To clarify the West LA situation in 2006: According to someone in the West Los Angeles Assembly, they had George come to their meeting one time. He sat in the back and wasn’t allowed to speak. Basically he was allowed because Mike Almanzor still associates with WLA and Mike Almanzor is still taking care of George at some level. It is asserted that George was allowed to come so that the saints could confront him and he would have opportunities to repent. Mark Campbell has a response to this information:
I would love to be able to talk to the person who gave the above update, as it stirs many questions in my mind:
1.) If Mike Almanzor has the job ("at some level") of "taking care of GG" (and I would assume that includes Mike's assistance of GG in his deplorable state of denial)--- why is Mike allowed to "associate" in WLA? If WLA leaders are so interested in providing "opportunities to repent", why allow the sleazy lawyer for the cover-up to have free access to the group?
2.) What exactly did these WLA leaders tell GG? Did they say, "Sit in the back and don't say a word because_____________" (you fill in the blank). I would love to hear the reason given for why GG should be instructed not to speak and to sit at the back. Just telling him to do so without any clear delineation of charges against him violates God's instructions on how to deal with unrepentant sinners in the church. It's not good for GG, Mike A., or the WLA leaders and group, and is a woefully inadequate response.
3.) This opportunity for confrontation by the WLA saints that the WLA leaders provided is a wonderful twist on New Testament teaching regarding how to deal with an unrepentant sinner in denial.
Some comical parodies did come to mind about the above twist on church discipline. I thought of the old means of shaming that the American Puritans used, of putting moral reprobates into the stocks in the public square.
Were "the saints" supposed to give angry glares as they passed by? Did the speakers that Sunday bring subtle messages that were obviously pointed in George's direction?
All this beating-around-the-bush is so typically Assemblylish and very much not like what the Bible instructs us to do in such a situation. GG is clearly a former leader of a group (though he continues to lead Mike A., etc.) who refuses to admit a great deal of sinful behavior. The Bible tells us to "have nothing to do" with these kind of people and to openly rebuke them! Those that support GG in his unrepentant condition are partners in his crime and share the same rejection!
The fact that the WLA leaders have come up with the above rationalization for their acceptance of GG (albeit to the back bench) shows that GG laid a strongly unbiblical foundation to the thinking of those still running the groups that GG started. GG and Mike should have been met at the door by the "door brothers" (they still use these guys don't they?) and sent on their way!