ECC "Talking Points"

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.

[Linda]

As pointed out on this forum last week, ECC leadership seems to be addressing these accusations in subtle and not so subtle ways in their weekly messages.

It is pretty clear that they are presenting the accusers (and those who believe them and/or support their right to be heard) as people who are "unfair" and "unjust" while at the same time are portraying ECC and MD as victims.

I took the time to listen to this message from last week. It continues the series on criticism.

http://subspla.sh/98xxctw

Wow. Where to begin.

It started with the Shimei example and something about Absalom's gossip and slander campaign (I need to read up on that) and just how exemplary David was in his forbearance...until on his death bed he asked his son to take him out, (but I think they forgot about that part.)

4 points regarding criticism.

1. Don't be too picky. Fine point. Great. I agree. Good job. Excellent point.

2. Don't be too silent. Again, fine point. A loving friend confronts harmful behavior. (Example of alcoholic relative). However, here things started to swerve into a "hit" on the current situation with talk of how bringing concerns should apply in families and in church families. What a person should do is talk to the pastors, what a person shouldn't do is sneak off never to be seen again and complain on Twitter (implying this is what happened).

My guess is that most hearing this are unaware of the numbers of people who did go to leadership with significant concerns and were either ignored or told to leave. Again, information was left out in this criticism.

3. Don't be too public was the third point. Clearly, this was a rebuke against using social media (Twitter/Facebook) to discuss abuse concerns as well as a criticism of this forum.

"Social Media is the wild, wild West of gossip and slander (sigh) and cyber bullying. It's not just teenagers that are getting bullied, it's adults, too. (Tell me about it!)

Then there was a warning to be very careful regarding what you listen to, read, or say. Wow, this is old school. Remember the message telling people that coming to gcmwarning.com was like looking at porn? ( http://www.gcxweb.org/Audio/Slander_and_the_Christian--SteveNelson-05-07-2006.mp3 )

I think this was the part where he mentioned Matthew 18 in resolving sin issues. This is the part where he should have really waited to speak until the BOT got the results of their investigation because this is a critical part.

Suzanne's claim is that she went to Baker's Square with Mark to express her discomfort with the direction of these private counseling sessions. That would be the first step in Matthew 18 confrontation. That didn't work out and, in fact, her claim was that Mark spoke to another pastor's wife about how distressing this conversation was and this pastor's wife promptly called Suzanne and read her the riot act. She told her not to treat MD like that. Suzanne became a team player until she was so bothered she started going to counseling to help her process her issues with MD. At this point, she and her counselor arranged a meeting with Mark to discuss her concerns. Step 2 of Matthew. She thought a plan had been made at that meeting to address her concerns, they went to Germany, found out nothing was done, so they came home. She lived all these years with her situation unresolved, so did step 3. Tell it to the Church. So, she did with one Tweet. Her options on how to tell it to the church were limited, but she certainly got her message through to ECC.

Suzanne was told by Joan that she was given, physical evidence in the form of a statement stating precisely that she wanted to discuss sexual abuse with the therapist. All documents are the property of ECC and they can choose to not release anything they find harmful. They should release them.

My guess is most of the people listening to that message did not know her process and will never find out because they have been instructed to not listen to "gossip and slander" so are unable to hear the other side of the story as told on her Facebook page, Twitter account, and on this forum.

Step 4. Don't be heartless.

Again, clearly a rebuke of those claiming abuse. The text was about forgiving 70 times 7, and being kind and tenderhearted, and not hard and bitter. It ended with the story of the unforgiving servant and this reminder:

"Your sin against God is so much greater than anything anybody else has ever done to you...Your God absorbed your debt...he absorbed death, can you not absorb the sin of somebody else."

My comment to this is that the person being accused of sin (in this case, a cover up) doesn't get to tell the accuser to "let it go".

[Digital Lynch Mob]

So Suzanne claimed that Joan told her information about evidence other people turned into her during this investigation. Does it seem likely to you that Joan would tell SVD anything, much less information turned in by others? It would appear unlikely that this alleged letter will ever be made public so it would be hard to corroborate such a statement with actual evidence...although I hope it is released to the public with the broader findings.

