Women preachers?

[al Hartman]

...
So, once again:  In seeking to know one by one's fruits, how are we to account for those forms of verbal conversation that appear to "talk down" toward us, that seem to emphasize the vastness of the speaker's knowledge while implying the listener's ignorance, that give the impression of exalting the speaker's holiness/righteousness by recitations that suggest they exceed those of the listener?
...
P.S.-- In case anyone is wondering whether I am personally applying this question to posters on this board:  There is no situation anywhere that I can think of in which the question does not apply...

   Are you saying that you don't like tone of some posters on this BB?

  Read Matt 23.  If I had met the Lord Jesus only on that particular day, I probably would have said that He was not very Christ-like eh??  Here He was gossipping about the leaders, and calling them names like white-washed tombs and vipers and...  And then another day He takes out a rope and turns over the merchants' table.  2000 years later however, I see instead the fruit of His ministry.

God bless,
Marcia

This will be my last attempt at asking this particular question...

If I were complaining about some poster or posters on this board, I would either [1.] address them personally or [2.] name them publicly, depending on the circumstances.

But I am asking what I consider to be a relatively simple question:  Is a saint's comportment important?  Would you choose a deacon or a Sunday school teacher who has a solid marriage and no police record even if he or she is consistently rude and inconsiderate?  We're not talking table manners here, but everyday common speech...

Sure, there are people whose posts irk me sometimes, and I have no doubt that my manner (perfect as it is ) rubs others the wrong way.  But that's life, and has nothing to do with the question which, once again, is not about acceptance of another based upon their confession of Christ, but about trusting in the leadership of someone arrogant.  Please read it once again:  

     Is a saint's comportment important?  Would you choose a deacon or a Sunday school teacher who has a solid marriage and no police record even if he or she is consistently rude and inconsiderate?

Please don't think me ungrateful for all the free psychoanalyses, but would someone just answer, or at least discuss, the question?  Or are you saying, Marcia, that I have to wait 2000 years for an answer

God bless,
al

[Oscar]

Dave wrote,

Twenty years ago, I told Tom Maddux what I made and I don't think he ever forgave me.  

What Dave is talking about is a conversation we had when he lived next door to me.  He was considering getting married, and was telling me why he thought it was a wise idea.

One of the things he told me was how much he was making.  As you all know, we tend to keep that particular piece of information pretty private.  

So when he told me, a mid-career public school teacher, what he made I was taken aback a little.  He was just out of college and was already making more than I did.

He is correct, though, in his "belief" that I have not forgiven him.  

There was never anything to forgive.

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

This, too, is a bit off the topic of the thread, but may fit in with the general trend of the conversation:

Do you think that a part of identifying the servants of Christ by their fruits is possible and/or advisable by our evaluating their verbal conversation?  For example, by how much of what they say is punctuated or emphasized by their use of the personal pronouns I, me, my?  

Well....er...
Verne

Tom, Verne, and All,

As usual, I have failed to express my question in a manner that could not be misinterpreted and misunderstood...  It's almost enough to make me question my own infallibility!

To clear the air, let me confess that I have always had an unhealthy leaning toward subjectivity and legalism (such as are common to man), and I try to stay aware of those tendencies in all I do and say.  For that reason I am grateful for such responses as Tom's and Yogi's, er, Verne's -- Part of the workings of the body of Christ is that we help one another to be honest and humble.

Nevertheless, my question stands unaddressed.  

This BB has often hosted the statement "by their fruits you shall know them," with accompanying expansions of opinion.  Most of us probably recognize by now that adultery, fornication, thievery, deceitfulness, murder, blasphemy, etc. are recognizable fruits on the negative side of the scale.  On the other hand, Paul tells us in 1Cor.13:1-3 that a brother or sister may manifest every sort of good quality in action and yet be without love...

So, once again:  In seeking to know one by one's fruits, how are we to account for those forms of verbal conversation that appear to "talk down" toward us, that seem to emphasize the vastness of the speaker's knowledge while implying the listener's ignorance, that give the impression of exalting the speaker's holiness/righteousness by recitations that suggest they exceed those of the listener?

Umm....Well....
Verne

This will be my last attempt at asking this particular question...


