Introduction

Before I say anything, I must explain that previously, I have felt that the Internet was not the proper place to discuss these things.  I saw the Internet as not telling the church but telling the world (wide web). I have since changed my view regarding the Internet and its role in exposing decades of denial and abuse, because I now see that the Geftakys ministry is unable or unwilling to judge itself. 

1 Cor. 6:1-8 requires the church to judge itself and its members. But this is not the case in the Geftakys organization. Just as the Lord used gentile nations to judge Israel, so the WWW is a sword, used by God to see  that ‘judgment begins in the house of God.’ It is too bad that ‘telling it to the church’ has to go to this extreme, but as the blood of Abel cried to God from the ground, so the voices of the many abused and offended have been crying out for many years.  To date, the only place they have been heard is on the Internet. Prior to this, people were always ignored or discredited.

I was saved in the summer of ’82. The following fall I moved away from my hometown for my third year of college and went to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. A club called Studies in the Old and New Testament was just beginning and its "New Testament" style gathering complemented my new beginning with God. Thus began approximately nineteen years of involvement in the Geftakys organization. For eighteen of these years, I was part of the leadership of the San Luis Obispo assembly. My article, below, titled A SLO History gives more detail for these years.

As my eyes began to open to the abuse and denial that was occurring, with which I had played a part,  I wrote the following papers in an attempt to bring about recovery and healing. The time and circumstances that surround these writings are noted.

First Letter to David G.

This first letter was sent to David after Judy had left him. I had questioned multiple witnesses, and from their testimonies it was proven that years of abuse and lies regarding it had been occurring on an ongoing basis. It was in light of these facts that the purpose of this letter was to see David brought to the light. Both Jeff Lehmkuhl and Roberto Sanchez (other leading brothers of the SLO gathering) agreed at the time of the writing to the substance and facts that are presented in the letter. However, after consulting with Fullerton, primarily with the men involved with itinerant ministry, they changed their position and began to say I was harsh and insensitive for writing it.

December 18, 2000

"The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof."

Roman 13:12-14

Dear David,

The last time we saw each other you blamed me for the departure of Judy. I have waited in silence for your turning in hope of a joyful reconciling. I have ceased not to pray for you that you might put away your darkness and walk honestly. It has become apparent through interviews of those you will speak with that you are living in denial; this letter is an attempt to bring you to the light.

Denial is the refusal to admit the truth. I believe that your denial is the result of years of deceiving yourself. Deceiving yourself about your self-importance and position. You have built up about yourself a wall of self-deceit and manipulation denying the evidence of your life.

You are unwilling to be entreated by your brethren for your sins. You have been abusive and shift blame for the consequences you presently bear. Until you are willing to repent of these public sins there can be no real fellowship. There is a need for clearing and demonstrative repentance.

You continue to lie about your abuse of Judy and are unwilling to own how you created the fear that drove her away. You have lied about your financial state. When your brethren cross your will you have a temper tantrum outburst and kick them out of your house. You, David, have cut yourself off from fellowship. Your denial of the specific questions that Mark Miller raised is not true. Your abuse of Judy is no longer private; Judy’s departure from you has raised it to public visibility. 

The abusive domineering environment that you created has reaped its reward. You are alone. It is time to see that you are not being persecuted for your faith where family members have turned against you but rather you are reaping what you have sown. Your brethren have not turned from you to take counsel against you. We have not secretly laid a net for you rejoicing at your reproach (Psalm 31). It is time for you to seek reconciliation and amend your ways. It is time for you to own your sin and be reconciled to your brethren whom you have deceived. It is time for you to repent and know the beginning of deliverance and healing.

David, we (Jeff & I) are repenting for not stopping your oppressive behavior long ago. We have been cowards before your bullying. We will no longer abide such. Stop being unentreatable, our call and the Lords call for you is, you need to repent.

I have used these strong words in this reconciling effort so that the need for you is clear. The question remains how will you receive these words? Will you receive this entreaty as a sincere effort of reconciliation or will you add this paper to your pile of self-justifying excuses?

Praying for you repentance,

Kirk

Second Letter to David G.

It was suggested that I write an apology to David for the tone of my first letter. Jeff even volunteered some of the text. I did not feel obligated to follow this line of thought and responded by sending a letter speaking more of God’s corrective grace. There was no response from David for either letter.

Letters of Apology

At the same time I was trying to address David Geftakys, I was also writing letters to many people that had left the SLO Assembly in the past, apologizing for my behavior towards them. I was making phone calls and visiting people that I needed to seek reconciliation with. The insight that was provided to me by David’s failings was opening my eyes to my own complicity and sin. I was beginning to see what a dupe and dope I had been. I had let David beat the sheep on many occasions. There was always some justifying or excusing circumstance that blinded me to my cowardice at the time. 

Now my eyes were beginning to open and with this new vision I was repenting and reaching out to all I could remember I had wronged. (By the way if you are reading this and remember how you were treated in my silent presence and never got such a letter please get in contact with me. I am sure that there remain sins of ignorance that I have yet to make right). 

I initially started this task believing that Jeff was with me. I thought it was going to be a leadership effort, as it should have been, instead of something only I was doing. After talks with Fullerton, Jeff changed his view on this. Here is a sample of one such letter. Again, let me state that this is what I was thinking at the time. If I were to re-write this letter today, I would probably be much more clear with regard to some of the things I did, and how they were harmful.

First Letter to George: Resignation from the Work

When George came visiting us in between the winter seminar and his Asian journey I was appalled at how he distanced himself from his family’s troubles. I was also greatly disturbed by his boastful preaching. I had hopes that he would bear some responsibility in the SLO tragedy and that he would acknowledge his and Betty’s failure in counseling their son’s marriage and miss-directing the work in light of sending David Geftakys to SLO. 

Instead, he did not inquire as to what the leading brothers in SLO thought. Instead, George Geftakys rebuked me for being "harsh" and tried to minimize his own involvement in what was now so public a problem. By this time, over forty people had left the gathering, many of them pillars. 

My eyes were opening. I was beginning to see that this is the way it had always been, only now I was no longer blind and could see it. In all the years  George visited, he never bothered to inquire  what we thought. He might have inquired to his loyal workers but not with anyone else. The SLO leadership would stand by,  trusting that Fullerton would give David G. counsel, and hold him to some sort of accountability. 

We blindly assumed they would be responsible, in spite of the facts that were so plainly evident had we simply considered the obvious. All of the leading brothers were cowardly puppets, shaped and weakened by years of training, while the abused, in this case Judy, suffered because of our passive blindness. 

After this, Fullerton--- it was either George, Betty, Mark Miller or Dan Notti---called and suggested that David should be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper. This really bothered me, because I had thought that he was being disciplined for being a railer and  abusive man and lying to us. At least this is what we all agreed to when we asked him not to preach or partake of the Lord's Supper. Since no visible repentance had occurred, I was against this but it became clear that this was the way it was going to be since "headquarters" had ruled. It seemed to me that it did no good to be a lone dissenter.

I was beginning to walk in some new vision. As stated above, I saw this as part of my own repentance. After George’s visit I penned the following letter to George and showed it to Jeff.  Upon reading it, Jeff  almost blew a gasket. He couldn’t believe I would challenge George in such a way. He made me rewrite and revise the letter. After multiple versions of the letter Jeff and Roberto sat me down and talked to me. They explained that if I held these opinions of George then perhaps I should not be a leading brother. I agreed, and I penned my resignation that night.

After I gave this letter to the SLO leadership (Jeff, Roberto & Ray) they asked that I not make it known to the assembly for a period of time. I continued to have hopes that things would turn around and true changes would occur, and agreed to hope and pray for a while. 

Second Letter to George: Entreaty

Two months passed and now that they knew how to deal with me they let me announce it to the gathering. Jeff wanted to know what I would be reading and tried to supply his own text for my resignation announcement. This just wouldn’t fly with me. I was tired of the assembly leadership trying to get the right spin on everything. My new desire was to let the light shine and the consequences fall. Danny Edwards had not yet arrived in SLO but he called and now I would be allowed to read my resignation. 

At the prayer meeting where I would be allowed to publicly resign Jeff preached out of Acts 20 about how wolves would rise up from among the sheep and how the hireling leaves the flock. It was an obvious attempt to raise disregard to my concerns prior to my voicing them. I did not protest his word but it is noteworthy in this storyline how someone is marginalized and character is smeared.

The day after my resignation I sent the following letter to George with the enclosed article. The letter had been softened many times to attempt to make it more palatable for George. Again, at the time I thought this was the appropriate tone.  Perhaps I would write it differently today.

Sin In The Camp

In Joshua 7 there is an intriguing story that shows us the seriousness of sin in the camp of Israel and the need for recovery to keep Gods presence. The story line goes like this; Achan was one of the soldiers that God used to destroy Jericho. In the destruction of this city Achan succumbs to temptation and takes a portion of the spoils of that city. 

