Womens' Role in the Church

[James]

Questions are good, but what is your motivation?  Are you dismayed that the assemblies disbanded?  

Arthur

I  have a hard time accepting that ALL assemblies were evil entities. That ALL LB were evil. That EVERY leader in the assembly abused the flock. That EVERY place George preached was tainted with his evil.

The disbanding of assemblies is a non issue to me. I have moved on. However the individuals in the assemblies that are being painted with this broad brush of evil leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I am not minimizing the hurt that many experienced. However, in our assembly, I did not witness most of what  is being said on this bb. I was there for 12 years.  I love the Lord's people and those in leadership. From my experience they valued the input of the flock. We used to have open planning meetings to solicit input. Now decisions had to be made on what ideas to use. The leadership did that. I accepted that. Women's contributions were valued. They often shared at outreaches. No, they didn't preach the bible study or Sundays. I believe that was scriptural.

Anyway. I was not deceived. I came into fellowship with my eyes open. I saw the testimony of the assembly in our community. I witnessed the love they had for less fortunate, the elderly, those in difficultly. I didn't come into fellowship because of GG. I came because I saw the Lord. I am so thankful for the friendships I have made. How God worked in my life and my family's lives.

I am thankful for where we fellowship now. I have to say I sure miss giving a hymn or praying though. I have to say also, this Sunday the pastor will be away. They asked me to give ministry in his place. This inspite of assembly history. You see, in their eyes, because I heard George preach does not make me a partaker of his sin.

[Arthur]

I  have a hard time accepting that ALL assemblies were evil entities. That ALL LB were evil. That EVERY leader in the assembly abused the flock. That EVERY place George preached was tainted with his evil.

The disbanding of assemblies is a non issue to me. I have moved on. However the individuals in the assemblies that are being painted with this broad brush of evil leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I am not minimizing the hurt that many experienced. However, in our assembly, I did not witness most of what  is being said on this bb. I was there for 12 years.  I love the Lord's people and those in leadership. From my experience they valued the input of the flock. We used to have open planning meetings to solicit input. Now decisions had to be made on what ideas to use. The leadership did that. I accepted that. Women's contributions were valued. They often shared at outreaches. No, they didn't preach the bible study or Sundays. I believe that was scriptural.

Anyway. I was not deceived. I came into fellowship with my eyes open. I saw the testimony of the assembly in our community. I witnessed the love they had for less fortunate, the elderly, those in difficultly. I didn't come into fellowship because of GG. I came because I saw the Lord. I am so thankful for the friendships I have made. How God worked in my life and my family's lives.

I am thankful for where we fellowship now. I have to say I sure miss giving a hymn or praying though. I have to say also, this Sunday the pastor will be away. They asked me to give ministry in his place. This inspite of assembly history. You see, in their eyes, because I heard George preach does not make me a partaker of his sin.

James,

I understand what you say.  My first impressions of the assembly were very positive.  I enjoyed being there the first three years or so.  The people I met, the lives they lived and the deeds they did all seemed extraordinary to me.  I thought that I had finally found true believers that really did obey God and have his love in their hearts.  Yet, I tell you from what I have experienced, there were evil things happening that we did not see so readily.  

I agree that not everyone in the assembly was evil.  There were good, sincere Christians in it.  What about the leaders?  In another thread Jack wrote a good report about three categories in which the leaders fall.  If the leaders in your assembly did not have wicked intentions, then they still failed to recognize George as a wolf and his false teachings.  Also, they were appointed and/or approved by George (though he and they claimed "by God", the truth is that George had the final say, or is that not so?) and therefore the validity of their leadership is in question.
Is the whole assembly system evil?  It was set up by George, for his purposes.  George is a wicked man.  His false teachings are from Satan.  Can a system be evil?  I don't know, but let's just say that being under the spell of a wicked man is detrimental to a person--ref. the book of Galatians.

I can understand how you do not see this.  Even if I or others were to share our personal accounts of encounters with this evil first-hand, that's not what you experienced.

But, may I ask some questions?  I don't know what assembly you are from, so you tell me please:

Did the leading brothers invite George to speak at your assembly?  
If so, did they encourage people to attend?

Did the leading brothers encourage saints to meet with George, Betty or David if or when they visited?

Did the leading brothers endorse George as being a "godly man" or "the Lord's Servant"?

Did the leading brothers encourage saints to go to the seminars?

