ECC BOT - What Can Be Done?

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.

[Greentruth]

Rebel, I asking as nice and compassionate as I can from an internet discussion, please realize there are contradictions galore in this whole assorted discussion. Please, I implore you and others, let the investigation results and actions be determined before pushing continuous assumptions and which do come across as manipulations. Are you that fearful that ALL truths be told?  A few more days for goodness sakes! I don’t know if you realize, but this frenzy of assumptions on Christian brothers and sisters implored to try and sort this out in a Godly manner to give justice to the absolute truths of this issue are actually making the accusations against MD to be a larger group effort for the purpose of deviation. I don’t want that, and I don’t want anything to manipulate what has been so painfully brought to this point. Both sides have been heard, and the results of that are being patiently waited on by MD, the Church and all, or most ECC people. It would seem that a few of Scouts team are not, which I would say will do more damage to her, if the allegations are true, than will do to MD and the Church if they are not. Patience is from the Lord, and I honestly believe all will be better served with a bit of giving it to God at this point.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Shinethelight, stop the incessant posts claiming that the investigation is tainted. Are you saying that Joan Harris is illegitimate? Sounds sexist to me. Even Fox9 News indicated the investigation was by a legitimate third party. And I have no insight or inside scoop on anything with the investigation. I asked a couple people why it was taking so long to complete and they said they had heard she was interviewing upwards of 40 people. I have no idea who they are or what they said, so cut the BS.

[Huldah]

Shinethelight, stop the incessant posts claiming that the investigation is tainted. Are you saying that Joan Harris is illegitimate? Sounds sexist to me.

Did I miss a post where someone complained about a female attorney doing the investigation? I agree, if anyone is objecting to Joan Harris just because she's female, that's unfair and uncalled-for.

Even Fox9 News indicated the investigation was by a legitimate third party. And I have no insight or inside scoop on anything with the investigation.

They were probably just repeating Evergreen's own terminology. The Fox9 story was focusing on the allegations of sexual harassment, not the details of the investigation.

[ShineTheLight]

So to date I have seen names exposed who are supposedly on the bot, something I take with a grain of salt here. Then we see them dissected and spun in the attempt to manipulate them. Now I see someone thinks turning it over to another Church to judge? Have to wonder which Church would get involved with this forums request.  And even a suggestion to have people who gave testimony to Joan give everyone a prelude determination of what should be shared. I’m beginning to think even Suzanne supporters are questioning what the results could be. And from what has been shared by Suzanne supporters is that there is physical evidence in all this. If so, it would seem absurd to be making all these manipulative recommendations. To even suggest that the bot would withhold evidence given them by Joan is just more manipulation aimed directly at the good people of ECC. This is how much credit they give Spirit filled people seeking the truth. And just the norm at the forum

GT - I'm not judging if the people running ECC are good or bad, I'm just evaluating their actions, some of which have been "good" and some of which have been "bad" (in my opinion, but everyone is free to make their own call and act according)

-Good - Hiring Joan - she seems to have a good background
-Good - Placing Mark on leave while this is going on (whether guilty or innocent)
-Bad - keeping the BOT secret in a time of crisis
-Bad - Allowing someone who runs a ministry side by side with Mark's daughter and son-in-law to vote on Mark's innocence or guilt and hiding that fact, telling the victim the BOT is "sequestered"
-Bad - A tweet that was basically a smear of the victim
-Bad having the Chairman of the Board recuse himself but appoint a vacant BOT member who might be assumed to vote just the way he wants anyway
-Bad - Not seeking any outside input on what do to with the RESULTS of the investigation
-Bad - Allowing Mark's son who I believe is paid by ECC to "defend" his dad (or more accurately) "attack" his dad's accusers in social media
-Bad - Allowing pastors and staff to post on social media in support of Mark
-Bad - Not maintaining a walled off investigation - just how the heck does DLM, an MD loyalist know how many people Joan has interviewed? I thought this was all a big walled off process, that even the pastors had no idea what was going on with the investigation.  Guessing the potential victims don't know how many people Joan has interviewed - but Mark's buddy DLM does..how does that work?