The Lord had clearly directed that everything was to be destroyed and none of the spoil was to be taken, Achan had rebelled against God’s commandment. It is because of this sin where this man had stolen a wedge of gold and a beautiful garment that results in the only true defeat of God’s people in the book of Joshua. In Joshua 7 two processes of God are revealed. First, we see the Process of Discovery; second we see the Process of Recovery.

The Process of Discovery

Several things occur here that are noteworthy. First, others beside Achan suffer because of his sin. Deut 24:16 says," The father shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin." The principal of this verse is seen in Abrams prayer in Gen 18:23, "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?" God is not unjust to judge the innocent as guilty with the wicked, yet in Joshua 7 with the sin of Achan, thirty-six people are killed in the process of discovery and Achan’s whole family, sons and daughters are judged guilty and condemned with him. 

How can this be, unless they had shared in his guilt? I believe that in the evidence of this apparent contradiction there is a profound lesson. Others had witnessed Achan’s sin and done nothing to stop him. Other soldiers had seen him steal the accursed things and had in their silence been accomplices in the sin. Family members had seen the sinful act and in the cowardice of silence bore in the guilt of the act. 

Perhaps you think that the previous did not happen, that my meditation is a little long, and too much imaginative force was applied here. Then you must provide honest answers to the following. How did Achan bring away such accursed treasure without other Israeli soldiers seeing? How did he bury them under his tent without his family’s observations? The hardest question of all is, if Achan was the (single shooter) only conspirator in the crime, why did God clearly judge others in his sin? 

In Gods faithfulness, sin in the camp cannot be covered up and must be attended to. In verse 12 there is strong warning and the key verse to this whole incident. "Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you." This threat is reminiscent of that given to the Ephesians, "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." God makes clear the seriousness of allowing sin in the camp by threatening the departure of His presence.

The Lord does not strike Achan down in a single sin judging lightening bolt. The Lord does not tell Joshua who the guilty one is; instead He has all of Israel stand before Joshua in an accounting of tremendous soul searching. In this accounting all Israel is called to ask, "Am I guilty, do I have part in this sin?" When Achan is finally recognized as the troubler of Israel, we learn something about the process of recovery.

The Process of Recovery

This process did not include the shrink and the rehab support group; it was not complicated and obscure. The simplicity of the recovery process is seen throughout scripture as confession and repentance. Simple as it is, without it recovery cannot occur and there is no guarantee of God’s presence. Ichabod declares that the glory of the Lord has departed. This departure happened several times in Israel’s history. It is noteworthy that His departure only occurs when there is compromise in the recovery process.

Confession

Achan is clean in his confession; there is no blame shifting or historical revision here. Achan does not attack Joshua with personal insult or go into a self-pity mode like, ‘Well, you know how poor my family is.’ Cleanliness in confession is key to the recovery process. Achan says, "I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done…I saw…I coveted…and took…"

Repentance

The valley of Achor is the burial place of Achan and the end of his sin. It is a valley that was visible with "a great heap of stones". Demonstrative repentance of all involved is part of the recovery process. There should be no doubt of the repentance, it is to be visible and bold. Such that the angels in heaven can point at and give glory to God, saying," see the goodness of God there in that." In 2 Corinthians we see a recovered assembly. Paul notes the demonstrative repentance of the individual and the assembly in 7:11, "For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter." I believe the angels were saying, "Yea," too.

Conclusive Applicable Questions

In the recent sin and accounting in David Geftakys's life where has the discovery and recovery process been observed? Is the presence of God the concern or simply the covering of a stain in this ministry? The assembly of Ephesus was visionary and heavenly. Where is that testimony today? It is simply a place where tourists visit ancient Greek Architecture. This question does not imply a fruitless work of God was in Ephesus, nor is it questioning that God did something special there, for, "Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever." It is not that it did not influence its generation for the eternal gospel, but rather that God’s working moved somewhere else because of compromise in the recovery process. 

Public accusations have been made against George and Betty. What has been done to clear/resolve these? These are not accusations from someone who leaves with an axe to grind going to the author of a book like Churches That Abuse, but rather, accusations from family members who deserve some genuine outreach. David’s abuse was not limited to Judy; many have felt his insults and forceful manipulations. His control-mongering was not only in his family but also in the family of God. These things need light and recovery. I am told that David has repented. I simply ask where? Where is the fruit of this?

George has indicated that he wants to stay away from this. I question the value of distancing himself from his own family members and their sin, especially when there is implication of him and Betty.

Samuel, Abijah and Joel

Samuel had two sons who were abusive men. Men who abused God’s people and the whole kingdom was disturbed by their treachery. As a result of this abusive behavior ,the Lord’s people gave up the vision of ‘God is our king’. Instead they wanted to be 'like the other nations’. They said, "Make us a king to judge us like all the nations." Although you see error in Samuel’s responsibility as a father, you see that he was accountable as a judge and prophet to the Lord’s people. He gave a public accounting of his life and was open for public rebuke and entreaty (1Sam 12). This humility is what holds Samuel guiltless of the nations compromise of raising up an earthly king. 

Where is George’s accounting and public clearing of accusations? Where is the humility of saying something like, "…I really blew it here in holding David to account…It is too bad that I disregarded brethren’s counsel concerning David’s returning back to Fullerton…I am so sorry that Judy’s cries for help were not heeded more carefully…", or possibly the need is to be publicly accountable in other ways, by saying something like, "I wanted my son to hold a certain position in my ministry and so I extended preferential treatment, this was poor judgment on my part that has contributed to this mess…I am sorry that I did not know how Betty counseled couples concerning abusive husbands or I would not have allowed this…How could this have happened under my nose? This shows a negligence that I am repenting of…"

The Loyalties of Jonathan

Jonathan is a complex character in the word of God. He was a prince of Israel, a warrior of God, a fan and friend of David and a son of Saul. What we want to see in this meditation is that Jonathan attempted to have more than one loyalty; he made covenants with David and had loyalties to his father Saul and in his end there was loss because of this conflict.

Loyalty is the unswerving allegiance of ones faithfulness. It is being faithful in allegiance to ones cause, ideal or custom. Covenants and commitments are where ones loyalties are revealed. Is it possible to have multiple loyalties? Mat. 6 is clear that one can only serve one master. Is the believer to have loyalties to another than the Lord’s Anointed? The Lord’s Anointed is the One and only Son of David, the Lord Jesus Himself. In the Old Testament the Lord’s anointed was seen in types and shadows but at the arrival of the New Testament we see the fulfillment of all types and shadows in Christ. Henceforth, there is no longer an earthly representative apart from the Holy Spirit. 

To call someone the Head Steward of The Work or the Lord’s Anointed, when the work refers to God’s work, is to usurp Christ’s place. To set up an alliance to an earthly head steward in the form of workers in this head steward’s ministry is error. It gives special privileges with special invitations and honors to those singled out as faithful or with the greatest visible allegiance to the head minister in his ministry, where disagreement/descent is not well tolerated. What happens if the Lord moves from using this ministry because of His shifting of His wind? The kingdom shifted from Saul to David, and Jonathan was lost in this shift. His confused allegiance to his father left him in a perilous position.

Jonathan’s heart was won to David at the fall of Goliath. Jonathan was a mighty warrior of God used by God to perform great victories and Jonathan died with his brothers, the sons of Saul, in a battle that included Saul’s pitiful suicide and God’s absence. (John 12:42-43)

Practical Similarities

Surely it would be presumptuous and erroneous to liken all workers to Jonathan and draw complete similarity between Saul and George, but in some cases dangerous parallels exist. Why do I say this? Simply put some workers loyalties remind me of Jonathan and some of the failures of Saul remind me of George. Where are these failures and how can this comparison be made? Saul/George was/is a man of huge ego unwilling to humble himself and see true recovery. Oh, sure there were/are private moments in Saul’s/George’s life of humiliation and grief, but there is no confession of true substance and outreach of true reconciliation. But, some say, "This would show a weakness in George that would possibly stumble some of the Lord’s people." If some are stumbled because a sinner needs to repent, their foundation needs to be shaken, for it is sinking sand.

Jonathan/some workers was/are a man/persons torn between loyalties and unwilling to stand up to his father/George and stand for his beloved David/Christ the true Head.

It is time to make sure that this compromise does not leaven the whole lump. Recently in Joshua 16 we saw that little portion called Gezer. It was in Gezer where the natural inhabitants of the land were allowed to be. This shortsighted convenience cost the children of Israel future generations. I do not believe we have done all we can to eliminate this blight. I believe that there remains to us the process of recovery. It is only by open confession and true repentance that true recovery will occur.

Kirk

I waited for weeks expecting some kind of response from George. As usual, I was totally ignored. In yet another eye opening moment, I recalled how George boasted about always responding to the letters he received when he was on the journey. (This is typically a form letter that everybody gets.) But now, when a critical problem surfaced, he distanced himself by denying and ignoring what would only become a snowballing public issue of sin. Still my hopes remained, Danny Edwards would be arriving in a few months and I hoped that his "outside" outlook would demand accounting and repentance. 