Maybe by heartless they mean something like this: https://blackchristiannews.com/2018/06/gayle-king-says-metoo-needs-due-process-men-instantly-get-death-penalty-thats-not-right/

[Badger]

So Suzanne claimed that Joan told her information about evidence other people turned into her during this investigation. Does it seem likely to you that Joan would tell SVD anything, much less information turned in by others? It would appear unlikely that this alleged letter will ever be made public so it would be hard to corroborate such a statement with actual evidence...although I hope it is released to the public with the broader findings.

Maybe by heartless they mean something like this: https://blackchristiannews.com/2018/06/gayle-king-says-metoo-needs-due-process-men-instantly-get-death-penalty-thats-not-right/

Perhaps Joan was within her rights to share that information with SVD, perhaps she wasn't.  Can you confirm DLM that Joan didn't share such information with SVD?  Your premise in your first thought stems from the idea that SVD is not telling the truth.  Perhaps she is telling the truth.  Perhaps SVD is telling the truth and Joan did share such information with her regarding the letter.   Perhaps SVD is telling the truth and Mark Darling is truly a sexually depraved man that Evergreen has allowed to continue to abuse the women he is supposed to be providing spiritual guidance to.

Evergreen could easily settle what was in the report that was prepared by Joan Harris, who Evergreen leadership continue to praise, by releasing the report in full.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Linda, I haven't had a chance to listen.  Do they literally refer to sneaking off and then complaining on twitter?

"...can you not absorb the sin of somebody else..."  If they are even alluding to applying this to cases of sexual abuse, this is the ugliest, darkest, most wicked message they could ever give.  I'm not saying they are or they aren't, but if there's even a hint of this teaching referring to the Mark Darling situation, this is shameful. 

[DarthVader]

So Suzanne claimed that Joan told her information about evidence other people turned into her during this investigation. Does it seem likely to you that Joan would tell SVD anything, much less information turned in by others? It would appear unlikely that this alleged letter will ever be made public so it would be hard to corroborate such a statement with actual evidence...although I hope it is released to the public with the broader findings.

Maybe by heartless they mean something like this: https://blackchristiannews.com/2018/06/gayle-king-says-metoo-needs-due-process-men-instantly-get-death-penalty-thats-not-right/

I call BS on this. If Suzanne made false statements publicly on Facebook/social media about what Joan Harris told her I would ask that Evergreen produce a statement from Joan Harris stating such.  It is not a violation of confidentiality or professional ethics to out a liar. Evergreen could clear up these false and misleading statements Suzanne made at any time by having Joan Harris release the following statement "Statements were made on social media about letters I was supposedly given. Those statements are false" followed by either "there were no such letters" or "the contents of the letters I was given are nothing like what was described on social media". - there is no need to even mention Suzanne's name in this statement.

I would ask any ECC suppoter what legal, moral or ethical reason would prevent ECC from calling out a clear public mistruth. It would be a great public service to correct the record.  In the absence of such a statement, and with no reason for ECC not to provide such a statement from Joan Harris that I've been shown, the only reasonable inference that I or anyone who uses logic in their thought process can make is that what Suzanne said about the letters is the truth until demonstrated otherwise by facts (such as a statement from Joan Harris or the letters themselves). 

If nothing done by MD or other pastors was incorrect, I'm also having a hard time understanding why the BOT would take more than a day or two to reach that conclusion and communicate the results; it's been 8 days and counting; reading a report and saying "not guilty" does not take 8 days.

[Linda]

Linda, I haven't had a chance to listen.  Do they literally refer to sneaking off and then complaining on twitter?

"...can you not absorb the sin of somebody else..."  If they are even alluding to applying this to cases of sexual abuse, this is the ugliest, darkest, most wicked message they could ever give.  I'm not saying they are or they aren't, but if there's even a hint of this teaching referring to the Mark Darling situation, this is shameful.  

Around the 16 minute mark.

"If something happens when you’re in this Evergreen here family, if something bugs you, please say something, now please say something. Be a friend rather than an enemy. Please wound us as pastors. Especially if you see us say something, do something, decide something that you don't particularly like. Just don't sneak off never to be seen again. Rather, give us a chance to learn. Or, at least rectify a misunderstanding. OK. Third. Criticism becomes ugly when we're too public..." Then, if you go to the 18 minute mark, you get the wild, wild West of Social media part, I think. He's clearly connecting the two and making it sound like people didn't go to the leaders first.

