Why Leaders Are Responsible

[MGov]

Re: Margaret's post

 Tardiness tends to be a characteristic of people from India. BTW this is not intended to be prejudicial in any way.

MG

MGov  hate to do this as I consider us to be friends but I ignored this the first time. Your appearing to rise to the defense of naked bigotry and racism does not become you...I am trying to take some time off...
Verne

How does it go? ....... and butter for fat.
I suggest that you read my subsequent post(s) on that thread (I can't remember which one it was), before trying to 'nail' me on this one.

M

[Matt]

Re: Margaret's post

 Tardiness tends to be a characteristic of people from India. BTW this is not intended to be prejudicial in any way.

MG

MGov  hate to do this as I consider us to be friends but I ignored this the first time. Your appearing to rise to the defense of naked bigotry and racism does not become you...I am trying to take some time off...
Verne

oh my GOODNESS! Apparently, MGov, you're not allowed to talk about cultural differences without being labelled a "bigot." Verne, it's a matter of cultural difference. In India, social rules are more relaxed about being at a designated place at a designated time. Quite the opposite in Germany where people tend to arrive beforehand to avoid being late. It's all a matter of the culture in which you live. Don't worry, MGov, I know, you know, and the Lord knows that you are not defending racism in anyway.

[MGov]

Re: Margaret's post

 Tardiness tends to be a characteristic of people from India. BTW this is not intended to be prejudicial in any way.

MG

MGov  hate to do this as I consider us to be friends but I ignored this the first time. Your appearing to rise to the defense of naked bigotry and racism does not become you...I am trying to take some time off...
Verne

I'm having too much fun with this one; I just couldn't let it go...

Since you don't know me from Eve, if I was of Indian origin myself, would that still make my statement 'racist' in nature??

M

[David Mauldin]

For people who believe that "Time" is just a concept, ie everything is eternal, Life has no begining or end, it is not hard to understand why they would be "tardy" to an apointmment.  

[Mark Kisla]

 Matt,
  I think  racism and mistreatment of individuals in the Assembly is a byproduct of a much larger sin issue;  those in authority interfering with the leading of the Holy Spirit in the personal lives of Saints.
 "In the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom" This is true if those who counsel are using the resources of their personel relationship with God not the dictates of one who awarded himself the name " the Lords servant" or those appointed by George Geftakys

[Matt]

Gracious Heavenly Father, thank you for the opportunity to express my point of view and for the opportunity to post as I feel led. Give me discernment, Lord, and a gentle heart. Thank you for telling me that a gentle answer dispels much wrath. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.

Brent,
The Lord is still working on me in teaching me not to be foolish by saying a lot of harsh, mean-spirited things. I know I say things to antagonize you like "OH...you got TOLD" and "diabolical" and "you are lying." among many others, I'm sure. That is not why I've come to this board. I want to refute a lot of what you say, but in a calm manner.

"He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." Prov 18:17

The website was yours first and you were the main force behind it (and apparently much behind the Rick Ross site). As this verse shows, you were bound to seem just to yourself and too many others right away. Even I was ready to victimize myself after reading some of the articles. However, the second part of that verse shows that what seems just at first, later doesn't always end up being so after cross-examination. May I provide an analogy? much like the one you provided?

I am reading a book about the Holocaust called "Maus" and I read something that reminded me a little bit of what is happening on this board. There is a scene in the book in which Jewish prisoners in Auschwitz are marching to work, and a Nazi guard grabs the cap off of one of the prisoners  and throws it. He tells the prisoner to go and get it. What could the prisoner do? Of course he ran to go pick it up. The Nazi guard then proceeds to shoot him for trying to escape.  The Nazi guard is then praised and rewarded for stoping an "attempted escape."

Now, I'm by no means saying that you are a Nazi AT ALL. I'm not saying that this is on the same scale as the Holocaust, I'm not saying that the leading brothers are persecuted Jews. But this is what it appears like: You come out of Left field by posting all the wrongdoings and implicating leading brothers, (ie. throw their caps out into the open) and then people use the bulletin board to attack the leading brothers (shoot them). And then you are praised and rewarded, Brent, like the guard with the "if it wasn't for Brent's website" and "where would I be without Brent" comments.

