AssemblyBoard

    I have just finished to the final interview of my Oral History Project on the Assembly. I feel extremely privileged to have obtained the current-member-leader interview. As this material will be held in archives at CSUF and be made available for research and possibly publication, I feel as if I have completed the most significant work of my life! While working on the interviews both interviewer (myself) and narrator were amazed at the insights revealed in our discussions. Also the spontaneous laughter was priceless. I know now that research of this kind will be a big part of the rest of my life. A wish I have would be for current members and former members to be able to find some common ground to communicate on as I have on this project!  Yet, I know this is asking a lot!

 Congratulations Dave!

   When it is published I sure would like to take a look at it. 

The "common ground", that you mentioned above re. former and current members should be a desire to "speak the truth in love."  In other words, we both claim to be Christians and need a willingness to do what is right before God. 

The idea that common ground can be found by ignoring the facts of the abusive history of the group is a concept that is foreign to the bible.  In order to have a true reconciliation former members can't hold onto bitter memories with an unwillingness to forgive those that wronged them, but also those current members need to step forward and apologize to those they've sinned against---- true reconciliation requires both of these.

The above apology from current members can't be of the phony variety that says: "if I've ever done anything to hurt you-----".  For the reconciliation to be meaningful (and Christian) there needs to be a specific confession re. the details of the abuses that the current member was involved with against that particular former member.

Recently, a former leader wrote to me, and another former member, and finally apologized for supporting GG's reign of terror in the Valley Assm.   This former leader had clearly understood the abusive nature of the group, but never actually accepted responsibility for his part in those abuses.   We can blame GG, the system, and the power of deception (and for sure these must be considered in judging ones culpability), but without the humble recognition that my behavior was wrong and hurt others in very specific ways the relationship between "current" and "former" member can never be restored.

I realize that there are a wide range of current and former members; some of these were on the fringes of the group, others were involved in the central command in the Workers Mtg.  Some were actively supporting GG while others were passive in their responses.  Both of the above supported the agenda in the group----- a failure to recognize that the agenda was against the will of God (after all that we know now) and to understand the role I played in that erroneous purpose is detrimental to ones present day relationship to God.

I would love to have a discussion with "current" members, but not if the talk includes the kind of conditions that were involved in the Pasadena Assm. wedding situation.  In other words: "I, as a current member, will not talk with you unless you promise to renounce all past/present criticism of the group------".  The only "ifs" should be humble and truth seeking reconciliation in the pursuit of obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. 

If a current member refuses to accept the kind of Christian entreaty described above then there is no ground for reconciliation.  On a former members part, we must not hold on to vengeful and bitter resentments, but it is not good for either party if we adopt a so called "forgive and forget" policy that ignores the need for honest repentance.

                                                                           God Bless,  Mark C.     

"Speak the truth in love"


           When we were in the Assembly we were expected to live up to a standard that was unattainable in our natural selves. "The life of Christ." This was used to keep us in subjection. When we complained about anything the leaders were quick to point out, "Complaining isn't living the life of Christ!" and on and on it went.

  Marc do you think its possible that you are now holding them to an impossible standard? I understand what you are saying, why you are saying it but is it a solution?

     The only way I was able to talk to him was to leave my offenses aside. I understand that not everyone could do this....maybe this is just part of the solution?



   I know it is just wishful thinking, but wouldn't you just enjoy getting together with everyone, sit down, have a beer, and a good laugh at it all!!!!!!



       


   

Hi Dave,

  No, honesty is not a character trait that is beyond our ability to achieve.  Being truthful actually is the admission that we are not perfect and are quite human---- which is the very opposite of the Assm. use of the phrase "Christ likeness".  "Christ likeness", as defined by the Assembly twisted the phrase into a false meaning that first and foremost meant loyalty to GG and his absolute authority.

  I will grant you that it can be very painful to admit past sins, weakness, and failures, but the benefits far outweigh the temporary anguish to ones ego.  As Christians we have the sure promise of recovery when we allow entreaty to reach our hearts.

  I'm not asking former members to live up to a standard of perfection in their present behavior (that would completely miss the point); the question is whether former/current members are willing to consider that Assm. failures were more than just GG's immorality and how their own involvement contributed to the whole abusive experience.

  Completely outside of the biblical distinctions re. honesty (I raised this because current Assm. people claim to be bible believing Christians), being in a state of denial re. the true state of things is not a healthy human condition to be in.  This state of denial can be as true of bitter former members, as those who vigorously defend the group---- there is no axe to grind here on my part.

 It is not compassionate to adopt a kind of moral relativism where there are no clear discernable facts re. what went on in the group and my individual part in that history.  It is not more human to obfuscate the issues involved nor is clarity too high a standard to aim for in our lives. 

                                                                              God Bless,  Mark C.

 

Again I understand your position,


      When I associated with Plymouth Brethren I encountered groups of brethren who were at odds with other groups of brethren, who were at odds with other groups of brethren. If you sat down and talked over the issues you would hear strong doctrinal arguments reinforcing their position, attacking the others position etc...

           As a relatively young man I sat there thinking to myself, "In 40 years do I want to be sitting here mulling out my misery, bitterness?" Why would anyone choose this?


My point Marc is I don't see your solution doing anything other than the above scenario.


There's gotta be another way,


             "Must-Break-Out-Of-This-Paradigm!"

                                           The Incredible Hulk!

                                                         

Hi again Dave,

  I don't think you do understand what I'm getting at here.  If it were just non-essential theological arguments (as in the Brethren example you raised) then I would agree that confession of wrongs and repentance don't even enter into the conversation.

  What I'm talking about is abusive behavior and the reconciliation between victims and those that had some level of responsibility for that abuse happening and continuing.

  A good example would be something like a dysfunctional family (you referred to the Assm. as your former family):  How do you make a reconciliation between a child that was abused by a Father?  Then there is a passive mom who stood by and allowed the abuse to happen---- how does the child reconcile with this mother?  Maybe there was an Uncle who saw the abuse, and was repulsed, but was weak and refused to get involved---- yet another situation of wrong that should be made right.

  These are all moral situations, not theological debates, and these moral issues have to do with the basic nature of human relationships (even setting aside all the biblical guidance re. how Christians are to relate one to another; these are just the facts of life).

  If you were to run into GG again would you embrace him and tell him you just want to "forgive and forget" the past and go out and have a drink with him (wine of course  ;))  ::). I doubt that, because you understand that he is still in denial re. his evil past----- honest repentance on his part can be the only ground where reconciliation can occur between both of you.

