Original Letter to Dave

Apr 6

Written By Quinn McGinnis

Posted by Quinn

The following letter:

Was hand-delivered to Dave on August 14, 2025 by Suli.
Was addressed to Dave alone, with no mention of Kathy whether explicit or by implication.
Was followed up in electronic form and sent to Dave only.
Is complete and presented in its original form except where redactions are explicitly noted.

For the full email chain, please see Email Chain with Dave.

Call to Repentance

Dave,

We believe we have identified a persistent pattern of sin and bad fruit in your ministry. We have seven witnesses who have provided testimony associated with this pattern. It would also appear that many people have come to you over the years to show you your faults, and by and large you haven’t taken responsibility or changed your behavior. We have compiled this evidence so that through the testimony of many you would change your mind and repent.

For each individual allegation, we expect you to either confess your guilt or make a case for your innocence. Perhaps this is all a big misunderstanding and we have jumped to conclusions or interpreted your actions through an uncharitable lens. If so, we invite you to carefully lay out exactly how we are mistaken.

Please provide your response in email form by August 21, 2025 at 10:00PM Arizona Time. Simply reply to the email containing this letter. You may attach a document if you wish. If we do not receive a response by that point in time, we will have to assume that you are unrepentant.

Your response must be sent from one of the two following email addresses:

[redacted]

Stipulations

We will not meet with you in person. All correspondence will be written.
There will be no time extensions. We recommend that you respond with some time to spare, in case there is some kind of technical issue with your internet access or email.

Any defense you make needs to make sense. If your stories don’t make sense, we will have to view them as lacking credibility.
If you wish to include additional confessions, you can do that.
If you think that, while you are largely guilty of these accusations, nonetheless some of the finer details are inaccurate, we expect you to fully confess the parts where you are guilty while explaining the discrepancies. This includes if there is a specific event where you are guilty but believe the details require clarification or modification. If you focus on trivial details as a means of avoidance, we will have to consider your response unrepentant.
Some of the allegations include both factual statements and our interpretations. If you wish, you may agree with a factual statement but disagree with its corresponding interpretation. However, again, if your interpretation is not believable, then we will assume you are avoiding the truth in order to make yourself appear less culpable.
In general, you may make a case, with regard to one item or another, that the facts we have reported are accurate but fall short of establishing moral error. We will consider what you say. However, if your defense hangs on technicalities, so that you are essentially skating by on the letter of the law while violating the spirit of the law, then we will consider you unrepentant.
If you “confess” but simultaneously try to evoke pity for yourself, you won’t be considered repentant.

For example, saying: “You’re right, I screw everything up, I’m a failure.”
Anything along these lines would be interpreted as an attempt to elicit a caretaking response in order to distract from the issue of guilt.

An “Alford Plea” (essentially, admitting that the evidence will appear convincing to an outside observer even though you’re actually innocent) will not be accepted.
A “No Contest Plea” will not be accepted.
If you simply do not respond in time, we will have to consider you unrepentant.
We think a truly repentant response would look like this:

Written in your own words – in other words, it would sound like it came from you. It would not be sarcastic or otherwise insincere.
Complete. While you are welcome to provide an overarching or summary narrative of some kind, we do expect you to respond to every single allegation individually as well. We assume you will take this very seriously and take great care in responding thoughtfully. If you provide only a partial response, we’ll have to interpret that as unrepentance.
Detailed – for example, a repentant response would not simply say “Guilty as charged.” You would explain in your own words what you did, including that you knew what you were doing was wrong and you chose to do it anyway. This would establish that your confession was not a strategic maneuver but a genuine expression of remorse.
It would not use broad generalizations to cover multiple allegations without addressing the details.

For example, you would not skim over the detailed and serious allegations against you with vague platitudes like “I’m not perfect” or “I have blind spots.”
If you’d like to claim you don’t remember some of the events we are citing, you can do that. But then we will need to measure your claim against common sense as well as the fact that you’ve already been caught lying in that manner.

Hypothetical apologies (i.e. saying you do not remember but would be sorry if you had done it) will be treated in a similar manner. If it’s simply not believable that you don’t remember the event, any hypothetical apology would be treated as an attempt to avoid responsibility.
You would fully acknowledge your guilt. For example, suppose the evidence indicates you lied or slandered someone. If you claim you “misspoke,” but misspeaking doesn’t make any sense in the context, then we will have no choice but to disbelieve your statement.
If you are caught lying, even if it only pertains to one accusation, we will have to conclude that your response is at best a strategic mixture of truth-telling and lying. Because of that, we would not be able to trust any appearance of repentance elsewhere in your response.