When I weigh out the good and the bad, I'm not left with the impression that ECC is handling this in the way I would want if a close female friend or family member were a victim, rather, they are largely handling it the way most churches do, circle the wagons against the outside attack.

No Huldah - This is DLM attempting to redirect the discussion see my VERY FIRST "GOOD" point above  "Hiring Joan - she seems to have a good background"  DLM wants to distract from the fact that this whole thread is about the BOT not meeting any reasonable standard of independence.  So to do that he makes a false (as you can plainly see from my post) accusation that I am attacking Joan. Typical of the tactics of MD supporters - distract from the facts they don't like.  And make an accusation of sexism without knowing my gender Gotta love the MD supporters

[Digital Lynch Mob]

I know you are male. I know, for some reason, you changed your screen name and started a new account when posting the names of the BOT. And I probably know your name. Not that it matters.

[ShineTheLight]

Wow..now a threat to dox..If you feel led, by the spirit  ...and did not address the false accusation you made about me criticizing Joan.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Wow..now a threat to dox..If you feel led, by the spirit  ...and did not address the false accusation you made about me criticizing Joan.

No threat whatsoever and no doxing. Your comments about Joan are troubling.

[ShineTheLight]

My comment that it is a good thing ECC hired her and she has a good background   You are usually pretty logical but..

[Greentruth]

Is shinethelight blonde? Takes on som similar tones. You think if you repeat yourself enough people will start believing you? Sorry dude, but you have some seriously strong narcissistic tendencies. I suppose you are somewhat of a big shot on this forum for supposedly exposing the notorious bot gang. Quite childish from the view here. Some are never weaned from childish attitudes.

[ShineTheLight]

Wow..getting it from all sides  I'm not blonde, but I'd guess a false accusation of being him may help your cause? , and a false Accusation of sexism..Sigh..I wish you the best GT and DLM.

[Badger]

Fact: I thought Jeromy was getting an ECC paycheck. You can darn sure believe if I started commenting about an active investigation at my employer on social media, they'd tell me to stop (they would probably fire me).

This is the issue that surprised me the most STL.  Evergreen didn't seem to try to stop Jeromy going after the women claiming abuse or their supporters whether on Facebook, Twitter, or this Forum.

GCC has many internal and external documents that discourage their members and leaders from using the internet to answer online "persecution."  In the dialogue below, we see Jeromy was slow to answer whether he had the backing of of John Hopler, Karl Quikert, and Ryan Stahl.  Jeromy noted that he had their "full backing" but admits he did not ask for their permission.  I think it is impossible for Jeromy's online activity (in both content and rhetoric) to be totally separated from his work in GCC, The Rock, and The Salvage Project.

Jeromy has also claimed that ECC started their investigation to "to show the world that the church was listening" and to "simultaneously exonerate my father [Mark Darling]"  Thus, The Rock's current Music Director is making a public statement that one of ECC's motives was to find Mark Darling innocent.  It surprises me that Evergreen hasn't publicly distanced themselves from Jeromy's online statements - a wise decision in my opinion - at least ensuring that his statements are his own only and do not reflect the opinions of Evergreen church or staff.  Or maybe his statements do represent their church's stance?

His past and current statements regarding women alleging abuse, what abuse victims do, targeting individuals and their supporters who allege abuse, his rules/definitions of what "real abuse" look like are now public.  Such public statements are now in the public sphere and can reflect poorly on any ministries he is involved with.

GCC also may be allowing Jeromy to create the nidus they need to permanently separate the entire Darling family from GCC should the investigation not exonerate Mark Darling.  This is my own conjecture, not saying this was their motive in allowing Jeromy to speak for so long.  However, it would make it easier for the organization to say Jeromy did not handle himself in a manner consistent with leadership and allow themselves to separate from him should the need arise.