There is another thing that has startled me and that is your assumptions. I could not believe how far you took the Tim G. coming down for dinner on Friday night thing. It almost appeared that you believed he was down here to build up the assembly with Dave Lee (who has no interest in ever going back to a Geftakys assembly). You must be extremely careful, Brent, with those kind of assumptions. Dave Lee is not here to defend himself. As for Tim G, you do know him better than me. If you want me to believe he way lying about not wanting to start up the meetings anymore, however, I can't do that. You may know him better than I do, but I know him better than I know you.

Another problem I have with your website is that I cannot see how it promotes healing when all it has are articles to make people angry. There are no verses about forgivenesss or letting bitterness go:


"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, vengeance is mind, I will repay, saith the Lord."  Romans 12:19

"And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." Acts 7:60

(And if Stephen can forgive those stoning him to death, trust me saints, you can forgive ANYTHING that happened to you in the assembly.)

"And David was greatly distressed; for the people spake of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons and for his daughters: but David encouraged himself in the Lord his God." 1 Samuel 30:6

In this case, grieved=bitter in today's English. Even in your own writing on the site, Brent, I sensed bitterness. For example, that article in which you angrily demand that Tim G come forward because "you have questions about how he spent your money." Do you think they earmarked your money (wrote BT on it) and only spent it on themselves? Do you think none of your money went to outreach or foreign aid? I understand that you regret giving them money, Brent. But you gave it freely. Did you frequently inquire how they spent it from the beginning until the end of your involvement with the assembly? If they didn't give you an account of how the money was spent, and you continued to give, then it's your fault. I know that is pointed and hard, forgive me. I use that as an example to show that the website was borne out of anger rather than a promotion of healing.

I do feel that in the assembly, we had access to excellent top-notch ministry. Every brother had an opportunity and was encouraged to preach. Everyone had an opportunity to be prayed for and to pray for other saints. Everyone had a chance to develop boldness in witnessing. Everyone was encouraged to get into the Word daily (ie. morning times) and see what it had to say for himself. I'm sorry you disagree, brent, with everything. I'm not saying that I think the assembly was perfect - no church is. I'm only saying that there was a lot more positive than negative aspects about it.

I'm worried that I'm causing leading brothers and their families distress by trying to defend them on this board. I'm afraid that all I'm doing is provoking condemning posts from you and Verne. Seriously, you need to know, Brent, that I'm not defending every leading brother out there. I'm defending the vast majority of leading brothers - all of whom loved the saints and helped them far more than they are given credit for. I don't want to cause them distress though in case any LB's are reading this. If things keep going in circles, I'm going to erase my username to save them from the distress of reading pointed responses from other people.

Brent, Lord bless you. Please do not think this is a personal attack on you, but I want you to see where I'm coming from.

- Matt

[editor]

Dear Matt

Your last post is Great

Another problem I have with your website is that I cannot see how it promotes healing when all it has are articles to make people angry. There are no verses about forgivenesss or letting bitterness go:

This is a valid criticism, and is the main reason why it is no longer my website.  I'm sure you know this, but I have no more priviledges on this site than you do.  I am not a moderator, admin, or anything.  The same goes for GA.com.  It is NOT my website, and if you read the purpose for the new site, you will find that it lines up very clearly with what I quote you as saying above.

One of the problems we have on this new topic is that before there can be fogiveness and healing from bitterness, there needs to be sin and bitterness.  People are working through things, thinking for themselves, learning, and are in various stages of healing and deliverance.  I have hundreds of emails that are very supportive of the website, and actually very few that are critical.  The ratio is about 80-1 in favor of "thank you."

When we get going on a thread that could really go somewhere, and we can really get going on serious, edifying discussion, someone always seems to get personal, and attack, and the whole thing starts over again.  I am patient with this, because I know that it is part of the process.  Not only that, I love hearing ex-assembly people get mad and state what they really think, in no uncertain terms.  That is music to my ears, because it is a sign of freedom.

After freedom, comes growth and then...maturity.  

Now, your Nazi analogy is a valid one.  I undertand your disclaimer, and am following your thoughts.  I know you don't think I am a Nazi.

What we are talking about here is a church/ministry.  If we grant that God raised it up, and that the ministry was top-notch, how is it that one bitter person (me) brought it down?

I think it was because I spoke for hundreds of people who had the same story to tell.  When it got told, the truth of it registered with people.  They knew it was true.  All I did was say, "The emporer has no clothes."  Once it was said out loud, people could no longer play along.

