Existing Assemblies

[Kimberley Tobin]

I agree with you and hope that all the assembly's disband.  However, though some may still disband it is truly essential that individuals pursue godly instruction as to doctrinal issues.  It is not enough to just disband.  The indoctrination that occurred in the assembly makes many ripe for another "assembly".  

My experience with individuals in the S.F. Valley display this issue clearly.  My husband and family left in October last year before the whole GG excommunication.  Many individuals would not have anything to do with us once we left.  My husband and I thought that once GG was excommunicated, we would be vindicated and these same people would now be willing to fellowship with us and would in fact apologize for their treatment of our family.  But no such luck!  They have left "the assembly", but the "assembly teaching" is still alive and well in their actions.  So, though the SF Valley assembly has disbanded, it's teachings are alive and well in many of the adherants who are now attending other churches.  

SCARY!!!!!!!!  

Thankfully, there are some who will communicate with us and we are trying to reach out to these individuals.  But here to, it is a difficult situation, because some don't want to discuss the assembly.  They look at it as being divisive and negative and not honoring to the Lord.  So you prayerfully move forward attempting to love these individuals with grace.  (Something that was greatly lacking in the assembly).

Good to hear from someone new on the BB (albeit disguised for now.)

[d3z]

I am posting this as someone who was committed to the San Diego assembly for close to 9 years.  I do want to point out to you, Matt, that your involvement here was only very superficial.  In fact, most was in Del Cerro, which was even further away from GG's influence.  I don't think this is a bad thing.  I think it is good for anyone the less they were involved.  However, I suspect that you missed seeing much of the evil that happened.  We were very good at hiding it, and putting on a good front.

I will attempt to answer your question regarding my stands on the following 5 points:
 
1.  The Geftakys assembly was cult-like, if not a full blown cult.

Yes, of course, I disagree with this. The assembly was a church - a body of believers who came together to worship their Lord, to fellowship together, to take the Lord's supper together, to get into the Word together, to reach out to the lost together, to love each other, to help each other, etc.

There is a lot that could be said about each of these points.  Worship-we promoted, encouraged, and even enforced a very elitist notion of what worship was.  We were the ones who defined who was able to partake, and who was not.  The format of our "worship" meeting, down to the minute, was defined by GG.  I know that many had a desire for the Lord, but what we practiced could best be described as strange.  I'll admit, though, that I was very caught up in it.

Reachiing out to the lost--we preached the gospel, yes, but our underlying goal was to see people commit to the assembly.  Underlying it all was an attitude that what we were involved with was the center of God's work today.

Love each other--sorta.  We cared for each other as long as they were willing to fill the mold.  Those who were once committed, and then decided to leave were treated as wicked and evil.  I know this is true, I've had to go and reconcile my relationship with some of these.

2.  It's founder, George Geftakys, is a wicked man.

True.  Aren't we all wicked though? But, yes, he should have stepped down much sooner and let the other more Godly men lead.

George was not in a position like a pastor, or an elder.  I think a good way to describe it would be like a pope, or dictator.  The men under him who would have stepped in weren't there because they were godly, they were there because George chose them.  When George fell, the entire system collapsed.  When pastors fall, or elders fall, the church usually continues.  We weren't a church, just pretending.  We were just participants in George's ego trip.

3.  Not all, but many leading brothers were partakers in George's sins by, in the very least, knowing about some or most of his actions and not doing or saying anything about them. Some even took part in spiritually abusing the sheep themselves.  Of these, some have repented.
Some leading brothers refuted George and were not partakers of his sins, and these were usually maligned and/or excommunicated for it.

I wouldn't even say many leading brothers were partakers in GG's sins. The vast majority only saw him a few times a year. This is all repetitive of course, but how would they know about his sins? They weren't the topic of seminars or weekly phone calls with GG.