Were George's books on the book table?  Were other people's books?  What other people's books?  Was a book on there that George did not approve of?  Would the books Churches that Abuse, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse or True Believer be allowed on the book table?  If not, why not?

Did a good portion of every prayer meeting consist of praying for George on his "journey" as well as praying for other assemblies and their leaders?

Did a good portion of every prayer meeting consist of praying for individuals and their needs--including Aunt Tessie's sore toe, our neighbors, the world, the president, etc.  apart from praying that they would come into fellowship or start a new assembly somewhere?

Did the leading brothers preach messages that espoused George's false teachings?

Did the leading brothers ever slander someone who had "left fellowship"?

Did the leading brothers hinder or encourage meeting with Christians from other groups outside the assembly?

Did the leading brothers ever convey the thought that the saints in the assembly were better or more elite than other "mainstream, worldly Christians"?

Did the leading brothers ever pressure you or any other saint into going to meetings, volunteering for outreach, or living in a training home?

Did the leading brothers ever encourage or discourage you or anyone else in the assembly from marrying a particular sister or brother because of what that leader perceived to be the spiritual state of the sister or brother?

Did the leading brothers send money to Fullerton?

What was the money used for?

Was there a public disclosure of funds?

Was there ever an instance where sheep were abused?  If so, what did the leaders do about it?

There are many more, these for now.  My intention is that by answering these, you may see the truth of what the group was about.

Arthur

[James]

Arthur, thank-you for your level reponse. I was expecting and may still get a tirade from someone.

Anyway, I am not going to answer every question in writing. I am also not saying the assembly was perfect. George came twice in the 12 years I was there. The last time was 9 years ago. Many in our assembly had never met George. Did we pray for the work? Absolutely. I still pray for the work of the Lord. The exposure of George etal is in my view God at work.

I am just saying Arthur, that not every place and every leader was a clone of George. There is no assembly here any longer but there are some that get together to pray. There are some that get together to read the bible. There are some that get together to visit. On the other hand maybe they are assembling. I thank God for godly friendships.

[jackhutchinson]

James,

You're right.  Arthur's response was a good one.  The reason is that in it he challenges you to accurately assess what went on in the assembly.  I think that if you answered his questions in writing you would find them liberating.

Jack

[James]

James,

I think that if you answered his questions in writing you would find them liberating.

Jack

Jack, I am quite liberated. I think that is where I differ from many. I don't have them same bad experience as many on the bb. That said, I have been in a church that:
1. had an immoral pastor.
2. railed on those who dissagreed.
3. taught doctrine that was very questionable.
4. considered those who left as leaving the Lord.
5. the leadership and fellowship endorsed this pastor as a godly man.
... the list goes on.


What I am saying is not EVERYONE in the assembly is like George. Not EVERYONE in the assembly practices his ways.

[Arthur]

Anyway, I am not going to answer every question in writing. I am also not saying the assembly was perfect. George came twice in the 12 years I was there. The last time was 9 years ago. Many in our assembly had never met George. Did we pray for the work? Absolutely. I still pray for the work of the Lord. The exposure of George etal is in my view God at work.

James,

That is interesting.  I did not know that there were assemblies that George visited so little unless they were outside of the United States.  I thought it was his practice to visit almost every assembly once a year or at least every other year.  

Well, that being the case--twice in 12 years, then obviously your group was not nearly as affected as others by George's personal appearances, teaching and counseling.  I do, however, maintain that the root problem is still there in George's teachings coming into your gathering by his literature, tapes, and the leading brothers messages inspired by George's heavenly vision--correct me if I'm wrong on any of these. I also imagine that many in your group attended "holy convocations" more than twice in 12 years.

Also, there still is the issue of where did the money go that you put in the box--what you and others believed was to be for "the work of the Lord here and abroad".
 

I am just saying Arthur, that not every place and every leader was a clone of George.

Maybe not a clone, but the leaven is mixed in and the whole lump is leavened.  In other words, you tell me if/how it is possible that the evil of the founder does not affect the groups he founded.

There is no assembly here any longer but there are some that get together to pray. There are some that get together to read the bible. There are some that get together to visit. On the other hand maybe they are assembling. I thank God for godly friendships.

Surely there isn't anything wrong with that (praying, reading etc).  As far as getting together, is the bond shared the former pattern, e.g. the "heavely vision", or truly the fact that they are believers?  Up to them to decide, but I suggest that they need to be clear on what the past assembly was all about before trying to make a new one.  

Did we pray for the work? Absolutely. I still pray for the work of the Lord. The exposure of George etal is in my view God at work.