I am NOT attacking leading brothers, with the exception of the ones I name by their names.  Saying that someone is responsible is hardly an attack, at least in my estimation.

I am, and have been, brutally attacking the false doctrine and false ungodly personality that the Assembly was built on.  I will continue to do so until God gets it into my thick head that I should stop.  Along the way, I will do what I can to promote healing, but you can't heal from something if you don't know you're sick.

keep this dialogue going please.  I think we are all going to learn something from you.

Brent

[MGov]

Since you don't know me from Eve, if I was of Indian origin myself, would that still make my statement 'racist' in nature??

M

Your ethnicity is hardly the issue, what you said is. How do you think Ravi Zecharias would feel after reading a comment like that? (whether or not you thought it true); it was thoughtless, insensitive and clearly not applicable to all or only Indians...
Verne

Actually most Indians would probably understand.
However you possibly know that I did not intend it as a racist remark.  I was heading somewhere with that as my launching pad but decided it was not worth it.  So what do you suggest I do about it now?

M

[Matt]

Righto brent,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, as predicted, I do not agree with some of the things you've posted here.

Dear Matt

Your last post is Great

Well, I do agree with this. Thank you for the compliment.

This is a valid criticism, and is the main reason why it is no longer my website.  I'm sure you know this, but I have no more priviledges on this site than you do.  I am not a moderator, admin, or anything.  The same goes for GA.com.  It is NOT my website, and if you read the purpose for the new site, you will find that it lines up very clearly with what I quote you as saying above.

hmmm....the website still lists individual, personal accounts by people victimizing themselves. Look at one of the goals of the site: "restoration" for those "affected by GG and BG's teachings." Clearly, the site is not that different from your site. You'll still find the letter you wrote in which you angrily demand that Tim G. come forward to account for the money you FREELY gave.

One of the problems we have on this new topic is that before there can be fogiveness and healing from bitterness, there needs to be sin and bitterness.  People are working through things, thinking for themselves, learning, and are in various stages of healing and deliverance.  I have hundreds of emails that are very supportive of the website, and actually very few that are critical.  The ratio is about 80-1 in favor of "thank you."

So what? George Geftakys had hundreds of admirers too! I'm not saying that you are on level with GG (disclaimer). I'm saying that if GG deceived people, it is very possible that you have deceived people - it's easy to do when you only present one side of a story. You know the old saying...there are 3 sides to every story: Your side, my side, and the truth. There are no articles about how the leading brothers served other saints. There are no articles about the spiritual growth that many saints had while in the assembly. A whole other side of the story needs to be presented before we can say that the website allows people to "think for themselves" as you say.

When we get going on a thread that could really go somewhere, and we can really get going on serious, edifying discussion, someone always seems to get personal, and attack, and the whole thing starts over again.  I am patient with this, because I know that it is part of the process.  Not only that, I love hearing ex-assembly people get mad and state what they really think, in no uncertain terms.  That is music to my ears, because it is a sign of freedom.

The fact that you say that it is music to your ears when people are angry is a sign that you are not ready to help people promote healing. I've listed tons of scripture in various posts about letting bitterness, wrath, anger, etc. go. I can keep listing them, but I'm afraid it would continue to roll off your back and others like you. As for the freedom issue, people were free to come and go from the assembly as they pleased. If someone didn't like it, they could get up and walk out. Do you think the doorkeepers stood at the door with a gun in hand to shoot anyone trying to escape the Bible study?

Now, your Nazi analogy is a valid one.  I undertand your disclaimer, and am following your thoughts.  I know you don't think I am a Nazi.

What we are talking about here is a church/ministry.  If we grant that God raised it up, and that the ministry was top-notch, how is it that one bitter person (me) brought it down?

Thanks for the compliment on the Nazi analogy. It seems harsh to call it that though? Who knows why the ministry was brought down? Maybe it was the work of the enemy, in which case you facilitated the enemy's attempt? Perhaps because God was ready to send the saints out to help other gatherings? Perhaps to get us out of our "comfort zone?" Life's all about changing, nothing ever stays the same. Look in your life, the Lord changes conditions around you all the time. Your friends move away (friends from the assembly all go to different churches now...slowly you grow more distant from them), and the Lord brings new people into your life, new friends. So I don't think that because the ministry collapsed that it wasn't top-notch. It's time to spread the wealth of Biblical knowledge that many of the saints (not me) have to other gatherings and churches.