  "My solution" is not my solution---- it is just a plain factual representation of what it means to be an ethical person: that is, someone concerned with what is just.  I also don't suggest that former members wait in bitterness in the hope that GG (or those sharing his condition) make things right.

  A former victim of abuse can indeed move on to a happy and productive life without the benefit of the abuser ever admitting their sin, but that doesn't mean the abused must be forced into having an relationship with that abuser while they are still denying the facts re. his/her behavior! 

  I know that my above examples of a family, or of GG will not perfectly fit every single situation. A dysfunctional church (abusive organization or cult is another way to label the Assm.) is a complicated social network that was worse in some places than in others.

  It is not judgemental to ask former members to honestly consider their involvement in the group.  It is not a huge barrier for current/former members who defend the group to talk about these things with us here.  The walls are down on my side and I invite any on the other to meet me in the middle (if you prefer email to public discussion that is okay too).
                                                                     God Bless,  Mark C. 

I wholeheartedly agree with Mark C.

Doctrine and theology do not stand between me and current members. The only thing that stands between me and current members is:
1) the need for an acknowledgement of the wrong suffered;
2) the need for an explanation of why it happened; and
3) the need to receive a sincere apology.

I am happy to say that one current member contacted me by both letter and phone and gave me a very sincere apology. My fellowship with that particular current member has now been restored. But I long for restoration with the others.

Like Mark, my heart is open and willing, but they also must be open and willing. Only by speaking the truth in love and in humility, will there ever be true reconciliation and true fellowship restored.

Even in South Africa, they had the "TRUTH and Reconciliation Commission".

Lord bless,

Flora

           
  I know that my above examples of a family, or of GG will not perfectly fit every single situation. A dysfunctional church (abusive organization or cult is another way to label the Assm.) is a complicated social network that was worse in some places than in others.
                                                                     Quote from Marc


    Marc, I appreciate the fact that  you concede it is complicated. The simple solution, "They are wrong, they need to repent,..end of problem"  is typical of what we learned in the Assembly. I think if you could just be objective, sit down and listen to one of "them" you might realize how far removed "them" is from any sin. You would might even concede that some of them have absolutely nothing to repent of.

  I know this is asking too much.   


   Marc, I did this project partly because I wanted to reconnect with "My old family" One reason being is that when I left I never achieved any sense of closure. I mean we didn't get together and have a big fellowship to say our good-byes. They didn't recount all the things I had accomplished while I was there. Instead I had to launched out all by myself, without any support and a nice advertisment that I was "leaving in darkness" to boot etc.... I also did this project partly because I wanted to justify my departure. In other words I didn't return as the prodigal son. I came back to justify my need to get married, obtain a career, (Somethings denied me in fellowship) I did this in part to take something sh&^%$ and make something good. And I did this partly because I think its a story worth telling. I love people and history. Along with American Colonial History, I think Assembly History will be a life long focus.


   So, I know its too much to expect, and in some weird way I think I'd rather have things stay the way they are, for as long as possible.  Did I tell you that I was shunned at the Music Center by my old roommate? Priceless! :D :D :D :D

                         

                 

             
         

 Dave,

  It is good to have this conversation, because I'm sure that your understanding of my views of current Assm. folks are the same as theirs.  They probably come here to read and think: "there goes that Mark C. with his bitter attacks against us again!" 

  I am not reacting to these current members out of some personal vendetta, or bitter resentment over how they treated me.  I don't think I'm a better person then them, higher up the heavenly ladder, or otherwise look down upon them in judgment.  I've tried to own up to my own sins here many times (pre and post Assm.). My argument is not: "I'm holy and right and they are evil and wrong."

 Yet, I do raise the facts of the history of the Assm. often and in these there is something very evil and wrong; it's past practices have done much harm to many.   The only difference between me and many of these current members is their denial of the facts re. the nature of the Assm. and their refusual to even discuss it.  The truth re. what went on in the group is clearly evident and abundantly documented. 

  However, progress toward reconciliation must involve a willingness on both side to open talks.  You can't put qualifications on a willingness to converse such as:  "I will talk to you only if you aren't negative about the group."  This refusal on their part to communicate is the big blockade to restoring our relationship.  It leaves them in a cult like mind set that refuses to consider the plain facts about the group, and their participation in that group.

  As an example, I once received a call from a Valley Bro., after GG's demise, who wanted to clear up any issues between himself and me.  I said, "great" and we talked some on the phone and then I asked if I could email him what were my concerns.  I detailed those concerns re. the very wrong practices of the group in a general way (it was not a personal attack).  He not only did not respond he blocked my address on his email and refused to respond to a phone call! :'(

  It was not right when I was in the group to sit passively by in the face of denial of obvious wrong and it still would not be right to just give those still defending that evil a pass.  So, objective yes, but not without a moral basis for that objectivity. 

                                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.   

   

 



 

        O.K. Marc,

         How far are you from Old Town? My wife and I visit quite often and maybe we could have a Corona?

This probably deserves its own thread. During an interview a narrator and I discussed the appearance of "Mr. Wussy"  Mr. Wussy is a mama's boy wimp who seems to take up residence inside Assembly members without their consent. I will try to explain. Before I joined the Assembly I lived in my own apartment, supported myself, pursued normal goals towards my education and career. I had a reasonable amount of self confidence and didn't worry too much about the future. At the age of 18 I don't recall ever having any episodes of extreme anxiety, nervousness, doubt, fear etc... until after I joined the Assembly! This was due to the fact that Mr. Wussy, somehow, had moved into my personality. I'm not sure how he got there but I suspect the dynamics/teachings of the ministry, the intimidation of the leaders allowed him to get inside of me. Mr. Wussy would reveal himself whenever I decided to leave. I would say to myself, "I don't need this place!" "I don't need these people, I'm going to leave!" But then Mr. Wussy would protest! "How can you leave?" he would ask. "You don't know what to do!, where to go. what you want..." etc... Fear, doubt, anxiety would overtake my thoughts! I couldn't deal with it. After leaving fellowship back in 85 I came back!  Slowly all the fear and anxiety would subside. So When I left again in 93 I knew I had to deal with Mr. Wussy! I had to beat him down, "Grow up!" "get out!"  He tried to pull everything he could, "God will take you!" "You'll go to Hell!" "You'll lose your inheritance!" I would yell back at him, "So what!" "I don't care!" "I'm not going to live this way anymore!" 


O.K. so you probably convinced by now I am crazy! But the person I interviewd told me they had the same experience!   


