AssemblyBoard

Hi Everyone,
  I think it is time for me to get back to the thought that is nearest and dearest to my heart and that is the topic of Wounded Pilgrims.
  Even though I'm no longer a Global Moderator and have been relegated to Chief Steward in Training, I think that I can speak for the Editor in saying that one of the intentions of this BB is to help restore the faith of those who have lost it through Assembly involvement.
  As I've stated several times here, and at the Rick Ross site, I believe these "Wounded Pilgrims" are very near and dear to our Lord's heart.  What gives me the grounds for making such a statement?  Weren't we just a bunch of proud, needy, or deluded fools and deserved what we got?  Can we ever get on the right track and actually be able to have a vibrant faith again?  These and other questions I hope to address here in the hope that others will chime in with their insight and that it might provide a source of encouragement to those seeking help.
   The Gospels are a great source for testimony to the fact that the Lord was not interested in "The Vision of the Church" as presented by GG or by any other group centered religious organization; God was and is interested in individuals.  It is important to note that the individuals in the Gospels that Jesus ministered to were a very lowly bunch.  Take JN.4 and the Samaritan Woman at the well.  The Woman was a member of a heretical group(Jesus points out that Samaritan teaching was in error, but still tries to reach her with the Gospel), led a defeated immoral life, and was considered a powerless minority( A Woman and Samaritan).  You could say this Woman had made some real bad decisions: Member of a false cult, unsuccessful marriage relationships(married  many times and now shacked up with a heretic), and without any power in her life to choose her destiny.
   Jesus presents her with one of the clearest presentations of the Gospel of the grace of God and it's ramifications in the life of those who believe given in the Gospels!  It is not recorded that even the disciples received such clear teaching re. grace through Jesus earthly teaching.
    Jesus sought this Woman as an object lesson for all time of the kind of individual whom he would desire to be blessed with the liberty only he could bring to their lives.  Jesus expands the notion of salvation beyond the forgiveness of sins to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the presence of God in those, like the Samaritan Woman, who receive the simple message.  
   We may have made a mess of our lives by making a whole bunch of bad decisions, but like the Samaritan Woman he is the true friend of sinners and is reaching out to draw us close---My dear Wounded Pilgrim he is not far from us, though you may be more like Matthew the Publican than The Samaritan Woman, the promise remains the same.
             Always more to follow---- God Bless,  Mark

Very well put, Mark! I also started the "Positive Things About the Assembly" thread because i want ex-lodgers to take comfort in the fact that their time in the lodge wasn't just a big waste of time...

Mark...you got promoted from global moderator to Head Steward in Training!  this is a promotion, brother.  If anyone ever makes "Overcomer," we'll just raise the bar so they get knocked back down.  We never arrive brother.  Of course, Mark, you and I, especially me, may get to keep overcomer status, but it's no big deal to us, we just want to serve! (gag smilie here)

Hopefully, the pace of my life will slow just a little in the next week.  I have some really great, encouraging things to share with everyone, but I literally don't have the time to formulate my thoughts!

anyways, I am still dumbfounded over the interest in this website.  Who woulda thunk it?  Really, I ask God, "What am I doing here with these people?"  Well, it's only cause I love the Lord!  Otherwise I'd be out winning a Nobel prize of something!  ;D

I shouldn't be posting right now, I can't think straight.  Seriously, Mark, you encourage me so much with your posts. keep it up, it is a blessing.

Brent

Thanks Cristina and Brent .
  I'm glad that it was a promotion as I thought I was being demoted for accidently locking the topics.
  This site has been a blessing to many and as time goes by to many more I'm sure.
  I have some more things to write re. Wounded Pilgrims, but I will be on the road again this week and as such I will have to continue the series.
   Cristina, It is always good to look for how God can bring positive things out of even evil situations like the Assembly, but as you mentioned the Assembly itself is still an evil system.  The false Pharisaical system was condemned harshly by our Lord as a nest of vipers.  In the mideast desert a traveller would find a quiet oasis to rest in, near water, and lay down their bedroll only to find later the "safe" looking place had vipers just under the sand (the prior illustration was borrowed from the Subtle Power Of Spiritual Abuse).  GG's Assembly was advertised as God's safe resting place and it turned out to be a nest of vipers!
   Jesus was wounded in the house of his "friends and brethren."  Christians have wounded me far deeper than any Worldlings have and of this Jesus, the first Wounded Pilgrim, understands and can comfort us in.
                                           God Bless,  Mark

Thank you. mark. i really appreciate your comment. And, you are absolutely right! We may be able to look back on our experience and see the goodness of God, but the assembly as a whole is, at best, a very unhealthy place to be, and His people need to be delivered! I'm so glad for this website...I personally know several people who have made the decision to leave their perspective lodges as a result of this website!!!!!

Coolness-I think I got a promotion too- "Overcomer in Training".  I feel so important now!  ;D

I believe the Assembly has gone from bad to worse over the last ten years.  I agree with Rachel when she said that dissolution is the only solution for the Assembly.  There are too many healthy churches out there.  

I am a dictionary user.  When I was a child and someone would say something and I asked what that meant, my mom would tell me to look in the dictionary.  The title of this post intrigued me.  The word "wounded" has 2 meanings:
1.) an injury involving a cutting or tearing of the flesh
2.) an injury or hurt to the feelings.

**I can see how after reading many posts on this web site that the pilgrims in the assembly are wounded in one or both ways.  Whether it be by beating your wife til she bleeds or bruises or worse...;or by putting severe bruises on a baby's or child's bottom for some "disobedience" ( of which in some saints eyes that was for every little thing)...; or by tearing apart the very thing that keeps people in a relationship....TRUST.  Or tearing down the very HOPE that God never wanted torn down which may lead a 15 year old to commit suicide in the assembly.  Is this what this ministry is all about?  These are the very things that are happening and worse.  Men who are not in leadership are having every ounce of pride stepped on and depleted so they don't even know who they are anymore.  They get pride then by beating their kids or being so hyper-strict that a child or person in any relationship with them cannot be themselves.  Wounds from that place are deep.  Some don't know how deep...and are functioning like a walking zombie moving and responding to the "royal " commands of the assembly tyrants who are leading ones to believe that the controlling and brain-washing teaching of george geftakys , and his drones is the "ONLY" way to follow God.  "OH THE SHAME OF IT ALL"................Judgement day is going to be very interesting for them.....leading God's people to ruin.
     The wounded Pilgrim does have a hope....WE have the Ultimate Physician...Jesus Christ!  For those of you that read this site and are still "IN"...you need to GET OUT OF THERE!  There is a Freedom In Christ...and its not George and his BOLOGNA!  There is a God -FIlled and God-leading life outside of that hole ( the assembly-lodge).  So if you have a room in the Lodge and you want to get out...you can!  Its not "HOTEL CALIFORNIA"..where you check in but you can't check out......God leads to , and out of places!  God can heal our wounds as pilgrims.  WE may never forget those things that gave us the wounds, or those people that inflicted them.....but God can renew our minds, heal our wounds and put us under HIS wing, and bring us to a place of true freedom and happiness.

    IF YOU ARE A WOUND RECIPIENT : YOU WOUNDS CAN HEAL THRU JESUS CHRIST!!!!

    IF YOU ARE A WOUND GIVER :" VENGENCE IS MINE SAYS THE LORD"

OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!!!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, AND IT IS NOT GEORGE GEFTAKYS, ROGER GRANT, MIKE ZACH, DANNY EDWARDS, TIM GEFTAKYS OR ANY OF THEM...LOOK UP, TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!

REMEMBER THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!!!

Why do such men exist in this world?  I'd rather not live in a world that has such evil.  Can life ever be the same after having seen how wicked men can be?
But...I guess we all have it coming as punishment for our sins.  It would have been much better if man hadn't disobeyed God and aquired that knowledge of good and evil.  But here we are in this cesspool of humanity.  Makes me wonder why would God ever want to come down into this sewer to live amoung us.

How does the song go?
Out of the ivory palaces, into a world of woe.
Only his great, eternal love made my savior go.

I guess we should focus on the good and not loose heart?

Sue, you said,
"but God can renew our minds, heal our wounds and put us under HIS wing, and bring us to a place of true freedom and happiness."

    IF YOU ARE A WOUND RECIPIENT : YOU WOUNDS CAN HEAL THRU JESUS CHRIST!!!!"

How do you get this and how long does it take?

"I guess we should focus on the good and not lose heart?"

OK, here's my biting comment:

We should focus of Christ.  Then both the good and bad will be seen in their proper place.  After all, the Bible has passages of horror, and wonder. He makes all things new.  He brings beauty from ashes.  What the enemy means for evil, He means for good.

I am so happy today!  God is too good!

editor

Arthur, Editor:

     I think that the Editor hit it on the head.  The Lord does make beauty from ashes.  But i think also that it takes time to be out of that place to see the healing that does need to take place.  It takes prayer.  It takes being in a healthy enviroment ( church)  to se that there are Christians out there who are real and not fakes and do grow without George's ministry and live for Christ.  There are Godly people out there that never heard of George.  Gee how did they do that?  God did it!  He gets the Glory!  Its not like we can plug all of our wounds into the selfer's prayer, or the wheel and line and it will come out ok......Formulas work for math but not for individuals who are all unique and different.  But a renewing of the mind takes place over time and the being in a healthy place with people who Love the Lord and love you!
     I remember what our pastor said to my husband when he went to meet with him and talk to him about his questions that he had.....my husband said I don't want to get involved with a  bunch of stuff etc.....and the pastor said " Garth, you don't need to get involved with a bunch of stuff now.....you just need to let us love you".  For my husband that was some healing words!  He did not have to perform to be loved.  He did not have to be involved to be loved.  He just had to be himself, unconditionally, and be loved.  It feels so good to be loved without having to "do" anything!  George's group is performance based!  You perform and kiss enough feet in there and you will either move on up the ladder or"be committed"!  Then you are a true Christian!  Otherwise you are on the fence and not committed and / or a rebel.!  They have a saying or label for everything there!
     Let God just love you Arthur!  And seek out a healthy place!  They are out there!

Hi Arthur,

I left the lodge a little over two months ago.  The first thing I did was go into lodge-mode and evaluate myself based on what I was doing for the Lord.  The pastor at Calvary Chapel said, "Eric, don't think about working for the Lord.  Your ministry is to find healing in your life and in your family's life.  Where ever you end up going to church, we will support your decision and we will pray for you.  You need to hear God's voice through ministry and if you have the strength to pray, then pray."

This blew away every PBA (Performance Based Acceptance) teaching I heard.  They even provided me the names of 4 unrelated churches that are bible based, if I wanted to check them out.  You would never get that in the assembly!

He went on to tell me, based on what he found out, it would take a good two years to sort the major things out.  I spoke to a man who came out of a similar lodge 5 years ago, and he said he's still has some sorting out to do, but the first 2 years were the worst.

I hope this helps.  I'm in the same boat.

Eric

Dear Friends,

I feel so messed up because of my Assembly experience.  I have been diagnosed with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), Major Depression, and I frequently have anxiety attacks and nightmares regarding my Assembly experience.  When will I be healed?  It's been two whole years, and I still feel angry and abused...any input?  I really need it!

Dear Eulaha

I wish you were out here, you could hang out with us. :)
Why don't you find a church with great worship, and just concentrate on The Lord? I know that you need more than that, but perhaps you could find someone out there who can help you.  There are other Chris Lawson's out there...Get out and look for them.  I wish I could do more, but we will all be praying for you.  Take heart, be of good cheer, Jesus loves you, and He will not quench a burning wick.

Brent

Dear Eulaha,
  I wish to qualify what I say here as I am not a psychologist.  I'm just a Christian truck driver who has been through similar experiences as you have.
  When does it get better? Healing takes time;  Easy to say if you're not in pain.  As someone else mentioned here we are all different and some take the wounding deeper than others.  If you are a sincere and  sensitive soul, who gave your all to the Assembly, the wounds can be very deep indeed.  We are emotional beings and can't run on just logic and conviction.  Why not?  It is essential to know the truth of the grace of God and to accurately apply these truths to my life, but that doesn't necessarily always make me feel better. When the soul is damaged it is important to know where the pain is coming from.  With some it is the performance aspect of the Assembly that hurts them.  While with others it was being used to meet the needs of the Leaders by being their door mat.  There are others, and it probably is a combination of many of them that works to confuse our inner life.
  I would recommend finding a Christian counselor to help you work through your feelings and help you find healing grace for them.  I am not qualified to do this work, but their is a doctor who specifically works with those who have come out of such groups as the Assembly.  This doctor himself, came our of a similar group and understands the problems clearly. He does so in a desire to build the wounded's faith in Christ.
           Dr. Paul Martin
           Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center
           P.O. Box 67
           Albany,  OH   45710
           614-698-6277

  I also would like to recommend a book:
    Healing Grace by David  A. Seamands
     Published by Victor Books

  I have personally talked with some who have been to the retreat above and found it very helpful. (If I had the money I would go myself)  There is nothing to be ashamed about getting help with these things. I believe it is especially important to get help from a counsellor who is a Christian and understands treating those who have been in cults.
                        Merry Christmas and God Bless,  Mark

Mark,

It's interesting that you mention Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center.  I went there in March for a 2-week visit, and I have met Dr. Martin!  It really helped me to clear up some issues concerning the Assembly.  I was not the first ex-Assembly member to go there-I was #4.

God is good and full of grace.  His arms are always open to me-hallelujah! :D

Hi John,
  I understand your caution re. "Christian" counselling as there can be a unhealthy mix of secular psychology with Biblical Christianity.  This is why I would advise finding a counsellor with an understanding of recovery from cults and who has exhibited a true commitment to the Word of God.
  My experience with finding help from typical Christian pastors and preachers is a total lack of understanding of how the Bible applies to those who have been damaged in groups like the Assembly.  I tried to talk with one pastor and he cautiously listened and then showed up at my house on a surprise visit and cross examined me re. my faith in Christ!  He assumed I had been involved in a cult and felt he needed to give me a tongue lashing to set me straight!  This was not helpful to my faith or my recovery and reminded me of the tact  Assembly leaders would have taken.
  It would take a very long post to present the arguments re. how psychological counselling methods can be helpful if it is done by a caring Christian.   I would suggest that some who have had counselling here give a testimonial, like Eulaha, as to how they were helped not only emotionally, but in their faith.  I would also suggest reading the book that I mentioned in my previous post as it goes into  practical examples of how Christian counselling can be helpful.  
  John, what kind of advice would you give from the Word of God re. someone whose personality had been controlled for 20 years and they were feeling so confused they didn't know if they could even trust their own ability to think through their faith?  Do you think that more Biblical instruction as to the correct way to think could be accepted by a person so injured?  Do you think that compassion and empathy needs to be included in sharing the Word of God, or does our responsibility end with giving instruction?
                                  God Bless,  Mark  

Mark,
Amen and Amen!

It took me years to work my way out of the Assembly, even after I knew that GG's ideas on prophecy and church polity were in error.  There is definitely an emotional side to cult inolvement.  In my opinion, it is stronger than the doctrinal side.  
I never went to a counsellor, but reading books by Christian psychologists was a big help to me.  One was "Inside Out" by Larry Crabb.  Another one, who's name doesn't come to mind, showed an illustration of the "Striving Christian" who works hard and is completely dovoted, hoping to win the approval and respect of others instead of resting in his true identity in Christ.  I showed it to my wife and asked her, "Have you ever seen anyone like this?"  She said, "You".
It was one of those "eye openers" a merciful God sends to lost sheep.
God bless,
Tom Maddux

John,

You don't even know Eulaha!  I do and she is my friend.  

You said that she needs to "Find a man who preaches God's word in a local church. Study the Scriptures under him."  In my opinion the last thing she needs is to find another low-down dirty scum ball in her local church that claims he knows the scriptures to study under.  A wolf in sheep's clothing bit her.  How could she trust another so called shepherd enough to go and learn from him while she is still hurting from the many attacks?  

Brent nailed it when he said to find a church with good worship - in worship there is no threat of getting bitten.

Eulaha, we love you and will support you in your healing process.

Hi Tom (Oscar?), Eulaha, John, and Others.
   That is very interesting Tom as I have felt that the term "mind control" is inadequate to describe our past subjection in the Assembly.  I have come to believe that a better term is emotional control.  I would like to share my opinion re. emotional control and see what others have to think about it. (I know you can be helpful in this discussion)
    Cognitive understanding of the Bible means that one has a mental grasp of the Scriptures.   Paul talked about having "bowels and mercies" toward one another; this refers to the emotional attitude we should express toward one another.  Sometimes even the healthy cognitive understanding of grace is not expressed in my attitude or actions toward others.  It has been shared already that knowledge without love is a clanging cymbal.  Obviously, there is fruit of the Spirit which has an emotional component, such as love, joy, peace. To deny the need to deal with our emotions as Chrisitians is to deny reality and face a lack of wholeness in my life.
    Can emotions be damaged and if so how can they be healed?  Often our culture presents the image of the macho man who has no weakness and who has great confidence in his ability to master all difficulties (as in Mr. T).  Grace is found by the humble and dependent soul who comes to Jesus.  The Gospels are filled with the examples of who Jesus met and who experienced his grace.  There were those who had the great sickness of sin in their lives and Jesus attempted to point it out by addressing their practices and attitudes.  Some of these, in Jesus counselling of them, eyes were opened to their needy condition and turned to God.  There were some who were angry and tried to turn the tables on Jesus and accuse him.  The above shows two emotional responses: one healthy and one not so.  We are not as logical as we think in our reactions to the Word of God and our reactions show what is really in our inner life.  The proud assertion of the pharisees to their claim of superior knowledge of scripture was shown for what it was by our Lord's constant reminder of their PRACTICE that he refered to as hypocrisy. (MT.23)
    This is all to say that healthy emotions are part of being whole in Christ and that this is God's intention for his children.  The pharisees were known for making their converts into "twice the sons of hell" that they were and as such this shows how they were able to control their converts and twist them into a unhealthy state.  This happens in cults as well and real damage is occasioned as a result.  
 This post is too long and so I will elaborate further later and look forward to comments from those interested.
                                           God Bless,  Mark

Heh, no problem there.  I was looking over her shoulder when she wrote the post.  "Vashti"--well at least it wasn't Jezebel.   :P
As for the low-down, etc.  Well, what would you call someone like George?  

Leaving the Assembly was very hard on me.  I lost my identity, because my identity was wrapped up the Assembly- official taper, bathroom cleaner, the only single sister who showed up early to set up chairs, Bible club party organizer...When I made the decision to leave, it was like leaving a job the you've had for years and years.  What am I to do now?  I'm still very confused and am deeply hurting.

I tried "going to church" for a couple of months after I left the lodge, but I was not ready for it just yet.  I needed time to heal.

There are so many things I need answers to, but I don't know where to find them, such as, "Why am I alive?  What is my purpose in life?"  I just turned 29, and I have so little direction for my life! :(

I'm thankful that the BB is here so I can talk to you all and get encouraged.

Eulaha, I hope that I don't lose my reputation as an "unloving" guy but here goes...

Your post struck a chord with me.  I thought that I would give you some of my history that may perhaps comfort you:

I was saved at age 26.  My fellowship was a Brethren Church in Omaha, NE.  I was single and very interested in learning the Scriptures.  My desire was to marry some day in the Lord's timing.  The desire to marry may not be your issue, but I assume that it is wrapped up in there somewhere.  After about five years of learning the Word, I started to teach.   Although it was very fulfilling to teach the Scriptures to other young men, I still struggled with "my purpose of life."  

1Cor. 7 speaks of "undistracted devotion to the Lord" for the single brother and sister, but that was of little comfort to me as I approached my mid-30's.  Matt. 19:12 states, "...and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of the heavens sake.  He who is able to accept it, let him accept it. "

Well, I wasn't able to accept it.  I still wanted a wife and children.  Around this time I left my assembly because of reasons of conscience due to unjudged sins among the leadership.  I was slandered and called a quitter, etc, and many of my Christian contacts faded away including some of my best friends.  (As I am writing this my 5 year old son is throwing up - so it has a happy ending)

I started to attend an even smaller church with no prospects of marriage in site.  I enjoyed the fellowship very much, but something was still missing.  I was becoming more and more acquainted with a man named Roger Diercks.  He lived in a different city, but I would see him and talk with him a few times per month.  Roger had a wife and four children, which I thought was an excellent example of a Christian family.

Roger died in a plane crash in January of 1994.  After Roger's death I became more acquainted with his wife, Maureen, and his four children.  My interest in Maureen and the children developed very quickly, but I did not dare show it or tell anyone about it, especially Maureen.  One morning I prayed that the Lord would take away my desire for Maureen if it wasn't meant to be or show me that it was His will.  That same day I travelled to Columbus, NE, to watch my father's baseball team play in a tournament.  I stopped by Maureen's house that evening.  That same night she told me that I shouldn't come around anymore.  I thought, "Oh no, she knows that I am interested and she is insulted by it (being a grieving widow)."  She then went on to say that I should not come around anymore because she was attracted to me and I would have to deal with the burden of four children.  I told her that her disclosure was an answer to prayer and that I felt the same way about her.  Also, I told her that the children were not a burden but part of the package deal (I am paraphrasing here).  We were married two months later in Nairobi, Kenya.  

Thus, I was married at the ripe old age of 37, and no U.S. insurance salesmen or encyclopedia salesmen know we're married.  So we have that going for us.

Eulaha,

I don't know what the Lord has for you, but just to say, "Don't compromise here."  The Lord does know what you need.  Just trust Him for that and wait on Him.

Regards,

MM

Hi Eulaha.  

Your message about feeling like your identity was gone is just all too common.  We forget that our identity is in Christ, b/c we got so wrapped up in the non-stop activity, and for many, the controlling and abusive environment.  It was very weird for me as well my first 2-3 months of "going to church".  I settled on a new place of fellowship within 1 month, and many things just felt wrong.  However, God never left us when we left the Assembly, despite what several may have thought.  In fact, knowing that you are going where God is leading you (in my case, all I knew was OUT), I had a great sense of peace (not like going to Wendy's peace), despite feeling strange about alot of things.

Step out in faith, and be in prayer as you look for places.  God will lead you - He does want us to be involved with His people, and He does exist in other places, despite what you might have been told as you left.  It can get worse before it gets better, but God is faithful, and will take care of His sheep.  Once you start forming new relationships, much of that "weirdness" will go away.

Take care..

Dear Eulaha

I really agree with Mark's post.  You have had enough time to realize that something is missing.  The Lord promises to fill you, and make you whole.  Perhaps is is time to step out in faith and seek healthy Christian fellowhsip?  by this I mean a place where the Word is faithfully taught, where people have liberty, (redundant with regard to the first point) and where the saints have a desire to worship.  More important, The Lord must be there!

I know there are churches like this near you.  Why not go out and find them?  This can be your purpose in life, at least for the next few months until you find a place of fellowship.  Then, as you are ministered to, you will find that the other problems shape up.

Brent

Brethren

(Wow, that almost sounds like "Assembly-speak"!)

I am thankful for all the encouragements I have received from you all.  Please -pray for me, that I would walk with the Lord, and that I would find a place of fellowship.  This would be greatly appreciated.  I am praying for you all too! ;)

To all who may feel wounded, betrayed, lied to, and mistreated:

I have been reading a Tony Evans book called God is Up to Something Great.  I want to quote the beginning of chapter 3, entitled "What's Not Fair?".  Brother Evans is referring to Joseph's unfair indictment and imprisonment:

"We ended the last chapter with Joseph in a situation that was totally unfair.  When you think about it, though, Joseph's situation probably isn't that unusual.  Anybody else been lied to?  Cheated out of something?  Talked about behind your back?  If you have---and everyone has---then you know what joseph was going through.

But you know what?  Exactly as you might expect, while Joseph was in prison, the Lord was still with him......"

That is exactly what Genesis 39 says:

21  But the LORD was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison.
22  And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph’s hand all the prisoners that were in the prison; and whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it.
23  The keeper of the prison looked not to any thing that was under his hand; because the LORD was with him, and that which he did, the LORD made it to prosper.

Everyone needs to remember that though life is unfair, God can more than compensate.  His presence, faithfullness, and mercy are greater than all the abuses and disappointments.  Remember Eph 1:6, that you are accepted in Christ.  Hebrews 13, God will never leave you.  I know when I left 3 years ago, I had a haunting feeling for soooo long that I was in trouble with God for "leaving fellowship".  I knew in my mind that I was right, but there were these darts that kept flying my way.  Don't entertain those thoughts even for a moment.  Break down those strongholds and trust your GOOD HEAVENLY FATHER!  God is greater than all, and God was around before there ever was an assembly.  Men will let you down, but God (Love) never fails.  

twila paris - beyond a dream

god is in control


this is no time for fear
this is a time for faith and determination
don't lose the vision here
carried away by the motion
hold on to all that you hide in your heart
there is one thing that has always been true
it holds the world together

(chorus):
God is in control
we believe that His children will not be forsaken
God is in control
we will choose to remember and never be shaken
There is no power above or beside Him
we know, ohh, God is in control

history marches on
there is a bottom line drawn across the ages
culture can make its plan
oh but the line never changes
no matter how the deception may fly
there is one thing that has always been true
it will be true forever

(chorus)

He has never let you down
why start to worry now
why start to worry now
He is still the Lord of all we see
and He is stilll the loving Father
watching over you and me
....
watching over everything
....
watching over you
watching over me
every little sparrow,
         every little king
ohh, every little king

(chorus)

Rudy,

"every little sparrow"

PTL!

Garth buddy!
 
You are encouraging people!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D

Doesn't it feel great!

Yes Kimberley,

It always does feel good to encourage others.  I really hate to be misunderstood.  If I had any common sense, I would probably stay away from this BB and go on with my life.  But strange as it may seem to some (those who really don't know me) I do care for God's people.  

In Christ,
Garth

Garth, I KNOW you do!  That's why I am glad you are letting others see it! :D :D

Like we've discussed, there is a process one goes through upon "leaving" the assembly (to varying degrees): euphoria (we are FREE AT LAST-FREEBIRD), anger and grief (I'm sure there are more-anyone else feel free to post more.)  I believe each stage is valid, but we must move THROUGH them.  We shouldn't be staying in one stage too long.  That's why I love this BB.  It is a place of refuge (for the most part) for those of us who have been through a similar situation and we can help one another through the different stages.

Isn't it great to be involved in so many dear brothers and sisters lives, not to mention making new friends? :D

KimberlEy,

Thanks.  You are a good friend.  I can even spell your name correctly!! :)

Garth & Kimberley,
You are both, IMHO, right on the mark, and at such a time as this.  I believe, after the character of George was made clear to everyone (well, almost everyone), that many need to just hear the plain encouragement of Christ and see that He is greater than anyone's failure.  How blest we are to have such a Savior.  I can see that He's changing all of us (tho' I for one, have a long way to go).

The love of God is greater far
than tongue or pen can ever tell,
...

Jesusfreak:  Your first point is a good one.  Your second point is good as well, we especially need for men and women who are left fellowshipping in various localities to pray that the Lord's will would be revealed to them.  

Now for my concern.  These same men and women have followed after a wicked man for numerous years, many for decades.  His teaching has proven to be cultish and heretical.  These men and women two weeks ago would have told you they KNEW it was God's will that they follow after this same man.  My concern is that if localities do not follow after the example of SLO and seek pastoral counseling, they could simply reproduce a similar system, which will continue to produce the bad fruit it has been producing for years.  So, do I disapprove of believers meeting in a house "under the auspices of praise and worhsip to Christ?"   NO!  Just that these believers would get help so as not to reproduce the same thing just with a new "George."

Excellent article-- Thanks, Marcia!

Here are a couple of excerpted statements that stood out to me:


Please check out the whole article at the link Marcia posted.  It should really get us to think, and pray...

al (of "et al" ;))

I must confess I have had a tendency to very strong agreement with you on this Marc. I heard a message by Erwin Lutzer in which he made a good case that we should not wait for clear repentance from others who have wronged us before we forgive.
Our pastor, this past weekend in talking about God´s dealing with the nation of Israel in the book of Deuternomy stated that ¨forgiveness is conditional.
It does seem to be that both men in a sense are correct, but it depends on one´s perspective.
Clearly no one can be forgiven for their sin apart from a confession of faith in Jesus Christ.
In that sense God´s forgiveness is unquestionably conditonal.
Scripture also seems to support the idea that we should be ready to forgive men their trespasses, but it is less clear what if any conditions apply...
We know in the case of brethren, at least one place in Scripture it says  if he repents... that appears conditional to me...
Some folk appear to be of the opinion tha trespasses ought not to be rebuked...

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. Luke 17 13
Verne

While meditating upon what seemed to be an entirely different consideration, I was graciously reminded of an important omission from the above discussion:

Since our Lord knows how much I enjoy experiencing a "confirming" sensation of His presence and approval, why would He not give me that all the time, thus alleviating any doubts I might harbor?  The answer cannot be that I am not deserving, because I was not deserving of redemption in the first place, and He did not withhold that from me...

It is because we walk by faith.  That we walk indicates activity (whereas "we live" could be interpreted as a passive, let whatever happens happen concept of Christianity).  If I were to base the activities of my life upon my sensing God's presence and direction, I would be walking by sense ("sight"), and I would have no need of faith.  Or, to consider from another perspective, my "faith" would be in my feelings, and I would have no need of the Word of God!!!

That the sons of God are led by the Spirit of God is established (Rom.8:14), but what a travesty it would be to think that the Holy Spirit leads by our emotions.  One of my favorite commentaries on the unreliability of our feelings is in Dickens' words, as Scrooge explains to Jacob Marley's ghost that he might be nothing more than a product of Scrooge's indigestion of supper.

Our emotions are genuine qualities, but unreliable at best, being more likely to mislead than to lead us. The Spirit of God always leads us according to the Word of God, and needs no assist from our unspiritual faculties.  There may be times when our understanding of the Bible seems to fail us, but God's Word never fails its Author, and HE never fails us.

In Christ,
al

Thanks, Verne, I needed that (see Marcia's penguins ;D)!

In attempting to address specific distinctions, I affected ultra-simplicity to an extreme.  You are absolutely correct in that we are, as redemption's result, able to set our affections on things above.  All things are become new, but not all things are yet made manifest.  Perhaps you'd favor us by elucidating...

Gratefully,
al

One of the things I have struggled with in life is my temper.
As if that were any surpise to those on the BB.
I know myself to be a man of passion, and sadly, not always to the accomplishment of God's purpose.
After I got married, the Lord began to deal with me quite sternly. I one day got upset with my wife over some  trivial matter and so was sulking while she tried to get the table ready for dinner guests rather than helping her move a heavy oak leaf.
Well, she dropped it a gouged quite a bit of the smooth finish.
I still remember opening my mouth to say God only knows what to her...
Has God ever spoken to you?
He spoke to me that afternoon.
He said with the greatest of clarity.

NOT ONE WORD!

My wife looked at me in amazement as I opened and just as quickly shut my mouth and proceeded to help her with the table.

I know I still can fly off the handle sometimes.
I am nothing today like the kind of man I used to be.
God can and does change hearts for He has greatly changed mine.
I could also tell you stories about how He has used my two precious daughters to teach me about gentleness of spirit.
Still a work in progress as you no doubt can tell... :)

Verne,

Sorry Mate-- I was looking to you for some Bible teaching on the subject.  But I didn't specify, and I believe the Holy Spirit led: Thanks for a wonderful testimony!


Aren't we all, Brother!  Aren't we all?

In Christ's love,
al

There is a sense in which the truth of the gospel in our lives moves from the propositional to the personal, the Word becoming flesh as it were.
What good is it for us to agree with God's command"

Be holy, for I am holy

and yet remain essentially unchanged in the matter of our affections? The only basis we really have for proclaiming a life-changing gospel to others is that in fact God has made a difference in our lives.
I fully understand the objective truth of the message of faith, but I dare say that more men and women have been greatly impacted for the kingdom of God by looking at how we live, than by listening to what we say.
In fact I will go a step further and contend that the message looses all power and impetus, unless energized by a life of true holiness. I know some will strongly disagree but that in part explains what is happening in churches in America today.


 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Romans 8:10-13

quote from page 74 The Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning

The saved sinner is prostrate in adoration, lost in wonder and praise.  He knows repentance is not what we do in order to earn forgiveness; it is what we do because we have been forgiven.  It serves as an expression of gratitude rather than an effort to earn forgiveness.  Thus the sequence of forgiveness and then repentance, rather than repentance and then forgiveness, is crucial for understanding the gospel of grace.

Marcia

The Biblical order seems to be that faith comes first, then forgiveness.

Luke 7:40-42,47-48,50
And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee.  And he saith, Master, say on.  There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.  And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both.  Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? ...  Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.  And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. ...  And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

It was by faith that the woman expressed her love because she knew that Jesus would forgive her.

I think that part of the debate about forgiveness has to do with a difference between the Biblical meaning of the word "forgive" and the way the word is often used in our time.  The modern concept seems to be more about letting go of anger rather than restoring a relationship.  Restoring a relationship must involve the cooperation of both parties.  The Bible is in agreement that letting go of anger should be done quickly.

Ephesians 4:26-27
Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: neither give place to the devil.

We may often run into the problem caused by our linear way of thinking, bound as it is by our perceptions' being conformed to the parameters imposed by time.


I think of the arguments my kids used to have in their school days:
     "I'm 10 times smarter (or faster, or better looking, or...?) than you!"
     "Well I'm 20 times smarter than you!"
     "Oh, yeah?  Well, I'm 100 times..." and the numbers would continue to mount exponentially until someone shouted "I'm infinity times..."
     The pause was only momentary, however, until the other would come back with "I'm infinity x ten..." and on it would go.

We just can't conceive of the magnitude of our God; of the limitless dimension of infinity.  We satisfy ourselves with a three-dimensional mobeus strip, which we symbolize by a two-dimensional reclining figure-eight, and claim to grasp infinity, but we fail utterly to understand the unbounded Mind of the Spirit of Him Who spoke the worlds into existence.  We attempt to define His thoughts and doings in terms that have parameters we can visualize; linear "orders."

There is no finite language to express what has, of necessity, been explained (for the present) to us as God's having known the end from the beginning.  If we have to have a chain of cause and effect, it will be something like God's sovereignty enables God's grace to grant man's faith to open up to Christ's forgiveness to bring about salvation.  But in the realm of the infinite Lord of the universe, all these things exist simultaneously.

In terms of man's comprehension, Jesus had to be born, mature, minister, die, and rise again by a schedule, but in God's terms He is "The Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world."

Men will fret themselves over which came first, the chicken or the egg?  But any child knows the answer: God made the chicken...

So it is with grace and faith:  God is in charge.  Our comprehension of exactly how He performs the unseen (or in what "order") is utterly nonessential to the process.  This doesn't mean we may not speculate, based on the information He avails to us-- just that the value of our conclusions is limited.  Despite our best efforts, we still see through a glass darkly...

al

quote from page 74 The Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning

The saved sinner is prostrate in adoration, lost in wonder and praise.  He knows repentance is not what we do in order to earn forgiveness; it is what we do because we have been forgiven.  It serves as an expression of gratitude rather than an effort to earn forgiveness.  Thus the sequence of forgiveness and then repentance, rather than repentance and then forgiveness, is crucial for understanding the gospel of grace.

Marcia


 Thanks Marcia for the above quote!

   I understand what Mr. Manning is saying, but I think he is basing his conclusion on a misunderstanding of the biblical meaning of the word "repentance."

  The modern English usage of the word repentance means changing our actual behavior through the strength of our own wills.  In this sense of the word he is absolutely correct that change will only come after forgiveness.

  When I talk of "repentance" I am referring to the Biblical meaning of the word that literally means "a changing of one's mind."  

   Peter, in Acts 2 ,tells the Jews that they must---- "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

   There are conditions for forgiveness, according to Peter here, and some people (like Church of Christ folks) see a merit salvation scheme in it.

