Evergreen's Investigation

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]

The burden of proof is different depending on whether or not it is a criminal or civil case.

Ask me where I got my law degree.  🤪

That said, this as far as I understand is neither.

This, as I understand, is about appropriate clergy behavior.

For example, (not at all saying this happened in the situation with ECC), but an affair by a pastor of the neighborhood Lutheran Church and his next door neighbor would not be something the courts would be interested in. However, it would, from a spiritual sense, disqualify him from being a pastor.

If a dozen women came forward with similar stories, a healthy church would do all they could to seek the truth in a manner that seemed fair and was respectful to the alleged victims.

[omelianchuk]

The burden of proof is different depending on whether or not it is a criminal or civil case.

Ask me where I got my law degree.  🤪

That said, this as far as I understand is neither.

This, as I understand, is about appropriate clergy behavior.

For example, (not at all saying this happened in the situation with ECC), but an affair by a pastor of the neighborhood Lutheran Church and his next door neighbor would not be something the courts would be interested in. However, it would, from a spiritual sense, disqualify him from being a pastor.

If a dozen women came forward with similar stories, a healthy church would do all they could to seek the truth in a manner that seemed fair and was respectful to the alleged victims.

It's true that the evidence standards change depending on whether the case is criminal or civil, but that doesn't change what principle is fair even if the case isn't determined by a court. What's accepted on college campuses these days is the "preponderance of evidence" standard where the adjudicators need to be only 51% certain that the accused committed the offense. Needless to say, campus tribunals have proven to be notoriously unfair in their proceedings (see this piece in the Atlantic for details). The preponderance of evidence standard works well in civil disputes when settling property claims, but in sexual abuse cases the consequences for someone falsely accused can be quite severe if the judgment is "guilty." The lower the evidence standard, the greater toleration there is for risking punishing the innocent. A "clear and compelling" evidence standard (which is lower than the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal proceedings) should be in place to help avoid that mistake (If you'd like a more formal defense of this idea, see this article).

[Linda]

Since abuse of this nature rarely involves witnesses, how would someone proceed who was claiming clergy abuse if they were, in fact, abused, but had no stained dress so to speak?

I guess my real question is what would your definition of “above reproach” be for determining the qualifications of a pastor?

[omelianchuk]

Since abuse of this nature rarely involves witnesses, how would someone proceed who was claiming clergy abuse if they were, in fact, abused, but had no stained dress so to speak?

I guess my real question is what would your definition of “above reproach” be for determining the qualifications of a pastor?

Those are two different questions!    While the abuse case is complicated by the power differentials already in play, I'd go with the clear-and-compelling standard for reasons I indicated above: it is worse to punish the innocent than let the guilty go free.

I don't have a working definition of “above reproach” but I would say that the pastor needs to be trustworthy, and it is well within a member's rights to leave a church per lack of trust even if the pastor is fully exonerated.

[GodisFaithful]

If you compare what EC is going through with the recent allegations of sexual impropriety and the Chicago Tribune article about Bill Hybels, it is again along the lines of a pastor not being above reproach.  Bill is denying everything.  The few women who have come forward don't have "proof" that I could see.  Walks along the beach, invitations to his hotel room, invitations to his home when his wife was not there, inappropriate comments, flirting, etc. And then the investigation exonerated him.  But meanwhile 3 members of the board quit and told their side.  So even if he is in the pulpit, and has denied everything, the court of public opinion is still out.

I heard someone on the radio yesterday say "this story of Bill Hybels is still developing and it does not look good." That is after the investigation exonerated him and he is still a pastor.

In the same way, this story even beyond the findings of the investigation at EC, will still be developing in one way or another.

Most of us know what "above reproach" means when it comes to faithfulness in a marriage.  It's not just not having an affair.








 

 

[Huldah]

Thanks for your reply, Huldah. I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't think you understand what the Presumption of Innocence entails. It's not something you start out with and then abandon depending how the argument plays out. All it requires is that the burden rests on the accuser to make the case that the accused is guilty, and that there is no burden on the accused to make the case for his innocence. This holds constant through out the case.

