Brandon's Article on GA.COM

[outdeep]

I know I will probably get slammed on this one, but I have mixed feelings about Brandon's article.

On the one hand, I think it does bring forth that the thinking in many training homes was wrongheaded.  The original idea of the homes (teaching hippies and young people to bathe and learn domestic skills) is probably sound.  What they evolved into is an incubator from which potential worker could be hatched.  They sought to find those who would ultimatly be unquestionly loyal to the ministry (i.e., George) and all of its (his) demands.

On the other hand, Brandon has his issues as well.  He started his article with a negative, "I hate California", "people shouldn't live different than I they ought to", "I don't like that" attitude.  He seems to feel that since he is an adult, everything should be met with his approval.  He argues against others telling him that he should make fresh vegetables only because he wants everyone else to abide by his decision to eat canned vegetables.  He wasn't invited to be a campus worker.  He pushed the issue yet wanted it entirely on his terms.

His main idea that one should not submit to any authority except the Father is immature and fallaciious.  The way Rod and Barb responded (intimidate and nitpick into submission) to his immaturity was ineffective and merely exasibated Brandon's problem.  But is Brandon saying that because he is an adult he should be able to arbitrarily override the menu and make canned corn instead of baked potato?

Christians meet with human authority in all walks of life - whether in the church, on the job, or volunteer organizations.  If you are an assistant coach in football, you don't undermine the decisions of the head coach.  On my job, I wear a tie, clock in at 8:00 AM and participate in the winter snow team - all things I would rather not do and in most jobs I wouldn't have to do - but I submit to the authority of my bosses at work.

I once worked with a 23-year-old snot who "because he was an adult" thought he was above all that.  I was in a meeting where he told Franklin Graham off (who by the way took it very graciously) for something that Mr. Graham had every right to do as President.  The young kid was resentful that he didn't get to do it, too.  Most of us over 40 were embarrased at his behavior.

I think we all agree that the concepts and practices of the training houses were hurtful, ineffective and wrong.  The brute force method to bring someone to the cross is wrong.  Continual focus on the domestic without any true training in the spiritual is wrong.  Intimidation is wrong.  

However, there is nothing wrong with having rules ("tell someone where you are going if you leave" or "make the meal that is specified on the menu" or "this guy is in charge of making decisions") if the rules are made up front and the person moving in understands that this is part of the package they are committing to.  

I think this is the grief of these training houses.  Because they were a feeder system for George's loyalists, they often didn't help folks like Brandon who could have used help from a gentle, wise, mentor.

[vernecarty]

I know I will probably get slammed on this one, but I have mixed feelings about Brandon's article.

On the one hand, I think it does bring forth that the thinking in many training homes was wrongheaded.  The original idea of the homes (teaching hippies and young people to bathe and learn domestic skills) is probably sound.  What they evolved into is an incubator from which potential worker could be hatched.  They sought to find those who would ultimatly be unquestionly loyal to the ministry (i.e., George) and all of its (his) demands.

On the other hand, Brandon has his issues as well.  He started his article with a negative, "I hate California", "people shouldn't live different than I they ought to", "I don't like that" attitude.  He seems to feel that since he is an adult, everything should be met with his approval.  He argues against others telling him that he should make fresh vegetables only because he wants everyone else to abide by his decision to eat canned vegetables.  He wasn't invited to be a campus worker.  He pushed the issue yet wanted it entirely on his terms.

His main idea that one should not submit to any authority except the Father is immature and fallaciious.  The way Rod and Barb responded (intimidate and nitpick into submission) to his immaturity was ineffective and merely exasibated Brandon's problem.  But is Brandon saying that because he is an adult he should be able to arbitrarily override the menu and make canned corn instead of baked potato?

