ASSEMBLY HISTORY and why it is important.

[vernecarty]

I think perhaps the point that Marcia was making is that George Geftakys was never interested in the truth. The theology he contructed (granted though partly plagiarized from many sources) had at the outset, the intention of bringing many into wicked bondage and making merchandise of the spiritually gullible. The evidence shows that George charted the course of the assemblies very carefully and they had a noisome stench from the very beginning. Look at the awful red flags immediately raised with his early destruction and division of so many families. Those  who knew about and participated in this great wickedness are in my opinion equally culpable! It would be a mistake to misjudge the intentionality of what this false teacher perpetrated on God's people. This is what I understand Marcia to mean by a "false religious system".
Verne

[M2]

Tom,

Verne has expressed my perspective in his response to your post. But I will comment as well. It is helpful to discuss this issue as it helps clarify in each of our minds what the Geftakys assemblies were all about.

Marcia,

You wrote,
"Since I consider the assembly system raised by by GG's ministry as a false religious system, then the real need is to "come out from among them an be separate" and leave the system behind. Similar to a JW religious group.

The other question is with GGs ministry(preaching/books) - does the leaven analogy apply to it?"

I think you have some problems with that "false religious system" idea.  What does that mean?

When you say, "Similar to a JW religious group" I think you are failing to make a distinction between born again Christians and non-believers.  Surely you don't mean that the assemblyites aren't really Christians.

If you mean "a Christian group that teaches error", well, there went the Baptists, Presbyterians,  Calvary Chapel, E. Free Churches and so on.  Who can we say has absolutely perfect doctrine?

So, unless you clarify what you mean, I must say I don't fully understand what you are saying.

I have been polite by speaking of the assemblies in terms of a false religious system, because speaking of it as a cult brings offense to some. My belief is that the assembly system is/was a cult system, the members being Christians who were (for the most part) sincerely deceived into beleiving that we were serving God by being zealous to serve in the system. The JW analogy breaks down (as most analogies do) when one take it to its literal parallels. The JW analogy was only to illustrate that there are many 'sincere' and 'nice' individuals who are JWs but are involved in a false religious system, similar to those in the assemblies.

As to "Come out from among them and be separate", that passage is speaking of Christian Jews leaving their past association with Judaism and declaring themselves as Christians.

It has been misused by hundreds of groups calling on people to leave whatever they have left, as if it applied to their situation.  But...it doesn't.

GG and the Plymouth Brethren in general teach a system of Biblical interpretation that goes back to the Alexandrian Catechal school of the second century.  It is called the Allegorical method.  The Catholic Church picked it up and uses it.

The problem is, who is to say what is the legitimate interpretation of a verse? It is no longer found in the meaning of the sentences or in the context.

In Catholicism, its the Pope.

Among the PB's it is the dominant brother(s).  

This is the basis for many of their practices.  Doorkeepers, making people "sit back" for some minor offense, and so on.

As to GG's "books", which are actually heavily revised transcripts of his eternal, rambling seminar messages.

I think they are simply confused garbage in belong with the other stuff in the trash.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I agree with you that the scriptures were/are often twisted and misused to suit the purpose of the group.
I should not have expressed myself thus for that reason.

My intention was to state that since the religious system was not of the Lord, then those involved in it should leave it in order to involve themselves with a Christian church. Hence the 6weeks off / disband suggestion in my exit email letter.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[Oscar]

"I think perhaps the point that Marcia was making is that George Geftakys was never interested in the truth."

Verne, how do you know what GG was thinking in 1969?  For that matter, how could you know what ANYONE what thinking at any time?

I met GG when he was 41 years old.  He had been a Christian for over 20 years.  Was he ever interested in the truth in those 20 years?  I think he was.

When I met GG for the first time he was doing evangelistic work with international students.

When George's kids were little he used to go to Salt Lake City frequently to give evangelistic talks in a mission to Mormons.

I spent many, many hours with GG in the early days before the assembly began, and I believe that he really had a desire to serve God.  There were times when the man really helped me in my walk with Christ.

I think that what happened to GG is something like what happened to Saul or Solomon.  Look at Solomon in the beginning, and then at the end.  What a tragedy.  

Evil was allowed into his life.  It was in small things at first, but then it got worse and worse until it became a disaster for him, and for his whole nation.


"The theology he contructed (granted though partly plagiarized from many sources) had at the outset, the intention of bringing many into wicked bondage and making merchandise of the spiritually gullible."


Again, I disagree, Verne.  If you read PB books, especially by ones that were partial rapturists like Pember, Govette or Lang, you will see that there was VERY little if anything new at all in GG's ideas.

