the YG).

I was wondering, why did you give him a generous severance package?  Was it because of his wife and kids?  Did the church or the "pastor" pay for counseling for the girl?

And for a discussion topic...am I the only one who thinks that Judy and Rachel should have counseling paid for by the Assembly?  Obviously, Rachel (and I focus on her because she is my friend and I know more about her than I do Judy) can never get back the years of her childhood that were lost.  However, this would be a tangible and likely very helpful contribution.

Karen   TGIF!!

[Peacefulg]

Dave, once again good points put forth.  I too rejoice that I am in a place that does not use the Lord's Supper as a weapon.

Some of the first stories that my wife hear about the assembly from present and former members was how they stopped people from partaking.   This upset her that men would use this to disipline people, when the bible as you so pointed out shows other ways to disipline.

Lord Bless,
G

[outdeep]

Actually, you are absolutely right and I left that out completely.  The church arranged for counseling for the girl and and arranged for sisters to support her as well.

I agree that Rachel and Judy should get counseling and the tab should be picked up by the church.

In our Youth Pastor situation, yes the girl had her concent in the situation, but she was a youth at the time and the Pastor should know better.

As for the severance package - the Youth pastor was supporting a wife and young family.  The package was not a reward, but to give basic support until he is able to find another way to provide for his family.

Again, the point is that church discipline is not a matter of "how can we punish the guy and make him suffer?"  It is "what is the best course of action to promote healing and restoration?"  In our case, it didn't work because the Pastor choose not to take advantage of the resources provided.  But, he certainly can't accuse us of not being mindful of his needs.

-Dave