If it’s a gray area that could reasonably be seen multiple ways, we’re not going to count your perspective as a lie. So you should not be worried about sharing your honest perspective, but you should be worried if you attempt to deceive us. Deception is not just making technically false statements. It includes lies of omission as well as making technically true statements that are misleading.
This includes offering a defense that contradicts prior statements you have made. If you lied previously and you are now coming forward to tell the truth, then we will be very glad to see that you are coming clean. But you need to be honest and forthcoming about the previous lies and repent for those sins as well.
For example, you could say: “In the past I lied to people by telling them that Quinn received the prophecy about [Grace] himself, and that the process did not begin with me speaking prophetically. I did so knowing it was wrong. I did it in order to protect myself at the expense of Quinn’s reputation. I am now admitting that I gave the false prophecy and lied about it to protect myself.”

If in any way we feel your response is not in good faith, even if not covered in the above list, we will have to consider you unrepentant.

If you do anything in the course of the next week that we feel is not in good faith, we will have to consider you unrepentant. The kinds of actions we are thinking of include, but are not limited to:

Attempting to silence us
Attempting to obstruct the accountability process.
Attempting to shift the conversation away from the allegations toward procedural issues / our faults / the manner in which we have gone about holding you accountable.
Lying.
Slandering victims / witnesses. This includes if it’s done backhandedly by insinuation, implication, suggestion, etc.
Attempting to make contact with any of us except by replying to this email. Please do not come to any of our residences or workplaces during this next week or afterward.

If we find evidence that, subsequent to your confession, you diminish that confession in any way, we will have to consider you unrepentant. This includes, but is not limited to:

Recanting your confession in part or in full
Claiming you only confessed because you were under pressure / fear

We will not debate the biblical validity of this call to repentance or any other procedural issues. The kinds of objections we could imagine include, but are not limited to:

The idea that each individual sin requires multiple witnesses.
The idea that any confrontation must be done in-person.
The idea that an in-person discussion must be granted if requested.
The idea that you already acknowledged guilt with regard to one or more of these accusations, and therefore, that we are guilty of gossip/unforgiveness for bringing it up in the context of identifying an ongoing pattern of sin.

However, if you have clarifying questions regarding our demands, you may reply to this email with those questions. Make sure to leave yourself plenty of time, as asking questions will not adjust the amount of time you have to provide a repentant response. We will make a good faith effort to answer questions asked in good faith.

These stipulations may seem lengthy and burdensome. However, we believe that if you simply approach our request with honesty, humility, and a spirit of repentance, you will not be falling afoul of any of the things we have listed.

Allegations

With regard to Mike M.:

You conditioned Mike’s inclusion in a discipleship group on his asking a specific woman on an edification appointment. This is an arrogant exercise of authority / abuse of power. Jesus condemned this kind of behavior in Matthew 20:25-26:

“But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,”

You minimized serious issues in Mike’s relationship during his engagement period, which turned out to cause problems in his marriage.
When Mike had a late-night conversation with you about homosexuality, you asked him which partner in the relationship is the “bitch”. This was a demeaning comment to Mike, who had homosexual relationships in the past. It’s also a misogynistic comment, because it implies that women in heterosexual relationships are bitches by virtue of being the receptive sexual partner.

With regard to the Coin of the Realm:

This is a clearly false prophecy that you never took responsibility for. While you retracted the urgency with which you sent the original message, you doubled down on its divine source.
Because your prophecy was public and false, you should have recanted publicly. Yet even in private you would not admit the prophecy was false, but you grasped at straws for implausible interpretations by which you might still be right.
By not publicly recanting or otherwise dealing with this false prophecy in any meaningful way, you were able to maintain spiritual power over people at Friday Night, including to direct their personal lives in destructive ways.
We know of multiple other major false prophecies you have made, including one which you claimed to not remember and another which you reinterpreted, again in an implausible way.
Had you been honest and forthcoming about your past failed prophecies, people who received prophecies from you could have contemplated your full track record when deciding whether to believe you. The fact that you swept them under the rug indicates that you prioritized your own power, status, and image over truth and accountability. You had no interest in being transparent with people you gave life-changing prophecies to, even when it concerned some of the biggest decisions of their entire lives. This is deeply manipulative and controlling, an insidious form of lording over the flock where you portray a false image of gentleness when the reality is you are a heavy-handed authoritarian.

With regard to [redacted]:

[38 words redacted]
[120 words redacted]
[30 words redacted]
[47 words redacted]

[The above witness wanted to participate in privately urging Dave to repent, but did not want his/her story shared publicly.]