My understanding was that he was relating it to all complaining and sin. He said, "Absorb the sin of someone else." because your sin against God was way worse than anything anyone has done to you. Unless he misspoke, the word "anything" would cover all sin from a harsh word to rape.  It was astonishing.

[HughHoney]

If nothing done by MD or other pastors was incorrect, I'm also having a hard time understanding why the BOT would take more than a day or two to reach that conclusion and communicate the results; it's been 8 days and counting; reading a report and saying "not guilty" does not take 8 days.

Maybe they are busy at the Indian reservation?

[Linda]

So Suzanne claimed that Joan told her information about evidence other people turned into her during this investigation. Does it seem likely to you that Joan would tell SVD anything, much less information turned in by others? It would appear unlikely that this alleged letter will ever be made public so it would be hard to corroborate such a statement with actual evidence...although I hope it is released to the public with the broader findings.

Maybe by heartless they mean something like this: https://blackchristiannews.com/2018/06/gayle-king-says-metoo-needs-due-process-men-instantly-get-death-penalty-thats-not-right/

You raise an interesting question. If the investigation is truly independent, then certainly pertinent information should not be kept from one side. Shouldn't there be a bit of "cross examining" going on. Wouldn't it have been appropriate for Joan to mention to SVD that she had a particular document and ask Suzanne if she was aware of it or had ever received it? Likewise, wouldn't it be appropriate for Joan to mention any documents to Mark and the ECC pastors she may have interviewed to determine the legitimacy of the documents?

It doesn't seem highly unlikely at all that Joan would mention a document and ask for information about it. It seems like the work of a person who was being wise and diligent.

Also, the way it stands, the BOT/ECC "owns" all the documentation. SVD and the others alleging abuse have no idea what was said about them in the report. Because the investigation is closed, the women will have no opportunity to look over the report and correct or challenge anything said about them. This is crazy.

[Phoenix]

"If something happens when you’re in this Evergreen here family, if something bugs you, please say something, now please say something. Be a friend rather than an enemy. Please wound us as pastors. Especially if you see us say something, do something, decide something that you don't particularly like. Just don't sneak off never to be seen again. Rather, give us a chance to learn. Or, at least rectify a misunderstanding. OK. Third. Criticism becomes ugly when we're too public..." Then, if you go to the 18 minute mark, you get the wild, wild West of Social media part, I think. He's clearly connecting the two and making it sound like people didn't go to the leaders first.

So, there is our invitation to share our thoughts on this as current members/attenders.

How did it go when you chose to "wound them" Linda?  (Rhetorical)

[Linda]

How did it go when you chose to "wound them" Linda?  (Rhetorical)

Haha, I'll give a literal answer to your rhetorical question.

Our "wounding" process lasted around a year and a half and involved, at least 4 different pastors, and 40 hours of missed work time for Terry. It ended at a meeting with 2 of them where we were told ECC would never change and they asked us to leave rather than stay and try to point out error. (This wasn't about carpet colors, this was the meeting after our high school daughter was asked at an HSLT to commit to a GCC church for life.)

It would have been so much easier if they had told us from the beginning that they never would change and they really believed that pastors were God's spokesmen. We just kept thinking they were "misspeaking". It also ended with a vague threat, something like, "You realize, if you go around telling people you think we are wrong, we are going to have to defend ourself." So, there was that.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Let's break down this one simple part.  "If something happens when you’re in this Evergreen here family, if something bugs you, please say something, now please say something. Be a friend rather than an enemy. Please wound us as pastors. Especially if you see us say something, do something, decide something that you don't particularly like. Just don't sneak off never to be seen again. Rather, give us a chance to learn. Or, at least rectify a misunderstanding.

"if something bugs you" not "if we hurt you, if we are wrong, if we are sexually inappropriate with you..."  This totally minimizes any concern or problem anyone might have with a pastor as it just being a minor annoyance or irritation that "bugs" them. 