My point there was that, don't you find it odd that so much attention in the prayer meeting was placed on brother George and his journey as well as on the other assemblies and leaders?  
It was very heavily focused on "the work".  But was that really the work of God?  I submit to you that "the work" was just a code for George's empire, so-to-speak--George's house, George's vision, George's dream, George's racket, George's work.  And the mission of that work, though not explictly stated yet subtly implied at the time and now thoroughly proven, was to provide for George power, recognition, fame, position, authority, money, and sexual pleasure.  

The cover for the racket was "the work".  I believe the nefarious line of thinking was something like the following:


Make the people believe that "the work" is about God's work. We'll have prayer meetings that mimic real Christian prayer meetings, and at these we'll make the people focus on "the work".  Make it all important.  Never let the focus on the work slip.  

We'll pray that "new ones" will come into fellowship.  We'll say this on the pretense that we hope they'll follow the Lord, but we won't tell them that really we want people to be enslaved in this system to do our bidding and give us money.  Nor will we tell them that when we say "lord" we mean George.

We'll use catch phrases.  We'll put emphasis on people and places where it suits us.  We'll never reveal the true nature of "the work".  Everything we do we'll have Bible verses for.  It doesn't matter that the verses don't actually mean what we say they mean, because we'll have gotten this people to believe our interpretation of it.

We'll make people feel like they really need to labor intensely for "the work" because their eternal destiny rides on how well they perform in "the work".  

We'll reward loyalty to the work by granting positions of authority and other benefits.  

If someone raises questions about "the work", they must be
silenced and their name slandered. We must maintain absolute authority.  We'll claim our authority is from God.  We are "God's representatives of God's authority on earth".


Hair-raising isn't it?

Arthur

[psalm51]

Arthur, thank-you for your level reponse. I was expecting and may still get a tirade from someone.

Anyway, I am not going to answer every question in writing. I am also not saying the assembly was perfect. George came twice in the 12 years I was there. The last time was 9 years ago. Many in our assembly had never met George. Did we pray for the work? Absolutely. I still pray for the work of the Lord. The exposure of George etal is in my view God at work.

I am just saying Arthur, that not every place and every leader was a clone of George. There is no assembly here any longer but there are some that get together to pray. There are some that get together to read the bible. There are some that get together to visit. On the other hand maybe they are assembling. I thank God for godly friendships.

I'm wondering if you were "expected" or "encouraqed" to go to seminars? ie. The Midwest Seminar or other things of that nature? Were you encouraged to travel elsewhere to hear George preach? When we lived in Norfolk, NE George only came to see us once in five years, BUT we definitely made the trek to Omaha everytime he came to town, which was at least 2-3 times a year and it was expected that we do so.

[vernecarty]

You know, the more I think about it, the Assembly wasn't all that bad.  I mean, aside from George, Betty and David, we had it pretty good.

I think we should all go back.

Anyone willing to start up the meetings with me again?  

Bernt

I  have a hard time accepting that ALL assemblies were evil entities. That ALL LB were evil. That EVERY leader in the assembly abused the flock. That EVERY place George preached was tainted with his evil.

I always felt Brent had something of a prophetic streak in him...
Verne

[jackhutchinson]

James,

The articles on the website and posts on the BB show clearly that from California to the Midwest to the East Coast to Canada George's influence was deep and profound.  The testimony of so many people from so many places is just too consistant to leave room for there to have been assemblies outside of George's poisonous influence.

George's visits did have an influence on people and gatherings, but there are many other tools and tactics that he (and the leaders) used to make sure ALL the assemblies served his selfish agenda.  If your assembly had been free of George's influence we would have been told that your leaders had "lost their heavenly vision" and were in need of 'unity'.  This was done when any leaders began challenging George's influence.

Arthur's questions are valid.  Won't you answer them?

Which assembly were you in?

Jack

[M2]

...
I am just saying Arthur, that not every place and every leader was a clone of George. There is no assembly here any longer but there are some that get together to pray. There are some that get together to read the bible. There are some that get together to visit. On the other hand maybe they are assembling. I thank God for godly friendships.

James, my faithful contender  

Are you from Estevan?

I agree with you that not every LB is a GG clone. However we did follow GG and his system and are accountable before God for doing so. In fact, most all of us were deceived, not just the LBs. Most of what is posted on this BB is posted in a 'generally speaking' manner. Every post does not does not require a disclaimer. When the Lord Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, He did not say except for Nicodemus and Joseph and... He just publicly rebuked all of them for their hypocrisy.