Be careful, since what you say is very much not true.  San Diego was rare in that we had a leading brother who was not a worker.  The other LBs went to joint workers meetings every month, and were frequently in contact with GG (or someone directly under him in Fullerton).  When GG came to visit, the attitude portrayed was that a great apostle was coming to visit.  We felt that there would be a special blessing we would receive when GG preached here, even if it made no sense.

Remember, I'm still good friends with several of these men.  But, even though San Diego was further out of GG's grasp, he still wielded his hand here.  A good word to describe what I saw would be deception.  They felt they were serving God, and yet did evil things in following this man.

Those brothers who abused the "sheep" and have repented - praise the Lord. But those LB's that haven't abused the sheep (most of them) - well no need to repent. To be honest, I believe that most of the "best" preaching did not come from GG - he was extremely hard to understand. The best came from the leading brothers. The vast majority were of Godly character and were unfailing in their service to the Lord and to their flocks.

Why did we go three times a year to hear GG preach for about 14 hours?  Those LBs were the ones who made us feel as if we were turning away from the Lord if we didn't go hear GG preach.

4.  The assembly fostered pride, exclusivism, and elitism in its members.

Hardly. Exclusivism? I recall trying to get many of the lost into the assembly - not exclude them. We welcomed people from other churches to visit too.

Exclusivism is not excluding other people, but the very deep belief that there was something special about the assembly.  We invited people from other churches, because we felt that the assembly was a more perfect representation of the church, and that you couldn't truly serve the Lord in another church.

You were shielded from much of this, Matt, because you were new.  New people had a great buffer from reality.  The truth was only shown as people could handle it.  This is a very standard cult practice.

As for pride, how's that? I remember "forgive me brother" was a very standard saying in the assembly. I hate to say his name publically again, but our LB, Bob Starr, is one of the most humble men I have ever met in my entire life. Perhaps at  your assembly, you didn't invite other people to come - or you felt pride. Who knows? I can only speak from my own experience as this is all a subjective matter.

I agree with you about Bob.  I think this was clearly demonstrated by his humility when he learned the reality about GG.

But, we were very prideful.  That's why we invited people.  That's why we tried to formulate our prayers right in the meetings.  That motivated much of the preaching.

Perhaps I will share more in another thread...

[Oscar]

Hi David,

I have never met you.  I was a LB in Fullerton from '71 to '88, and I hit the road for good in '89.

What you have said about the involvement of all the LB's with GG and his invisible hand is true.  He ran everything.

I would suggest that you read the entire thread called, "The Robinson's have hurt the saints"  Seems there was a big conspiracy to damage this BB and many of the posts written by one person (supposedly) were actually done, or at least dictated, by someone else.

Thomas Maddux

[d3z]

I would suggest that you read the entire thread called, "The Robinson's have hurt the saints"  Seems there was a big conspiracy to damage this BB and many of the posts written by one person (supposedly) were actually done, or at least dictated, by someone else.

That thread is much of the reason that I have stayed away from the BB for some time now.  I'm glad to see there are still voices of reason here, even if you have to filter through to find them.  

I think there is benefit in flushing things out, to bring about closure and healing.  So many are just trying to get on with things.  Yes, there is value in moving forward, but sometimes there are things that just have to be dealt with.

I'm thankful that the Lord has brought me into a wonderful church.  http://www.cbcsandiego.com/ and you can even read their statement of faith   .  However, they don't really understand what I've gone through (or we've gone through).  It is even complicated when people ask where I went to church before.

Dave

[sfortescue]

Actually, I think what Tom is talking about is in "Why Luke Robinson May Become a Future Assembly Leader."  This thread, "Existing Assemblies," is in a way a continuation of that.  Some of the later posts of one of the main posters in these threads were written by someone else.

The creator of the thread "The Robinsons have hurt the flock" was an outsider who posted under two names: "Laurie" and "St. Louis sister".  She fabricated the whole scenario of the thread.