A question I have, do others have this "Mr. Wussy" inside of them? Is this what keeps them "in fellowship?"

Vandyke,

I think this is a great question. I know FAMs who have been out for many years and still have a terrible struggle making decisions on their own, when as young adults before the ass'y they had no problem. I like your explanation of an inner wuss.

But I really want to post on the original topic of apology/repentance.

It seems to me there should be diferent expectations for different people. If a current member is taking the stance, as the relative did regarding the wedding, that they won't associate with me unless I repent, then it's clear - there can be no reconciliation. But if I see a current member I used to be friends with who shunned me after I left, I don't have a problem with reconciling without an apology if they are willing. This is because I dropped my offendedness with them about it a long time ago, which happened because I no longer felt it as an injury. I had come to view it as an expression of them being in the ass'y mindset and I had recovered enough to not be threatened by the mindset (which took a long time). (I think it would be the same if I saw an old classmate. I would assume that kids are immature and hurt each other, but we are now grownups and the childish injuries no longer have meaning or power to hurrt.)

This is maybe like Vandyke just posted - in the ass'y we learned to be afraid of those outside, i.e. that was part of the development of the inner wuss. If a current member has become bold enough to be willing to associate with me, I personally don't need an apology for how they treated me in the past (although I would like one, especially if it's a leader). I just say hallelujah, this person has shed a little bit of the ass'y mindset. That's so great! Maybe associating with me could be an influence to open their eyes more, who knows.

Sometime soon after Jan. 19, 2003, I happened to see Mark Miller on the platform in a Fullerton City Council Meeting. Afterward he saw me, and came down--he didn't shun me--and I just gave him a big hug. Embarrassed him to death, but I felt such sympathy for what everyone in Fullerton was going through. A few months later (he was still meeting with Fullerton), Steve ended up working with him and Dan Notti on the timeline (Dan had left, but he didn't want to have anything to do with us). He came to Volt where we worked one time to drop off some documents, and we all chatted a bit. We even went out to dinner with him and Diane. On the one hand, it felt terrible to not receive an apology for how he had treated both of us before we left. But on the other hand, for them it was contact with the "outside", and they found out we didn't bite, we didn't infect them with demons, and we were actually walking with the Lord. It seems to me that was a good thing.

After the timeline was completed Mark didn't want to have any more to do with us - too painful, I think. He is now at Grace EV Free in La Mirada. Maybe someday we can actually have fellowship again, and an apology might be forthcoming eventually. For him ever to be in a position to influence people again there would have to be public and private apologies first.

Am I off the wall here? Maybe it's a matter of time - how long you have been out. Or am I still a wuss for not holding to a standard?

Thanks Margaret,

   You said exactly what I was feeling but couldn't verbalize it.  If I ran into some people I think I would extend my hand and say, "Let's just let the past remain in the past!" Others I couldn't. I'm thinking about MM in paticular. A friend of mine from work attends Church with him. She has invitedme to visit (him and others) but I haven't forgiven him...yet.

Mark C is correct in describing the true nature of repentance and making amends and it seems that he has a calling from God to help former members and leaders come to that place. 

However, for me, there is an issue of what I can and cannot control.  In my work in recovery groups, I learned that to make amends, I clean up my side of the street without expectation of receiving back.  Those I have wronged, I make it right to the best of my ability whether that is apologizing or paying back money or whatever is appropriate.  Those who have wronged me, I come to the place where I forgive.

Now, a word on forgiveness:  The book The Sunflower shows that there are a multitude of different opinions about forgiveness and when it should or shouldn't be given.  I don't claim my view is the right one or even completely Biblical but here is how it works for me: 

When I forgive George Geftakys, I am not saying that I condone the sinful and damaging things he has done.  I don't minimize the things he has done.  I am not saying that I will have ever has sweet fellowship with George.  I am not saying I would go out for a cup of coffee if he invited me.  I am not saying that I am going to take the blame for the things George has done.  What I am saying is that I am not going to let what George (or any other leading brother) has done continue to affect me.  In forgiving him, I am letting him off the hook so that their actions do not become a continued source of resentment in my life.  Resentment is bad for me.  It hurts me and makes me do things that I regret.  So, I forgive George and I leave him to God.

The reason I take this position is because of another recovery principle of honestly understanding what I can change and what I cannot change.  Is it realistic for me to stake my hopes on the belief that a leading brother is going to apologize to me?  Of course not.  I have no control over what the leading decides to do.  Why should I give away control over my life to another?  Why should my well-being and mood be tied to what this leading brother does or doesn't do?   Isn't this exactly what codependency is?  If he doesn't want to recovery from the dysfunction of his past, that is his problem.  It is not mine.  I want to recover.  I want to move on in life and his decision not to face the issues in his life is not going to hold me back.

So I forgive my oppressors not because I think what they did is right or will bare no consequence in their future.  But because I have absolutely no control over whether or not they will ever come out of denial.  The only person I can worry about is me.  Am I out of denial?  Have I made my amends?  Did I clean up my side of the street?  I am the only person that I can control.

Now if Mark C or any other person have a sense of calling from God to lovingly confront leading brothers and hold them to account then I honor him for this.  This is a noble calling.  I, on the other hand, am not wired for confrontation.  If I ran into a leading brother in a public place, the last thing I would be prepared to do is to confront him for past sins.  He would probably out-talk me.  What I would probably do is have a conversation or coffee, ask about their well-being, their family, etc.  If the conversation progressed, I might tell about my journey and how making amends for my past was freeing and helped me move on and perhaps encourage them to do the same.  If it sticks, great.  If not, then I am not going to worry about it.   If someone want to handle it even differently by just walking past and ignoring the leading brother, that is fine too.  Handle it in the way that you feel that you are called and equipped.  Just don't let their "lack of repentance" be an issue in your life.  It has nothing to do with you, your well-being or your spiritual growth.

If the leading brother wants to grow spiritually, he eventually will have to take a moral inventory of his lives and deal with the wreakage of his past.  I cannot control whether he wants to grow spiritually or come out of denial or if they will ever make amends in their lifetime.  All I can control is me.  And my spiritual growth is much more important to me than whether or not Mark M or Dan or George or Tim or whoever issues an apology.

Thanks Dave

Good discussion!

  Thank you Dave for taking the time to bring it up and for those that have responded.

The things said on this topic of reconciliation have given me pause, because it challenges some basic assumptions that I have held---- and it's good to consider if one is following good thinking or is clinging to some ideas that are off-base.

