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.
De-Commissioned Forum
August 22, 2019, 06:10:34 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Faithwalkers 2011  (Read 44684 times)
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2357



« Reply #80 on: April 14, 2018, 11:59:24 am »

We first became aware of the offer in 2006 through some friends. John confirmed it in person with my husband a few months later.

I remember thinking, “What do John and Suzanne know that would lead to an offer like that?” I believe the phrase John used to tell my husband why they could not take the money was that it was “blood money.” That was Fall 2006 or Winter 2007.

I guess if all financial transactions are handled through the BOT, then there should be a record in the minutes of the BOT that such a generous offer had been made. Joan will probably want to look at those minutes and see that letter. Or, maybe the letter was not signed by the BOT. Maybe the executive board of pastors signed that letter which would be of concern since according to the by laws they have no jurisdiction over financial matters. I’m sure Joan has already looked into this since she is investigating and not lawyering.  BTW, last I heard, John and Suzanne had not destroyed that letter.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 12:02:11 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« Reply #81 on: April 14, 2018, 12:06:55 pm »

So the question that seems obvious is how would Joan, as an outsider, know who to interview without someone directing her? She may decide in the end, but it has to start with someone else's direction. 

To onlookers (no matter one's personal assessment on the situation), isn't it clear that investigation results can't mean anything if she hasn't talked to the accusers and or hasn't been directed to talk to people in the accusers lives that can corroborate certain details?

Clear, these were my thoughts as well.

In an investigation, one would expect the investigator to vigorously seek out information and pursue all leads. I hope she's reaching out to people instead of passively waiting for complaints to be submitted. I even hope that she's lurking on this forum to find new leads to talk to, not to be turned to one side or the other, but to make sure her investigation is as complete as possible. She should even, in my opinion, be reaching out to Mark's family as potential witnesses, which according to Jeromy hasn't happened.

To me, it's even more important to know and trust the process that she's using than to know the identity of the board. If the process is shoddy and the evidence is incomplete, then the final result of the process won't be of much value, regardless of who sits on the board.
Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #82 on: April 14, 2018, 12:15:30 pm »

So they both did and did not take the offer of money for silence. Got it.

Quote
So the question that seems obvious is how would Joan, as an outsider, know who to interview without someone directing her?

So if she is an independent investigator, then she cannot possibly know how to proceed in her investigation. But if she is directed by Evergreen, then she is beholden to Evergreen, and therefore biased. In other words, there is no investigation that could meet your demands.

Quote
To onlookers (no matter one's personal assessment on the situation), isn't it clear that investigation results can't mean anything if she hasn't talked to the accusers and or hasn't been directed to talk to people in the accusers lives that can corroborate certain details?

To onlookers, Suzanne's refusal to cooperate with the investigation renders the whole point moot. She could easily refer the investigator to others who were allegedly abused, provide people who could corroborate details, provide evidence of this so-called "blood money" etc... She won't, and so objective onlookers will rightly dismiss the claims and move on.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2357



« Reply #83 on: April 14, 2018, 12:32:14 pm »

They did not take the money.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2357



« Reply #84 on: April 14, 2018, 12:50:02 pm »

Godtrumpsall,

But what if her allegations are true?

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



« Reply #85 on: April 14, 2018, 01:14:12 pm »

Thank you so much for writing this!  The harm done to victims here is unimaginable.  This is why many abuse advocates suggest that victims do NOT go to the church for support.  I would have a hard time recommending it myself unless I specifically knew they weren't going to shame victims as has been done here over and over.

Any other professional needs extra training for dealing with the reporing and investigating of sexual abuse and assault cases.  SANE nurses (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner), "sensitive crimes" units and detectives at the police department, therapists from any field, child forensic interviewers, social workers, advocates, etc.   None of these people would agree with the rules you have pointed out, Agatha.  It is a black eye on the church if any victim thinks they are discredited for not abiding by all of the rules they have read on this forum.   (to clarify, the rules were not created by Agatha, just summarized by her).

In your bizarre world, victims are responsible for calling for their own investigations and before they say they’ve been hurt, they need to have their plan all worked out.
 