Christians meet with human authority in all walks of life - whether in the church, on the job, or volunteer organizations.  If you are an assistant coach in football, you don't undermine the decisions of the head coach.  On my job, I wear a tie, clock in at 8:00 AM and participate in the winter snow team - all things I would rather not do and in most jobs I wouldn't have to do - but I submit to the authority of my bosses at work.

I once worked with a 23-year-old snot who "because he was an adult" thought he was above all that.  I was in a meeting where he told Franklin Graham off (who by the way took it very graciously) for something that Mr. Graham had every right to do as President.  The young kid was resentful that he didn't get to do it, too.  Most of us over 40 were embarrased at his behavior.

I think we all agree that the concepts and practices of the training houses were hurtful, ineffective and wrong.  The brute force method to bring someone to the cross is wrong.  Continual focus on the domestic without any true training in the spiritual is wrong.  Intimidation is wrong.  

However, there is nothing wrong with having rules ("tell someone where you are going if you leave" or "make the meal that is specified on the menu" or "this guy is in charge of making decisions") if the rules are made up front and the person moving in understands that this is part of the package they are committing to.  

I think this is the grief of these training houses.  Because they were a feeder system for George's loyalists, they often didn't help folks like Brandon who could have used help from a gentle, wise, mentor.

Nothing at all wrong with the points you are making Dave but they are all in my view only tangential to the critically  important message of his article - he was sensitive enought to God's leading to leave a totally corrupt system where so many remained!

He is also right on the money about another thing:
When someone has to brow-beat you with reminders of their own spiritual gift and calling, that in my view automatically calls the claim into question.
For more discerning and mature Christian observers, this no doubt immediately disqualified Geftakys who was in no way hesitant as regards this kind of assertion. The rest of us were too stupid to know any better; lots of folk saw ( and still do) right through Geftakys and his ilk.

A man's gift makes room for him...


Verne

p.s this was in fact the great tragedy and loss of those who devoted mnay years to the assembly- they missed the opportunity to be around men and women of true spiritual stature...and I'm not talking about "workers"....

[Margaret]

Dave, I do have a few comments on your critique of Brandon's article, but I hope you don't construe them as slamming you.  I think your post highlights the problem that many of us have with authority because of the Assembly.

But I think you have misread a couple of things.  For one thing, he was a campus worker during that year.  He rightly expected to be in a different position in the hierarchy from new recruits into the system, but that didn't happen, apparently because too much "self" was detected in him.

The other thing is that Brandon's main point about the green beans is that they had not been specified on the menu, and he rightly suspects that a big deal was made about it in an attempt to put him in the wrong and bring him to heel.

Margaret

[vernecarty]

Dave, I do have a few comments on your critique of Brandon's article, but I hope you don't construe them as slamming you.  I think your post highlights the problem that many of us have with authority because of the Assembly.

But I think you have misread a couple of things.  For one thing, he was a campus worker during that year.  He rightly expected to be in a different position in the hierarchy from new recruits into the system, but that didn't happen, apparently because too much "self" was detected in him.

The other thing is that Brandon's main point about the green beans is that they had not been specified on the menu, and he rightly suspects that a big deal was made about it in an attempt to put him in the wrong and bring him to heel.

Margaret

I agree. He does not sound to me like someone who has a problem with authority per se.
This kind of accusation was, as he pointed out, routinely employed to keep folk in spiritual and social infancy.
Verne

[M2]

Dave, I do have a few comments on your critique of Brandon's article, but I hope you don't construe them as slamming you.  I think your post highlights the problem that many of us have with authority because of the Assembly.

But I think you have misread a couple of things.  For one thing, he was a campus worker during that year.  He rightly expected to be in a different position in the hierarchy from new recruits into the system, but that didn't happen, apparently because too much "self" was detected in him.

The other thing is that Brandon's main point about the green beans is that they had not been specified on the menu, and he rightly suspects that a big deal was made about it in an attempt to put him in the wrong and bring him to heel.