[Joe Sperling]

David---


Thanks for what you shared. It's good to get a view
from someone else involved in San Diego. It appears
it was "business as usual" there also. I suspected as
much.

take care, and God bless,  Joe

[Arthur]

I am posting this as someone who was committed to the San Diego assembly for close to 9 years.  I do want to point out to you, Matt, that your involvement here was only very superficial.  In fact, most was in Del Cerro, which was even further away from GG's influence.  I don't think this is a bad thing.  I think it is good for anyone the less they were involved.  However, I suspect that you missed seeing much of the evil that happened.  We were very good at hiding it, and putting on a good front.

I will attempt to answer your question regarding my stands on the following 5 points:
 
1.  The Geftakys assembly was cult-like, if not a full blown cult.

Yes, of course, I disagree with this. The assembly was a church - a body of believers who came together to worship their Lord, to fellowship together, to take the Lord's supper together, to get into the Word together, to reach out to the lost together, to love each other, to help each other, etc.

There is a lot that could be said about each of these points.  Worship-we promoted, encouraged, and even enforced a very elitist notion of what worship was.  We were the ones who defined who was able to partake, and who was not.  The format of our "worship" meeting, down to the minute, was defined by GG.  I know that many had a desire for the Lord, but what we practiced could best be described as strange.  I'll admit, though, that I was very caught up in it.

Reachiing out to the lost--we preached the gospel, yes, but our underlying goal was to see people commit to the assembly.  Underlying it all was an attitude that what we were involved with was the center of God's work today.

Love each other--sorta.  We cared for each other as long as they were willing to fill the mold.  Those who were once committed, and then decided to leave were treated as wicked and evil.  I know this is true, I've had to go and reconcile my relationship with some of these.

2.  It's founder, George Geftakys, is a wicked man.

True.  Aren't we all wicked though? But, yes, he should have stepped down much sooner and let the other more Godly men lead.

George was not in a position like a pastor, or an elder.  I think a good way to describe it would be like a pope, or dictator.  The men under him who would have stepped in weren't there because they were godly, they were there because George chose them.  When George fell, the entire system collapsed.  When pastors fall, or elders fall, the church usually continues.  We weren't a church, just pretending.  We were just participants in George's ego trip.

3.  Not all, but many leading brothers were partakers in George's sins by, in the very least, knowing about some or most of his actions and not doing or saying anything about them. Some even took part in spiritually abusing the sheep themselves.  Of these, some have repented.
Some leading brothers refuted George and were not partakers of his sins, and these were usually maligned and/or excommunicated for it.

I wouldn't even say many leading brothers were partakers in GG's sins. The vast majority only saw him a few times a year. This is all repetitive of course, but how would they know about his sins? They weren't the topic of seminars or weekly phone calls with GG.

Be careful, since what you say is very much not true.  San Diego was rare in that we had a leading brother who was not a worker.  The other LBs went to joint workers meetings every month, and were frequently in contact with GG (or someone directly under him in Fullerton).  When GG came to visit, the attitude portrayed was that a great apostle was coming to visit.  We felt that there would be a special blessing we would receive when GG preached here, even if it made no sense.

Remember, I'm still good friends with several of these men.  But, even though San Diego was further out of GG's grasp, he still wielded his hand here.  A good word to describe what I saw would be deception.  They felt they were serving God, and yet did evil things in following this man.

Those brothers who abused the "sheep" and have repented - praise the Lord. But those LB's that haven't abused the sheep (most of them) - well no need to repent. To be honest, I believe that most of the "best" preaching did not come from GG - he was extremely hard to understand. The best came from the leading brothers. The vast majority were of Godly character and were unfailing in their service to the Lord and to their flocks.

Why did we go three times a year to hear GG preach for about 14 hours?  Those LBs were the ones who made us feel as if we were turning away from the Lord if we didn't go hear GG preach.

4.  The assembly fostered pride, exclusivism, and elitism in its members.

Hardly. Exclusivism? I recall trying to get many of the lost into the assembly - not exclude them. We welcomed people from other churches to visit too.