I am NOT attacking leading brothers, with the exception of the ones I name by their names.  Saying that someone is responsible is hardly an attack, at least in my estimation.

Amen brother, but how are the leading brothers responsible for the downfall of the ministry? It's been established many times over that the majority of leading brothers outside of the SLO, Fullerton, and Placentia assemblies could not possibly have known what was going on with David G. or his wife. Furthermore, I do NOT think the vast majority of leading brothers had access to these 2-3 witnesses that you keep mentioning. The Leading brothers didn't force anyone to give money, they didn't commit adultery like GG, they didn't beat their wives...so they shouldn't have to repent for the sins of GG and DG. The leading brothers served the saints, brent. You know their stories..they worked full time, raised families of their own AND served the saints 7 days a week. It hardly sounds like they "destroyed" and "scattered" the sheep as Verne implied. Come to think of it...maybe you scattered and destroyed more sheep with your website? As you say yourself, you brought the ministry down, you scattered the sheep...but since you were not an elder, you don't have to repent =)  Something to think about , that's all...

I do enjoy talking with you Brent, you are definitely more than worthy of my time. Lord bless.
- Matt

[editor]

hmmm....the website still lists individual, personal accounts by people victimizing themselves. Look at one of the goals of the site: "restoration" for those "affected by GG and BG's teachings." Clearly, the site is not that different from your site. You'll still find the letter you wrote in which you angrily demand that Tim G. come forward to account for the money you FREELY gave.

Why is the listing of personal, true accounts at odds with restoration?  The idea of restoration implies something needs to be restored.  If a person has been discouraged and abused by the Assembly, as hundreds have, and they go to the website they will:

1.) find out they are not alone, and that it wasn't just their problem.  God is not disgusted with them.  

2.)They can read articles like "False Holiness," or the new article on justification,(to name just two) and their relationship with the Lord can be restored, on the sound footing of grace.  

There are no articles about the spiritual growth that many saints had while in the assembly. A whole other side of the story needs to be presented before we can say that the website allows people to "think for themselves" as you say.

Matt, there were 35 years of "the other side of the story."  George started a pulishing company to print his books, which he didn't write.  They sent out newsletters, had seminars, tapes, preaching, workers' meetings.  The other side has been told so much more and for so much longer that is doesn't even compare to the material on the website.  George's books are many times larger in volume than the website.  I have 150 of his tapes in my possession, and there are thousands more out there.  If the website grew 10 times larger, it still wouldn't be balanced when compared to 35 years of indoctrination.

The fact that you say that it is music to your ears when people are angry is a sign that you are not ready to help people promote healing. I've listed tons of scripture in various posts about letting bitterness, wrath, anger, etc. go. I can keep listing them, but I'm afraid it would continue to roll off your back and others like you. As for the freedom issue, people were free to come and go from the assembly as they pleased. If someone didn't like it, they could get up and walk out. Do you think the doorkeepers stood at the door with a gun in hand to shoot anyone trying to escape the Bible study?

You know, you're right about this.  I'm going to have to give this some thought.  In the mean time, let me clarify a little bit.  I am not happy when people are angry, but I am happy when they feel free to have a strong opinion and to share it.  However, you bring up a good point.  I should not get any pleasure out of the fact that an ex-assembly person is angry.  I should take pleasure in the fact that they are free from bondage and are basking in the grace of God.  Good point Matt.  You get a perfect 10 on this one.

However, your point about the doorkeepers is not quite right.  Go back and read a few things from our personal correspondence.

Who knows why the ministry was brought down? Maybe it was the work of the enemy, in which case you facilitated the enemy's attempt? Perhaps because God was ready to send the saints out to help other gatherings? Perhaps to get us out of our "comfort zone?" Life's all about changing, nothing ever stays the same. Look in your life, the Lord changes conditions around you all the time. Your friends move away (friends from the assembly all go to different churches now...slowly you grow more distant from them), and the Lord brings new people into your life, new friends. So I don't think that because the ministry collapsed that it wasn't top-notch. It's time to spread the wealth of Biblical knowledge that many of the saints (not me) have to other gatherings and churches.