Margaret

The same training tactics were employed in Ottawa training homes, which were not influenced by Fullerton, of course.  I remember a situation where a brother did groceries and purchased alfafa sprouts because sprouts was on the list.  When he brought it home he was taken to task for not figuring out that it was supposed to be bean sprouts.  The LBW could have simply said, "Sorry brother, it did not occur to me to be more specific".  Instead she was baffled at the stupidity of the brother for not knowing what kind she had meant.  And of course he had to return to the store and do the 'right thing' at his own time and expense.

How fortunate for Brandon that he did not make it into the ranks of the worker upper class of assembly saints, and that he was smart enough to leave the scene when he did.

...
I think this is the grief of these training houses.  Because they were a feeder system for George's loyalists, they often didn't help folks like Brandon who could have used help from a gentle, wise, mentor.

Another example where wounded ones get further wounded by spiritual abuse rather than find healing from one who bore the title of elder.

God bless,
Marcia

[outdeep]

Dave, I do have a few comments on your critique of Brandon's article, but I hope you don't construe them as slamming you.  I think your post highlights the problem that many of us have with authority because of the Assembly.

But I think you have misread a couple of things.  For one thing, he was a campus worker during that year.  He rightly expected to be in a different position in the hierarchy from new recruits into the system, but that didn't happen, apparently because too much "self" was detected in him.

The other thing is that Brandon's main point about the green beans is that they had not been specified on the menu, and he rightly suspects that a big deal was made about it in an attempt to put him in the wrong and bring him to heel.

Margaret

No, this is certainly not slamming and I found folks responses very helpful.  

I think this is one of those posts that I should have taken a 24-hour attitude check before I posted.

Brandon certainly strikes a chord over things that went on in training homes.  I think the best example of this when the Duncels (one of the few who came into the Assembly as an extablished family with mid-range kids) who were being "trained" by newlyweds Joe and Lorraine Bush.  Of what I hear, Orwell's "All Saints are equal, but some are more equal than others" applied here.

It was unfair of me to read too much into Brandon's work since I don't know him.  It was a couple of things that triggered me.   First, I think he should remove his irrelevant criticism of Southern California that has nothing to do with anything - the congestion really doesn't have anything to do with the Assembly and it just introduces him to his readers as someone who already had a negative attitude before he arrived.  Lots of folks live in the area who don't share the same enthusiasm for open spaces and are very happy.

Further, I think the theology of "we don't receive direction from men, but from God himself" actually helped perpetuate the techniques of the training houses.  This immature argument has been used quite prevelantly by young folks (in and out of the Assembly) who just don't want to receive any direction at all.  It's a spiritual God-Talk way of simply saying "I don't need to listen to you".  Though it may have been appropriate with Rod, in many cases it isn't appropriate.  Leaders in the Assembly recognized this and made this a strong argument as to why the training homes were so beneficial - see?  Some people just don't want to listen to anyone at all.  Thank God we are under God's government.

The right answer is this:  We do indeed receive and often submit to direction from men - bosses, leaders in our church, family members, heads of homes.  However, we entrust as our leaders those who have earned our respect.  Not someone, like Rod, who simply demands it or must be respected if we are to move on to privilege.

Other than those criticisms, I think his article certainly portrayed things that happened on a continual basis in most training homes.

[vernecarty]

How fortunate for Brandon that he did not make it into the ranks of the worker upper class of assembly saints, and that he was smart enough to leave the scene when he did.

God bless,
Marcia

I think God's goodness was demonstrated in two ways for those who left. For guys like Brandon it was simply a matter of both spiritual and emotional intelligence.
For others who were kicked out, it was God's mercy...
Of course His destruction of the system in the end was clearly His judgment....
Verne

[outdeep]

The following is a quote from Bob Smith on the Soaring With Eagles website and some comments of mine that follows:

:
Dave Sable said:

I know I will probably get slammed on this one, but I have mixed feelings about Brandon's article.


Bob Smith said:

Now that speaks volumes.