"Please wound us pastors."  What?  Are they so fragile that they can't handle people coming to them with concerns/questions/conflict without them considering themselves wounded? 

"Especially if you see us say something, do something, decide something that you don't particularly like."  That you don't particularly like.  Well, there are some worship songs I don't particularly like.  There are small, petty things that many of us might not "particularly like" about our churches.  Again, this is minimizing language, in that the pastors won't actually do anything wrong/harmful/sinful, but they will make necessary decisions that some might not "particularly like."  Voicing concern about a pastor abusing power is not the same as disliking the coffee creamer offered in the foyer.

"Just don't sneak off never to be seen again" This implies that anyone who left with true concerns or questions but did not feel safe or confident enough to ask the pastors just "snuck off," which isn't a positive phrase for most of us but instead suggests cowardice.   

"give us a chance to learn" This is a positive statement!  Caveat being if they are truly willing to learn from people.  I'm not sure how much influence the members have in elder-run churches but this statement is on the right track.

"at least rectify a misunderstanding"  Back to part of Brent Knox's apology and how things can be miscommunicated.  Again, we will probably not do things wrong, but you might understand us. 

I would have heard this message that if I decide to say something, I would have been wounding people they care about.  It's probably not a big deal, after all.  So...should I talk to them or not?  As a young woman in my 20's, that answer would have been no, at least not very far.  I did try (hence my username).   

Linda, I haven't had a chance to listen.  Do they literally refer to sneaking off and then complaining on twitter?

"...can you not absorb the sin of somebody else..."  If they are even alluding to applying this to cases of sexual abuse, this is the ugliest, darkest, most wicked message they could ever give.  I'm not saying they are or they aren't, but if there's even a hint of this teaching referring to the Mark Darling situation, this is shameful.  

Around the 16 minute mark.

"If something happens when you’re in this Evergreen here family, if something bugs you, please say something, now please say something. Be a friend rather than an enemy. Please wound us as pastors. Especially if you see us say something, do something, decide something that you don't particularly like. Just don't sneak off never to be seen again. Rather, give us a chance to learn. Or, at least rectify a misunderstanding. OK. Third. Criticism becomes ugly when we're too public..." Then, if you go to the 18 minute mark, you get the wild, wild West of Social media part, I think. He's clearly connecting the two and making it sound like people didn't go to the leaders first.

My understanding was that he was relating it to all complaining and sin. He said, "Absorb the sin of someone else." because your sin against God was way worse than anything anyone has done to you. Unless he misspoke, the word "anything" would cover all sin from a harsh word to rape.  It was astonishing.

[OneOfMany]

Let's break down this one simple part.  "If something happens when you’re in this Evergreen here family, if something bugs you, please say something, now please say something. Be a friend rather than an enemy. Please wound us as pastors. Especially if you see us say something, do something, decide something that you don't particularly like. Just don't sneak off never to be seen again. Rather, give us a chance to learn. Or, at least rectify a misunderstanding.

"if something bugs you" not "if we hurt you, if we are wrong, if we are sexually inappropriate with you..."  This totally minimizes any concern or problem anyone might have with a pastor as it just being a minor annoyance or irritation that "bugs" them. 

"Please wound us pastors."  What?  Are they so fragile that they can't handle people coming to them with concerns/questions/conflict without them considering themselves wounded? 

"Especially if you see us say something, do something, decide something that you don't particularly like."  That you don't particularly like.  Well, there are some worship songs I don't particularly like.  There are small, petty things that many of us might not "particularly like" about our churches.  Again, this is minimizing language, in that the pastors won't actually do anything wrong/harmful/sinful, but they will make necessary decisions that some might not "particularly like."  Voicing concern about a pastor abusing power is not the same as disliking the coffee creamer offered in the foyer.

"Just don't sneak off never to be seen again" This implies that anyone who left with true concerns or questions but did not feel safe or confident enough to ask the pastors just "snuck off," which isn't a positive phrase for most of us but instead suggests cowardice.   

"give us a chance to learn" This is a positive statement!  Caveat being if they are truly willing to learn from people.  I'm not sure how much influence the members have in elder-run churches but this statement is on the right track.