"Denial and Pride" Article

This hope was only disappointed. I gave the above "Sin In the Camp" paper to all the leadership, including Danny, and they followed George’s example by totally ignoring the concerns. The following writings were hand delivered to all of SLO leadership, one at a time. Each paper was a further attempt to demonstrate some of the evident problems. The result of these papers was total silence not one movement of change or call to discuss the issues.

One of the first of these papers was an attempt to define what repentance should look like.

Denial and Pride

"He that covereth his sin shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." The antithesis of this verse is the act of denial, the act of covering ones sin. Denial is the covering of ones sin and it takes many forms. It is the unentreatable spirit hiding in the bushes as God walks in the cool of the day. It is the fig leaf covering that Adam’s nature uses to mask over sin and it is the life of denial that can know no grace. 

Job says, "If I covered my transgression as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom…" Why does he say this? Because Adam’s nature denies, covers and hides. Pride is the sin that causes this, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together...and they heard the Voice… and …hid themselves." This was the first act of the sinful nature. In contrast, grace comes with ownership. Owning ones sin brings about healing and the work of the cross in a life. The one who owns his sin and forsakes it knows the blessedness of the one forgiven, of the one whose sin is covered.

When the Lord Jesus cleared the temple of the moneychangers there was evidence of a violent reform. A mess of such consequence was created that everyone in the vicinity recognized fallow ground had been turned over, repentance had occurred. A façade was not built up about the moneychangers practice such that they could continue but the casual observer would not notice, thus satisfying the appearance of purity. No, a truly revolutionary event occurred. God intervened and change was demanded.

Repentance Must Be Proactive

For the kind of housecleaning that occurred at the beginning and ending of the Lord’s earthly ministry there must be a consuming zeal for the house of God. Today, Christ is walking amongst the candlesticks and the theme of His message is repent. This theme calls the church to repentant action not status quo behavior. It is not simply cessation of bad behavior but correcting and demonstrative turning. He does not knock on the door with a feather nor is He softening His demand with the passing of time. He expects the door to be opened, He expects first works to be done, He expects a rising up and an overcoming to take place.

This has not taken place in San Luis Obispo instead of a proactive corrective repentance there is this pacifist neutrality. A sinful past must be demonstrably cleared before restoration can occur.

The following history asserts this conclusion.

Corrective ministry that clears and amends is not occurring.

David’s life is not held in account nor is repentance being demanded, conflict of any sort is avoided.

Those who have been involved in the tragic history of SLO, where 47 people have left because of ignored sin, are not being called into account.

Judy is not being reached out to.

Concerns of the saints are not moved upon they are ignored or at best given lip service.

There has never been public rebuke of leadership’s sin instead a hushed environment was created.

When disagreement with this unfaithful leadership is voiced it is put down as quickly as possible.

I see my contribution and presence here waning because I see the Lords presence waning. With each of the pages I have written it has been my sincerest hope that recovery would break forth. At every hand I have been disappointed I am in prayer as to my next move.

"Persecution or Prosecution?" Article

The following is another paper that I gave to the leadership in SLO. It was continually asserted, when negative (true) concerns were heard from outside or inside, that the devil was roaring and we needed to withstand this spiritual warfare. My response was, "What do you expect when there are outstanding issues of sin?" I joined this meditation with one concerning the illusion of autonomy.

Persecution or Prosecution?

1 Peter 2:20 states, "For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God."

The question that arises when a person or gathering is buffeted is, is it because of their own faults, the consequences of sin or are they simply suffering for righteousness sake? Is it persecution or is it prosecution? Surely in the midst of suffering the buffeting of ones circumstances it is not always readily apparent if it is for faults that these have been brought upon ones self or simply enduring the hatred of the world. They hated our Lord and surely they will hate the believer for the servant is not better than the master.

But in the present problems I am wearied by the continued assertion, "We just need to stand in this conflict where we are the victims of persecution, wrongfully accused by malicious liars." Let us not fall into the error of denial. Denying the past will only lead to a future that repeats it. I am weary of listening to ministry that says, "Don’t pay attention to that past event it is time to go on," when healing has not occurred. It is like saying, "It's time to play football again while the cast is still on the broken foot." I am weary of hearing ministry about not paying attention to the "rumor mongering accusations" that exist when a large portion of it is true and unaccounted for. I long for the healing ministry of the person and work of Christ.

Autonomy or Wimpy Convictions?

We have believed for years and seen in the scriptures that one local gathering is autonomous from another. We are all of the body of Christ but not THE body of Christ. The church at Ephesus is corporately responsible before God. It is not the church at Jerusalem or Antioch that is responsible for the assembly at Ephesus. I believe the behavior here in SLO contradicts these truths.

Some recent examples

The Occasion	Our Resolve before Fullerton/ other counsel	After Fullerton/Itinerant distant Input or some other changing influence
D.G. Lord supper Discipline	There was no doubt about the need for D.G. to be disciplined and not allowed to partake of the Lord’s super.	There are some invisible signs of D.G’s repentance and we see no reason why he should no longer be allowed to partake.
Witnesses against D.G.	The witness against D.G. is sufficient and there is no need for further investigation or witness discovery.	The witnesses have no or very little credit and should be brought into questionable worth.
"Rick's" letter to D.G.	Kirk you should write a letter to D.G. …Sounds good.	Sounds harsh and ‘just like D.G. Is Kirk bitter towards D.G.?
"Rick's" letter to G.G.	You should not be writing this if you are a leading brother.	Kirk should have a way of communicating his grievances.
"Rick's" involvement in stated ministry	Kirk should be allowed to continue preaching in the rotation	I am no longer welcome to contribute in that esteemed way. It has been made clear that I am a threat because I have serious doubts concerning this ministry.
D.G.’s abusiveness	Yes D.G. was abusive to Judy and the saints	Harsh at times but abusive is too strong a word especially in our PC sensitive culture.
We were cowards in the past	Yes we behaved weakly/cowardly before D.G’s bullying	No we informed the saints of past cowardliness in error or at a minimum to appease Kirk.
Welcome Announcement	We resolved that our responsibility in welcoming guests was announce their welcome, not to divide them into categories by giving their geographical locations or/and their church affiliations.	No we should note those who are involved with this ministry and call special recognition to their visitation…thus making the welcome of those others Christians visitation less. It is an us / them welcome.

"Shepherding Versus Meddling" Article

Another paper attempted to describe a control mongering spirit that  was prevalent in the Geftakys ministry. I noted some very recent examples of this kind of abuse. Past examples of such behavior could have filled pages.

Deut. 18:20 says, "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die." 1Pet.4:15 puts the meddler in the same sentence as the murderer, the thief and as an evildoer.

Shepherding Versus Meddling

Not only does the last syllable of shepherding and meddling rhyme but these two verbs have a lot in common. What is the difference between shepherding and meddling? Surely the one can look like the other and the other can look like the one. The shepherd/meddler is involved in lives, the shepherd/meddler is listening and is directing, approving and disapproving, giving input, teaching, helping… So what’s the difference?

The meddler is the one who thinks he/she knows… including the will of God for others. The sin of meddling is the sin of presumption. Do a word study of the word presume or presumption, I’ve never seen it in a positive light. The meddler presumes to know what is best for others. David’s example to us has been one of the meddler. He meddled in others lives. Let me explain. He believed he was gifted as one of God’s chosen to see into others lives, to see what was their sin and what they ought to be and do. He knew for them. 

He would jump to conclusions without a basis for such conclusions, time and time again. If you disagreed, you just weren’t walking with the Lord close enough. You would either come around or you would fail completely. His insulting barbs, threats and his insinuating tones would communicate this. David controlled others lives in this fashion. He controlled his family with abuse and he controlled the saints with the fear of God’s displeasure, threats or personal insult.

David’s meddling has been marginalized by the consequences of his life, but does his example remain? Are his methods still used? Does the leadership still meddle? The meddler is sincere and believes his/her meddling is for the best, obviously because they know best. 

The last meeting I had with Greg Holder I asked him what he had learned from the tragedy that has transpired here in SLO. His response was a firm opinion that the leadership here needed to learn to lead the people in the will of God and not tell them what they thought it was. David taught us how to tell them. Instead of encouraging the Lord’s people to find out what the will of God is for themselves, tell them. Of course wisdom comes from counsel and shepherds are called to provide counsel and wise guidance. Here is the some guidance of the recent past (last few weeks).

Concerning Tom’s decision to go to Grace Church, "It is a mistake." Like we know.

The ethnicity of the woman Toni should marry should be Mexican. Like we know.

Toni should go to Cuernavaca to get a wife. Like we know.