Whoever said I wasn't a pastor?

 so I take it you're not going to address all of the points that we just made then? And I know you're not a pastor because a real Pastor would not be on a website like this

"Therefore, GCC’s policy is to not participate in blogs in which people make posts critical of a GCC pastor or GCC member church." - John Hopler, March 2014

Jeromy, is it fair to say that you have your father's blessing to be on social media (this site, Twitter, Facebook) defending him?  John Hopler has made it clear that GCC's stance is not to answer online "persecution."  He wrote an article for the National Association of Evangelicals in 2014, "A Christian Perspective of Internet Criticisms."  In it, Hopler notes, "We do not think that using the internet is God’s way for resolving personal concerns."  

The article can be found here: https://www.nae.net/a-christian-perspective-of-internet-criticisms/

Although he is currently "on leave," your dad is a member of the national GCC Board.  Does he agree with GCC's stance?  If so what does he think about your public online activity?

It would really surprise me if you did not have your father's support as you noted you are your father's son in your Reckoning narrative.

If you do have his blessing to share the truth on this site, are you not your father's mouthpiece - his surrogate.  You have shared documentation that only he could share with you - ie. a letter that he had saved from John all those years ago.  Although he is silent, he is indirectly speaking through you, your siblings, and his supporters (the army as you call them).

So if a "real pastor" wouldn't be on a website like this, what are you doing here?  Is it okay for a "missionary" or Music Director at the Rock, like yourself, to be on this site?  What do the The Rock Pastors - Karl Quickert and Ryan Stahl - who are part of GCC and The Salvage Project's Board of Directors think about your online participation here?

I have the full backing of every single one of these people, but have acted alone without telling any of them of asking for their permission. There is no precedent for what a movement does when one of it's pastors is falsely accused of sexual misconduct and how is own son should handle it - but since you have so much knowledge on John's writings, perhaps you can correct me. I know you guys would have loved for me to stay silent, but my letter was just the beginning.

So, just to be crystal clear, John Hopler, your dad, Karl Quikert, and Ryan Stahl all support the way that you, Jeromy, have been presenting yourself online?

I'm glad you asked Jeromy.  John Hopler begins by listing situations that he defines as persecution.  This includes, "A pastor finds out that a website has been created by an antagonist for the sole purpose of mocking
and reviling him."

I don't bring this up because I wish for you to stay silent, Jeromy.  I bring this up because you are taking the position that you are acting in a biblical manner.  The statements I have provided from your own church say otherwise.  I have seen godly individuals on your Facebook post questioning your methods of going about this.  Your own supporter said, "We all need to guard our hearts and make sure that the things we're saying and doing in this situation are God honoring."  Another noted, " we are gossiping and we are no better than the opposition here."

So, perhaps you should read Hopler's first statement I posted and truly consider whether how you are acting is godly in response to such persecution.  Or perhaps the two of you could revisit that section.

 I answer to God and God Alone. Not John hopler or any other man in this movement. I love these men and I know they would take a bullet for my dad. I wouldn't be doing this if I weren't 100% sure that I was right

[Greentruth]

Wow..getting it from all sides  I'm not blonde, but I'd guess a false accusation of being him may help your cause? , and a false Accusation of sexism..Sigh..I wish you the best GT and DLM.

How do we know? Social media is non defining in that area. All  I know is I have read pretty much the same post 100 times. If you think re reading over Andover makes it more relevant, your sadly mistaken

[ShineTheLight]

Fact: I thought Jeromy was getting an ECC paycheck. You can darn sure believe if I started commenting about an active investigation at my employer on social media, they'd tell me to stop (they would probably fire me).

This is the issue that surprised me the most STL.  Evergreen didn't seem to try to stop Jeromy going after the women claiming abuse or their supporters whether on Facebook, Twitter, or this Forum.

GCC has many internal and external documents that discourage their members and leaders from using the internet to answer online "persecution."  In the dialogue below, we see Jeromy was slow to answer whether he had the backing of of John Hopler, Karl Quikert, and Ryan Stahl.  Jeromy noted that he had their "full backing" but admits he did not ask for their permission.  I think it is impossible for Jeromy's online activity (in both content and rhetoric) to be totally separated from his work in GCC, The Rock, and The Salvage Project.

