BOT Decisions Poll

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[ShineTheLight]

NOTE - I've tried to modify the poll, delete it, etc, but keeping getting an error message, hence the 2 polls ..sigh..apologies - maybe the moderator can help. If you wish to vote, please vote in the bottom poll.

Hello - As you all know the (still mostly, but now less so ) anonymous ECC BOT has the results of Joan Harris's investigation. We are told they have set aside several dates in June to deliberate. A few thoughts and I'll describe the poll - (thanks to Peace for introducing this feature)

1. This poll is not an attempt to make light of the situation. Rather, I think it's safe to say most on this forum have low expectations and it would be interesting to better understand that and how the expectations conform to the reality that unfolds or differ  from it. After the decisions are communicated, I may run a 2nd poll to see what the read on the outcome is. I am analytic and data driven by nature. Maybe this will be ECCs "finest hour" as many have hoped.

2. I would note the ECC BOT is still officially anonymous. I would also note that I am unaware of any bad thing that has happen since 3/5 non-staff BOT were correctly "outed" other than we all know how conflicted Todd Goodwin is relationally. So much for being an example of "righteous transparency"

3. My personal believe is that the longer the BOT takes to deliberate, the less likely it is that severe consequences of any kind will be imposed on anyone (assuming that would be warranted). I've heard pastors say "it's complicated" but I'm not sure why - bad things were alleged to have been done in 2 categories - sexual misconduct and coverup. Joan Harris either found that none, one or both happened. If so, consequences should be severe, if not, apologies are due. I supposed one could argue a delayed decision could imply a reluctant BOT member is being persuaded to accept firm consequences, but I think the opposite is MUCH more likely.  I am also personally skeptical that the 5 non-staff BOT members will not have conversations with their pastors regarding the "perspective" they should have as they read Joan's report, but then, I am skeptical of a lot of things as it's my nature.

4. The Poll: I think the options are self explanatory - it's somewhat of an ascending scale of severity from "no one guilty of anything hence no consequences for anyone" to findings of guilt and severe consequences for both the misconduct and coverup.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Given the glitch, are we supposed to vote in both?  Or just the first one?

[Peace]

I had the same glitch with my poll. You can delete the duplicate polls and create one using the button “add a poll” on your post.

[Badger]

My vote does not indicate what I think the actual report will show.  I think the board will water down the report by selectively choosing what to release.  If they didn't want to selectively edit what was released, they would have opted to release the report in it's entirety from the beginning.  It is my opinion that they will also choose a reconciliation process for the pastors that does not reflect the severity of the pastors' volitional abuses of their power.  A reconciliation process that seeks to keep pastors in authority while ignoring justice and restoration for victims, the pastors, and the church/Church.

I believe the women and the narratives that they provided.  I think that the Mark Darling and the pastors that supported him and covered up his abuses should all have severe consequences.  They should lose their positions of leadership.  They upheld their power and their position and refused to act in humility; instead, they ignored individuals that they supposedly were supposed to protect and allowed further harm to come to them and future victims.

I believe the board however, will choose to follow in the "merciful" choice as some GCC representatives have already suggested.  Leadership in abusive churches often text proof verses in which they are able to put the burden on the laity to forgive immediately and completely.  Such immediate and complete dismissal of sin without consequences is not supported in scripture or historically in the church.  GCC often compares mercy in such situations with the free gift of salvation in which the recipient is free from the wages of sin.  However, scripture never supports recipients of salvation being absolved from any and all consequences resulting from their previous sin.

Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be in Paradise with him, yet he did not absolve him of the earthly consequences of his sins.  The earthly consequences of David's sin has been recently discussed on this forum.  GCC paints a picture of King David having very little consequences of his sin after his son dies, but this narrative is not scripturally accurate.   David abused his God-given power to have his messengers deliver Bathsheba to him and later kill her husband, Uriah.  David had grave consequences stemming from his abuse of power for the rest of his life.