    I believe they miss the point of what Peter is saying here re. repentance, as did Mr Manning in his quote, and that is that Peter is asking the Jews to think differently about this Jesus "whom they crucified."

 In other words:  change your thinking that sees Jesus as a heretic and a liar and accept a different view that he is indeed the Messiah and the Son of God!

  Baptism was needed, not to earn God's forgiveness, but to demonstrate to the world one's sincerity.  Likewise, a hidden change of mind from a former Assembly leader (though God knows the heart) will not heal a broken relationship between a wronged former member and a leader.

   What is Mt.18:15- all about?  This is a process to bring healing to a relationship that includes a change in attitude by the one doing the offending before there can be reconciliation (which must include forgiveness).

   The process in this passage involves three steps, that we are all familiar with, but which show us clearly that there can be no forgiveness for the offender if he is unwilling to:

    1.) "Hear" the complaint of the offended party alone.

    2.)  Bring in a second party to help mediate, if still not resolved.

    3.) Tell the whole church the situation in an attempt to get the offender to listen, admit his wrong, and change his attitude (repentance) toward the offended member(as a last resort).

   If the above offender refuses to receive entreaty after all of this Jesus does not recommend that the wronged person just, "forgive and forget," rather, the offended is to change their own attitude toward the offender (repent) and treat him like an unsaved individual.

  For former/present Assembly leader/members who have wronged us there must be a demonstrated willingness to follow the above guideliness Jesus has given us in Mt. 18 or we have no obligation to forgive and forget the wrongs they have perpetrated upon us; on the contrary, we are advised to consider them as estranged from Jesus himself and one that Jesus is against as well.

   This does not mean we can't pray that God would bring the offender to repentance, or that we need to hold on to bitterness in our heart toward them.   However, forgiveness and forgetting is not what Jesus is telling us to do here.

  Re. bitterness:  It is easy for me to tell folks not to "hold on to bitterness" but another thing to actually have some success with this negative emotion.  Following  Jesus direction in Mt. 18 re. the process of reconciliation will do more to free one's heart from bitterness than our attempts to "transcend the hurt" via the unbiblical means of "forgiving and forgetting."

   Jesus words allow for a process that includes face to face encounter, vs. some kind of idealistic escapism via some kind of denial of the facts of how one was wronged.  Forgiveness is always connected with moral clarity and even if the offender refuses to be entreated we can realize that justice will be accomplished by God on the offender.

  When I know that I am right, vs. feeling guilty about my negative feelings toward the offender, there is a sense of relief that goes a long way toward helping me to get beyond any bitterness, and/or grudge I may be holding.  Repressing anger and attempting to forget my abuse does not cure the problem---- on the contrary, it only makes the matter worse.

  Jesus, Paul, etc. used very harsh language, at times, against those they considered to be offensive to God's children (in teaching and practices) and I would expect some of those telling us to "forgive and forget" would want to correct them for doing this (if they could).

   The Assembly attempted to rob us of the legitimate use of our emotions that declared outrage against wrongs.  We were told that this is "un-spiritual" and that we must shove down our passions (crucify the flesh) and be passive in our trust that "God will vindicate us if we are right".

   It is no wonder that when out of the group and being released from the pseudo "spiritual" denial of our passions that one might explode in anger against those that controlled and abused us.

  The fact is that Jesus is mad at unrepentant abusers too!  "Aren't we all just sinners Mark?"  Yes, but some of us can admit that, while others continue to deny their culpability re. their behavior while in the Assembly.  It is not the sin that is the issue for forgiveness, but the willingness to actually own up to that sin and seek reconiliation with the one you've wronged.

                                            God Bless,  Mark C.

     



   

Good Sunday Morn.  :) !!

 Recovery Cont.

  I've been making the point that recovery from groups like the Assembly is not just some kind of cognitive process of un-learning bad teaching and a re-education in the truth of the grace of God.

   This is true because reason is only a part of what goes into our spiritual life.  Our decisions re. what we believe about God are a mix of different aspects of our consciousness.

   It is usually some kind of felt need that awakens us to seek after God, not Spock like powers of reason.

   The kind of damage done in the Assembly to many individuals is at the level of this emotional connection that we want to feel with God.  

    It usually is not helpful to many exmembers to just tell them that it is wrong to relate to God on the basis of feelings and instead learn to live their Christian lives by "total reliance on the propositional truth found in the Bible."

   The reason this is not helpful is because they have never based their Christian life via a detachment from any emotional context, and do not "think" apart from how things feel.

  When I hear folks saying, "don't walk by your feelings." I wonder exactly what they mean by it.   When I read a vs. about the love of God am I supposed to just enter it into the computer of my brain and try to analyze the information without any emotional response?

  "No Mark", some would respond, "you don't shut off emotion, rather allow your mental grasp of a principle to lead, rather than follow your emotions."

   Very good advice for them's ( ;)) that can do this, but for those that lived for decades via a pseudo spiritual means of living their lives their whole soul has been shattered and they just can't seem to grasp this! :'(

  Consider a single sister who was in the Assembly for close to thirty years and now, though she is solid in her faith in Christ, feels totally empty in her present life.  It is not because she doesn't know that God loves her, but she is unable to recover any passion, or sense of truly being involved with God.

   She has received all the very good advice re. the facts of living a gift based life in Christ, and digested this info., but still feels like she is totally alone.  

   Should we tell her she doesn't have enough faith?  Advise her to "get over it" and "get on with her life"?  Maybe tell her to "not walk by her feelings" and thus learn to live a more rational kind of Christian life?  How about really messing with her mind by suggesting she is having these emotional problems because she is holding on to bitterness and needs to learn to "forgive and forget"!! :'( :'(

   My bet is that such advice will not only not lift up this fallen sister it might just permanently disable her!!  It's not that the advice is not well intentioned, or even in some cases not correct, but that it does not address the need.

   When this sister was in the group her feelings were alive with the passionate belief that God was present in her life via her involvement in the ministry.  She was plugged into The very purpose of God and her contribution was very valuable--- not only to the Assembly, but in advancing the "Eternal Purpose of God"!  Oh what a feeling!!

    Now?  she discovers that she was deceived into following a charlatan who used her to meet his own selfish sinful desires.  All these feelings from the past she now recongnizes as being false sensations of God's presence.

  Since the bible was used to maintain this fraudulent control of her life she doesn't trust herself in the correct application of it's truth and harbors great doubt re. her own ability to discern what is spiritual and what is not. And anyway, this sister never really cared much about "theological discussions," as she followed GG's guide to a "higher spirituality" that involved direct contact with God via her devotional life.

  This single sister also will not have the benefit of a spouse to help her adjust.  She was married to the Assembly, and gave up marriage and family to dedicate her life "to serve Christ."

  I know everyone is different, and as such, some will have more difficulty with this than others, but it is my contention that all former members will have some emotional issues that trouble them in living the Christian life.

  It is also my belief that God wants to restore a passion to our faith.  We're told that "the love of God is poured into our hearts by the Spirit that is given to us" and this seems to point to an actual experience vs. just mental trust in the fact. (in a later post I will give my opinion on this)  

  Like the Eph. 3 passage that talks about "inner strength" and "power" in our hearts.  Philp.2 talks about experiencing "the comfort of the Spirit" in our inner life.

  All these passages base this strength on "knowing the love of God" and this phrase,"the love of God" needs to be known in a way that really touches our day to day experience.  A rational theological conviction that is divorced from my feelings is not true spirituality, and lacks the quality of humaness that is necessary to live a fulfilled Christian life.  

  Yes, there can be dangers here that must be avoided, but life is filled with dangers, and the greater danger is that we leave people like this sister hanging on for dear life in a sea of doubt, confusion. depression, anxiety, etc.

  I've already mentioned that part of experiencing God's love is to learn to dream again--- vs. our Assembly nightmares.  An expectation that bouy's us up in the hope that God truly has a plan for my life that is of great value to him.  When Paul said,"we are saved by hope" what did he mean?  I think it means the value of the life we live here and now is rescued to achieve a special God designed goal! :)

  Love that is a kind of general love where, "God loves everyone and sent Jesus to die for the whole world", though true, becomes a distant theological concept that never seems to reach where I live somehow.  

   God's love for me means that he is personally involved in my life in a way that he is not involved in anyone else's life.  That he considers my life of great value to him (not just my eternal soul, but my actual day to day experiences).

   Jesus valued:  A prostitute who came to cry at his feet and to wash his feet in her tears, a disciple who was always putting his foot in his mouth and who denied Christ to a young girl, a crooked tax collector, a disciple who could not believe in the ress. of Jesus without physical proof, little children whom the disciples tried to prevent coming to him, broken reeds and burning flax, the poor in spirit, the meek of the earth, his little one's abused by pharisees, a pharisee who snuck out under the cover of darkness to meet with Jesus, etc.

   All these various gospel stories are presented so that we might be encouraged to believe that God has a very strong personal commitment to who we are; to the particular personality that we bear in all it's human characterics!  

   In the Assembly we were taught to be spiritual God wanted to obliterate our humanity via putting ourselves to death, but just the opposite is true.  God wants to save our humanity (our soul-- who we are) in this life in a way that fills our hearts with a strong passionate belief in God's personal care, friendship, shared purpose, etc. in us.

  God's love for us means that he values each individual in a special way, and that those who believe that end up bearing the likeness of that lover in their life.  This knowledge of his love must be experienced in the trenches of who I actually am (much more to be said about this).

                                       God bless,  Mark C.  

Thank you Mark and Stephen.  That helped to clarify the biblical teaching on forgiveness.

I liked the connection you made between repent (change your thinking) and be baptized (demonstrate) for the forgiveness of sins.  and all the rest too. :)

God bless,
Marcia

Good Sunday Morn. !

  Recovery cont.

  I have been talking about helping a former Assembly member "recover" in their Christian life.  This recovery will not only involve learning correct theology, but an ability to relate to God via one's "inner life."

  I think that I have made the point that the Bible teaches the need for "inner strength" and that Eph.3 seems to indicate that this comes from knowing God's love in more than a theoretical fashion.

  In a previous post I presented a hypothetical example of a single sister who was in the Assembly, and for whom post Assembly life was very difficult emotionally.  She understood that the Assembly merit theology was in error, and that she now relates to God on a gift basis, but still "feels" empty, living a life without purpose, but mostly suffers from a lack of passion in her life with Christ.

  It is the inner life that this sister is struggling with, and for which she needs to find recovery.  Though her thinking has been corrected in the area of theory, her actual life is pained with a great reluctance to:  read the bible, pray, meet with other Christians; because these practices trigger emotional memories.

   These "memories" were created via decades of habit and this is why her powers of reason/strength of will are not enough to subdue them; they are overwhelming in the control that they exert on the soul.

  "Well then," some may question, "cannot the Spirit of God just fill the heart of this needy soul and give healing to her soul?  If the recovery needed is to experience God's love, why can't the simple cry from the heart be answered with an inner surge of spiritual life?"

   Of course God can (and does) accomplish miracles in our life where we experience such a flood of feelings like this, but I don't think this is what Eph. 3 is talking about.  Some forms of teaching on "spirituality" teach what sounds more like demon possession, then what the Bible instructs us concerning being filled with the Spirit should be.

  In other words, true spirituality involves the conscious involvement of our personality---- not the submergence/transcendence of it via some kind of overcoming power from God.

  This is why, though we spent decades reading the bible, praying, attending meetings, putting to death our personality, climbing heavenly ladders, attaining heavenly vision etc., while in the Assembly, we still walked away with the same basic inner needs that we came to the group with (but usually these inner weaknesses were not only not helped they were made worse in the Assembly).

  Eastern mystical religions teach the "transcendence" of self, and also the "losing" of self via certain disciplines, but Christian truth dwells in the realm of reality, and this will mean that inner strength will not come from simply an "inner surge of emotional strength" that "makes" us experience new life in Christ.

  We've talked about living life based on "highs" before, and we can probably all remember the feeling at the end of a seminar of scaling heaven's highest only to crash down the following week as we faced the "real world" of our day.  Our lives were spent in trying to regain the feelings attained at the high in the attempt to "overcome" in our Christian experience.

  As Christians we are told that "love, joy, peace, etc." are all "fruits of the Holy Spirit" in our lives.  If they are "gifts", vs. something to be earned-- via personal performance, how come in my life I am not experiencing them?

  Do I not have enough faith to actualize them in my life?  Is it because of sin that I allow in my life, and thus the Holy Spirit is fleeing from me like a frightened dove?  Is it because I am holding on to "bitterness and unforgiveness" in my heart?  Or possibly, I'm just spiritually defective (lack the proper spiritual genetics)!!

  The above paragraph of possible reasons for a lack of spiritual life are all a result of our past pseudo spiritual existence.  They put the emphasis on my condition and abilities, vs. God's redemptive power.

   This still leaves us with the question, however, of how do we experience God's love, joy, peace etc. in our lives?  

  Bumper sticker mottos such as:

  "Let go and let God"

   "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"

   "Jesus is my best friend"

  While abundantly true and blessed, can't just be learned and recited by themselves, as we must also connect these phrases with who we are.  This is why just learning the correct Biblical teaching on "experiencing true joy and peace in our Christian life" will not by itself lead to the desired goal of inner strength.

  It will take some more posts to explain what I mean by "connecting" who we are to spiritual truth to gain the positive end for which we seek.  I am not talking about the need for some kind of Christian version of psycho therapy, rather the understanding that it is impossible to be "spiritual" without acknowledging our humanity, being honest re. our own experience, and changing our view of what it means that God loves me.

                                            God Bless,  Mark C.
 

   

   

Let me see if I can take a stab at what I think you are saying.  (Or my interpretation as it relates to me).

When I was in the Assembly, I was in a bit of a quagmire of feelings and emotions.  In some ways, I felt I was trying to climb out of a container with greased walls.  Every time, I thought I had a hold on something, my grip would slide.  Example:  "I really don't think the way George interpretes that Scripture is correct . . . or am I just unwilling to submit to what God is trying to say to me?"

Finally, I got to a place where I was willing to trust my reason over my feelings.  Hey, the way those Scriptures are handled is wrong.  Hey, this kind of behavior should not be tolerated.  Hey, many of the assumptions we made were incorrect.  etc.

Because this "mental hold" helped me dig out of the quagmire, I naturally assumed that the complete solution lies in a theological solution - that which can be reasoned and discussed.  I began to distrust the inner life because that is what kept me in the quagmire.

What I hear you saying is that even though right reason, theology, and thinking is important, it isn't the whole story.

First, we have to deal with past emotional baggage.  We were trainind to respond to circumstances, conditions, and certain words with certain emotional responses.  For example, even now when I open the Bible, something within wants to feel a certain way - it seeks the "God is speaking to me now" feeling.  I rarely get this feeling though I still anticipate it.  This was cultivated through many seminars and quiet times where I was taught that I must approach the Bible with expectency in order to receive its mystical direction.

Second, there is a legitimate "inner life".  There is a genuine response that Christians are to have where we react to situations without thinking about it.  For example, if we see someone injured on the side of the road, we don't say,  "Hmmm, let's see now, let me think about the doctrine of the Good Samaritan.  What was Jesus saying here?  Oh I get it, I need to love my neighbor.  Let me jot down three points of how this applies here."

Instead, we immediately pull over the car, jump out and see if there is a way we can help.  So in many other instances, there is a proper "inner life" response that should be rooted in good doctrine, but doesn't necessarily result from doctrinal reasoning.

I may be off on what you are saying, but this is the best I can do in the time I have.

Here is an interesting quote that I believe is related to your post Dave.  I extracted this from a sermon preached yesterday to be posted later today:
www.kbc.on.ca/worship.asp?subject=sermons (http://www.kbc.on.ca/worship.asp?subject=sermons)
Feb 13 2005  Being Fully Converted - Jonathan Mills

Dallas Willard, a Pastor and professor of Philosophy writes that there is, sadly, too little emphasis in Western Christianity on the kind of ongoing discipleship that is transformative. Instead, he says that we spend too much time defining orthodoxy (‘believing the right things’) and trying our best to make good decisions based on our understanding of the faith.

For example, the “What Would Jesus Do?” movement which came out of a popular fictional novel entitled “In His Steps.” In the book, the Pastor of a church decided that his lifestyle was not consistent with Christ – so he decided to approach every decision with the question: ‘what would Jesus do in this case?’ (Willard, Dallas The Spirit of the Disciplines. (New York: Harper San Francisco. 1991). pp. 8-9 (cf. Chapter 1. pp. 1-10))

Dallas Willard responds to this by writing; “...the idea conveyed is an absolutely fatal one–that to follow him [Jesus] simply means to try to behave as he did when he was “on the spot,” under pressure or persecution or in the spotlight. There is no realization that what he did in such cases was, in a large and essential measure, the natural outflow of the life he lived when not on the spot.” (Willard, Dallas The Spirit of the Disciplines. (New York: Harper San Francisco. 1991). p. 9)

Marcia

Marcia,

For me, the problem with the WWJD? movement was that I frequently didn't know.  In many situations, the answer was , "Beats me".

Regarding Dallas Willard's comments.  He is not the only one who sees the problem.  In fact, Biola offers an MA program in spiritual development.

I have a friend who is a long time faculty member, has served as Dean of Men and such, as well as teaching for over 30 years.  He has a PhD. in his field, but he is now a student as well.

He is actively pursuing his desire to know God by taking classes in that program.  I am reading a book he recommended to me that was one of his texts.

I have spoken to some other students in the program and they speak highly of it.

Thomas Maddux

Hi Everyone!  :)

  Gone for a week and look what happens to the BB!  Ol' folks like me don't like new fangled things, but I guess I'll have to try and adjust  ;),

   Dave:  Your "taking a stab" at an answer to my posts on this thread tells me that you are having some difficulty understanding the point that I am trying to make.  I invite you, and everyone else who reads, to come right out and tell me if they are confused re. what I am trying to say.

   Part of the problem in my communication is that I expect that readers are following my continuing series styled format.  I also suspect that I need help in being clear and concise in the things that I write.  I wrote for months on the BB before someone spoke up by suggesting that I write in small paragraphs, vs. long one's.

  Re. your response:  You talked about the battle between reason and emotion that led to you finally leaving the Assembly.  Your situation is quite different from the one I presented in my post of the single sister who stayed until the place fell down around her.

  I don't mean to suggest that what I am saying about recovery is a one-size-fits-all type of answer.  You at least had the battle between reason and emotion going on, while the 3 decade middled age single sister connected to spiritual things by inner impulse alone.

  I know of many former members who don't care about understanding "what a verse really means" because their Assembly involvement was totally based on the kind of false spirituality that GG promoted in his higher life teaching. 

  You mentioned getting over an inner battle between guilt over rejecting GG's postulations, and your own perceptions.  This "sister" had long ago given up her perceptions (if contrary to Assembly teaching/practices) as being either of the flesh or the devil.

  This doesn't mean the above person is not intelligent, especially gullible, weak of character, entered the Assembly with severe emotional problems, etc.  I have mentioned before that sociologists (like Enroth) have noted that members of these groups usually have a higher than average level of intelligence, and do not share a higher number than the general public of the same kind of other problems that I mentioned above.

  Like all of us were---- they were sheep who were led astray.

    In my opinion, it is neither correct, nor helpful, to suggest to those struggling with their recovery that they focus on the flaws that led to their deception; rather, as with Jesus strong words re. those that harm his little ones', it is the deceptor that deserves the denunciation!  (not that you are saying this Dave.  I'm writing this part in response to those that reject the terrible power of toxic faith and subtleties of spiritual abuse.)

  It is in understanding the deep love that Jesus has for me personally as a wounded pilgrim, hurt by false religion, that I, as a "robbed and beaten" child of God, can find healing in my emotional life.  For some of us just learning the correct theology doesn't meet an essential need of our souls.

  When a person is physically beaten and robbed there is injury, and given time and care the wounds can heal.  When our soul takes a beating (so to speak) time also helps in recovery, but what for the need of care for these?

   I have suggested that our personality is a basic part of our spirituality, and that false religion, like the Assembly, attempted to control/manipulate/ crush/supress/ and teach escape from that personality.  Years of this "makes" us into a person, that not only is not in the image of God, it can take on the nature of something either monstrous (pharisees) or beaten and robbed like (as seen in the Demonic of Gadarene).  Both of these conditions require different means of handling.

  This thread is meant to try and help the sheep who was led astray.  Not by berating them for their foolishness to follow GG, but with the message that God has a very special love for "the one" in such a condition.   

  This "message" not only needs to be accepted by mental assent, but believed deeply from the heart--- if there is to be any inner health/strength/life.  Most of those whom met Jesus in the Gospels, like the sinner woman, the woman of Samaria, Zaccheus, etc., were not theological students, or great philosophical minds, yet they developed profound connections with, and brought great glory to God.

  They all understood that God had invited them into a deep personal relationship with himself.  This invitation was based on a unique personal interest and love in that individual, vs some kind of general invitiation to humanity at large. 

   The recovering Assemblyite often suffers from a feeling of abandonment and of a loss of purpose in a life with God.  Viewing God's love for me as an individual as being very real, and based solely on God's personal calling, must be understood in a real and personal manner.  Just seeing it in fleeting devotional moments will not be very helpful. 

   We must both be honest with our need, and utterly convinced that this need will not prevent our relationship with God.  God has great personal interest, and also great power in his involvement with our lives.  Thus the teaching of Eph. 3 that through the view of God's love we can experience a "more abundant life."

                                                                                        God Bless,  Mark C.
 

Mark,

You said:

The Christian's walk is a walk of faith.  Walking by faith means believing what God has revealed. 

We are never told it will be easy, in fact it has gotten many saints killed.

The idea that one must have a certain emotional state before they can walk with God is unsound on both scriptural and psychological grounds. 

Deep emotional experiences can be wonderful, but they are the results of faith and obedience, not precursors.

One author, I think it was C.S. Lewis, defined faith as "believing in the darkness what God has shown you in the light." 

I have read the description you have given of this "wounded" sister.  I do not doubt that the assembly experience has damaged her.  But that does not mean that she doesn't need to learn to walk by faith, just like any other Christian.

There is a possibility that the real problem is that there are issues that she brought into the Christian life with her and has never resolved.  If that is the case, some serious work with a counsellor could be of help.  If a person honestly cannot function in a healthy fasion, counselling is usually necessary it normality is to be restored.

But there has to be a genuine willingness to face issues and deal with them.  Some people drift from counsellor to counsellor complaining that "they" do not help them.  The fact is that counsellors can only help us discover how to help ourselves by facing ourselves.

BTW, I am absolutely against the phony religious nonsense called "Noetic Counselling".  Deep emotional/spiritual issues do not disappear with a few minutes of "repentence".

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Thanks for your response Tom.

   I don't know what "Noetic Counseling" is.  For me to respond to this I will need more information.  I would be grateful if you could elaborate on it.

  Emotions and faith:  Where does an individual's ability to believe come from, and how does it work itself out in real life?  Is faith the product of a strong will ?--- a kind of determination that allows me to overcome all that seems to contradict that faith?  Do emotions just naturally follow our resolute and dedicated determinations, or can our emotional make-up hinder or help our faith?

  There are those who seem to see faith as: reason+ will = the Christian life.  Of course, they will always say that emotions are important, but only as a kind of tag-along item that will all fall into place if I remain steadfast in the faith.

  Some resist any notion of counsel for psychological issues as being "un-spiritual", but I know that you do not agree with this.  What I think you are saying is:  if the Christian can just believe hard enough they can conquer all, but if they can't, they need to stop using their own emotional problems as an excuse for failing.  One may need help with depression, anxiety, from being a victim of abuse, etc. but, these are often used as excuses to avoid just obeying God.

  I used to see things this way, but Jesus' interaction with people in the Gospels, as well as other NT passages changed my mind (not to mention my own life).  Faith is from the heart, and not just the engagement of our volition based on propositional truth.  The fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, etc.  The greatest 2 commands are to "love God and love one another."  The "more excellent way" is described as "love," and the "greatest of the three: faith, hope, and love, is love."

  Love does include the will, my reason, and my actions, but Christian teaching that stops at these three attributes forgets the ability to "feel" for other people.  Love also has a tender side--- "Jesus wept", the Good Samaritan stopped and helped the robbed and beaten man, etc.

   As an ol' trucker ( you know: "the rain is on the windshield, and my tears are on the steering wheel--eighteen wheels a-rolliin', home sweet home ;)) and a Grandpa, I imagine that I might confuse compassion/sympathy with a kind of "sloppy agoppy" at times, but it was that "soft heart" of mine that eventually enabled me to get out of the Assembly, not my powers of reason or theological abilities.

   Faith arises from hearts' touched by the love of God.  Not in some kind of super emotionalism of a Charismatic styled encounter, but one nonetheless that does affect us---- like the Sinner woman in the Gospels.  The disciples, pharisees, and Judas all misunderstood what was going on in that situation.  This woman was obviously very emotionally engaged with Jesus because she understood his love for her personally and what it would mean for her life.

   As Christians we must have passion, as well as reason, in our faith.  For many former Assembly members the loss of passion in their lives is a direct result of decades of harmful teaching and abusive practices.  To recover this will take more than just attendance in a "healthy church" and "good teaching."  Even "psychological counsel" by itself, imho, will not help them in their Christian lives.

  The best thing that we can do for these wounded souls is to love them as God loves us.  It has been my point recently to try and describe what that love means: 

 1.) It is specific love:  He loves each one of his children in a special way.

 2.) Love means God has a true affection for us.  (yes, he actually likes us and wants to be with us)

 3.) God's love has a hope for us: (he has specific purpose for our life that only we can accomplish)

 4.) God's love does not despise us for our weakness and failures. (He's not keeping score!) Nor does he love us on the basis of our ability to "deal with" these kind of struggles.

 5.) God's love has empathy and sympathy for me as an individual.  Divine love shares this human attribute.

    We can probably think of some more, but suffice it say that this very deeply involves one's emotions, and as such, these become a key element to one's ability to trust in God in a meaningful way. 

   Faith in theological facts (what God has revealed), to mean something to an individual Christian, must be known in the terms of a personal relationship with God himself.  We, as evangelical Christians, are always saying this, but what does it mean?  What is God really like as a person and what does he think of me---- I mean really think of me?

   The reality of personal engagement with God in the Assembly was twisted and turned God into who he was not.  To recover faith in some damaged there we must recover their hearts as well as their minds.  To delete either from our lives as Christians will lead to serious loss (not of salvation, but of the enjoyment of God.)  To just exhort these troubled souls to "believe God in the darkness" could be recieved as just another reminder of their Assembly past where their "root problem" was a lack of faith.  I believe our "root problem" is a lack of really knowing who God is and how much he loves us (rooted and grounded in love---")


                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

                                                                                             

                                                                               

   

I think Tom might mean NOUTHETIC counseling, as espoused by Jay Adams?

It's a little wierd, but not like Betty or anything.

Brent

The third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. God the Father elects, the Spirit effects the obedience of faith, God the Son cleanses thorough His shed blood...


  Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:




This is something that has caused me to wonder greatly Mark. I wonder about the hearts of some folk.
It is stilll a thing of unspeakable wonder to me, that not a single elder serving with George has raised a voice in publlic condemnation and repudiation of this man. With the remarkable exception of Brent Tr0ckman, virtually no one serving with him has declared him to be what he unquestionably is   - a false prophet/teacher.
Oh I know they issued an ex-communication letter...after God had judged preremptorily and a very, very bad sign. When this kind of sin by someone in his position becomes public, it was God's ultimate resort and highlights the ineffectiveness of spiritual leadership. 
The people who throw out charges of "hatred" for the condemnation of a man like Geftakys must truly have hearts of stone. Judging from what you stated one of them sent to you in an e-mail, I am convinced of that fact, pretensions of solicitous care notwithstanding...

Verne

Tom,

I agree that the "wounded" sister needs to learn to walk by faith.  I also know that some wounded ones have indeed sought counselling, but it has not done much good.  So, as one, who wants to help and to benefit, how do I help the wounded one, who was already wounded prior to his/her assembly experience and then further wounded by it?  I feel that we can empathize with these ones because we have been through it ourselves, whereas a counsellor, who has not, may not be truly able to.  Just some thoughts, any comments?

I remember that the Nouthetic stuff by JayAdams was promoted by the assembly.  The idea was that if one is truly led by the Spirit then one does not need humanistic psychology to properly or effectively counsel another.  Possibly this was based on the verse that says you are able to judge your own and do not need to go to the world (I do not have a bible at hand to cut and paste).

Marcia

This isn't true, Verne.

Steve Irons did, and is doing so today.  Also, Tom may not have been recognized by the politburo of Fullerton, but he was and elder and he has spoken out.  Wayne Matthews also.

A better way of saying it, with a little less bravado would be to say that "most" of the men serving did not raise a voice......

Brent

Mark,

You said:

1. I mistakenly called "Noethetic Counselling", "Noetic Counselling".  This is because I threw my copy of that book away so many years ago that I had forgotten the unusual word.  If I recall correctly, Charles Solomon taught the same thing.  I can't check, because I chucked his books too.

2. Verne has pointed out that the ability to believe God comes from God.  If this person is a "sister" she already has that ability.

3. How does faith work out in real life?  Look at the life of Abraham, the father of the faithful.  (Romans 4:16).  A look at his life shows what the walk of faith is about.  For example, what do you suppose Abe felt like as he took Isaac up that hill to kill him. I think that we can be reasonably certain that he felt rotten!

Scripture describes faith in terms of weak or strong, (Rom.4:19), which is a function of the will.  As well, it describes it as a function of the intellect, (Rom. 4:21), which produces acts of obedience.  Abraham is commended for obeying, "against hope", (hope in his natural abilities that is), (Rom.4:18).

  "...yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God." (Rom.4:20).   Lack of faith is a failure to exercise the ability that God has given us.

Now, I do not deny that powerful negative feelings such as fear, can interfere with this.  But if we say that we must feel just so before we acknowledge God's power and soveriegnty in our lives, we are decieved.  Sometimes we must bow the knee in spite of our feelings!

Much of the trouble that we get ourselves into regarding the life of faith comes from poor habits.  We can actually train ourselves to depend on our emotions.  God gave us our emotions as an important aspect of our being.  They add much of the "flavor" to our lives that make them enjoyable.  We pay a price for them though.  When we love, we expose ourselves to sorrow, and when the loved one suffers or dies.

But faith is our response to God's truth.  To place emotion ahead of faith in the order of our decision to believe and obey God is unwise, unhealthy, and unsound.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I should have been more specific.
Steve Irons and Tom Maddux made their choices long before God so evidently and publicly  judged Geftakys.
Wayne Matthews, so far as I know, was not an elder.
My statement is certainly true of those serving with him at the time the "ministry" imploded.
If I am mistaken in this I am prepared to be enlightened.
Verne
p.s Obvioulsy it would be an error to claim that no one spoke up. Many did and paid the price. I should have more specifically limited my comment to elders serving with George at the time.

Tom,

I disagree with your claim that we can be reasonably certain that Abraham felt rotten while he was taking Isaac up the hill to kill him.  Such a feeling would betray a lack of faith.  In fact, if Abraham had chosen to go through with the act while feeling that way, it wouldn't have been an act of faith.  In fact he would have been just killing his son as if for no good reason!  Isaac's faith reflected the faith that he saw in his father.  That feelings can betray lack of faith is clearly seen in the story of Peter walking on the water.  When Peter began sinking, his outward action hadn't changed.

Matthew 14:28-31
And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  And he said, Come.  And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.  But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.  And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Romans 4:1-5
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.  For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.  Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Romans 4:20-22
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.  And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Steve,

You said:

The whole point of the story is the final question, "Wherefore didst thou doubt?"  The answer is that he made a choice to focus his faith on the wind and waves rather than the Lord.

The order of events is: 1. Focus on the Lord 2. Walks on water 3. Changes focus to the wind and waves 4. Fear rises up 5. Starts sinking 6.Calls for help 7. Is rescued.

You are correct in saying that Peter's outward action hadn't changed.  BUT, the object of his attention had shifted before fear rose up. His feelings didn't betray lack of faith, they betrayed what he had begun to base his faith upon.  He chose to base his faith upon his sense perceptions rather than revealed truth.

Similarly, when someone focuses on their feelings, rather than the truth, they just sink further into their emotional state.

Thomas Maddux

Thanks for your reply Tom.

  I still don't know what "Nouthetic counsel" is, though I do remember hearing the name of Jay Adams.

  I guess I have not been clear in my posts', or you would not have concluded that I suggested that we must first build emotional strength in broken souls as a prelude to having strong faith.

  Faith is a gift from God, and all true believers have it.  As you said, some are weak in it, and others are strong. 

   Love is also a gift from God, and all true believers have it ("poured out into our hearts' by the Holy Spirit that is given to us").  Some are weak in this as well.  This ability to care about others, for the sake of their souls, informs our faith in a very crucial way.

   I will share a personal example that hopefully will help make my point.  You will remember this story very well, as will those who have read this thread in the past.

    Before I left the Assembly I was trying to prepare a Bible study at a lunch counter when an old man sat down next to me and started to pour out his heart to me.

  My initial reaction was to get bugged at his persistent chatter.  My definition of faith at that time was flawed because it accepted the Assembly directive that Assembly meetings, and being faithful to them, were the most important values in God's work.  As GG said,"the definition of faith is faithfullness."

   Something awoke in me as he continued to tell his tale of deep woe.  He saw my Bible, and me reading it, and was looking for help!  A "feeling" of compassion caused me to listen to him, and thus set aside my study for the rest of that lunch hour.  I don't know if he heard a word I said, but God surely did speak to me from that, and this event was key to my leaving the group.

   This story illustrates how God given emotions can inform/direct our faith to fulfil God's objective.  This is why Paul said that love is the "greatest", and Jesus said it is the first command, and by it all others are fulfilled.

   I think this is what Paul meant in Eph. 3 when he said "inner" strength comes from being "rooted and grounded in love."  This is not in oppostion to faith, but gives direction to our faith.

  It is meaningless to talk of faith and the Christian life without asking, "faith in what?"  What are we as already saved Christians trusting God for?  What is my expectation from God?

  If love is to only provide a pleasant "flavor" then why did Jesus and Paul seem to think it as being foundational for a strong Christian life?

    Faith's direction is to trust in the integrity and deep love that God has for me as an individual.  This is what allowed Abraham to grow in faith and to sacrafice his son.  He knew that God was his friend, not just his Lord.  He certainly did not offer up his son without a passionate belief in the goodness of God! 

    This is not a mushy kind of sentimentality, rather the enjoyment of an intimate relationship that will not disappoint, like the one's you mentioned.  Without knowing this kind of personal love we will not be truly spiritual.

   Yes, preoccupation with how I feel is unwise, unhealthy, and untrue, but this is not what I'm talking about.  It is not a decision between obeying the truth and responding to my subjective leanings. 

   Preoccupation with the faith that God has a very deep personal love for me will capture my heart and "make" me a true man of faith.  As Paul said, it is a "more excellent way."

   It is this kind of faith, that reaches deep into our hearts, that needs to inform the wounded soul from groups like the Assembly.  Just telling them to "obey in the darkness,etc."( a often quoted phrase by GG) will only be another nail in their Christian life coffin.  This is so because the burden is again placed on them to try and dig out of the hole they find themselves in.

 God does not take a "tough love" approach to these little ones.  He wants them to see the Jesus they never knew and to experience a true personal relationship with him. 

   I hope we can continue this discussion.

                                        God Bless,  Mark C.     


   

I don't want to speak for Tom but I doubt he considered "love" one of the emotions he referred to as "flavor".
I think nonetheless, that redemption includes the purifying of even our affections. If this were not the case we would never develop an appetite for holiness.





Steve makes a good point about Abraham. Hebrews tells us that at some point he made the mental leap to a firm conviction that God's keeping His promise required His ability to raise Isaac from the dead.
We are not told whether or not this realisation happened immediately. I doubt it did. I suspect  he wrestled with this dillemma mightily until an incredible transformation took place in the way he viewed Almighty God. I think God does the same with us.