After seeking some input from Jeff B. concerning his sister, Toni is given liberty to "go for it." Jeff B. tells him yes she is going to school, but she would like to get married. He travels to N. Calif. Spends time with the Benton’s in an effort to get to know Cristina and returns to be told, no, let Cristina get her education don’t pursue her now, why would an American girl want an uneducated man like Toni. Toni is jerked all around, feeling that the leadership here is not for him and cannot trust them. When Toni communicates his concerns to someone he trusts he is accused of being divisive and entreated in the same breath that a request for forgiveness is given.

Sheila visits the saints. She has never demonstrated any divisiveness; in fact from all the rumors she had heard she intends to talk to leadership directly with her concerns. Yet, all the saints are warned to be careful around her. This warning not only demeans Sheila’s character putting the saints on-guard in awkwardness with her presence but also is a demonstration of no-good will to the saints. The meddlesome shepherd is presumptuous and knows that the saints are weak and unable to converse with someone as divisive as Sheila. Isn’t this offensive and meddling behavior?

When there are few volunteering at an outreach meeting, instead of setting the example for the saints, the brethren are goaded to be volunteers. This only promotes guilt and once again the meddler knew they should be volunteering better than themselves.

What patterning remains of David? (What I was finding out was that David was not an anomaly, but a window into his father’s ministry). Only proactive repentance will recover appropriate shepherding where the sheep look to the shepherds for care. When there is meddlesome shepherding people are eventually offended and when there is such a hands on approach in the shepherd, who wants to confide, to ask for guidance or to request prayer for personal needs. It will cultivate ones who want a clergy / laity environment where the priests will find the will of God for you, just submit to their meddling and you’ll be in the center of God’s will.

After the above, it was time to send another letter to George. I hoped that if I made a more personal appeal he would respond. Perhaps a softer approach was necessary to describe the gravity of the dilemma. Then George would see that ignoring these things could only make things worse.

George continued to deny me any response. Total silence. His ignoring of these issues was a revelatory experience to me. As I shook the Geftakys tree, for any accountability, all that I was finding was rotten fruit.

"Welcoming to the Lord's Supper" Article

I began to see that these papers were tests. Would anyone rise up to see change occur? Or,  was  change even possible? One of the issues I was testing was the concern of sectarianism. It seemed you were either one of us or not, in fellowship or out of fellowship. Of course we have fellowship with all believers but the fellowship with those out of our fellowship seemed to be a second-class type of fellowship. Here is our simple welcoming announcement; I had found it offensively sectarian, I asked, 'Could change occur?’

Welcoming To The Lord’s Supper

"Dear saints we would like to welcome to the fellowship of the Lord’s supper our brother John Doe from the assembly in Fullerton, our sister Jane Dee from the assembly in San Diego and our Brother and Sister, Bob and Kay. We welcome you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

The intention of the above welcome is to announce a welcome to the visitors and announce a commendation to the saints. Perhaps there is more purpose to this event but this is the gist of it. Lets examine what it does.

Division and Sectarianism

First, let’s describe what we are saying. We are saying that John Doe and Jane Dee are in fellowship with us. They are involved with the ministry that we are involved with. You know this by the recognition of their geographical location and by the mention of ‘the assembly in’. We are also saying that Bob and Kay are not in fellowship with us, they are not committed to a place of fellowship that we recommend and pray for. They are believers who are walking with the Lord but do not merit the kind of recognition that someone ‘in fellowship’ does.

Second, let's see what this means. We preach about the sin of sectarianism, where there is division by some saying, ‘I am of Paul’. The first rebuke Paul gives to the immoral carnal gathering in Corinth is about the sin of divisiveness. We say we have no name but the name of Christian and we are offended when called ‘the assembly’, but is it not right that people call us ‘the assembly’ when it is the name we give ourselves. We welcome by church name where a member is from when they are involved with us giving them a special welcome. The church name that we have selected is, ‘the assembly in …’ By welcoming in this way we identify ourselves as ‘the assembly’. 

This is not only sectarianism where we welcome by saying…they are of the assembly…but it is also presumptuous. By singling out one gathering in a city as the assembly of that city we have presumed to be the ones ordained by God. It seems that we give lip service that we are not the only ones, that we are just of the body of Christ and not the body of Christ but when it comes to our welcome we state otherwise. Do we call ourselves here in SLO ‘the assembly of San Luis Obispo’? If not then why do we welcome others in this way? If we do call ourselves ‘the assembly of San Luis Obispo’ then why do we have the preaching about not having a name but the name of Christ? If we do see ourselves as the assembly in San Luis Obispo then we must make this distinction between us and all the other Christian churches in town after all we are the assembly and they are the other churches.

Submission One To Another

What happens when someone is offended? Do we care? Paul was willing to be a vegetarian when it came to avoiding the offence of others. What sacrifice are we willing to make? It seems very little. What bending was done for the Foys, the T.'s, the Biddles…? What yielding, what submitting? 

Did you know that in the most accurate text in Ephesians 5 verse 22 the word ‘submit’ does not occur? It reads, ‘wives to your husbands’. Where is the verb you might ask? It is in the previous verse, ‘Submit yourselves one to another’. Instead of seeing verse 21 as the emphasis we have focused on verse 22. We are not alone; many Bibles have erroneously made a paragraph separation between these verses. Like verse 22 is completely without verse 21. Sadly this is an emphasis without merit. Where have we errored in our past emphasis? Perhaps there has been far too much, ‘Submit yourselves to your guides’ and far too little, ‘Submit yourselves one to another’? God hates the Nicolaitans, are we holders or haters? Does leadership hold the saints accountable to the mint, anise and cummin but give allowance for themselves?

So what happens when someone is offended by the welcoming? It appears that it doesn’t matter. It appears that this is the way we do things. The one who is offended must abide in their offence. Unyielding authority and unhearing ears should not be the example of shepherds unless they are lording it over the flock.

I had talked to Danny concerning ‘the welcome’. All leadership had heard that ‘the welcome’ was offensive to Kirk and his family, and if change did not occur it was clear that they would be seeing less of us. Change did not occur and I finally realized it could not occur. Things were the way they were and that was that. It did not matter that people were offended. It was our problem that we should be dealing with. Whether it was the allowance of sin or the way we welcome. 

It is interesting to note that the assembly would circle the globe for one convert but would not change, admit error, to keep any even the first fruit of the gathering. Repentance demands change, when change is impossible repentance cannot occur. Again there was no response after delivering this paper. No comments, no questions, total silence.

A San Luis Obispo Assembly History

A week prior to the ’01 workers conference, Danny asked what I believed needed to happen in SLO. I said I would put something together for him. I couldn’t just say 1 2 3 4 this is what needs to happen here. I gave him this 5-page paper after he returned from the conference. It was necessary to give history to support the necessary steps of repentance. I gave this paper to all the SLO leadership and again was shocked that no one would rise up. Total silence was the response.

A SLO History  (Written August 23, 2001, at the request of Danny E.)

All history is written with a peculiar historian’s version. HisStory is the truth indeed, mine is only my remembrances.

A Glorious Beginning

San Luis Obispo started breaking bread in June of 83’, this was nine months after Keith and Jeff came here from Fullerton. They came preaching the gospel and praying, and in this brief period a core group of about a dozen believers had been raised up by the grace of God to stand together and worship the Lord Jesus. The speedy work that God did here was a testimony of the power of God. 

The following two years were a testament to God’s movement. At the end of this time there were two sisters’ houses and two brothers’ houses (one with 7 young brothers another with 6) and many dear believers wanting to see His witness increase and God’s salvation known. It was wondrous in our eyes and the Lord was glorified. In 1985 Keith and Gay were called back to Fullerton and David and Judy were sent to be full time workers in San Luis. 

David and Judy’s Arrival

David and Judy had spent some time in the Midwest in Tuscola, Chicago and St. Louis. Over the years both would recall in stories some of the problems that had occurred in these places. I never realized that the problem was possibly not the Midwest gatherings but with David and Judy themselves. Before their arrival in SLO they had spent the last few years in Fullerton. During that time Rebecca was born and David contributed to the Arial business. David rarely went to meetings and he only worked part time. Many looked at his life with suspicion and quietly questioned his example. 

When David arrived in SLO he informed Jeff and myself that he would be receiving funding from the Lord’s treasury each week. He was in control of the treasury and would receive a stipend. It wasn’t until approximately ten years later that the work acknowledged him as a full time worker. In all that time he never received a paycheck from being employed. During that time I was questioned multiple times concerning how David was provided for because his means of provision was never communicated. A side note is that with the arrival of David, Tim Geftakys stopped visiting SLO. Before David lived here Tim would visit often, I consider him one of the fathers of the work here but when his brother arrived he didn’t visit for years. He might have visited one time in ten years. 