With regard to Jessica G.:

You told Jessica you wished God didn’t make you a jerk. This is a blasphemous statement that attempts to excuse you from lacking kindness (a fruit of the Spirit) and blames God instead.
Jessica alerted you that people were being hurt at Friday Night, and that there was a need for elders besides you. This included pointing out that [redacted], [redacted], and your discipleship group, had been or were your disciples and thus were not your equals who could hold you accountable. You ignored her warning and utilized a system of fake accountability with the Monday Night group (see below under “With regard to Quinn”).

With regard to [Grace]:

[45 words redacted]
[39 words redacted]
Later, when [Grace] told you she had received her own prophetic word that was prior to yours and conflicted with yours, you immediately reinterpreted her prophecy in such a way as to render it null. You did not pause; your response was immediate, and you did not advise bringing in others to judge. What this shows is that you deem yourself worthy to be a sole arbiter when there are conflicting words.
These two incidents show that regardless of what you say out loud, you view yourself as a kind of elevated prophet with special privileges and powers that go beyond the teachings of the New Testament.

[Grace’s first two bullets refer to an incident that has not been shared publicly. If Grace chooses to share her testimony on the website in the future, she wants to tell the whole story, not just the two-bullet point form.]

With regard to Quinn:

Despite Quinn being a leader at Friday Night, he was largely unaware of your past failed prophecies. This proves how deeply involved someone can be in the group for a very long time (8+ years) and still be unaware of your prophetic track record. This is even worse because you claimed Quinn to be part of your accountability structure.
You delivered a very intense, highly emphatic prophecy to Quinn about marrying [Grace]. To do so when you have not been transparent about your past false prophecies is deeply controlling and manipulative. It also shows a reckless disregard for Quinn and [Grace’s] wellbeing.
[47 words redacted for containing personal information about Quinn and Grace’s relationship]
Then you told Suli that the meeting you had with Quinn on May 15, 2023 was merely a discussion and that Quinn subsequently received a prophecy, which is a lie.
This is also slander, because it paints Quinn as someone who made his own decision independently of your spiritual manipulation, got a bad result, and then took it out on you.
You also allowed [redacted] to share with Suli intimate details about Quinn and [Grace’s] relationship which Quinn and [Grace] did not share with [redacted]. These details were clearly shared with you in confidence, so you stood by while [redacted] shared those intimate details with Suli, which would be gossip. Quinn and [Grace] did not give anyone who knew about the situation permission to share at any time.
You later slandered Quinn by making a false statement insinuating he had abandoned Christ, but doing it in an indirect way in order to plant the idea while maintaining plausible deniability.
All of your attempts to distance yourself from the prophecy you gave are extremely deceptive, given you emphatically stated at the end of the meeting of May 15, 2023, “that was NOT from me,” a clear claim of divine revelation.

Separately witnessed by Quinn, you used the Monday Night group as a source of fake accountability:

Sometimes you would ask us what faults you had or what we thought you could do better. This fostered a false image of humility and teachability.

When discussing with the Monday Night group issues other people had taken with you, you would utilize tactics like making technically true but misleading statements, and avoiding questions.

For example, in your conflict with [church name redacted], you noted how they disallowed you from being a table leader, and that you subsequently joined as a “participant.” What you didn’t tell us was that you would sit at leaderless tables and become the de facto leader, which violates in spirit the boundary that [church name redacted] set with you. This is another attempt to skate by on a shallow technicality.
When you had a conflict with Jim L. regarding [redacted’s] teaching, you described how Jim was very angry over it. Quinn felt that the story didn’t make sense – Jim wouldn’t be that angry over something like that. So he asked you what the full content of Jim’s complaint was. You gave him an annoyed look, didn’t answer, and the subject moved elsewhere.

With regard to Jim:

You gave Jim a false prophecy that implied he did not love God completely and was cursed for not giving enough financially. We know this is a false prophecy because it contradicts the clear New Testament principle that giving must not be under compulsion (see 2 Cor 9:7).
This was in spite of the fact that Jim could not work due to injury and was financially destitute as a result.
If you had in fact received this message from God and felt compelled to deliver it to Jim, basic integrity would say that you have to refuse to take a dime for yourself, since it’s an obvious conflict of interest.
But not only did you take the money, you dissuaded Jim from giving a portion to [redacted], ignoring another blatant conflict of interest.
This is false prophecy used to exploit the poor for personal financial gain. This sin puts you in league with the false prophets of 2 Pet 2:1-3.

Quinn McGinnis