That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 1:7
Verne

We do not know one way or the other for sure, and therefore cannot make absolute statements about what the elders did after GG's excommunication.  They have not spoken out on this BB, but that does not necessarily mean that they have not spoken out at all.

I agree though, that those who, upon leaving the system or re-vamping it, resort to a Brethren type ministry, will continue to  perpetrate (correct word??) the same old problems of the Geftakys assembly system but without Geroge Geftakys.

Just my opinion.
Marcia

Sorry, Mark.  I think my last post was a lesson in missing the point. 

Part of my problem was my wanting to participate and encourage your thread (it is one of the few that are actually dedicated to helping ex-Assembly folks) but having limited time.  I post when I am at work and for the most part I am supposed to be, well, working.  So I went back and read/skimmed as much as I could but evidently didn't grasp as much as I thought I did.

Your latter post, I think makes sense to me.  When I think of faith, I think of the 'ol "faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God".  The way I have learned to apply this, is that if I want to increase in faith, I read a book - faith is a result of bookishness, Bible Study, spiritual books, etc.  I probably picked this up because George himself would rather lose himself in a book than take his wife over to Granny's donuts.

But, as you say, I think it is the exercise of love that supports, clarifies, and strengthens our faith.  Here, I think, is where the risk comes in.

Books never hurt me, but people have.  That man at the soup counter could have responded negatively to your words.  Or, he could have become a burden and a parasite to you.  So much simpler to pass on the other side of the street reading your Bible and leave such matters for the Samaritans. 

But, then one's faith is a mere theoretical exercise.  And isn't this how we define hypocracy?

-Dave

Is this perhaps why our faith has to be tested?
The verse in Peter suggests that it is actually the trial of our fatih, that establishes whether it is genuine or not, not simply our declaration of it.
I think we get into trouble because our priorities regarding love get misplaced. We preoccupy ourselves with a lot of talk about love for our fellowman, while completely failing to recognize that any such love that is genuine ultimately flows from firstly, a love for God.
How often do you hear people talking about a love for other people, when by their very conduct they display a complete contempt for God Himself?
If we truly love God, He then makes it possible to love the unlovely. It is entirely unnatural to us, no matter how religious we become. I believe God chose the standard of holiness for his own because He knows that true holiness is impossible to counterfeit. It is remarkable how He can use that fact, as Dave points out, to expose us as hypocrites.
Verne

Fellers,

I would like to point out a couple of things that pertain to this discussion.

1. You must believe in God in order to love him.  Faith is a pre-condition of love for God.  As Verne has pointed out one must love God in order to love people correctly.

2. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" simply means that we come to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel.  It doesn't mean that Joe, who reads the Bible 2 hours a day, will necessarily have more faith then Sam who reads less.

3. It is not the presence of faith that is crucial for our life issues, it is the exercise of faith.  This is where the work of faith comes in.  Feelings do not always cooperate in this process.  It is easier if they do, but they cannot always be counted on to be there.

To say, "I cannot believe or obey God unless I feel what I wish to feel" is really to say, "I won't".

Thomas Maddux

Whether it is a "Brethren-type" ministry or not has nothing to do with it.
The only relevant question in this regard concerning any gatheing of God's people is the quality of the shepherds. Are they faithful, godly men of exemplary lives who seek to honor God first and foremost or are they not?
Merely impugning the brethren assemblies fails to recognize the true problem.
Verne

I would agree with your point, Verne, that the main issue is the character and integrety of the individual as to whether they are going to be good leaders in other churches.  However, I think the type of ministry they go to does have something to do with the issue.

For example, take a person who lost their church ministry, has no credentials but wants to regain the position they had before.  If they went to Evangelical Free Fullerton, a strong Calvary Chapel, or my C&MA church, they probably wouldn't get very far.  If they joined the church, engaged in ministry for years and formed a good relationship with folks in the church, they might eventually become a deacon or an elder but these denominational positions are nothing compared to what they had before.  Would they ever be the "big guy" giving primary leadership in the church?  If it was even possible, it would take seminary, years of faithful service, and the vast majority of people feeling pretty good about the person.  Basically, strong churches have safeguards to keep strong-willed people from coming in and taking over.

What kind of churches would be vulnerable to strong-willed ex-leaders from coming in and taking over?

1.  Home churches.
2.  Plymouth Brethren "simplicity in Christ/brother among brother" churches who are against the trappings of larger churches.  (Possibly -  I knew of a Brethren church in Buena Park that was so in the clutches of 70 year old elders that the suggestions of the 50 year old elders were dismissed as coming from "younger brethren").
3.  Charasmatic or semi-charasmatic "you don't need no stink'in seminary for God to speak to you" type churches.

You get some churches like this and it doesn't take much with a charasmatic person who can handle a Bible to pursuade the others how things ought to be.

Even George started in a "structured" Baptist church but then kept gravitating more and more towards non-structured, non-accountable type of situations until he ultimately got full control.

-Dave

Disclaimer:  I share this as a matter of general principle.  I have no idea what the motivation of current and former Assembly leadership is.

I have to say that I for the most part agree Dave. I know that Scriptrure says that if a man desires the office of a bishop he desires a good work.
Personally, my view is that anyone actively and agressively seeking any position of spiritual leadership is automatically disqualified.
True spiritual leadership is not much recruited as it is recognized.
Your point about the quality of men rising to leadership being reflective of the maturity and discernment of the gathering is right on the money.
It seems lots of cults get started by men who at some point refused to be subject to any other authority but themselves.
I knew nothing about George Geftakys when I associated myself with this fraud.
Shame on me.
Verne
p.s one of the elders at the church I am attending and which has a Brethren legacy, told me about a pastor they had  few years back that made it clear to everyone that he wanted to be large and in charge.
He did not last. The Brethren have it right in that there should be a plurality of local leadership.
It is the best (and Scriptural) way  to safeguard the flock from serious problems. It does not prevent them necessarily, but it at least provides a means for effectively dealing with issues when they arise.
p.p.s Your comment aobut people who "loose their minsitry" is full of portent.
It is now sadly commom in the C &MA (as in the Catholic church) for a D.S., at least in the Midwest District, to shuffle pastors who have been dismissed by governning boards to other congregations without full disclosure. It is my understanding that this is the situation in Chamapign with the current serving pastor.
They euphemistically call it "transition".
This is a very serious problem as you can imagine. Some gatherings are doomed to failure even before they get started, as was the case with the assemblies.

Dave:

  No apology is necessary, and it is great to get your perspective on things.

  Yes, my intention is to try to actually help folks, not to win arguments.  If we engage in some healthy discussion where there is a difference of opinion that can be very helpful.

  I think most of the problem in discussing this issue is a semantic one, as you can probably notice in the talk between Tom and I.  When he hears me talk of "emotions" he is thinking in terms of inner comfort/distress level, which is part of inner life, but not the defintion I would give to what the Bible calls, "the heart."

 Was Paschal right when he said, "the heart has it's reasons the mind knows nothing of?"  Strictly, we cannot have any reasoning ability apart from the mind, but Paschal, a great intellect, recognized that our thinking about God is not just an endeavor of pure reason.

   Think of the child who hears the Gospel and is "moved" by the message of God's love for him.  Did he come to faith on the basis of logical reasoning, or did his sensitivity to feel his inner need, plus a sense that God could meet that need, tug on his heart and cause him to cry out for salvation?

                                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

Mark I have been thinking a bit about this. I am not so sure that you are entirely wrong in placing a premium on the emotional state of the believer as being something of great importance.
In Galatians 5:22 we are told that the fruit of the Spirit is:

 love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance:
Now I know many expositors say that these are all aspects of the one fruit - love.

Nonetheless, the case may certainly be made that the items being described in this verse are directly related to our emotional states.
I have learned for example, that it is unwise to correct my daughters when I am angry at something they have done as I am then unlikely to be gentle in my correction, needed though it may be.
I was hoping you could develop this theme a bit more.
I am increasingly of the belief that salvation also involves a work of renewal and transformation of the affections, as well as the intellect and the will. I can honestly say that some things that used to allure and tempt me as a young believer no longer do. I can only attribute the chage in my desires to the work of the Spirit of God and not to simply getting older and/or wiser... :)
Verne

Hi Verne,

  I recognized when I brought up this topic that it was going to be a difficult one.  Together, I think we might be able to learn a great deal about what part our emotions play in the Christian life.

   I also want everyone to know that I very much appreciate Tom's contribution, though it may seem we have some differences of opinion.  Tom is a good friend who helped me greatly when I left the Assembly, and for this I remain grateful.  He married my wife and I (29 years in June!) and even went trucking with me once! ;)

  I also know that not everyone struggles with deep confusion upon their Assembly exit, and for them they wonder why some can't seem to just slide into a new church, make new friends, read their Bibles, etc.

   I remind those "strong in the faith" that the "weak are more necessary", and that love is kind and patient.  It is "the faith," and being strong in it, that most certainly is my objective in considering this topic, not just learning to cope with damaged emotions.

  I do want to try to get into this topic some more, and deal with the statements you have made Verne, but lack the time right now.  The verses re. "the fruits of the Spirit" do describe emotions:"joy and peace." 

  No, I am not a charismatic, nor am I promoting the seeking of "spiritual" experiences by sensing God; quite the contrary.  That would be, as Tom said, very unwise and unhealthy. 

  Thanks so much for your thoughts on this topic and I look forward to many more in the future.


                                                 God Bless,  Mark C.

Hi Everyone! :)

  We have had some differences of opinion (which is healthy) re. the role of emotions and one's faith.

   Verne asked if I could try and expand on my views re. this, and I am happy to do so.  Those with different opinions are invited to participate. 

     ---- And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.  Philp. 4:7

   This verse above is very pertinent to our discussion. 

  1.)  Hearts and minds are two different distinct parts of our soul.  Both need to be kept and both can experience peace.

     What of this word "heart" that the Bible uses so often?  In Rom. 10: 8 we notice that "belief" must be "from the heart" to be the kind of faith that saves.

   What could this mean?  It could mean that only those who are sincere will be saved---but then this understanding of the heart would make no sense when applied to the Philp 4 use of the word.

  Jesus told the disciples in JN 14, "let not your heart be troubled---"  I think we generally think of this use of the word heart, being troubled, in the context of "anxious care."

   While it probably wouldn't be accurate to think of the biblical use of the word "heart" as pure emotion, it is impossible to divorce feelings from our understanding of the word.

   Alll the individual parts of our soul (personality/humanity) are wrapped around each other in such a way that to leave off any of them will cause an unbalanced Christian life.

   The bible must be read and understood or we can subject ourselves to deception from those wishing to mislead us (chief possibly being our own fallen nature).  There are no subjective/intuitive "4th dimensions of revelation" that God has provided.  Objective Bible learning protects us from the arrogancy of a "higher spiritual experience" that pretends a "special" intimacy with God.

  Knowing this, and fearing our own depraved intuition, we can get into an attitude of, at best, ignoring our feelings, or at worst, a deep denial of their presence.

  Shoving down, suppressing, ignoring, denying, etc. our emotional life can have negative effects on a life of faith.  "How so?" you may ask.

  As in the example I used of the old man at the lunch counter, my locked down emotions kept me from paying attention to the needs of the man pouring out his heart to me.   In this situation my feelings served to direct the actions of my faith in a very positive manner.

                        More on this later------   God Bless,  Mark C.

 

Hi Mark,

Sometimes I think your road trips are even longer for us who await your next installment than they are for you & your family.  (Not really, but it can seem that way :))

Differences of opinion can indeed be healthy, but also may not, depending upon how they are regarded.  In the case of this topic, I think most of the differences expressed have demonstrated eyes set upon the same Goal, but seeing and approaching it from different perspectives.

Your points re: the heart and its function are well taken, and I do not mean to in any way compromise them, but hope to augment them with a couple of observations:

You said:

   ...to which I add a hearty "Amen!" and further comment that to give free reign to our emotions (which is what many of those do, who engage in what they believe to be, as you aptly term it, "a higher spiritual experience," is an equally great danger.

The passage you chose in Phil.4 is excellent for not only highlighting the importance of the heart, but, in its context it illustrates our Lord's intent toward our hearts, and His capability to fulfill His intent:

4. Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say, Rejoice.

5. Let your moderation be known to all men.  The Lord is at hand.

6. Be careful (anxious) for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

7. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, shall keep (guard) your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

8. Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are honest, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there is any virtue, and if there is any praise, think on these things.

9. Those things, which you have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.


Three important points re: the above passage:

a.]  It is not preaching works-based rewards.  The point is not at all that we must do certain things, or put on a performance, in order to earn our rewards.  Far from it!  Those blessings we gain are not our rewards, but the rewards for the faithfulness of Jesus Christ in all His life, suffering, death, burial, resurrection and ascension, and they have already been awarded to us.  He earned them, and we are the recipients of them according to His grace.  But, working out (not working for) our salvation (Phil.2:12-13), is the principle by which we will realize (enjoy) these benefits in a practical way.  His work in earning them is finished, and these benefits are ours, but to see them we must walk in them.

Put another way, the peace of God that will guard our hearts and minds is in place, i.e., is in effect, for all of His redeemed, but can only be of practical value to those who acknowledge, accept, and act upon it.  The God of peace is with us all, but His presence will only be enjoyed by those who engage ourselves with Him.

---

b].  As you said:


So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing (comes) by the Word of God. Rom.10:17.  We will not (will not be able to) walk in the ways of God unless we know them, and we will not know them except by the words of the scriptures.  Does this mean we must read the Bible?  No.  But if we hope to enjoy the benefits of our redemption in this lifetime, if we want answers to our questions and our dilemmas, if we want to experience that "peace of God and know the presence with us of "the God of peace," we will cry out to Him to create in us the hunger for His Word that we lack.  And He will answer...

---

c.]  There is nothing we who are burdened in our hearts for others can do to help them except to pray constantly on their behalf and to speak the truth to them in love.  There are, to be certain, ways and techniques to present the truth, but our methodology is not guaranteed-- only the Word of God and the Spirit of God never fail.  Our speech, our phraseology, may fail-- His Word and His Love do not.

There is no one-size-fits-all plan or program for presenting the truth; no way by which we can "make" someone see the light.  Our straining, our pain, our tears are all of value to the Lord, but don't expect  those over whose well-being we expend them to be influenced by us.  The only influence that can help them is that of God's Word by His Holy Spirit.  And we must not wish or hope for it to be otherwise.

---

Now, I don't think I have contradicted Mark's points in any way, but I sometimes muddy the waters in trying to clarify them.  Mark always delights me by providing what my shortfalls omit and counter-balancing my excesses.

Mark, we need for you to have longer weekends...

In Christ,
al

Faith and emotions cont.

  ----no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking.  They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.  Having lost all sensitivity----- Eph. 4:17-19.

  The words/phrases that stick out to me re. our topic are "thinking, understanding, ignorance, hardening of their hearts, and sensitivity."

    In Eph 5: 18-19 we are given this exhortation:

      ----instead, be filled with the Spirit.  Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.  Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord,----   [/u]

   It is not my purpose to attempt a thorough exegesis of these verses, just to notice that the word "heart" is again used alongside words that describe mental activity.  This seems to demonstrate that the two need to work together in some way.

  In the Eph 5 verses the process for "the filling of the Spriit" leans toward a more subjective method in it's description.  It doesn't, for example, promote study of doctrine as a means to become filled with the Spirit (not that this is bad; it's just not mentioned).  What do you think it means when it says, "sing and make music in your heart to the Lord"?

  I want to try and bring this thought back to the issue of recovery for those wounded in the Assembly.  In the Assembly the Christian life was strongly set forth as the need for us to perform as individuals in order to merit God's favor.  This teaching directed the "serious Christian" to "reckon dead" their own person.  

   This "death" wasn't just for sinful behaviors, but what GG considered "self centered" behaviors.  This meant we must seek to be "nothing" and gain all our emotional delight from achieving this state of being.

   All our passions were to be extinguished, our ambitions set aside, our desires made subservient to the ministry, and any normal affections for family, etc. to be eliminated.  

   Decades of this is toxic for one's faith, and detrimental to the development of a healthy life in Christ.  

   Upon leaving many of us learn that the Christian life is not a merit scheme, but a gift based relationship with God.  The teaching of grace broke upon my understanding within the first months of leaving, but I discovered that my emotions did not easily follow what I now knew to be true.

  As an example, I felt guilty about just going to the beach with my family.  There was no good reason for the guilt, but yet I still had it.  I also had a feeling of empty drifiting at times--- a life without any real purpose--- kind of like those let out of a prison camp, who are free, but don't know how to adjust emotionally to their new life outside of the whole regimen, and with all it's controls.

  You could have told me, "Brother, just find a healthy church and make some new friends and you will be okay", but I didn't find a church that could help, because not only could they not understand what I had been through, they didn't know how to help me with my emotional struggles.

  Finding those that would listen to me, understood how I felt, and had been through similar things was absolutely crucial to my recovery.  Empathy is a sensitivity to the pain another individual is feeling, and part of what the NT means when it says, "weep with those that weep."  

  I had unwavering faith in God, I didn't doubt him, but I began to doubt my own sanity!  My emotions did not follow my faith automatically, nor could I just shrug off my heart sickness via the exercise of my volition.

  It is to "heart sickness" and "damaged emotions" that I will continue with in the next post.  I will just say now that we have to learn to "make music in our hearts", along with understanding grace, if we are going to move on to recovery.

                                               God Bless,  Mark C.

  

  

Mark,

Once again, I pose a contrast to your thoughts, not in opposition to them, but to illustrate how different our experiences, the effects of the assembly upon us, have been.  All the wounded pilgrims out there are not just like you or me, but are individuals every one.  So if someone is reading this thread and thinking that solutions are being offered here that don't apply to them, I hope they will take heart and realize that God sees them as they really are, and not as you or I may perceive them to be (i.e., like ourselves), and that they will post their questions, or e-mail them to us, but above all, not be discouraged because they don't "get" what you or I are saying...


We all sat under essentially the same teachings, restrictions and controls, and we were all wounded thereby, but in varying degrees and not all with the same effects.  We were not all alike when we entered the assembly, being of different backgrounds, temperaments, etc., we did not all stay for the same length of time, we were not all treated alike, and we were not all in the same state of mind and heart when we left.


After leaving, I learned various things, few of which had much positive impact on my spiritual life, for many years.  I, too, experienced much guilt, but probably diffently oriented than was yours, Mark.  I felt my life had a lot of purpose, focused on helping others, but without any clear reference to Christ-- more of a humanistic/tolerant-of-all approach.


I couldn't find a helpful church, because I couldn't find a replacement for the assembly.  I hadn't left because I realized the assembly was wrong, but because the assembly dumped me.  I thought the assembly was right and I was wrong.  That may place me in a minority, but I am not alone.  I have good friends with whom I communicate regularly, who were in the assembly for decades and only recently left because of the fall of the leadership, but who still believe in the assembly vision of the house of God.  Their experience and outlook is not similar to anything I have seen expressed on the website or this board, but they are Christ's own and they have distinctive needs that are unaddressed by any all-inclusive concept of how to treat "wounded pilgrims."


It took me many years to begin to realize that I was in need of "recovery."  I have never really felt a need for my experiences to be understood by others.  I am big on empathy (on both giving and receiving it), but have never felt that receiving it was crucial to me.  I believe that my empathy toward others cannot directly benefit them, but can help me to pray more effectively and to minister with sensitivity toward them.


My faith in God has wavered a lot in the past, after leaving the assembly, and at one time or another I have doubted just about everything about God, Christ, the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and all things Christian.  I have seldom known a time when I did not doubt my own sanity.  During that time, heart-sickness was a part of my being, and the exercise of my volition amounted to very little.


I look forward, as always, to your ensuing posts on this thread, Mark.  I am particularly intrigued as to your thoughts on our singing and making music in our hearts to the Lord, and on speaking to each other in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, as I have not previously given much consideration to these things...

In Christ,
al

  

  

Hi Al,

Our experiences varied, yet they were similar, even very similar to other than Geftaky-assembly spiritually abusive churches.

IMO  and generally speaking, most ex-assemblyites fall into 2 categories as to their spiritual state at point of departure.

1.  Those who left realizing that the system was corrupt, or soon realized after leaving that it was corrupt, were then able to re-educate themselves re. spiritual matters.  God sent them ahead to prepare the way for those of us who would be needing guidance later.

2.  Those who left because of the excessive demands of the system, not fully realizing that the system was corrupt, thought that they were leaving the one true vision and struggled with that dilemna, until the opportunity to discuss with those from category 1 above presented itself via this BB.  Then things clicked into place and we could all settle the issue that we had not indeed left the one true vision, but had left a spiritually abusive system.

God bless,
Marcia

Hi Everyone! :)

  Thanks for the help Steve.  I think it best to just try and post on this thread for now, vs. the split thread I messed up on.  When I have the time I'll try to go back and fix things.

  Verne:  Yes, there is a "dark side" in everyone of us, but it seems to my reading of the NT that GG's "higher path", because it is based on a dishonest view of one's inner struggles against sin, makes for a great deal of confusion.

  Part of what I hope to do here is to show that we can find a harmony between our thinking and feeling (making music in our hearts?).  I have shared numerous verses that declare that our Christian experience needs to be both "mind" and "heart" and that faith is not just pure reason acted on by the force of our own wills.

  So, the verses in Eph. 5:18-20 were alluded to in a previous post, and though there is much that I do not understand here, I think we can find some clear concepts that support my contentions.

  Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.  Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.  Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1.) Getting drunk and being filled with the Spirit are contrasted with one another:  The point here is that the Spirit should control our lives; both inner and outer.

2.) The result of the Spirit's control is exemplified in a particular kind of spiritual activity that is musical in nature.
   Music/poetry appeals more to a kind of thinking that is also deeply felt; it is designed to stir an emotional response.  Some examples of this would be: Awe, love, thankfullness, etc.

   This might at first glance seem to support the Assembly notion of "hearing God's voice" only in devotional style reading, and the avoidance of "dead fundamentalism" styled study of the Bible.

   In the commentary that I've read on the above verse the singing is not the means to be filled, but the result.  In the Assembly, and other groups, the means to be filled is through the activity of devotion.

 This is an important distinction because understanding how God fills us prevents the errors that Tom feared of relating to God through only what we feel like, or can work up inside of us.

  My point from these verses is that a Spirit filled person will have emotional strength.  This inner strength results in a heart that can make music.

               More on what that might mean later------

                                             God Bless,  Mark C.

 

It may surprise some people to hear me say that I do not believe there was anything wrong with the standard GG upheld rhetotically. We should aspire to true holiness.
What was frightfully wrong was the way he taught this standard is realized.
Worse, was his unspeakable hypocrisy.
The fact of the matter is, many of us have learned over the years, that the Spirit of God does indeed have the power to turn our darkness into light.
Those of us who fail to adorn the doctrine in this regard, are nothing but awful blasphemers when we start preaching at other people, myself included. Thanks for your comments Mark; looking forward to your next posts.
Verne

Verne,

  It doesn't surprise me that you believe in the biblical standard for holiness, but GG's rhetoric re. this can only be understood in light of what he actually did in the control of the group.

  Even before we discovered his "hidden" hypocrisy there was his extra-biblical interpretation of what it meant to "adorn the doctrine of God."

  In the Assembly, the most holy thing you could do was to be loyal to GG's ministry and practice "faithfullness" to the group. 

  Quite literally, you could be a child molestor, but if loyal to GG could have the whole matter swept under the rug!  If this isn't a definition of moral confusion I don't know what is! ???

   Another aspect of Assembly false holiness is the dishonesty that I mentioned in my last post.  In Mt. 23, where Jesus is very critical of the Jewish religious leaders of his day, there are many "woes" listed that describe false holiness, but the oft repeated word of "hypocrisy" is the central denunciation of Jesus in that passage.

  It is easy, if we are striving to live up to a standard, to ignore our own inconsistencies.  The bible says that "I am a new creation in Christ," and therefore there is sometimes an expectation that God's new life in me should banish all sin.

  While that work has begun in my life, it is wrong to expect perfection.  I believe in the traditional Reformation view of Rom. 7 that Paul, when talking about the struggle with the old man, is discussing his life as a Christian at that moment.  Paul was brutally honest about his own inner frustrations in the living of the Christian life.

  This kind of humility and honesty is the foundation for true holiness.  GG saw this as a kind of "defeatism" that excused one from talking responsibility for their own decisions and actions.  In reality, it is the narrow way that leads to life.

  Some of the Jewish Christians of Paul's day agreed with GG and saw grace as an excuse for failure, or an attempt to gain victim status.  They were strenuous in their belief that their own strength of determination could make them "better" Christians.  No "Chocolate Christians" for this bunch!!!

  Paul talked quite a bit about "the strong" and "the weak" in his letters.  He recognized that there will be those who have a stronger natural volition, as opposed to those who have weaker wills.  He primarily exhorts "the strong" to be very careful in how they treat their weaker brethren---" Destroy not your brother for whom Christ died---!"

  The above dynamic in the church creates an opportunity for the development of what the bible describes as the true character of holiness:  Love.

  GG pitted his strong followers against the weak in the group and thus well earned the title as a church that abuses.  As Paul warned, this is very destructive!  GG openly despised the weak and ridiculed those who could not keep up with his intense requirements.

  There are those who disagree with the whole notion of "Wounded Pilgrims' as an unhealthy preoccupation with an attempt to claim victim status as a means to avoid responsibility for their actions.  "If I can blame GG for all my problems then I can avoid facing the fact that it was my own foolishiness that led to my deception"----- or something like that.

  Jesus described his followers often as sheep.  These sheep were not very clever, in Jesus view, because they were often "lost, wandering, being beaten and robbed, etc."  These needed a "shepherd" because, by definition, they were dependent creatures.

  Jesus did not describe his followers using an example of strong independent creatures.  He did liken those that abused his sheep as having strong predatory characteristics.  Wolves make a living off of the weak, and they themselves have very strong aggresive characters; able to take control of a situation to their advantage.

  False holiness teachers like GG are able to cover their true wolf like characters in a cloak of sheep skin, but their abusive treatment of the sheep reveals their true character.  True holiness has a passionate care for God's needy sheep and seeks to protect, and feed them.

   The especially needy in the Assembly suffered some very deep wolf bites.  Think of the ones called onto the carpet and openly shamed and ridiculed in public by GG and Assembly leaders!  Those forced out because they dared to question GG and/or Assembly teaching and practices! :'(

  To tell these individuals that it is their fault for not seeing that this was wrong, or that they should have "taken responsiblity" for their own decision to submit to GG, is to further injure an innocent lamb.

  Holiness recognizes that we are sheep-like, not Soaring Eagles  ;), and as such, we need to practice in our Christian relationships a care and tenderness that is sensitive to those that are "more necessary" among us---- the weak.

  This is not an attempt to claim victims status, but a recognition of our own needy condition as the simple reality of our Christian lives for as long as we live on this Earth.  It is also the means for the creation of true holiness in our lives via the formation of a loving heart.

                                                God Bless,  Mark C.

   

Rom 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

I agree that we should aspire to true holiness.  GG's was academically correct on some matters.  His method of becoming holy, on the other hand, became a series of assembly rules and regulations focussed on keeping the "vision of this ministry" and "preserving the testimony" in order to maintain his lifestyle.

E.g. the anchors became a means of communicating that we must be "faithful" to 4 meetings a week.  The principle of meeting with other Christians is healthy towards spiritual growth, however the Geftakys ministry focussed on works and did not preach grace.  One brother told me that he stayed in the assembly because he "could make a contribution" there.  Another  person said that it was because of the closeknit family type friendships.  Another because of the "way we meet".  None yet has ever said that it is because the Lord is there.  It is still all a work-based ministry.

Blessings,
Marcia

Isaiah 57:15
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

I think in hindsight most people will tell you that there was always something about Geftakys that did not seem quite right. One brother in Champaign, whose mother was really despised by the assembly apparatchiks, called him a snake and a serpent to his face. He used that to set the poor brother against his own mother.
It turns out she immediately saw something so many others did not.
Many of us had only hints and suggestions about his true nature.
The workers and leading brothers knew the man intimately.
My thinking about the entire system radically changd after I begain to learn the incidents, retold my many, of the common public vulgarity of the man and the way he would publicly humiliate those serving with him.
All these leading brothers and so called elders and workers witnessed this kind of conduct and not come with lying excuse for their countenancing this kind of horrific behaviour over not just weeks or months but literally decades. I really need to stay away from that aspect of what happened as it always ends up making my blood boil...
Verne

Mark,

Thanks again.  That last post was a blessing.

I've heard stories of waitresses who have developed lung cancer from second hand smoke in their unhealthy work environment.  Restaurant owners are now recognizing the hazards of smoking and are going smoke-free.  But many employees have already been affected and need medical treatment or, in some cases, are terminally ill.

Similarly our spiritual condition does suffer from a toxic spiritual environment, and each of us, to varying degrees, need 'medical care' in order to recover from it.

Marcia

 :)
I agree with your last sentence here Marcia.
TOXIC SPIRITUAL ENVIROMENT..causes our spiritual condition to suffer...to recover we need a spiritual medical care...

HOW DO WE GET THAT SPIRITUAL RECOVERY?

I agree that talking about the causes and reasons for the spiritual toxic garbage that invaded our spirit is a way. Whether it is being quite and talking to God and be willing to give it up, and/or by talking to spiritual mentor/friend, or a professional that can deal with mental/emotional illnesses. Spiritual illnesses can manifest into mental illnesses, or mental illnesses can be aggravated by a broken spirit.  By talking about the reasons behind the cause, should be an cover up for taking responsibility for our own actions and responses. It is acknowledging the causes without making them excuses.  What happen to make us ill, is not our fault, but our actions because them is our actions and the consequences for those actions are?  This I am learning.
I have had so much pain, and identifying the reasons is a way to deal with them, but if I am not talking them over for the right reason is to become refreshed by releasing them in a positive way, then I am not really healing, I am only allowing the past actions of others to control me.

Alternatively, you cannot be alone and allow the past spiritual abuses to fester, to boil over within your spirit, to turn into bitterness, and hate, and revenge. It only poisons our own spirit.
The poison must be released one way or another.

Spirit Toxic Enviroment can be spilled from anywhere, whether it is the garbage we allow in from our day to day exposure of living in the world, or in a home enviroment that we hear negativity day in and day out, or abusive enviroment, or even under the disguise of sheep from a predator like a wolf, telling us disguised truth, until that when betrayal has come, the damage is already done. Or even participating in our own natural responses from the hurt, and pain, bitterness, attacking to defend and protect ourselves from others who are deem dangerous to our very soul.

I think as Christian we need to be very aware of the SPIRITUAL TOXIC GARBAGE ENVIROMENT  we are allowing in to poison our own spiritual system.
I put myself in that we admonishment, because since I suffer from a mental illnesses that can rob my sense of worth so quickly, that I need to make step to assure that I have a close relationship with my Saviour the only real one, who has the power to free me of the Toxic Enviroment that has poisoned my spirit.

Lenore
lenorewhelan@yahoo.ca

     Dear Lenore,  :)

  I made a few little edits on your wonderful post above, but that is only because I thought that your insights needed to be made very clear for all to consider.

  You have in one post presented what I have been trying to say in a couple of years of posting!  You say, "the things that I have learned", and in fact your post demonstrates that God has not only helped you but is helping us through your acquired wisdom.

  You used the phrase, "broken spirit", a very biblical phrase, and one worth pondering in light of this thread of "Wounded Pilgrims."

  For those who object to the term "spiritual abuse", please consider the above phrase (broken spirit), and those like it in the Bible.  I've mentioned how Jesus and Paul taught the dangers of false religion in regard to how it can "harm/destroy/make evil/ offend/etc."

  So, if one does not like modern terms, such as "toxic", then you are just reacting to the modern use of terms for what Jesus had described as, "a den of Vipers!"  Again, Jesus was trying to describe a spiritual reality where certain religionists are capable of giving you poisoned (toxic?) bites.  Jesus and Paul warned that certain teaching/practices can harm persons of faith.  They also taught that innocent and sincere believers can be deceived and taken advantage of by spiritual imposters.

 Not only can imposters harm us, those that consider themselves "the strong" can damage our souls as well.  If we want to follow Jesus we need to learn how to build-up vs. tear down and that will mean an honest review of how the church teaches and practices it's theology.

  Lenore has put the whole consideration in balance, an aspect of our lives that the Assembly threw way out of whack, and that is that it is not wrong to consider our past abuse and that there are positive ways to deal with the abuse and to get better.

  There are those who say, "get on with your life and stop whining about your Assembly past", to which I would answer: "Are you saying in the above statement that you wish to ignore/escape/suppress up to 30 years of your life?  Is your life so meaningless that what you dedicated your life to for decades is not worth any consideration?"

   If you won't reflect, as Lenore has been forced to do because of her emotional struggles, you will never gain the wisdom and depth of faith that she has gained.   

   Some might consider Lenore "the weak," and because they don't suffer from depression like she does, they consider her contribution here not as valuable as someone without such a malady.

  Like the biblical referneces to the widow we discover these are the most important to God; and ones' who are most prized in his estimation and useful to his purposes! 

   Thanks so much Lenore for building my faith and for providing an example of how grace works in our souls! :) :)

                                                        God Bless,  Mark C.
   

Quote from: LENORE on March 11, 2005, 04:38:13 pm

Quote from: Mark C. on March 12, 2005, 12:10:57pm


The bold and underscored portions of the quotes above may help to clarify a misunderstanding:

The statements of Lenore in the first quote may be very clearly construed as "getting on with one's life."  She very openly states that the necessary conversation, whether with God or with others, re: confronting the past must be "for the right reason," and done in "a positive way" that will ultimately lead to assuring a close relationship with Christ.  This is in no way condoning "whining about your assembly past," but is in fact recommending the very "consideration" and "reflection" that will lead one to gain the wisdom and depth of faith of which Mark is speaking.

Different folks have different ways of expressing themselves, but many of us may be more on the same page that we realize...

Thanks to you both.

In Christ,
al

Thanks Al,

  It is obvious that the one solid anchor in all our lives is our faith in God's good intentions toward us and this is "the same language" we share.

  What made the Assembly such a harmful place for many of us is that it distorted these good intentions of God toward us and put us on the endless hamster wheel of seeking to earn that love.

  Along with this was the cultish highly abusive means to secure our compliance to this erroneous system that GG promoted.

  What positive things can possibly come from a recollection of such misery?  Is it not better to just forget the whole thing and move on?  Haven't we beat this dead horse long enough?

   The most wonderful discovery to make is in finding that God, not only is not the cruel taskmaster we knew from our former association, he wants to show us that he is actively the very opposite!

  Lately, I have been posting on this thread, that while it is very important to have an intellectual grasp of the grace of God, it is a knowledge that must also reach deeply into our souls and light the passion of our hearts as well.

  Tom said that our emotional life has a lot to do with habit, and I think that this is very true.  We respond before we actually think, or the emotions are so strong that sometimes they overpower our thougts.  We may feel like we've lost control of our inner life and wonder where God is in the middle of all this confusion.

  It may be that some of us need to understand that the reason we react the way we do now is because of how we were abused while in the Assembly.  If we have trouble reading the bible, praying, going to church, or feel out of touch with God it is possible our lives are still running in the same emotional ruts from our past association.

  Try as we can, because our spirituality was so emotionally based, we just can't seem to disconnect from that past and still have a satisfying relationship with God.  For those suffering from this it is my opinion that we must discover a means for recovery that goes beyond just finding a good church and listening to the preaching.

 God loves his wounded lambs, and most certainly and earnestly wants to bless them with the assurance of his intimate care for them.

  I have mentioned in the past that I tried to combat my difficulty with reading the Bible via an intellectual approach, vs reading the bible in a devotional manner.  I read bible commentaries, theology, and the like, and in so doing avoided the "voice of GG" that always was engaged when I read the Word.  I still do this to this day, and encourage strong mental engagement in biblical theology.

