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
March 29, 2024, 02:30:40 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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FOX 9 Investigators  (Read 61827 times)
Greentruth
Guest

« Reply #80 on: May 03, 2018, 05:01:18 am »

GT:

Is it all about you and what you saw or did not see? Wow, you are really self absorbed.

I saw plenty, and I don't even know what on earth you mean  about jealousy. How ridiculous.

I’m sure we saw the same thing, people intermingled loving one another, reaching out and uplifting each other. I don’t know every persons heart, but I’m sure everyone see different circumstances different from what is in their own heart. It is actually sad that in our fallen world good is called bad, and bad is called good. One thing is sure, Church will no longer be a place for women to find council and place to bond.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #81 on: May 03, 2018, 05:20:53 am »


GT - I'm not sure women need council and bonding alone with pastors in the woods or basements.  If that goes away, it sounds like a good thing.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 05:29:39 am by DarthVader » Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #82 on: May 03, 2018, 07:14:27 am »

Yes, Darth Vader!  I agree.

I think the other facet that is especially important is why were these habitual counseling methods not addressed?  We now have multiple witnesses saying similar things as well as a sermon of MD speaking on counseling a woman alone in the basement. Now I don’t believe counseling one on one with a man and woman is always wrong.  But clearly in the way it was done, the women were not comfortable.   Why was nothing ever done about this?  Or was it?  And people just don’t know?

Was MDs animated and engaging speaking ability so infectious that they didn’t want to lose him?  Was his heart in the right place so they didn’t want to wound him?  Why was it allowed to happen for so long?  And why are people winking at it now?  (Perhaps people aren’t flossing over it!)

And further why are there  still GCx apologists here defending that behavior, minimizing it, and discrediting it as lies?  It’s incredibly anti-woman and anti-church to say these things are all normal or that all the women are lying or misunderstood.  

I know I have episodes, unrelated to GCx, from my teen years with older men who my parents knew that made me uncomfortable.  Now looking back I realize they were taking liberties that at the time were viewed by others as small but really weren’t so small.  Certainly times change, but this doesn’t even seem to be in that category.  This is quite different, and even if things have changed today, and MD doesn’t do any of those things anymore, I think some action should be taken to make it right.  


And yes, Darth Vader, I agree, that will only help the church.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 07:28:48 am by AgathaL'Orange » Logged

Glad to be free.
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #83 on: May 03, 2018, 07:36:15 am »

http://www.fox9.com/news/investigators/churchtoo-women-accuse-minnesota-pastor-of-inappropriate-conduct

There is additional information in the written portion on Fox 9's website, including Evergreen's complete statement and John explaining the non-disclosure he was asked to sign.

 I didn't catch it last night that the ECC board says they only heard about these allegations in Jan of this year (as is in their statement), after their initial tweet said that Suzanne had been fully heard on this matter 20 years ago. I wonder if they would clarify that?  Those are 2 written statements from ECC directly so I'd be curious which would be their final answer.
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #84 on: May 03, 2018, 08:08:10 am »

After watching the story several times, I'm not sure we learned much in the way of new information.

1. John does corroborate Suzanne's account of sharing sexually related charges against Mark back 18 years ago. Although all others present deny this.
2. Natalie claims "spiritual abuse with some sexual overtones." Whatever that means.
3. Suzanne claims Mark's behavior went on for 5 years. But her dates seem suspect.
4. Fox 9 News seems convinced that the ongoing investigation is independent characterizing it as such.
5. It was a well orchestrated hit piece that would have been better for everyone had they waited until the investigation was completed. This would have ensured that more facts were presented and both sides were represented.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 08:11:35 am by Digital Lynch Mob » Logged
omelianchuk
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77



« Reply #85 on: May 03, 2018, 08:12:00 am »

From the link: "The van Dycks said Evergreen offered them $50,000 if he would sign a non-disclosure agreement."

I thought it was $60,000. Typo?
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #86 on: May 03, 2018, 08:22:20 am »

I noticed that too!
Logged

Glad to be free.
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #87 on: May 03, 2018, 09:02:46 am »

I'm not sure the difference between 50,000 and 60,000 is pertinent.  Either way, it is a significant sum of money tied to a non-disclosure.  I just told my husband that I don't remember numbers as well as words but that doesn't mean what I say is invalid.  Technically it is an inconsistency (as were some of the timelines portrayed in the news story) but I don't think it cancels out any of the major points. 

And I did notice the Fox 9 called it an independent investigation, but emphasized that Evergreen's statement said they will release the results but not the final report.  So...I think a reasonable person is left to wonder "How do we know which results they will release and if they will release all results found?  How do we know they will release results *as written* rather than summarized in a more favorable light?  What is leadership *is* found to be complicit in an unhealthy environment--will they go that far?"  I feel like the news story was a reminder that the ECC BOT has promised transparency but I'm not sure how that would ever be verified.  How can the ECC BOT be held accountable for being honest and transparent?  This is not to deride any individual members of the board, but just to say it is not unreasonable to doubt "Just trust us, we promise we will be transparent with the results..." without any way to really know. 

I suppose 10 people (selected like a jury maybe) could read the report, sign a confidentiality statement, and then share their opinion on how transparent ECC BOT is being (like give them a score of 1-10, or  percentage)?  I mean, I really don't know?  Based on what we know about conflicts of interest, etc. how can we just trust "transparency?"
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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