Feedback from a PB

Todd Asselborn, November, 2004

I recently found your website through searching George Geftakys' name on the web. I find the site interesting on a number of levels. I was personally acquainted with the group when I was in school in Champaign, IL from around 1993 to 1997. I spent time with Tim Smith, mostly, and also with Wayne and his family, a leading brother, Spiro, Phyllis, a girl from Chicago (can't remember her name now) and others in the group there. I also met Jim Hayman when he was in town, and saw George Geftakys preach once at a mini-conference of sorts in Champaign.

I was kind of curious how the group was doing and hoping to find some information on them. I remember enjoying George's preaching, but wasn't quite as excited about it as everyone else seemed to be. I could tell there was at least a lot of respect for him in the group, and wondered a bit if it went too far. I remember a lot of emphasis on leadership in the group, but didn't feel I was being sucked in or pressured.

Tim seemed somewhat possessive about George's book that I borrowed from him and the Torch and Testimony magazine, which was strange to me, as well. I asked about buying the book and didn't really get a response. He didn't really want me to photocopy it either, which seemed a little strange. I wanted to be able to meditate on the teachings and study them, not just read it once and either accept it or forget it, which is what happened.

I was born Catholic, but grew up, since being saved, in a Plymouth Brethren group. The similarities were striking---I didn't know there were any other groups out there that met like we did. They even used the same hymn book as we used in our Assembly and the women wore head coverings. Neither are very common.

I saw, perhaps, an opportunity for our "fellowships" to get together, but there didn't seem to be an interest there on their part, although they would receive us on Sunday and respected where we came from. Some people in our group seemed suspicious of them, as well, so there were some barriers on both ends. To them, it seemed a matter of the leadership you were under, not whether you met on the same principles, and they didn't seem to have the same desire to mix with others of the same mind. They were happy to have us come with them if we were interested though.

I never detected false doctrine among them, although I was relatively new in the faith at the time. I'm still not clear on what doctrine they held that wasn't scriptural, if any. I didn't agree with them on appointed elders, although I thought their emphasis on leadership was good in some respects. I thought the energy of their meetings and the liberty of the Spirit to work in them was great. Their practice of reception to worship was open, more open than I thought was scriptural without concern for who I was associated with, although I'm probably closer to them in my thinking now than I was then.

Mainly, I couldn't understand how you wouldn't want to find and meet others who met after the NT pattern, unless there was a serious doctrinal or moral issue at stake, being that there are so few out there. Although they acknowledged the goodness of other meetings, and Jim Hayman told me he read and liked J. N. Darby's writings, everyone there just seemed to be sort of turned inward to their own group and toward Jim Hayman and George Geftakys and what was going on among themselves.

The experience threw up some flags about my own meeting, however, as there seemed to be a lot of suspicion or concern about our contact with the Geftakys group that seemed went beyond what I would expect. Over the years I've come to think that we are too closed ourselves and need to adjust our attitudes to some degree, which I get resistance on from some quarters.

We've also recently had a situation that is eerily similar to the Geftakys family. The son of a leading brother physically abused his wife for a number of years, and more recently had an affair, which ultimately resulted in divorce and remarriage of both spouses. It is questionable whether the son repented, but he was received back into fellowship by the Assembly which by that time consisted of family only. The father verbally berated the son's wife publicly and in detailed fashion over her failures in their marriage over the years and opposed various attempts by Assembly members to address the problem with the son.

The situation has caused a rift among us, mostly along family/non-family lines. There will likely be a complete break if the situation is not resolved soon. Many, mostly from the Assembly originating the problem, have already left. Other Assemblies are attempting to help resolve things but it's not clear yet what will happen. I am nearing the end of my own patience with the situation. The father and his sons were prominent teachers among us and I was very close to them myself for many years. They taught me everything I know, in some respects, and it has been quite hurtful to see what has now happened and to have those relationships basically dissolve.

Your website is spurring me to write an article on the subtleties and dangers of abusive leadership in an NT assembly situation. It can be sort of a blind spot in such a situation because the teaching is that there is no clergy; therefore, one would think that there isn't any clergy. However, clergy can exist in principle and practice even when denied in the teaching. As the Lord said, "Do as they say, but not as they do..." The doing is frequently more critical and telling than the saying.

The leadership in our group wasn't quite as strong and open as what seems to be the case in the Geftakys group, but nevertheless it has still been damaging to many, especially to those who were leaders. Sometimes it is forgotten that although the leaders often grab power, the others let them, and that is not right either. "Heaping up teachers, having itching ears." The sin and failure is on both sides, and if we don't see that, I think we are yet prone to fall into the ditch on the other side, or even on the same side in a different way.

It is a disservice to the leaders to let them think of themselves more than they ought to think, or exert more authority than they ought to, and I'm sure it is just as slippery and subtle a slope for them as it is for those who subject themselves to them. To me, it yet brings into greater importance the responsibility of every member of the body of Christ to each other to care for each other, set limits with each other, and submit ourselves one to another (that includes leaders, too).

I've been thinking lately about leadership and authority and how those things should be carried out. It is difficult to get it right. How far should we go in submitting to leadership? What constitutes undue exertion of authority, what should be done when it occurs? It is a difficult area to work through, and I'm interested in what thoughts you have.

I have a website by the way, which you may find helpful if you still have any interest in NT assembly principles or Plymouth Brethren. It's at www.foolforhim.com. You mention "Reformed" theology. Does that refer to the reformation teachings of Calvin, Luther, etc.? If that is the case, you might not agree with much on the site as to prophecy and church government, but most PB's credit the Reformation with paving the way to the PB movement by bringing back the importance of the Scriptures and the principle of salvation by faith. Most Christians don't know it, but PB's were probably the most influential of any in the development of evangelical christianity. Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute were heavily influenced in their beginnings, and still today, by PB's like H A Ironside and J N Darby and others. It is astounding how unknown they are, relative to their influence.

Todd Asselborn

(Back to top)

Submit a comment for publication on this page, or contact us if you would like to talk or email with someone about the Assembly.

Comments from readers....
(No comments at this time - feel free to begin a conversation...)