I do appreciate the comments that mention me personally and the kind and humble spirit in which they have been offered.  If my "calling" is to bring former members back to reconciliation with present members than I haven't done a very good job of that and maybe I should make some adjustments. 

Immediately, after first leaving the group (before the GG demise), I thought it was my responsibility to inform and entreat the members re. what I believed to be serious errors.  I wrote a huge letter and mailed it to every "Saint" I knew.  The few responses I received were not hopeful ( ;)) and should have alerted me to the reality that my "former family" were not receptive to correction.

The only positive responses came from those who were thinking about leaving, or already out.  To these, many overcome with great emotional distress, a reasoned argument against their inner debates (filled with all the "inner Wuss" stuff Dave talked about) was very helpful.

These are the ones that I have directed my efforts toward (Wounded Pilgrims) and to whom I feel a very passionate sense of concern for.  I fully realize that there are those who just don't want to talk about it; they don't care what I think, and for that matter are just burned out on the whole thing!  I can understand this, and I wish them all of the best!

Dave S. and Margaret are so wise in their insights, because they (much better than I) have a clear and practical view of reaching those I just mentioned in the last sentence of the previous paragraph.  In my thinking re. "present members" I am thinking of the certain  ones I have had interaction with, and this tends to color my reactions by lumping every single "current member" into that same characterization.

There are dangers, however, in dealing with those have been in cults (or in any kind of recovery), in that we can adopt a kind of detached "objectivity" where we are not clear in defining the absolute necessity for moral clarity (honesty). It is not that I personally need an apology from MM or GG, etc., but it's what they really do need to find blessing with God. 

In the bible story of Joseph and his brethren their understanding and confession to their abuse of Joe was not for Joseph's benefit, but for the unrepentant bros.  Joe had to be "harsh" because, in the bros. minds, they had justified what they did to Joe.  Their consciences had become hardened and the only way to make them sensitive again to their own sin was the work of conviction that would bring them to owning up to their past behavior.

Recovery cannot be accomplished in a moral vacuum where "forgiveness" becomes an action where we support the notion that there was no wrong and nothing to be made right---- again, this is for the one in denial, not for the one they sinned against.  If Joe had adopted an attitude of just "cleaning up his own side of the street" (a very necessary thing) alone with these guys it would have paralyzed him in any attempt to help them.

Dave S. is absolutely correct that we can't allow an unapologetic present member to control our inner state (in that sense we must "forgive and forget").  But to give in to those who would like to rewrite the history of the group, and deny their part in it, we do them a great disservice if we do this.  Whether we like it or not, at some point with our interaction with former/present members there must be a candid, and maybe uncomfortable, talk------ if we are to truly be helpful.  Eventually the doctor treating a cancer patient, with the very best bed side manner, must tell that patient that he has cancer; no matter how emotionally uncomfortable that situation becomes as a result (if we truly care about the patient).

What I have heard from you on this topic is that maybe there is a better way to ease into that eventual needed moment of honest reflection and that I need to work on my bed side manner.

PS to Dave M.---- I live about 45 mins. north of Old Town and will email you so that maybe we can figure out how to make a rendezvous.

                                                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.
   

Thanks Marc, dodn't forget to be "On Fire!"

           

  During my interviews we both recalled how much some of the early meetings had the "feel" of revival.

In fact the Assembly was actually part of something much bigger than itself. All over O.C. people were genuinely getting excited about spirituality. This wasn't legalistic, egocentric, or politically motivated. It was a genuine grassroots movement of people discovering themselves, redefining themselves apart from their parent's generation. I will say it again, The Assembly was part of it!  (George took full advantage of it, capitalized off it! But he didn't create it!!!!!) I can remember attnding a concert at some park in San Dimas in 1976. Mustard Seed Faith played for free, preach the gospel, gave testimonies! It was a tremendously spiritual time! People were walking around in their bell bottoms, holding their open bibles and just shareing the scriptures! As I discussed these things in the presence of teens (the narrator's children) who were raised in the Assembly, I couldn't help but see the puzzelment on their faces,"What are these guys talking about?"   The children born during the late 70's and throughout the 80's know nothing about it!   Sad isn't it? 



See the need for the OHP??????!!!!!!

Re. The Tapes:  (Please begin the theme music of the Mission Impossible series in your mind before you read this post  ;))

  I distinctly remember that just after the excommunication of GG a post on this BB reported that Mike Almanzor was involved in a clandestine and successful mission to get all the tapes away from Fullerton.

  Mike took it upon himself to sneak into the tape storage area and whisk them away before Bob Res. could stop him.  Though this would appear to be dishonest, and/or stealing, it really wasn't because the Fullerton ex-communicators of GG would have perverted the true meaning behind the words GG spoke.

  Most would not understand how an unedited tape could twist the true meaning of the words spoken, but that is because of a lack of true Heavenly Vision on the part of those not loyal to GG.  Mike Almanzor demonstrated this "vision" by rejecting the excommunication of GG on the basis that though GG indeed was involved with young women in the group immorally (Mike openly agreed to the charges) it didn't really count.   Why?  because of certain procedural technicalities (read here: "if it does not fit, you must acquit!").

  Mike, Pasadena Jim, etc. now have "lost the Vision", and turned GG out to pasture, so I assume they might be willing to part with the tapes now and sip some wine with us to boot  ??? ::) :'(!!  Yes, I am being sarcstic, but I do recall the above story being told here.

                                                                          God Bless,  Mark C. 

The "Visa" doctrine came up. I remember George talking about how "God has given me a visa!"  As I recall it was a priviledge or reward for being faithfull etc.. I think I left before he developed this "doctrine" anyone want to comment? In your opinion what was he talking about? What were the scriptures used etc...

Visa?

As I remember it, he meant that he had successfully completed the wilderness journey and God had said, "Well done, here is your visa. Permission granted to enter into the Inheritance." The rest of us were still muddling about somewhere in the desert, and GG said, "I doubt that more than two or three of you will make it." Anyone remember that?

Since you mentioned it, I had almost forgotten the "I doubt that more ..." statement.


    Now that I think about it, he never really elaborated on what  he meant by these things, did he? His method of preaching would be to make an inference, run with it in a outrageous direction and then start hammering on another topic. Yet we were never given any real development on these "missing out on the kingdom" doctrines?