"at least rectify a misunderstanding"  Back to part of Brent Knox's apology and how things can be miscommunicated.  Again, we will probably not do things wrong, but you might understand us. 

I would have heard this message that if I decide to say something, I would have been wounding people they care about.  It's probably not a big deal, after all.  So...should I talk to them or not?  As a young woman in my 20's, that answer would have been no, at least not very far.  I did try (hence my username).   

Linda, I haven't had a chance to listen.  Do they literally refer to sneaking off and then complaining on twitter?

"...can you not absorb the sin of somebody else..."  If they are even alluding to applying this to cases of sexual abuse, this is the ugliest, darkest, most wicked message they could ever give.  I'm not saying they are or they aren't, but if there's even a hint of this teaching referring to the Mark Darling situation, this is shameful.  

Around the 16 minute mark.

"If something happens when you’re in this Evergreen here family, if something bugs you, please say something, now please say something. Be a friend rather than an enemy. Please wound us as pastors. Especially if you see us say something, do something, decide something that you don't particularly like. Just don't sneak off never to be seen again. Rather, give us a chance to learn. Or, at least rectify a misunderstanding. OK. Third. Criticism becomes ugly when we're too public..." Then, if you go to the 18 minute mark, you get the wild, wild West of Social media part, I think. He's clearly connecting the two and making it sound like people didn't go to the leaders first.

My understanding was that he was relating it to all complaining and sin. He said, "Absorb the sin of someone else." because your sin against God was way worse than anything anyone has done to you. Unless he misspoke, the word "anything" would cover all sin from a harsh word to rape.  It was astonishing.

For me the most insidious of the statements is to "Be a friend, not an enemy". This labels those who have left as enemies and puts into the mind of those still attending that they could become enemies of the church if they leave. Wow. Just Wow. Again I am led to believe that these pastors are not Christians but lovers of power who use the Church to feed their personal hunger for power. They do not see themselves as there to serve but to be served. I feel so sad for those at Evergreen and The Rock who are sitting there feeling like they could be an enemy if they do the wrong thing or leave, and that they are being led to view those who have left as enemies.

[Linda]

I've been thinking about the "unfair" and "unjust" words being thrown around by ECC leaders. Unfair and unjust seems to be the spin (as opposed to untrue?).

Have they said what they mean? Has anyone ever asked the specifically what exactly they mean by these words?

What is unjust?

What is unfair?

Also, at no point that I am aware of have ECC leaders denied Suzanne's charge that they knew about this. I find this troubling. In their statement, issued on February 4th they mentioned charges alleged against Mark, and also mentioned that in addition to those charges ECC had been aware of the behavior and not acted appropriately.

A curiosity to me is that MD has never personally publicly denied the charges. The denial is second hand in a carefully crafted statement:
"Mark unequivocally denies these allegations..."

In addition, ECC has never publicly denied the charges of knowing and doing nothing. The statement just stated the allegation, but there was no denial.

To the contrary, the first statement they issued mentioned Suzanne was fully heard on this matter. The Tweet with the attached statement was:

"20 years ago, this was investigated by EC leadership, board chairman, & 3rd party mediator. After a review of facts, mediator and van Dykes were satisfied by the integrity of the Darlings’ and EC’s response. We are willing to talk privately if you want to share more concerns."

The statement attached to the Tweet began:

"Suzanne was fully heard in this matter 20 years ago..."

So many questions.

Here is the February 4th statement for reference:

"Allegations, made by one individual, have arisen claiming inappropriate sexual behavior prior to 2001 by Mark Darling, a pastor at The Rock. General claims against Mark Darling were first shared by this person through social media on January 5, 2018. However, more specific allegations were posted online on Wednesday, January 24th. In addition, this person has implied that Evergreen Church was aware of the offensive behavior and did not act appropriately.
We take all allegations of sexual misconduct very seriously, although we are mindful that an allegation alone does not assign guilt. In an effort to discern the truth of these allegations - impartially and without bias - Evergreen is in the process of hiring a reputable, third party investigator to independently investigate the facts surrounding these claims. Mark unequivocally denies these allegations and he is cooperating fully with this process. Mark is on paid administrative leave and will not perform any pastoral duties during the investigation, including teaching, counseling, or oversight. At the close of the investigation, the findings will be submitted to the Evergreen Board of Trustees to determine the appropriate next steps.
Statistics show that 1-in-4 women, and 1-in-6 men, have been victims of some kind of sexual assault. For some, this announcement may trigger very painful memories, thoughts and feelings. We are informing you about this situation, and our response, for the sake of integrity and God’s glory, and to alleviate questions or concerns which might arise as details of the situation become more wide-spread. If you would like support in processing those thoughts and feelings, we are available to assist you in finding a skilled counseling resource.
Please pray for God’s grace and mercy on all parties involved, and for all victims of sexual abuse. Pray for God to be glorified by the truth made clear throughout this process, and that God will bless this church with wisdom and strength in the days ahead. If you have any questions, you may contact Lynn Newman, Evergreen Operations Manager by email at lnewman@evergreenchurch.com, but in an effort to protect the integrity of the investigation and those impacted by this process, please understand that only limited information can be provided at this time."

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Linda, reading your summary did make me wonder what is going on behind closed doors at ECC.  ECC's original tweet in response to Suzanne, which said the matter was fully addressed 20 years ago, was reportedly tweeted by Brent Knox (I have no verification of this). Obviously there are other people around ECC who didn't just take his word for it and called for further investigation.  Whatever their motives were (sincere desire for truth, PR move), I guess it is hopeful that some pushed back.  And may indicate that the pastors who covered it up don't always have the final say. 

The fact that Brent (if he was the one who tweeted that) acknowledged there was a "matter" indicates that he knew what Suzanne was referring to.  It would be kind of hard to deny a cover-up by leadership when leadership already made a denying statement about the allegation. That tweet was another, very recent attempt to continue the cover-up.  Kind of hard to deny that if the report in the BOT's hands verifies the stories of the victims. 

Hearing the pastor's recent teachings (especially Brent's) and finding them focused on denial/deflection, I am thankful for whoever on the inside pushed back enough to even get to this point.  I imagine it as a spiritual tug-of-war going on and I am praying for the people who sincerely desire truth.  May God give them an extra boost.  Some may read this as praying for the destruction of a brother, which is not at all true.  I pray for the truth (which I think we have a pretty clear picture of by now) because God's redemption works in truth and light.  And I believe those that are trying to hide the truth should not be in places of authority.

[Linda]

Phoenix,

This is one of the threads that talks about a sermon preached against the women. I'll reopen it rather than trying to summarize.

–Linda

[PietWowo]

Linda, reading your summary did make me wonder what is going on behind closed doors at ECC.  ECC's original tweet in response to Suzanne, which said the matter was fully addressed 20 years ago, was reportedly tweeted by Brent Knox (I have no verification of this). Obviously there are other people around ECC who didn't just take his word for it and called for further investigation.  Whatever their motives were (sincere desire for truth, PR move), I guess it is hopeful that some pushed back.  And may indicate that the pastors who covered it up don't always have the final say. 

The fact that Brent (if he was the one who tweeted that) acknowledged there was a "matter" indicates that he knew what Suzanne was referring to.  It would be kind of hard to deny a cover-up by leadership when leadership already made a denying statement about the allegation. That tweet was another, very recent attempt to continue the cover-up.  Kind of hard to deny that if the report in the BOT's hands verifies the stories of the victims. 

Hearing the pastor's recent teachings (especially Brent's) and finding them focused on denial/deflection, I am thankful for whoever on the inside pushed back enough to even get to this point.  I imagine it as a spiritual tug-of-war going on and I am praying for the people who sincerely desire truth.  May God give them an extra boost.  Some may read this as praying for the destruction of a brother, which is not at all true.  I pray for the truth (which I think we have a pretty clear picture of by now) because God's redemption works in truth and light.  And I believe those that are trying to hide the truth should not be in places of authority.

When you start guessing what went on behind doors, the probability that you guess it correctly is very, very small. I'm not just talking about ECC, but everything. For instance try to guess what really happened when the James Bond Movie "No Time To Die" was delayed. You can presume all you want. You can listen to the official statements made, but it's impossible to guess what really went on behind closed doors.  It's a waste of time.