In the years after David’s arrival (including from ’85 to ’94) many lived with David and Judy. I lived with them for four years, Mike D. lived with them almost 6 years, Roberto and Jenny S. lived with them, Greg and Marcy H., Sean G., Rob K., Jeff and Nancy L., Brian and Susan L., Paris T., Robert A., Mark B., Brent T., Craig R., Nathan M., Arthur D., Dave S.… I have queried most of these individuals (there were many others)--there is little witness to any physical abuse. Yes, there were times of rage and wrath by David that were not becoming of a servant of Christ, but this was overlooked by all who noted it with the justification that even our Lord was angered at times. Arthur was kicked out of David’s home because he questioned David’s authority. He was belittled by David and called a woman and a wimp. N. M. was kicked out because in the course of many indiscretions by Judy he became infatuated by her and tried to seduce her. 

During this time I know of, no one that came into fellowship as a result of David or Judy. We had outreaches twice a week, but in all the years they were here I never saw David on outreach preaching the gospel. This was justified because of his diabetes. He was so often sick that there were times that it was not uncommon to see him once every two months, but even in his sickness he would rarely miss a Monday night outing with Judy, his exercise regimen or his midnight drives. His smoking was kept a well-guarded secret. This habit was justified as a help to his diabetes but he openly preached that smoking was not sin. 

During the times of stated ministry on Sunday afternoon or Wednesday night when it was scheduled for David to preach it was routine for one of the other leading brothers to back him up just in case he would be too sick to show. The habits of the David Geftakys and his family were justified by many (including George and other workers) for various reasons: he’s a sick man, he’s George’s son, he’s eccentric... Although sent to SLO as a worker, he rarely went to the monthly workers meeting in Fullerton and had no accountability for his schedule, the use of his money, and his health.

With the current news events concerning stem cell research, I am reminded that David publicly stated his participation in a Santa Barbara medical program where viable embryos were destroyed for the sake of his diabetic experimentation. Testosterone steroid use for his weight lifting gain and viagra for his sex life were part of a program that was funded by the Lord’s treasury. This in a ministry that discourages the opposite sex visits in homes where chaperones are not present because of how it might appear to others. 

And indeed the appearance of evil should be avoided, but in the case of David excuses were made and justifications applied. What is of note here is that David’s life style appearance was never brought into account, his midnight drives were never questioned, his muscle car extravagances were indulged and his dysfunctional home was allowed. In 1Timothy 3:7 leadership is called to have a good report before all, but in David’s case it was never applied.

Abuse and Denial

In the Family

It was not until 1994 that I learned that David had beaten Judy. I don’t know if it was the first time that abuse occurred in San Luis Obispo, but it came out at this time that it had happened multiple times before. It had occurred before their commendation to the work here. Rachel witnessed her Dad violently abusing her mom at their Carhart house in Fullerton. Gay (Mau) Walker knew of David’s abusiveness before his arrival in SLO and she had reported it to Betty Geftakys. It would not have come to my attention at that time if it were not for the personal witness of Marge T, the mother of a brother in fellowship. She had taken a sabbatical from her teaching career to visit us for a year. She was living with David and Judy, helping Judy with her home schooling. During her stay here Marge heard Judy scream out and heard David fiercely beat Judy. 

At the time it was described by a third party as a wrestling match where David and Judy were both at fault, so it came as a surprise that Judy would witness to multiple beating and David would admit to spousal abuse in a meeting where leadership attempted to hold them to account. The leadership at the time consisted of Jeff, Greg and myself. 

For a couple of months after this episode we attempted to hold David to account. It was clearly communicated that David and Judy would be counseled and helped by brethren from Fullerton. Arrangements were made that David and Judy would meet midway on a regular basis to receive counseling concerning David’s abuse for healing in their marriage. In the following 6 years I believe this happened once, with the exception of the last meeting just before Judy left. 

Approximately two years after the witnessed beating, David beat up his daughter, Rachel. After David caught Rachel talking to her boyfriend Mike, David reacted by punching Rachel out. Rachel’s witness was that if Rebecca had not intervened by yelling, "You’re killing her", she was afraid David would have murdered her. After this event Rachel left the home again to live with her boyfriend and had a court restraining order applied to David. Jeff was there in the courtroom with David when this restraining was ordered. 

In all the years of my contact with Judy, outside of the meeting where there was the one episode of abuse, she never voiced any fears of spousal abuse to me. She never requested of me any help concerning David’s abusiveness. Jeff has cited one occasion when Judy showed up fearful of returning to her home because of possible violent ramifications from David. Apparently Jeff and Judy called Betty and informed her of the circumstances. Betty then counseled Jeff to go with Judy back to the Morro Bay home to make sure that David would not be violent toward Judy. I was never informed of this episode. 

There were multiple times when a heavy silence was hung over matters like these. I was a leading brother but I discovered afterwards that many things were kept from me. I was in Riverside on a MTT when I called the Geftakys home for prayer requests when Judy opened up to me about the court order restraining David. Shortly after hanging up with Judy, I received a call from Jeff in which he entreated me to be quiet about this event. George had requested that no one know about it, and so could I please not tell anyone. Jeff was a true disciple of David. If anyone knew what was going on in the Geftakys home, it was Jeff. 

Brent expressed concerns about David's home to the leadership, but there remains a different version of witness between Jeff and Brent concerning what Brent told Jeff. Brent believes that when he ate lunch with Jeff and Mark Miller he expressed serious concerns about David’s present abuse of Judy. Brent also recalls sitting poolside at his home next door to David and Judy’s with Jeff, and hearing yelling and screaming between David and Judy. At this time, according to Brent, he used the occasion to further communicate that something needed to be done to stop David. Jeff does not recall these events the same. He remembers the meeting with Mark having a different emphasis and the episode at the pool as a shouting match between Judy and Rebecca not David. 

Mike and Cheryl Zach spent a month trying to help David and Judy while living in their home. This month of assistance was shrouded in myster--no one was told why they were here, except to try and help David and Judy. They became familiar with their marital strife, and it continued as before without any intervention or accountability.

In all this 1Timothy 3:3&4 and 5:19&20 were never applied to David or even verbally discussed. A blind trust was placed in the counsel from Fullerton itinerant ministers. It was simply that David was being held accountable as a full time worker in the work. I say blind trust not because of any malice or evil intent but instead a wrong assumption on our part that all would be well, all would be taken care of by the work and if there were any need for accountability or discipline we would be properly directed.

Abuse and Denial

In the Gathering

David used the pulpit to justify himself. When entreated by Marge T. about his dysfunctional family, he preached that the Christian family is different from the world and will be labeled dysfunctional. When entreated about his smoking he would preach that there is no sin done to the body but the sin of fornication. When Judy is entreated about modest dress, David preached about how Christians should not live by rules including rules about modest dress. When the testimony of his life was in question he would preach, ‘Woe unto you when all men think well of you’, thus voiding all concerns that his personal testimony was a shame. A couples meeting was used by David to propagate his belief that the battered wife should remain with her abusive husband in the direst of circumstances. 

This use of the exercise of a leading brother/full time worker for the justification of his own vices was never addressed in David’s life. David railed on Aaron, Sean, Will & Patty, Tom & Sally, Victor, Paris & Marge and all the leadership at one time or another. It was a common occurrence to see David’s rage at leading brothers meeting. He would threaten us that we would not be leading brothers anymore if we didn’t shape up. As Proverbs 9: 7 says, "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse." David proved himself such to all these who dared to cross him. My personal witness during these times is one of great sorrow. Regret that I was not a man of enough courage at the needed time to confront David in his sin.

A Root Cause and A Bigger Picture

So, lets add some of this together. David is sent to SLO when making very little contribution in Fullerton. His health is an excuse for hardly ever coming out, but he is sent to a prospering young work where he will be the only mature example. He is immediately funded by the work as if he has been supported all along. He has had a history of spousal abuse, smokes cigarettes, drinks alcohol and has some wild ideas that reek of eccentricity. I could elaborate into the details of David’s sin and the devastating consequences, but instead I must ask, why? Why was this allowed, why didn’t workers oppose such foolish direction? Why did George direct in this way?

There is peril of nepotism in ministries that have leadership by members in a family. Preferential treatment for the promotion of family members was a danger to the New Testament work in the days of Paul and it continues to be a danger today. The preferential treatment of a father to his son is the result of a father’s ego being expressed, wanting his son to be something to the degree that indiscretions are allowed. 

The preferential treatment that has been extended to David through the years is a result of his father wanting him to be something in his ministry. In the past George would brag about his whole family being ‘in the ministry’. Preferential treatment was what sent David to SLO, funded his stay here, kept him here when others were recommending a move and preferential treatment overlooked his sins. When the Lord uses a man in a worldwide way, as He has used George, the watchword for that individual must be humility. There is a need for this one to continue in entreatable meekness. 

In contrast to this, what I see in George is this: He considers himself a great intellectual, an apostle whose exploits are to be compared with the apostle Paul, a poet who deserves a penname (who burdens the ministry with the cost of publishing his prose), a literary great, a great energetic force, someone who spends a minimum of 4 hours in the word a day so we would have ministry from the kitchen of heaven so profound that it must be asked, "What did he say?" 