  About 15 years ago I was in a conversation with someone from Dianetics  (I was working across the street from their headquarters in Hollywood and so I went in on my lunch break.) I asked someone to explain Dianetics to me and the conversation went something like GG's preaching. Before I could get an understanding on something the guy was rushing me through it, "You need to buy what I am saying so we can get on to the next level." At that point I refused to go on with the conversation. I wasn't just going to go on "faith" and pretend I knew what was being taught to me.   George worked like this, he would never really explain these doctrines yet once someone takes it on "faith" then they are beholden to them/him.

   

   

Another topic that came up has to do with the fact that, "Along with the growth of Calvary Chapel, Campus Crusade etc in Southern California...so also CULTS were growing!" 

  Here is one that started in pretty much the same neighborhood and time frame of the Assembly!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_God
http://www.exfamily.org/hist/index.html

Teen Challenge at the Huntington Beach Light Club
By 1968, feeling rejected and defeated, Berg, with his wife and four children, moved to Huntington Beach, California to be with his mother. When she died that same year, Berg, who had a talent for reaching the youth, decided to minister what he considered the lost sheep of the counter culture, and began preaching to the hippies.
In the late 1960s, Huntington Beach was to Southern California what Haight-Ashbury was to the San Francisco area: the Counterculture pitted against the Establishment.
Berg won many converts, using his teenage children to bring them to the Huntington Beach Light Club—a Pentecostal evangelical ministry coffeehouse run by the Teen Challenge organization—where they listened to Berg's anti-church, anti-establishment sermons.
Attracted to a non-church setting where they were offered food, shelter and music, Berg gradually developed a small communal group of about thirty-five followers. Berg preached that the end was imminent, encouraging converts to move in with him and devote their lives to Christ, and for the time being, incorporated their hippie lifestyle into his new movement.

Dave---

The other night, Chuck Smith, Greg Laurie, and Raul Ries were on a Christian television station. Of
course, Chuck Smith founded Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, while Greg Laurie's church is "Harvest"
in Riverside, and I believe Raul Ries is in Diamond Bar.  But it was actually pretty incredible to listen
to them talk about what God had done since the "Jesus Movement" back in the 60's.  There are now
over 1400 Calvary Chapel's or affiliates--it is truly an amazing work of the Lord. And, of course, each
year they have the "Harvest Crusade" which will be in Anaheim Stadium again this year in August. What
the Lord started back in the 60's has really born amazing fruit through Calvary, and many other Christian
churches since that time.

But since you brought up "cults" it is interesting to note that the enemy always has his "counterfeit"
churches wherever a work of God is in place.  The group you mention below, headed by David Berg was
the "Children of God" (they may still exist in a small way---David Berg having died a few years back) and
were active here in the 60's through the 80's, and then switched to a European focus.  David "Moses" Berg was what is called an "antinomian", a teacher who believes that salvation has no correlation with how one behaves as a Christian.  Since one is "saved" and "forgiven", one can basically do whatever one likes with no repercussions.  Berg literally devolved into a leader who encouraged "flirty fishing", where female members would try to "hook" new "fish" for the group with enticements of sex. One shudders to think of what David Berg will face in eternity for having mislead so many people with his heretical teachings.

It is the opposite of a "legalistic" teacher----the other end of the spectrum, where the Assembly and others are.  With the Antinomians Paul asked "Shall we contine in sin that Grace may abound?  God forbid!"  While with the Legalists (as the Assembly was) Paul asked "Are you so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect in the flesh? (by your own efforts?)"  So, the enemy always has his "counterfeits"--groups that "appear" to represent the true Gospel, but whose teachings are warped far from what the Bible really teaches.   By this I am not saying that the Assembly did not have true christians, or some teachings that were orthodox----they were just "mixed" with teachings which are really not Christian, but are legalistic "hybrids", combining the Law with Grace---whereas antinomianism COMPLETELY ignores the law, and changes Grace into an opportunity to fulfill the flesh. The Lord always has ways of "exposing" such groups for what they are, and often "judging" them in a very noticeable way also.  Both teachings actually "enslave" people----the antinomians enslave people to sin, while the legalistics enslave people through unneeded rules, strict leadership, and through fear.

These groups come and go, but the true work of the Lord continues on silently, accomplishing exactly what He wants it to accomplish.

Yea, I was listening to the WAVE (Calvary Chapel's Radio Station playing the same program) also.


   I don't think cults like the Assembly or the Family could ever develop in our present Southern California society. There were many things about the 60's that provided ripe ground for this type of idealism, "Let's reject the values of our parents generation and let's live for God!" Today Calvary Chapel is a legitimately recognized and respected organization, and rightly so! However, in those early days it would be hard to tell these groups apart! It was a social phenomenon unique to that time period.

  During the "Age of Enlightenment" people like Benjamin Franklin found limitless opportunity to explore and introduce tremendous scientific, political, economic, social advances. Yet at the same time frauds were showing up everywhere.  Quacks like Franz Mesmer found plenty of fools to buy into his claims about "Animal Magnetism". It later became known as "psuedo science". Today people remember Franklin as a genius and Mesmer as a fraud.


   Today Calvary Chapel is not made of of the same demographics as it was when it started out. The people who attended in the beginning were just like the "saints". They were young kids, barefoot, wide eyed, idealitic and open for everything God had for them. Today the attendance is made up of all age groups. The young people who are involved are not going against their parents values. They are going with them. They are respecting the previous generation who ironically rejected many of the conservative values they now embrace!  Instead of living in community, they live in homes with their family where there is a recognized leader (The Dad) who is in charge (hopefully). They value hard work, education good church attendance all for the purpose of family stability.

You may think I am making all of this up. I'm not! I grew up here!  The old timers(Margaret, Marc and Tom) will tell you the same.

However, in those early days it would be hard to tell these groups apart! It was a social phenomenon unique to that time period.

Dave---

That's really true----and that's why the enemy took advantage of it.  A counterfeiter wants to make
money that resembles the real thing closely enough to pass it off. Back during the "Jesus Movement", people like David Berg could thrive, and unfortunately his legalistic counterparts just a few years later were able to thrive also. They were counterfeit groups we can identify NOW, but at the time were very hard to tell from the "real thing". Have you ever accepted a counterfeit bill from someone because you didn't check it out closely enough?  If you have you know how "ripped off" you felt to have a fake $20.00 or $100.00 that you "accepted" without checking it out.  I think that's how many felt after the assembly came crashing down in 2001.  But at least we can recognize counterfeits a bit more easily now, having accepted one in the past!  ;)

--Joe

 Have you ever accepted a counterfeit bill from someone because you didn't check it out closely enough?  If you have you know how "ripped off" you felt to have a fake $20.00 or $100.00 that you "accepted" without checking it out. quote from Joe


    I don't think it was that easy for people to "check (the Assembly) out".  People in the Assembly couldn't just turn to John 1 and say, "Whoa! the Assembly is a cult!"