  Though the above was very helpful to me, I still hungered for the feelings that I experienced with the former devotional approach.  I have learned that it is possible to recover one's "inner life" with God and still not get off into "the fourth dimension of light" that GG instructed us in.

   No, I have not found the secret path to nirvana, and fall short on a daily basis.  I sometimes get discouraged, depressed, irritable, angry with myself, anxious, etc.  What I have discovered though is that these reactions are emotional habits that were cut deeply into my soul from my Assembly days ( yes, and what I also brought into the group with me from my hippie mystical past).

  In my mind I know that God loves me, and my faith is anchored there, but sometimes I wake up feeling a very deep anxiety within.  It took some deep reflection for me to understand that the root of this anxiety is a feeling of insecurity in my relationship with God formed during my Assembly past.

  Just an act of will, or the power of reason, cannot remove these recurring emotional habits and so I have had to learn how to cope with these moments. 

   This is the positive side to this consideration that will have to wait for Sunday AM, as this post is getting too long.  I will just say, that some of my more encouraging posts on God's determination to bless our lives come from the above learning process that I have alluded to.  The trick for me is to bring my knowledge of the facts of God's commitment to my eternal blessing into my life in such a way as it controls my attitudes, thoughts, feelings, behavior, and relationships.

   Please feel free to interrupt my monologue with your thoughts on this subject and don't be fearful of contradicting or questioning what I write.
                                          God Bless,  Mark C.   

   

Good Sunday Morning! :)

  And a very good day to consider the positive aspects of facing our ugly past and discovering beauty in those ashes.

  In the consideration of what the bible might mean by "strength in the inner man," and all I've talked about in regard to "knowing God's love" as the means to that strength, we are faced with the question of, "how do I experience this?"

  If we are true Christians we have been given the ability to believe the above inspite of how we may feel, or any seeming contradictions/doubts that we may have.

 Yet, we must be honest in regard to these inner contradictions to our faith as they just can't be dismissed.   We may find that after trying to sweep them out they return with 7 times stronger force at a later time.

  I gave a personal illustration re. my own struggle with anxiety in the last post.
(This is not an attempt at amateur self psychoanalysis, rather an excercise in honest Christian thinking).
  I have no control over my inner state as I'm just waking up.  These anxious thoughts seem to be deeply imbedded in my subconscious and there are no spiritual excercises that I can perform in my sleep to actualize my faith in an effort to control them.

  Questions:

1.) How come the Spirit doesn't just sweep away these negative feelings and provide me with peace, joy, etc. in their place?

2.) If I'm trusting God and walking by faith shouldn't I just ignore anything inside that seems to contradict the promise of God's life overcoming all inner liabilities?

3.) What if, despite my best efforts, I seem to fall into the same negative patterns of habit that do not bring glory to God?

   All the above questions have to do with what is controlling my inner life, and this transformation of the soul is not accomplished via some kind of easy fix method, nor should we expect perfection in this life.

   In one of the previous verses we considered it said, "be not drunk with wine---- but be filled with the Spirit. etc."  The idea here is that wine takes over and so strongly influences us we are brought under it's control.

  However, the Spirit, though it seeks to control us, does not do so as alcohol/drugs would.  Intoxication makes us numb to certain feelings inside (as any lover of ol' crying-in-your-beer country songs will know ;)). 

  What is going on when the Spirit "fills us"?    [/b]

  As I shared in my comments on the above verse before, it is the result of the Spirit's control in our lives that leads to the "making melody in our hearts to the Lord," not the means to that end.  But, the verse just says, "be filled, etc." and doesn't really tell us how that is accomplished.

  There are some clues to follow:

1.) "Be filled"---  suggests there is not some kind of process to actualize the Spirit in our lives--- The Spirit is readily avaivlabe to us, even apparently those languishing in a bad habit like getting drunk.  We don't have to go through an inner reformation, purify our hearts, engage in a regimen of devotion, etc. to gain access to the Spirit as there is ready access to this resource no matter our condition.

2.) "Be filled in the inner man"--- This is from Eph. 3 and helps us to see that The Spirit acts on the inside of us, but as we've seen this action is not like a drug that overcomes our senses, but rather has another dynamic altogether.  The dyanamic is via communication.

  In Eph. 3 we learn the Spirit tells us about God's love for us and it is by that love we are controlled.

3.) What is filled?  God's love for me personally first must be understood and believed as a fact of my Christian life, and this fills the mind, but it also needs to fill all areas of my psyche, and this will include my emotions. 

   Since God's Spirit does not possess us, like a bad habit, alcohol, or a demon would, there is no overpowering magic that will make our weaknesses and bad habits just vanish.  God's work in us is meant to save "us", our souls---- my very own unique personality, and He has no desire to obliterate who we are in an effort to create an idealized "spiritual man."

  We loathe our weaknesses, bad habits, character flaws, etc. and these things were made big issues in our Assembly past and have made us especially sensitive to them.  Our value to God, according to GG, was based on our ability to "deal with" these issues and those unable to do so were rejected, ridiculed, and openely shamed.  While all had these struggles, those that could hide them were rewarded for their acting abilities (hypocrisy).


    God's Spirit wishes to fill us with the knowledge of God's resolute determined love for each one of us and of the great value we have in his eyes!  To the degree we can honestly consider our liabilities we will experience the consolation of the Holy Spirit.  This is why it is important to honestly reflect on our Assembly past, our present condition in light of that past, and move forward with assurance on our pilgrim path! :)

   Much more to come----         God Bless,  Mark C.

Thanks you for your words of encouragement. I appreciate them.
Feel free to edit my postings any time your deem them needed.

I want to clarify one thing.  "I have learned",  Yet I am still learning these truths in my life.
There are days that I think I have the lesson the God wants me to learn, then there are other days where it is obvious I still have to learn them, and God takes me though the steps all over again.  It is not because I am slow, it is because I am stubborn.

Thanks again, Mark, for the wonderful words of encouragement, it does much to lift ones spirit.

Lenore

Good Easter Sunday Morning! :)

  I have been talking about faith and emotions, and in so doing have been trying to understand how the two work together.   I understand that different Christian traditions will have a theological view as to how these will operate in our lives, but I'm not trying to provide a work of scholarship here, rather a practical help for former members of the Assembly.

  This is a good morning to finally get to the phrase in the Bible:

 "Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks." Eph. 4: 18

  "Making music in your heart", really caught my eye one day while reading the passage about "be filled with the Spirit."  I like the KJ translation that uses the word "melody" for music as well.  What could this mean for us in our day-to-day lives?

  Music is an emotional experience and expresses/relates to what one is feeling on the inside.  This passage above instructs us to "make" music in our heart.   

   Is this "making of music" some version of working ourselves up into a state of joyfullness?  You know, an encouragement to, "put on a happy face" or, something like that?

  Though we are to make the music in our heart, it is a response to something outside of our own soul and it is a fruit of the H.S.. This makes it obvious that the Spirit does have an effect on our emotional realm, as well as the area of reason.

  Now, obvioiusly the mind is involved in all of this, and I am not saying that the Spirit bypasses our mind and touches our inner life, rather that the two aspects of our being must work in harmony (another musical word) for us to have a balanced Christian life.

  The Assembly was very destructive to this harmony for many of us.  Many of us entered the group as babies in Christ and were raised in a dysfunctional Christian family environment that instead of nuturing our inner life caused there to be, at the very least, some confusion. 

  Instead of a beautiful melody in our heart we had a discordant, out of tune, flat, and unharmonious inner life.  This was due primarily to the pushing down/denial of one's feelings as being "unspiritual".

   Jesus primary designation for the Pharisees aberrant religious expression was the concept of "hypocrisy".  Their lives were split in two between the "public" and the "private". 

  The Pharisees were so used to lying to themselves about their inner lives that they developed hearts that were hardened to any entreaty.  They could, like GG, live a double life and escape any feeling of conviction for their sin.  Those pointing out their duplicity became victims of their anger.

  This "splitting in two", where the outer and inner are not operating in harmony, can create other damage than just the hardened heart, it can have the opposite effect for some of us by creating a very raw and irriated (sensitive) inside. 

   The Assembly leaders tended to have hardened sensitivities, while many regular members suffered from a hyper-sensitivity; and of course each individual falls somewhere in that continuum.

  Each individual will be different, but most will need to face the fact that they are products of their enviornment, and their responses to that bad upbringing, to some degree.  If we try to ignore these things they won't just go away; we can't escape from our own selves.

  There are different kinds of escapism that we can employ:

1.) Forget and move on:  If one's inner life is damaged, just like if we hurt a body part, ignoring/denying it will not bring healing.

2.) Try to become a Vulcan  :)   This is where we minimize the human side of our being by living our lives in a very rationlistic way.  "Just the facts Maam", becomes our motto and we dismiss those that consider emotional health to be important for our Christian lives.  We fear dealing with our inner life, because it is so tender in there, and so we act to protect ourselves from getting hurt again.

3.) Stay on the sunny side:

 This is an attempt to make lemonade out of the lemons the Assembly gave us.  God does indeed have the ability to turn our ashes into beauty, and we can profit from our past bad experiences, but sometimes we can use this attitude as a means to escape what really was going on in the group; especially what was created inside of me as a result of my sojourn there.
 
  While creating a happy-go-lucky feeling in me it can make me very insensitive to those who were hurt there that I may come in contact with.  As I listen to a wounded soul's complaint I can come back with a flippant "spiritual" comment that seems to minimize the pain the hurt individual is feeling.  I've got a song to sing, "keep on the sunny side", but it is not a melody that is helpful to others, because in it's shallowness it is nothing more than a tinkling cymbal.

   I will try to post some more today and add what I hope are helpful thoughts to "making music in our heart to the Lord."  Your comments are appreciated and please feel free to disagree.

                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

                                                 
   

 

Music in our heart cont.

    In the Assembly the "self life" (natural life, soul life) was to be put to death so that our spiritual self could come to life.

  The bible does tell us to put the sinful self to death, but this does not mean seeing our own emotional life as an enemy.

   God does not hate the fact that we have certain natural feelings as a human being; indeed, he created these aspects of our humanity and they reflect what it means that we are in God's image. 

  Jesus wept, sometimes in great emotional pain (Gesthamane), and he enjoyed the positive feelings of gathering with people and feasting (which brought the wine bibber accusation from the kill- joy Pharisees).

  When I first left the Assembly I felt guilty when I was enjoying something that could not be directly labelled as "spiritual", as in meeting attendance or bible study, because this habit of seeing my inner life as needing to be supressed was so ingrained in me.

   Though we were instructed to "put to death" our natural human yearnings it is funny that it had the opposite effect intended, as it tended make you very aware of self, and difficult to just forget oneself and have a good time.

    To recover from this constant self awareness we need to be able to bring out all these feelings that we've submerged in the recognition that God sees the whole thing anyway and loves us just the way we are.  Talking about these with an understanding friend can go a long way toward helping us, and as we will see later, a crucial ministry described in the NT.

  The deep relief we will feel from knowing that God is not trying to kill our personality, and truly is kind, will set us to singing a song of joy in his direction.  He does not want to shame us for our inadequcies, the way the Assembly did, but wants to shield us as a good parent would.

   We have to develop a habit of believing in the God who is our dearest friend, wants us to succeed, and cares deeply about us.  It is the conscious practical trust in my daily experience of this love that will reach down into the depths of the inner life to bring healing and harmony to my soul.

                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

This perverse teaching was very instrumental in stripping away a God-given faculty for warning us of danger, namely, the conscience. Those who imbibed the false teaching of George and Betty still invoke the "self-life" argument as a means of criticizing those who oppose them with passion. Look at how consciences became so seared in the assemblies as to tolerate in silence, that which would have outraged the most pagan of unbelievers!
And some of you don't think the assemblies were dangerous??
Your point about this kind of false teaching having the opposite of its intended effects in right on the money.
Look at what happened to so many assembly teenagers.
The unhealthy teaching regarding unnatural suppression of emotions, rather than a healthy acknowledement of them, coupled with sound teaching of how God wants to direct and control by His indwelling Spirit, resulted in many of these young folk engaging in conduct far more serious than many of their unsaved peers.
That result alone should have alerted some of these idiot parents that something was desperately wrong with what they were doing. The children of course saw through the hypocrisy of George and Betty and their parents and rightly despised anything they had to say. This is by far the highest price paid my many involved with these wicked people.

 
Amen brother. The key word in all this in my view is freedom.
It was absent in the assemblies.
Why? George himself was a slave to sin.
Verne

p.s. It is kind of amazing how the puppets of George and Betty Geftakys were trained to designate as the "self-life" anything opposed to the will of those two.
Strange, for the Bible tells us what evidence of the carnal nature are:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like

These enterpising folk managed to make it apply to matters of where you lived, whom you married, where you worked, what you read, how you thought....ad nauseam...and some of us stupidly accepted this... ???

Thanks Verne!

  I want to step back for a bit and try to summarize what I think the value of this thread, Wounded Pilgrims, is to me.  I hope that you, and others, will make comments as you see fit.

  A lot of what I argue for here on this thread is provoked by some strong disagreements I have had on previous BB's, and even some e-mail's I get now.

  I don't know about others, but this "provocation" has been good for me, because it makes me think whether my position has any validity, or if I need to re-think it. 

  Most of all I want to know what Jesus would think of the whole situation----- the closer we get to that means we not only provide ourselves a great blessing, but can be a blessing to others.

[u]1.) Spiritual Abuse:[/u]:

  There are some Evangelical Christians who do not believe in any such thing as "spiritual abuse."  One author of a book review on Ronald Enroth's book on recovery from abuse likened those telling their stories of abuse in churches to Judas Iscariot and his betrayl of Christ.

 Basically, he believed these were just stories of disgruntled former members who were blaming others for their own failure to be loyal to Christ.  Though he didn't know one of these individuals in Enroth's book, or their actual experiences, he was able to divine their true heart, and character. (a truly amazing fellow  ;))

  I recently received an email from a former member of the Assembly who suggested that GG was not really evil and that we needed to take responsibility as being the only ones culpable for our involvement in the group.  We were deceived by GG because we wanted to be, or were to weak to speak out against him.

  There is a range of opinion re. the Assembly that at one extreme sees it as Devilish evil and on the other end as just a normal evangelical church that had a few problems.  Some see it as a classic cult and others as a group on the right track, but whose main leader had a moral "slip".

  The problem with taking the "Devilish evil" position is that there were many truly born again Christians in the Assembly.  There was gospel truth proclaimed, and some did get saved as well (though precious few for all the preaching we did). 

  I know of one sister who told me, "the Assembly was good for me, because it rescued me from an undisciplined Christain life and saved me from some bad habits."  She sees through it now, but believes God used it in her life for good.

  If we just look at the group, and the whole area of "spiritual" abuse, from the perspective of our own personal experience we will all be able to come up with some good and some bad.  Obviously, those who had a particulary difficult time (like Judy and Rachel) will have the worse opinions, and those who saw through the whole thing and got out early will be more likely to remember some of the good times.

  Another person told me that they really got to learn the bible from their Assembly experience and saw it as kind of a seminary instruction time. (would that make time in the J.W's also of God because they spend a lot of time studying the bible and enforcing strong discipline?)

   A better way to approach the discovery of the truth, as to where the Assembly is in the above continuum, is to ask the question,"how does God see the situation?"

   I have tried on this thread to provide Biblical support for my view that Jesus and the Apostles were very aware of the potential for the church to become an organization, that instead of building up the members, actually could become destructive to an individual's spiritual well being. 

   When I mention these passages, and my interpretation of them, I have not, to my recollection, received one disagreement re. my use of these verses, in so far as they are demonstrative of my point.  My opinions are challenged, but no offer is given of how my view of the bible is in error.

  Now, I know my opinions are filled with all kinds of bias, and probably my interpretations of scripture are tainted with prejudice as well, and I often misunderstand a point someone is trying to make.  But, this is what makes a BB so valuable because we can ask the question together: How does God look at this situation?  This is a powerful force to get us to drop our bias (either good or bad) and try to understand the truth in the matter.  Humility, if nothing else, can be gained from a willingness to talk through a matter like this.

 The  value of understanding how God views the Assembly is not just an excercise in futility, or of small value for the evangelical community, but one that brings us to truly being a blessing to our fellow believers.

  It is not just fringe churches and wacko cults that have the ability to damage God's children, but the subtle power of certain teaching and practices that we can see highlighted for us in the Assembly.  These subtle forces find easy root in evangelical churches as well, because getting off track can sound so much like we are truly following God ( "who has bewithched you?!")  The NT is filled with instruction along the lines of "destroy not your brother."

  Cults and fringe group members thrive on the feeling of being on the cutting edge of what God is doing.  These groups meet a spiritual need we have to excel in our pursuit of God, to have a life that serves a higher purpose, and to experience the deep personal satisfaction that comes from this. 

  When we use good bible words like, "holiness, commitment, submission, humility, self sacrafice, laying down our lives, reckon dead, etc." it is very difficult to see how these things could ever be harmful.  Like the above reviewer of Enroth's book we see a Christian claiming abuse as merely rejecting a call to be loyal to Christ by submission in his Christian church, and thus a Judas.

   However, the subtle power to abuse comes from the shifting of the true meaning of the above words to take the novice by guile, with the intention of bringing them into bondage.  The simple member who comes to the group with a hunger to serve God has this spiritual desire manipulated to meet the needs of the leader and his group; while the individual is weakened and damaged in the process.

  Next I will discuss what is damaged in the lives of those who are taken captive and spiritually abused.

                                    God Bless,  Mark C.   

What was there to be deceived about, or to speak out against him if he was not evil eh?? ::)
True re. our responsibility and weakness.  However  if we were to speak out while in the group, the very same individual will likely say "all churches have problems", and thus we would get into this 'circular reasoning' type logic.

Mark, I agree with your approach as to how does the Lord view what the Geftakys assemblies were/are and how do the Scriptures validate/invalidate their continuance/existence, and how do we then deal with what we experienced while we were involved with the group.


Matt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

Matt 23:14 [ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you shall receive greater condemnation.]

Matt 23:15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Marcia

 :)April 2nd:

There is another passage in Matthew: {the address and street number eludes me at the moment]]

Does Jesus say: He was holding a child with a warning, that anyone who stumbles  one of his little ones, itsn't better that he put a millstone around his neck, and throw him self in a well.
......in other words...it was better that a person not live, if he has mislead a child of God.

Christian, especially new Christians, we are God's children... those who have deceived those children, in a false christianity religion...they are the ones who are responsible ... especially like those who have never had a christian up bringing, or attended another church...
those ones who enter the GG organization... cold...were the ones who are feeling the worse of betrayal than those who have had a church background, even those who were not really involved...
Maybe I am not making it too clear... the ones who have had a previous church background, whether it was sunday school, youth group, had a harder time of submitting their wills, because we some how knew it was wrong, and never fully accepted the assembly way of doing things.
But there are those who came from a different background, who didnt have another way of teachings, only those of the assembly..so what was their pattern to follow.. the ones who were being taught.
Leader like GG. had a religion background, he went to school, he obviously studied his Bible.. taught from it. It was his interpretation of that teaching. It was so much the God rules. it was the man made rules that was being taught, getting control over the people, and ultimately his own down fall.
It is sad, because alot of people have been saved, but to what, to fall by the way side for the birds to eat the seeds. 

Like in Matthew and Jesus warning. GG has a lot to answer for when it comes to his turn to stand in front of the judgement seat, and explain his actions.
Just like the rest of us, and you know what, when it is our turn, we cannot point fingers and said he made me do it. It will be our actions and what we have done with the knowledge we
have been given. God will not hold any one accountable what you didnt know. Only for what you do know and what you did with it.

 Thanks Lenore  :) !

  I think you are were very clear in making your point and I agree that previous Christian experience made a positive difference for some of the former members.

  However, there were some who did have previous Christian involvements who subdued their doubts and continued to submit to GG.  Some of these were quickly promoted as leaders and preferred to enjoy the status their positions gave them, vs. just being an attendee of a normal church.

   The above squelching of conscience to achieve a place of position in a group is an example of  one kind of damage to the soul that was accomplished in the Assembly.  I would say that it is the worse kind of damage because pride has the distinction of earning the title of "the sin of the Devil."

   I need at this point to try and explain what I mean by "emotional damage" and what that has to do with faith,  because it is such a controversial issue.

 I believe that an understanding of our humanity is not contrary to spirituality, nor a hindrance to faith, but key to a strong faith.  I am not trying to suggest that the Gospel be "psychologized" or that "wordly" philosophy be used in our understanding of a life of faith.  Rather, that we see ourselves as God created us: individual persons with minds and hearts.

  When we think of "emotion" or "feeling", and try to understand these terms in a spiritual context, it is often said that in order to follow God by faith that we must not follow this "inner" guidance because this is an unreliable means to discover the Spirit's guidance.  We are told that we must "set this aside" and obey our clear reasoned understanding of God's word.

 Before we decide whether the above is true we must explain what we mean by the terms above.  On some levels of emotional experience it is absolutely true that we best not follow every feeling.  If I "feel" bad because of a depressed mood it is not due to God's disapproval of me, nor when I "feel" good is it an indication that God is for me.  I know God loves me because the Bible says so, not because I feel it, but this is not the only function of emotion in our lives.

 
   My understanding of the Bible tells me that God does not chop us up into categories like: mind, conscience, heart, feeling, etc., though these individual parts are mentioned, they are part of a integrated whole that is what God has saved.  Each part has a necessary function, and must work together in proper balance for us to truly live spiritual lives.

   The bible says that the "Gentiles are past feeling," and uses the term "feeling," to describe a moral sensitivity to what is good or bad.
It does not say that the Gentiles are "past reasoning," because they may have excellent minds, but their powers of reasoning are tainted by their lack of sensitivity in their conscience to moral considerations.  This condition actually "darkens their minds" and causes their reasoning to be in error.

  With the former unrepentant Assembly leader, (as seen above) who hardened his conscience to feed his ego, recovery will mean that this sensitivity (feeling) must be restored.  We know that some have left in this state, (or who are still in the group) and who stoutly reject any attempts at entreaty, and have only feelings of pity for the way former members have treated them (and with not a smidgen of feeling toward those that they mistreated while on their climb up GG's ladder)!  :'(

  One such brother called me up on the phone to "make things right" when he heard that I had problems with his conduct at my forcing out from the group.  When I tried to address what I felt needed to be "made right" the brother blocked my e-mail address and refused to continue the conversation.  His language was filled with "spiritual words and phrases" but his "faith" was misguided because of a darkened inner state that prevented honest Christian reason and relationship.

  Now, I am not saying that my view of the situation between us is "the only truth", in the sense that I have achieved a totally pure heart, and thus am the only honest arbitrator in the matter.  However, his lack of willingness to consider any of what I said, and to enter into any discussion re. it, reveals the chief influences in his life: wisdom that refuses entreaty is not "from above" but from a darkened source.

  The damage he received in the Assembly was the "making" of an inner life that was shaped by pride.  He has constructed an image of a spiritual self that he is holding on to for dear life, and he is deathly afraid to let go of, lest any see him as he really is: just  a regular weak human being who often fails (like the rest of us).

  We see this attempt at unmasking in the Gospels between Jesus and the Pharisees all the time, and the problem is never that the Jewish leaders had problems with reasoning; their problem was a moral callousness (lack of feeling) that prevented good reasoned faith.

  So, we can see that "feeling" has a much wider definition than it is somtimes given when it is only assigned to such conditions as euphoria or depression.  Feelings can be self centered, and have detrimental effects on one's life of faith, or they can be filled with passion to help others in their lives--- and thus empower one's life as a Christian.   "Faith works by love" and this directs our emotions from a self centered pre-occupation to one that represents the life of God.   

   One could say that: "it seems it would be more accurate to say that the above former Assembly leader has a moral problem and not an emtional one."  My answer is that morality has an emotional component in our lives, and must be addressed (mind and heart).  Proper balance has to be restored for us to live happy and meaningful Christian lives and this will mean that we must address what's inside as well as getting a handle on doctrinal issues.

  Resolving these issues will be different for each individual, and though I talk in generalities re. certain types of former Assembly members, I do not intend to make these general comments sweeping in nature.  I will discuss other kinds of emotional damage in further posts.  Your comments are very helpful and appreciated.

                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

Marc, I think there is such a vast difference for someone who has left the assm prior to the big fall-out, as well as someone who was in 1-5 years  single and the people who were in for 20-25 years and have spent most of their lives there with families. I would think their would be alot of turmoil over the wasted time and money. It also seems alot harder for a family to leave, as opposed to someone single who could just make other arrangements. Just a thought.( I think a couple might think the "enemy" was working over-time if one did want to leave) I remember alot of warning signs, and thinking well I really need to bear the Cross, til it was un-bearable I reallly did'nt like the place anymore, and stopped giving thithes. It also helped I  knew other Christians and was in a wedding with normal people this really helped the lights to come on, and see how strange the place was. I knew I'd never return there, if I ever had a thought of returning I'd think I'd rather sleep on the street then be in that bondage again. Also I felt like just going for God's Grace.  Summer. (For my yoke is EASY, and my BURDEN is Light.) matt11:30 Jesus Christ.

p.s. At the risk that the last post came across as really arrogant. I will confess to asking for prayer over the years up until about 10-12 years ago. At that time I saw the group as really Legalistic, but still Christian. I did'nt know all about the inner-workings.( Hindsight is 20/20.) And that it was a full-blown cult.( I'm sure I was really bashed.) At any rate it is something I want to forget about. Life is too good to spend in the past.  Summer

Mark,

You said:
I know that you quoted a passage that said that the gentiles were "past feeling".  However, the last time I checked, the Jewish leaders of Christ's day weren't Gentiles.   ::)

The problem with the Jewish leaders was that they did have a problem with reasoning.  They reasoned from false premises.  That is to say, they used religious beliefs that were not true as premises in their logic.

Feelings are the "flavor" of our inner life.  But feelings have no informational content.  You can react on the basis of a feeling, but you can't reason from them. 


Actually, love has a moral aspect, (we are required to love), an intellectual aspect, (we must decide what acts would be genuine expressions of love), a volitional aspect, (we must decide to actually act upon what we know is right and profitable, and an emotional aspect, (we "feel" love toward another).

Seems to me you've got the caboose at the head of the train.

Look at the phrase you mention above.  "Faith works by love".   Faith starts with the perception of truth from God's word read or heard, develops as we understand what that truth means and how it is to be applied, and is acted upon by the will.  We "love and serve" one another because we know that God loves us, and we participate in His love as we obey him.  Then, usually but not always, the emotions of "loving" are released in us. 

Example: When you had to get up early and go to work to earn money to feed and clothe your kids.  You did it because you loved them.  But there were plenty of mornings when you didn't have the "feeling" of love as you climbed out of bed.  But you did it anyway...out of love....but apart from the feeling of love, ie, the emotions we associate with love.

Reminds me of the time I saw Billy and Ruth Graham being interviewed on TV.  The guy asked Ruth Graham if she had ever considered divorce.  Her answer was, "Divorce...no.   Murder....yes."

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Thanks Tom.

  I'm glad that you returned to this conversation as you have raised some very important points that I would like to respond to.

  Unfortunately, I am not going to have enough time until next weekend to respond fully.  I can only make a couple of quick responses to some of your challenges to my previous post.

    The "past feeling" phrase was indeed referring to the Gentiles, but the application of the principles found in that verse apply to any soul walking in darkness: hardness of heart is not hardness of mind only, and the Apostle is trying to make the point of what hinders any soul from coming to a place of correct understanding re. life in God.

  Re. the order of "reason, will, behavior, feelings" and how they function in the life of faith:

    I do not believe that the analogy of train cars is a good one when referring to a person of faith.  All of these parts are necessary for a person to advance in fatih and each has some locomotive power.  In other words, we don't drag the emotions along at the tail end.

   A better analogy, IMHO, would be that all the parts above form the locomotive itself: one is a piston, the other a crankshaft, one a transmission, and maybe one a wheel.  This means the thing won't run at all without each part in good working order.

  We are whole human beings, and without a mind we could not be human, but without emotions we also would lack a crucial component to be considered human.

   The first work of the Holy Spirit is the conviction of sin.  This obviously will take some measure of intellectual activity, but primarily awakens moral sensitivity to our own sinfulness.  This most certainly will not happen without feeling a sense that something is wrong within my soul.

 With most of us our reaction to this bad feeling is a desire to find relief.  Thus, God uses our emotions to stir us to cry (like the Roms. 8 groanings) out and find salvation.  I would consider this a far more emotional experience than an intellectual one.

  The appeal of God is to the heart, which includes the mind, but primarily reaches out to the moral center of our being, which is our conscience. 

   If God's approach to us was on the basis of our intellectual ability then many of us would be in big trouble (some may include me in this troubled group  ;)).  Some of us are much better at philosphy than others, but what makes us equally human, and valuable to God, is our moral capabilities.

  Hardened hearts do not have a relationship with God, while sensitive hearts do.  Sensitivity is an emotional adjunct to the conscience.  Those that do not "feel" bad when they sin become social monsters (sociopaths). 

   This tender conscience is not a "caboose",  but an integral part of true spirituality, and without which we can not experience the life of God.

                                                              God Bless,  Mark C.

Mark,

I think that you are assigning a definition to "heart" that is erroneous.  Heart can mean different things in different contexts.  It frequently is used to describe the inclination of the life towards or away from God. 

"Their hearts were hardened" does not mean that sinners have no feelings.  It just means that they stubbornly resist God, no matter how he communicates his truth to them.  In fact, they can be filled with feelings of disgust and disdain when told the truth.

Let's say that you are walking in the woods.  You come around a curve in the trail, and there is a grizzly bear coming in the opposite direction about 15 feet away.

1. You see it.   In other words, your sense of vision tells you that there is a big hairy toothy thing in front of you.

2. You believe the information of your senses.

3. All sorts of alarms go off in your body and mind.  One of them is a sense of alarm and fear.

1. Perception of truth.  2. Faith in truth.  3. Feeling of alarm.

This happens because of our habitual response to what we see.


But here is another scenario. 

You see a magician.  You see him saw a woman in half.  At least, that is what it looks like to you.

But, you dont believe it.  And therefore you are not filled with emotions of horror, as you would be if you believed it had really happened.

This is because we filter out what we seem to see because we refuse to believe what our eyes are telling us.  We habitually doubt "magic" tricks because we are predisposed to doubt, we don't believe in magic.

But, what if one day some guy actually sawed a girl in half?  Unless what we saw and heard was different, we would not feel anything at all.  Our habitual response to this sort of thing would determine our feelings, at least until we knew more.

So, habit enters in.  Over time we build up habitual associations with certain experiences. 

When someone from an assembly past,( or any other abusive past),  says that they "can't" believe God or obey him, what is really going on is that they have built up a very powerful habitual negative reaction to certain things.

Their feelings are actually betraying them!  They need to "be transformed by the renewing of your minds".  That is why obeying the directions of Philippians 4:8 is so crucial.

You cannot overcome negative emotions by wishing them away, or by praying them away, or by willing them away.  You deal with bad mental habits by obeying God and presenting the intellect with positive truth, over and over again.  You "overcome evil with good."

The goal of spiritual instruction is spiritual maturity.  Abusive groups hold people in spiritual childhood.  These folks need to grow in grace.

Old saying: "If you do what you've always done, you will get what you've always got."

Thomas Maddux

Mark and Tom:
What faculty do you think Scripture is referring to in Proverbs 4:23 when it uses the term heart?

Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

Do you believe it has an equivalent physiological or psychological descriptor so far as our intellectual understanding of human nature is concerned? I don't have a clear answer for this but was curious as to what you both think.
Verne

p.s. Clearly some believe that God is speaking about  our literal heart, the implication being that God views this particular organ in far more than a merely biological (an instrument for propelling blood throught the system) capacity...unless of course you believe that Proverbs is merly advocating for cardio-vascular fitness... :)

 Very clear explanation of your thinking Tom, and I'm sorry that it has taken so long for me to get back to this discussion.

  I am not clear how my view of the "heart" is "erroneous", however,  maybe you could explain how our views differ.  I may have a more complex view than yours ( or convoluted  ;)) but I agree with the aspect of heart that you described as "inclination" as being important to the definition of what the bible calls the "heart."

  Your example of the "Grizzly" makes sense, given the strict paramaters that you assign to it, but I think it fails in the real world of faith and emotions because it excludes the complexity of the human soul.

  I'd like to expand upon your example by adding some additional angles that might better describe an abusive scenario.

    I read a brochure about taking a vacation in a federal park in Alaska that is put out by the government.  They talk of all the wonders and joys of visiting, and describe it all with glorious photos.

   I have some worries about the dangers of bears, and so call the State tourism board where I am assured that the park is very safe and that nothing will happen to me.  I trust these officials---taking their statements as authoritative, and believing that they are reliable; only motivated by what is best for me.

  When I arrive at the park, on the very first night, a grizzly bear enters my tent and kills one of my children and badly injures the rest of us.

  When I confront the Park Rangers about their assurances of safety in the woods they begin to turn the tables on me by suggesting that it was my fault because eveyone knows that grey colored tents provoke grizzly bears and that I should have known better.  Every argument I make is turned around on me and I am blamed for the unfortunate event.

  I now question the motives of the officials, and after talking to some locals discover that for each visitor to the park a bonus is paid to the State officials and local park rangers.  I also now understand that they fear that their false motives will be discovered, and this is why they try to cover-up and blame me for the tragedy. 

 They are more interested in the perpetuation of the false image of safety of the Park because they gain from it, and could really care less about visitors.  Possibly, some of the officials actually believe this propaganda as well.

  I will guarantee you that I will not visit that Park again, and probably will avoid anything that looks like a forest where a grizzly bear might live, even if the most reasonable arguments and reliable data could prove it grizzly bear free!

  You see, some of us really did get sawed up in the Assembly, and this was done by those claiming Biblical authority, and of whom we trusted spoke the truth of God--- We relied on this---- and because of that we are not likely to trust those trying to lead us down the logical path to higher divine wisdom that they proffer.

  It is not that these former Assembly members do not believe in God, it is that they refuse to be herded down a logical maze by those who claim to know what God is telling them to believe.  They see that guy up on the stage with the saw and it looks very much like the saw that cut them by the last magican show they were in.

  These fears are controlling their hearts and reasonable arguments in many cases will not be enough to pull them out of the pit they find themselves in--- they are overcome with grief and recovery from this condition needs a kind listening ear that acknowledges that their pain is real and that God has deep empathy for them as well.  They need to know that God is not interested in instructing them at this moment, but comforting them--- and yes, helping them to feel better.

  There is a place to teach reasonable doctrine, but sometimes we just need to "weep with those that weep."  Jesus taught, but he also held children in his arms and blessed them, wept at a funeral, allowed a prostitute to wash his feet with her tears, let a disciple lean on his breast, touched lepers, chased out money changers from the temple in anger, etc.

 In other words, Jesus was not a man of pure reason, and most of those placing faith in him were not great students of philosophy or theology.  He attracted those with deep emotional needs, as with most of us when we were saved, and that is the connection with God that the Assembly most deeply hurt.  Though most certainly our thinking must be renewed we also must recover that emotional connection that first drew us to God in the first place.

  C.S. Lewis was a great thinker, but he also was "surprised by joy" at his salvation, because it was the joy that satisfied a very important part of who he was as a person of faith.  Emotion is more than flavor as it is an intergral part of human spirituality that is essential to a healthy Christian life.

  Hearing the teaching that God loves me, and reciting it like the Rosary over and over again, will not strengthen the inner man because it ignores the depth in my soul.  This is why we have the Psalms to help us in our faith as well as the book of Romans.

  "Crying out from the depths" is purely emotional, but we sometimes need to let it all hang out before God, because our rational abilities are wracked by the circumstances of life to the point where we are overwhelmed. 