Exclusivism is not excluding other people, but the very deep belief that there was something special about the assembly.  We invited people from other churches, because we felt that the assembly was a more perfect representation of the church, and that you couldn't truly serve the Lord in another church.

You were shielded from much of this, Matt, because you were new.  New people had a great buffer from reality.  The truth was only shown as people could handle it.  This is a very standard cult practice.

As for pride, how's that? I remember "forgive me brother" was a very standard saying in the assembly. I hate to say his name publically again, but our LB, Bob Starr, is one of the most humble men I have ever met in my entire life. Perhaps at  your assembly, you didn't invite other people to come - or you felt pride. Who knows? I can only speak from my own experience as this is all a subjective matter.

I agree with you about Bob.  I think this was clearly demonstrated by his humility when he learned the reality about GG.

But, we were very prideful.  That's why we invited people.  That's why we tried to formulate our prayers right in the meetings.  That motivated much of the preaching.

Perhaps I will share more in another thread...

Thank you for shedding some light on this, David.

[d3z]

Thanks for what you shared. It's good to get a view
from someone else involved in San Diego. It appears
it was "business as usual" there also. I suspected as
much.

It was mostly "business as usual" until the excommunication.  There was only one meeting after that, and that was just because we just hadn't met yet to discuss what we wanted to do.

However, GG didn't have as drastic of an involvement here as in some other assemblies, so I'm thankful.  It could have been a lot worse.

Dave

[BeckyW]

David-
Just wanted to say 'amen' to your post to Matt about San Diego.  Well said.  I think if you change the names of the people, you have much the same story, assembly after assembly.  It sure sounds familiar from out here in Annandale.
BTW, I remember when you visited here, and I'm glad to know you're out and doing well.
Thankful for His mercy on us all,
Becky

[vernecarty]

The cogency of David Brown's reportage notwithstanding, does anyone think for one pico-second that an individual like Matt Peeling/Luke Robinson would be persuaded? His response, were he/they still given leeway to foam and froth, would have been entirely predictable. Thanks Dave for the first hand reporting of what has been confirmed several times over by numerous witnesses, Matt Peeling and Luke Robinson's depraved, deceived, and deceptive ramblings notwitstanding...
Verne

[al Hartman]

Dear David,

     Thank you for stepping up.  It is good for all of us to hear from you the things you have seen, experienced and know to be true.  i don't know how difficult it was for you to do, but i am (and i'm sure many others are) grateful for your courage and openness.

     Matt has been banned from this BB for the present, but i would like to see him hear what you have told us.  What harm could it do?  But it could be an avenue for his deliverance...  i will Fwd nothing, however, until i have heard from at least two of:  Brent, Mark C., Tom M., Brian:  Brothers, your thoughts???

Gratefully, in Christ,
al Hartman

[Mark C.]

I also thank you David!
  AL asked for my opinion and so I will step up to the plate and take my swings.(If the subject were San Diego and baseball I would decline comment due to the present poor showing of our beleagured Padres )
  When I first starting hearing Matt's presentation of life in the San Diego Assembly I thought that possibly I had encountered something new and different in respect to the groups associated with GG and the headquarters in Fullerton.
  After all, I have been out for over 12 years and maybe they had developed some new moderate positions in response to the best selling Enroth books that exposed their abusive system.
   It is clear now that Matt's memory was either distorted or he was interested in presenting a false image.  I tried to respectfully engage him in conversation re. these issues and he refused to have a reasonable conversation.  When I point blank asked him what he understood the Gospel to mean he also refused to answer.
   We now understand that Matt had an agenda to destroy the credibility of those who are attempting to help those who were/are trapped in an evil system that distorted the meaning of the Gospel and the purpose of Christ in His people.
   I hope that Matt, Luke, and those behind the scenes supporting them, repent of these wolfish tactics and repent of their ways.  I also pray that they would turn to a life that honors God and seeks to honestly pursue the truth.  They have much to apologize to me personally for and to those who they have hurt on this site.
                                      God Bless those who love Jesus Christ in sincerity,  Mark

[editor]

Dear David,

     Thank you for stepping up.  It is good for all of us to hear from you the things you have seen, experienced and know to be true.  i don't know how difficult it was for you to do, but i am (and i'm sure many others are) grateful for your courage and openness.