    Think about it if you walked up to Chuck Smith today and said, "I think there is something wrong with this group!"  "They believe that Jesus is the Son of God!" "They are committed Christians!" "They worship Christ through the singing of hymns and spiritual songs!"

                        What would Chuck say?  "Whoa! You better get out of there!"????


     We were taught along with all Christians, that a "Cult" is recognized by their definition of "Who do you say Jesus Christ is?". Back in 1985 if you handed Dave Sable a brand new crisp monopoly $500 chances are pretty good that he wouldn't give you any change. Yet I can remember walking along Balcom with him before a prayer meeting and expressing my fears/anxieties about the Assembly. "Dave I think there is something wrong with this Church!" He wasn't convinced. He reasoned with me to look at "fruit" indicators. "We study the Bible!" "We preach the word!" (I think his opinions have changed since then.) Also, I could go to the Christian book store and find literature that identified a cult contrasting it with a genuine definition of Christianity. The Assembly fit perfectly in the latter! We weren't J.W's, Mormons, Hare Krishna's, etc...


   No, I don't agree! It wasn't as simple as just opening the Bible and reading a verse!


  btw I remember a guy named Gary from the San Fernando Valley giving that same illustration (counterfeit money) one Sunday morning!

Dave---

Actually, if you read my post again you'll see that I was saying that one feels "ripped off"  AFTER they
discover they were given a counterfeit bill without noticing it was one. The point was that BACK THEN
it was much harder to tell a cult from a Christian church as they both "appeared" to be representing Christ.

As you mentioned someone might have accepted a $500.00 bill back then, convinced it was the real thing---however, if they were to look at that bill today they would see it was definitely counterfeit. No one checked out the money closely "back then" to see if they were given a counterfeit bill or not---it was just accepted that it was a "work of God"---that's how David Berg was able to deceive so many people.

--Joe

I just discovered a really good free online ebook along this line called Dangerous Persuaders. It's only 86 pages, and a quick read if you skip the descriptions of the various groups she lists and the case studies. Basically they persuade us by not fully disclosing what their agenda is. Back in the '70's I think we all sort of assumed that anyone speaking the right Christian language and teaching from the Bible was okay. The author describes in detail how such leaders get us to suspend critical thinking and get manipulated into badly "needing" what they are offering. This book would help anyone keep from being trapped, even during a social phenomenon that is going on.

Woops sorry Joe! You were saying that!


I saw the counterfeit illustration and I automatically placed in the other context! 


  Wasn't my fault! (3 Carona Lights + 1/2 glass of cheap Merlot)  :P :P :P :P :P

I started a thread about my project on another BB. We got on the subject "Lack of Empathy" I thought this post was interesting!


I think you are definately onto something here. The nazi's did what they did because they did not believe the people they murdered were HUMAN... they believed Jews, people of color, etc - everyone who was not Aryan - were INFERIOR, even less valuable than animals and thus they didn't feel any moral angst about killing them.

The kind of Christians you talk about sound similar to the kind I grew up with. They believed they were the ONLY true church, and that God had chosen THEM and THEM only... they definately believed god was on their side. We had members kill themselves, we had members lose everything because of the church and there wa no empathy at all - because these people were judged to be "lacking" or to be "inferior" to the rest. It was the same psychology the nazi's had IMHO.

I remember a sermon where a minister talked about a teenage girl who had killed herself. He was reading from her journal and, basically, making fun of her. There was no sympathy for her, no understanding, no compassion or love. He told the congregation that she was selfish and cruel to her family for what she did. She was judged.

Another sermon I remember was about a boy who drowned because he went swimming. He happend to go swimming on the Sabbath, so because he "sinned" by swimming on the sabbath - he was judged. There was no sympathy for him in the sermon, even though he drowned. He had sinned so somehow that made him inferior I guess.

I don't pretend to understand this way of thinking at all - I can try to explain it, but in my own heart I really have a hard time understanding it. This was a big part of why I left the church - the kind of judgement and lack of empathy or compassion... which eventually was turned against me when I began to feel myself leaving the fold.

I remember after I stopped attending services... the minister never made any attempt to contact me or ask how I was doing. But a couple months down the road I received a letter from him telling me I was disfellowshipped. He had my address, and he could have contacted me (to be honest I'm glad he didn't - it would only have prolonged my departure because I was going to leave anyway) but instead, he judged me and wrote me off.

This post has been edited by Zenobia: Yesterday, 03:20 PM

Former members of "The Family" were on Larry King tonight. I find it interesting that this group started so close in proximity and time to The Assembly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_God

VanDave,

You said:

A recent book, "From Darwin to Hitler" by Weikart points out that they had accepted Darwin's teachings in his, "Descent of Man".  He taught that the different races were actually different stages of human evolution.  Since the strong usually eliminate the weak in nature, he believed that it was inevitable that the "higher" European race would exterminate the "lower" darker races.

By 1875 German academic life was entirely dominated by Social Darwinism and Eugenics.  The NAZI's just took what German "intellectuals" already believed and made it into a government policy.

Now...what is it that our "intellectuals" believe.   Hmmmmmm.

Tom Maddux

"The National Government regards the two Christian confessions as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." At one point he described his religious status: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

                                                                                                 Adolph Hitler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs




   There are a number of directions this could go so I will try to eliminate a few.  Do I believe Hitler was Christian? NO. Do I believe that professing Christians embraced Hitler? Yes. Hitler, like many other politicians used Christianity as a way to manipuilate the masses. We all just experienced this in our own country. Tom, can you find anywhere in Hitler's speeches where he said, "Darwin has shown us that Jews are inferior!"?


   Somehow the leap from science to genocide just doesn't add up for me. I'll have to research it!

http://www.texscience.org/reviews/darwinism-racism.htm


In conclusion, Tony Campolo has seriously distorted the scientific and historical record to make his bigoted claims against Darwin and evolution. Bigotry is an irrational hatred of something or someone, and Mr. Campolo obviously hates science and scientists. He is free to believe that biological evolution by natural selection is "dangerous," but his belief is as irrational as believing that gravity, quantum mechanics,  and plate tectonics are dangerous. He has imposed his own narrow and sectarian views on a natural process and constructed specious and reprehensible arguments against it. He should immediately apologize for his ignorance and hatred, ask readers to forgive him, and encourage them to become better informed about subjects before criticizing them in such a harsh and bigoted manner.