Why would someone on the AB fear getting "slammed" by simply having mixed feelings on an article? Dave is a regular contributor to the AB. Why is he afraid?

Dave knows the history of the AB and how people have been and are being treated. There is no such thing as independent thought. Questioning the goings on is prohibited. Challenging the validity of an article by a spoiled kid will get you, well, "slammed."

I have a question for Dave. If you are afraid to speak your mind why are you still contributing to that board? Is it the battered wife syndrome where you keep going back for more? The fear that if you leave it will be worse than if you stayed?

Break free, Dave. You don't need to take the abuse. Seek out a healthy group of believers that imitate the character of Christ. Many of us have. Its wonderful. Don't try to appease the AB leaders by compromising your values.


To those of you still in it, you too can be free. You can stand for righteousness and no longer tolerate the abusive conduct of the AB. The Lord will stand with you.

2 Tim 4:16-17 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; .... and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

Comments:

When I used the term "getting slammed", I was merely overstating my expectation that most would disagree with me and that I would get several responses.  Those who responded have been very reasoned and gentle.

I don't have any fear about posting otherwise I would not have done it.  I highly respect Verne, Tom, Mark, Marcia, Lenore, Hugh, Al, Brent and others.  While some hold strong opinions, I never felt as it was in the Assembly where one was forbidden to bring an alternate perspective.

For the most part, folks seem stick to the fair rules of debate and no one has attempted to intimidate me personally.  I'm sorry I gave the impression that I was being personally harrassed, but I think my comment was taken more literally than I intended it.

-Dave

[editor]

The following is a quote from Bob Smith on the Soaring With Eagles website and some comments of mine that follows:

:
Dave Sable said:

I know I will probably get slammed on this one, but I have mixed feelings about Brandon's article.


Bob Smith said:

Now that speaks volumes.

Why would someone on the AB fear getting "slammed" by simply having mixed feelings on an article? Dave is a regular contributor to the AB. Why is he afraid?

Dave knows the history of the AB and how people have been and are being treated. There is no such thing as independent thought. Questioning the goings on is prohibited. Challenging the validity of an article by a spoiled kid will get you, well, "slammed."

I have a question for Dave. If you are afraid to speak your mind why are you still contributing to that board? Is it the battered wife syndrome where you keep going back for more? The fear that if you leave it will be worse than if you stayed?

Break free, Dave. You don't need to take the abuse. Seek out a healthy group of believers that imitate the character of Christ. Many of us have. Its wonderful. Don't try to appease the AB leaders by compromising your values.


To those of you still in it, you too can be free. You can stand for righteousness and no longer tolerate the abusive conduct of the AB. The Lord will stand with you.

2 Tim 4:16-17 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; .... and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

Comments:

When I used the term "getting slammed", I was merely overstating my expectation that most would disagree with me and that I would get several responses.  Those who responded have been very reasoned and gentle.

I don't have any fear about posting otherwise I would not have done it.  I highly respect Verne, Tom, Mark, Marcia, Lenore, Hugh, Al, Brent and others.  While some hold strong opinions, I never felt as it was in the Assembly where one was forbidden to bring an alternate perspective.

For the most part, folks seem stick to the fair rules of debate and no one has attempted to intimidate me personally.  I'm sorry I gave the impression that I was being personally harrassed, but I think my comment was taken more literally than I intended it.

-Dave

Perhaps some derive their identity from their position of being against the "abusive" conduct on this board.

I believe this to be true, which explains why a statement like yours is so hopefull to them.  Nevermind the past 100 posts, or your history on the board, etc.  The word, "slammed," presents such hope, such encouragement.....

Anyway, I will confess to reading some of the posts over there, and they do make some good points regarding Brandon's article.

All in all, I'd say they make a healthy contribution to the debate and discussion, and I'm glad they are there.  It is an honor to have critics!

Brent

[outdeep]

Perhaps some derive their identity from their position of being against the "abusive" conduct on this board.