I also agree that the friendships in the assembly were close, and even on this BB the new friendships made are special because we have something in common - our assembly experience. BUT when all other avenues of warning the assemblies about deception and Geftakysism have failed, then there is a need for public warning. This BB provides a forum for discussion as well, such that we can know healing from our experiences.

I suggest, that if you were involved in an assembly for as long as 12 years, then you have also been affected by Geftakysism and have not yet faced that fact. I cannot think of any assembly in North America that was autonomous enough not to have been affected. The fact that GG last visited 9 years ago does not exclude you from being isolated from his system. You probably received regular visits from other itinerant brothers who were trained by GG. You probably had workers who met every 2 weeks to review the worker's notes from Fullerton and discuss assembly matters. You probably had LBs who met once a week to ensure that 'the work' was evaluated and prayed for.  And so on and so forth...

Anyway, that's all for now,
Love and God bless,
Marcia

[editor]

James,

I think that if you answered his questions in writing you would find them liberating.

Jack

Jack, I am quite liberated. I think that is where I differ from many. I don't have them same bad experience as many on the bb. That said, I have been in a church that:
1. had an immoral pastor.
2. railed on those who dissagreed.
3. taught doctrine that was very questionable.
4. considered those who left as leaving the Lord.
5. the leadership and fellowship endorsed this pastor as a godly man.
... the list goes on.


What I am saying is not EVERYONE in the assembly is like George. Not EVERYONE in the assembly practices his ways.

Hi James

Let me be so bold as to state the obvious.  Scoundrels abound.  I have been involved with one named George Geftakys.  It seems that you have been involved with 2 scoundrels so far....if I undertand your quote above properly.

If we don't humbly judge ourselves regarding our willingness to follow the first, we shall surely be ensnared by the second.  

Do not become enangled AGAIN with a yoke of bondage.

If you can't seperate the flesh and the spirit, and can't recognize good and evil, you shall serve yet another scoundrel, or give up completely!

Again, why would anyone want to defend a system that has been so decisivly judged by God?

Brent

[M2]

What exactly does this mean:  women should not exercise pastoral authority over men ?

I ask because I received this from a local pastor in response to my query about 'women elders' in the church:

1 Tim 2:11-12  No Women Teachers?

The language here is seemingly straightforward and clear. But does Paul really mean what we think he means? And if he does mean it, is this an instruction he intended for universal application, regardless of historical context and circumstances?

This passage and 1 Tim 2:13-15 are at the heart of the ongoing discussion of the place and role of women in church, home and society. Answers to the above questions are critical in that discussion.

This passage is a difficult one for yet another reason, namely, an emotional/experiential one. As a male, I am sure I cannot fully grasp the impact this apostolic word must have on women. But given that limitation, I can nonetheless understand something of the damage to one's self-worth and sense of giftedness this restrictive word must evoke. We are living at a point in history in which women and men are recognized as equally gifted in intellectual ability and communication skills. In such a climate, the apostolic prohibition seems particularly difficult to understand and accept. For what is it about gender which militates against the full expression of the Creator's gifts of heart and mind and spirit?

This question has often been answered with the assertion that clearly defined roles for men and women are divinely ordained and that Paul's restrictive instruction is evidence of such a universal norm. That response, however, is problematic. The account of the creation of male and female in Gen 1-2 - which we take as a foundational theological statement of the Creator's design and intention - affirms male and female as equal and complementary. Both are bearers, together, of God's image (Gen 1:26-27). Both are given the mandate to responsible sovereignty over the created order (Gen 1:28). The creation of the woman is intended to rescue the man from his aloneness and to provide him with a complement (Gen 2:18). 1

Over against an ancient view that the gods played a trick on man by creating woman of inferior material, the creation account of Genesis affirms the woman to be of the same essence as man ("bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," Gen 2:23). Thus the view that God intended the woman for a restricted role in home, church and society cannot be grounded in the order of creation.

A restricted status for woman has been traditionally grounded in the account of the Fall (Gen 3) in both Jewish and Christian thought and practice. But it is clear from the context of Gen 2-3 that the words of 3:16 - "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" - do not announce God's created design for a male hierarchy. Rather these words announce a cursed existence because of a broken relationship between the human creation and the Creator. A restricted place for woman, and male-over-female dominance, is thus not divine purpose but an expression of human sin.