I know of no one who is comfortable around him as a simple companion in basic friendship. No, he is brother George, the head steward of the work and worthy of double honor. Double honor has come to mean without accountability and to be without peers. I once called him George and was entreated that I was not his peer and should address him as "Brother George"--this entreaty given by the man who preaches we should have no titles and PHD means phenomenally dumb… Reverend is to be reserved to God’s title and we are all just brethren. Somehow, though this has come to have a certain elevated distinction--there are brethren, and then there is Brother…so and so. I use these points not to insult but to illustrate what I believe to be a root cause to the ugly mess here in SLO.

Now Then, What Shall We Do

It was requested that I write down what I believe needs to occur for recovery in SLO. As previously stated proactive repentance is the only way to true recovery. In my meditation, ‘Sin In The Camp,’ the two processes described are the process of discovery and the process of recovery. Discovery is what my memory here in ‘A SLO History’ has attempted to in some small way accomplish. There are at least two levels of accounting in this history. In one we see the local responsibility. Here is David and how the leadership here compromised in it’s dealing with him. In the other we see the Ministry’s (the work) responsibility in sending him and extending to him the kind of preferential indulgence that David’s abusive nature took advantage of.

Locally

Previously I had stated the following concerns that demonstrate that repentance is not occurring.

Corrective ministry that clears and amends is not occurring. - David used the ministry and preached error. Public corrections need to occur. Preaching the truth after error has been taught might be OK for all that did not hear what was said before, but it does not correct what is imbedded in those peoples’ minds that heard otherwise in the past. Only corrective ministry that clears and amends can accomplish that. If you wish me to make a list of all that I see needs to be corrected I can do this, but I believe it should be a corporate effort.

David’s life is not held in account nor is repentance being demanded, conflict of any sort is avoided. – From talks with Danny, Roberto and Jeff I get an unclear picture of how David is being dealt with. Danny says that he is a brother in good standing able to pray for the Lord’s Supper. Jeff says that he will pray before David for the Lord’s Supper to head off David’s contribution, if he attempts to pray. And Roberto says that David is not a brother in good standing and now knows that he is not to pray for the Lord’s Supper. I don’t know what to make of this.

I was opposed to David being allowed to partake because his repentance has not occurred. There has never been any demonstrative turning in his life. Excuses have been manifold, he is a steroid abuser, he’s dying and his mind is going, Judy is insane due to her menopause problems, he’s lost everything we should show compassion on him, repentance has occurred…he is no longer supported, no longer a worker, no longer able to preach, Judy’s not there anymore so he is no longer able to get violent with anyone. Thus saying that the absence of sin and the inability to sin denotes repentance.

This is wrong and again indulges David as he has been so often. It is time to hold him to account. To demand an accurate accounting that will force reality into his life of denial. I believe that what needs to happen is a faithful accounting as described in 1Timothy 5:20. Even in the waning years of the gathering of Ephesus it was faithful to try the false apostles. David’s sin has been elevated to a public level by the departure of Judy. Where is his public repentance? Why has he not gotten up on a prayer meeting night and with true brokenness confessed his abusiveness to the gathering. Confessed his abuse to Judy and Rachel and asked the gathering for forgiveness and mercy for the abuse he applied while exercising authority as a leading brother.

Those who have been involved in the tragic history of SLO, where 57 people have left because of ignored sin, are not being called into account. - This is a need for the ministry and is addressed in the next section.

Judy is not being reached out to. - No matter what our excuses here in SLO, whether in ignorance or in a winking of the conscience we wronged Judy. We allowed David to dominate the gathering and his family in an abusive way and we were wrong. Why have we not sent a letter to her confessing and requesting forgiveness? Are we afraid that it might end up on a website? So what, if it is the right thing to do.

Concerns of the saints are not moved upon, they are ignored or at best given lip service - David has trained leadership to manipulate and coerce. The concerns of the saints can usually be termed negative or critical. When dealing with the negative or critical, listening is not the forte of Jeff and Roberto. This would be giving place to gossip. Hushing these concerns up with micro managing and meddling ‘in the will’ of God is a modus operandi.

It is time for leadership to take some steps backward and give some serious consideration of the patterning that David has left and repent. Frank honest open discussion needs to occur, this would be living in the light. It has been a common consensus that leadership is not approachable with concerns. Why is this? Because there is this…who told you that? Who have you told? No, no, no that is not the way it is…insecurity. There is a treatment of these concerns, as though, if we were to find any fault the house of cards would fall down. Is this ministry so fragile that it cannot endure correction? This leads to the next point.

There has never been public rebuke of leadership’s sin instead a hushed environment was created. When disagreement with this unfaithful leadership is voiced it is put down as quickly as possible. – Just as David needs to step forward with public repentance, a statement of confession and repentance, to show demonstrative turning. So leadership needs to standup and state that the assembly is under new management so to speak. In the past we allowed a dominating spirit in the relationships of this gathering, there is still a lingering of that aroma. The air needs to be cleared, the windows opened and fresh breezes blown.

The Ministry

The Work abandoned David’s family and the assembly in San Luis Obispo to David’s abuses. We trusted this ministry to hold David to some earnest diligent accountability, counsel him in his sins and relieve him from his duties, when scripture demanded it, in a timely manner. George and the responsible workers, for whatever reason, violated this sacred trust. For some reason, now that David is no longer a worker, no longer supported and can no longer preach, it is now believed that the work has faithfully made wrongs right. This is like the poor negligent driver who, after a terrible accident that totals both cars involved, takes his car to the junkyard and says to the other innocent driver, "Oops, oh well, that car is junked it can no longer drive the highways all will be well now." 

There has been no admission of failure by the work, no confession of negligence by George or any other workers. How does this utter silence contribute to recovery? If there is a will there is a way to get Judy a letter of peacemaking reconciliation attempting to "leave… the altar… and…be reconciled". There is such a need for truth and light, a need for acknowledgement and clearing. If this ministry is a man-made venture, fragile and capable of collapsing with the failure of its leaders, then we must keep this quiet and admit no culpability. Sweep this episode under the rug and take the eventual fallout. Time will pass it will be forgotten and we will move on. But if this is God’s work, where men have sinned, then we must hang the laundry out to dry in the Sun of His Light. We must seek reconciliation ignoring the consequences and trust Him to let rise from our mess His glorious grace.

Jeff Lehmkuhl agreed to the facts and substance of this history. In one breath I was told to wait;  repentance probably did need to occur. Then in the next breath, Phil 3 was quoted as justification to move on and forget the past, a new beginning was what we really needed. By this time, my family and I were just going to Sunday morning worship. Our commitment was demonstrated in our participation. In the last few months our involvement had waned. I was no longer sharing ministry because the ministry that I had to share was corrective in nature. I had attempted to share a word of correction and had been strongly rebuked. What I had to share was not wanted by the leadership and would not be permitted. Instead I was asked to share a word on ‘Breaking Bread’ as part of Danny’s new series on, ‘Why We Do What We Do.’ I could not contribute in this way.

Kirk and Family Leave the SLO Assembly

With the total absence of response from my last paper it was evident that it was time for us to move on. I believed that the Lord’s presence had moved on for us and it was necessary for us to follow Him. We started meeting with other Christians in the community. I could elaborate on our departure from the assembly and our enlargement and blessed fellowship with other believers but that is not the intent of this writing.

Letter to Mark Miller and Jeff Lemkuhl

Months passed and I wrote another letter. I had come across a letter that I had written in 1994 to Mark Miller asking him about the proper authority of leadership in regard to the SLO situation with David. I sent it again to Mark and Jeff, with comments that I hoped would shed light on the present situation.

The enclosed letter was something I came upon by accident. I had written it shortly after we (the SLO leadership) became aware of David G’s spousal abuse. Mark Miller, Betty G. & Dan Notti were aware of the abuse and were being trusted by SLO to counsel and help David and Judy’s marriage. I was shamefully wrong to trust them and cowardly in not taking a personal shepherd care to investigate. We looked at David and Judy as without peers in SLO and therefore looked to the Fullerton for such help as necessary.

The questions in this letter are key to understand. Spiritual abuse is the misuse of power. This letter was my wimpy little voice of eight years ago and my concern that authority was misused. I was quickly shut up.

5/21/02

Dear Mark and Jeff,

I was recently cleaning up a hard-drive on my old computer when I came across the following letter…

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memo

To: Mark Miller

From: Kirk Date: June 23, 1994

Subject: Leadership Authority

Dear Mark,

Per recent events here in SLO and because of accusations against the work in general, the following questions have arisen. I would like your input in response to these so that I might be better prepared to respond to such questions. Please consider these in preparation for a discussion:

1) At what time do the shepherds in a local gathering invoke the authority of Heb.13:17 and require submission? It should be assumed that the only way of enforcement of this authority is fellowship with the Lord's people. This means in the event of non-compliance/rebellion to the direction of leadership excommunication is the penalty.