I believe this to be true, which explains why a statement like yours is so hopefull to them.  Nevermind the past 100 posts, or your history on the board, etc.  The word, "slammed," presents such hope, such encouragement.....

Anyway, I will confess to reading some of the posts over there, and they do make some good points regarding Brandon's article.

All in all, I'd say they make a healthy contribution to the debate and discussion, and I'm glad they are there.  It is an honor to have critics!

Brent

I read some of the posts on the SWE site as well.  It seems to me that things are a bit polarized.  Those on this site emphasize the unhealthyness of the heavy handed tactics of the leadership while the SWE site seem to see Brandon as merely a whiney complainer.

My position is that the methods used in the houses were often wrong and generally ineffective for dealing with these maturity issues.  However, they were often justified (by the leadership) and perpetuated by the fact that the folks they were training often had maturity and authority issues.  I can't say for certain whether Brandon had authority or attitude issues or not, but some of the things he said in his article triggered in me a response that suspected that he might.  Whether Brandon had issues or not, the point I think we agree on is that Brandon needed a wise, loving mentor, not brute force conformity.

On the SWE site, they did make mention of Dave Mauldin.  While I agree that folks on this web site react very strongly to him, there is a sense in which David brings it on himself by making posts that he knows is going to inflame anger.

It reminds me of a scene in Kentucky Fried Movie (which, of course, I would never watch since it is rated R )  They were making fun of an old reality show called Thrillseekers.  A man dresses up in a crash helmet, walks over to a gang of blacks in the ghetto, yells at the top of his lungs "niggers" and starts running.   It is a good illustration of some of David's posts.

[vernecarty]

.  I highly respect Verne, Tom, Mark, Marcia, Lenore, Hugh, Al, Brent and others.

-Dave

Igualmente, paisano...  
Verne

B.S.(initials most appropriate) presumption of false intimacy with Dave is a screech. I simply do not remember Dave soliciting his advice...?
Of course over there they are all prophets and prophetesses so they don't need anyone's permission now do they?  

[Uh Oh]

The following is a quote from Bob Smith on the Soaring With Eagles website and some comments of mine that follows:



I'm not sure why whoever runs that Soaring with Losers  board doesn't just shut it down and save the expense.  All three of them that post on that board could just email each other or write letters and save themself the energy.

Oh well, to each their own.

[vernecarty]

I'm not sure why whoever runs that Soaring with Losers  board doesn't just shut it down and save the expense.  All three of them that post on that board could just email each other or write letters and save themself the energy.

Oh well, to each their own.

The really funny thing is that they don't have a clue...

All in all, I'd say they make a healthy contribution to the debate and discussion, and I'm glad they are there.  It is an honor to have critics!

Brent

Are you saying that Matt and Sondra's banishment should be revoked??!!  
Unlike you my friend, I must say I do have a hard time taking them seriously, don't you know it...
There are some altered states of mind over there if you get my drift...
By the way, the criticism of the article sounds remotely believable only if the reader did not have any other information about the assemblies. The arguments they present in view of what we know makes their defence of the lodge really laughable...we are not amused...

Verne

[editor]

All in all, I'd say they make a healthy contribution to the debate and discussion, and I'm glad they are there.  It is an honor to have critics!

Brent

Are you saying that Matt and Sondra's banishment should be revoked??!!  
Unlike you my friend, I must say I do have a hard time taking them seriously, don't you know it...
There are some altered states of mind over there if you get my drift...
By the way, the criticism of the article sounds remotely believable only if the reader did not have any other information about the assemblies. The arguments they present in view of what we know makes their defence of the lodge really laughable...we are not amused...

Verne

OK Verne, prepare to get slammed.

It is up to Brian whether or not they are invited back to this board, not to mention the fact that they may not want to come back in the first place.