Every time I see your name “God Trumps All” I see what you're really saying “God Trumps All— even Suzanne and the other women.".

You will do whatever verbal or thought gymnasitics to make this all okay.  But if it were you or your daughter, sister, or friend, you’d feel the same way many people watching do.  

In your world (and in Jeromy’s world and in the other GCx apologetics experts), victims always immediately come forward and state their names publicly and their abuser.  They also need to have a full plan worked out in advance.  They should be perfectly knowledgeable about how BOTs work.  And they need to never mess up at all with how they state their accusations.  They must understand employment law.  They must only make accusations verbally or in writing or print-- not online.  They must never have done anything wrong, because that would discredit them.  They must have understood completely what happened to them, immediately and be able to make sense of it.  They must be willing to be a lighting rod for attention and strife.  And they must also, always think of how their accusations might look to the rest of the world.  And they must bear some blame for allowing it to happen and whether or not people choose to get saved after hearing about it. Oh and they also need to weather attacks from people who believe all of the above.


I’m sure you can see at least on a certain level how ludicrous all of that is.

That, GTA, is what sweeping under the rug looks like.  You and others have set the bar so high for a victim to jump over that there is never any situation that would meet your definition of sexual harassment, abuse, proper evidence, or something worth reporting unless it is a rape captured on video or some sort of abuse involving witnesses, who would also need to meet your credibility standards.


Can you see what you're doing, what you're defending, and what you're suggesting?






Logged
Godtrumpsall
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142



« Reply #86 on: April 14, 2018, 02:06:15 pm »

Godtrumpsall,

But what if her allegations are true?



Then we wait to see what the investigation shows and handle it in an appropriate, God honoring manner, either way.  
Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #87 on: April 14, 2018, 02:27:51 pm »

Quote
They did not take the money.

They took a severance package, which apparently John went on to call blood money. That's the only reason the fact Berlin was a GCM church is ostensibly relevant.

That said, they also did not take the money. This narrative contains multitudes.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2357



« Reply #88 on: April 14, 2018, 02:40:40 pm »

Quote
They took a severance package, which apparently John went on to call blood money. That's the only reason the fact Berlin was a GCM church is ostensibly relevant.

They did not take the $60,000 payment that came with a signed NDA. That is what I was referring to.

I understand there was a payment of $15,000 that was to get them moved home. I heard about that on this forum.  That payment did not come with an NDA as I understand.

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #89 on: April 14, 2018, 02:45:17 pm »

But then stayed silent anyway, after leaving money on the table. But the money they did take was also blood money, because reasons.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2357



« Reply #90 on: April 14, 2018, 03:15:22 pm »

Quote
But then stayed silent anyway, after leaving money on the table. But the money they did take was also blood money, because reasons.

It's very simple.

Taking money to cover up sin is wrong.

Taking money to help move back from Germany is not wrong.

But to your question of why they stayed silent. I know Suzanne has addressed this issue and you can read all about it on another thread here, but I have been thinking about it in the sense of what if it were me. What would I do?

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback and find fault with the victims. They should have done this. Or, they shouldn't have done that.

However, for a victim coming forward means disrupting their family life and having family members learn of some sordid details of some yucky stuff that they would rather not remember. It means telling their spouse what happened. It means their children will have to hear about some junk that happened to them. It means their name will be public and Googleable. Google Vonda Dyer. Would you want to be known as "the woman who Bill Hybels messed with?" It means being accused of being a liar. Or being called crazy. Or being accused of being a criminal. Suzanne has been called all these things here by MD defenders. It means people in power and with money (i.e. churches) can use their funds to hire attorneys and you have to come up with money to hire an attorney to represent yourself since they have hired one.

And, then, when all is said and done, even if the accusations are found to be true, you will still be to blame because YOU DIDN'T DO IT RIGHT.

I totally understand why people don't speak or why they wait till they are stronger emotionally or their children are older. I am amazed at the courage of women who do speak out. They deserve to be heard. Fairly. Transparently.