                                     God Bless,  Mark C.
 
 

Home at last! 8)

  I understand that Tom is busy now, and can't respond to my posts, but of course that will not keep me from carrying on the discussion without him  ;).

  Verne asked earlier on this thread about what the Bible means when it uses the word, "heart", and that seems to be where this stream of thought is taking us.

  I would like to ask the help of all who wish to engage in understanding this to throw in with a line or two.  I am not a Biblical scholar, or a psychologist, but I do have some opinions on the subject that might be helpful.

  Scripture often uses the phrase, when describing inner life, of "mind and heart."  This would seem to indicate, as I've already mentioned in previous posts, that there are distinctions between the two.

  I do believe, however, that is wrong to attach scientific precision to the definitions of these words (mind, heart, etc.) as if they form a strictly separate function in our lives.

  We generally think of love when we think of the heart,  and love is certainly a central theme of NT teaching and is The center of all Christian living, or at least it should be our goal.

  When we talk about emotion it can have negative or positive aspects; emotions can also be mature or immature---- as in: we expect children to cry at the least little thing, but for adults this would not be good.

  It may be that there are former members of the Assembly who just need to develop more mature control over their emotional state; but even this emotional immaturity is the result of being in the Assembly. 

  If these former members are controlled by negative emotions they know that this is not good and have tried to solve this problem using the only way they know how-----

They will choose again and again the failing ways that have been taught them in the Assembly as the only true Christian means for "victory."

    "How do you know this Mark?", some may ask.  Besides the many former members I have talked with, and those from similar groups, I have my own "testimony" to give.

   Much of inner life is automatic ( Tom would say "habit.") and reacts to life without a lot of thinking.  When a person has been trained for decades in an intensive toxic religiosity it takes deep root in the soul.

 I may now know that God is loving and gracious, but if I had been trained that when I sin God leaves me, my first inner reaction will be one of a feeling of worthlessness.  If I hear a passage preached, that GG twisted into a means to shame me, it will be impossible for me to just sit and listen to that verse without feeling badly.

  So yes, we must try to deal with negative feelings, if they are controlling our lives, but for most former cult/abusive church members just attending a "good healthy church", where we hear "good teaching", and being told to allow a better perspective to control will not suffice.

  Each individual is different and struggles with different things, but there needs to be a place where these folks can just talk and have a compassionate ear to listen to them.

  One such person, who had been infected deeply with "deeper life" teaching, was always trying to attain to a state of Christian Nirvana.  In this state he believed that all would be pure within and this would be the result of a life controlled by the HS.  He was always trying to learn the tricky inner doings that would release God's power in his life.

                                This person is I!

  I know that my former teaching is erroneous, and could quote you reams of Biblical evidence to back-up my thinking, however when certain things happen in my day I very often react badly :-[.  A series of reactions start when I run into frustrations, being treated badly, etc.

  Bible reading, prayer, devotions, strong determination, etc. do not stop these instant reactions all by themselves.

  Now, I don't want you to despair over the condition of your Global Moderator too much  ;), because I am doing much better than in the past--- did I ever tell you the story when I was in the Assembly and almost hit a guy over the head with a tire iron? :o  No, I didn't do it, but I came close, and if it had happened I would be Moderating from a prison cell today!!

  Emotions can be controlled and our inner life can be healthy, balanced, though we have an entrenched inner psychological "inclincation" to automatic bad religion.  More on this later.

                                            God Bless,  Mark C. 
   

The "more later"

  Yes, much of what I write here is reflective of my own struggles with recovery from my Assembly past.

  I recognize that there are those from the Assembly who did not fall head first into deeper life teaching, nor did they come to the Assembly from Eastern Religion like I had.  This was my "set-up" and because of that I see things from a perspective that may seem different than others.

  But, whatever angle kept you in the group (some for decades) you can't just walk away without recognizing that you were involved with something that was unhealthy spiritually; and this was not just detrimental to your powers of reason.

  One of the clear indications that we were involved in a cursed way is the terrible dishonesty of life we learned to accept as the way of life.  We professed one thing while within we were just regular ol' sinners.

   "But, aren't Christians to live holy lives?"  Yes, but holiness is not phoniness.  Humility is just the result of facing the honest facts of who we are and this will also give us a tenderness in our hearts toward those who struggle as we do.

    When we lived in the Assembly we had to disguise who we really were and this is a very unhealthy game to play.  When we closed our eyes to evil, and excused it in ourselves and others, we not only are cut off from grace we also become less human-----less sensitive to the needs of others.

   As I said earlier this can make monsters out of some, and with those whose conscience is still active, it creates a constant despair over one's ability to "enter into the victory."

  A lack of awareness of the wounding power of Assembly like teaching and practices, by even those who used to be in the group, is a symptom that the damage within is extensive.

 A ho-hum attitude that can't see what the fuss is all about on this topic shows a shocking lack of discernment and sensitivity that is linked to what the group did to disconnect us from God's Spirit.

  Sensitivity to the Spirit is not only fidelity to an orthodox faith, which many of us basically had while in the group.  What we professed, and how we lived our lives was a world apart, and Jesus did say we are his disciples if we do what we are commanded.

  Yes, we must understand first what the truth is, but if the fruit of our professed faith is not loving  (it was quite the contrary), then we are not expressing God's heart.

  Does God have emotion?  Does he love us with a cold and distant reason that prevents any feelings between us?  Does God really care about our happiness, or is this a low emotion that is only associated with unsaved worldlings?

  God does have feelings towards us: you are very deeply loved and valued---- and we must believe this vs. searching for a confirming emotion within to verify this fact of our faith.  It is very true that feelings must follow these facts, but that doesn't mean that our emotions don't have a very important part to play in what our Christian character will be.

  I can hold my faith in a cold kind of logic that I may be able to argue well, but in my behavior exhibit a callous disregard to those around me.  I can also have a kind of faith that believes correctly, but cover up a hidden life of sin that I desperately hope that none discover.  This leads to the creation of GG like monsters of evil.

  Jesus had a passionate faith that caused him to weep, get angry, show great tenderness, and eventually to accept our sin as his own!!  His faith ignited his soul with powerful emotion and incited this emotion in others as well.

 Peter did not see Jesus on the shore in John 21 and say in a dispassionate manner "that looks like Jesus on the shore", but jumped in the water and swam to the beach!  There was clearly an emotional attachment that he had, and it was Jesus that clarified that with him in that chapter by asking him, "lovest thou me?"  He did not quiz Peter on his orthodoxy, but on his affection for him.

      It is this unrelenting love of God that will not let us go that really is the power of God in our lives.  To believe that this is true after a big failure in your life (like Peter), or through all the little one's in our daily life, is where that love can really change us. 

   This love relationship does need a strong foundation of truth discovered by understanding the Gospel, but there is the passion of God behind that truth, and we need to both believe, and let it bring peace and joy to our inner life.   

  Have a great week in the knowledge that God does have a specific empathy: this simply means he feels your pain and very much wants to comfort and help you.

                                             God Bless,  Mark C.

Mark I see this a bit differently. I can only surmise that you are attempting to be gracious in your characterization by use of the expression "a lack of awareness".
Even the most tentative application of the rules of evidence, would convince the staunchest sceptic, that the assemblies indeed inflicted wounds by their teaching and practices.
We have the public exposure of the man who founded them as a man of terribly depraved passions, along with incontrovertible evidence of habitual and long-standing venial sin.
You have the personal witness of literally scores of Christians, who have attested, in the mouth of two or three witness, to the frightful grievances committed against them by those in responisbility in the assemblies.
In addition to the personal testimony, you also have the broken lives...
You have the witness of Christian men of spiritual stature and proven service, of credentialed professionals who are trained to make assessments of this nature.
You have the witness of the men so charged with responsibility, who in a consent decree of sorts, simply walked away from thie "great work" when all these things became public knowldge.
I could go on but why belabor the point?
This raises a fundamental question.
Given the nature of the existing evidence regarding the person who started the assemblies and the impact they have had on the lives of so many, can the argument be made that someone brazenly defending a system such as this does so merly as a result of a "lack of awareness"?!
I will confess I have in the past attributed such a thing to unadulterated stupidity.
I have accordingly employed such words as "doltish", "moronic", "idiotic", "imbecilic" etc. etc.
While this is indeed strong language they do not in any way do justice to the enormity of what happened in the assemblies.
Not only do those words not do justice to what happened, I am personally convinced that  they do not provide an adequate explanation for why a person would deny the conclusion so clearly warranted by the evidence.



Folks, please listen to me. A ho-hum attitude shows more than a shocking lack of discernment.
It shows more that a frightful lack of sensitivity.
It has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence or even an ability to reason.

What is shows, more than anything else is a soul so defiled and so utterly corrupt,that it delights in the destruction of others!

These same filthy dreamers, are the same ones who would have counseled the injured, that for the sake of the "testimony" the awful cesspool should be covered. That rather than expose the fetid and festering sewer for what it was, it should preserved. The nature of their arguments warrant such a conclusion.

These kind of folk have given themselves to spiritual violence against all who have suffered under this system!

I would respecfully submit, that the proper way to describe an attitude like this is to conlude that it is evil.


Now there are some of you that think evil can be rehabilitated. I have watched with some dismay at your attempts.
I myself have fallen prey to the mistaken notion that you can shame wickedness into reformation.
None of these things are Biblically prescribed.
While it is true that we are are to resist evil (which many in the assemblies failed to do), ultimately God has to deliver us from it. How does God do this?

Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:21

Let me share a secret with you. Most people think this verse is a prescription for doing.
It is not. It is a prescription for being!

Unless you understand this, you will never understand why the men in the assemblies could not overcome a man like George, It had nothing to do with what they did, and everything to do with what they were!

If you are a wicked and evil person, no one, including yourself, can talk you into goodness.
We have seen any number of instances on this BB when presented with the perfect opportunity to display goodness, evil folk display what is truly inside. They cannot help it.
Conversely, if you are a good person, no one, including your worst enemy, can talk you into evil.
You are what you are.
How does one overcome evil in this world?
Simple. By being the kind of men and women God wants us to be.
It has nothing to do with talk.
The question is, when you are weighed in the balances, what will empty boasting avail?  A word to the wise...
Verne
                                             

Today I read this by author and teacher Beth Moore:

Isaiah 61:1
They will rebuild the ancient ruins
  and restore the places long devasted;
They will renew the ruined cities
  that have been devasted for generations.
.....
1.  Agree to take an honest look back. Many well-meaning Christians take out of context the exhortation in Phil 3:13, "forgetting what is behind," and apply it as a command to never look at the past.  Paul was talking about all the trophies of life he had to leave behind in order to follow Christ.  God's Word clearly expresses what a good and effective teacher the past can be.  The past will be a good teacher if we will simply approach it as a good student, from the perspective of what we can gain and how God can use it for His glory.
.....
2.  Believe the truth over the enemy's lies.  If breaking the chain of bondage was impossible, God would never hold us responsible for repeating the sins of the past.
.....
3.  Discern the difference between rebuilding and preserving the ancient ruins. ... God never called us to preserve our ancient ruins.  Rather than inspect the ancient ruin and then work with God to rebuild, we just keep revisiting and preserving and we never get over it.  Without God, our only sure Restorer, that's about the best we can do.
.....
4.  Accept God's appointment as a reconstruction worker. ... I believe one reason God requires our cooperation is that He deeply desires our involvement with Him.  He created us for this purpose.  Rebuilding ancient ruins is impossible for us without God.  We are unqualified for the task; but as we draw near to Him, He rebuilds our lives and characters.  Remember, God's primary purpose in healing us from our hurts is to introduce us to new depths of relationship with Himself.
.....

Marcia

From author/teacher Beth Moore:

Christ is never the author of abuse.  The Bible teaches us that some hardships are specifically ordained by God for the purpose of our growth and refining.  (Child) abuse is not one of them.  When you are trying to discern whether God or Satan is the author of hardship, one of your best clues is whether or not sin is involved.  God never entices us to sin nor does He employ sin or perversion as a means of molding us into the image of Christ.

Beth More sounds like someone I would like to get to know Marcia. What she talks about here is I think one of the worst things we learned under the tutelage of th likes of George and Betty.
One day Kurt and Andra's youngest daughter pulled the hair of her older sister and after consulting with Betty, Andra was instructed to pull the hair of the toddler. It seems to me firm but gentle instruction would have been preferable, enforced by a little hiny disipline if needed. Cruelty is in my view never godly.
I might add, this is the reason I made a recent apology on this board, not as has been repeatedly and falsely claimed, that I made statements that were untrue. Unkindness in one thing, lying is quite another.
There was something terribly wrong with the way Betty Geftakys thought.
Verne

If I'm not mistaken, this hair pulling idea has been espoused by others, namely Debbie and Michael Perle.  (To Train up a Child, No Greater Joy)

While I don't think a toddler understands the finer points of this lesson if they are under two years old, I do think it can be a good thing to do to a 4 or 5 year old bully.

I'll never forget a time when a 7 year old was continually harrassing and oppressing our boy, who was then 9.  He was pulling his ears, his hair, hitting him, pinching him.....Shawn told him to stop at least a dozen times, and his mother, who was right there, also "reasoned" with the lad...but he wouldn't stop.

Shawn finally told him,  "next time you do it I'm going to hit back."  It took about a second until the next time and the younger boy found himself with a bloody nose.  The younger boy then had a tantrum and began to get really violent, trying to hit, scratch, claw, etc.  Shawn fended him off, and hit him a few more times, and he quieted right down.  No problems after that!

Brent

This is one of the few things my wife and I disagee about. (The other is no lethal weaapons in the house, not even shuriken! so forget about the Glock   ::) )
As to how child a should respond to violence from another child, I think your boy got it right. I think that's a bit different coming from an adult, and especially with a toddler who may not quite get the lesson. I find it amazing that this went on in the presence of the parent but then I have seen similar neglect and failure to control little brats. In fact, I teach my girls to not give any warning or grace period on this kind of thing. If they are ever physically threatened in any way, they know what to do...and it is not to tell them never to do it again...
I consider it their civic duty to make sure that for anyone who puts their hands on them, they do their best to see that they do it to no one else.
As I said my wife thinks you should walk away. If you can sure....sometimes you cannnot, then what?
Verne

The references to victimization/child-abuse, in the quotes from Beth Moore, can be applied to spiritual abuse as well, hence I post these here.

"I believe each of us who have been victimized in childhood can testify that the tendencies toward certain sins dramatically increase as a result.  As part of my healing, I had to take responsibility for my own sin, whether or not another person's actions escorted me to those sins. .... I don't think confessing sin that resulted from victimization is primarily about fault.  It is about freedom!

Yes, my sins were my own fault.  But more important to God, I believe, was my willingness to confess how badly I hated those sins and how I wanted to be free from the power the abuse held over my decisions.  Confession allowed me to bring sinful behaviors to the table for open discussion with God.  He instantly forgave me and completely cleansed me, then He began to teach me day-to-day how to change my responses."

With regard to giving warnings,

We are told that God told Adam not to eat from a certain tree.   Possibly He could have repeated this several times, but we do know that the penalty occured, exactly as fortold, the moment the first infraction occured.

How many of us parents are this consistent?

Brent

Marcia, sometimes you do amaze me sister, and this quote is one such example.
There are some things that do not lend themselves well to a BB discussion because they are too important and one runs the risk of having them tirivailized.
I want to tell why I think the above statement is a monumental tour de force - if people truly understood it, many would be kept from all sorts of false teaching and cultish philosophy.
There has been a lot of recent discussion about the application of the cross in the life of the Christian.
Brent's response was scintillating and in my opinion right on the money.
Nevertheless, as I reflected on what was being said, it dawned on me that people often propose these kinds of notions in an attempt to address real issues, in the case the person raised the question of what to do about one's sin.
I mentioned that struggling with easily besetting sin is symptomatic of immaturity in the believer and this, I believe  is indeed the case. As we grow in grace, we find that we no longer fail in the same ways, or we do so with less frequency, than we used to.

What does this have to do with anything, you might ask?
Well, Marcia put her finger very powerfully on something else I should have said at the time but did not, and here it is.

God's remedy for sin in our lives is not the applicaton of the cross, as some mistakenly assert, it is confession!

busy right now, more later...
Verne

Right on the money. Nothing is beyond God's reach. No one is hopeless.

I found this quote when I was a high school student, and it went like this:  "It's my parents fault for what I am; it's my fault if I don't change."

We have the options.

Just to clarify, what Beth Moore is saying re. healing from past abuse is similar to what MarkC has been saying hence I posted quotes from Beth Moore here.  I did not post anything about a remedy for sin, but rather about a process for healing and breaking free from bondage.

The healing process involves recognizing that from our past which has victimized us and kept us in bondage.  Having done that, there is then a need to own those sinful tendencies by confession in order to then find immediate forgiveness from God and daily renewal.  This does not get the victimizer/abuser off the hook in that he/she is still worthy of the millstone treatment, but it does help the victim find healing.

God bless,
Marcia

Marcia,
Are you referencing  Beth Moore's book called "Breaking Free"?  She has written quite a few.  I went through this DVD series.  Her lecture series could hold my interest like no other, as she is quite a gifted teacher.

I wasn't quite ready to go through her book "Breaking Free" 4 years ago as it is pretty intense.  I think I will take it off the book shelf and dust it off.

Suzie

Hi Suzie,

I have not read the book yet, but am going through the video series in a Women's Bible Study group at church.  It comes with a workbook and homework 5 days/week.  Yes, it is quite intense.  I posted comments that were relevant to topics we have discussed.

It is quite tragic what people (in my group) have experienced and refreshing to see the Lord's healing work in their lives.

Blessings,
Marcia

I am sometimes accused of intellectual elitism.
Part of the reason is that I simply assume anyone caring to read what I write is not a dunce.
Concededly, that assumption is sometimes unwarranted.
The post I made was in response to a question raised about what do we do about sin in our lives.
Unless the person is a complete idiot, they would not confuse God's part with ours.
Would somebody please stand up and demonstrate, for the rest of us simpletons, exactly how one would apply the cross to one's own specific sin?
As I said, what we do with our sin is confess it.
That is all you can do...silly man...
Verne

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

CAPISCE??!!!
...back to the lab, persulfate TOC data awaits... :)

I did promised not to call you any more names didn't I?  :)

O.K. I take back the dunce and idiot comment but the supposed rebuttal of my point by you-know-who was quite silly considering the speaker(writer) obviously completely failed to grasp it...pressed for time now...more later...
Verne

Some folk followed GG for reasons of personal agrandizement - they loved being special, placed on a pedeatal, and having the supposed right to tell people exactly how they should live their lives.
Many others were qute sincere, and truly desired God's best. They were convinced the GG could teach them how to get it.
The inducements took  vairous forms, but in general, fear was the key motivator.
We all remember threats like "losing the inheritance", "missing the first resurrection", "not being an over-comer" etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Nothing is wrong with wanting God's best. We have to be exremely careful of people claiming to know, for each of us, exactly what that is, and furthermore how it is to be achieved.
The discussion regarding how we deal with sin is important for this reason - when you sum it all up, and reduce it all down the bare essentials, the only thing that keeps us from God's best is sin!
If you accept this premise, it follows that we must then be very clear regarding what we believe about sin, and what we represent to others concerning the way we deal with it.

It was popular in the assemblies, as with much so-called deeper life teaching to assert that the way to deal with sin in your life is by "going the way of the cross".
Assuming for the sake of argument, that there were indeed some metaphysical, mystical process by which one could engage in such a thing, let us pose this question.
What have those found who espouse this kind of teaching with regard to its efficacy to deal with their own sin?
To make it even more objective since we are so often given to self-delusion, what have others observed?
Did any of us in the assemblies overcome our sin by "going the way of the cross" , whatever that was?
Was the main proponent of this kind of teaching GG himself, able to overcome his sin?
Think about it.

What good is your doctrine if it lacks power to effect any change whatsoever in your own conduct?

Most well taught teachers of Scripture will tell you that the reference to the cross (let him deny himself, take up his cross, etc.) in a practical way simply means saying "no" to one's own desires, when they clearly conflict with the revealed will of God!
Not all the hogwash assembly folk oftern dished out to get others to do what they wanted them to do.
The question is simple, where do we find the power to say "no" to sin in our lives??
It is a very good qustion and I am glad Sonrdra raised it in the honest and candid way she did.
Ultimately, this is what it is all about is it not?
 Morre later...
Verne

Let me just  say a word or two about using typology and metaphor to present doctrine - it is dangerous.
It was GG's undoing
I like Biblical typology, the scoffing of some like my good friend Tom Maddux notwithstanding, as much as the next person.
I do not base doctrinal positions on it.
To suggest to a child of God strugging with personal sin that what they need to do is "go the way of the cross", is worse than useless and misleading. It is positively harmful and ignores the plain teaching of Scripture.

While I think that some of the writing on this subject gives remarkable insight into Scriptural truths, ultimately it is speculative and therefore subject to error.
We must base our doctrine on the plain teaching of Scirpture, not wild speculation.

If for example, I made the statement that the firmament in Genesis corresponds to the understanding,(some would say the heart) the waters to the affections (lust in the fallen  creature) and the land appearing to the emrging dominance of the will, some of you will immediately recognize the allegorical typolgy and go yep...that's right. Most of you are going to say what the %$##@  is he talking about??!!

The fact of the matter is that the Word of God teaches us that we cannot crucify  our sin. we cannot corral it, we cannot conceal it.
 
WE HAVE TO CONFESS IT!
So far as what we are able to do about it, this is the Bible's central command to the believer.
It all begins with confession.

I do not know of any teaching in the Word of God that is plainer.
Why not keep it simple? God does.
Verne

p.s I suppose that part of the confusion some folk display about this is that they assume John is only talking about what the sinner does at the  time of initial salvation...a most egregious error in my view...

I'll be honest.  Most of what I know about this sort of thing, I know second hand.
I think a lot of spiritual men (and women  :)) who write about some of these things are right on the money, but much of it I could not necessarily prove just from the Scripture.
Secondly, this kind of teaching has sometimes been used to the great detriment of immature beliievers.
I just think we have to be quite careful in sharing even what we believe to be Biblical truth.
You know what the Word says about strong meat...





I thougt you would never ask...now yer talkin'  :)

Verne

What is the child of God to do about his sin?
Well, if you are anything like me, here are some of the things you may have tried:

DENIAL:  I am not really like that. People just don’t like me.
DELAY: Yeah…I know it’s a problem and I’m just gonna have to deal with it…one of these days.
DEFENSE: I was provoked!
DISCIPLINE: Maybe if I move into the brother’s house…was more faithful in my morning times, attending the weekly meetings,  prayed more….
DISPAIR: I guess this is just the way I am…I’ll never change, no matter how hard I try…I might just as well give up…
DECEPTION: It's not that big a problem....I'm being faithful in other ways...God understands...

Sounds familiar anyone?

Verne

Nope...never worked for me...so I would definitely not recommend that approach...but of course, y'all knew that...
Verne

Verne,

What are you trying to say here?  I don't understand. Could you please re-state?

Brent

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but nontheless true. We all at some time or another have attempted to deal with sin in our lives in one or more of the aforementioned fashion...until we learned better...i.e until we learned the necessity of confession.
The best part is what comes after... :)
Verne
p.s. I know...it seems far too simple does it not? Yet there it is, right in the Bibles we used to read so often...

I have heard several very interesting opinions about 1 John, where it says if we confess our sins.

No matter how you slice it, it isn't easy confessing certain sins.  Especially one that you have some equity invested in.  To do so, in my opinion, is evidence of the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

I think Sondra is right when she says that God begins to work in many ways in a sinners life when that occurs.  Call it what you will, it is full effect when the sinner confesses.

I see confession and repentance as being inseperable.  Halfhearted, vague confessions, followed by continued behavior is NOT what it means to confess our sins.

Great discussion!

Brent

What I say next is going to really shock you Brent...
Verne

I doubt it, but I look forward to hearing it.

Brent

There are some things, while they may appear intuitively right, may in fact limit one's appreciation for the reamrkable thing
that is being said in 1 John 1:9: If we confess our sin...
Although the English transaltion uses the same word in both places,the word for confess in  1 John 1:9 is not the same as in James 5:16, where it says: Confess your faults one to another.
I would like to point out what I believe is a subtle but important distinction.

Think of the words admission and acknowledgement.

 James 5:16  Confess your faults one to another. Think admission in the sense that the confession is declarative.

That is to say, you actually talk about your faults.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sin. Think acknowledgement, in the sense that the confession is dispositional.

edit: in other words, you uderstand they exist; while you may not talk about your faults, you think about them... :)

I am not saying that the word used in John 1:9 never includes the declarative, for in Roman 10: 9, 10 it very clearly does.

I am suggesting that the emphasis in 1 John 1:9 is dispositional.

In fact we see both combined in Romans 10:10.

For with the heart man believes unto rightoeousness: Disposition

And with the mouth confession is made unto salvation: Declaration.
Now the critical question: why is this important?

Acknowledgement of something has nothing to do with how one feels about it.
I wil take this even one step further; It is possible to acknowledge something, even though you may not be ready to admit it (perhaps due to feeling powerless to remedy it, which is true for sin)

We as Christians sometimes find it difficult to do or even say the right thing, even though we want to!

That is to say, the dispositional precedes the declarative. I believe  1John 1:9 is telling us that God understands this in His children.

There is great power in 1John 1:9
I know some of you are already starting to get my drift. It has some implications for Brent's comment about repentance and confession.
Some specifics next...it is truly amasing how God will take any opening we give Hm to bless...amazing!
Verne

How about an illustration?
Suppose there is a guy at work whom you do not report to, but whom you have observed handles his subordinates in a very abusive manner. In fact one young lady is so distressed over his conduct that she quits in tears.
As an example. He would come up to her after she had spent several hours tuning a very sophisticated analytical instrument and demand that she start something new, loosing all the hours of instrument prep time and so falling behind in her work.
Well, it is easy to understand how you could over time grow to dislike a guy like this.
You can even imagine hoping that he would someday reap what he sowed.
I am not necessarly convinced that either of the above are necessarily bad.
Imagine one day you come to work and the office is all abuzz:

Steve's wife just left him!

And you go: YES!

Well, not too long into your rejoicing, the Sprit of God quietly says to you:

"Why are you rejoicing in that man's calamity?"

On an intellectual level it is obvious - he deserved it. In fact after the prompting, I did not suddenly feel any less happy that this had happened to this guy, but in my heart I agreed with God. It was not right to rejoice at his misfortune. As I said, I did not necessarily immediately start feeling sorry for him (that came later), but nevertheless; I confessed my sin.
In a word, I don't think confession requires a special way of feeling, or thinking that you will never commit the same transgression again..
I think 1 John 1:9 is saying that God is willing to work with an attitude, even if we think we are not ready for action. That is where the second and best part of the verse kicks in!
The fact that we are having this converstation, is a result of my own application of 1 John 1:9.
I did not think I would be able to have a civil conversation with you Sondra. I was wrong about that.
Verne

Great illustration Verne.  I think we can all relate to it. 

I am immensely enjoying this conversation, and I have found that Sondra is more than able and willing to have civil conversations.  It helps to be respectful and friendly.

Brent

Good insight, Sondra.   ::)

Quite true. However, how does the sin nature display itsellf? In most of our cases it is one failure at a time and I think that is the way God deals with us. Good reference on the Hebrew. I did not check the OT but I did look at the other NT cases in which the same word in 1 John 1:9 was used. In passages like Matthew 10:32 and Luke 12:18, acknowledge seems an apt synonym. In John 1:20 the same word is presented as the opposite of denial.


This a quite a weighty observation. This is why fellowship is so important. This is why time is such a precious gift


You are right. We don't know the half of it. I don't know about you, but I scare myself sometimes.

Now we are getting to the good part.
I would argue, from our part, our sins don't so much need to be crucified, as they need to be confessed.
I believe our rap sheet was nailed to the cross in Christ.
Apparently though, and not one of us would disagree with this I trust, we do need cleansing.
I think the second half of 1 John 1:9 is really the juciest part.
I suspect one of the reasons we sometimes find it hard to confess is that we fear rejection.
We think that if God has to hear from my own hearts the kinds of thoughts I sometimes allow, He is going to walk straight out that door and never come back.
I know I am being a bit silly here but I do thing wanting to present our best profie as it were, even to the Almighty, often leads us to reticence....as if He did not know already...!
We may also fear that confession notwithstanding, what is to keep us from committing the same offence, even several times over? Why bother? The fact of the matter is this does indeed happen.
As you pointed out, confession is only a beginning for, there is a lot more in that verse!
I think one of the great truths of 1 John 1:9 is that agreeing with God about our condition puts Him in a position to do the heavy lifting...
more later...are we supposed to be having this much fun?  :)  :)  :)
Verne

I think it is quite instructive that the tremendous doctrinal truths asserted in Romans 7:1 -14, are followed by Paul's lament of verses 15 through 25. As blessed as the truths are, Paul shows that recognition of such truths in and of itself  is insufficient to enable him to win the war.
I would also note that the death of the Christian in identification with Christ is in the Scripture is always spoken of in the past tense!
The will is indeed involved, but we do not overcome sin by an excercise of the will.
We ought to know that by experience. This is the point Paul is making.
Paul states: I find (by experience) then a law, that when I would (marshal the volitional forces) good, evil is present with me...

Every Christian who has struggled with sin will say a hearty "Amen". Been there...done that!

Why don't we stay with 1 John 1: 9 for the time being.
Again the first half of the verse talks about what we do with our sin, and the text says something takes place on the condition of our confessing it.
I want to by-pass for the moment the matter of God being faithful and just (which is another entire universe of possiblites) and talk about what God does:

he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

It is my opinion that there can be no effectual excercise of the will to overcome sin, until and unless the operation of divine cleansing takes place...
it does not say we confess, and thenmake every effort to nip that thing in the bud the next time it raises its ugly head...
It says we confess...and God cleanses!...I know...
It can't possibly be that simple can it? Oh! but that is the beauty of it my friends...God gets all the credit!!!  :)
more to come...how does He do it?
Verne

I did a bit of checking on your comment about confession and fellowship and I think you're onto something...more later...
Verne

I guess I did rush a bit on the definition of confession. I also like to consult a good lexicon in trying to understand what the word is saying but that is not the first thing I do.
My first recourse is to look and see how the word is used in other passages, then check to see if my general understanding of the possible meanings is consistent with a scholarly formal definition. I guess I was not explicit enough in citing the passages that led me to believe "acknowldgement" was a reasonable rendition of "confess" in 1 John 1:9.

I agree that it does not necessarily mean a catalogueing of our sins, but you will note that the word sin is in the plural, which suggests specfic sins as opposed to our sin nature.
While it could refer to our sin nature in general,  I do not think anything in the passage precludes specific sins.
In fact the context seems to suggest that specific sins are in view
I will try to move a bit more slowly. Let me post next the varous NT passages in which "confess", as in 1 John 1:9 is used and I think you will agree that Vine's etymology does not give an exhaustive rendering.
I was under the assumption based on your own definition at the end of your post that we were in agreement on this.
I thought what you said was quite accurate.




My only comment then would be that while you limit confession used here to the sin nature, I would extend the teaching of the verse to include specific sins that we are aware of.
Let me know if you think my reasoning is faulty.

Verne
p.s. I took a look at my Greek translation and it is interesting the translators said "sin" in verse eight and "sins" in verse nine, same word. It could be that they also thought context required hamartia to refer to specific sins in verse nine as possibly opposed to sin nature as you suggest, in verse eight. Just a thought... :)

p.p.s I did a little excercise and assumed you were right, I translated 1John 1: 9

If we confess our sin nature, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin nature...

It really helped to clarify my thinking on this.

O.K. I did a bit more digging. The strict etymolgy of the Greek word for confess in 1 John 1:9 comes from two words that mean, one and the same, and to say. Nicoll's view is it essentially means to say the same thing as another, and therefore to admit the truth of an accusation. Vincent agrees.
If you think it would help, I can post other NT usage. If not, we can proceed,
Verne

Look at the tenses in Romans 6:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
 4.  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
 5.  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
 6.  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
 7.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.
 8.  Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
 9.  Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
 10.  For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
 11.  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 1 Cor 5:14

  For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. Col. 3:3 here present perfect - ye have died

It appears to be a "done deal" as it were...not an ongoing one...
There are more. I thought these were illustrative.


Are you sure about this? This reminds me of the verse in Ecclesiates 7:29:

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions  .

I think you would be hard pressed to show that the conflict Paul is referring to is a result of God's design.
The carnal nature, which is a direct consequence if sin, was not what God intended, but resulted from Adam's disobedience. It is not subject to God's law , but wars agaisnt it. In fact, God had to give us a new nature to replace the old so dual design does not at all seem  to be His intention.



I think the will has not so much to be trained, as it has to be controlled.
For example, there are many people of very disiplined will, who live morally upright lives and are outwardly indistiguishable from the most devout believer. Their will however, is not subject to God, and in fact may not even recognize its native hostility to Him.
In that sense, I agree with your seond point that the will's submission, is the key thing.
People who walk with the Lord for a long time, learn important principles and really grow in grace, often make the mistake of assuming that they eventualy arrive at a place of independence. Many mighty have fallen because of this error.



No I am not. Clearly it is possible. There are any number of things that we would allow as babes, that we do not as we grow in grace and it is not simply because our will grows stronger. In fact our overcoming sin is one of the strongest proofs we have of the life within. The question is how does this happen?

You mention confession and I am glad you did because it leads to the exact point I wanted to make.
We determine to do good (with our wills) and then so often we fail. We confess our failure, and not just our tendency but the specific transgression.
What does God then do?
Does He say: O.K. Let's try this again. Three more strikes and you are out!
Here is where I think the real power of 1 John 1:9 is often missed.
When we confess, God does not simply forgive, He also cleanses!
I think this means that He not only deals with the consequences of our wrong decisions, He also deals with their very source, our hearts!
You say you don't believe in 'zapping", but that is not necessarily implied. Some Christians will give witness to God's instantaneous deliverace from some besetting sin. Others see His cleansing work over a period of time.

The point is that for even our wills to work as they should God Himself has to change us! And He does.


I do not believe you can find a singel NT verse that instructs us to put the old man to death.
Theologically, you are executing a phantom, for he is already dead!
We are told to mortify the deeds of the body. The above discussion I think is one way we do this through God's enabling.


I agree. One already has.


Since you will be gone I will stop here and give a chance to respond.  :)
Verne

Verne, Could you back-peddle to Sondra's post from 10:29 last night and tell me where you find we leave the Cross? The Apostle Paul himself said "God forbid he should Glory save in the Cross." Gal 6 and again in I Cor 1 "The cross is the Power of God to those who are saved." So since you agree with SJ where do you find scripture to back up looking away or moving from the cross. I know this was'nt the central theme to your discussion, but it caught my eye in her last paragraph, just could'nt find this Georgesh teaching in my Bible. And she no longer walks by Faith, did you see her change it to in Faith could'nt find that either. Be careful there buddy or you may just go "One step Beyond". Summer.

I will go back and take a look and see if I can offer any helpful comments.
Paul's quote regarding the cross should be given in it's entirety, namely:

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ

The cross is indeed an instrument of death, not of reform. I contend that Scripture teaches that the work of the cross, so far as believers are concerned, is a completed work.


The cross is a fearsome instrument...in the hands of God alone...
Verne

I think this is what you are referring to Summer. I am not sure I understand what Sondra is saying here and if I do, I am not sure that one can find Scriptural support for anything but a walk by faith in this life.
Indeed Scritprue goes even farther that walking; it asserts that the just live by faith.
I think Sondra may be referring to the typology of the book of Joshua and the way Christians enter into conflict in heavenly places. I for one would shrink from any such engagement sans faith - you would be defenceless according to Ephesians 6.
Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 13 that faith hope and charity all abide...
I am sure Sondra will be able to develop that theme a bit more when she gets back.
Verne

Thanks Verne, I appreciate your insights. I just figured you "Got-It". In all fairness Sondra said she'd be away. This last paragragh was really puzzeling to me, sounds like a new religion. At any rate if she's speaking metaphorically of all the fullness of Christ, not sure yet. The instrument of the Cross gives us the precious blood, with-out the shedding of blood their is no remission, and the life of the body is the blood, we are washed in the blood, with-out the finished work of the cross we have nothing but a due bill when we meet up with God. Glad its paid in full.  Summer.