     Matt has been banned from this BB for the present, but i would like to see him hear what you have told us.  What harm could it do?  But it could be an avenue for his deliverance...  i will Fwd nothing, however, until i have heard from at least two of:  Brent, Mark C., Tom M., Brian:  Brothers, your thoughts???

Gratefully, in Christ,
al Hartman

Matt heard everything that Dave Brown said many times over.  Matt wouldn't read the truth, wouldn't listen to the truth, and if he heard it by accident, he railed against it.

What in God's name makes you, Al, think that by hearing it yet again he would change one bit?  Yesterday, Matt tried to hack in to Paul Hohulin's account.  (At least one of Matt's IP's did, so it could have been Luke.)

Al, I have to ask you what is wrong with your thinking? How can you support these people behind the scenes, lie to us, behave more like Kofi Anon than a Christian, and then, after everything is clear, ask for him to come back?

What is your problem?  

For the record, I view Matt as a casualty, and you as the problem.  Your middle of the road stance does nothing more than make the truth more like a lie, and the lie more of a half truth.  

I know I said I wouldn't be posting again, but someone had to tell it like it is.  I won't answer your mail, or communicate with you until you own up to what you have done, and publicly confess it on this forum.  

I don't know if it's medication, or a serious spiritual deception, but you have done more to harm Matt than help him, and I am NOT going to let you slide.  Do I sound angry?  Good, I am.

Never again,

Brent Tr0ckman

[Oscar]

Dear David,

     Thank you for stepping up.  It is good for all of us to hear from you the things you have seen, experienced and know to be true.  i don't know how difficult it was for you to do, but i am (and i'm sure many others are) grateful for your courage and openness.

     Matt has been banned from this BB for the present, but i would like to see him hear what you have told us.  What harm could it do?  But it could be an avenue for his deliverance...  i will Fwd nothing, however, until i have heard from at least two of:  Brent, Mark C., Tom M., Brian:  Brothers, your thoughts???

Gratefully, in Christ,
al Hartman

Al,

Here's my opinion;  Matt Peeling's conduct on this board has been despicable.  It is true that a few of the more mature brothers used some very negative language in criticizing Matt.  One brother said he was "depraved".  To me that word describes pedophiles, serial killers and such.  Not stubborn foolish kids.  (And yes, I mean kids.  I don't think anyone really grows up until about the mid-20's.)

BUT, after 33 years as a teacher I have heard enough people blame their misdeeds on others who, "made me mad" or something equally ridiculous.

I have heard or seen absolutely no sign of any repentance whatsoever.  Last time I checked, it was the offender that needs to make things right.  

So, I think he should be kicked off the board until such a time as he shows some real repentance.

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Dear David,

     Thank you for stepping up.  It is good for all of us to hear from you the things you have seen, experienced and know to be true.  i don't know how difficult it was for you to do, but i am (and i'm sure many others are) grateful for your courage and openness.

     Matt has been banned from this BB for the present, but i would like to see him hear what you have told us.  What harm could it do?  But it could be an avenue for his deliverance...  i will Fwd nothing, however, until i have heard from at least two of:  Brent, Mark C., Tom M., Brian:  Brothers, your thoughts???

Gratefully, in Christ,
al Hartman

Against s---------, the gods themselves contend in vain...
Verne
p.s. Of course if Al is really desperate he could always have Matt do a bit of "Ghostwriting"( I don't say holy!)...now there's an idea...!