     Is a saint's comportment important?  Would you choose a deacon or a Sunday school teacher who has a solid marriage and no police record even if he or she is consistently rude and inconsiderate?

God bless,
al

A saint's comportment is important. (so is his deportment  )

Do  you mean "consistenly rude and inconsiderate"  according to your previous  above quoted definitions...?
Verne


YIKES!!! I AM ALMOST AT A THOUSAND POSTS! I GOTTA STOP!!  

[outdeep]

Dave wrote,

Twenty years ago, I told Tom Maddux what I made and I don't think he ever forgave me.  

What Dave is talking about is a conversation we had when he lived next door to me.  He was considering getting married, and was telling me why he thought it was a wise idea.

One of the things he told me was how much he was making.  As you all know, we tend to keep that particular piece of information pretty private.  

So when he told me, a mid-career public school teacher, what he made I was taken aback a little.  He was just out of college and was already making more than I did.

He is correct, though, in his "belief" that I have not forgiven him.  

There was never anything to forgive.

Thomas Maddux

Tom may owe me a cup of coffee for that conversation.

I have a feeling that in the back of his mind during this conversation was something like "nuts on all this 'faithfull to all the meetings' junk.  I'm going to take some of those teacher continuing education classes and jump up a couple of pay notches."   Of what I understand, by his retirement, he made up for some lost time and income.

[vernecarty]

Dave wrote,

Twenty years ago, I told Tom Maddux what I made and I don't think he ever forgave me.  

What Dave is talking about is a conversation we had when he lived next door to me.  He was considering getting married, and was telling me why he thought it was a wise idea.

One of the things he told me was how much he was making.  As you all know, we tend to keep that particular piece of information pretty private.  

So when he told me, a mid-career public school teacher, what he made I was taken aback a little.  He was just out of college and was already making more than I did.

He is correct, though, in his "belief" that I have not forgiven him.  

There was never anything to forgive.

Thomas Maddux

For what it's worth, he probably paid a lot more in taxes than you did. Moving from five to six figures is dicey business...

Tom may owe me a cup of coffee for that conversation.

I have a feeling that in the back of his mind during this conversation was something like "nuts on all this 'faithfull to all the meetings' junk.  I'm going to take some of those teacher continuing education classes and jump up a couple of pay notches."   Of what I understand, by his retirement, he made up for some lost time and income.

This is very serious business Dave. My stint in the assemblies conservatively cost me a couple hundred kilo-bucks.

Paul Hohulin, God bless him, jolted me our of my stupor by asking:


"What are you doing washing dishes with a graduate degree in Chemistry??!!"

My idea of living a life of humility.

It shows how confused and misguided some of us became doesn't it?
Verne

[vernecarty]

How can anyone of spiritual discernment and moral uprightness argue that Christian people should extend to George Geftakys the acknowledgement accorded a brother in Christ?
This is spiritual perversion of such frightful enormity as to be alltogether incomprehensible.
Was it not the decades long error of presentation of this man as “The Lord’s Servant”  
that legitimized his authority over so many, and facilitated the havoc wreaked in so many precious lives? It is the same deception of some who now feign Christian piety and employ it as a cloak of maliciousness to ply their evil wares.
May the Almighty requite it!
In view of the evidence before us, a defence of George Geftakys, and maligning of those who condemn him is high irony.
This is the same spirit which will in the end insist that Christians give their allegiance to the Anti-Christ.
It is an unholy spirit -you would be doubly foolish to heed its siren call.
While this man remains in his unrepentant and defiant state, there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for receiving him in the fellowship of believers.
To suggest otherwise is perverted, unholy, and blasphemous.
Ye know not what spirit ye are of...
Verne

p.s people who have compromised their faith, and apostasized invariably will diminish and dismiss the holiness of God. Out of a fond hope of the mitigation of their own sin, they will wax eloquent about God's love and tolerance to the exclusion of His terrible and awesome majesty. These will excuse wickedness, denigrate those who stand for righteousness, and with brazen face clothe themselves in a supposed mantle of godliness, not at all seeing their nakedness, and their poverty, and their shame...!

p.p.s What a pathetic and patent liar she is: she doesn't dspise Verne!
Since her BB was launched, how many of her posts werre dedicated to hurling invective, slander and bile in my direction?
I at least have the courage of my convictions and I do despise her.
Why?
Because she is a false teacher and utterly currupt that is why.
Just like her mentors George and Betty Geftakys!