Perhaps at the end, when the 7th day creation of man idea appeared, or if Tim's wonky ideas about the incarnation of Christ came from GG, he was charting his own course.  But not in most of what he taught.

I believe that the turning point in GG's heart came as a result of the false mysticism he picked up from his Pentecostal beginnings and his PB mentors.  This, in my opinion, was his Achilles heel.

He began to believe that he had special understanding and insight, that was not shared by lesser men.  So as  the years went by he reached a point of total exclusion of other viewpoints.  He couldn't/wouldn't associate with anyone on a personal level, and reacted to anyone who questioned him as if they were a threat.

The result...delusion.  "I am the servant of God for this generation". "I am the successor of the apostle Paul".  "I am a priest after the order of Melchezidek".  And so on and on.

When I went over to Steve Iron's house, (next door) to tell him I was not returning to the Assembly, I wanted to condense my whole reason into one statement.  So, I told him, "This ministry is based upon a false mysticism".  

Verne, that's my view on it.  I don't buy the "grand conspiracy" theory at all.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Oops!

Sorry I messed that up.  I obviously don't have the idea of how to quote, comment, quote, comment in these posts.

How do you do it?

Tom

[editor]

If there is anyone who can cause me to rethink my assessment of George Geftakys it is certainly you Tom.
I would like to believe that at some point George was a true man of God but a number of things cast doubt on that being the case.
It is apparent from the evidence that even in those days before the assembly started George Geftakys was in a state of departure ( his refusal to accept discipline or be subject to other brethren) from the Lord despite his seeming spiritual business and industry. I am most troubled by his apparent inability to repent. Even Saul made feeble attemps at repentance verbiage although his heart was not in it. Not so George Geftakys.
Tom I cannot tell you how I agonized and pored over the Word of God trying in some way to understand how God could possibly allow someone like George Geftakys to do what he did. There are a number of ways in which he fits the rejected servant (king Saul analogy) but also some even more critical ones in which he does not. I don't want to get long-winded so I will list just the first one.
It is not clear to me that he was ever properly chosen as a servant of God. Even here there is a great caveat as Judas clearly was selected to be one of the twelve and the Lord identified him as a devil.
Tom with one possible exception, there is no one on this BB I regard more highly than you my friend. I think your perspective is of the utmost imortance and many of us have a lot to learn by hearing it.
Verne
p.s. This has the potential to embark on a discussion I have long wanted to engage with someone more instructed than I, namely, is there any Biblical basis for believing a person who is a false prophet/teacher is redeemded?

Who George was, is subject to speculation.   I truly hope that the man is saved.  

However, there is no doubt whatsoever about who the man is currently.  He is to be regarded as an unbeliever.  Only God knows whether he is horribly backslidden, or unregenerate in the first place.  We may speculate about George's salvation; I have certainly done so.  However, there is no doubt about his current state.  He has refused to hear "the church."  And not just his own twisted "church," but others as well, both from the old days, and from the current time.

Brent

[M2]

Tom and All,

I'm just thinking out loud. I appreciate your comments.

If GG was not in God's general will because of his behavior, then God would not have led him to begin "his ministry". I refer to Phill Wieser's post.

Marcia,
The last Sunday morning assembly message I preached was in December, when we knew nothing of these matters.  It was from Haggai 2.  Contact with holy things does not make one holy, but contact with something defiled makes one unholy.  After Geo.'s sin and all other the hidden things came to light, I looked back at this passage and saw it applied.  Corrupted.  Leavened. The Holy Spirit does NOT use defiled, corrupted people who won't acknowledge or repent of their sin to raise up "testimonies" to Himself.
...
Phill

I have heard GG preach that God honors His word whether it is preached in a bar or in a church. As far a God's Word was preached and we followed it, He honored it.

Extracted from: Early Beginnings by Margaret Irons
http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Reflections/EarlyBeginnings.htm
It is very difficult for me to try to see these beginnings through the lens, “Did God raise up this ministry?” I think that God spoke to us through the many Scriptures that were read, through the many doctrinal hymns we sang, and He fed us through the Lord’s Supper, because we were the sheep of His pasture, not because this was a special work of God. In so doing, He preserved us and we were even able to grow in grace, to some extent.
--end-quote

GG had a 'gift' to speak and convince us of his godliness. Until his excommunication I thought of him as a godly man. He would tell stories like "my kids are ready for glory, so now we're working on the grandchildren" (something like that), in spite of the fact that he knew that his son David was abusing his wife. He lied to us and I believed him. It was a 'smoke screen' to distract us from 'looking' there. A form of brainwashing.