The idea of immediate reconciliation of leaders and laity in the church is also not supported historically.  Before penance was abused by corrupt leaders, it was a form of making the victims and abuser whole.  We see repentant sinners in the old and new testament seeking to repay their victims in excess for what was originally taken from them.  Levitical law sought to repay victims for what was lost.  Such reparations were also observed in the new testament.  We see Zacchaeus giving half of his wealth to the poor and paying back four times any money he cheated people out of.

Such immediate mercy for abusive leaders without consequences and personal penance is not supported scripturally or historically.  Such cheap mercy denies justice for the victims of abuse.  It denies the ability of true and complete reconciliation, penance, and restoration to help victims and the Church to be whole.  It denies protection to future victims if abusive leaders are able to continue to abuse.  It also denies the abuser the ability the need to seek forgiveness and repentance.  It allows abusive leaders to continue to harm those in their care in a position in which they will be more strictly judged by God for their actions as a leader - see James 3.

I think the Evergreen Board of Trustees will choose cheap grace.  A "grace" that is easy to continue from.  A grace that is quick.  A grace that cares about continuation of power than a cleansing of power.  A grace that keeps up appearances and is not fully transparent.  I truly hope that I am wrong, but Scripture also shows a God who sometimes allows abusive leadership to continue.  I think it is our job as The Church to show that we will not allow injustice and abuse to continue in our Body.

It is not sin revealed in the church that discredits Jesus or hurts him.  However, when we allow the abuse and sin to flourish in the Church our "witness" to those outside the church is severely harmed.

[Huldah]

Wow, great post, Badger! My feelings are much the same, but you expressed it so well that I have nothing to add, except that I'm still holding on to a sliver of hope that ECC will surprise us and do the right thing.

[Badger]

Wow, great post, Badger! My feelings are much the same, but you expressed it so well that I have nothing to add, except that I'm still holding on to a sliver of hope that ECC will surprise us and do the right thing.

Thanks Huldah.  I have hope for Evergreen too, my sliver keeps getting smaller as I listen to the continuing narratives in the most recent sermons by Evergreen leaders.  Perhaps Evergreen's BOT will surprise me.  Evaluating the responses of other churches in similar situations and GCCs historical response to past abuses gives me a smaller sliver to begin with.

[margaret]

Agree. Super post, Badger.

[marie]

My vote does not indicate what I think the actual report will show.  I think the board will water down the report by selectively choosing what to release.  If they didn't want to selectively edit what was released, they would have opted to release the report in it's entirety from the beginning.  It is my opinion that they will also choose a reconciliation process for the pastors that does not reflect the severity of the pastors' volitional abuses of their power.  A reconciliation process that seeks to keep pastors in authority while ignoring justice and restoration for victims, the pastors, and the church/Church.

I believe the women and the narratives that they provided.  I think that the Mark Darling and the pastors that supported him and covered up his abuses should all have severe consequences.  They should lose their positions of leadership.  They upheld their power and their position and refused to act in humility; instead, they ignored individuals that they supposedly were supposed to protect and allowed further harm to come to them and future victims.

I believe the board however, will choose to follow in the "merciful" choice as some GCC representatives have already suggested.  Leadership in abusive churches often text proof verses in which they are able to put the burden on the laity to forgive immediately and completely.  Such immediate and complete dismissal of sin without consequences is not supported in scripture or historically in the church.  GCC often compares mercy in such situations with the free gift of salvation in which the recipient is free from the wages of sin.  However, scripture never supports recipients of salvation being absolved from any and all consequences resulting from their previous sin.

Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be in Paradise with him, yet he did not absolve him of the earthly consequences of his sins.  The earthly consequences of David's sin has been recently discussed on this forum.  GCC paints a picture of King David having very little consequences of his sin after his son dies, but this narrative is not scripturally accurate.   David abused his God-given power to have his messengers deliver Bathsheba to him and later kill her husband, Uriah.  David had grave consequences stemming from his abuse of power for the rest of his life.