I totally disagree with this one.  I would like to hear some others weigh in on this.  The idea that God destroyed the ministry so that the saints could go out and share the wealth of biblical knowledge with others really tweaks me, for many reasons.  Also, the enemy didn't bring down a church.  He can't.  Jesus promised this, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  It is almost unanimous that God judged the house of Geftakys, only you and one other person have suggested the contrary, so we don't see eye to eye on this one.

19  Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.  20  Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.  21  I charge [you] before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.  22  Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure.


I qoute the above verse in order to address this point:

Furthermore, I do NOT think the vast majority of leading brothers had access to these 2-3 witnesses that you keep mentioning. The Leading brothers didn't force anyone to give money, they didn't commit adultery like GG, they didn't beat their wives...so they shouldn't have to repent for the sins of GG and DG.

First off, It isn't 2 or 3 people that I have talked to.  It's more like 2 or 3 hundred.  The biblical standard for witnesses is 2 or 3, as mentioned in the verse above, and many others.  The leading brother in every Assembly had more than 2 or 3 people come to them and express problems, which were squelched.  I guarantee it.  In most cases, but perhaps not all, the leading brothers were "sharers in their sins,"  (GG, DG, etc.) because they supported and promoted them, when anyone could see that there were huge white elephants in the room!  Again, read some of the stuff on the website.  There you will hear from dozens of people, not just 2 or 3.  I'm sorry Matt,  this last point is just not going to wash.

Now, am I saying that one of the LB's that you really like in San Diego is as bad as GG?  In no way!  However, that man promoted GG, supported him financially, encouraged people to hear him teach etc.  He was a sharer in George's sin, because he lacked the discernment, courage, or character to stand against George.  Perahps this theoretical brother knew nothing at all.  In this case, he was purely deceived, because the facts were out there plain as day for anyone who had eyes to see.

I was blind for many years, and so were many others, but as soon as someone turned on the lights, the conclusion people came to was quick and decisive.   Matt, don't re-write history.

In spite of the fact that some of these guys are really, really nice and kind, they are disqualified as leaders.

I am good friends with many of them, including former Fullerton leaders, and all the SLO leaders.  Our relationship has been restored, so I am not picking on them.  I am stating the facts.   They failed in protecting God's people.  They suffered from various degrees of a mixture of blindness, corruption and cowardice.  These qualities disqualify them for leadership.  

BTW, I am NOT QUALIFIED for leadership.  I put myself in the same category.  

Have you read the website?  Did you read Kirk Cesaretti's account?  How about the Mathew's?  Please do so if you haven't.

Matt, I really enjoy this dialogue, and really appreciate having mutual respect for one another.  Disagreement is fine.  Let's try to learn something.

Thanks for setting me straight on that point above.

Brent

[Matt]

Brent, I have to post this as two posts because it was too long the first time.

Why is the listing of personal, true accounts at odds with restoration?  The idea of restoration implies something needs to be restored.  If a person has been discouraged and abused by the Assembly, as hundreds have, and they go to the website they will:

1.) find out they are not alone, and that it wasn't just their problem.  God is not disgusted with them.  

2.)They can read articles like "False Holiness," or the new article on justification,(to name just two) and their relationship with the Lord can be restored, on the sound footing of grace.  

No, no, no, no. I was not saying that restoration was wrong. You agreed that your website was promoting bitterness and wrath. I was mentioning that transferring the website to someone else has not changed the fact that it is meant to get people worked up because you will still find the same personal stories of people who feel they've been victimized. I'm also pointing out the website has a negative slant about the assembly which is evident in the wording "restoration for those affected by..." It is the website's right to have a slant, free speech and all. But remember, we are not free from the consequences of free speech and the consequence often manifests itself as criticism.

Matt, there were 35 years of "the other side of the story."  George started a pulishing company to print his books, which he didn't write.  They sent out newsletters, had seminars, tapes, preaching, workers' meetings.  The other side has been told so much more and for so much longer that is doesn't even compare to the material on the website.  George's books are many times larger in volume than the website.  I have 150 of his tapes in my possession, and there are thousands more out there.  If the website grew 10 times larger, it still wouldn't be balanced when compared to 35 years of indoctrination.