[Linda]

When you start guessing what went on behind doors, the probability that you guess it correctly is very, very small. I'm not just talking about ECC, but everything. For instance try to guess what really happened when the James Bond Movie "No Time To Die" was delayed. You can presume all you want. You can listen to the official statements made, but it's impossible to guess what really went on behind closed doors.  It's a waste of time.

As it turned out, on July 1, 2018, less than 2 weeks after Rebel's post (and, frankly, we were all wondering what in the world was going on behind closed doors because of the mishandling of the situation from the get go), the BOT issued the report and Mark Darling resigned.

Here's some of what we learned (no need to guess anymore):

1. In 2001, in writing, Suzanne informed Brent Knox, Doug Patterson, and Mark Bowen of her concerns involving "inappropriate sexual boundaries' with Mark Darling.

2. Also in 2001, Mark Bowen was aware of AT LEAST two other women with similar concerns.

3. In 2001, ECC leadership failed to take appropriate action in response to these misconduct allegations.

4. While specifics were not made available because of a lack of transparency in the investigation that was controlled by ECC, these allegations were so egregious that they MDs ordination was rescinded.

Here's what we also know:

At least 2 of the pastors who knew of the charges (Doug and Brent) not only permitted the church to waste thousands of donated funds on the  investigation of charges THEY ALREADY KNEW ABOUT, they had the audacity to use "sermons" to sing the praises of and defend the man who acted inappropriately while at the same time addressed the woman who came forward with the charges THAT THE LEADERSHIP HAD FAILED TO ACT ON (even though they had 17 years to do so),  as a "stone thrower", a "Shimei" figure (the introduction to the message on Shimei included mention of the charges against MD and ECC so we know he was talking about Suzanne and then in the context of unfair criticism the elder went on to talk about Shimei throwing stones at God's anointed, said "Shimei was nuts", said Shimei had a very bad attitude, said the charges were unfair, etc.) I listened again. Ugh, Phoenix, why did you have to remind me of these horrible "sermons"?

In a sense, we now know some of what went on behind closed doors. A "shepherd" who harmed a "sheep" was protected by other "shepherds" and a "sheep" was not only not protected, she was attacked by some of the shepherds who were supposed to be protecting her spiritually. The shepherds were watching out for themselves and not taking care of the sheep. They still appear to be doing so.

It saddens me and astonishes me that these men are so proud and blind that they cannot see what they have done.

[PietWowo]

When you start guessing what went on behind doors, the probability that you guess it correctly is very, very small. I'm not just talking about ECC, but everything. For instance try to guess what really happened when the James Bond Movie "No Time To Die" was delayed. You can presume all you want. You can listen to the official statements made, but it's impossible to guess what really went on behind closed doors.  It's a waste of time.

As it turned out, on July 1, 2018, less than 2 weeks after Rebel's post (and, frankly, we were all wondering what in the world was going on behind closed doors because of the mishandling of the situation from the get go), the BOT issued the report and Mark Darling resigned.

Here's some of what we learned (no need to guess anymore):

1. In 2001, in writing, Suzanne informed Brent Knox, Doug Patterson, and Mark Bowen of her concerns involving "inappropriate sexual boundaries' with Mark Darling.

2. Also in 2001, Mark Bowen was aware of AT LEAST two other women with similar concerns.

3. In 2001, ECC leadership failed to take appropriate action in response to these misconduct allegations.

4. While specifics were not made available because of a lack of transparency in the investigation that was controlled by ECC, these allegations were so egregious that they MDs ordination was rescinded.

Here's what we also know:

At least 2 of the pastors who knew of the charges (Doug and Brent) not only permitted the church to waste thousands of donated funds on the  investigation of charges THEY ALREADY KNEW ABOUT, they had the audacity to use "sermons" to sing the praises of and defend the man who acted inappropriately while at the same time addressed the woman who came forward with the charges THAT THE LEADERSHIP HAD FAILED TO ACT ON (even though they had 17 years to do so),  as a "stone thrower", a "Shimei" figure (the introduction to the message on Shimei included mention of the charges against MD and ECC so we know he was talking about Suzanne and then in the context of unfair criticism the elder went on to talk about Shimei throwing stones at God's anointed, said "Shimei was nuts", said Shimei had a very bad attitude, said the charges were unfair, etc.) I listened again. Ugh, Phoenix, why did you have to remind me of these horrible "sermons"?

