Again: what is this board all about? The GG accusation? No. So am I getting it wrong when I think you're 'signing off' b/c you can't prove G 'slept with' the women? Or are you saying that b/c none of the abuse can be 'proven' in any assembly, then we should all keep our mouths shut? What exactly are you through with, talking about G's trash or the board altogether?
drj
Good question. And one I'll try to answer.
People wonder how groups survive, and keep on ticking, despite being exposed for who and what they are. The Assembly is one of these groups. We all know how messed up it was, and we all have an idea of how evil the leader was.
However, it is going to continue, and actually grow, because those who can do something, indeed the ONLY ones that can do something, won't.
Rachel did something, and it was effective. She had facts, and shared them at great personal expense. She did it when everyone told her not to, because she knew it was the right thing to do. David's ministry is over, and will never return, unless George is welcomed back and he makes it so.
Now, people who are still involved (and some that aren't) are asking the very valid question, "what proof is there that George did any of this?"
Can you give them any proof?
"Brent said so," is not proof.
"We heard that the women told the fullerton LB's" isn't proof either.
Here is an example:
Judge: so, you claim that George is an adulterer?
"bob": Yes
J: what proof do you have?
b:I heard from this guy Brent that it happened.
j: did he tell you who was involved?
b:no
j: do you have any firsthand knowledge that Mr. Geftakys ever did anything wrong?
b: no, but hundreds of his ex-followers believe that he did.
J: Mr. Geftakys, do have anything to say in your defense?
George: yes your honor. Some of my former followers plotted to remove me, in order that they might bask in what they perceived as the power and prestige that I have. Chief among these is my son.
J: do you have any proof of this?
G: yes, your honory. These false charges about sexual impropriety were brought against me. My accusers wouldn't even give the names of my imaginary victims. As you have seen, they aren't able to produce any proof that it ever took place.
Furthermore, My son is leading what he was able to salvage from my old church. Clearly this was their design, and this is what they have accomplished. They have no proof against me, and they have seized control and have gained their objective, based on falsehood and slander.
Judge: Mr. "bob," can you counter this?
B: uh...what he is saying isn't true. He's denying everything. This is a pattern with him. He was excommunicated by his own followers!
Judge: On what grounds did they "excommunicate" him?
B: They spoke to some women who were involved.
J: did you speak to them?
B: well, yes, sort of. I know that they were telling the truth.
J: Are they going to testify?
B: No, they are unwilling at this time.
Judge: in light of the fact that there is no proof to substantiate the claims made by "bob," I find the defendant not guilty.
This parody is exactly what people are using to justify their continuance with the ministry, and their rebuilding of George's ministry.
WE all know George did it. I am absolutely convinced, and even more so.
However, we can't prove it, because the people who were involved won't say anything. The leadership can't be trusted, because they excommunicated people falsely in the past. who's to say that they aren't doing the same thing with George?
A man is innocent until proven guilty, therefore, George is innocent, because there is no proof he is guilty. He is innocent and will remain so until one of the women comes forward.
Brent