Tony Campolo may draw his antipathy to Darwin and evolution--and a willingness to distort and discredit them by illogical arguments and shoddy scholarship--from the same source as Marilynne Robinson: an overweening evangelical Christian anti-science zeal. Most Christians--especially those with some reliable knowledge of science and evolutionary biology--do not exhibit such hatred for Darwin and evolution as these two authors, so these two should step back and re-evaluate their personal perspectives. Evolution is not an ideology opposed to other ideologies and religions. Evolution is not a proximate source of morals and values inimically opposed to the morals and values of religions. Evolution is just a natural process. Humans are the source of all morals and values, through either their religions or philosophies. Human knowledge of science in general and evolution in particular can be perfectly consonant with any religion, although many individuals choose not to believe that.

Campolo complains that those who argue against Darwin at school board meetings "seldom have taken the time to read him." Actually, this is true of Campolo himself. If he had actually read and understood Darwin's writings, he would know that Darwin uses the nineteenth century terms "races" for what today we term "varieties" and the "struggle for life" in the modern sense of environmental selection pressure. There is nothing racist or exploitive about these terms. If Campolo had read The Origin of Species, he would know that "survival of the fittest" is a misnomer, and that Darwin's theory of natural selection actually involves the differential reproductive success of species populations in response to random and unpredictable environmental stresses and pressures. The biological terms that both Darwin and modern biologists use do not have the same meaning that they do in popular language, so repeating them in an alarmist fashion meant to inflame emotional antagonisms is both ignorant and dishonest.

Campolo writes, "Had they actually read [the] Origin, they likely would be shocked to learn that among Darwin's scientifically based proposals was the elimination of 'the negro and Australian peoples,' which he considered savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilization," and "Then [Darwin] went on to propose the extermination of races he 'scientifically' defined as inferior. If this were not done, he claimed, those races, with much higher birthrates than 'superior' races, would exhaust the resources needed for the survival of better people, eventually dragging down all civilization." These statements are all vile and damnable libels and lies. Darwin said nothing of the kind that Campolo quotes. Campolo undoubtedly read these claims in some Creationist tract and foolishly believed them. He should be ashamed of being both so ignorant and credulous.

Campolo is not correct that Ernst Haeckel drew on Darwin's writings to justify racism and nationalism. Haeckel accepted evolution immediately but never fully accepted natural selection in Darwin's sense, the theory that makes evolution Darwinian. Haeckel believed that the environment acted directly on organisms; i.e., Haeckel was a Lamarckian, so nothing following from his writings can be blamed on Darwin or even the influence of Darwin. It is true that Haeckel justified racism, nationalism, and social biological determinism (usually but incorrectly termed Social Darwinism) in his evolutionary writings, and he believed that "politics is applied biology." Haeckel was a nationalist, but was not a racist himself. Contrary to Campolo and other anti-evolutionists, Haeckel's views did not later influence Nazi theorists, who rejected any theories or doctrines that invoked evolution. But, again, even if Haeckel had influenced the Nazis, there is no connection to Darwin or modern biological evolution that follows from Darwin. Campolo fails to understand that Haeckel selectively drew on Darwin's work and constructed his own evolutionary theory that supported his own values that included nationalism and social determinism.

Campolo is also wrong about Heinrich von Treitschke, who supported nationalism, militarism, racism, and anti-Semitism, but did not derive any of his ideas from Darwin's writings. Von Treitschke was not a scientist and was suspicious of evolution; he derived his extreme views from non-scientific philosophies. Campolo apparently obtained his misinformation about Haeckel and von Treitschke from Marilynne Robinson's "Darwin" essay in her book The Death of Adam. This superficial essay was written by a novelist and has no scientific or historical value whatsoever. In fact, Robinson obviously does not understand evolution or have any great knowledge of its history, for her very biased conclusion that Darwin's scientific writings were used to justify racism, nationalism, and influence the Nazis is complete nonsense. I grant that significant distortions of Darwin's scientific writings by non-Darwinian writers were used to justify and support racism, nationalism, and laissez faire capitalism, but it is quite unfair to blame Darwin and his evolutionary theory for the errors, misinterpretations, and excesses of later writers and (mis)interpreters. They all invoked Darwin's name to give their own extremist ideologies a false veneer of legitimacy, much as Intelligent Design polemicists call their doctrine "science."

Konrad Lorenz was a Nazi for a time, but he admitted his mistake and later was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on the biology of animal behavior. Wikipedia says about this episode: "When accepting the Nobel Prize, he apologized for a 1940 publication that included Nazi views of science, saying that 'many highly decent scientists hoped, like I did, for a short time for good from National Socialism, and many quickly turned away from it with the same horror as I.' It seems highly likely that Lorenz's ideas about an inherited basis for behavior patterns were congenial to the Nazi authorities, but there is no evidence to suggest that his experimental work was either inspired or distorted by Nazi ideas."

Since Darwin's day, his biological explanations have been misapplied by all forms of ideologies to justify their ethical claims or counter-claims, all mistakenly, since it is illogical to invoke natural processes to prove the correctness of cultural, social, and economic human values. This is the naturalistic or is/ought fallacy: what IS true in nature justifies what OUGHT to be morally true for humans. In reality, as explained above, nothing in nature justifies the truth of any human moral beliefs. Yes, some of our ultimate instincts are derived from evolution, and our scientific understanding of nature often can help us see ethical imperatives and the moral path, but final moral decisions and actions must be made by humans in human terms and for human reasons.

The naturalistic fallacy is the fallacy in which Tony Campolo indulges throughout his article. He claims that we should fear the "ethical implications" of evolution, its "racism" and "extreme laissez-faire political ideology." These ethical implications only exist in Tony Campolo's mind but not in the real world, because evolution and natural selection are just natural processes, similar to digestion or development or parasitism or predation, and are devoid of moral meaning because they are the result of an amoral natural system. One might as well claim that we should fear the "ethical implications" of parasitism and predation for the "wasteful and painful destruction of living organisms" (in reality, parasites and predators prevent the over-population of host and prey organisms, a highly-beneficial ecological process), or fear the "ethical implications" of metabolism and excretion, for "relentless efficiency" and "disregard for less fortunate molecules."