I'm not talking about GG's preaching! I'm not talking about the effectiveness of his ministry! I'm talking about the direct contrast to the negative, personal stories we've seen on the site. To provide a balanced view, we need to see saints recount the ways they've been served (by LB's, by the families of LB's, by other saints, etc.) We need to talk about messages that perhaps changed our lives, or spoke to us in an incredible way. Just because the ministry was imperfect (as all ministries are), doesn't mean that we had no positive impacts on us from the ministry. When those are represented on the site, then it will be balanced and provide saints with a better footing for judging the assembly by other peoples' experiences.

You know, you're right about this.  I'm going to have to give this some thought.  In the mean time, let me clarify a little bit.  I am not happy when people are angry, but I am happy when they feel free to have a strong opinion and to share it.  However, you bring up a good point.  I should not get any pleasure out of the fact that an ex-assembly person is angry.  I should take pleasure in the fact that they are free from bondage and are basking in the grace of God.  Good point Matt.  You get a perfect 10 on this one.

However, your point about the doorkeepers is not quite right.  Go back and read a few things from our personal correspondence.

Brent, that was entirely inappropriate that you publically tried to refute something I said on the public forum by reminding me of a private email. I am now put in the uncomfortable position of dredging that memory up to try to justify my point. Here is what Brent was talking about. Once a few brothers were exerting a lot of pressure on me to move into the brothers' house in SD. I didn't want to. Was I therefore not free? Was I slave? Nope. I left the assembly on my own two feet and did NOT move in with the brothers. Looking back, I regret that decision though - the accountability and christian support would have helped me out during that time. Also, I would have saved money, but that's another issue. So I suppose it is true about the doorkeepers not wielding guns to keep people at a Bible Study - just like I wasn't forced to stay in the assembly or move into the brother's house by gunpoint. I was free to leave, just like everyone else was.

Ok, well this is post 1 of 2.

[Matt]

]This part 2 of 2. Scroll down and read the other post first.

I totally disagree with this one.  I would like to hear some others weigh in on this.  The idea that God destroyed the ministry so that the saints could go out and share the wealth of biblical knowledge with others really tweaks me, for many reasons.  Also, the enemy didn't bring down a church.  He can't.  Jesus promised this, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  It is almost unanimous that God judged the house of Geftakys, only you and one other person have suggested the contrary, so we don't see eye to eye on this one.

Well, Brent, because something "tweaks" you is not reason enough for it to be false. Remember, you can't believe something to be false, just because you want it to be. I'm not saying that the Lord broke up the ministry to send saints out to spread the knowledge they've gained in our ministry. I'm saying it's a possibility. Now, there's something wrong here in the way you quote Jesus. Jesus did not say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against "a" church. He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. His church=the body of Christ=all believers who are living and have ever lived. I'm not saying that the enemy has prevailed against the body of Christ (all believers everywhere from all time). No, sir - that's ridiculous. But the Lord does not say that the devil will not try. Therefore, it would be hard to rule out that this hasn't been an attack from the enemy. Where else is all this bitterness, this accusation, this hatred coming from in the assembly? From the Lord? I'm not saying that it was an attack from the enemy, I'm saying it's a possibility. I know that you would be against that for personal reasons, seeing that you credit yourself with the fall of the ministry and could therefore be implicated as being deceived by the enemy into helping him. Do not worry though, we are all deceived by the enemy from time to time. I'm not asserting that you were though - just a possibility.

First off, It isn't 2 or 3 people that I have talked to.  It's more like 2 or 3 hundred.  The biblical standard for witnesses is 2 or 3, as mentioned in the verse above, and many others.  The leading brother in every Assembly had more than 2 or 3 people come to them and express problems, which were squelched.  I guarantee it.  In most cases, but perhaps not all, the leading brothers were "sharers in their sins,"  (GG, DG, etc.) because they supported and promoted them, when anyone could see that there were huge white elephants in the room!  Again, read some of the stuff on the website.  There you will hear from dozens of people, not just 2 or 3.  I'm sorry Matt,  this last point is just not going to wash.

Now, I am confused. I was not aware that 200-300 saints had witnessed David G beating his wife up. I was not aware that 200-300 saints had witnessed George G commiting adultery or opening up a "slush fund." I think it's quite safe to say that the vast majority of leading brothers, therefore, could NOT know what was going on. Remember Eulaha Long's article - she went to the same assembly as David G and she didn't even know! How's an LB in Canada or the East Coast going to know?! Consequently, the vast majority of LB's could not be "sharers of DG and GG's sin" because they were not promoting and encouraging David G's beating of his wife and likewise not promoting GG's adultery.