[al Hartman]

    Is a saint's comportment important?  Would you choose a deacon or a Sunday school teacher who has a solid marriage and no police record even if he or she is consistently rude and inconsiderate?

God bless,
al

 
A saint's comportment is important. (so is his deportment  )

Do  you mean "consistenly rude and inconsiderate"  according to your previous  above quoted definitions...?
Verne
[/size]

Thanks, Verne, for taking me seriously, and please  include "deportment" within the scope of the question.

As to your question:  No.  I mean would you, according to your definitions...  and should I, according to mine...

I am not seeking an ironclad rule by which to dictate, but opinions.  The original question had not to do with the validity of opinion-stating, but with attitudes: self-exaltation, demeaning of others (comportment & deportment).

Paul Hohulin, God bless him, jolted me our of my stupor by asking:

"What are you doing washing dishes with a graduate degree in Chemistry??!!"

How right Paul was!  You would have got them much cleaner by using a soapy dishcloth.  Besides, didn't the degree tend to get soggy?!

Blessings,
al

[vernecarty]

As to your question:  No.  I mean would you, according to your definitions...  and should I, according to mine...

Well, since I did not pose the question I will pass on giving you any definition of what I consider rude and inconsiderate. The terms are far too vague and do not appear in the list of qualifcations for spiriutal leadership.
As to your own choice, since when does any one person's assessment of any individual determine whether or not they are fit for spiritual service?
There are some men in authority to whom I would not subject myself and my family. That does not mean that they are not called to service. That decision is entirely a function of the community in which they  serve and certainly not any one individual's call.
Bottom line?
You do what you think the Lord wants you to Al.
It really is always that simple my friend.
Verne

[M2]

Hi Al,

All churches have problems and all people have problems, so there are no rules.  We do know that the fruit of Geftakys ministry has shown it to be a spiritually abusive system set up to elevate the egos of the superior race of Geftakys servants.  That kind of system the Lord rebuked.

Any minister that cannot tolerate questioning re. his ministry would be suspect in my books.  You now have the freedom to inquire of those in your church.  I often do at my church and the leaders are ready and willing to respond.

God bless,
Marcia

[vernecarty]

How right Paul was!  You would have got them much cleaner by using a soapy dishcloth.  Besides, didn't the degree tend to get soggy?!

Blessings,
al

Genuine lambskin my man!  (but you knew that!)  
Verne

[vernecarty]

Verne,

David, quite frankly, far exceeded the evils of George Geftakys!

How do you reconcile these two sides of David's life?  He displayed both a passion for God and passions that led him into heinous crimes against God an man.

Hmmmmmmm.  

Thomas Maddux

You've got me to gnawing at this question and I am still not completely satisfied with the answers I have considered. I wondered what you thought the answer was?

Several days ago Tom Maddux raised the example of  David and postulated that the evils he perpetrated far exceeded anything George Geftakys had done.
The implication was of course that since the Scriptural record confirms that David was a man after God’s own heart yet committed such wicked deeds, could not the same case be made regarding George Geftakys, whose deeds were arguably less wicked?
Is it not possible that George Geftakys was indeed a man who had a true passion for God, yet like king David, in periods of great weakness, permitted darker passions to over-rule?
Tom raised a legitimate point and prompted considerable reflection on my part.

Could indeed the case be made that the sin of George Geftakys is akin to the sin of king David?

Most people who have considered this issue have of course immediately responded that any such comparison is entirely illegitimate because  the manner in which both of these men responded when confronted with their sin was so remarkably different.
David repented immediately and accepted God’s judgement for his sin.
George Geftakys refused to acknowledge his transgression and contemned the spiritual leadership he himself had appointed.
This argument I agree is unassailable and quite conclusive.
No true servant of God would do what George Geftakys has done.

I challenge anyone to provide a single Biblical or historical example!