In a sense, we now know some of what went on behind closed doors. A "shepherd" who harmed a "sheep" was protected by other "shepherds" and a "sheep" was not only not protected, she was attacked by some of the shepherds who were supposed to be protecting her spiritually. The shepherds were watching out for themselves and not taking care of the sheep. They still appear to be doing so.

It saddens me and astonishes me that these men are so proud and blind that they cannot see what they have done.

Ok, so you're claiming that they are like the Sadducees.  Which is why Christ used remez on Ezek 34

[Janet Easson Martin]

“In a sense, we now know some of what went on behind closed doors. A "shepherd" who harmed a "sheep" was protected by other "shepherds" and a "sheep" was not only not protected, she was attacked by some of the shepherds who were supposed to be protecting her spiritually. The shepherds were watching out for themselves and not taking care of the sheep. They still appear to be doing so.”
-Linda


Thank you, Linda for reminding us of the reason this Forum exists.  

If the GCx shepherds priority was to serve and protect God’s people, this Forum would not be necessary.  They would have stood up for IMPARTIAL righteous judgement as the Bible says is the responsibility of believing leaders in an organized body.  They would confronted the unacceptable leader with his intolerable sinful behavior (which numerous witnesses on here had gone to their leaders about) and removed him from his office; and if the unacceptable leader brushed it off or denied it they would have Biblically rebuked him before the church.  Obviously, this rarely happens in GCx churches.  And so, Suzanne, was fighting against a corrupt system from the get go.  And how it did show in their unfair and unloving preaching toward protecting the “shepherd” at all costs.  It took an outsider to make their church board look at the glaring evidence and find this GCx pastor/elder unfit for office.  

The Word of God says we should be MATURE ENOUGH to judge rightly among ourselves.  Most GCx Leaders have NOT proved to be MATURE ENOUGH. This website has thousands of posts describing the harm done by leaders and the resulting experience of speaking up about such.  Very sadly, leaders have chosen pats on the back from each other rather than from God.  They are trained by practice not to speak up, but to always put unity before truth. GCx people don’t get much praise for judging rightly in anything regarding their organization - they get rebuke!  Brave former GCx leaders testify here to the spiritual abuse they observed and regretfully participated in themselves.  

The Minnesota GCx churches seemed to hear an awful lot of defense, but not much on the wickedness of such actions and the perversion of someone using the office of elder or pastor to selfishly harm others.  Actually, I’m not sure the Bible puts much weight on what the defense of that leader is, but more on whether or not he truly shows remorse and humbly repents.  I think that the perpetrating leader knew the favoritism and “GCx leader protection” that surrounded him.  He would have observed it’s operation for many years and according to witnesses here participated in this manner of “covering for each other”.  That is part of the worldliness Paul warned the churches about - Favortism blocking Truth.

GCx Churches most recent actions in renaming their churches, and some even claiming to help others build Healthy Churches is DEFINITELY not only a denial of their spiritually abusive history, but further evidence of their lack of concern for God’s sheep, and continued promotion of unhealthy and immature shepherds.


To their shame many GCx leaders even high up in the organization still support the claims of the unfit elder (that he did not do the things numerous witnesses testified to).  Denial, lies and erased histories run deep in the GCx churches.  Repainting GCx storefronts does not usually change what goes on behind their closed doors.  They have repeatedly changed the name of their organization and churches since they began.  They are always trying to outrun their spiritually abusive reputation.  As the abuse continued so have the name changes.  They do NOT operate in the open.  The have made a business out of hiding.  

[Heidi]

Since  Evergreen Church  has changed their name to “Hometown Church “ they have a new logo.  In my opinion it lacks integrity and is not truthful . It says “Hometown church”  Established 1988.   I was shocked.  I was a member of Evergreen in 1988 until 2016.   Never at “Hometown church.”  The church is called to be a place of truth based on the word of God.  To me Evergreen , continues to be again about good Public relations and image.  Sad.