Now, am I saying that one of the LB's that you really like in San Diego is as bad as GG?  In no way!  However, that man promoted GG, supported him financially, encouraged people to hear him teach etc.  He was a sharer in George's sin, because he lacked the discernment, courage, or character to stand against George.  Perahps this theoretical brother knew nothing at all.  In this case, he was purely deceived, because the facts were out there plain as day for anyone who had eyes to see.

The Lb did not promote GG's sin. He promoted some very powerful messages that GG gave. Also, supporting GG financially is no sin. If this alleged slush-fund of GG's existed, I'm sure he didn't make it public knowledge. I don't think he dangled the slush fund in people's faces as you seem to think. Remember, you freely gave too? Also, you ignore the fact that many leading brothers stood up to GG. Once, one of our leading brothers gave a message about how we were too dependent on GG and not enough on the Lord. Guess who were the most antagonized - the SAINTS! So to say the leading brothers are responsible for this is ridiculous.

I was blind for many years, and so were many others, but as soon as someone turned on the lights, the conclusion people came to was quick and decisive.   Matt, don't re-write history.

Providing another perspective is hardly rewriting history, Brent.

In spite of the fact that some of these guys are really, really nice and kind, they are disqualified as leaders.

Well that is a matter of opinion (about being disqualified), but amen to that brother. Most of the LB's are "really, really nice and kind."

Have you read the website?  Did you read Kirk Cesaretti's account?  How about the Mathew's?  Please do so if you haven't.

Yes, I've read some of the website. Yes, I read the Mathew's puzzle-piece article. No, I have not read Kirk Cesaretti's account. I am weary of the website because of it's end results: production of wrath, bitterness, hatred, all expressed. I know the Lord doesn't like those thing, so I stay clear from the site lately. Stop picking the scabs, and healing will ensue! Focus on the positives people - you won't find it on the site. You'll find it in the recesses of your memories.

Matt, I really enjoy this dialogue, and really appreciate having mutual respect for one another.  Disagreement is fine.  Let's try to learn something.

Thanks for setting me straight on that point above.

Thanks, Brent. I enjoy the conversation too. I have to admit that you make me think very hard. Lord bless.
- Matt

[editor]

Matt, and those who are following along.

Now, I am confused. I was not aware that 200-300 saints had witnessed David G beating his wife up. I was not aware that 200-300 saints had witnessed George G commiting adultery or opening up a "slush fund." I think it's quite safe to say that the vast majority of leading brothers, therefore, could NOT know what was going on. Remember Eulaha Long's article - she went to the same assembly as David G and she didn't even know! How's an LB in Canada or the East Coast going to know?! Consequently, the vast majority of LB's could not be "sharers of DG and GG's sin" because they were not promoting and encouraging David G's beating of his wife and likewise not promoting GG's adultery.

The issues are far more than just DG's wife beating, or George's adultery.  We are talking about a legacy of spiritual abuse here.  Perhaps 2 dozen people knew about David, and may 3 dozen about George.  However, hundreds of people had stories to tell about abuse, coercion, elitism, exclusivity, etc.

The idea of being a sharer is someone's sin, according to the bible:

1 Tim 5:19  Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.  20  Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.  21  I charge [you] before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.  22  Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure.

What this is saying is that elders (leading bro's) should be publicly rebuked, in front of all.  Why?  Because their sin affects everyone.  There is to be no double standard, no partiality.  If you read what is on the website, you will that this was hardly the case in the Assembly.  The stories of double standards, partiality, ignoring multiple witnesses, etc. are absolutley rampant!

In verse 22 above, it says "do not lay hands on anyone hastily."  This means, check out who they are, and their character and fitness for leadership before you promote or acknowledge them as elders or deacons.  George was promoted like a Swami, while at the same time no one was willing to entertain why there was such a double standard and hypocrisy.

Again, in the second part of verse 22, if people fail to rebuke/examine an elder, or if they promote one that is a scoundrel, they become a sharer in his sins.  That means complicity and responsiblilty, hence the thread title,  "Why leaders are responsible."