Having said that the larger question remains – is it possible that despite the wicked things he has done, that George Geftakys, like king David, is a man who truly had a passion for God? In other words, could the case be made that since the deeds committed by George Geftakys at least on the surface, appear less wicked that those of David, is he therefore less culpable?
I will readily confess that when Tom first raised that possibility, I spent many hours wondering whether perhaps I had been altogether too harsh on George Geftakys.
After all, so far as we know the man is not guilty of murder as David was.
I believe as I have prayerfully searched my own heart and looked again in the Word of God for answers to these perplexing questions, I have once again arrived at a settled disposition on this question.
Forget for a moment that the evidence suggests that George Geftakys was always an apostate, even prior to the assemblies. Forget for the moment the evidence that suggests that he had remained defiant, even after being disciplined by other gatherings of God’s people for serious sin in his life, and that he refused to confess it.
Forget for a moment his subsequent behaviour clearly shows that not only did he refuse to confess his sin, he also refused to repent of it. Can the case still be made that we ought to consider him, like David, a man with a passion for God who merely has temporarily fallen in a state of sin?
As I lay in bed thinking about this matter, a verse of Scripture came to mind with such power and authority as to forever settle this issue in my own mind.


Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
  And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Those of you making the case that George Geftaksy should be considered to be a brother in Christ, are damning him to far greater condemnation than if he were a pagan!


It suddenly dawned on me what the frightful error of Tom Maddux’s analogy was.

There is not a single character in the Old Testament record, who could possibly bear the same degree of culpability as we do, to obey the truth of the gospel!!!!

These men and women looked forward to the fulfillment of the promises.
We look back.
With specific regard to the coming of the Messiah to bear the sins of the world, they walked by faith.
With regard to this we walk by sight. We live in the aftermath of the death and post-resurrection glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
With regard to enabling to do God’s will, in time past , men and women depended on the visitation of the Spirit of God..
We now have the Spirit dwelling within.

I could go on interminably.

It is not possible, in view of what the Scripture teaches us, for any present-day believer to be remotely on par with saints of the Old Covenant period insofar as culpability for sin and disobedience is concerned.


It would be a frightful indictment of George Geftakys to deem him a saved man.

My reflections of this has really sobered me my friends.

I am taking some time to reflect.

I need the grace and mercy of God in my own life far more that I realized.
Pray for me.


And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

In His love,
Verne

[moonflower2]

I challenge anyone to provide a single Biblical or historical example!

Nebuchadnezzar, but even he REPENTED.

We now have the Spirit dwelling within.

I have a question about this one. In David's prayer, after his realization of his sins, he prayed: ...and take not thy Holy Spirit from me...

What you are saying, Verne, is that since we have the indwelling of the spirit, that we were given more than the OT saints, and that we are more responsible for sin than they were?

[Oscar]

Verne,

David, quite frankly, far exceeded the evils of George Geftakys!

How do you reconcile these two sides of David's life?  He displayed both a passion for God and passions that led him into heinous crimes against God an man.

Hmmmmmmm.  

Thomas Maddux

You've got me to gnawing at this question and I am still not completely satisfied with the answers I have considered. I wondered what you thought the answer was?

Several days ago Tom Maddux raised the example of  David and postulated that the evils he perpetrated far exceeded anything George Geftakys had done.
The implication was of course that since the Scriptural record confirms that David was a man after God’s own heart yet committed such wicked deeds, could not the same case be made regarding George Geftakys, whose deeds were arguably less wicked?
Is it not possible that George Geftakys was indeed a man who had a true passion for God, yet like king David, in periods of great weakness, permitted darker passions to over-rule?
Tom raised a legitimate point and prompted considerable reflection on my part.

Could indeed the case be made that the sin of George Geftakys is akin to the sin of king David?

Most people who have considered this issue have of course immediately responded that any such comparison is entirely illegitimate because  the manner in which both of these men responded when confronted with their sin was so remarkably different.
David repented immediately and accepted God’s judgement for his sin.
George Geftakys refused to acknowledge his transgression and contemned the spiritual leadership he himself had appointed.
This argument I agree is unassailable and quite conclusive.
No true servant of God would do what George Geftakys has done.

I challenge anyone to provide a single Biblical or historical example!