2) At what time is this authority misused so that the shepherds become lords over God's heritage (1Pet.5:3) controlling the lives of the sheep and acting as Nicolaitans?

If you would be available to talk about this I could call you in the near future for a brief discussion. Thank you for your consideration.

Very sincerely yours in Christ,

Kirk 

I thought that this letter might be of some value to you. It was written after David G. had a yelling fit against Aaron C. After sending it to Mark Miller I called and found out that this letter had been shown to George and discussed at a Fullerton Leading brothers meeting. It was not discussed in a favorable light. With knowledge of this a certain embarrassment was felt and the questions were left unanswered. David rebuked me for going over his head and another installment to my ‘don’t question authority’ education was taught.

I thought that these memories would provide some value to you for the following reasons.

Listening and responding to concerns of brethren can head off future pain and suffering. This letter occurred 8 years ago. A corporate submitting of yourselves one to another is what Heb 13 is talking about. You cannot have one (submission to leaders) without the other (submission to one another). When there is the corporate mind of Christ (Phil 2) then there is general submission one to another not just "Submit to your leaders". Submission/yielding is an outcome when there is submission one to another.

Why was a leading brother of 11 years asking these questions? This was never asked. Why was he ignored and his concerns held as no account? When concerns are ignored and questions that give account are not asked then abuses will occur. Where was accountability in the work? Where there is preferential treatment there can be no responsible accounting of the small or the great. The small guy is asked to give account in the smallest detail but the big guy is allowed to live with impunity.

These questions that were written 8 long years ago still have validity and are worth consideration today. I wonder if your answers would be the same today?

I do not write these words to mock or berate. In good will I write to brethren of like precious faith in hope that memories of the past will instruct for true change in the future. If there is inability for change, substantial real change, then His call, ‘Church, hear,’ is unheeded and He is, at best, outside knocking.

Perhaps you’ve heard enough of these kinds of words and want no more of such nay saying after all, ‘This one thing I do, forgetting the past, I press forward to the prize…’ Can real growth and forward pressing occur when there remains such an unaccounted past? I did not go looking for an occasion to hound you with these past memories because some fresh stirring of my bitterness has occurred. When I accidentally found this I looked to the Lord to use this Divine coincidence, as an occasion to give what I believe to be needed help.

Consider it as you may and may God bless it and you,

Yours truly,

Kirk

cc. Danny Edwards

Jeff emailed me a ‘thank you … I’ll pray about it’ response. Mark and Danny ignored it with silence. At this point I thought my duties to be done.

David G. Restored to Full Participation: Kirk Meets With Jeff L.

Some months passed, then, for various reasons, I became stirred up. One of the main reasons was that David Geftakys had recently been restored to preaching and full participation in the meetings.  This, after changing his story, and telling blatant lies about his abuse of Judy and the people in fellowship.  I could not believe that they actually allowed him to preach again!

I met with Jeff and requested we follow the Matthew 18 process for open offence. Instead of following the scriptural pattern, the leadership met with me and would not allow me to have multiple witnesses. I read them the following statement telling them why I was stirred up and requested that we meet again with other brethren including a Calvary Chapel pastor for the multiple witness part of the process. They said that no further meetings would be allowed.

Why I am stirred up…

I am seeing that the Geftakys ministry is a sect. Not a cult, but a sect. It is an entity in itself and you are either in it or out of it, with no accountability but to the workers meeting and therefore, GG.

I am seeing that there are a lot of battered souls that have left. That they are beaten sheep with a common story. Many that have left have the same story, it is one of abuse and control. This story is not unique to SLO but is one that goes from Fullerton to Seattle, from the Valley to Omaha.

To allow David to preach again, without true recovery, is to see the past repeat itself and abuses continue.

How Brent has been falsely excommunicated demonstrates continued abuses.

White elephant fellowshipping where the sins of the past are closeted cannot continue. Light is crying out to shine.

Time will not bring about healing. As time passes and repentance does not occur the window for recovery is closing.

Dealing With It

My plan is to follow the Matt 18:15-17 process to deal with these offences.

Step one Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. Step two 16 "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that `by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' Step three17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell [it] to the church. Step four But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

I have repeatedly been ignored in step 1, as others have also, and so I am determined to follow up with the next steps. This Sunday night meeting I will not have another repeat of step 1. What is lacking is not another step 1 but the steps 2, 3 & 4.

I am willing to set up a meeting within the next week to accomplish step 2. There must be plural witness. If you will not allow this then I must take further actions.

Letter Telling the Church

After this meeting I began writing a letter to hand deliver to the SLO gathering. On October 31, 2002 I tried to deliver it to everyone who was still meeting at the Sand’s Motel. I believed it was my responsibility to tell the church and saw the letter as the way to accomplish it.

10/31/02

Dear Brethren,

It has now been more than a year since the Lord led us to meet with other believers. I continue to hold our years of friendship dear (speaking of the gathering), and value continued fellowship. I was a shepherd in the SLO gathering for 18 years, and I have a deep love and concern for my brethren, even more so now than in years past. We have gone through so much together and I still consider you to be our dear friends. Recently, I have found it necessary to personally tell the story of why my family had to move on and meet with the Body of Christ in another locality. I know that many of you thought that we left solely because of David’s sin; but few bothered to ask me the true reason for our leaving.

First of all, I must explain that the leading brothers have told me that if I speak out in this way I will be labeled "divisive" and they threatened to mark and shun me. I respond by saying that the truth does not stumble nor does the truth divide, on the contrary the truth sets free. The Church of the Living God is the pillar and ground of the Truth.

The Proverbs consistently praise the individual that seeks understanding and knowledge. This is what I mean about the truth. The Proverbs condemns or criticizes those who refuse to hear the truth, or who scoff at reproof and correction. The Proverbs refers to them as fools; they are the ones who plug their ears to reproof. Instead of us being fools, the Lord would have us be like the more noble Bereans, seeking the truth in the scriptures, trusting God over and above men.

Why We Left

For the last year, every night when I put my children to sleep I thank God for His deliverance. Not deliverance from Christian fellowship because I miss all of you very much, but deliverance from a ministry of denial that has been so abusive, that I was a part of for 19 years. I know this is a strong statement, but let me explain what I mean by it. I said in my letter of resignation as follows:

3/3/01

"The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth."

Psalm 145:18

Dearest Brethren,

…"I believe that the Lord is calling for repentance as He walks in the midst of the candlesticks. He is calling for demonstrative clear turning to Himself. In the recent failure and subsequent call of accounting in David’s life I have seen preferential treatment that makes allowances and excuses. I have been called harsh and critical, "just like David", because I note these compromises. I have been asked not to question in writing George and Betty’s involvements in this sin. Shock and disgust have been expressed when I recommend a course of clearing these accusations or a definitive dealing with public concerns about George’s ego, David’s abusiveness and Betty’s meddling. 

Whether real or imaginary, public accusation exists. The Bible says, that the elder must have "a good reputation with those outside the assembly". It has been my desire to see demonstrative repentance of the obvious sinner (David) and demonstrative clearing of accusations to a good reputation (George and Betty). These desires have been met with opposition and it is not good for the flock to be guided by divided leadership. Please know that I love you and harbor no grudges. I will continue in my fellowship here and I long for the Lord’s blessing upon you and this gathering."

For some time before this I had been trying to see things change. Obviously, even back in March of 2001, I was not happy with the direction of the leadership, even though I remained hopeful that people would finally come to their senses and do the right thing. We were consistently yielding to Fullertons’ pressures, even allowing David to partake (and now preach) without confession and repentance. I had to ask, ‘where is our autonomy?’ Previously made decisions were changed when Fullerton would impose direction. We also ignored clear plural witness, and disregarded truthful and faithful criticism and were generally opposed to all concerns. People who expressed legitimate concerns were labeled troublemakers, divisive brethren and slanderers. David was given blatant preferential treatment and an evil double standard was employed. 

God hates unjust scales. Even though we all knew this, and even taught it, we violated our consciences and bowed to outside pressure. All of the SLO leadership failed miserably in our responsibility for holding to account those who were responsible for the preferential treatment of David and therefore we became accomplices in his chronic sin and abuse. I am reminded of the verses in 1Tim 5:19-22 that say, regarding discipline and preferential treatment of elders, "them that sin rebuke before all…do not share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure."

Because of all this, I could not continue to stand with Jeff, Roberto and Ray, and saw my resignation as the only way to free me to address these issues. What prompted me to write the letter of resignation was a meeting (3/3/01) that I had with Jeff and Roberto. During this meeting they stated I should not be a leading brother if I were to challenge the leaders (George and Betty) with a strong request of accounting. 

Understand what was happening. People would come to me asking me hard condemning questions that I could not answer. In fact no one in SLO could. Only George and Betty could, but they were not talking and no one was demanding an accounting. I had written much describing my concerns but did not feel free to send these pages out or voice them. It was clear to me that as a leading brother I could not appropriately address the problems that were prevalent. 