It's all there in black and white.

Yes, I've read some of the website. Yes, I read the Mathew's puzzle-piece article. No, I have not read Kirk Cesaretti's account. I am weary of the website because of it's end results: production of wrath, bitterness, hatred, all expressed. I know the Lord doesn't like those thing, so I stay clear from the site lately. Stop picking the scabs, and healing will ensue! Focus on the positives people - you won't find it on the site. You'll find it in the recesses of your memories.

Matt, this is the problem.  You haven't read it, and you don't have the facts.  In fact, if you are like me, you don't want the facts, and are afraid of the facts, because of the turmoil they may create for you.  Believe me, I am going thru exactly the same thing right now, except in another area.

As for the idea that God "doesn't like those things, read this:

http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/CodeOfSilence.htm

I submit that you learned what you are saying on this thread somewhere, and I believe this article will tell you who your teacher was, and where you went to school!

I am re-examining the reformed teaching on free will.  This is something I rejected long ago, (under GG and TG's teaching).   I find that I am totally slothful about picking up books, turning to verses, and using my God-given intellect to examine this doctrine, because I am afraid of what it might mean.

I know my fear is irrational, on many levels, yet it is real.  So, your reluctance to read the website, and get the facts is quite normal, and common.  However, your discussions here will always seem irrational, because you don't have the knowledge that the rest of us have, who have read (and lived   ) the material on the website.

I challenge you to read it!  In fact, until you do, I won't let you say anything about witnesses, balance, assumptions, lies, or anything else.  You have no basis for that if you haven't listened to what I have to say!

Oh, also you can't accuse me of libel anymore, if you haven't read the material!  Imagine a lawyer going to court, who hasn't examined all the evidence.  Imagine the embarrassemt when there is video tape of his client doing exactly what he is accused of doing.  Everyone watches the tape, except the defense attorney.  Then, when the closing arguments start, the defense's case consists of,  "You have libeled my client!"  What do you think will win out, the emotional, non-factual defense attorney, or the video?

However, there is plenty more to comment on besides that.

Brent

[Laurie]

However, your discussions here will always seem irrational

Dear Brent,
On one thread you said that you didn't say Matt was irrational. It looks like you are implying he is on this thread. Matt, you weren't alone if you thought he was calling you irrational. I don't think you are by the way. I appreciate the clarity of your posts and they have opened up my eyes to new avenues of thinking.

Leading brothers who have not repented:
I would like to see you post on here instead of letting Matt defend you. It appears that Matt is doing a lot of your dirty work for you. Aren't you ashamed? He's young enough to be your son and you happily allow him to go to the front lines for you. This means that he has to take the backlash that you should be facing. Don't send such a young one to be damaged on this board. Be men and face up to it yourselves.

Matt:
You are still young and impressionable. I know most people your age think they are done growing up, but you are still very young. You don't realize how much influence other people still have on you. I've been your age, so I know. You don't see the bondage you're in. You said in one of your posts that you realize it was your fault if you ever felt guilty, but it's not. I don't want to see you get hurt or discouraged on this board by doing the dirty work for other people.  Matt, if the leading brothers reading this cared for you, they would have you stop defending them and come here and defend themselves. They don't care about you, Matt, and they don't love you. Don't let them hurt you.

Leading brothers who have not repented:
Shame on you! Don't let someone so young one-handedly defend you all. Come here and post! Don't hurt him (matt) by having him carry all your defense on his shoulders.

Love, Laurie.

[editor]

Laurie and Matt

Laurie, I see your point, RE irrational.

So, your reluctance to read the website, and get the facts is quite normal, and common.  However, your discussions here will always seem irrational, because you don't have the knowledge that the rest of us have, who have read (and lived   ) the material on the website.

I am not saying that Matt is irrational.  I am saying that as long as he doesn't have the "facts," his discussions will seem irrational, due to a knowledge difference.  He could be stone cold rational in everything, but if he didn't know WW2 ended, he might still be looking to shoot Germans!

However, your point is well taken, and I can see that I was unclear in my post.  

Matt, you are not irrational at all.  You do a great job communicating your ideas.  I just wish you would expand your knowledge base some more.  Also, as I said before, just because you disagree with me, means nothing as far as your rationality.  I may be the one who is irrational!  

I'm sure someone will tell me if that is the case....

Brent