Most human ethical beliefs are cultural or social, but some are instinctual and derive from evolution, such as territoriality and competition, but so do cooperation and altruism. Far from being racist, evolution is the opposite, for it reveals that all human beings are closely related. Far from supporting exploitive laissez-faire capitalism, the evolutionary history of the social primates reveals the social-affirming, altruistic, and caring nature of our species (as well as, of course, our competition and territoriality under certain circumstances, equally part of our human nature). If one wanted to derive our modern economic system from our evolutionary biology (and I don't recommend this), socialism or the modern, regulated, mixed economy would be more apt analogues than laissez-faire capitalism. Campolo has everything backwards.

Darwinism Does Not Lead to Racism:
Refutation of a Creationist Argument

Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.
Texas Citizens for Science
2008 January 21

Science, considered solely as an explanation of how nature works, is value free, but any person can impose their own values on scientific explanations. This is what Tony Campolo--who believes that "Darwinism" leads to racism--has done in the op-ed column reprinted below, sent to me by a colleague, and he is not the first person to do this. Many anti-evolutionists before him have interpreted natural selection to be racist, exploitive, mercenary, cruel, and morally repugnant when in fact it is none of those. Nature is amoral; only humans have morals and can impose their moral values on nature if they wish, even though this is both illegitimate and unwise. Nature has no morality and is therefore not cruel, with all the pain, killing, death, animals preying upon and eating other animals, and parasites infecting hosts causing diseases and slow, horrible deaths. This is not cruelty because there is no intention within nature to cause unnecessary pain, the definition of cruelty. (If you believe an Intelligent Designer created nature this way, then blame Him, Her, or It for being cruel!) Nature is just the way it is, because living nature evolved by a natural, mechanistic, unplanned, amoral process during eons of time before humans and their moral values even existed. Associating a natural process, such as natural selection, with an ethical or moral value is nonsense.

Darwin's natural selection is not racist except in the eyes of those who wish to believe and claim it is. Darwin himself was an abolitionist and was horrified by slavery. By the standards of the day, Darwin was one of the least racist of all Victorians, because he understood that all humans were bound together by their mutual natural origin. The notorious phrase "survival of the fittest" was Herbert Spencer's, not Darwin's, and the even more notorious phrase "Social Darwinism" is even more of a libel, since it refers to a Lamarckian evolutionary version of biological determinism, not a Darwinian evolutionary version, and should be termed either Social Lamarckism or social biological determinism. Both of these terms--neither of which have anything to do with legitimate biological evolution and natural selection--were applied to late 19th century laissez-faire capitalism for the purpose of describing it as mimicking or following the natural world order, to demonstrate that the prevailing exploitive economic system was natural, good, and just. In fact, Gilded Age laissez-faire capitalism was nothing like the evolution of social organisms, especially humans, in which cooperation and altruism are just as important as competition and territoriality.

The persistent misidentification of evolution with economic exploitation, racism, euthanasia, eugenics, infanticide, and genocide all depend on someone's persistent confusion about the vital difference between social and scientific Darwinism, that is, between social biological determinism--not a science but a discreditable doctrine--and biological evolution--an accurate and highly reliable science. By mendaciously ignoring this vital distinction, anti-evolutionists try to discredit evolution by illogically associating it with historically disreputable ideologies. Anti-evolutionists believe that if people come to believe evolution, under the misnomers of "survival of the fittest" and "social Darwinism," is equivalent to evil ideologies, they will then doubt the veracity and necessity of evolutionary science. Guilt by association is the anti-evolutionist's goal for scientific evolution, and their fondest wish is to promote this distortion. Even the fact that economic exploitation, racism, euthanasia, eugenics (in the sense of favorable breeding), infanticide, and genocide were all common in human history long before either evolution or Darwin does not dissuade the true believers. How can "Darwinism" be responsible for things that historically predate it? The obvious answer is that it can't.

http://www.texscience.org/reviews/darwinism-racism.htm

You access the same article here or read below.

Dave,

Dr. Shafersman makes this statement:


However, Charles Darwin said:


Seems to me that Dr. Shafersman has not read Darwin lately.

Tom Maddux

   When Darwin refers to exterminate the "savage" is he just concluding a fact? Many Native Americans tribes were exterminated. The name "savage" may-not have had the same connotation then as it does now.

     Regardless, he refutes the notion quite well that science is somehow responsible for the holocaust.

  My original post had to do with the lack of empathy from the leaders in the Assembly. Another "poster" brought up the Nazis. Leaders in the Assembly like GG could be heartless when it came to other people suffering.

     I remember an encounter I had with GG one Sunday morning. I was standing just outside the door of the Assistance League (remeber how we did that befor the meetings) when out of the blue GG walks by and barks at me. "Did your wife divorce you yet?"   O.K. here is someone who seems to take no consideration of how painful this subject could be to someone going through a divorce. Its like I've been kicked in the groin and he come along and kicks me again. But its no big deal to him. He acts like the issue shouldn't even bother me. It shouldn't bother me that the person I swore my love and life to has rejected me. It shouldn't bother me that I will now be single for the rest of my life. People like GG and leaders like him don't even take a second to consider someone else's pain and suffering. It doesn't matter to them. They are on God side or rather God is on their side and if someone else's life is left fragmented, disabled, destroyed......so what!





   GG and other like him have no trouble expecting someone who is divorced to just "suck-it-up" and live single the rest of their lives. Yet would he? If GG's doormat uh- Betty decided to stand up to him and split, when he was 21 years old and had his whole life ahead of him, would he just "suck-it-up"?



        No way! 

VanDave,


I'm sure that that was a very stressful and painful time for you, Dave. You are correct, ultimately GG was so into his own agenda that others problems were important to him only if they hindered his plans.

 A question comes to mind.   Was your association with the assembly a factor in the divorce?

Tom Maddux

Yes and no,

     My wife was from a very abusive background. "I rescued her." Yet when the abuser was out of the picture I was no longer "Prince Charming". The Assembly speeded up our divorce.

    Initially I blamed myself! "If I was only a better Christian this wouldn't have happened!"  So I committed myself more and more to the Assembly thinking this would rectify the problem.

    No such luck.


    It was pretty humiliating to go through the divorce in the Assembly. I became an object lesson, "Don't let this happen to you!"

     The only people who understood me were those who had sufferered the same fate or a death of a spouse. It was horrible to be so alone! To attend wedding after wedding after wedding and feel more and more alienated.


    I think some of the singles, people who had joined during the 70's and were still single into their forties must have been going through some pretty harsh trials.  Imagine a sister who is being ignored in the Assembly but pursued by a guy on her job! She knows she can't respond to him because even if he is a Christian George will say "NO WAY!" (I heard that things like this went on.)

  How could someone be so heartless and cruel???