So, after my resignation, I sent out approximately Twenty five pages in multiple articles and letters, clearly addressing the needs of the hour. These pages were sent to a variety of individuals including George, Mark Miller, Tim, Danny, and all the leadership in SLO. Sadly, everything that I wrote went into a black hole of silence. No response to my letters or articles was ever given. In fact, George and others didn’t even respond in kind after I asked them to in writing. There were hours of discussion where, at times, the writings were present but the theme of these meeting was not the written concerns but an attempt to silence me. 

Even more distressing, I have come to realize that this is how others have been treated when they attempted to address concerns. Many of those who attempted to follow the scriptural precedent with regard to addressing an offending brother in leadership, experienced this. I was shocked to realize that even though we gave lip service to these godly values (entreatability, submitting one to another, accountability), when the time came to practice them, we ignored God’s clear prescription and stooped to the point of propping up hypocrisy and dealing falsely while at the same time purposely abusing the few people who had the courage to say something. Great, devastating sin had been occurring and by ignoring it we multiplied its deadly poison.

To help you understand what I am saying here’s some verifiable history.

Before the Work (George) sent David to SLO

Several "responsible" workers knew the following about David’s character:

He beat Judy on multiple occasions

He frequently had fits of rage, towards his family and the Lord’s people

He rarely attended meetings, supposedly due to his health

He was addicted to tobacco and abused alcohol

He had eccentric and unscriptural ideas about family roles, finances and what it meant to serve the Lord in general

Even after this terrible testimony, George sent David to lead a young assembly, where he would be the only mature example. David was known to be an abusive man; yet there was no accounting in his life. On the contrary, he was promoted to a place of even greater authority in his father’s ministry, and was paid handsomely for doing almost nothing.

After Arriving in SLO

There was never any accountability in David’s life; every single person that crossed him was quickly taught to never challenge him again, Prov 9:7. I personally witnessed David’s fits of rage on many occasions, along with the other leading brothers. His midnight drives, smoking and drinking went on for years and David never feared any consequences, because he had gotten away with it for so long. The Lord’s treasury paid (big bucks) for his diabetic experimentation, where viable fetuses, from abortions, were destroyed and their cells injected into his body. It was common for him to wrathfully yell at the sheep – many dear little one’s were beaten under this abusive shepherd.

David never had any fear he would have to give account, because he had always been given preferential treatment. He was George’s son and had always been protected, supported and enabled by his parents. David correctly considered himself untouchable.

The following occurrence illustrates this to an extreme:

Once, when physically abusing Judy, David told her that she could do nothing to stop him. He then boldly offered her the phone and said, "Here! Call 911." When Judy didn’t do as he said, he dialed the number for her, then changed his mind and hung up. Much to David’s surprise, the sheriff showed up, (he forgot they have caller ID) and then he lied to the Sheriff and said, "Oops I meant to call 411, sorry." The sheriff saw Judy in the background and repeatedly asked if she was OK. Due to the fear that was instilled in her by her abusive husband, and the fact that this was covered up for years, by the people who should have been doing something, Judy was put into the classic position of a battered wife. Much much more could be said about David’s spousal abuse.

David’s spousal abuse progressed into beating and punching his daughter, Rachel, who has permanent nerve damage in her right ear as a result. A Judge granted a restraining order, which is part of the public record in San Luis Obispo and can be viewed and verified by anyone. This restraining order, and the events leading to it was well known to the work and to the leader of the work, George. Still, as in the past nothing was ever done, except that we were told to keep quiet about it. In spite of this, and much more over many years, David was one of the main preachers at the North Coast Conference on the actual day that the restraining order was served!

It was business as usual until Judy finally left him, afraid for her life. Only then did he finally begin to reap what he had sown. Just as the spoiling of a child by its parents will eventually do the child harm and bring grief and shame to the parents in the end, so the preferential treatment that the work gave to David harmed him and enabled him to destroy his family and do terrible damage to the assembly. David will be held accountable before God, with the stricter judgment that is given to a teacher, for the damage he did to many needy souls over the years, including his own children. I am an eyewitness to these things and I am ashamed for my cowardice during these times of abuse.

There is no such thing as an infallible ministry; faults are present in all. The fact that sin exists should not surprise anyone. The question is, when sin is exposed how will it be dealt with? Will we confess and repent, or seek to shift blame and avoid consequences? The need for repentance is not unusual; five out of the seven churches of Asia needed to repent. Again, the question is how will we deal with our sins? In Noah’s day the people were willingly ignorant (2Pet 3:5). With regard to the apostle Paul, the people plugged their ears. There are none so blind as those that will not see. When repentance in the church is needed, the presence of the Lord demands it. All those who would approach Him must regard Him as holy. His continuing presence in an assembly is contingent upon how it responds to His call for repentance. "He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches."

The problems that surfaced in SLO through David’s sin were not simply the result of one man’s behavior, but are manifold in nature, going all the way to the top. There is a clear pattern of darkness and evil, visible to all who will open their eyes.

Many will say, "Repentance has occurred." I ask, "Where? Where has repentance really occurred?"

In David’s life?

None of the victims of David’s abuses have been made aware of his repentance. No one in the work, let alone David, has bothered to contact his victims and apologize. His own wife and daughter, the prime targets of his sin have not been notified that he has "repented." In spite of this, his privileges in the assembly are being restored and yet there remains no confession and no righting of wrongs. How can this be!? When repentance occurs it is visible to all. (2Cor 7) True repentance is publicly demonstrative in its witness to make amends. "If a man doesn’t work he shouldn’t eat." David continues to have no visible means of support. He has not held a job in many years, yet he continues to be supported, contrary to scripture. He is a morose, self-pitying, self-justifying and lonely man. Even so, he could be so blessed if he would only repent. By indulging him, you are not helping him. Instead, an assembly has been damaged, innocent people have had their character smeared, and a trail of injured souls follows in the wake of this ministry.

What of those who turned a blind eye to David’s sin? Has repentance occurred in the work?

The work is taking no blame for the failings here. Not one leader has been replaced or has voluntarily stepped down. No public confession or apology of sin has occurred. There has been no attempt, on the part of anyone, to seek out and make amends to those who have left as damaged, discouraged and beaten souls. Written reproof is completely ignored. Most people who have published the truth are labeled as "divisive." Those who mention the sin are the ones being called the sinners, not the ones who actually commit the sin! Prov17:15. Manifold excuses have been made but so far repentance is invisible and is merely a profession of words.

Mat 18:15-17 records the process that our Lord Jesus describes, in His own words, on how to deal with offence:

Step one "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. Step two 16 "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that `by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' Step three17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell [it] to the church. Step four But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

To date, the people who have attempted to tell the church have been slandered, or wrongly excommunicated, or both. The offended who speak out are treated like "heathens and tax collectors," by the offenders! I ask you, how can God be glorified in a gathering that allows this sort of thing to take place? Even though it is probable that I will be added to this list, I believe the Lord has called me to voice the truth and let the chips fall where they will.

I will never again allow my conscience to be violated in this manner. I have learned that silence is a guilty accomplice. By God’s grace, I will never again behave like a coward. I, and many others, have attempted ‘step one’ in many ways. Recently, I tried to arrange a meeting (step 2) with the leading brothers and Chris Lawson, (pastor at Calvary Chapel) along with several saints who had left in the past. This was in order to once again, come to them with 2 or 3 others, to have plural witness and some outside, unbiased accountability. 

However, this was not allowed. They would only; all four of them meet with me alone. To quote Danny and the brothers, "We don’t think we need to have others come in (step 2) and tell us what you think our sins are." Who does get to tell them what their sins are? When brethren inside the assembly are not listened to, and then are further ignored when they leave. When do these men have to listen to anyone? They have plainly refused to allow me to follow the prescribed scriptural path.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you, the church/assembly (step 3), that sin has occurred and has not been dealt with in a forthright manner. If you continue to go on as if nothing happened, you will have no better than a white elephant type of fellowship. Everyone knows that the white elephant is there, they smell it, and hear it trumpeting, but falsely choose to ignore it as best they can, instead of confronting it and dealing with it once and for all. This is not true Christian fellowship. The lump that was swept under the rug in SLO is still a cause for stumbling, the abused are still hurting and a cover-up (where silence is the flavor of the day) is still taking place. 

My entreaty is to let the Light shine, reach out to those who were falsely excommunicated, apologize to those who were hurt, make right the many wrongs, hold leadership to account and in the shake down that follows let God raise from ashes something clean and new. "God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble."

So, you see that there is a root that goes much deeper than David’s family falling apart. There has been a willful suppression of the truth, regarding David and many other issues, that begins right at the top with George and Betty. Yes, they have known for many years what they were doing. They knew what kind of man their son had shown himself to be, yet they gave him power and authority in their ministry