I think we're talking about two different things. I do understand how the presumption of innocence plays out in a court trial. But this is not a court. This is a support group. We start by giving the benefit of the doubt to the (alleged) victims who come seeking support. Several people have recently criticized this forum for not granting Mark Darling the presumption of innocence, but that misses the whole point of the forum as a place of recovery from abuse.

[omelianchuk]

Thanks for your reply, Huldah. I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't think you understand what the Presumption of Innocence entails. It's not something you start out with and then abandon depending how the argument plays out. All it requires is that the burden rests on the accuser to make the case that the accused is guilty, and that there is no burden on the accused to make the case for his innocence. This holds constant through out the case.

I think we're talking about two different things. I do understand how the presumption of innocence plays out in a court trial. But this is not a court. This is a support group. We start by giving the benefit of the doubt to the (alleged) victims who come seeking support. Several people have recently criticized this forum for not granting Mark Darling the presumption of innocence, but that misses the whole point of the forum as a place of recovery from abuse.

It is true that this forum functions as a kind of support group, but it doesn't function only as a support group. It also functions as a platform to enquire into, and issue warnings about, the soundness of GCx's teachings and the character of its leaders. And while that enquiry may operate in the "court of public opinion" so to speak, it doesn't make the enquiry a fair one if it abandons reasonable standards of evidence. Certainly the detailed writings of Larry Pile (which I've read) didn't do that.

[omelianchuk]

If you compare what EC is going through with the recent allegations of sexual impropriety and the Chicago Tribune article about Bill Hybels, it is again along the lines of a pastor not being above reproach.  Bill is denying everything.  The few women who have come forward don't have "proof" that I could see.  Walks along the beach, invitations to his hotel room, invitations to his home when his wife was not there, inappropriate comments, flirting, etc. And then the investigation exonerated him.  But meanwhile 3 members of the board quit and told their side.  So even if he is in the pulpit, and has denied everything, the court of public opinion is still out.

I heard someone on the radio yesterday say "this story of Bill Hybels is still developing and it does not look good." That is after the investigation exonerated him and he is still a pastor.

In the same way, this story even beyond the findings of the investigation at EC, will still be developing in one way or another.

Most of us know what "above reproach" means when it comes to faithfulness in a marriage.  It's not just not having an affair.

That's compatible with what I said about being trustworthy, right? I don't think we disagree.

[Huldah]

And while that enquiry may operate in the "court of public opinion" so to speak, it doesn't make the enquiry a fair one if it abandons reasonable standards of evidence.

But no one is abandoning reasonable standards of evidence. We're simply giving the victim the benefit of the doubt until we have reason to do otherwise. We cannot function as a support group if start out by assuming that the victim is wrong about what happened. If the evidence eventually takes us there, we will go there. But we're not obligated to start there.

[omelianchuk]

And while that enquiry may operate in the "court of public opinion" so to speak, it doesn't make the enquiry a fair one if it abandons reasonable standards of evidence.

We cannot function as a support group if start out by assuming that the victim is wrong about what happened.

That's not what I'm suggesting. What do you think my position is?

[Huldah]

You're welcome to clarify your position if you feel the need, but I've already said my piece on the topic.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who's been bombarded for the last few weeks with posts about why this forum, which has been such a blessing to me, is all wrong, why it doesn't help us heal from all that abuse that never happened anyway, why we're unBiblical to be on social media, and why the people who post here are bitter, hateful, and unforgiving (not that there's anything to forgive, because we all just imagined it or made it up out of spite). I have to wonder whether some of the critics (not all of them, and not necessarily even most of them, but the two or three who are quickest to sling insults) are really concerned  about the presumption of innocence, or whether they've just found a nifty new complaint to add to their stockpile of grievances against this forum.

If there's anything you'd like to clarify, though, I'm happy to read it and give it some consideration. I just probably won't reply, because I've already explained my own position to the best of my ability.

[omelianchuk]

Fair enough, Huldah. I want to avoid a protracted discussion too, actually (I have to teach in 15 minutes). I don't have many posts on this forum, and most of them (aside from the vain attempts at humor) have been about this issue. Full disclosure, I am an ethicist, and the ethics of the Presumption of Innocence really interest me, especially during this cultural moment (MeToo, etc.). That I was a member of GCx for 10 years and had Mark as a pastor for 7 of them, also plays a part of the interest as well.