Just recently (last week) I spoke to an individual who recounted GGs version of his excommunication and believes it. GG was in that locality at the time of his excomm.. (this is recounted as I remember it):
GG said that the brothers were trying to find a way to get rid of him because of the DG issue and did not want him to preach. So they 'fished' for information and found a sister who said that something had happened 15 years ago and GG has said he was sorry and had made things right with her. One of the LBs then called other sisters and they said that they had felt uncomfortable around GG, but that nothing had really happened. The brothers then excommunicated GG on the the basis of one witness, and it was also an incident from the past that had been made right. And they did it in his absence. I.E. his excomm.. was 'not biblical'. I pointed her to 1Cor5 as being the biblical reason, but she said that the fact that it was in the past and had been made right then 1Cor5 did not apply. As a result, that assembly has not honored GGs excommunication.

GG has a gift to 'convince' us of his lies.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[jackhutchinson]

Sounds like GG has been taking some 'spin' lessons from some politicians.  Man, he's good.

Jack

[Scott McCumber]

Sounds like GG has been taking some 'spin' lessons from some politicians.  Man, he's good.

Jack

That's irritating.

Sorry, Jack, but the old boy is NOT that good. People just really are that stupid.

Or, with apologies to Brent: The arguments of those who believe George's version of things are are without merit.

Nah, it's just not the same. They're stupid.

Scott McCumber

[Oscar]

Marcia,

Regarding your comment about it being difficult to see things through the lens of "did God raise up this ministry".

I am not much of a mystic.  So, my first reaction to a question like this is, "Is this a real question?"

In other words, I am not sure that we can legitimately speak of ministries in this way.

First of all, everything happens under the sovereign rule of God.  That, of course, is a very difficult concept when we think of evil men, actions and events in His world.  How works is a very real question that I don't think has been satisfactorily answered.

Secondly, where does scripture teach that ministries, (what I do or my group does), are "raised up".  

One could say, "the ministry of Martin Luther was certainly raised up by God".  Does that mean everything Martin Luther taught and did was "raised up by God".  

The fellow did us a world of good, but he did some pretty bad stuff too, and taught some pretty wonky ideas as well.

So what's the verdict?  Raised up by God or not?

Beats me.  I don't think it is a legitimate question.

It happened, and it produced result x, y, and z.

We have to decide what our response will be.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[outdeep]

In my involvement with foster care, I have read much (and experience some first hand) how lovable, gifted kids can be inflicted with psycological disorder due to bonding and attachment issues.  

Some characteristics of an unattached child are:
Extremely friendly and likable.
Inablility to form meaningful realiationships.
Lack of cause and effect thinking.
Life and death need to be in control - even over trivial issue.
Aparent lack of conscience - one story I recently read about, the girl would steal peoples close and deny that it happened even when all the clothes is found in her room.

I'm not going to play Junior Psycologist and claim that I know that George has Reactive Attachment Disorder.  

However, I found it helpful to think of George with a man with psycological pathology causing him to need to be in control at all costs.  What was the cause?  I don't fully know but I would speculate it had much with his upbringing.  Exactly when did he move into this condition full time?  I have no idea.  

But, there are lots of people out there like that and with the fragmentation of the family these days, there will be much more of this with varying degree.

The sad story of George is that he was a gifted man who found himself in a place where everyone loved him and he had no accountability - the absolute worst place for a man of his psycological temperment.

Why wasn't this dealt with earlier in his life when he could have been helped?  I don't know.

However, I don't get so upset when I hear about George denying he ever did anything wrong.  It's all part of his pathology. He is beyond the point of return, most likely.   And, quite frankly, it is not as unusual as you might think.  There are lots of unattached kids running around these days in group homes, foster families, and adoptive families who simply haven't gotten the prominence George had.

At least, not yet.

[vernecarty]

Marcia,

Regarding your comment about it being difficult to see things through the lens of "did God raise up this ministry".

I am not much of a mystic.  So, my first reaction to a question like this is, "Is this a real question?"

In other words, I am not sure that we can legitimately speak of ministries in this way.