Well said Summer. I tend to shy away from "cross theology" as there is a tendency for some of its proponents to diminish the work of Christ. Preoccupation by any other cross but that on which suffered and bled and died seems to me to miss the message...I think this was Paul's sentiment...
Verne

Hi Everyone!  :)

  I will be leaving early tomorrow and will be gone all week, so my small contribution will be smaller than usual this weekend.

  There is no way that I can make any kind of comprehensive response to the debate here (yes you're all spared  ;)), but I would like to say a few things.

  The bible uses the word "cross" in different ways:  There is "the Cross of Christ", and the cross that we are to "daily take-up", as an example.

  The confusion that GG, and I think Sondra as well, make is in not making a difference between these two uses of the word "cross".  We can not take up Christ's Cross, for he bore that alone, but we can take up "our" cross and bear it daily.

  The former use of cross is the means of our salvation and the latter the practical life of one that has been saved.  Yes, experience of Christ's cross must have some effect on our lives if we are saved, but we can't actualize Christ's experience on His Cross in our lives. 

  We can't go through some kind of "stations of the cross" where we mysticize the event into some kind of spiritual event in our souls.  This sounds like some kind of Roman Catholic Mass, vs. a NT teaching on salvation by grace.

  The working out of our salvation can indeed be very complex and difficult for us (our cross) but the Cross of Christ is the clear and simple Good News that God has completly saved us through his own effort, and without any of our assistance!

   I wanted to take the opportunity to provide a personal example of what Verne wrote about, when he mentioned how GG's "deeper life" teaching did not produce what he claimed it would.  This, however, will take a lengthy post to tell, and so I will have to save it for next week, but I will at least say that though I deeplly yearned for the holiness GG promised, and sought it with great energy, miserably failed to make it happen in my life :'( :'(.

  True holiness expresses itself in love, which is the opposite of the kind of self preoccupation that comes from all the inner machinations of one's inner life as taught by the deeper life folks.

                                                God Bless,  Mark C.

   

I was going to talk about this in some detail later but now is as good a time as any since you raised this issue.

There is a fundamental dishonesty in the false theology of re-crucifuxion, I recognize that it arises out of confusion about what to do about the problem of indwelling sin in the believer, which is a real problem. There is indeed a law in his members that wars against the law of his mind.
Here is the source of the dishonesty:

Not a single person espousing a theology of self-crucifixion has been able to overcome their sin by its application!

George Geftakys is not the exception. He is the rule. All the time he was teaching this false doctrine, he himself was a slave of sin and he knew it!
The core of the profound anger I have felt toward this apostate, is the deliberate mailice of enjoining upon the people of God a course of action you know full well will not be of any value to them as it has totally failed in your own attempts to implement it.
It is generally true that proponents of this kind of teaching in fact demonstrate its fallacy by their own lives.
I don't have a lot of time, but let us put this issue to rest once and for all.
I want to pose three simple questions that I think will provide the answer to the real problem.
How do we distinguish the course of salvation past?
How do we distinguish the course of salvaton future?
How do we distingusih the course of salvaton present?
It fundamentally has to do with the nature and stages of salvation.
Let us talk about the past, the future and the present.
For the sake of easy application, let us also couple those periods with the words, penalty, power, and presence.
The best way to be kept from false teaching of all sorts, is to have a clear and unobstructed veiw of the work of redemption with respect to the above delimiters.
Let us take salvaton past.
Exactly what did God do on the cross? He delivered you from sin's penalty.

The wages of sin is death. He that hath the Son, hath life.

The work of the cross did not deliver the believer form sin's presence. That is future.
The work of the cross did not deliver the believer from sin's power. That is present.

Some of you are going to go apoplectic when you read that last statement. Read carefully.
I did not say the work of the cross cannot deliver you from sin's power.
The truth of the statement is self-evident. Every believer continues to sin even after he is saved.

Every Christian reading this recognizes the truth of this statement or you must tmake God a liar.

Salvation from sin's penalty is a work completed.
Salvation from sin presence is a work yet future. (we shall all be changed...!)

Salvation from sin's power is the work present!

The only relevant question then that presents itself to the thoughtful Christian, since he can do nothing about the past, and must await the arrival of the future, is what is God's provision for the present course of his redemption - deliverance from the power of sin.

How God does this is then the central and paramount issue.
The idea that this involves a design of God that pits two opposing natures agianst each other is very problematic and makes overcoming sin a question of how one chooses.

The Bible teaches that it is a mater of how one walks!

Make a mistake on this point, you will not only miss the mark, you will also lead others astray.
This is the legacy of George Geftakys.
Bye for now...

Thanks for the refreshing post!

Verne,

Excellent post! 

Both in Reformed and Dispensational circles there are many trained theologians and pastors who do not believe that a Christian has a sin nature at all!

They point out two things: 1. In Romans Paul asks, "Who will deliver me from this body of death?", not "Who will deliver me from my sin nature?"  2. When we died with Christ, it was the sin nature that died.

Sin, they say, is still present in us because of our unredeemed bodies.  Our essential natures, though, are reborn as sons of God.  "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation..."

Thomas Maddux

Thanks Tom. I think the stakes are huge...
Verne

Profound!

Marcia

No Problem. Take your time. I am a little pressed at the moment as well...
Verne

Most welcome!
Verne

How do you reconcile the fact that God pronounced all that he had made very good, with the position that he created man with a sin nature? A sin nature seems to me not to be a good thing.
The implication is that Adam was from the outset incapable of obeying God's command. This has some extremely serious implications regarding God's justice. The Bible teaches that Adam was not deceived, and in my opinion the fact that He and Eve were the only two humans who had any real choice with regard to sin, militates against your position.
This is in my view inconsistent with everything the Bible teaches about the fall.
As our federal head, Adam passed his sin nature on to every subsequent human, a nature he acquired as a result of the fall!
Even Satan is decribed as being created perfect, until iniquity was found in him!
There has to be a clear doctrinal distinction made between innocence, holiness, and immutability, the latter attribute belonging to God alone. The only being incapable of sin is God Himself. This leads to the doctrine of Christ's impeccability, a matter many Christians do not understand.
Verne

p.s. I don't not mind other BB members participating in this discussion at all. I Think we grow and learn by an exchange and dbate of ideas and viewpoint and we certainly do not have all the answers.  :)

Hi Everyone! :)

  Sondra,

  Why do you change the title of the thread from "Wounded Pilgrims" to "Death As History", etc.?  I assume you do not like the thread title as it is?

  I promised to mention my own experiences with "deeper life" truth as taught in the Assembly:  As Verne stated, "it doesn't work."

  We can speculate forever re. the interpretation of certain verses, but certainly our understanding must be tempered with the practical questions re. if it really works or not; and if it doesn't maybe my exegesis is off.

  I found with GG "holiness" teaching that I was driven to look within and to constantly examine my motives.  Self was the enemy and must be defeated, because this "self life" was in opposition to God's control in my life.

  Once "self was dethroned" and "Christ was enthroned" in my heart perfect purity would be acheived.  I believed this and gave it all I had in a effort to perfect this life in me.

  As I said before, it was very much like what I learned in Eastern Religion, but I rationalized that now this spiritual pursuit was sanctified in Christ.

  Rather than destroying self I became more and more preoccupied with self, and found that all I was doing was repressing sin, vs. overcoming it.  The more I looked within the more bad motives I discovered----it seemed endless!! :'(

  I was like a soda can shaken-up and ready to explode.  I will confess that I have a tendency to fall back into the same kind of false holiness methods even now.  I kind of naturally deviate to that way of thinking/feeling, and when I do, I have to remind myself that it is not my job to search out the roots of my sin and to kill and rip them out.

  I was always good at being dishonest with myself and explaining away the obvious sin that raged in my members.  Like most religious phonies, I could put on a good act in front of others, but sometimes when away from the Assembly's watchful eyes my acting failed.

  I was driving a truck and a guy to the left of me cut in front at a light that was turning red. I had to brake hard to prevent hitting him and at the same time I blew the air horn to warn him I may not make the stop in time.

 Now, this kind of thing happens often, but for some reason I really lost it this time!  I honked the horn again and this provoked the cut-off man to salute me with his middle finger!

 I snapped!!  I reached down and grabbed my tire iron, that I used to bump the tires with, and started to walk up to the car in front with the intention of taking it to his head!!! >:D :-[

  The man saw me coming in the mirror and drove through the red light and high-tailed it to parts unknown, thus delivering me from consumating my road rage on his person.

This situation arose after having an especially "blessed" time in the Word and prayer that very morning!

   I have since discovered that my preoccupation with seeking an inner state via spiritual methods/disciplines/attitudes has no real power to control my behavior. 

  My inner emotional state had complete control.  I thought that The Spirit would overshadow this inner life, if I learned the right way to release that Spirit in my life.  If I managed the proper attitudes and disciplines my heart would be flooded with love, peace, and joy, and consequently idiots like that driver could not effect me.

  Idiot drivers still can get to me to this day, but it doesn't mean I'm unspiritual if I get upset at that.  I don't get driven inward with feelings of guilt over my "failure" to maintain inner peace,  and in so doing the anger doesn't become explosive.

   Jesus came to save me (my self life), not to kill it, and what he wants me to put to death is my sinful behaviors.  When I am just trusting God's grace to keep my heart I can turn my fous away from me, to those around me, and this is true spirituality.

                                              God Bless,  Mark C.

                                                   

   

That's my doing Mark Sorry about that.
I wanted to challenge Sondra to show me anywhere crucifixion is made with reference to the believer in any tense but the past. It is not once mentioned as part of the present work of salvation.

 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.  Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

Teaching crucifixion of the self-life is in my view simply not scriptural.

It is a flagrant contradiction of Romans 6:6

As I have said before, taking up our cross is simply a metaphor for doing the will of God, even at the expense of ours.
That "cross" cannot crucify the old man, or anything else requiring crucifixion for that matter...why? God already did!!!
Verne

Thanks Verne! and I agree with your point :)

  Heading out the door for the Grand Canyon and I will see everyone next weekened! :) :)

                                                 God Bless,  Mark C.

Thanks Sondra!

  I gladly accept your apology and am sorry myself if "my tone" seemed to be so offensive; as it certainly was not my intention.

  Just to try and set the record straight re. my previous post:

  I agree with you that I am a totally inadequate "Moderator" on this BB, and that my weekend visits do not provide for a proper review or response to posts.  I do what I can on the BB because I want to be helpful if I can.

  I do not believe that I "own the thread", though I'll admit I started it and have a bias in favor of keeping it.  I was only curious as to why it was being changed, and had no intention of deleting anyone's account for doing this.  I have never deleted anyone's posts' or account on this BB in any kind of "fearful" attempt to protect BB members, or as a means to compensate for any other character flaw I might have.

  I appreciate your direct tone, minus the personal attacks.  My lack of supplying complete answers is due to my frequent absences as well, and for this I also apologize. 

  I don't listen to "Christian radio" while driving around in my truck, as you suggested, and so any "weekend ideas" that I come up with must solely be blamed on me ;).  I don't care for most Christian radio, and positively dislike modern Christian music :P!  I have tried to avoid revealing these secrets about my life while "trucking around" but there it is for all now to see and lament ;) ;).

  Just so everyone will know how freakish I really am I like to listen to Classical music, Bluegrass, and Classic Country.  As a matter of necessity I will listen to News stations in order to get traffic and weather reports. 

                       I sincerely pray for God's richest blessings for you,
                                                                       Mark C.

Welcome back Mark C.  :) Hope you had a spectacular experience in the Grand Canyon.  Next time it's Ottawa Canada eh??

Marcia

Thanks Marcia,

  Great trip to the Grand Canyon!  An absolutely amazing experience, though I've been there many times!  In the past I spent my time hiking down to the bottom and back up, but this time just walked the rim and discovered that this less physically challenging tour enables a grander perspective.

   We took the old train from Williams to the Park and saw elk, pronghorn antelope, and the giant California condors that have been recently released there.  We even got held up by bandits along the way! :o (Old west actors with pop guns ;))

  My Mom has never been there, and this trip was supposed to mostly be for her benefit, but Sindy and I enjoyed it too.  Next year Sindy and I will take the mules down to Phantom ranch at the bottom.

  I do hope to make a trip back East, and up to Canada one of these days, Lord willing. 

                                                 God Bless,  Mark C.

Hi Everyone! :)

  Just before I left for the Grand Canyon Brent made some excellent challenges as regards the nature of this BB.  I can't find the thread with that discussion on it and so will try to recall and respond here.

  Re. the issue of " the act of considering our past in the Assembly as being a poisonous experience, vs. a healing one."

  This indeed can be a danger, as can preoccupation with one's perception of being a victim of abuse.  As Joe and Sondra said on another thread it is a matter of "balance."

  For each individual recovery from our fringe church past will be different.  Some, like Brent, have easily found their footing and are doing well, while others have great difficulty.

  It is my contention, and the premise of the title of this thread, that actual damage was done to former members spiritual and psychological well being from their Assembly past.  The degree of that damage will be based on the intensity of their involvement.  Recovery has nothing to do with intelligence or strength of will, and is a more complex issue for some.

 

 How this happened to us must be understood, or we can suffer certain negative consequences:

1.) A lack of confidence in one's faith in Christ:

 This does not mean that I don't have an orthodox belief in God, but no longer trust my own ability to discern what is true re. my faith; a confusion of thought and feeling that has to be worked out.

 These need to discover how to be "strong in the faith" again, and talking with former members about what helped them can be very helpful.  Some of these, sadly, will not do this and just fade away into a quiet despair. :'(  It is for these that my heart breaks, and for whom I hope may read here and find help.

 2.)  Former members of cults and fringe groups can, on the other hand, have a tendency to be extreme (a key word in re. to recovering "balance").
 
 Some of these can try and look for another "cause" to latch onto that fills them with the same intensity that they felt while in their past group.

  These exhibit an opposite behavior to those in the first category.  They consider themselves "strong" and have no patience with those that are in the first category.  This can include an intolerance of those whose views do not agree with their own, whether political, philosophical, or Biblical.

 They have strongly held opinions and react with vehemence against those that they feel are challenging their views.  If the BB does not go their way they may leave the BB ( sometimes only to return again), attack those they disagree with personally, but generally can't tolerate disagreement with their own views.

  I think an honest reading of this BB can provide an abundance of evidence for the above, and I will admit that this is something that I have been slow to be aware of in myself.  It has only been via the give-and-take of BB's that I have learned this about myself and one of the benefits of participation.

 Christians must be intolerant re. unrepentant sin and heresy, but be very patient in other areas, and it is this balance that has been thrown so very out-of-whack by our former religious experiences.

  It is not "GG's evil treatment of us" per se, that is the issue here, nor is this particularly what we need to recover from, but what decades of involvement in a false religious system "made" us into.

  My view of the term "wounded" is not a desire to perpetuate an eternal victim status, rather it means an opportunity to learn from the errors of the past.  To be wounded is not to be dead, and this means an opportunity to heal, but it also acknowledges that I have been deeply effected by submission/deception to powerful abusive forces.

  There are former members who refuse to admit that the Assembly was harmful in any way and still provides "God's one true church" and for them it is absolutely essential that they understand the toxic system that they lived in and supported for so many years.

  I have no doubt that some of these may poke in and read from time to time.  There is hope for recovery of these if they become willing to honestly reflect on the group and their participation in it. 

  Taking responsibility for one's own past errors and getting on with facing the future with a renewed resolve is the healthy goal of which I heartily endorse.

 However, whether we like it or not, this was a dysfunctional period of our lives that deeply influenced our spiritual and psychological personalities.  Decades of personal dishonesty, submission to abusive control, etc. can not be without any result in our present lives.

  For my recovery it was important to talk about these things, and I think for some others it will be too.  If you don't see the value in the discussion then feel free to talk about other things.  The BB is made up of many different contributions and it will be what these posters make of it. 

                                     God Bless,  Mark C.

     




 

Mark,

I'll be honest with you here since you have asked for criticism and evaluation.
I totally respect you as an individual.  You are almost always gracious, and what you have to say is very correct and valid.  You are one of the best moderators.  The advantage of posting only on the weekend is that you have all week to chew on what you want to say and are therefore able to clearly articulate your perspective.  The disadvantage of being away all week is that you miss the flow of the BB.

Before the welfare discussion ever came up and before Brent brought the matter to the BB, I had a sense of possibly being stuck.  I excused it because I knew that it was like you said, "The BB is made up of many different contributions" and many different lurkers and silent readers.

Also, again, it is like you said, "For each individual recovery from our fringe church past will be different."  Hence we can hinder the deliverance of someone from bondage by stopping the flow of what has been set in motion.

Like you, I am saddened by those who remain in bondage to feed the egos of the leaders.  Also there are those who have had their assembly disbanded from under them and are now discontent in their new places of fellowship, or are still wandering unable to find a place of fellowship.  These are all present day scenarios.  You said,  "I have no doubt that some of these may poke in and read from time to time.  There is hope for recovery of these if they become willing to honestly reflect on the group and their participation in it."  and I agree.

I believe we have 2 problems re. BB discussions.

1.  We expect that what has 'worked' for each us should work for any of the others.  or what does not 'work' for each of us will not work for the other.

2.  We label anything that has any remote 'looks like' our assembly days as the same as our assembly days.  e.g. we throw the whole confrontation aspect out the window because it reminds us of those hypocrites and pharisees of our assemby days.  A strong personality reminds us of George, so the motivation behind the strong personaliy's remark must be the same as George's was.  I am having a problem with all this labelling:  "Christ-like"  "intolerance"  "strong"  "weak ones" etc.

That's all for now.
God bless,
Marcia

 Thank you Marcia!

  I did invite a critical evaluation of my views because this delivers us from boring monologues and also gives me an opportunity to learn.

  You have discerned a problem with the BB, as have others, and want to see an improved kind of posting.  You mentioned the use of labels as being a drag on helpful discussion and of reactions against those on the BB who remind some of GG abuse.

  How do you fix that? 

  BB's are like CB radios, where people will say things they never would say face-to-face, and come and go as they please.  We can't make a poster sincere, thoughtful, caring, reasonable, etc. by adminstrative fiat.  Neither can we expect that all will be clear in their communication, even if they come with the right attitude.

  I bring my own bias, perceptions, etc. to the Bb, and hope that these views are Spirit inspired, though I do not claim any special access to God's views.  This is all I have, and if this is sending the BB in the wrong direction, then it is up to those who have better insight to enlighten me, and others as to a better path.

  Complaining about the nature of the BB is not like complaining about the weather, because we can change what we post--- we are responsible for the direction of the Bb and it's content.

  If there are those who post that we wish would not, we could just delete them, but this would probably mean we would all be gone at one point or another ;).   Think about this and see if you can come up with an answer to the conundrum.

                                                 God Bless,  Mark C.

 

 

That is really the long and short of it, The BB is a very dynamic forum...ebbing, flowing, serious, funny, cavalier, solicitous, heated, and sometimes boring. We are wasting our time agonizing about what it ought to be. IT JUST IS!
People who come here and do not enjoy the company leave. It is that simple. I like all you guys so I stick around.
Not only are you not perfect, just like yours truly, none of you seem to think you are...I like that.  :)
I hope Tom gets back sometime soon...
Verne

Verne,

  Yes, the BB is the sum total of what we write and efforts to try and "moderate" offerings can only make those being pressured to conform to a proper etiquette more rude than before.

  I could quote verses about "love is not rude", "be gentle and tenderhearted, etc." until the cows come home and it will run off the back of some like water on a duck's back.

  We can delete any post that we consider offensive and turn the BB into an insipid community of apple polishers and glad-hands.  Passionate debate is the most interesting, if not always very informative, as these kind of conversations always draw the most interest.

  This still is the best forum that I have ever been on for discussing cults/abusive churches and has lasted longer than most of these kind of forums.

   The best way to deal with individuals we feel are being rude, or have a "tone" we don't like is to ignore them.  As a truck driver I experience this via the CB radio.  People get on and say things to get a rise out of someone and when they do we are treated to a bunch of tough guy trash-talk.  These are brave on the radio, but in person are meek and mild.  If I try and "make peace", via the radio then I become the target.

  You would think on a BB made up of mostly Christians appeals to just normal human kindness would be received easily.  Why is this not often the case?  Could it be we are not "normal" Christians here and still bear the effects of our Assembly past?  Or can Christians be just as jerky as any CB radio trash-talker?

  I believe that Marcia may have latched onto something when she said that some of us may react to certain individuals because their attitudes remind of us of GG's bully like ways.  She saw this as an error on the part of those thus offended, and I assume an attitude that the offended needed to correct.

  This is very true for me, as I now have a tendency to stronly react against those I perceive as pushing me, or others around, even if they say it is for my own good (read here: boss, govt., aggresive drivers, pushy salespeople, etc.).  I am a very hard-sell these days and extremely cynical re. the sincerity of mankind in general.

   When I visit church I bring this same cynicism with me: Nobody is going to control me ever again!!!!

   It's worth considering, whether or not I may still be reacting to my Assembly past in my relationships here on the BB.  How can we know?

1.) If I'm "easily offended" and not "easily entreated":

      Yep, I'm guilty of this.  I tend to wear my feelings on my sleeve (ol' GG maxim).  One thing that has helped me is not to assume the motives of the one posting.  Paul says we are not to judge the motives of one another, because we are often wrong.  We are to judge behavior and clear expressions of attitude, but when it comes to "tone" assume the best and try to post using a "tone" that assumes the best as well.

2.) Attempts to shame, ridicule, or otherwise use sarcasm to make a personal attack:

   Yes, I have done this as well.   When we are hurt we want to hurt others back; it is a natural and usually automatic response.  Sarcasm can be a very useful means of communication if it is general, like Joe's very humorous "Little Georgie And The Giant Hand", and can provide a wonderful benefit for a healing soul.  When we try to use personal humiliation as a means of argument we not only will not win the argument we can harm those we should be helping.

3.) It stands to reason that we should be thinking about the benefit of others when we post:

   One can answer this by saying that, "this is my intention" and that "I'm just being blunt with the truth and if you can't take it it's your problem", but then we not only sound like a "clanging symbol" we take that cymbal and hit them over the head with it.

  I don't know why this is not obvious to some posters, or how to appeal to those who can't see this.  It is not hypocritical religosity to consider the feelings of those we are communicating with, because without such a consideration no effective help can be ministered.

  I agree, that we will say things that bring disagreement and possibly heated debate.  It is false religosity to answer such disagreement via Bible quotations to "act nicer, be more spiritual, etc." and thus avoid answering the actual argument. 

   Some will answer every discussion with something like, "Jesus is the answer", and of course he is, but what direct bearing does that have on the subject?

  However, to suggest that every appeal to loving behavior/attitudes must be false religiosity could put one outside of the reach of God's own appeal to our hearts.

   These comments are not intended to single out anyone, but apply to all of us.  As you can see, I have discovered these negative attitudes in my own life, and I only ask that you reflect on whether any of this applies to you.

                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

Hi Mark et al,

Just commenting in general.

If there's anything I benefitted from my assembly days is to be at peace with all men (and women) as much as I am able to.  I had many opportunities to apply this.

So the brash and the soft and the sensitive and the weak and the strong, I make no difference.  Hence I can read the message being communicated, though I can sometimes misunderstand it, without being focussed on the tone/method of communication.  It is so easy to get distracted by 'motives' when the BB is primarily to discuss doctrines and topics of interest.

Mark's gracious communication of truth, and Brent's straightforward communication of truth, and Tom's blunt approach, and Verne's don't-know-what-to-call-it approach still gives me truth in the end.  Or Marks' gracious, Brent's straightforward ... of something I disagree with them on, still gives me a disagreement in the end.

I think that coming from a far/mid-east background I can have an animated discussion which may look like a big fight to a mild-mannered Canadian, but in actual fact I have just enjoyed a good discussion.  Jewish and Italian people have similar tendencies.  Attempting to label my animation as un-Christlike would be quite far-fetched IMO.  What would make my animation un-Christlike is if I got raving mad and out of control and tried to impose my POV upon another, and then justified it as zeal (a la GG).

Marcia

Marcia,

  We are all filled with predjudices, our own opinions, and these are expressed through our particular personalities.  To label any of these automatically as "un-Christlike" is a mistake and this kind of labelling can also be used to attempt to silence an argument we don't want to hear.

  I understand this, but this is not what I'm talking about in regard to rudeness on the BB.  Someone may be "blunt" or "aggresive" in speech and be exhibiting the Spirit of Christ, because both Jesus and Paul were sometimes blunt and aggressive.

  I guess the best word to use is "discernment" which means to make a difference in what approach you take by considering who you are talking to and what the subject matter is.

  An arrogant unrepentant former Assembly leader may need some tough confrontational talk, while a despondent and confused former Assembly member will not be helped by the same tough talk.

  We all make mistakes, and often offend when we do not intend to do so, but we need to learn from these mistakes, and even if we don't understand what peturbed the individual we need to be sensitive to this fact.

  Maybe the problem is that the person is too sensitive and gets offended at anything.  It is true that people can get into a "woe-is-me" attitude, and lash out in immaturity against the perceived attacker.  They were "hurt" by the comment and respond by trying to hurt the one that addressed their situation.

  The more mature response, and probably more Jesus like, would be to stop pressing the buttons of the more immature one.  This is not "labelling" an individual as "weak" but simply recognizes for the time being this person is not responding well to my style of conversation.  They are not an inferior person because they are immature, they just need to grow-up.

  We understand this with children, and many of us from the Assembly were on hold in regard to our maturity for decades---- Paul tells fathers "not to discourage their children" when in the process of raising them up.

  Biblical styled discernment calls for us to "make a difference" between one person and another, whatever our personal style of communication, and to use "fear" on one and "compassion" on another.

 For a heretical teacher and those living in unrepentant sin we need to be very tough, for others we are to "weep with those that weep and rejoice with those that are rejoicing."  This basically means to have empathy for those who share our same weak humanity. 

                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

Thank you for clarifying that Mark C. :)

Here's another thing that came up.  I was having some private communication with someone who is quite knowledgeable about various conditions.  That knowledge biased the person such that I was getting analyzed with the possibility of suffering from some condition or another, and we could not really just discuss the matter at hand.

I feel that we can be that way on the BB re. our former assembly experience.  Maybe I am going round in circles here and you've already addressed this.

If we read the tone of responses very recently on another thread, we can see that BB posters can be quite sensitive towards the assembly wounded, and encouraging and supportive as well.

God bless,
Marcia

Hi Marcia!

  I am very impressed with the quality of people on this BB and this is why I continue to be involved with it.  My comments are general ones that come from my attempts to have a moderating influence in the present roughness.  It is a small swell, and not a tsunami, in the sea of our community here.

  I am not clear re. your situation with the private discussion that you are having.  Some people think I'm trying to provide an analyst's perspective here, but as you know I'm just a Christian who cares about those who shared experiences with me in the Assembly.

  I would say that "trying to analyze" one another on the BB would have the same effect as trying to judge one another's motives, in that we most likely would get things wrong.  This "analysis" can be used as a method to put down another in order to win an argument.

  I was listening to a talk show on the radio where the host was interviewing a so-called psychologist who claimed that George Bush suffered from a condition called, "a dry drunk."  This psychologist decided this was the case because Bush was a "war monger".  It was obvious that this clown was just against Bush and connocted this "dry drunk" thing to advance his political goals.

  When I talk about inner life it is not an effort to seek within for a psychological answer to spiritual questions.  I believe there is a value to psychology, and the honest reflection that it should bring, but this is not my contribution here. 

  I see my emphasis as being a recovery of faith in a God who sees me as a real person: a saved human. 

    The bible talks about emotion, conscience, mind. behavior, attitudes, desires, affections, etc.  These are to work in harmony as a single unified expression in my life. 

   These can get out of whack from being involved in a cult or abusive church, indeed it is almost assured that they will be.  This is so even if I retain an orthodox faith in Christ and am able to function in life in an otherwise normal fashion.

  Many will benefit from learning that it is alright to be just a regular old person and that they don't have to act like a "super-spiritual" individual anymore.  We don't have greater insight than the next believer, are not loved by God any more than the simple Sunday go to meeting Christian, or have special inner powers that cause us to walk a higher path than the lowly Christian minions below us.

   Yes, and it's alright to discover that we can be just as sinful as the guy in the pew next to us; what he struggles with we are probably wrestling with as well.  Welcome to the club of normal humanity.

  It is recovery of our humanity that will unmake us from the monster we were, or on the other side the beaten down door mat individual that the assembly made of us.

 Yes, we allowed this to happen, and there are reasons for this too, but the question is how can we move on to a whole person of faith.   There is a place for ministry that addresses these concerns and this can be provided by people just like us.  True, there are those who need a doctor, and this should not bring shame.  It's a wonder any of us were able to leave that group with our minds and faith intact! :'(

  Some feel that they have resolved all of these issues and are ready to move on.  Others feel that rehashing all these things is a negative that only keeps us in a state of continual victimhood.  This may be true for some, and if that is the case it probably is best if they move on.

  I feel like I've made significant progress in my life, but I stay on to try and help others who may be having the same kinds of difficulty that I had.  I also find that I learn a great deal from listening to others and trying to write out my thoughts.

 Maybe it's just that I'm an old sentimentalist, but I have an affection for my old friends from the Assembly as well.  I never hated or had bitterness toward the little people entrapped in the group, but for the unrepentant leaders and the machine they created I must admit I have had great anger.

   I admit my views are biased due to my life in the group, but in some degree I believe I share God's attitude about our former group: He loves the meek and hates the proud!

                                       God Bless, Mark C.

Mark,

Looks like I'm beating a dead horse eh?? but I want to maximize the weekend opportunity to discuss this with you.

You said, "Biblical styled discernment calls for us to "make a difference" between one person and another, whatever our personal style of communication, and to use "fear" on one and "compassion" on another."

I agree with your statement.  To extend it, I feel that discernment also calls for us to "make a difference" between one occasion and another with the same person.

Marcia

Hi Marcia,

  I do not think you are "beating a dead horse" as discernment is a consideration that is very much a living issue on this BB.

  Of course you are right in re. to knowing how to respond to the same person in a different situation.

   If someone comes up to me and tries to take a swing at me the situation calls for me to try and stop him from hurting me and that may mean more than just ducking his punch! ;)

  If this same person, instead of physically attacking me, sends me a scathing personal attack via email I probably would choose to just ignore it and block their address from my computer.

  The above comparison is an easy one, but you probably are relating your query in regard to the present situation on the BB.  I have offered my views in the past re. how Christians should try to conduct themselves when posting, but sometimes "the child within ;)" gets the better of us.

  One result of missing growing-up, character wise, in our Assembly past is becoming very defensive when we feel our boundaries are being crossed.  Victims of abuse can react like wild animals that have been backed into a corner, if they feel that their personal esteem is threatened.

  We may be very correct about the defect we see in these wounded souls, and think that it is a small matter to address this with them, yet get a big surprise when they come out trying to scratch our eyes out!

 This is a desperate and defensive reaction of an individual trying to hold on to what little dignity they might still feel like they possess. A dignity they perceive that you are trying to take away from them.

  Discernment, in this situation, calls for us to recognize that trying to corner this "frightened animal" via forcing them to agree with us will not be effective.  If we don't see this we are the one with the log in our own eyes, and thus will not be able to remove the speck in theirs.

  Again, confrontation is not the only way to relate to those who are struggling with their lives; and this includes those that are having a problem with certain kinds of sin.

  The unrepentant sinner who scoffs at entreaty needs a heavy hand.  The individual struggling with a bad habit they quickly admit that it is wrong need a compassionate hand to lift them (the operative word here is admit)

  But what of the defensive person above who is wrong, but for whatever reason can't seem to agree(unwillingness to admit) with our attempts to reach them?

   Sometimes these individuals are using their victim status to avoid taking responsibility for bad choices, or sometimes they have been so beaten up emotionally they just can't take it anymore.  This is very hard to discern, even if we have a close relationship with that person, much less via occasional email communication.

   I must admit that I have responded sometimes like both of the above individuals.  Sometimes it is just because I have been working too long and hard without sleep, becoming very irriatable, and not up to being corrected again. :-[

   It is human to sometimes be defensive, and due to some of our past circumstances many of us are very defensive--- almost child like in our immaturity in this regard.  To be discerning re. those who are in this condition is to not only be wise, but also to be able to really bring meaningful encouragement to them.

  You will find that such an approach will cause the wounded soul to drop their defensive stance and give them the ability to receive what you have to say; even if it involves correction.

   Having suffered from this same kind of immaturity and having trying to reach those in the same conditon I can say that it works for me.

 We are to help one another "grow in Christ" this is much more than just instruction in theology and exhortations to correct behavior/attitudes.  There is ministry that "shows mercy, befriends the sinner (us), cries with the sorrowful, supports the despondent,etc,).

 When Jesus gave an example for us to "wash one another's feet" there was a lesson of loving care being shown to one another.  Some of us greatly fear other Christians who approach us wanting to "minister" to us.  In our Assembly past the "minister" did not come with a towel and water but with a "hammer and anvil" to beat us into a "holy life."

   When dealing with former members of groups like ours one has to have the discernment to understand that there are many people like I have described.  Yes, there are those who were on the fringes, or who did not get so deeply entrenched in the poisonous envioronment, but let me assure you that these kind of wounded souls are more the norm than the exception.

   I hope this helps explain my views in this area and heals some difficult relationships on this BB.

                                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

 

  Som

Hi Mark,

Regardless of any occurrences on this BB or not, this topic is of interest to me in general.

I posted this on 3 May, 2005.  It is a quote from Beth Moore's Breaking Free seminar:

"I believe each of us who have been victimized in childhood can testify that the tendencies toward certain sins dramatically increase as a result.  As part of my healing, I had to take responsibility for my own sin, whether or not another person's actions escorted me to those sins. .... I don't think confessing sin that resulted from victimization is primarily about fault.  It is about freedom!

Yes, my sins were my own fault.  But more important to God, I believe, was my willingness to confess how badly I hated those sins and how I wanted to be free from the power the abuse held over my decisions.  Confession allowed me to bring sinful behaviors to the table for open discussion with God.  He instantly forgave me and completely cleansed me, then He began to teach me day-to-day how to change my responses."

I feel that while it is necessary to look into the past and see our woundedness, it is also necessary to recognize the sinful tendencies that we inherited as a result of that woundedness.  Recognize, acknowledge, accept, own our baby, and confess and go on to freedom.
The healing process involves recognizing that from our past which has victimized us and kept us in bondage.  Having done that, there is then a need to own those sinful tendencies by confession in order to then find immediate forgiveness from God and daily renewal.  This does not get the victimizer/abuser off the hook in that he/she is still worthy of the millstone treatment, but it does help the victim find healing.

I understand that you have been focussing on the way we communicate with the victim.  I think that I am coming at it from the other angle, to help the "victim" learn to deal with the stress that arises from the communication.  Each day has enough stress of its own, so the victim will be having relapses all day that I do not know anything about if I am not there on hand.  If I can be of any help in that which I do know about then it may be of benefit to the other stesses.

Often the victim has a pre-conceived notion, that may not be in accordance with reality, about what and how people should talk to them.

The evil of the Geftakys regime is that it was done in sincerity yet for the purpose of conforming to the program.  Tough love is viewed as being the very same evil.  In a tough love situation it costs me but in the future there is benefit for the other.

God bless,
Marcia

Hi Marcia! :)

  Unusal mid-week posting for me, and it will have to be quick.

