A Very Confusing Apology

Flora's 2013 Update on the Ottawa Geftakys Assembly

If you are wondering why I would feel a need to share the details of an apology that I received from Armand and Nancy Cossette, it boils down to the fact that it is a very confusing apology. I accepted their apology and forgave them. To me now the issue is trust; and I don’t want to mislead anyone.

The apology that I received from Armand and Nancy was very different from other apologies that I had received from others coming out of the Geftakys organization. Here is what occurred.

On December 31st 2012, after almost 20 years of not seeing or talking to Armand and Nancy Cossette, I received a phone call from them. They told me they had just read my story, and said that they phoned to apologize to me. Armand apologized first, then Nancy apologized. Nancy was crying as she apologized. Neither one mentioned any specifics. With both of them, their apology was very simple: they said that they had read what I wrote, they were sorry, and will I forgive them. They sounded very genuine and I accepted their apology and forgave them. At first, I was rejoicing and I shared with them that I had prayed for this to happen, as God’s ways are always towards reconciliation.

However, immediately after I accepted their apology, Armand said to me, “Now that we have apologized and that you have accepted our apology, we would like you to remove your story off the internet.” The next 30 minutes or so were spent with Armand explaining how my story was affecting their reputation. Armand explained that people they had met recently, who were never a part of the Geftakys assemblies, no longer wanted to be friends with them after they read my story.
Whenever I countered how it was helping to bring healing to others who had suffered in this organization, he’d sweep aside my comment by stating that it might have helped a few people, but since they have now been helped, it no longer serves a purpose. He kept pressuring me for a commitment that I would remove the story. I would only say that I would think about it, pray about it and let him know what I have decided. However, I did say that I would post an addition to the article stating that they had apologized.

Armand also informed me that the Ottawa assembly no longer meets; they had stopped meeting about two years ago. This calculates out to sometime in 2011 that they stopped meeting.

Over the next week, I began to wonder if their apology was just a means to an end: to convince me to remove my story off the internet. Also, I suddenly realized that they had indicated no concern for the hurts and pain that they had caused in my life or in the lives of many individuals, even causing the shipwreck of the faith of some. Their top, high priority concern appeared to be to persuade me to take down my story.

Consequently, on Saturday, January 12th 2013, I phoned Armand and Nancy to ask some clarifying questions. However, Nancy was out doing the groceries, so I was only able to talk to Armand. The Lord went before me and gave me the words and inner strength to say what I believe God wanted me to say. I started by asking about Mike Zach. Armand expressed irritation with my question and wanted to know what that has to do with their desire to be reconciled with me. I informed him that since they were asking me to remove my story from the internet, I needed to know where Mike Zach was at. I explained that the reason I put my story online was to demonstrate that although other Assemblies were under George’s influence and direction, the Ottawa Assembly was under Mike Zach’s influence and direction. So Armand told me that to the best of his knowledge, Mike had apologized right at the beginning to everyone who needed an apology.

Then Armand once again informed me that my story served no valuable purpose and was only succeeding to ruin new friendships that they were seeking to build. At this point, I informed him that I would not be taking the story offline. I will keep my story online, but I would add to it that they had apologized. Armand was upset by this and adamantly stated that he did not want any mention of his apology attached to the story. He said that if I mention on the web site that he and Nancy have apologized to me, I do it without their permission. This further caused me to wonder if their apologies were genuine, and to wonder what exactly it was that they were apologizing for.

Armand denied being concerned about their reputation, and seemed totally unaware of the depth of hurt and suffering that they had caused others. Gently but firmly, God enabled me to share a few examples to show how greatly the oppression had affected others lives and how some individuals had had their faith shipwrecked. From this point on in the conversation, Armand’s voice expressed raw emotion. It appeared to me that he began to see for the first time how God’s word was twisted to become an instrument of abuse. So I shared that I believed that he was also a victim, just like the rest of us, because he had held George Geftakys in high respect. I shared with Armand that I believed that he had really believed he was obeying God when he did what he did. His voice was full of emotion when he admitted that he thought he was obeying God. However, he still ended the conversation by reiterating that he did not want his apology mentioned online.

On Monday, January 14th 2013, just two days later, Armand phoned me again. However, this time he phoned to say he wanted nothing to hinder true, complete reconciliation. He said that he understood that I thought his apology was only a means to restore his reputation. He felt that there was no way to restore his reputation and that it was pretty well ruined. He told me that he would accept whatever I decided to do regarding my story and regarding his apology. He said he would place no stipulation on me, and that whatever I decided to do, he would accept as from the Lord. I thanked Armand; and then told him that it wasn’t clear to me that he fully understood how oppressive this organization really was. He said he felt he understood it, and that my story expressed it very clearly.

Armand then informed me that the three examples in my story, in which he did not follow George’s advice, were true. Also, my statement that he began phoning Mike Zach regularly was true. However, he wanted me to know that all the decisions that were made were in consultation with the other Leading Brothers. He wanted to make sure I understood that the decisions were his decisions – they were not decisions made by Mike Zach that he had simply implemented. I agreed that they were his decisions; but I argued that his decisions were highly influenced by Mike Zach, in the same way that my own decisions were highly influenced by Betty. He agreed that that was true.

As a result of this third conversation with Armand, I now tend to believe Armand’s apology is genuine and heart-felt. Since Nancy was not part of the last two conversations, I trust that Armand was speaking for both of them.

At no time, did either Armand or Nancy deny or refute any of the details in my story. Since Armand admitted in his last conversation with me that all his decisions were made under the direct influence of Mike Zach, it needs to be stated that the Ottawa assembly demonstrates that Mike has very successfully been trained as George Geftakys successor.

A few years ago, others expressed the concern that Mike Zach would probably lay low for 5 to 10 years, and then try to start something up again. It is interesting to note that February 23rd 2013 is the 10th anniversary of Mike Zach’s public apology and stepping down from being an elder.

This sure makes me wonder if there is some connection between Mike’s aspirations and whatever initially prompted Armand and Nancy to suddenly phone me to apologize – after almost 20 years with no communication with them (I left in February 1993). The timing plus the fact that they initially put a lot of pressure on me to remove my story off of the internet gives rise to the appearance of a connection.

Therefore it might be wise to note:

Armand or Nancy never mentioned God convicting their hearts of sin or of their need to apologize.
When they are asked what led them to apologize, they replied that it was the effect my story was having on their ability to establish friendships.
They expressed a complete lack of understanding of the depth of the pain and suffering experienced by many.
They never expressed concern or grief about how the oppressiveness and abusive control might have affected me or others long-term.
Although I referred to the Geftakys Assemblies as oppressive and abusive, they never did.
They seemed oblivious to the fact that the teaching in the Geftakys Assemblies twisted verses in the Bible and used the Bible as an instrument to abuse and control, leading to the shipwrecking of the faith of some.

Knowing all this, I still accepted their apology and forgave them. The issue of their past and present behaviour is now between them and the Lord, and it is no longer between them and me.

However, trust is another matter. I won’t be able to trust them until I see a lot more change in them. The tiny bit of trust that was generated in their initial apology was immediately destroyed when they pressured me to take my story off the internet. My last conversation with Armand left me hopeful that change might be starting to happen and that trust might one day be rebuilt. Therefore, I trust and pray that both Armand and Nancy will bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance.

One valuable insight that I have picked up as a result of these three conversations with Armand is that the “middle management”, commonly known as the Workers, were also victims of the Geftakys organization. These Workers may not be aware that they are also victims. Please join me in praying for the spiritual recovery of the brothers and sisters that were used as “middle management”.