Thomas Maddux

It seems to me whether God "raised up" the asemblies in not the best way to frame the question. It would be more useful and relevant to ask if George Geftakys was ever a true servant of Jesus Christ. The answer to that question makes any question about the assemblies moot. If you are of the opinion, based on the evidence, that  George Geftakys was once a man of God who subsequently went astray, you will certainly come to a different conclusion from one who thinks he was purposeful in his wickedness from the outset.
Framed in that fashion, there are still many pitfalls possible in our reasoning so far as God's involvement. The case of Judas Isacariot makes this clear. No qestion he was one of the twelve called to be with Christ. No question he was a devil, the Lord Himself affirmed this.
If we conclude that George Geftakys was never "approved" and the Scripture is quite clear on how this takes place, any defence of the entire system he promulgated is indefensible.
Most would agree that George Geftakys was a false teacher so our assessment of him should be the same as the Word of God. Many often cite the fact that he preached the Word but this does not mitigate the fact that he was an evil man from the outset. The Devil preaches the Word as it suits his purpose.
I suspect thate there are many of us still struggling with the fact that we were surborned by this apostate and are still trying our best to cull something salvagable from that sad era. I am preared to admit that my own deception was complete. In my view George Geftakys perfectly fulfils a classic Biblical type of the false teacher. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians speaks of the power of the old testament examples (tupos) and instructs us that they exsist for our warning. I believe George Geftakys is a modern-day display of the same category.
Verne

[Joe Sperling]

Regarding George and "Reactive Attachment Disorder", I don't agree with the prognosis. I personally believe that George is a victim of WHD which afflicts most people later in life, but can begin in childhood due to some traumatic or awe-inspiring experience.

WHD(Willful Heretic Disorder) may have afflicted George after he wandered into traffic as a young child and was rescued by a Giant Hand. A deep feeling of Superiority may have overtaken little George(through no fault of his own), and he fell into a form of psychosis which disabled him greatly. Feeling he was an "Apostle" or some other great Luminary, he felt lead to gather others around him, that he might dominate them and use them through his false presentation of real teachings.

But as Psychology teaches, none of us is really responsible for his own actions--all of our problems, failings and negative actions towards others are a result of something that happened in our childhood, and because of our parents. George's heresy, alas, is not something he is responsible for---it was his childhood, his Mom, the Giant Hand, that caused it all. Let's all cut George a break and hope he can get the counseling he so desperately needs---the poor guy.



---Joe

[brian]

if you want to talk psychology, i think Narcissistic Personality Disorder sums george up pretty well:
http://www.geocities.com/ptypes/narcissisticpd.html
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html

But as Psychology teaches, none of us is really responsible for his own actions--all of our problems, failings and negative actions towards others are a result of something that happened in our childhood, and because of our parents.

actually, that is what the assembly taught that psychology teaches. anyone who actually studies psychology realizes that noone behaves as a narcissist BECAUSE they have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, rather they are diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder BECAUSE they behave as a narcissist. the diagnosis dosen't excuse any of their behavior - it just helps understand how to work with it by examining the results of working with thousands of other narcissists. careful observation of lots of people with this (or any) disorder leads to the emergence of patterns of behavior and common factors which lead to theories of causation and treatment. from my understanding, people with this disorder usually begin displaying these behavior patterns at an early age, and as they get older the specific manifestation of their disorder solidifies. like most disorders, its some complex mixture of nature vs nurture vs choice - they are born with a natural predisposition to behave this way, which get encouraged or discouraged by their environment. the role of personal choice in personal development is an age-old complex one actively debated by philosophers and psychologists to this very day. in many ways we choose the environment that shapes us, and we control to some degree how it shapes us, in my opinion.

anyway, i gotta run, but let me sum up by saying these are very complex topics, and cannot be meaningfully summed up by simple answers. my opinions: does george have a personality disorder? yes. should he be held accountable for his actions? YES!

brian

[outdeep]

Yes, Joe your point is right on.  I don't want to imply that George is simply a victim of his environment and therefore has no responsibility for his actions.

I guess what I am saying is that I no longer get upset when I hear of George insisting that the lie he told never happened, as this is what I would expect from a man with a serious pathology.  If Tom or Mark C exhibited the same behavior, I would be quite angry and/or hurt, as I wouldn't expect it from the psychologically healthy.

I also think that due to a history of choices, George may be at a place where he honestly cannot see himself as anything other than a victim who has done nothing wrong, a martyr for the cause.

I know this is speculation on my part and I have no business treading into a subject I know so little about (psychology).  Perhaps I find this model easier to deal with than believing that George is wholly, consciously, intentionally, and capriciously trying to hurt people.

[Joe Sperling]

Dave----

From what basis due you derive an opinion  that Tom Maddux or Mark Campbell are psychologically healthy? Both of these gentlemen went over the edge long ago, and should, in my opinion, be locked up.  --just kidding.

Your points are well taken. Thanks for your posts.

--Joe