For Paul, the purpose of Christ's redemptive work was to set God's creation free from the curse of Eden. Those "in Christ" were new creations (2 Cor5:17), freed from the bondage of sin and its expression in human relationships (Rom 6:5-7). In the new humanity created in Christ, the culturally and religiously ingrained view that some human beings, on the basis of gender or race or social status, were in some sense inferior could no longer be maintained (Gal 3:26-28). That was surely one of Paul's central theological convictions (from Hard Sayings of the Bible copyright (C) 1996 by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved.)

Marcia

[editor]

What exactly does this mean:  women should not exercise pastoral authority over men ?

I ask because I received this from a local pastor in response to my query about 'women elders' in the church:

1 Tim 2:11-12  No Women Teachers?

The language here is seemingly straightforward and clear. But does Paul really mean what we think he means? And if he does mean it, is this an instruction he intended for universal application, regardless of historical context and circumstances?

This passage and 1 Tim 2:13-15 are at the heart of the ongoing discussion of the place and role of women in church, home and society. Answers to the above questions are critical in that discussion.

This passage is a difficult one for yet another reason, namely, an emotional/experiential one. As a male, I am sure I cannot fully grasp the impact this apostolic word must have on women. But given that limitation, I can nonetheless understand something of the damage to one's self-worth and sense of giftedness this restrictive word must evoke. We are living at a point in history in which women and men are recognized as equally gifted in intellectual ability and communication skills. In such a climate, the apostolic prohibition seems particularly difficult to understand and accept. For what is it about gender which militates against the full expression of the Creator's gifts of heart and mind and spirit?

This question has often been answered with the assertion that clearly defined roles for men and women are divinely ordained and that Paul's restrictive instruction is evidence of such a universal norm. That response, however, is problematic. The account of the creation of male and female in Gen 1-2 - which we take as a foundational theological statement of the Creator's design and intention - affirms male and female as equal and complementary. Both are bearers, together, of God's image (Gen 1:26-27). Both are given the mandate to responsible sovereignty over the created order (Gen 1:28). The creation of the woman is intended to rescue the man from his aloneness and to provide him with a complement (Gen 2:18). 1

Over against an ancient view that the gods played a trick on man by creating woman of inferior material, the creation account of Genesis affirms the woman to be of the same essence as man ("bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," Gen 2:23). Thus the view that God intended the woman for a restricted role in home, church and society cannot be grounded in the order of creation.

A restricted status for woman has been traditionally grounded in the account of the Fall (Gen 3) in both Jewish and Christian thought and practice. But it is clear from the context of Gen 2-3 that the words of 3:16 - "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" - do not announce God's created design for a male hierarchy. Rather these words announce a cursed existence because of a broken relationship between the human creation and the Creator. A restricted place for woman, and male-over-female dominance, is thus not divine purpose but an expression of human sin.

For Paul, the purpose of Christ's redemptive work was to set God's creation free from the curse of Eden. Those "in Christ" were new creations (2 Cor5:17), freed from the bondage of sin and its expression in human relationships (Rom 6:5-7). In the new humanity created in Christ, the culturally and religiously ingrained view that some human beings, on the basis of gender or race or social status, were in some sense inferior could no longer be maintained (Gal 3:26-28). That was surely one of Paul's central theological convictions (from Hard Sayings of the Bible copyright (C) 1996 by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved.)

Marcia

Hi Marcia,

I thought that my statement about women and pastoral authority would get someone's attention.  Let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with what your pastor shared with you above.  (Not that FF Bruce cares about my stamp of approval!)

However, I think we both know an example where a confused woman who imagines herself a spiritual guide and who influences young men in an improper way is a bad thing.  One such person is Betty Geftakys. There are others, as you are aware.  I honestly think that is the sort of thing that Paul was referring to, not the idea that Women should never speak, or teach.  

Every Christian school has women teachers!  What is a mother, if she is not a woman and a teacher?

No, I think this passage is warning us about whacky, confused, presumptous women who get off into strange hyper-spiritual doctrine.  Madam Guyon gives me the creeps!

Brent

[M2]

Ok Fair enough.

What do you think about women elders in the church?
The Baptist church has women elders.

Marcia

[editor]

Ok Fair enough.

What do you think about women elders in the church?
The Baptist church has women elders.

Marcia

women elders are going to be there, whether they are recognized as such or not.

Bad male elders are a bad thing, bad women elders are a bad thing.  However, good women elders are a good thing.

Jezebel was NOT a good elder,  but I hear that Kay Smith is, even though she is not called one.....

Brent