Jeromy has also claimed that ECC started their investigation to "to show the world that the church was listening" and to "simultaneously exonerate my father [Mark Darling]"  Thus, The Rock's current Music Director is making a public statement that one of ECC's motives was to find Mark Darling innocent.  It surprises me that Evergreen hasn't publicly distanced themselves from Jeromy's online statements - a wise decision in my opinion - at least ensuring that his statements are his own only and do not reflect the opinions of Evergreen church or staff.  Or maybe his statements do represent their church's stance?

His past and current statements regarding women alleging abuse, what abuse victims do, targeting individuals and their supporters who allege abuse, his rules/definitions of what "real abuse" look like are now public.  Such public statements are now in the public sphere and can reflect poorly on any ministries he is involved with.

GCC also may be allowing Jeromy to create the nidus they need to permanently separate the entire Darling family from GCC should the investigation not exonerate Mark Darling.  This is my own conjecture, not saying this was their motive in allowing Jeromy to speak for so long.  However, it would make it easier for the organization to say Jeromy did not handle himself in a manner consistent with leadership and allow themselves to separate from him should the need arise.

Whoever said I wasn't a pastor?

 so I take it you're not going to address all of the points that we just made then? And I know you're not a pastor because a real Pastor would not be on a website like this

"Therefore, GCC’s policy is to not participate in blogs in which people make posts critical of a GCC pastor or GCC member church." - John Hopler, March 2014

Jeromy, is it fair to say that you have your father's blessing to be on social media (this site, Twitter, Facebook) defending him?  John Hopler has made it clear that GCC's stance is not to answer online "persecution."  He wrote an article for the National Association of Evangelicals in 2014, "A Christian Perspective of Internet Criticisms."  In it, Hopler notes, "We do not think that using the internet is God’s way for resolving personal concerns."  

The article can be found here: https://www.nae.net/a-christian-perspective-of-internet-criticisms/

Although he is currently "on leave," your dad is a member of the national GCC Board.  Does he agree with GCC's stance?  If so what does he think about your public online activity?

It would really surprise me if you did not have your father's support as you noted you are your father's son in your Reckoning narrative.

If you do have his blessing to share the truth on this site, are you not your father's mouthpiece - his surrogate.  You have shared documentation that only he could share with you - ie. a letter that he had saved from John all those years ago.  Although he is silent, he is indirectly speaking through you, your siblings, and his supporters (the army as you call them).

So if a "real pastor" wouldn't be on a website like this, what are you doing here?  Is it okay for a "missionary" or Music Director at the Rock, like yourself, to be on this site?  What do the The Rock Pastors - Karl Quickert and Ryan Stahl - who are part of GCC and The Salvage Project's Board of Directors think about your online participation here?

I have the full backing of every single one of these people, but have acted alone without telling any of them of asking for their permission. There is no precedent for what a movement does when one of it's pastors is falsely accused of sexual misconduct and how is own son should handle it - but since you have so much knowledge on John's writings, perhaps you can correct me. I know you guys would have loved for me to stay silent, but my letter was just the beginning.

So, just to be crystal clear, John Hopler, your dad, Karl Quikert, and Ryan Stahl all support the way that you, Jeromy, have been presenting yourself online?

I'm glad you asked Jeromy.  John Hopler begins by listing situations that he defines as persecution.  This includes, "A pastor finds out that a website has been created by an antagonist for the sole purpose of mocking
and reviling him."

I don't bring this up because I wish for you to stay silent, Jeromy.  I bring this up because you are taking the position that you are acting in a biblical manner.  The statements I have provided from your own church say otherwise.  I have seen godly individuals on your Facebook post questioning your methods of going about this.  Your own supporter said, "We all need to guard our hearts and make sure that the things we're saying and doing in this situation are God honoring."  Another noted, " we are gossiping and we are no better than the opposition here."

So, perhaps you should read Hopler's first statement I posted and truly consider whether how you are acting is godly in response to such persecution.  Or perhaps the two of you could revisit that section.

 I answer to God and God Alone. Not John hopler or any other man in this movement. I love these men and I know they would take a bullet for my dad. I wouldn't be doing this if I weren't 100% sure that I was right

Thanks for changing the subject Badger - it was needed - I'm just glad he stopped posting for whatever reason. It wasn't good for him, his dad, or anyone's view of ECC.  But I understand and wouldn't wish what he is going through on anyone.