 I think Beth Moore is talking about a specific kind of abuse: that being "child abuse" and probably it is sexual in nature.

  I would need to understand more about what she understands the correlation between this kind of abuse and sin is to make a good comparison between that and spiritual abuse and our sin.

  No doubt, an individual deceived into accepting a spiritually abusive relationship is enticed by some kind of sinful tendency; such as an appeal to their pride ( as in, we are the one true church)

  Most who leave are a mass of confusion re. what exactly did go on, and this needs to be sorted out first if they are going to go on to a healthy confidence in Christ.

  Also, there is a good deal of sincerity and innocence that we took with us into the group, and it is this that was primarily taken advantage of---- first and foremost, most of us committed to the group on the basis that this is what "God wanted." 

  Healing is advanced when I understand that:

1.) God is not like the former group, nor does he "want" what the group deceived us into believing.

2.) God is quite the opposite of what I was taught there and a blessed new life is available to me.

    I don't think it is very helpful for the innocent and sincere victim to spend a lot of time "confessing sins", nor do I believe that we need to learn to "forgive our abuser" as a means of personal release.  This only continues to put the onus on the abused, vs. the abuser where it belongs.

  I do not believe that "God has a forgiving attitude" toward unrepentant abusers, on the contrary, he is very angry with them.

  I understand that harboring bitterness and anger against those that have done me wrong can be very unhealthy and that Beth Moore is probably trying to help victims of child abuse get beyond this.

  However, I think that an emphasis on personal contrition will not provide the release from the former abusers control that we seek.

  For a former leader still in denial it is very important to acknowledge the part their personal sinful choices had in this process, and to make it right.  For them sin is the upfront and center issue for recovery.

  Jesus put all the burden for confession and repentance on the abuser, and I cannot discover any instance in the NT where we are supposed to find recovery from abuse by "learning to forgive our abuser", or " searching our souls for our sinful part in being abused."

                                         God Bless,  Mark C.

   

This is one of the dirty little secrets about things going on in the assemblies. I had heard some rumours but it now turns out there were some frightful things going on right here in the Midwest. May God forgive us for our folly.
I feel so sorry for those precious young lives that were ruined...so sorry... :'(
Verne

btw Sondra did you know about what was going on in Champaign?
Did you hear about how George brutalized the young lady who brought the matter to light, telling the brothers that she had a "lying spirit"? I know you are close to one of the parties and I have to say that any woman with a child molester living in her house and not knowing it presents a big problem for me. Very big problem.

Yes Mark, certainly I agree with you.

Re. Beth Moore, it is a seminar for any and all regardless if they have suffered terrible child abuse or not.  Child abuse was mentioned only in that it was what ties us to our past and our ancestry.  When I did the excercise I found more from my assembly past that had affected me possibly because it is more recent, than from my childhood past possibly because I had already left some of it behind when I was saved.

The real emphasis was that there are attitudes that we acquire that are sinful but we tend to label as "that's who I am".  An example might be a husband who has a diffcult time with the correct expression of "I am the head of the house" attitude because of his years of assembly indoctrination.  Or the parent who has a difficult time knowing the balances of parenthood because of an assembly perspective on parenting.  The emphasis in the seminar is that I can know freedom from that in my past that held me in bondage.  The victimizer is still worthy of the millstone-around-the-neck treatment.

A healthy perspective of God and who He is is also embodied in the Moore seminar and I believe, as you do, that that is key in the healing process.

There are a number of similarities between Moore's seminar and what you have been posting on this thread, hence I posted the comments here.
1.  A healthy perspective of God
2.  The need to identify the wrong doctrine and to learn the perspective of grace.
3.  That wrong doctrine has affected me, and I need to recognize that.
4.  I need to confess and repent from the wrong choices I made.  Note that most assembly victimizers were also victims of another higher up the chain of command.
5.  Other.

God bless,
Marcia

Here's an interesting consideration from Breaking Free by Beth Moore about stringholds in our lives based on 2 Cor 10:3-5.

-  Every stronghold is related to something we have exalted to a higher position than God in our lives.
-  Every stronghold pretends to bring something we feel we must have: aid, comfort, the relief of stress, or protection.
-  Every stronghold in the life of a believer is tremendous source of pride for the enemy.

Marcia

Words of wisdom.
Something has to occupy the higest place.
Something will.
Something must.
That is the way were were designed...
It is the secret to victory...
Overcoming sin is a matter of not so much of the will, as it is of the heart.
The only force in this universe powerful enough to completely deliver us from sin's power is love - love for Christ...one of these days if I ever get back in the mood I want to talk with some of you about this...taking a break...
Verne

 


...received this e-mail from our oldest daughter,
 and hoped you would appreciate it:
----------------------------------------------------

At an airport late one night,
        With long hours Before her flight,
She looked for a book in an airport shop,
        Bought a bag of cookies, and found a place to drop.

Engrossed in her book, she happened to see,
        That the man right beside her, as bold as could be,
Grabbed a cookie or two from the bag in between,
        Which she tried to ignore, just to not make a scene.

So she munched the cookies and watched the clock,
        As the ill-mannered thief diminished her stock.

She grew more irritated as the minutes ticked by,
        "If I wasn't so nice, I would blacken his eye."

With each cookie she took, he took one too,
        Then just one was left-- now what would he do?
 
With a smile on his face, and a nervous laugh,
        He took the last cookie and broke it in half.
He offered her one piece, as he ate the other,
        She snatched it from him while thinking ...ooh, brother!

This guy had some nerve and he was also rude,
        Why, he might have at least showed some gratitude!
She couldn't remember being so galled,
        And sighed with relief when her flight was called.

She gathered her luggage and went to the gate,
        Not once looking back at the thieving ingrate.
She boarded the plane and sank into her seat,
        Then she sought for her book, which was almost complete.
 
As she reached in her baggage, she gasped with surprise,
        For there were her cookies, in front of her eyes.
If this is my bag, she moaned in despair,
        The others were his-- he was trying to share.

Too late to ask pardon, she saw clearly with grief,
        That she was the rude one, the ingrate, the thief!

----------------------------------------------------------------

How many times have we absolutely known that
something was a certain way, only to discover later that
what we believed to be true...  was not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Our daughter didn't state her reason for sending me this,
but it struck a chord.
 
Thank God that for the Christian it is never too late to ask pardon...
 
With love because of Christ,
al
 
 

Thanks Marcia,

  It sounds like a good seminar for former Assembly folks.

 Hi Al,

     Your post provides a most important lesson: we sometimes make judgments based on "the truth" only to discover that we can be wrong.  This should provide for some humility in our relationships vs. instanst crass judgments.

  To all:

 I am going to attempt a series on "The Weak and the Strong, a study in boundaries in Christian relationships.

    This will touch on my views re. NT instruction on this topic and hopefully help us as we try to "wash one another's feet" here on the BB and elsewhere.

  I think the Bible is clear in giving us direction as to what is overbearing vs. cowardly (or what is unwarranted abusive control vs. fearful neglect of standing up for the truth with our brethren) in our call to "love one another."

  As former Assembly members we probably are more sensitive than most Christians re. what crosses the line from loving entreaty to shame based control.  However, we have noticed on the BB that there might be some differences of opinion as to what is loving and what isn't.

            CHRISTIAN RELATIONSHIPS IN THE NT

   In Rom. 14-15 Paul talks about two different kinds of individuals in the church:  The "weak" and the "strong":  Who were these in the church of Rome and how can we identify them today?

1.)  Rom. 14 begins by describing "the weak" as being one who is "weak in the faith."  This "weakness" has to do with conscience: in other words, they mistakenly think that God has required them to do certain things that He does not require of them.

2.) "The strong", on the other hand, had better knowledge of God's requirement:   In other words, they were right.  This strength of knowledge was a positive, but could be used in a way that damaged, rather than helped other Christians.

   The wrong use of truth is the central theme of these two chapters, and primarily is directed at "the strong." 

   These verses can be forced into saying what they do not intend, and it will take a balanced understanding of the NT to avoid coming up with Assembly type views such as, "I cannot accept what you have to say because you don't present it in the proper way," as an attempt to avoid entreaty.

  It is obvious, however, that Paul does not want certain members "controlling" other members in this church via the force of their "black and white" judgments.  The reason for this is that such blunt force can have a destructive force on the recipient.

  Now, there are areas that are "black and white," such as moral conduct and doctrinal orthodoxy, that we must stand firmly for, but we are to make a difference between this and "disputable matters."

   What are these "disputable matters"?
   

  Well, there are things that are not black and white, but fit into the gray middle where we can have different opinions.  "Disputable' means that the answer is not immediately clear to all parties.

   The problem with "the strong" here is that they wanted to force others to agree with their strongly held opinions by stating that those that didn't agree with them were being sinful.  Paul believed that this was an abusive use of control over members he called "the weak".

  The weakened conscience is one that is much more sensitive to being overcome with guilt, not being fully secure in the knowledge of God's love for them. 

   It is finding a way to "buildup" that "weak conscience" that is the key, vs the  judgmental confrontational methods of the strong in Rom. 14 that we must learn if we are to be successful in ministering to others.

  There is much more to add to this discussion, but we will save it for later.  Feel free to make any comments.

                                                    God Bless,  Mark C.

   

Hi Mark,

I look forward to your post on ministering to the weakened conscience.

Just an observation which came to mind when I read this post but applies across the board.
When I use IMO "just my opinion" and phrases like that, it is in actual fact to give the reader the freedom to make up their own mind on the matter, BTW that applies to all my comments, and I cannot control anyone anyway.
When I read some other posters use "just my opinion"  I feel like the emphasis is on the "my".  IOW it has a control on me and forbids me from expressing a contrary opinion because the poster is viewed as a weak one and a contrary opinion would not be supportive.  In actual fact the weak one ends up doing the controlling.  Therefore,  your assessment that the strong one is controlling may be inaccurate.

Marcia

Mark, using the verses in Romans, could you please explain who you see to be the weak and the strong?

When I read it, the "weak" are the ones who dictate to everyone, not the "strong."  Can you please clarify who is who?

Brent

Mark I agree the conscience is what is weak and in general the object is to build up the conscience. If however the individual has never seen a need to repent but merely accepted that they were a Christian by praying the sinners prayer you will not achieve the desired results. They are not energized by the Holy Spirit but are still in guilt mode and working their own salvation out with Christian Gospel trimmings. They are false converts and find the life of Christ too difficult to master  and want a "buy" from those in the know to lay off and give them breathing space. That of course means the strong are left beat down and wonder when do I exhort bad behaviour anyway and how do we treat these special people anyway? Will they ever understand the parable of the vinedresser? He eventually stops doesn't He? What is the point in continuing to do the weeding and watering and adding fertilizer? He says no fruit it is useless.

So yes they need help but the help is to see who Jesus is and to beliieve He loves them for who they are but does not want them to continue in sin. His grace is to help them to learn to believe that they can repent by God's grace and in order to mature they must repent. If they are allowed to go without repenting they may never be truly saved or be completely converted to become the mature man or woman in Christ they could be and should be.

The strong are not wrong to encourage a change as long as it isn't to force the weak to change into what they expect from themselves. The goal is "till we all come to the fullness and the stature of Christ".

If the weak are allowed to say you can't tell me I am wrong then there is a reverse of roles and the weak have now become abusive to the strong.

Hugh

Hugh,

You've got it. 

In Roman's, the "weak" were judging those who didn't keep their laws and rules.  Interestingly, Paul exhorts both the weak and the strong....in a strong, straightforward manner!  He doesn't coddle the "weak," at all.  Rather, IMO he has stronger words for them.   He treats them as brethren, not as substandard, extra-special children.

Brent

[quote
Hugh,

You've got it. 

In Roman's, the "weak" were judging those who didn't keep their laws and rules.  Interestingly, Paul exhorts both the weak and the strong....in a strong, straightforward manner!  He doesn't coddle the "weak," at all.  Rather, IMO he has stronger words for them.   He treats them as brethren, not as substandard, extra-special children.

Brent

  Hi Everyone, and thanks for your challenges.

  Brent:  Where does Paul in Rm 14 and 15 "just as strongly exhort the weak as the strong?" 

   Marcia and Hugh:  I also cannot find any reference to an exhortation by Paul to the "weak' re. not using their victim status as a means to control the strong in these two chapters of Romans.  I agree it would be wrong to do this, but cannot find a reference warning the weak against doing so. 

  I think you have read into the text a meaning from this passage that is not there. 

  All three of your responses seem to fear that "the weak" are going to get away with something, and this was what the strong in this passage also feared.

  I think the key is the phrase, "disputable matters", as this calls for the ability to know what situation would make a difference, vs. what only makes for a crossing of a personal boundary by the exhorter.

  After all, Paul makes the point that these individuals we would like to set straight answer to the Lord himself, and not to us---"he is able to make them stand."  Hence Paul's directive, "leave them alone!"  Clearly the passage is meant to correct "the strong" and does not "equally" direct criticism toward "the weak."

  Hugh is correct, that issues of sinful attitudes and behaviors are to be condemned, but even in this area we are to "make a difference" in how we approach a person.  In Gal. 6 Paul warns those who seek to help those who have been "overtaken in a fault", to do so with graciousness and humility.  When Paul addresses unrepentant false teachers he is very harsh indeed.

  "The weak", in these chapters, is a saved individual (so that is not the issue here Hugh) whose "conscience is weak."  This means they believe that certain practices (keeping of holy days, religious diet, Sabbath keeping, etc.) are necessary to maintain a proper standing with God.

  "The Strong["/u] are those who want to "straighten out" their misinformed brethren based on their better knowledge of the liberty we have in Christ.

    I obviously can't make the leap from this passage and classify certain BB members as fitting either of these categories, because there is not direct application.  I do think there are some general principles that we can derive from this study and I hope that further explanation will help show this.  I will leave it to the readers to decide if any of what I write fits their situation.

  Paul does leave us with some guidelines that will apply to us.

 1.) The weak are not confident in their faith; they doubt what God wants them to do in some areas.

   We should understand this, because it is a very common condition of those who have formerly been in cults/fringe churches.  They are not necessarily in doubt re. theology, but in how they should now live as Christians.  Some of these would consider it a sin to omit their AM times, or to attend a church that had a paid pastor.

   We now know better (this makes us strong), but Paul is urging us to help those in such a condition over this rough spot, without condemning them in the process.  This requires empathy and basic human kindness.  In other words, we don't demean the individuals, (I will get more into this later.)

2.) Each individual believer has a personal boundary between his brethren that should not be crossed.     

   Paul makes the point repeatedly in this passage, "Accept the weak one, don't look down on them, don't condemn them, don't judge him, etc. because "we all will stand before the judgment seat of Christ" and this is our Lord's place not ours.

   Paul tells us in another place to, "not judge the motives of another" because this is a private matter between the Lord and "his servant" and "He is able to make them to stand."

  3.)"Let us make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification."

   Paul goes on to teach that we must make "every effort" to pursue peace, and this means to have patience with the failings of my brethren.  This comes from an understanding that God knows how to bring his own children along.   He is the God of hope, and this hope is in God's ability to correct the character flaws of his children.

   Peter asked, "how many times must I forgive my brother?"  This is a good question, because isn't it true if I just keep forgiving my brother when he sins against me I could be reinforcing his sinful tendency and being used by him in the process?  Jesus answered with the infinite number.

  Jesus did not teach Ayn Rand rugged individualism that won't tolerate those of weak will around them.  What he did teach, as well as the Apostles, was to understand that a believer can be truly saved, but can have issues with weak character.

   This can have to do with upbringing, toxic religion, bad choices, addictive habits, or a combination of many such things.  The person is truly saved, but struggles more than maybe another believer might in the same area.  They know it is sin, and they don't want to continue in it, and I think this describes "the weak" vs the individual who is trying to "use us" by claiming they are "special."

  Only God really knows what is going on in the heart of such a "weak" one and what their true situation is--- we just can't see into their hearts and make a determination as to their true inner state: con-artist or truly needy.

  This is getting too long, and so I will await your comments and either continue my series or take it as it comes.  This is a wonderful topic and I hope very helpful.
                                       God Bless,  Mark C.   

 

 

Hi Mark,

You have it backwards.  I wasn't sure, until you made it clear in your last post.  Let's quote the passage, instead of talking about it/

14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.1 14:2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 14:3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on another's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord2 is able to make him stand.

14:5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike.3 Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. 14:6 The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The4 one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. 14:7 For none of us lives for himself and none dies for himself. 14:8 If we live, we live for the Lord; if we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 14:9 For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he may be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

14:10 But you who eat vegetables only--why do you judge your brother or sister?5 And you who eat everything--why do you despise your brother or sister?6 For we will all stand before the judgment seat7 of God. 14:11 For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God."8 14:12 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.9


14:13 Therefore we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister.10 14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. 14:15 For if your brother or sister11 is distressed because of what you eat,12 you are no longer walking in love.13 Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died. 14:16 Therefore do not let what you consider good14 be spoken of as evil. 14:17 For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. 14:18 For the one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by people.15

14:19 So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another. 14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean,16 it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. 14:21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble.17 14:22 The faith18 you have, keep to yourself before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. 14:23 But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.19


In verses 1 to 4, we are introduced to the weak, who are afraid to eat certain things...and the strong, who know they can eat anything.  They have liberty in Christ.

The strong are reminded not to despise the weak.  The weak are admonished not to judge the strong.  Both are exhorted, equally.

I don't how you can see it otherwise.  The strong have the tendency to despise the weak, but the weak sit in judgement of the strong.  Paul corrects them both...but I repeat myself.  Certainly I am reading nothing into the passage that isn't there.  Clearly, Paul is making the point that the weak tend to sit in judgement of the strong.  They use their weak faith, and bad consciences to condemn their brethren.  When these people are catered to, things get pretty bad.

The same holds for letting the strong get out of balance, but we are talking about the weak here.

Your statement
is just flat out wrong.  If you look at the verb's you will clearly see that a strong case could be made that the "weak" are getting more of a dressing down than the strong.  The weak are the ones who judge, and Paul tells them,  "who are you to pass judegement?"

Also, Galatians tells us what can happen when legalism, of the type advocated by the weak, becomes the order of the day.

When you say that Paul repeatedly reminds us not to judge to weak, you are also mistaken.  He reminds the weak not to judge the strong, and the strong not to despise the weak.  But I repeat myself.

Mark, if you were to follow your own advice, you would lovingly tolerate legalsim, if the person was weak.  You misunderstand the passage.  Re-read it and see if what I am saying is not so. 

Paul ends the passage by saying:

15:1 But we who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not just please ourselves.1 15:2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good to build him up.

Get this, Paul identifies himself with the strong.  Furthemore, he says that the strong should help build up the weak.  There are many ways to do that, and not all of them involve quilts and warm milk.  If the weak are like the weak in Galatia, rebuke is in order.  Tenderness and mercy are also needed, but not always and in every situation. 

Nevertheless, the idea is that the weak grow and become strong.  We have liberty in Christ.

So, Mark, when you said,


You are wrong.  The whole chapter is taken up with just this very thing.  When Paul tells the weak to not judge their brothe or sister, he is exhorting the weak to not use their weakness as a means to control the strong.  But I repeat myself.

I think you're looking at this all wrong, and I'd be happy to go into it further, but I'll let you read and respond to this first.

Brent

The current focus on Biblical exegesis is a good thing.
I hope it continues for it keeps the standard high, and the hogwash low... :)
Theere is no quicker way to discern exactly where a person is at than by having them explain to you what they think the Word of God is saying. It is a beautiful mirror in that sense in that it reflects a true image!
Carry on men!( and ladies)
Verne

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.   Hebrews 4:12

Mark

ROM 14:3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on another's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord2 is able to make him stand.


It is the weak who judge the stong and therefore wish to control the strong. Paul says Who are you to pass judgement on another's servant? In this passage it is the weak not the strong who are passing judgement because the weak have a feeling that they are more spiritual than the strong.

Agreed as previously stated there is abuse from the Strong but that is not my point here.

Agreed as well Romans is written to Christians Mark so they are saved.

Lord bless
Hugh

Good point Verne,

I'm going to get back in to the practice of quoting and explaining scripture to back up what I am saying.  I agree, it keeps the standard high.

Brent

Mark,

I do not want to sidetrack here because it looks like the discussionis headed in a profitable direction.  This is just a comment in response to you.

In actual fact, I was not relating to any individual based on weakness or strongness.  When the person needed encouragement I offered it.  When the person needed advise to respond to Brent's POV I offered it.  When the person presented false teaching I expressed my disagreement.  The same person, by your definiton, is both weak and strong.  I did not judge the motives of the other, and I was not concerned that the person was going to get away with something.  It was all a matter of discussing a topic of interest and agreeing or disagreeing with various ones.

At one point, here in Ottawa we used to set up 2 VBall courts so that the good players could have a good game (and understanderbly so) and the not-so-good players could also play but without spoiling the game for the good players.  But after a while it got tiresome to set up 2 courts.   I was one of the terrible players and I never entered a game, on my own initiative, with good players because I did not want to spoil the game for them.  It would annoy me to see a terrible player insist on playing just because she wanted to and thus spoil a good game, and the others including myself, just tolerated it.  This is just a matter of plain courtesy and common sense IMO.  The weak one was extra-special that people just tolerated them.  I could not muster up any other 'Christian' kind of feeling for a person who IMO was being inconsiderate.

I can tolerate quite a bit actually, but I cannot resort to flattery just to be tolerant of so-called weak ones.

Marcia

If the weak ones are to grow, and stand fast in liberty, they must first learn not to judge the strong.  This implies many things, but must include some sort of correction, whether gentle or firm matters not, if it is received.

The strong must learn to "bear" with the weak.  That isn't easy, but the strong are called to do it.  Of course, the weak will use this against the strong...."You're not bearing with me!  You're not Christlike!"

At some point, when the weak needy person has grown into a tyrant, something must be done.

That's where we are in society today.  Needy, lazy, weak, immoral people are given extra-special rights and privileges by virtue of being pathetic.

If God kept this standard, he would have rewarded the one who buried his talents by taking from the one who doubled his. The fact is, He did just the opposite, and in doing so defied every principle of "luv and Kompassion" that has been foisted on us in the name of who knows what.  I reject the modern ideas of "luv and Kompassion," whether they come from the church of the world.

Much more to say on this, but one step at a time.  The main point I'm trying to make, which fits into a bigger, much bigger picture, is:

Laziness, slothfullness, immorality, neediness (brought on by choice) is NOT a virtue, but rather a vice.  If we turn this around, and begin to reward need, and punish diligence, we are calling good evil, and evil good.


Brent

Hi Everyone!

  Yes indeed, I heartily agree and enjoy a Biblical approach.

Brent and Hugh:  I guess I must be a dullard here, because I just don't see any exhortations directed toward the "weak" in Rom. 14-15.  It is not "clear" to me at all that this passage is equally exhorting both parties--- After reading it many times I'm not seeing it.  Also, after reading commentaries I find no scholarship that supports your views on these chapters.  I will quote one such scholar below.  

  Brent:  You make some very good points when you bring in Galatians, and I said before the 2 Romans chapters are not the final word on the subject of the weak and the strong.  Paul does include himself as one that is "strong", and so that in itself is a good thing (as I mentioned before) but his exhortations have to do with how the strong behave in relationship to the weak.    

The    issue is not surrendering correct thinking re. legalism, but developing a sensitivity to those who don't get it yet, i.e. the weak.

    But even in Galatians, the foolish weak Galatians, who were indeed corrected by Paul, he does make some crucial differences in how we are to handle certain individuals.  To the obstinate defenders of legalism (especially the teachers of this), he launches a full assault, to those deceived (or taken in a fault) he advocates a helping hand up.

   Gal. 6:1-- Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.

    The word "gently" is translated "meekness" in the KJV.  The Greek word is, "praotes" which is difficult to translate into English.  In our relationships with others meekness is "the opposite of self- assertiveness and self-interest.  It is most especially used outwardly in connection with our relationship to the ignorant and erring" (WE Vine).

  I think the operative word for our discussion re. the BB is the above phrase "self-assertiveness."  The "strong" were more interested in advancing their argument than trying to help the ignorant and erring (the weak).  Paul wanted strong Christians to learn how to use their power under the control of a loving sensitivity to those who were having trouble maturing in their Christian lives.

  He recognized that the church was not filled with equals, but with novices, old folks, feeble minded, children, mature take charge adults, dysfunctional adults, those taken in a fault, deceived, weak in the faith, etc.  

  Also, there were wolves around who were not Christians at all, and for these a completely different attitude was to be chosen.

  We have experienced those who come to the BB in a effort to master others via their skills of debate.  I believe Paul is saying that this demonstrates a motive of "self-interest" and hence is not "gentle" (meek).

  "Paul's counsel was clear.  The more liberally minded should not take advantage of their position (both their majority numbers and their so far less exposed position as non-Jews).  They should not exploit their own own readiness to discuss their differences as a way of making the more inhibited newer members feel inferior.  They should not pressure them to accept the will of the majority and conform to the dominant ethos.------ Thus is the tone set for the major thrust of Paul's guidance to those who regarded themselves as "strong in faith."       James Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary.

  Now of course, "weak in the faith" could be taken as a pejorative statement all by itself, and it is not the same as "weak in the flesh", but there are places where Paul and Jesus declare "weakness" as a positive thing in our lives: "strength out of weakness, the weak more necessary, etc."

   The point is we cannot form into two camps in the church where we develop a partisan spirit and instead must learn to "live in peace together" without feeling we need to get tough with those who refuse to come under the control of our argument.  

   There are places to "get tough" and confrontational, but this will not always be the case.  To have a one-size-fits-all Dr. Laura styled counselling method we will only have one tool in our minstering tool box--- a large hammer!

  Aside from all the biblical discussion on this matter it must be obvious (as Sondra as shown) that people are more receptive to our direction when they like us.  Folks like us when they understand that we are not trying to shame, ridicule, control, or otherwise run them down.

 If we can bring a corrective thought to someone and don't make them feel defensive there is hope that we can help them.  This is not hypocritcal weakness, but simply a recognition of what works and what does not.
 
  We can become "highly principled" extremists when we refuse to moderate (another sense of the word "gently") the defense of our stronly held opinions.  We despise those who are not as "strong" in their principles as us; those given to compromise--- we see this as a weakness.  It could be weakness in the counsellor, or it could just be a loving consideration to acknowledge that people have feelings that can be hurt.

   Does this sound familiar?  The "one true church" is made up of all kinds of just regular ol' folks with lots of problems, and if we are honest we will admit we have a few ourselves.  ;).  The Assembly totally discounted the fact that we were human as well as "saints."

                                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

                                                          

                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

I have some commentary somewhere that says what i am saying, but I really don't think any commentary is needed.  I get my idea from this:

14:3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on another's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord2 is able to make him stand.


Step by step, the one who has liberty to eat everything is strong.

The one who abstains is weak.  I got that from verses 1 and 2. 

In verse three, if you study it carefully, and look up the Greek, it says,  "and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him." 

There it is, hidden in the Bible code, the weak must not judge the strong. 

Judging another is more serious than despising, although neither are good.  Paul implies that the weak, abstainers are judging that the one's who have liberty are not accepted by God.  In our current BB climate, they might be saying,  "That's not Christlike."  Or, in the Assembly we often heard,  "Brother, that's not a good testimony." 

So, if we add 2 + 2 we get and exhortation to the weak, legalistic, judgemental believers that abstain from eating cerain things due to being weak in the faith.  It's no big deal whether they eat or not, or whether they insist on worshipping on Saturday, or not.  Those are the disputable things.  It is a big deal if they judge those who are more mature, who have liberty in Christ.

I'm not sure who your commentator is, but a semi-careful reading of the passage bears out what I am saying.  Also, it lines up with the ideas seen elsewhere in scripture.  The legalist, who judges others, is NOT strong in the faith.  Neither is the scardy-cat who can't
touch taste or handle for fear of being stumbled.  Those who would project those values on to others are the target in the admonishment to the weak.

Brent

Sondra,

You said this:

I couldn't agree more.  I wanted to present the idea in a manner that would be easier to swallow for some.  You will note that in my original post, where I introduce the idea, I say that a strong case can be made that the weak are being exhorted more than the strong.

Good points, all. 

We'll do the tenderness/mercy thing later.  We need to stick to this topic.

Brent

Brent, You really do a switch here you ask Mark who are the weak from Ro 14-15 and in those passages it has alot to do with un-clean foods and foods offered to idols. You seemed to be having more of a gripe with the "weak" who you thought were taking advantge of the situation the slothful, lazy, immoral etc. Who are riding on the Robinhood Govt's of todays society. I prefer Paul's way of I Cor 6:12 "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any". Paul knew an idol was nothing. Yet the weak brother would freak if the stronger ate food sacrificed to idols. Still it seems your problem with who are the weak is unresolved.  Summer.

Right Sondra. I don't know why it bothers him so much he's not even from her country. Summer.

I don't agree.  The danger to the weak isn't that they "freak" if the strong eat certain food, or drink wine.  On the contrary, Paul tells them not to judge those who do.

The danger to the weak is that they go ahead and eat or drink, and thus condemn themselves, due to their weak consciences.  The strong should not put them in a position to do that.   Meanwhile, the weak should learn that it's OK for others to eat and drink.

The modern version of the "weak" in today's evangelical world, are those who are hung up on hair lenght, wearing dresses, listening to certain music, never touching alchohol, avoiding public school, etc.

Sondra, what I am saying has nothing to do with a certain person, it is all rhetorical.  Please don't make it a personal issue.

Paul was judgemental towards certain people, does that make him weak?
Brent

Please don't make this into a personal issue, it's not. 

I won't let anyone make a certain subject taboo.  This is not directed at anyone in particular, but a discussion about the strong and the weak, and how it applies to our current lives. 

You are both totally out of line by trying to make it out to be otherwise.  It didn't start out that way, and I won't let it go there again.

Brent

Okay Brent it would embolden the "weak" to eat things sacrified to idols and therefore defile his weak conscience, because he  thinks the idol is something. As far as this being personal, all one need do is read between the lines, but then I could be mistaken? Summer.

See my PM

Though it did start off with a specific incident, the topic is who are the weak/strong and how do the weak/strong relate to each other?
Once the topic gets personal it spirals downhill so it is best to keep it in generalities.

Marcia

It wouldn't embolden the weak, it would destroy them.

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

If the weak eat, they are "damned."  That's why it's so important to not stumble them.

Unfortunately, people mis-read, and mis-apply this passage and use it to give the weak power over the strong, which is what they want anyways.

It goes like this:

I think it's sin to eat meat, and drink wine.  I state that it stumbles me that you eat meat and drink wine, and show you in the word why you must stop doing that.  You are forced to stop, for my sake.

That's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

In that event, the proper thing to do is tell the weak to shut up and quit being judgemental!  Catering to them is totally wrong.  Even worse would be to coerce them into eating or drinking, when they think it's sin.  However, in their current state they are told to stop judging those with liberty.

Doesn't anyone see this?  You all seem to be interpreting this in the way Betty taught it.

Brent

It is quite revealing that the word Paul uses for "weak" in Romans 14 is frequently translated as "sick" in the NT, eg. Matt 10:8. That both weak and strong (and the word "strong" does not actually appear until chapter 15) are being admonished is clear.
Mature Christians who have liberty in Christ do indeed tend to contemn legalistic brethren who try to tie them up in knots. Legalistic brethren tend to be needlessly judgmental.
Paul in verse 10 says to both: Don't!


But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?

Verne

That's what I've been saying.  There is an admonition to the strong and weak in this chapter.  One is judgemental, while the other despises.

What's the problem here?

Brent

None that I can see... :)
Verne

Brent, Yes as the weak is emboldened to eat he is later destroyed by his weak conscience. I took for granted you knew the passage. Read I Cor 8-13. Marcia will try to stay on topic and not make personal references.Yet this isn't church, just a board to discuss topics if it's too robotic it gets more boring then an afternoon meeting. Summer.

OK, we're on the same page.  It was a matter of not reading what you wrote exactly right.  No worries.

Brent

This is refreshing!

I do believe this is the first thread that you didn't think was about you.  We are making progress here!

I repeat, this is NOT about any one person! 

You are insisting that I am speaking about a certain person, when I am not.  That's getting personal.

Let's drop it and stick to the topic, please? 

Again, this isn't about any one person.  Please feel free to disagree with my point of view, but don't insist that I am applying this to anyone in particular, when I am not.  That's being judgemental, and it's wrong.

Brent

Mark

The previous point is my only arguement.

The importance in this discussion is to allow liberty to walk as God has shown you both for the Strong and the Weak and not allow each others condition to hinder the others walk. A level playing field.

IMO the weak probably are jealous of the strong for being able to do things they want to do OR they feel the strong are NOT being holy. Whatever the reason they FEEL compelled to STOP THE STRONG from living as they are.

The Strong are probably saying in some circumstances. Get over it. This is no big thing. See (and they pull out their bible and quote a verse to support a point) this clearly shows that we can do this. OR they feel the weak are going to put them under the Weak's rules of legalism. Galatians with Paul and Peter should be a good study to see an example. Paul says they are spying out OUR LIBERTY.

Paul in ROM 14 says let them both do what God shows them and don't force anyone to change for OUR sake no matter what we think because God is the judge.

IMO

Hugh

Unless what they are doing is clearly sin!  I know you mean that, but just wanted to state it for the record.

Brent

Brent

Yes that is true. When something is clearly sin that is different.

Hugh

Hi Everyone!

  Wow!! We have a lively topic here!  :)

  I agree with Brent that we don't want to make this discussion into a personal issue.  Obviously we are aware of the history on the BB that might have influenced our interest here, but to make it personal will only detract from what could otherwise prove to be educational.

  Brent:  I listed the name of the commenator "James Dunn" and the commentary "the Word Biblical Commentary" in my last post.  James D.G. Dunn is a Professor of Divinity at the Univ. of Durham England.  He holds the M.A. and B.D. from the Univ. of Glasgow and the Ph.D. and B.D. from Cambridge Univ.  He is a well recognized scholar who knows his Greek very well ;).

    I know you think that it is "clear" that the two verses you list are telling the weak not to judge, and I guess that this might be possible, if the Greek some how brings out a hidden meaning that isn't in plain English.

   I do apologize, but I guess you will have to dig up your Greek references and other scholarship to help this "weak" minded  ;)brother understand how Paul is addressing the weak here.

  I think I should try and narrow my discussion to pinpoint our differences here, because I think we already agree on many things , and are only continually rehashing them.

 We agree that:

1.) Paul was strong and strong is good.

2.) The weak can use their position to manipulate. (though I don't believe this is discussed in Rom. 14-15)

  3.) Paul in Galatians does take the weak to task.

  4.)  Tolerance is not always the proper choice when relating to the weak.

  5.) The weak are not "special", nor should they be given celebrity/special status as those who are under-achievers as Christians.

    6.) Paul could let his passions fly and really let some folks have it!


    I hope that helps us to concentrate on the one main point that I am trying to make in the whole discussion re. "The strong and the weak":

   Whatever your view of these verses it is apparent that Paul does have something to say to the strong here.  I referred to the vs. in Gal. 6:1, and specifically to the word "Gently," to suggest that we need to learn to "moderate" our strongly held opinions.

   In the TNDT (Theological Dictionary of The NT) the definition for "gently (NIV) meekness (KJV)" pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say:

          Prautes (gentleness, meekness)
A.) Secular Greek.

     The word means "mild and gentle friendliness."  Laws should be severe but judges should show leniency.

B.)LXX and Hellenistic Judaism.
        Moses "moderated" his passion and was called "the meekest man on Earth", because of that.  (He was known to have a bad temper)
         The social position of a servant or inferior, and thus carries the nuance of lowly.

C.) The N.T.

        "it enables the believer to correct others without arrogance (Gal. 6:1)".  2 Tim. 2:25  Correcting opponents with gentleness will perhaps bring about their conversion.  Tit. 3:2 commends gentleness to all people, and in I Pet. 3:16 the defense of the faith should be with gentleness.