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Roger Dodger
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #91 on: April 14, 2018, 04:02:36 pm »

Sadly- WIN, LOSE or DRAW the damage appears to already been done to Pastor Mark Darling. God Bless His soul if evidence does not come forth that he is a sexual abuser.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 04:23:08 pm by Roger Dodger » Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2357



« Reply #92 on: April 14, 2018, 04:27:43 pm »

Quote from: RogerDodger
Sadly- WIN, LOSE or DRAW the damage appears to already been done to Pastor Mark Darling. God Bless His soul if evidence does not come forth that he is not a sexual abuser.

I would clarify. If he did this stuff, damage was not done "to" him. He brought that on himself.

If he did not do these things, he has actually been libeled. So, yes, damage would have been done in the case of them making up these charges. This is why it is so serious and the results should not be in the hands of people appointed/approved by the executive board (of which I've heard MD is a member and which I've heard is 4 pastors who are "more equal than others" who make the big decisions, correct me if I'm wrong).

I assume you mean "draw" as in a situation where things can't be proven one way or another, or where he did meet alone with women for mentoring, but they misunderstood his intentions.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
GodisFaithful
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



« Reply #93 on: April 14, 2018, 04:31:55 pm »

Some people say they will patiently wait, but then they bring up a string of things against Scout and victims who have come forward.

Just because a story is told on facebook or a blog or such does not mean it is not true.

And about the fire place.

I have been in that basement for a small group meeting. It wasn't always a bedroom and I believe there were two sections of the basement. Also, a fireplace can be useful for a while and then not useful. We have such a one in our present house. So you cannot say someone is lying based on one person's testimony or memory.

By the way, Bill Hybels has a lot of excuses right now, and one of them goes along the lines of women misinterpreting his intentions.
Logged
Roger Dodger
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #94 on: April 14, 2018, 04:43:55 pm »

If he did commit  sexual abuse he must be held accountable.  If it is found that he did not commit sexual crimes, he is screwed over.  This is the exact reason that it is so dangerous to go down the path of GUILTY until PROVEN INNOCENT.  That is my only point. 
Logged
GodisFaithful
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



« Reply #95 on: April 14, 2018, 05:01:46 pm »

Yes, RD, and the process right now is completely flawed for women coming forward to tell their story.

They would not even get to see the report so they could contest discrepancies. And as unbiased as the BOT is trying to say that it is, it isn't.
Logged
Roger Dodger
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #96 on: April 14, 2018, 05:22:09 pm »

I agree the process for reporting claims of sexual abuse for women coming forward in society must be improved, but if what has taken place with Mark Darling is the expected process for bringing forth claims,  sadly as a male I will be damned at some point and as well as beloved males in your own life.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 05:27:18 pm by Roger Dodger » Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #97 on: April 14, 2018, 07:22:17 pm »

There were not two sections, it was always a bedroom, and that fireplace never worked.

Quote
If it is found that he did not commit sexual crimes, he is screwed over.

No crime has been alleged, contra the tweet storms in which the allegations are framed by other stories involving child rape and the like. The allegation is that he listened to women about their sexual pasts to an unhealthy degree.

And this isn't even guilty until proven innocent. It's guilty, and any process by which innocence could be ascertained is rejected. It's a pretty clever conceit. Level accusations. Set an impossible standard (under no circumstances is the church going to be able to make publicly available reports offered in confidence with the promise of anonymity) for independent investigation. Claim that failure to to meet those standards is an admission of guilt. It helpfully sidesteps the need for pesky things like evidence.

 

Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2357



« Reply #98 on: April 15, 2018, 04:11:55 am »

Quote from: arrogantcat
There were not two sections, it was always a bedroom, and that fireplace never worked.
Quick question. Is this based on personal observation?

Quote from: arrigantcat
The allegation is that he listened to women about their sexual pasts to an unhealthy degree
Actually the accusation as stated on this forum is overt and covert (inappropriate conversations) sexual abuse.

The church could release documents of those giving testimony authorize it. The victims are willing to do that. I understand Mark and ECC are not.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 07:19:39 am by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #99 on: April 15, 2018, 07:30:39 am »

Yes, based on personal observation.

Some alleged victims have expressed willingness to let their allegations be public. They are welcome to make their allegations public. They don't get to choose for other participants in the investigation whether their recollections are made public. That's not how this, or any independent investigation, works.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1