Having said that the larger question remains – is it possible that despite the wicked things he has done, that George Geftakys, like king David, is a man who truly had a passion for God? In other words, could the case be made that since the deeds committed by George Geftakys at least on the surface, appear less wicked that those of David, is he therefore less culpable?
I will readily confess that when Tom first raised that possibility, I spent many hours wondering whether perhaps I had been altogether too harsh on George Geftakys.
After all, so far as we know the man is not guilty of murder as David was.
I believe as I have prayerfully searched my own heart and looked again in the Word of God for answers to these perplexing questions, I have once again arrived at a settled disposition on this question.
Forget for a moment that the evidence suggests that George Geftakys was always an apostate, even prior to the assemblies. Forget for the moment the evidence that suggests that he had remained defiant, even after being disciplined by other gatherings of God’s people for serious sin in his life, and that he refused to confess it.
Forget for a moment his subsequent behaviour clearly shows that not only did he refuse to confess his sin, he also refused to repent of it. Can the case still be made that we ought to consider him, like David, a man with a passion for God who merely has temporarily fallen in a state of sin?
As I lay in bed thinking about this matter, a verse of Scripture came to mind with such power and authority as to forever settle this issue in my own mind.


Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
  And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Those of you making the case that George Geftaksy should be considered to be a brother in Christ, are damning him to far greater condemnation than if he were a pagan!


It suddenly dawned on me what the frightful error of Tom Maddux’s analogy was.

There is not a single character in the Old Testament record, who could possibly bear the same degree of culpability as we do, to obey the truth of the gospel!!!!

These men and women looked forward to the fulfillment of the promises.
We look back.
With specific regard to the coming of the Messiah to bear the sins of the world, they walked by faith.
With regard to this we walk by sight. We live in the aftermath of the death and post-resurrection glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
With regard to enabling to do God’s will, in time past , men and women depended on the visitation of the Spirit of God..
We now have the Spirit dwelling within.

I could go on interminably.

It is not possible, in view of what the Scripture teaches us, for any present-day believer to be remotely on par with saints of the Old Covenant period insofar as culpability for sin and disobedience is concerned.


It would be a frightful indictment of George Geftakys to deem him a saved man.

My reflections of this has really sobered me my friends.

I am taking some time to reflect.

I need the grace and mercy of God in my own life far more that I realized.
Pray for me.


And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

In His love,
Verne

Verne,

My suggestion would be that you spend some time reflecting on the question: "Why do I invest so much of myself in this issue"?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Al,

You said,

So, once again:  In seeking to know one by one's fruits, how are we to account for those forms of verbal conversation that appear to "talk down" toward us, that seem to emphasize the vastness of the speaker's knowledge while implying the listener's ignorance, that give the impression of exalting the speaker's holiness/righteousness by recitations that suggest they exceed those of the listener?

We are to account for them by recognizing: 1. No one is without sin, including ourselves. 2. It is very difficult to discern someone's motives by evaluating the "tone" of printed statements on a BB. 3. Our own degree of sensitivity determines what we find offensive. 4. That we need to extend the same degree of grace to others that we wish to have extended to ourselves.  5. Being overly concerned about this is neither useful nor profitable.  If someone offends you, tell him/her that in private.

Thomas Maddux

[Mark C.]

Hi folks!

  I don't know if I'm following the conversation here correctly, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with "Women preachers?"

  It seems to now involve speculation as to the eternal state of GG and comparisons have been made to "David's sin" as evidence that GG may just be a Christian who fell into a moment of weakness.

  David's sin does not provide a good comparison with the evil of G.G. because with George his sins were not just a momentary laspe, unless you consider a moment to span 30 years (or more?).

  Also, David repented, something GG has never come close to.    As I read the Bible we see all kinds of sins being committed  by individuals who were called by God (Adam, Noah, Abe., Jacob, Judah, Rahab, Peter, etc.) but at some point in their lives they owned up to their errors and turned away from them.

   Only God knows if GG may someday decide to come clean with his wicked past, but the fact that he still refuses seems to put him in the category of someone more like Judas than Peter.

  It would be great if he did repent, and there is still a chance for him to help those he spent years destroying.  However, until then, I consider him to be an opponent of Jesus Christ and capable of doing continued harm.

                                             God Bless,  Mark C.