   I believe Roms. 14-15, and the other portions of the NT that I mentioned, are dealing with the problem of trying to relate to one another in the church in a way that "builds-up" vs. "tears down."

  Paul acknowledges the plain fact that people don't react well to those who are rude, even when the corrector is right.  One could argue that Paul was intolerant and rude at times, and he most certainly was, but he implores the strong to "moderate" their passion and to "make a difference" appropriate to the moment.

   It is this kind of "discernment" that is what I think is the lesson that needs to be understood here.  Knowledge is good (I Cor. 8) but without love it is nothing----- worse than nothing, because it can destroy!  Part of love is to dissarm an enemy by "hot coals on their conscience" and possibly win their friendship.

  This approach will not work with all people, but that does not mean that it is not the preffered choice with most.

  To be "meek" does not mean to be "weak", and is really a demonstration of inner strength.  It acknowledges that God must convict one who is "out of the way" and that our blunt force methods will not eventually succeed if we can only increase the pressure.

   I believe Paul is telling the Strong to have the discernment to know when to get tough and when to be gentle.  In other words, it is more important to win the person than the argument.

                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.  

      

    

Here's the verse in plain English:

14Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another's servant?

Focus in on the part that says,  "and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats."

In the english,  "him who does not eat" refers to vs. 2 where it says,  "but he who is weak eats only vegetables."

So, you gotta admit that a remote possibility exists that when Paul says to the weak, "Don't judge those who eat," he is actually telling the weak not to judge.  Can you admit that this could be true?

Here's what the greek has to say, according to Young's literal translation:

"and let not him who is not eating judge him who is eating,"

There is a subtle difference, but I still see that we must remain open to the possibility that Paul is addressing those who don't eat, and telling them not to judge.  I get that idea from the words.

What about what I'm saying do you not see?  Am I going crazy?

Brent


 
 
 
 


 

The NASB is the same
ROM 14:2 One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.
ROM 14:3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him.

The weak does not eat all things and is instructed not to judge the one who eats all things.  Ie the weak is instructed not to judge the one who has faith, and the one who has faith is instructed not to regard with contempt the one who is weak.



This is getting personal. sorry.
And possibly you are saying that the strong have lacked discernment when they have gotten tough. ??

Marcia

That's why most of my friends are lesbian witches.  I can't win an argument with them, but I have won them as people, and that's the important thing.

If someone is wrong, the worst thing you can do is tell them they're wrong, because you might lose the person.  It's always best to make nice.

Am I starting to get it?

OK, from now on, Romans 14 is an admonition to the strong not to judge the weak.

My goal is to be weak, because they hold all the cards.

I don't want any of you wearing leather, sitting on leather, or using any animal products.  It offends me, and causes me to stumble.

If you want to win me, you'll do as I say.  If you don't , you are despising me, and I have verses that tell me that you're in sin if you do.  You don't want to do anything that injures my weak faith, so I expect that all animal products will be gone before sundown.

Also, no fermented beverages of any kind.  It's sin.  Anyone who drinks wine is in sin, and is an affront to God. You should all care more about holiness than you do.  Stop living careless Christian lives.

Brent

I was going to modify my previous post, but decided to reply instead.

Mark, you said, "it is more important to win the person than the argument."

Interesting enough I saw this happen on this BB where the person was won to alright, but to a POV that even you would not agree with.  Hence my emphasis to focus on discerning of truth rather than on methods of communication.

Marcia

Brent, Why do you get so worked up over this ? God put the weak and strong in the body to work together. (The abrasive with the soft.) The weak don't have it as easy as you think and the strong sometimes need Thorns in the Flesh to help them realize this, seems to bring them back to earth.  Summer.

That's exactly why I get "worked up" over it.  There is a need for both. 

My whole point is that what we have today, in large meausre, is a glorification of the weak and needy, and a punishment of the strong and productive.

I have come to the conclusion that no one shares my interest in this, so I'm going to drop the whole thing. 

I am quite frustrated that I have had to explain a simple passage of scripture several times in order to demonsrate the painfully obvious.

I know some of you are aware of this, but I wonder if several have any idea how whacky this place is?

I'm taking a vacation.  Happy recovery!


Brent

I agree the board can be maddening. Nothing like a nice trip away to clear your thoughts. Have Fun! Summer.

This is what I have observed.

What came to mind when the weak and strong issues came up?

No one seemed to recognize of the 'weak; when the example of eating and judging came up.

The one who is weak is the one who is not strong enough yet to give into temptation. The strong is the one who can eat in moderation, not sin.
The weak can be an alcoholic, or addict of some sort.
In the Bible times it could be a Jewish convert to Christianity, who is not strong in their faith and hasnt come to peace about eat the prohibited foods under the law.

Christians because they are not under the law, have every right to eat or drink anything they want. To use that right selfishly over someone who for some reason cant control themselves.
A Christian is within his right to drink wine, but not to excess, there must be control over this right. But to serve alcohol to someone who doesnt have control , thus sending a recovering alcoholic into a set back. That would be abusive use of the right.
That is when the strong the one who has control, be considerate of the one who is weak - the alcoholic.

Romans 14:1-5 Is the reference that was in debate.
I like verse 4: Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls,. Indeed he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

Whether one his weak in faith, and the other is strong in faith, they are both servants of God.

I like 1 Corinthians 1:27 as a promise those who a weak in faith.


Lenore

1Cor 1:27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

is not talking about those who are weak in faith, but that those who are weak in worldly wisdom.

Marcia

Sorry my mistake:

Check out the verse for yourself , that reflect weakness in worldly wisdom



1 Corinthians 1:26 to 29  NLT

Remember , dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world's eyes, or powerful, or wealthy  when God called you.
Instead God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose those who are powerless to shame those who are powerful.
God chose things depised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important, so that no one can ever boast in the presence of God.

New Century Version:
Brothers and sisters, look at what you were when God called you. Not many of you were wise in the way the world judges wisdom. Not many of you had great influence. Not many of you came from important families. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and he chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose what the world thinks is unimportant and what the world looks down on and thinks is nothing in order to destroy what the world thinks is important. God did this so that no one can brag in his presence.

THE MESSAGE:
Take a look , friends, at who you were when you got called into this life. I dont see many of "the brightest and the best" among you, not many influential , not many from high society families. Isnt it obvious that God deliberately chose men and women that the culture overlooks and exploits and abuses, chose these "nobodies" to expose the hollow pretensions of the "somebodies"? That makes quite clear than none of you can get by with blowing your own horn before God. Everything that wwe have  right thinking and right living, a clean slate and a fresh start - comes from God by way of Jesus Christ. That's why we have the saying,
"If you're going to blow a horn, blow a trumpet for God.

 

Quoting more verses does not change it Lenore.  The passage in 1 Cor 1:26-29 is talking about the worldly wise and the not-so worldly wise (weak in worldly wisdom).  It is not talking about the weak in faith from Rom 14.

Marcia

Hi Everyone!

  Brent:  I think your last post pretty much makes my point.  You have strongly held opinions and when you can't get agreement you resort to vile sarcasm as a means to demean those who disagree with you.  I was hoping to keep the discussion on a Biblical footing and away from this kind of personal focus.

   You well know I am not suggesting that we accept error and sin, in order to win someone.  When I said, "we need to first win the person" it was for the intention of "correcting them" not to just make friends with them and tolerate their sin.

   Jesus was "the friend of sinners" and was accused by the Pharisees of being too lenient with them.  Jesus knew they were prostitutes, thieves, drunkards, cowards, and yes maybe even lesbians, but this did not stop him from caring about them and dying to save them!  

  Sondra was right on the money when she contrasted Nietzshe to Christian thought.  This philosopher despised Christianity because of Jesus' teaching on "meekness."

 Nietzshe believed in the "superman", a man of adamant strong will that would not allow compassion to weaken him.  From his philosophy sprung men like Hitler and Stalin.  Nietzshe also produced a work called, "The Anti-Christ" in which he lauded the beast like character who would show no mercy.

  I am not saying that Brent is a follower of Nietzshe, only that it is not a Christian thought to believe that Jesus came to take away all weakness via some kind of Ayn Rand self deterimination philosophy.

 When the disciples were weak in faith by running away at the time when Jesus went to the cross, Jesus did not reject them for their lack of courage and strength of will.  He met them where they were hiding for fear and strengthed their faith and gave them hope.

   Jesus did not feel that these Disciples were manipulating him, nor did he start to berate them for their lack of courage, etc.  Jesus did mildly remonstrate Peter in JN 21, but certainly did not insult him or rake him over the coals ("lovest thou me more than these---").

  In Rom. 14-15 there was a dispute, and we have a dispute here.  You can be sure that both sides wanted to win their argument, but Paul told them both basically to drop it.

   But not to drop it with the attitude, "if my argument will not be agreed with I am taking my ball and going home!"  He told them to "accept one another as Christ has accepted you" and BTW, " not in a spirit that judges." This means no snide sarcastic comments would be allowed after the kissing and making up.

   We are to be intolerant of sin, and this will mean that we have to "correct" those involved with it, or we do them a disservice, but we do not have the omnescience of God to truly know where the heart of this person is (whether they are a faker or trully needy).

  A true Christian may get upset when corrected, and even back slide in angry rejection, but cannot ultimately escape the conviction that God wil bring upon their heart (Jonah).  We need not fear that the HS is inadequate for the job that he has been sent to do in the hearts of believers, be they even a con-man wearing a weak sheep's clothing.

                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.

    

    

    

Mark,

I get the impression that the whole purpose was to address Brent on his style of communication.  Personally, I had got that point quite a while ago.  Even the Biblical discussion was focussed for that intent, such that you missed the obvious in Rom 14 in it's exhortation to the weak as well as the strong.  Your post is a shame based exhortation to the strong blunt forceful communicator.  That is OK BTW, but I needed to illustrate how it sometimes just gets/looks that way.

You said, 'You well know I am not suggesting that we accept error and sin, in order to win someone.  When I said, "we need to first win the person" it was for the intention of "correcting them" not to just make friends with them and tolerate their sin.'

I think we are splitting hairs here when we try to draw distinctions like making friends to tolerate, and winning for the intent of correcting.  It is easy to draw these kind of conclusions by the few posts that someone directed you to read, or because you caught up with on the weekend.  Like I said, you miss the flow of the tone of what is happening.  Unfortunately, the conclusion that there was not an attempt or even a happening of "winning the person" then gets thrown out out of the window, else you would be so passionate to address it.

However, I do not entirely agree with what I quoted, because I do not see the Lord doing this with the Pharisee.  If He did then why did they react the way they did?  Also, The Lord was blunt on occasion with those very ones that He he met and strengthened their faith.  "But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's. Mark 8:33"

I also disagree with manipulating a person in order to win them to ones POV.  I care for the whole individual.  It was never a matter of winning the argument.  It was a matter of helping the individual have an open honest discussion, with whomever, so that the person could make up their own minds with the information gained.  It is pretty pathetic to have a person say, "I will take it under advisement of my counsellors" and then ask the person "Do you have an opinion on the matter?" only to get ignored.  I do not believe that it helps a person to make a conclusion based on how ones feels about the person delivering the message.  I know that you are not exactly saying that, but in reality that is what actually happened when an impression was made based on how one viewed the deliverer of the message.

Where do you get the notion that we do not accept certain individuals?  Why would we be even communicating with them if we did not?  It is the other individual that is not doing the accepting.  You may not have noticed because you were focussed on this discussion.  I notice silent treatment when I get it.

I agree with Brent in that the atmosphere is pretty unhealthy when every discussion gets sidetracked because we hurt or offended some wounded one.

Anyway.  enough said.
Marcia

This conclusion does surprise me a little. Having read Brent's posts over the last several years now, it is clear to me that ad reducto absurdum is a common literary device that he employs. He has occasionally thrown me for a loop but once I understood the tendency, I generally got a chuckle out of his approach. I would hardly characterize it as vile sarcasm Mark.
Verne

NO

 ;D

Just my opinion Sondra. :)

At the time it was important to focus the discussion, kind of like what you like to do sometimes but not exactly.

I can get personal about Brent and Mark and Verne because they are not wounded pilgrims anymore.  They are former wounded pilgrims.  I do not have to be concerned that they might think I am gossipping about them.  I do not have to be concerned about it further wounding them. etc. etc....  Hope you get the point.

It there is more I will comment later. ;)

Marcia

Lenore,

I don't consider an alcoholic to be a "weak" person anymore than I would consider a diabetic a "weak" person.

The situations are similar. They have a choice whether to take a drink, or whether to eat some candy. They have a physical condition going on in their body, and there are statistics that prove it. (Under The Influence by Milam and Ketcham, for one.)

Do we stop eating candy in front of a diabetic? Do we refuse to offer desert or snacks because an overweight person shouldn't be eating that much? Do we stop eating because an overweight person is eating too much? Do I not offer my obese co-worker a cookie, or refuse to get her a piece of cake from someone's birthday party when she asks and I'm getting one for myself? NO.

An alcoholic has a responsibility for his own actions. He will be offered drinks for the rest of his life and will be watching others drink for the rest of his life. It is always up to the alcoholic as to whether he will drink or not and at certain times in his life may want to avoid situations that will put him at risk for taking a drink that will put him over the edge.

I haven't run into any recovered alcoholics that will judge others who are drinking. They know that their own situation is unique and that they themselves cannot control their drinking.

In my experience, the ones who judge others' drinking are not alcoholics, but self-righteous, immature Christians who still live under the law.

Moonflower

I agree with you in this . We are each responsible for our own actions.

Each of us has our own choice, since I am obese I can personally answer to the one example you gave. Last night we had a social time after church.
We had sweets, we had sandwiches, and we had diabetic choices.
For the ones who are diabetic there was a choice at the table for them.
Since we have someone who has a peanut allergy, we post signs on the food that warns the one which has nuts.
We also offer sandwiches, or cheese, or vegetables, for those who are watching their sweets.
There is a choice available.

That way a person who is weak in the overcoming the temptations side of it, can make right choices for themselves.

It is the same as birthday cake, I have the choice to eat the birthday cake, because I enjoy cake, and not be ashamed to eat it. But if I was a diabetic and it would send my sugar to a dangerous level, then having another option served by the host of the party would be helping the one who is weak in this area.

The same with the alcoholic.  It is not going to area where they are served alcoholic beverages.
Unless the person is strong enough to say NO. Then they should be not exposing themselves to that situation. I totally agree, My father is 11 years dry.
If at a party, were alcohol is served, just turn the wine glass or whatever over to indicate you dont want it.
It is the one who pushes and nags the one, try it , one wont hurt. Whether it is alcoholic, food or what ever addictions.
It is the one who tempts the person outright.
Its the one who doesnt take NO for an answer.

The person who is weak in this area gives into the temptation, is because of persuasion of the person who has tempted him repeatly, and the person with the weakness has not the control yet to say NO.
This is where the person who is strong has stumbled the person who is weak.

I remember a person long ago telling me, because she was brought up in a religion that alcohol was absolute evil. When she saw a leader of another Christian organization taking a glass of wine for dinner, she almost left the organization. Maybe she should of at that time, not because the person was drinking wine.

I have no problems with people drinking casually. I dont drink, because of the historically and genetic factor of the alcoholism in my family. That genetic marker is there in side of me.
Years ago, I was also told that I would die of alcoholic poisoning before I even get drunk. I do have a funny story about this that occurred 12 years ago. Ever since I was told about this hazard, I have not touch a drop of alcohol ever since. ANother reason, I am so proud of my Dad accomplishment after drinking for over 50 years, to stop cold turkey and overcame. Why should I disrespect him by drinking. This is my choice. Only my choice.

Conclusion I agree with you, it is person's choice. It is also the one who is strong, to offer alternative choices in respect for the person who suffers a weakness.

Lenore

I want to give every one a chuckle:

It is the story I was referring to about the last time I was drinking.

It was about 12-15 years ago.  I was volunteering at our local cablevision studio.
There was a party for the volunteers at the studio's managers house at the time.

I was also recognized as Volunteer of the Year award.  I had my own television show.

We were all gathered in the garage of this managers, having a BBQ and a great time.
Drinks were being served.  My girls were there.  Christie was about 10 years old at the time, and Sara was about 3.

I was drinking maybe 7 or 8 drinks.  I was not a heavy drinker.

Recently Christie was telling me, that she was counting my drinks and was waiting for me to fall down drunk.

In all those drinks, I didnt even feel it, I was flushed , I slept good that night. But I was not sick or anything.  I could make excuses I had about 100 pounds excess of weight on me. I was eating, but the reality of it came later.

Christie and I really laughed at that one, that she was so disappointed that I was not  a falling down, throwing up, drunken Mother. I really disappointed her.

The explanation came later, when I went to a doctor, and talk to her about it, She told me that if I hadnt stopped drinking, and continued on that night, I could of died from alcohol poisoning with out ever having the symptoms of being drunk.

It is a funny memory of disappointed my daughter, but it could of been a serious consequence of my choice, actions and judgments. This is the reason why I dont drink anymore.
My favourite choice of alcoholic beverage was Baracadic White Rum and Coke.

There has been a few tragic consequences in this town, from the results of error in judgements due to alcoholic consumptions.

Lenore

Lenore,

I don't believe that an alcoholic/recovered alcoholic is a "weak" person anymore than I consider a diabetic or obese person a "weak" person.

I believe the scripture under discussion is talking about something that the "weak" person and "strong" person could equally be doing, if it wasn't for the fact that the "weak" person believes it is wrong to do.

Someone who offers an alcoholic a drink, knowing that who he is offering it to is an alcoholic, is not a "strong" person, but a person who is ignorant of what alcoholism really is.

Moonflower

Oh, okay, I get your viewpoint.

I never thought of the weak and the strong as being equal people before, I always thought the strong was having more control, and the weak have less control, in light of temptation.
I will be doing some more studying on this.

It is a different way of viewing it.

You are also right:
Maybe we should be using our words more carefully, when addressing and labelling people.

Can I ask a question?  Do you believe once an alcoholic always an alcoholic? Do you believe the person who suffers from the addiction of alcoholism will be able to take that one drink without consequences?

Thanks for the discussion.

Lenore

Hello Everyone!

  I do need to apologize to Brent for several things.

First: I was trying to use this topic to zero in on him, and was not up front about it.  He tried to keep it non-personal and I thinly veiled my arguments as a means to "correct him," the very thing I was arguing against!

Second: He was right, along with Marcia and Hugh, that Rom.14 does include an exhortation to the weak.  Though I still believe the passage was mainly directed to "the strong" , as they were the majority party at the church in Rome and the ones who held all the cards.

  Why would I not admit Brent was right?  I had some preconceived notions and an agenda that I was trying to advance and used selected portions of commentary to advance my argument.  Again, something I have argued against on this BB often.

 Third: I did find Brent's sarcasm "vile" because of the mention of "lesbian witches", but it was understandable that he would become frustrated with my unwilliningness to admit the obvious in the verses he mentioned.

  Hypocritical?  Yep, and I apologize to Brent and everyone here for my deceptive practices, and attempts to manipulate the conversation.

   Marcia:  I had a little difficulty in understanding exactly what you were trying to say, but if I have offended/ignored you in this discussion I ask your forgiveness as well.  I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions, and take any criticism that you may offer seriously.
  
     You are correct that I may not know everything that is going on with the discussion, and if this has slanted my views in an un-balanced manner I am open to try and fix this.

   I do count myself among those who could be called "Wounded Pilgrims", and maybe at a later point I can try to explain this more fully.  I understand that some have difficulty with the whole notion that this could mean "eternal victim status", but this is not how I view it.

   Sondra:  You have been the biggest surprise to me of anyone on this topic, and others.  I had you already figured out as a follower of Witness Lee, and lacking in any real spiritual sense, and so worthy only of contempt.  I apologize for this.
  
     You have been the most honest one here and saw through the dishonesty of taking shots at folks behind a false front of "non-personal" biblical discussion.

  I still have some differences with you re. your understanding of spirituality, but I have reacted first without thinking, and I'm sure offended you as well--- please forgive me.

  To Everyone Else,
 Lenore, AL, Summer, Moonflower, and the great host of readers:  ;)

   There are things that I have said on this topic that I most surely believe.  I am passionate about protecting those that were victims of abuse in groups like the Assembly.  I think this passion is a good and right thing, but it needs to be moderated.

   I have a deep seated resentment against those who use their strength to "lord it over" those who are vulnerable.  In this sense I am still "wounded" because I will react from emotional recollections, vs sound reason.  I think most reading my posts' can see this, and this can be a negative, but I believe it also can be something that God can use.  I will need to explain this more fully later.

  When I saw Lenore, and in the past others, being what I interpreted as being abused, I instantly reacted against it and was not successful in fully moderating my passion.  There is plenty of blame to go around to all the parties concerned, and I want you to reflect on this.

  I underlined the word "moderated" above because that is key to understanding the word "gently"(meekness) that I previously mentioned.  The greek word (meek) gentle has the sense of the ability to control (moderate) a strong passion that we have within.  Meekness has an inner strength, as exemplified in Jesus, that "wrath worketh not the righteousness of God."

  This does not mean we become "passionless," and never react in anger (as exemplified in Jesus in the temple, etc.), but we need to save it for the proper situation.

  As an example:  If we were in a church and a pastor was trying to cover-up his abuse of a child this would not be the circumstance to moderate our passion.  However, if someone on the BB points out a shortcoming in our life we should not let our emotions take us to making personal insults; choosing rather to not answer out of our hurt feelings.

  Those of us who are passionate in defending the weak need to also moderate that passion, just as those who have a passion to press the position of "the strong." Paul was "strong," and most certainly did not want "the weak in faith' to remain in that condition.  This is a very good passion to have, but this too must be moderated with a wise control that considers how the "weak" may receive our correction.

  In that sense both groups need to be willing to lay down their weapons, so to speak, in those areas that are not essential to preserve righteousness and truth.  Paul saw that there are "disputable" matters, that we must be willing to give up the battle on.  Paul said that rather than "offend a brother" he would no longer drink wine ever again.  It is clear that our choices need to be controlled by love for our brother, vs the enjoyment of our own personal liberty.

                                       God bless,  Mark C.

  

  

Mark,

You probably did not understand me because I was trying say it without being direct and trying not to offend any wounded ones.  It is difficult to speak in generalities for fear that someone may get sensitive about something I said and then we end up having to deal with a reaction rather than discuss a topic.  So, honestly and not sarcasticly, I do not want the last word and I do not want to win any argument.

From a previous discussion I had understood that you are on board for the sake of other wounded ones and that you did not consider yourself in that category.  So I misunderstood you on that matter, and actually feel that it is too bad that you still 'react' out of that woundedness.  You are not free to be objective and to know the Spirit's leading.  Forgive me if this is just driving the knife in the wound just after you have apologized.

This board has evidently become the wounded pilgrims board and I do not feel free to discuss topics of general interest, so my participation will be limited as a result.

Thank you Mark, for the sound advise you have given re. assembly matters.  I truly appreciate it and respect you for it.

God bless,
Marcia

AMEN

Hi Marcia,

  Yes, speaking in generalities in an attempt to avoid offending others can lead to a lot of confusion.  I would encourage you, and any others, to be direct in your comments.

  Re. a fear that "this BB has become the wounded pilgrims board where we must be careful not to offend others:"

    Where does this fear come from?  I have received e-mail's from those that felt uncomfortable about participating on a BB where posters were ridiculed, shamed, etc.

  It seems that there are two camps that are both uncomfortable with participating: one fears being attacked, and the other feels muzzled from open and honest conversation.

   I guess that brings us back to the "strong" and "weak" topic where both sides are going to have give some if we are going to be able to live together here.

   I'm not clear how someone still recovering from their Assembly involvement can so effectively silence those that have gotten beyond this past.  It would seem to me that the confident and capable former member would be able to hold their own in any argument.

  Whatever environment a Christian finds himself in there must be some awareness that what we say and do matters.  So in this sense, we need to bring to our discussion on the BB the same manner we would in any situation---- self control.

  I know that you are not saying that you resent being told to submit yourself to our Lord's commands, just that you don't feel freedom to speak plainly.

  As an example:  Suppose I have not had much sleep and am very irritible.  Sindy (my wife) starts speaking plainly about a chore that needs to be done here at the house.  I want to react to this from my irritated emotional state, but realize that I am not free to do this because I know it isn't right (or because I fear her right hook ;)).

   For whatever reason, I control my feelings and don't start a fight with her.  This is all I'm talking about on the BB: don't react to others perceived tone (that speaks more to my own emotional state than anything else), and this goes for whatever "side' you may be coming from.

  Self control is not hypocrisy: meaning that just because I don't blurt out what I feel at the moment this is a sign that I'm not honest.  This is the only kind of "control" I would recommend, not a fearful hand-wringing that turns the BB over to those who are prisoners of their previous/present victimization.

  But, this is not what I believe is happening on the BB.  First, I believe it is a distortion of my whole understanding of what it means to be a "Wounded Pilgrim."  Futhermore, I don't believe the present distress was as a result of conflict between a philosophy of a recovery mentality vs. a reality therapy one, and consequently which one would dominate the BB.

  I realize that there are Christians who strongly disagree with the whole concept of spiritual abuse, recovery from same, and especially anything that has a hint of psychological issues  >:D.  I don't expect that my views will remain unchallenged, and indeed it is a good thing if they are put to the test!

  Nobody died and made me king of the BB  ;), and nobody's opinion should be safe from scrutiny.  I am not the sole interpreter of Assembly experience and how we should view it.

 But, as I said, I don't believe this has been a war over my philosphy concerning recovery.  If it had been there would have been those who would have taken me up on my many invitations to challenge my posts, vs. the way it actually worked out with the conflict with Lenore.

  There are, on both sides, an intolerance for certain view points.  The disagreement is such that each side believes that the other side should be silenced.  Just because we discuss recovery on the BB does not mean that anyone can't start a thread on whatever they want; and indeed that has been so, and this is a good thing too.

  What we do without Joe's humor, talk about music/movies, politics, welfare myths?  My monologues on recovery are of interest to some, but if that's all we had on this BB it would end up being my own little blog with a readership of about 12 (counting the five I paid to read it ;)).

  Marcia, you feel like you are being silenced, and on the other side there are those who feel like they are being told to shut-up and leave.  Trying to discuss our position is replaced with thinly veiled (and in some cases not veiled at all) attempts to humiliate the other one.

  "Being blunt" can be just as phony an excuse to let someone have it as a "false spirituality" that uses scripture to level an opponent.  The only remedy is trying to be honest with ourselves that we somtimes respond from our injured emotions.  I have been as honest as I can in my recent mea culpa and hope that this provides an example for others to follow.

                      God Bless and love in Christ Jesus,  Mark C.



     


     

 

Hi Mark,

Since you addressed me in person, I will respond to you.  It does not really matter whether or not I contribute to this BB, there are others who will keep it going.  It used to be that the side show was over on the far side, but the side show has now become a regular commentary on AB and I will not be able to silently let garbage go unchallenged, wounded pilgrim(WP) or not.  I do not take kindly to being analysed by people who 'read' things into my posts.  I like open honest discussions.  I am not fearful that this BB will become a WP BB, it already has.

I do not think that you want to encourage me to be direct in my comments.  Been there tried that and here we are now as a result.

This is not about fear, but about facing the fact.   You have received e-mail's from those that felt uncomfortable about participating on a BB where posters were ridiculed, shamed, etc.  BUT you will end up with a double standard, because the WP is being allowed to go unchecked just because of their woundedness.  So looks like there is going to be a problem to face one way or the other.

I can relate to both camps, but not to those who will not have an honest discussion.

The confident and capable former member will not be able to hold their own in any argument because as soon as the 'supportive' RULE is breached all hell breaks loose and down goes the discussion.

If you are indicating that I did not display self-control then definitely address it when it happens.  I can take criticism.

I've said this before and will repeat myself, re. a WP reacting/responding to a blunt approach.  I saw it as a opportunity to help the individual through their sensitivity and respond in a manner that would encourage discussion.  Why? because I believed that the individual could benefit from it for other situations in life.  But the simple fact that, firstly I agreed with Brent's POV, and that I did not exhort him for his POV meant that I had chosen the wrong camp.  It was the other who personalized the discussion and took it downhill.  It is very frustrating and honestly, I would have reacted the same way Brent did had I been on board when the drama started to unfold.  I received an email from the said individual and then got on board to check out the drama; that is when I started to attempt to enter into the discussion and told the individual that had she responded differently the discussion would have a different ending.

  '"Being blunt" can be just as phony an excuse to let someone have it as a "false spirituality" that uses scripture to level an opponent.'  People use many different excuses to level their opponents.  You admitted to one today.  WP's use their woundedness.  etc. etc.  Personally I see more honesty in the blunt approach.  I do my best to stay away from analysing motives and I read words and messages and try to respond to the message being communicated.  Verne is one example where I can get a lot out of what he's saying, but find that I have to sift through "I can't believe anyone could think that way" type comments to get to it.  That is the way Verne communicates and I accept that about him and it is not a problem for me.  Verne forgive me for using you as an example here.

The nature of BB's is discussion.  This BB has become a support group.  I love good honest discussions, hence I have remained for as long as I have.  I shall participate if there is anything of interest happening.

That's all for now,
Marcia

Yes, I believe that an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, but he can be a recovered alcoholic, just like your Dad.

Recovered alcoholics will tell you the same thing, or they wouldn't be recovered. They can't stop with a single drink, and as far as I know, never will be able to. That's the difference between an alcoholic and someone who isn't.

Aside from the verses being discussed, and the different meanings that we use the word "weak" for, I have known alcoholics who were in control and manipulated entire families. They could control everyone around them. They could evoke sympathy from outsiders. If anyone dared to stand against them or to say the truth, they would manipulate circumstances and the rest of the family and outsiders to "punish" the one who they perceive is against them. "Oh, poor me" is descriptive of their attitude, and in their minds, they deserve sympathy. I have a hard time considering this type of person as "weak" in any sense of the word.

Some alcoholics attempt suicide. I have known people who have attempted suicides who had the exact same behavior patterns as those I described in the paragraph above. Their suicide attempts were not done in an attitude of despair, but in anger and in an attempt to control the situation and those around them. I don't consider this type of person to be "weak", either.

Moonflower

Just a little comment: We know God accepts the weak and the strong! But two wrongs never make a right. So we have Grace their are some who do not want to be in a perpetual wounded status, wounds have healed,  they may have a scar, a battle-wound, could even be a badge of honor(depending on the War!) A Purple heart and never left the city! Christ has scars remember he showed them to Thomas. Eventually wounds heal at a different rate for all, so no-one should feel pressure. Having worked in the Medical field being around sick/weak people alot you look forward to being around heathly strong individuals nothing wrong with that, you can't force a sick person to get better, but they will eventually.  God heals he's the Great Physician. This board can be very aggravating going over the same thing, or logging on and see"oh their fighting again" how does that help anyone? Alot of the time I don't want to bother with someone else's personality conflict, they need to work it out themselves, but manners and courtesy ON BOTH SIDES HELPS!  Good- nite. Summer.

Mark,

I'll post this now since you will likely be away this week, and because of the time difference I may only read your reply tomorrow morning.

Re. support group here's an example of true events of my day:
I called my parents this morning.  My Mum had just gotten back from her doctor's appt. My Dad is very weak and not recovering well from his recent surgery to set his knee cap after a car accident.
I then took 2 extra strength tylenols and went out and cut my neighbor's front lawn, and my front and back lawns.  I came in showered and got online to discover that one who I called a friend was misrepresenting me.  etc. etc. etc.


Don't you feel sorry for me and want to support me?  I don't post stuff like that because it is just part of life.  I may post some news, but I do not come to this board doing that kind of stuff on a regular basis.


Re. communication styles
Courtesy and kindness and manners are in order, as summer said, regardless of style of communication.  The problem is that we make our own set of 'rules' where courtesy, kindness and manners have been breached and we provoke others by our standards.  To be honest with you, right now I am very angry with tenderhearted's latest analysis of my post and am doing all I can not to retort.  I am also very disappointed that no one else has commented.  BUT that is my standard.  And I can well understand that another, like Brent e.g., might actually voice his anger and frustration in a similar situation.
Cults use kind sweet communication to lure and ensnare and seduce unsuspecting victims.  If we focus on style of communication rather than on content, we do a disservice to the person who is prone to make a conclusion based on how he/she feels about the poster delivering the message.  IMO it is more beneficial to focus on 'discerning of truth' rather than on 'methods of communication'.

This has become quite an e-vent eh?? :)
God bless,
Marcia

Amen

And Amen

Re. ministering to the weak ones
I liked summer's medical analogy, so I thought I'd capitalize on it.
The weak one can be won by 'nice' treatment, but if he ends up choosing the sugar coated lie then he has not, in reality, been edified has he?  I, and others, observed this happen on this BB and commented on it via PMs.
The correct treatment might actually be the more toxic chemo/radiation, side-effects and all.  The weak one may shun the toxic treatment because he is afraid of the side effects.  The weak one may not be won over by the blunt approach, but in reality, regular doses of blunt truth will start to have its healing effect eventually.

Re. styles of cummunication
Both the gentle and the blunt communicator can find verses to 'justify' their method of communicating.
One's passion for the wounded is not any more or less Christlike than another's passion for the blunt truth.  Christ came full of grace and truth.  Stop judging each other on this matter.

Re. discerning truth and error
Child training books classify rebellion in 2 categories, active and passive.  The active one looks bad, but is actually easier to address because it is out in the open.  The passive rebellion is behind the scenes and sneaky and takes some doing to expose and address.
It is easier to identify the wolves than the snakes and vipers.  Yet both can hinder open honest communication of truth because of their disruptive nature.  I can identify 2 snakes on this BB, but will reveal their names some other time.

Re. support group
Yesterday, my daughter's team lost the game in the rugby playoffs.  One of her team members broke her ankle while playing.  I actually wept for the kid.
I am disappointed that Brent has decided to withdraw from contributing to this BB on a regular basis.  As I read the posters, I see that a number of us truly appreciated his clarity of thought and benefitted from his presentation of it.

Asta luego, au revoir,
Marcia

Sondra,  I could count on you to respond.  Don't worry, I don't think that you are one of the snakes.  You are too upfront to fall in that category.  I am open to suggestions as to which category I am in. :)

Cults do use deceptive methods to ensnare their catch.  The point I was attempting to make is that the focus of the BB should be discernment of truth.

I am trusting the Lord that Brent will be back Sondra.  You can pray too.:)  You are right about not following any man, but like you, I do find his commentary quite thought provoking.  In actual fact, I only threw in that comment about Brent just to illustrate my 'support group' point.  Brent can and will do as he sees fit to do re. BB participation.

Like they say, no church is perfect, no BB or person is perfect.  The emphasis on a BB should be on truth telling.

Though I disagree with your deeper life stuff, you are a wise woman, so thanks for your comments.

God bless,
Marcia

This really is turning into a zoo, isn't it? Or is it The Magic Flute?

I agree with your example of an alcoholic who due to his addictions has traumatized entire families, destroyed families due to drinking and driving, have even killed their families while under the influence of the alcohol.  Frequently this occurs when an alcoholic has been on a binge, and then dry for a few days, and they get the D.T.'s.  I had a uncle , who was in one of these drying spells, and went to a stump outside of his house, and was crowing like a rooster.

Physically they are strong, in manipulation they are strong, the power over others in controlling and  lording over their authority by fear, frequently stripping their families of any outside support of friends, family etc, until the family member questions their own worth, and is frighten of the consequences if they ever left from under the alcoholic.

I agree with you in this , that this time of person is not weak. Nor are they strong, in character, nor strong in judgements once under the influence of the alcohol that is affecting their judgements of choice, judgement of reason, judgement of appropriate social conduct.
Addictive personality out of control, is not strong, but the consequences of that addictive personality doesnt make them weak either.

SO what does it make them?

Thank you Moon for the discussion.

Lenore