[omelianchuk]

I have been told that he was told to cease and desist posting shortly after the Fox9 report was aired, or risk consequences from ECC leadership. I don't the whens, the wheres, and the whos, but this does suggest that some in ECC's leadership are not in the pocket of the Darling family as some have suggested. Indeed, the Darling family is probably just as unhappy with the BOT and the way this has been handled as the accusers are (though for different reasons, of course).

[Badger]

I have been told that he was told to cease and desist posting shortly after the Fox9 report was aired, or risk consequences from ECC leadership. I don't the whens, the wheres, and the whos, but this does suggest that some in ECC's leadership are not in the pocket of the Darling family as some have suggested. Indeed, the Darling family is probably just as unhappy with the BOT and the way this has been handled as the accusers are (though for different reasons, of course).

That makes sense to me Adam.

[Godtrumpsall]

I have been told that he was told to cease and desist posting shortly after the Fox9 report was aired, or risk consequences from ECC leadership. I don't the whens, the wheres, and the whos, but this does suggest that some in ECC's leadership are not in the pocket of the Darling family as some have suggested. Indeed, the Darling family is probably just as unhappy with the BOT and the way this has been handled as the accusers are (though for different reasons, of course).

Ahhh more juicy gossip. So sad. It’s comments like this that disgust me the most. You are worldly, I’ll give you that. Trust me, nothing to be proud of

Hey GT, I think you may have mistaken omelianchuk for someone else???

[ShineTheLight]

I have been told that he was told to cease and desist posting shortly after the Fox9 report was aired, or risk consequences from ECC leadership. I don't the whens, the wheres, and the whos, but this does suggest that some in ECC's leadership are not in the pocket of the Darling family as some have suggested. Indeed, the Darling family is probably just as unhappy with the BOT and the way this has been handled as the accusers are (though for different reasons, of course).

That makes sense to me Adam.

Agree and I agree it reflects well on ECC that they got to the right place, even if it took a couple of months longer than it should have. And I think I'm a bit misunderstood by the ECC crowd (and a lot of that is on me).  I do not believe the ECC Board is corrupt.  The only one I know personally is the furthest thing from it and they may very well do the right thing (whatever that is).  But I also believe they are compromised  - you cannot be "independent' of someone who you are friends with, serve in ministry with, work for, or are appointed by. No professor of law, ethics or corporate governance would agree that our BOT is independent of an ECC Pastor (any ECC pastor)

And even if our BOT does the right thing (and I hope they will and believe they can) it negatively impacts all FUTURE potential victims of abuse (setting aside the current case) at ECC to see that their claims may be judged by people with close ties to their abuser. It is one more hurdle against someone who has been abused coming forward which is a stain on the church. Church should be the easiest place for someone abused by the church to seek comfort and justice, not the hardest.

[omelianchuk]

*POST ABOUT GREENTRUTH REMOVED UPON CLEARING IT UP IN PM*

[Whathavewebecome???]

ShineTheLight: This speculation is not helpful to say the least.  There is much riding on the BOT and you are not giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Your list of BOT members is NOT ACCURATE and the board wisely has decided to not share who may or may not be recused or the fact that they may have someone outside of ECC already appointed to the board.  What has happened this week on the Forum only confirms the wisdom they have used with being as descrete as possible. Stirring the pot is exciting for all of us, but I believe we should respect this opportunity for the BOT.

[ShineTheLight]

I respect your opinion but do not agree with it.  Were my daughter to ever be a victim of abuse in a church setting by a church employee, I believe 1) She should know who will be judging what if anything is done as a result of her claim 2) She should be confident those making decisions based on that claim are independent of the person she accused.  These potential victims have neither.  They don't have the first because the BOT is anonymous, they don't have the 2nd because of the ties the BOT has to those accused.  We have failed them on 2 important counts. You can disagree with that, or agree but chose not to hold your church accountable for it, that is your right. I have chosen a different path - I understand if it troubles you and I'm sure I could have lived it out better.  I wish you the best.