Matt was banned, not for his viewpoint, but for simple rudeness.  I think he's made quite a bit of progress in this area, and would probably have an interesting contribution on this forum, should he be allowed to return.  The same goes for Sondra, although I don't remember exactly why she was banned.

It is no secret that I disagree with almost everything they hold forth in opposition to my views.  However, I also know that should I ever get to a point where I can't stand criticism, or refuse to listen to another's point of view, I have ceased learning, and will soon make a fool of myself.

The same goes for you, Matt, Sondra, Dave, and every other person under the sun.

George and his Assemblies couldn't stand criticism, unless they could manage it properly.  I thank God for those who criticise me, as it caused me to closely examine my views, and see whether they can stand up under fire.  Anyone who deletes criticism, or dissent, is intellectually dishonest.

Since they weren't able to share their views here, without being rude, I am thankful that they share them on their website, both of them.  I don't know much about Bod Smith, but I wish he would take Matt's valid criticism of Brandon's anonymity, and use his real name.

I suspect that the reason Brandon chose an alternate name has more to do with not wanting his name to appear on an Internet search, than wanting to hit and run in anonymity.  We all know who Brandon is, and remember his previous story.

Anyways, an honest read of both websites helps people get an understanding of where we all come from.

A pastor friend of mine engaged the Eagles recently in some dialogue, which I followed.  I found it insightful as did he.

I am not against them, nor do I feel threatened by them.  Rather, I am humbled by the fact that I am "important" enough to have critics, and I welcome their criticism as iron sharpening iron.  I would suggest that you do the same!

I may not agree with  what they say, but I respect their right to say it.  Let the reader be the judge.

Brent

[vernecarty]

OK Verne, prepare to get slammed.

Ouch!  

It is no secret that I disagree with almost everything they hold forth in opposition to my views.  However, I also know that should I ever get to a point where I can't stand criticism, or refuse to listen to another's point of view, I have ceased learning, and will soon make a fool of myself.

The same goes for you, Matt, Sondra, Dave, and every other person under the sun.
George and his Assemblies couldn't stand criticism, unless they could manage it properly.  I thank God for those who criticise me, as it caused me to closely examine my views, and see whether they can stand up under fire.  Anyone who deletes criticism, or dissent, is intellectually dishonest.

There is criticism, and then there is criticism. While I understand your point about being open-minded, I think about this a little bit differently than you do.
I think we must also be discriminating.
Let me give a very specific example:
What is the proper response to a person who comes onto a forum like this and tries to make the case that George Geftakys is "The Lord's Servant?"
Are you telling me that someone with such a viewpoint should be engaged in serious discussion?
I think not. I would be hard to qualify such a person as "serious" by even the most generous definition. Such a person clearly holds the posters here in deep contempt.
We need people in our lives whom we respect, and whose lifestyle and example are of sufficient gravitas to warrant them giving advice and instruction to other folk.
An unvarnished acceptance of criticism from any and every quarter is in my view most unwise.
There is not a person posting here who has not at some point had to respond to gentle remonstration of his fellow posters.
In the large majority of cases the response has been exemplary.
This is only possible where there is mutual respect.

I am not against them,

I am. They lie. They slander. They misrepresent. I am against them.

nor do I feel threatened by them.  

Nope!

Rather, I am humbled by the fact that I am "important" enough to have critics, and I welcome their criticism as iron sharpening iron.  I would suggest that you do the same!

I may not agree with  what they say, but I respect their right to say it.  Let the reader be the judge.

Brent

I wish I could feel  "humbled".  Rather, I feel defiled every time they take my name into their corrupt mouths.
My constant mistake is to not leave them alone. I am really going to redouble my effort in that regard.
Verne
p.s there are lots of people I sometimes disagree with whose viewpoints I find thought-provoking, reflective, informed, and generally edifying,  like Tom Maddux, Dave Sable, Marcia, Marc, Brent and others.
I need to learn to ignore queries about the latest SWTE offerings.