The idea of immediate reconciliation of leaders and laity in the church is also not supported historically.  Before penance was abused by corrupt leaders, it was a form of making the victims and abuser whole.  We see repentant sinners in the old and new testament seeking to repay their victims in excess for what was originally taken from them.  Levitical law sought to repay victims for what was lost.  Such reparations were also observed in the new testament.  We see Zacchaeus giving half of his wealth to the poor and paying back four times any money he cheated people out of.

Such immediate mercy for abusive leaders without consequences and personal penance is not supported scripturally or historically.  Such cheap mercy denies justice for the victims of abuse.  It denies the ability of true and complete reconciliation, penance, and restoration to help victims and the Church to be whole.  It denies protection to future victims if abusive leaders are able to continue to abuse.  It also denies the abuser the ability the need to seek forgiveness and repentance.  It allows abusive leaders to continue to harm those in their care in a position in which they will be more strictly judged by God for their actions as a leader - see James 3.

I think the Evergreen Board of Trustees will choose cheap grace.  A "grace" that is easy to continue from.  A grace that is quick.  A grace that cares about continuation of power than a cleansing of power.  A grace that keeps up appearances and is not fully transparent.  I truly hope that I am wrong, but Scripture also shows a God who sometimes allows abusive leadership to continue.  I think it is our job as The Church to show that we will not allow injustice and abuse to continue in our Body.

It is not sin revealed in the church that discredits Jesus or hurts him.  However, when we allow the abuse and sin to flourish in the Church our "witness" to those outside the church is severely harmed.

Excellent points-  I pray that we has the body of Christ-both still within GCM and outside of GCM.  We the body of Christ needs to keep pointing out the truth.  Evergreen can try and spin this.  Will we as a body keep standing up for truth.  I believe the Spirit is speaking to the church at large- Members may not have a vote or a voice- but we are adults, we are not DUMB sheep.  We are the ones who are paying their salaries, and we can vote with our membership and our tithes.  Praying for truth.  True repentance. True repentance.  How can the victims and the church members be paid back for these wrongs?  True repentance, true humility. Resignations.

[ShineTheLight]

Hey all - I can't delete the first poll (it gives me a "session validation error") please use the 2nd if you plan on voting.  The results so far are in line with what I would expect on this forum - (we may be a group with a bias  ).  So far with 15 votes (in the 2nd poll) only 1 person expects severe consequences to be imposed with 14 expecting either no or only minor consequences. I can only say if that is the case I hope the ECC BOT releases clear, definitive statements from Joan that back up that stance, with supporting rationale from Joan.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

STL, I've been considering other options for your poll.  I was wondering if they might try to discredit Joan or her investigation somehow after praising her the whole time. 

It would be hard to say her investigation found nothing since multiple women have gone public and said they spoke with her.  They could say that her report did find problem behaviors but that Joan allowed herself to be deceived.  Therefore the report in general is not credible for them (even though they chose her and refused to work with victims) and they will take no action.

[margaret]

Didn’t Scout allude to potential civil suits? That could expose the hidden information.

[ShineTheLight]

STL, I've been considering other options for your poll.  I was wondering if they might try to discredit Joan or her investigation somehow after praising her the whole time. 

It would be hard to say her investigation found nothing since multiple women have gone public and said they spoke with her.  They could say that her report did find problem behaviors but that Joan allowed herself to be deceived.  Therefore the report in general is not credible for them (even though they chose her and refused to work with victims) and they will take no action.

I think that would be really hard- They've gone all in on Joan's credibility - an ECC pastor (the one who alluded to Sheimi & David) even mentioned hiring the "best most qualified investigator" just last Sunday.  I think the more likely tactic is to minimize the severity of the allegations - e.g., happened a long time ago, no bad intentions even if not the best way to interact, wasn't "grooming" because there wasn't an affair, etc., etc., with some light consequence imposed then move on.  If that happens, I hope Scout does pursue a civil lawsuit, if nothing else to force publication of Joan's report.